|
Post by NigelMoore on Oct 23, 2019 23:06:06 GMT
Curiously, it seems that members of the Canal Market Place facebook group have only just discovered that all s.8 cases (allegedly) are published on CaRT’s website., here - canalrivertrust.org.uk/the-publication-scheme/governance/legal-documents/court-action-to-remove-boats-from-our-waterways?fbclid=IwAR3GUfoi8XXp9A10iae7UaVI1L1mZZGQ0HXpR0LTCF61tcD1TSCEzQfIZ10The majority opinion appears to be that this is an unacceptable “name & shame” exercise. As one of those named therein, I cannot share this opinion. Any views? Personally, I believe the pity is that more of the available relevant information is withheld. A classic instance of hypocrisy is evident in the multiple documentation surrounding the Brown v CaRT Judicial Review, where CaRT decry the publication of the transcript of proceedings (claiming that the judge did not want them published, which even if true is beside the point), yet immediately go on to give an highly inaccurate and misleading summary of their own, on what was said in those proceedings. The same criticism could be levelled at their “summary” of the supposed findings in my last appeal case in that list. The original listing appeared on the BW site, wherein they published their press release following the Hildyard judgement. It effused: “ British Waterways welcomes the Judgment of the Honourable Mr Justice Hildyard in the High Court of Justice on 16 February 2012 in which he declared that the vessel ‘Gilgie’, owned by Nigel Moore, was unlawfully moored.” They chose to ignore the finding in that judgment that meant they ended up having to repay tens of thousands of pounds criminally extorted from boaters on the relevant stretch of water. That is all gone now (except elsewhere on the internet), and the overturning of the appealed element of Mr Hildyard’s judgment that they had applauded, required those uncomfortable details to be swept into oblivion; to be replaced by misleading apologetics in their press release & commentary. All that aside, most of the listing are plain court orders or consent orders – and interestingly, a small minority of judges chose to give the defendants time to obtain a licence (and pay arrears if any), staying the effect of their s.8 approval pending any failure in compliance. Another aspect that has largely escaped those newly aware of this webpage, is that these cases represent only the tip of the iceberg, as only live-aboard s.8’d boats end up in court, all others are simply removed summarily. The topic was closed to further comments not long ago now on the facebook page, though it might just be re-opened tomorrow.
|
|
|
Post by patty on Oct 24, 2019 5:47:37 GMT
Not able to open this link.. But your comments make an interesting read. I had not considered that 'findings' of appeal cases would be edited to exclude pertinent facts..though in reality I should have been aware that culling of details must go on all the time. I guess one has to really research now to find out truth.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 24, 2019 6:09:08 GMT
Curiously, it seems that members of the Canal Market Place facebook group have only just discovered that all s.8 cases (allegedly) are published on CaRT’s website., here - canalrivertrust.org.uk/the-publication-scheme/governance/legal-documents/court-action-to-remove-boats-from-our-waterways?fbclid=IwAR3GUfoi8XXp9A10iae7UaVI1L1mZZGQ0HXpR0LTCF61tcD1TSCEzQfIZ10The majority opinion appears to be that this is an unacceptable “name & shame” exercise. As one of those named therein, I cannot share this opinion. Any views? Personally, I believe the pity is that more of the available relevant information is withheld. A classic instance of hypocrisy is evident in the multiple documentation surrounding the Brown v CaRT Judicial Review, where CaRT decry the publication of the transcript of proceedings (claiming that the judge did not want them published, which even if true is beside the point), yet immediately go on to give an highly inaccurate and misleading summary of their own, on what was said in those proceedings. The same criticism could be levelled at their “summary” of the supposed findings in my last appeal case in that list. The original listing appeared on the BW site, wherein they published their press release following the Hildyard judgement. It effused: “ British Waterways welcomes the Judgment of the Honourable Mr Justice Hildyard in the High Court of Justice on 16 February 2012 in which he declared that the vessel ‘Gilgie’, owned by Nigel Moore, was unlawfully moored.” They chose to ignore the finding in that judgment that meant they ended up having to repay tens of thousands of pounds criminally extorted from boaters on the relevant stretch of water. That is all gone now (except elsewhere on the internet), and the overturning of the appealed element of Mr Hildyard’s judgment that they had applauded, required those uncomfortable details to be swept into oblivion; to be replaced by misleading apologetics in their press release & commentary. All that aside, most of the listing are plain court orders or consent orders – and interestingly, a small minority of judges chose to give the defendants time to obtain a licence (and pay arrears if any), staying the effect of their s.8 approval pending any failure in compliance. Another aspect that has largely escaped those newly aware of this webpage, is that these cases represent only the tip of the iceberg, as only live-aboard s.8’d boats end up in court, all others are simply removed summarily. The topic was closed to further comments not long ago now on the facebook page, though it might just be re-opened tomorrow. The Environment Agency has always done the same. www.gov.uk/government/news/boaters-warned-to-register-your-vessel-or-face-court-actionA quick google yields that webpage - there will be loads of others for the rest of the Anglia Region, Thames etc. I am a little ambivalent about it to be honest, court proceedings are available in the public domain anyway, I guess it depends on how easy or hard to find people want the information to be?
