|
Post by kris on Aug 13, 2019 16:30:49 GMT
I'm not the one who's posts almost got the forum shut down. Now remind us all Ross which member that was? I'm not sure if this is true at all. It was a suggestion by someone, for me re-reporting (as was in all newspapers) abuses carried out by certain international 'aid' charity workers. You are certainly trying to squeeze every penny out of this one. What do you mean, you don't know if it's true? It happened Ross, how many posts did you delete over a 24 hr perioud 6000-7000?
|
|
|
Post by kris on Aug 13, 2019 16:36:09 GMT
To be fair it was a fair question if you thought it had undertones then fine. But it would be interesting to know if boaters were being treated differently because of their history, even if that history is make believe by CRT. You gave examples of boats getting and not getting licences, there must be a reason and is it because of history? Surely if a boat has a Bss then it should be issued with a licence. If said boat then has no Bss during the licence period, then CRT should take appropriate action then. If I was aware of other people's history with cart I wouldn't be posting about it on a public forum. The reason people got liscenced is because they insisted on the legality of the situation, which implies to me that cart have implemented another policy that is on shaky ground legally and are aware of it. The reason I've posted this thread is to find out the actual legal situation rather than talk about individuals situations. If you can't see you the unsaid implications in Jims post then I am not going to explain them to you.
|
|
|
Post by naughtyfox on Aug 13, 2019 16:42:59 GMT
Did you write this up in your diary? I shall be deleting some more posts when I get round to it soonish - mainly from this Summer because of the photo sizes - too big and old news, and many of the same pics will be decanted into Google Photos Albums form. It does seem a bit pointless to keep old posts that are not worth keeping any more. Certainly I can't see any disruption to the forum as a forum, I bet nobody is trawling through all our old waffle. Whether they are deleted for ever is questionable, as copies could be being stored in China or at the CIA's headquarters in Langley or at Cheltenham at the UK's very own spy centre. I have left my best quips - but, even then, who cares these days? The younger generation of today I cannot see wading through the back pages of TB. The technical help stuff may have useful tips. And the photos I post have a fleeting interest - even then I write those off after 9 months or so (even from Google Photos - I don't like to rely on stuff electronically stored forever and ever).
|
|
|
Post by thebfg on Aug 13, 2019 16:44:44 GMT
To be fair it was a fair question if you thought it had undertones then fine. But it would be interesting to know if boaters were being treated differently because of their history, even if that history is make believe by CRT. You gave examples of boats getting and not getting licences, there must be a reason and is it because of history? Surely if a boat has a Bss then it should be issued with a licence. If said boat then has no Bss during the licence period, then CRT should take appropriate action then. If I was aware of other people's history with cart I wouldn't be posting about it on a public forum. The reason people got liscenced is because they insisted on the legality of the situation, which implies to me that cart have implemented another policy that is on shaky ground legally and are aware of it. The reason I've posted this thread is to find out the actual legal situation rather than talk about individuals situations. If you can't see you the unsaid implications in Jims post then I am not going to explain them to you. I didn't disagree, but as the reply was to you it's up to you to decide if he had an ulterior motive. It was still an interesting question based on what we know of CRT. This was my opinion to your op. Surely if a boat has a Bss then it should be issued with a licence. If said boat then has no Bss during the licence period, then CRT should take appropriate action then. I don't believe there is anything in law that could be interpreted any other way.
|
|
|
Post by kris on Aug 13, 2019 16:46:19 GMT
Choosing to delete posts is different to having to remove posts or else the forum might get shut down.
|
|
|
Post by naughtyfox on Aug 13, 2019 16:46:39 GMT
To be fair it was a fair question if you thought it had undertones then fine. But it would be interesting to know if boaters were being treated differently because of their history, even if that history is make believe by CRT. You gave examples of boats getting and not getting licences, there must be a reason and is it because of history? Surely if a boat has a Bss then it should be issued with a licence. If said boat then has no Bss during the licence period, then CRT should take appropriate action then. The reason I've posted this thread is to find out the actual legal situation So far there has been no definitive answer. Perhaps no-one knows. And, even if CRT make it up as they go along, who can afford to challenge their Legal Team? When you see the kind of Government running the UK, is it surprising that 'quangos' are free to run amok unnoticed?
|
|
|
Post by kris on Aug 13, 2019 16:48:35 GMT
If I was aware of other people's history with cart I wouldn't be posting about it on a public forum. The reason people got liscenced is because they insisted on the legality of the situation, which implies to me that cart have implemented another policy that is on shaky ground legally and are aware of it. The reason I've posted this thread is to find out the actual legal situation rather than talk about individuals situations. If you can't see you the unsaid implications in Jims post then I am not going to explain them to you. I didn't disagree, but as the reply was to you it's up to you to decide if he had an ulterior motive. It was still an interesting question based on what we know of CRT. This was my opinion to your op. Surely if a boat has a Bss then it should be issued with a licence. If said boat then has no Bss during the licence period, then CRT should take appropriate action then. I don't believe there is anything in law that could be interpreted any other way. This would be my understanding as well, but I would like to get some legal clarity as I'm trying to help a vulnerable boater faced with this situation at the moment.
