Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 15, 2016 6:28:56 GMT
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 15, 2016 6:33:40 GMT
Finally he (Chief Master Marsh) warned Messrs Ravenscroft and Moore that permission was not "open-ended" and could be withdrawn if it was abused, including if Mr Moore sought to delay the conduct of the trial or use it as a public campaign against CRT.
--------------------------------
|
|
|
Post by Graham on Oct 15, 2016 6:54:04 GMT
Perhaps this will help it is the official advice given by Lord Neuberger of Abbotsbury, Master of the Rolls and Sir Nicholas Wall, President of the Family Division dated 12 July 2010 and is the latest. courtwithoutalawyer.co.uk/mckenzie%20friends%20practice%20guidance%202010.pdfPerhaps it should be noted a Mackenzie friend is seen as a right in certain circumstance but as Chief Master Marsh indicated could be withdrawn at any time. The remarks were not specific to Ravencroft and Nigel, but were similar to the similar remarks any judge allowing a Mackenzie friend would make.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 15, 2016 7:07:36 GMT
Yes. What intrigues me is whether use of an internet forum is a public campaign.
I also think that people who actively try to undermine CRT are doing no favours to anyone with a long term interest in living on the canals. If CRT are found to be toothless then what happens next? Either they will seek teeth or they will fail or private operators will come in.
I've always believed that CRT was a stepping stone between a nationalised system and future privatisation but I hope I am wrong.
|
|
|
Post by Graham on Oct 15, 2016 7:24:31 GMT
Yes. What intrigues me is whether use of an internet forum is a public campaign. I also think that people who actively try to undermine CRT are doing no favours to anyone with a long term interest in living on the canals. If CRT are found to be toothless then what happens next? Either they will seek teeth or they will fail or private operators will come in. I've always believed that CRT was a stepping stone between a nationalised system and future privatisation but I hope I am wrong. It could be, and that was raise before the Chief Master in Ravenscroft and it was found, I seem to remember, that the internet aspect was more aimed at proving information and education of boaters about the law. CRT's teeth as you put it are set out in the statutes and the bylaws. It appears to many of us that CRT are exceeding those powers and trying to write its own laws, which is not permitted to my understanding of the statutes. If CRT are found to be toothless, which I do not believe they are, it will be up to Parliament to provide the teeth it deems are required. I do not believe that CRT would be privatised I do not believe the Act setting them up would allow that. Whatever organisation is in place to look after the Navigation the Statutes and Bylaws will still rule the waves so long as Parliament so decides.
|
|
|
Post by emma on Oct 15, 2016 7:52:33 GMT
Yes. What intrigues me is whether use of an internet forum is a public campaign. I also think that people who actively try to undermine CRT are doing no favours to anyone with a long term interest in living on the canals. If CRT are found to be toothless then what happens next? Either they will seek teeth or they will fail or private operators will come in. I've always believed that CRT was a stepping stone between a nationalised system and future privatisation but I hope I am wrong. CRT are by no means 'toothless' they have a system of byelaws they, irrationally, refuse to use and a number of statutes that give them almost unlimited power of management. it is because of this that they, or any successive body, absolutely must act with complete and transparent probity and are rigorously held to account when they abide that power. oh, and it would be nice if they focussed a little of their attention on maintenance but pigs will fly...
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 15, 2016 7:59:19 GMT
I also think that people who actively try to undermine CRT are doing no favours to anyone with a long term interest in living on the canals. If CRT are found to be toothless then what happens next? Either they will seek teeth or they will fail or private operators will come in. I used to think like that. Then I sat down and did a lot of research. CRT has all the powers necessary to manage the canal system. Why they do not choose to use those powers is beyond me. Ultimately, this is the crux of the situation.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 15, 2016 8:05:12 GMT
Exactly. Incompetence or a plan to fail? I suspect the latter.
I think they do in fact have the right to dispose of assets. CRT transferred ownership of a 1 metre wide part of the Lee Navigation to a property owner. It has been done and the new piling has gone in. OK so one metre doesn't sound a lot but it seems it has happened.
|
|
|
Post by TonyDunkley on Oct 15, 2016 8:32:09 GMT
I also think that people who actively try to undermine CRT are doing no favours to anyone with a long term interest in living on the canals. If CRT are found to be toothless then what happens next? Either they will seek teeth or they will fail or private operators will come in. That's a thoroughly naive and warped view of this subject in particular, and of the situation in general vis-a-vis C&RT and the inland waterways. If there is any 'undermining' of C&RT they're doing it to themselves, and if they don't soon start functioning effectively and in the way they were intended to, primarily as a navigation authority, then they are going to fail. By no stretch of the imagination could C&RT be described as 'toothless'. The real issue is that they don't make good use of the teeth they have got, in the form of statutory powers and byelaws, but choose instead to either abuse and/or misuse those powers, or inflict draconian, self-conferred powers on selected targets.
|
|
|
Post by kris on Oct 15, 2016 9:00:23 GMT
Yes. What intrigues me is whether use of an internet forum is a public campaign. I also think that people who actively try to undermine CRT are doing no favours to anyone with a long term interest in living on the canals. If CRT are found to be toothless then what happens next? Either they will seek teeth or they will fail or private operators will come in. I've always believed that CRT was a stepping stone between a nationalised system and future privatisation but I hope I am wrong. I think you will find people living in boats on the canal doesn't feature highly in crt's plans for the future. so unless we all get active in making crt abide by the law, your long term interest in living on the canals won't be a reality. Burying your head in the sand and pretending that it doesn't effect you isn't an option either.