|
|
|
Post by thebfg on Oct 24, 2019 7:19:29 GMT
I saw that, there are some delicate flowers out there.
I thought about bringing up that most of those unlicensed boats were probaly unlicensed because of CRT but it was late and I wanted to go to bed.
|
|
|
Post by Gone on Oct 24, 2019 7:21:06 GMT
I think they are right to publish names etc where a court action is lost, if they are not allowed to on the grounds of privacy (name & shame) then those found guilty of other minor crimes could claim the same rights. It is not as if a S8 happens without warning etc.
|
|
|
Post by Gone on Oct 24, 2019 7:26:25 GMT
Not able to open this link.. But your comments make an interesting read. I had not considered that 'findings' of appeal cases would be edited to exclude pertinent facts..though in reality I should have been aware that culling of details must go on all the time. I guess one has to really research now to find out truth. What is truth??? As Trump frequently demonstrates, one persons truth is another persons lie. Been like this for as long as I can remember, the only difference is that before we got our news from newspapers where mostly they would do some fact checking before publication, but now a lot comes directly via social media from one of the parties involved who are free to spin (lie?) as they wish. who can you trust??
|
|
|
Post by ianali on Oct 24, 2019 11:22:01 GMT
Not able to open this link.. But your comments make an interesting read. I had not considered that 'findings' of appeal cases would be edited to exclude pertinent facts..though in reality I should have been aware that culling of details must go on all the time. I guess one has to really research now to find out truth. What is truth??? As Trump frequently demonstrates, one persons truth is another persons lie. Been like this for as long as I can remember, the only difference is that before we got our news from newspapers where mostly they would do some fact checking before publication, but now a lot comes directly via social media from one of the parties involved who are free to spin (lie?) as they wish. who can you trust?? My mum 😀
|
|
|
Post by ianali on Oct 24, 2019 11:22:23 GMT
Ooh and Ali obs 😀😀😀
|
|
|
Post by NigelMoore on Oct 24, 2019 11:37:24 GMT
The Environment Agency has always done the same. www.gov.uk/government/news/boaters-warned-to-register-your-vessel-or-face-court-actionA quick google yields that webpage - there will be loads of others for the rest of the Anglia Region, Thames etc. I am a little ambivalent about it to be honest, court proceedings are available in the public domain anyway, I guess it depends on how easy or hard to find people want the information to be? Interestingly, the Environment Agency when publishing lists of all prosecutions for failures to register boats, has both names and location withheld. The answer to my request for statistics on these elicited the following – Please find attached a report listing prosecutions under the Environment
Agency (Inland Waterways) Order 2010 for failure to register a boat. For
prosecutions which occurred more than one year prior to the date of this
report information which could identify the offender has been redacted in
accordance with data protection requirements. www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/379495/response/943882/attach/html/8/Copy%20of%20NR38545%20failure%20to%20register.xls.htmlThe more readable XLS document is attached to the WhatDoTheyKnow request at – www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/statistics_for_successful_boat_r#incoming-945420 It does raise the question of whether, if the EA are correct that disclosing names and locations would violate the Data Protection Act, CaRT are in violation of it in the information supplied on their website. I do wonder though, whether there is a substantive difference between disclosure of civil proceedings and criminal ones. Whereas transcripts may be ordered of any civil court proceedings, no magistrates court proceedings are recorded. However, the publication of names in the article you link to does seem at odds with their response quoted above! Comments remain closed on Canal Market Place, which is a pity.