|
|
|
Post by naughtyfox on Aug 13, 2019 16:51:43 GMT
Choosing to delete posts is different to having to remove posts or else the forum might get shut down. Was it really in danger of being shut down for me re-reporting something that was being reported in newspaper all round the globe? I'd say it was more in danger of being swooped upon by your mate Jenlyn for telling everyone another member's personal details, and for ProBoards to be notified of this since Jenlyn refused point blank to remove his offensive posts. And then the blatant cheek of signing in as a 'new member' using that same member's personal info as part of his name. Is our 'Australian' still here?
|
|
|
Post by naughtyfox on Aug 13, 2019 16:58:38 GMT
|
|
|
Post by thebfg on Aug 13, 2019 16:58:44 GMT
This the wording. they may refuse a licence if (a)(subject to subsection (6) below) the vessel does not comply with the standards applicable to the vessel on the date when the consent was granted;
Subsection 6 says.
Where prior to the grant of a relevant consent a certificate (“the boat safety certificate”) has been issued by a person authorised by the Board so to do in respect of a vessel confirming that the vessel complies with the standards applicable to it at the date upon which the boat safety certificate is issued, subsection (4) (a) above shall have effect throughout the period for which the boat safety certificate is expressed to be valid as if for reference to the date when the consent was granted there were substituted reference to the date when the boat safety certificate was issued.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 13, 2019 17:02:02 GMT
I didn't disagree, but as the reply was to you it's up to you to decide if he had an ulterior motive. It was still an interesting question based on what we know of CRT. This was my opinion to your op. Surely if a boat has a Bss then it should be issued with a licence. If said boat then has no Bss during the licence period, then CRT should take appropriate action then. I don't believe there is anything in law that could be interpreted any other way. This would be my understanding as well, but I would like to get some legal clarity as I'm trying to help a vulnerable boater faced with this situation at the moment. I am no expert and obviously somebody like Nigel would have something more reliable to offer........ BUT. 1 - Its clearly set out on their web site that the only requirement is to have a valid, BSC, nothing at all about having a bsc with a specific time period left on it. 2 - They have agreed to provide a licence to somebody else with a similarly short period to run on their bsc, all be it after they were challenged by the boater concerned. I would say they (crt) havent got a leg to stand on.
|
|
|
Post by kris on Aug 13, 2019 17:03:19 GMT
This the wording. (a)(subject to subsection (6) below) the vessel does not comply with the standards applicable to the vessel on the date when the consent was granted; Subsection 6 says. Where prior to the grant of a relevant consent a certificate (“the boat safety certificate”) has been issued by a person authorised by the Board so to do in respect of a vessel confirming that the vessel complies with the standards applicable to it at the date upon which the boat safety certificate is issued, subsection (4) (a) above shall have effect throughout the period for which the boat safety certificate is expressed to be valid as if for reference to the date when the consent was granted there were substituted reference to the date when the boat safety certificate was issued. Thanks for that, I can't really make head nor tail of the legal speak. Would you mind providing a link to where it came from?
|
|
|
Post by thebfg on Aug 13, 2019 17:05:57 GMT
Doesn't say they wont issue one, just says if your evidence of bss is still valid then you don't need to do anything else.
|
|
|
Post by thebfg on Aug 13, 2019 17:08:33 GMT
This the wording. (a)(subject to subsection (6) below) the vessel does not comply with the standards applicable to the vessel on the date when the consent was granted; Subsection 6 says. Where prior to the grant of a relevant consent a certificate (“the boat safety certificate”) has been issued by a person authorised by the Board so to do in respect of a vessel confirming that the vessel complies with the standards applicable to it at the date upon which the boat safety certificate is issued, subsection (4) (a) above shall have effect throughout the period for which the boat safety certificate is expressed to be valid as if for reference to the date when the consent was granted there were substituted reference to the date when the boat safety certificate was issued. Thanks for that, I can't really make head nor tail of the legal speak. Would you mind providing a link to where it came from? I did edit my post. It should say that a licence would not be issues if. Blah blah blah. So they can only not issue if it is not compliant on the day the licence is issued. Anyways here is the link. www.legislation.gov.uk/ukla/1995/1/contents/enacted
|
|
|
Post by kris on Aug 13, 2019 17:11:10 GMT
|
|