|
Post by naughtyfox on Apr 8, 2019 11:13:12 GMT
8 pages of speculation on something we have no details of. Oh, and a bit of sniping at each other. Well done.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 8, 2019 11:16:17 GMT
You're trying to create false/untrue drama, so there is nothing to "do about it". Just out of interest why do you think canals in busy areas would not turn into slums? Nick's fictional dramas are baseless, hence my reply.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 8, 2019 11:17:39 GMT
Nick's fictional dramas are baseless, hence my reply. Just out of interest why do you think canals in busy areas would not turn into slums?
|
|
|
Post by TonyDunkley on Apr 8, 2019 11:19:42 GMT
C&RT have tried something along similar lines before, but there appear to be some new twists to this latest outbreak of unnecessary spite, . . aka (by C&RT) as "Customer Licence Support" !
They do have powers under Section 7 of the 1983 British Waterways Act to take action against genuinely 'unsafe' vessels, but this instance is simply another occasion when they have chosen to ignore rather than exercise the powers that Parliament gave them via their predecessors, and once again, dream up and apply their own warped version of the real legislation.
Specifically, what's happening here is that C&RT are resurrecting a 2017 Court Order for the boat to be removed from all C&RT controlled waters, despite having since issued new PBL's for the boat. The latest Licence has been 'revoked' on grounds that are at present somewhat vague and unclear, although stated by C&RT to have been specifically under their legally unenforceable Licence T & C's and not under any one, or more, of the three lawful proviso's for Licence termination under Section 17 of the 1995 Act.
C&RT are threatening action against this man and his home under a 2017 Court Order, which having been complied with in every respect, is in effect a spent Order, and NOT the re-activateable ''Court Order in Perpetuity" that C&RT are now pretending it is. I've re-posted the above in slightly larger type to help all those who seem to have had such great difficulty in reading and/or understanding it the first time round !
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 8, 2019 11:23:24 GMT
Nick's fictional dramas are baseless, hence my reply. Just out of interest why do you think canals in busy areas would not turn into slums? Personally I believe todays generation would not allow something like that to happen. I think the generation now coming onto the canals are more responsible, unlike your generation who created the issues in the first place. 😊
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 8, 2019 11:24:37 GMT
C&RT have tried something along similar lines before, but there appear to be some new twists to this latest outbreak of unnecessary spite, . . aka (by C&RT) as "Customer Licence Support" !
They do have powers under Section 7 of the 1983 British Waterways Act to take action against genuinely 'unsafe' vessels, but this instance is simply another occasion when they have chosen to ignore rather than exercise the powers that Parliament gave them via their predecessors, and once again, dream up and apply their own warped version of the real legislation.
Specifically, what's happening here is that C&RT are resurrecting a 2017 Court Order for the boat to be removed from all C&RT controlled waters, despite having since issued new PBL's for the boat. The latest Licence has been 'revoked' on grounds that are at present somewhat vague and unclear, although stated by C&RT to have been specifically under their legally unenforceable Licence T & C's and not under any one, or more, of the three lawful proviso's for Licence termination under Section 17 of the 1995 Act.
C&RT are threatening action against this man and his home under a 2017 Court Order, which having been complied with in every respect, is in effect a spent Order, and NOT the re-activateable ''Court Order in Perpetuity" that C&RT are now pretending it is. I've re-posted the above in slightly larger type to help all those who seem to have had such great difficulty in reading and/or understanding it the first time round ! I think if you even typed it in multi dimensional ways, some would still struggle.
|
|
|
Post by JohnV on Apr 8, 2019 11:37:35 GMT
So, if I understand what you say Tony, this is more CRT trying to deal with a situation with their sledgehammer to crack a nut method that ends up by costing them (and therefore us) money.
If it is a case of someone trying to push boundaries then my support for them drops.
This does not mean however that I support CRT, they have a proven talent for wasting money on draconian procedures instead of using the bylaws (which they claim are ineffective) which are used successfully by other navigation authorities as a low cost/cost neutral strategy.
I support CRT enforcing bylaws and their legal position, only as long as they comply with the law and don't seek to enforce "rules" that have no legal basis. I also expect them to use legal, fair and cost effective methods to enforce compliance.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 8, 2019 11:39:08 GMT
Just out of interest why do you think canals in busy areas would not turn into slums? Personally I believe todays generation would not allow something like that to happen. I think the generation now coming onto the canals are more responsible, unlike your generation who created the issues in the first place. 😊 Well that's an interesting way of putting it. Not sure why the last little bit was needed bit never mind. I disagree. I think its market driven (housing costs) and without significant controls it will go to slums.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 8, 2019 11:46:01 GMT
Personally I believe todays generation would not allow something like that to happen. I think the generation now coming onto the canals are more responsible, unlike your generation who created the issues in the first place. 😊 I think its market driven (housing costs) and without significant controls it will go to slums. Credible, except some of your generation used it as a trojan horse to hide true motives, such as simply wanting to be under the radar. Do you deny that some of your generation created the issues on London canals then?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 8, 2019 11:57:03 GMT
I don't know. You could be right. I never came anywhere near London until 10 years ago. Not once so I am unable to comment on that specific point.
Its interesting though that you mention generations and you have an idea that the more recent boat dwellers are more responsible. That's good news if its true.
Eta I think you have pigeonholed me using some assumptions.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 8, 2019 12:07:51 GMT
I don't know. You could be right. I never came anywhere near London until 10 years ago. Not once so I am unable to comment on that specific point. Its interesting though that you mention generations and you have an idea that the more recent boat dwellers are more responsible. That's good news if its true. Eta I think you have pigeonholed me using some assumptions. I assumed nothing. I base my thoughts on what I have witnessed.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 8, 2019 12:13:30 GMT
From what you have read on here you mean. There is a difference.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 8, 2019 12:19:18 GMT
From what you have read on here you mean. No. I tend to glean information from more reliable sources, or from what I actually see and experience.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 8, 2019 12:27:42 GMT
No. I tend to glean information from more reliable sources, or from what I actually see and experience. Yes I'm aware of that.
You have previously mentioned meeting me and judged me on the so called meeting - care to provide details of how long that meeting was.
Doesn't really matter how long that meeting was, my personal judgement proved correct.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 8, 2019 12:31:44 GMT
Removed as its pointless.
|
|