|
Post by naughtyfox on Nov 25, 2018 14:51:40 GMT
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 25, 2018 15:41:50 GMT
I see the fat troll Mr smelly is stirring up anything and everything. Usual crap from the fat dwarf then. Then Paul c seems to have found the lock on his bathroom door, popped out and bled his usual rubbish. Basically, same old blather from the same old twats.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 25, 2018 16:17:30 GMT
I thought the anpr camera comment from horace42 was quite a nice conspiracy theory. As I understand it the existing road anpr camera network is only used in situations where a particular vehicle is being sought for example after a terrorist attack. they are not routinely used to track vehicles for charging purposes. Obviously there are cameras for things like QE2 bridge and London congestion charge but these are not a full tracking system.
The idea of pay per mile/mooring on canals seems outrageous but if it were a way to introduce and experiment with full tracking of vehicles (boats) then it seems to be interesting and could be a nice little earner.
There is some clever shit going on with computers. For example amazon have an algorithm which automatically raises the price of an item if it starts getting popular. Such as fire extinguishers the price of which crept up during the California wild fires.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 25, 2018 17:18:02 GMT
Not tracking as such but ANPR cameras have been in use to catch untaxed cars for a few years and I believe now cars with no MOT.
|
|
alistairtrot
New Member
Seen my name mentioned so though I would join to correct some of the erroneous comments.
Posts: 1
|
Post by alistairtrot on Nov 28, 2018 20:19:49 GMT
It’s a colourful but parlous and stressful enterprise; it is not so surprising that others have not taken up the same business model. This was an article published some 4 years ago, which presents one inhabitant’s views of his own shortish experience as a tenant – www.theguardian.com/society/2014/feb/23/london-houseboat-slum-rents-barge A lot of improvement has been made since then, but I have to say that if I had been presented with such a choice in similar circumstances, I would not have been so scathing. When I once worked in central London as a low-paid industrial temp wanting to save money for overseas travel, I slept under the streets nearby the agency, and though it was the severest London winter I have experienced, was perfectly happy doing so. These barges would have an unaffordable luxury for me. Currently though, the owner is facing pending criminal action for mooring in lock cuts and allegedly not obeying Harbour Master directions to move. He attended a PACE meeting with the EA the other day, during which the EA served notices on his barges, knowing he would not be there, so that on his return that evening he was assaulted by a tenant raging at being classed a criminal (by association I presume). Not everybody’s cup of tea. it does sound like he's made some descisions that have caused stress in his life. Thanks Nigel, however a modest correction, I was NOT mooring in lock cut when allegedly offending, I was mooring 10 metres away and the EA's own signage confirms that. Nor were "directions" to move given at the prerequisite time as I was already moored and absent and no master on vessel, however none the less I moved a little just to be pragmatic. Also EA have sued me on my own mooring posts i own two metres out into the river, alongside the public tow path alongside Surrey County Council Hurst Park!
|
|
|
Post by thebfg on Nov 28, 2018 23:30:49 GMT
The excessive charges levied by cart for removal of a vessal, seem to act as an unofficial fine. I am sure that it is a contributing factor to the discouragement/penalisation factor. Bear in mind though, that (legally at least) none of the sums recoverable go to CaRT; the sums payable are only to be for re-imbursement of the cost to them. Naturally, they finesse that by, amongst other tactics, billing for the time of their salaried officers, which is dishonest in my opinion, but that is the least of the costs demanded, the majority of them down to that billed by the independent contractors used. In a different scenario but simular situation, if that's possable. I've seen cases in small claims court where companies have applied for £50 for legal costs when in reality it was an in-house salaried solicitor who would get paid anyway. I've never seen a good defence not get that removed from the claim.
|
|
|
Post by NigelMoore on Nov 29, 2018 0:40:14 GMT
it does sound like he's made some descisions that have caused stress in his life. Thanks Nigel, however a modest correction, I was NOT mooring in lock cut when allegedly offending, I was mooring 10 metres away and the EA's own signage confirms that. No correction really called for Alistair; I didn't say you WERE moored in a lock cut (how would I know?); I said you were facing action for doing so – i.e. that that is what you have been accused of. But insofar as my wording could be construed otherwise, it is good that you have come on here to clarify the situation from the primary protagonist's viewpoint. By the way - as you may have noticed - to reply to a post you need to reply to that post rather than one merely quoting the post, because the quoted post does not automatically appear. As you can see, the result is that it looks as though you have replied to kris.
|
|
|
Post by NigelMoore on Nov 29, 2018 0:42:46 GMT
I am sure that it is a contributing factor to the discouragement/penalisation factor. Bear in mind though, that (legally at least) none of the sums recoverable go to CaRT; the sums payable are only to be for re-imbursement of the cost to them. Naturally, they finesse that by, amongst other tactics, billing for the time of their salaried officers, which is dishonest in my opinion, but that is the least of the costs demanded, the majority of them down to that billed by the independent contractors used. In a different scenario but simular situation, if that's possable. I've seen cases in small claims court where companies have applied for £50 for legal costs when in reality it was an in-house salaried solicitor who would get paid anyway. I've never seen a good defence not get that removed from the claim. That's useful to know. Be even better if some published judgment on the point was available.
|
|
|
Post by NigelMoore on Nov 29, 2018 4:35:06 GMT
I have found that YBW in fact were in there first over the DEFRA initiative topic, it was just that my initial search there had turned up nothing. Maybe searches are conducted differently for members, because I reset my password and then got in and searched with the same term, coming up with a considerable number of posts concerning DEFRA. However the pertinent one was back in May. The original post was never responded to, so I have stepped in to give more detail. www.ybw.com/forums/showthread.php?500935-Defra-initiative-re-liveaboards&p=6620779#post6620779
|
|