|
|
|
Post by NigelMoore on Oct 15, 2016 9:03:04 GMT
Yes. What intrigues me is whether use of an internet forum is a public campaign. I also think that people who actively try to undermine CRT are doing no favours to anyone with a long term interest in living on the canals. If CRT are found to be toothless then what happens next? Either they will seek teeth or they will fail or private operators will come in. I've always believed that CRT was a stepping stone between a nationalised system and future privatisation but I hope I am wrong. The anti-CaRT campaign aspect is a very good question to raise, especially in circumstances where that was precisely what CaRT were avowedly afeared of. No doubt, I failed to get across exactly what I wished during the last hearing, but I attempted to explain that I was NOT engaged in an anti-CaRT campaign; what I was doing was in fact for the benefit of CaRT where their own actions were deleterious. As always, one must distinguish between an organisation and those temporarily in charge of it. As with anyone genuinely concerned for our canal network, I want it to not only survive but thrive; I want it to be improved, and I want it to live up to expectations as an environment all can enjoy. Having people in charge who do not share those aspirations, and who are concerned only with enjoying their own little protected worlds of power-wielding, runs counter to fulfilment of the claimed objectives. Emma has rightly observed that CaRT are far from toothless. I have repeatedly made the point in posts on CWDF – they have appropriate powers and measures to ensure adherence to the Byelaws and Statutes. The problem lies in their determined refusal to use those. It is as though they are ‘too soft’ for their taste; they lack the spectacular drama of boat seizures with the accompanying aura of absolute power. They even persuade the County Courts that the statutory measures are pitifully inadequate. The stark reality is, however, that s.8 accomplishes NOTHING in terms of ensuring adherence to the law, and does nothing but cost CaRT – and cost them dear. The single point of value such actions have is that of instilling a fear of crossing the authority's wishes. The measures provided for the specific purpose are, however, effective and focussed. They ensure that licences/certificates are enforced, with severe fines, costs and court sanction; they provide that other byelaws are similarly enforced, and provide that non-court action can be utilised to avoid criminalising boaters where simply moving them on is a readily available option. I have said it time and time again – the statutory powers should be consistently and firmly applied, and the inappropriate s.8(2) powers be deployed only in the instances for which they were designed. That would put real teeth back into management of the waterways. As to your last – BW has already been privatised; that is what we have with CaRT – a private limited company with minimal government oversight intended only to ensure that the small proportion of government subsidy is not squandered too blatantly. Government has washed its hands of all further responsibility. This is a situation that could only improve if rumours are true, that mutterings of dismay are being heard in the corridors of Westminster, over increasing exposure of dictatorial mismanagement of the national asset. If that is indeed the case, then prominent Court challenges such as Leigh's will in fact have the potential to do a very great deal of good, in setting waterways management back on the right path.
|
|
|
Post by kris on Oct 15, 2016 9:05:22 GMT
Exactly. Incompetence or a plan to fail? I suspect the latter. I think they do in fact have the right to dispose of assets. CRT transferred ownership of a 1 metre wide part of the Lee Navigation to a property owner. It has been done and the new piling has gone in. OK so one metre doesn't sound a lot but it seems it has happened. Your right they do have the right to dispose of assets and no over sight on which assets they dispose of. The property dept has final say, not even the heritage dept can say no if they decide to sell.The 1m of land on the lee was spoken about on the other channel a long time before it happened. It's not the land it's self that is the problem but mooring rights which have gone with it, I believe it was a popular mooring spot for people cruising.
|
|
|
Post by NigelMoore on Oct 15, 2016 9:11:01 GMT
I think they do in fact have the right to dispose of assets. CRT transferred ownership of a 1 metre wide part of the Lee Navigation to a property owner. It has been done and the new piling has gone in. OK so one metre doesn't sound a lot but it seems it has happened. That is wrong, to be a little pedantic about it. They have no right to unilaterally dispose of the national assets, but you are sadly correct that in practical terms they can accomplish this with ease, simply by asking for Secretary of State approval. Parry has revealed that already, in his short disastrous period of tenure, the SoS has acceded to Parry's requests and issued a number of such approvals - even before the example you have given .
|
|
|
Post by kris on Oct 15, 2016 9:16:21 GMT
I think they do in fact have the right to dispose of assets. CRT transferred ownership of a 1 metre wide part of the Lee Navigation to a property owner. It has been done and the new piling has gone in. OK so one metre doesn't sound a lot but it seems it has happened. That is wrong, to be a little pedantic about it. They have no right to unilaterally dispose of the national assets, but you are sadly correct that in practical terms they can accomplish this with ease, simply by asking for Secretary of State approval. Parry has revealed that already, in his short disastrous period of tenure, the SoS has acceded to Parry's requests and issued a number of such approvals - even before the example you have given . I could have probably worded it better, the point I was trying to make is that a dept of crt that has no connection to the day to day running of the canal or preserving the heritage is in charge of what is sold. I realised this when I looked into the selling of Eanum wharf in Blackburn.
|
|
|
Post by NigelMoore on Oct 15, 2016 10:06:59 GMT
I could have probably worded it better, the point I was trying to make is that a dept of crt that has no connection to the day to day running of the canal or preserving the heritage is in charge of what is sold. I realised this when I looked into the selling of Eanum wharf in Blackburn. Yes. Government was so intent on driving though this BW project as swiftly as possible to bolster Cameron’s reputation, that the oversight of the particulars was woefully inadequate, and even sympathetic ears in government were avowedly helpless to halt the juggernaut. Nigel Johnson had done his homework very thoroughly indeed, and the cleverly embedded provisions under the Transfer instrument are slowly becoming more apparent as disasters for our heritage.
|
|