|
|
|
Post by NigelMoore on Oct 24, 2019 12:11:17 GMT
Looking again at the XLS document on EA prosecutions, I note that they did in fact disclose the names of all parties who were convicted within the previous year.
Still raises the relevant question over CaRT's publication of course, which discloses every (?) case since their inception in 2012.
As I have said, it does not bother me that my name is there - but then again the outcome of my case was different. I cannot say how I would feel about it otherwise - still, I suspect that there would be little ground for complaint, because at the end of the day it IS a matter of public record.
As an additional observation, however, for summary offences it is possible to apply to for removal of your record from public viewing after a period of time, which in one site I visited was given as a year, although the record remains on file until you are 100 years old.
None of which is relevant to the civil judgments as on CaRT's website of course. Could this be another reason CaRT prefer not to prosecute any offences, and deal with boaters only via the civil court procedures?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 24, 2019 12:14:10 GMT
The Environment Agency has always done the same. www.gov.uk/government/news/boaters-warned-to-register-your-vessel-or-face-court-actionA quick google yields that webpage - there will be loads of others for the rest of the Anglia Region, Thames etc. I am a little ambivalent about it to be honest, court proceedings are available in the public domain anyway, I guess it depends on how easy or hard to find people want the information to be? Interestingly, the Environment Agency when publishing lists of all prosecutions for failures to register boats, has both names and location withheld. The answer to my request for statistics on these elicited the following – Please find attached a report listing prosecutions under the Environment
Agency (Inland Waterways) Order 2010 for failure to register a boat. For
prosecutions which occurred more than one year prior to the date of this
report information which could identify the offender has been redacted in
accordance with data protection requirements. www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/379495/response/943882/attach/html/8/Copy%20of%20NR38545%20failure%20to%20register.xls.htmlThe more readable XLS document is attached to the WhatDoTheyKnow request at – www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/statistics_for_successful_boat_r#incoming-945420 It does raise the question of whether, if the EA are correct that disclosing names and locations would violate the Data Protection Act, CaRT are in violation of it in the information supplied on their website. I do wonder though, whether there is a substantive difference between disclosure of civil proceedings and criminal ones. Whereas transcripts may be ordered of any civil court proceedings, no magistrates court proceedings are recorded. However, the publication of names in the article you link to does seem at odds with their response quoted above! Comments remain closed on Canal Market Place, which is a pity. They look to have backed themselves into a bit of a corner with the Data protection bit. Here is another link making a mockery of that statement! The report in your what do they know link is dated 22/02/2017, the below web page is dated 19/09/2018! www.gov.uk/government/news/boaters-reminded-register-your-vessel-or-pay-the-price
|
|
|
Post by NigelMoore on Oct 24, 2019 12:17:24 GMT
What is truth??? As Trump frequently demonstrates, one persons truth is another persons lie. One good reason for having judgments, orders & transcripts publicised, as a means of cross-checking whether the “summaries” & press releases accurately reflect the claimed results.
|
|
|
Post by NigelMoore on Oct 24, 2019 12:21:59 GMT
Yes, but see my subsequent comment - they DID publish names in the XLS document of all convictions within the previous year.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 24, 2019 12:23:43 GMT
Yes, but see my subsequent comment - they DID publish names in the XLS document of all convictions within the previous year. Ah, I missed that. took me a bit of time farting about with my last post!
|
|
|
Post by NigelMoore on Oct 24, 2019 12:45:07 GMT
|
|