Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 3, 2017 14:44:05 GMT
Its been going on for a long time. When I spent my first winter on a boat in 1994/5 I stayed around Braunston and there was a "BW mooring warden" on one of the boats. He was an ex copper. It seems to be a trend. I don't really see why that is. The same gentlemans club as the management?
|
|
|
Post by Allan on Jun 3, 2017 14:59:46 GMT
CRT must have first pick of bent ex coppers leaving the force. yes there's one based in leeds, who aparently left the force under a cloud, but was welcomed into crt's enforcement dept with open arms. She still thinks she's in the police. Years ago, it was possible for a police officer under investigation, to leave or retire which would almost inevitably lead to the investigation being dropped. They could then apply to become a police officer in another force ... To prevent this, there is now a black list that forces have access to. If you are on the list then you can not rejoin in any capacity. I think there are just under 1,000 ex officers on that list. More recently (just over two years ago), regulations changed such that officers could not leave or retire until an investigation was complete. With regard to what retiring police officers do, I think it very much depends on the individual. I know there was some concern a few years ago that officers were retiring at 50 and then rejoining as civilian officers.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 3, 2017 15:21:39 GMT
In my own view, most of the ex coppers taking enforcement jobs with the trust, simply under achieved in the police force. Beat plods who basically worked for the minimum pension, then left. They were not clever or ambitious, which shows in the manner they behave now.
Glyn Bumford as an exception did have a bit of a result, i believe he was part of a 7 million quid drug bust in 2011, and also helped recover a stolen bronze bust of graham hill in 2007.
|
|
|
Post by NigelMoore on Jun 3, 2017 15:25:07 GMT
Thanks for that link, it is interesting to read a different ‘take’ on the subject from non-boating people. Some, as usual, more balanced than others. Curious to read the comment by one party who sneered at the supposed ‘legal team’ referring to the ‘wrong’ legislation [claiming that it should have been s.13 not s.8]. Just goes to show how carefully one must look into areas with which one is unfamiliar.
|
|
|
Post by tadworth on Jun 3, 2017 20:32:17 GMT
In my own view, most of the ex coppers taking enforcement jobs with the trust, simply under achieved in the police force. Beat plods who basically worked for the minimum pension, then left. They were not clever or ambitious, which shows in the manner they behave now. Glyn Bumford as an exception did have a bit of a result, i believe he was part of a 7 million quid drug bust in 2011, and also helped recover a stolen bronze bust of graham hill in 2007. When he first appeared he told me no one needs to overstay for a mechanical breakdown because you can hire an out board motor and be on your way. He's as thick as mince.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 3, 2017 20:36:31 GMT
In my own view, most of the ex coppers taking enforcement jobs with the trust, simply under achieved in the police force. Beat plods who basically worked for the minimum pension, then left. They were not clever or ambitious, which shows in the manner they behave now. Glyn Bumford as an exception did have a bit of a result, i believe he was part of a 7 million quid drug bust in 2011, and also helped recover a stolen bronze bust of graham hill in 2007. When he first appeared he told me no one needs to overstay for a mechanical breakdown because you can hire an out board motor and be on your way. He's as thick as mince. 😂😂😂😂
|
|
|
Post by TonyDunkley on Jun 3, 2017 22:17:55 GMT
You did come in for special mention, Tony, when Mr Stoner was explaining why it was important that the trial go ahead to a conclusion on the meaning of 'main navigable channel'. They want to be properly armed when [if] they go after you in particular, and many others waiting on the sidelines. Can I ask, Nigel, did you get the impression that they regard the PRN issues as being separable from the MNC issue, at least to the extent of the way in which the two issues have a joint effect/influence on the specific legislation they can legitimately take action under against any boat on a scheduled river waterway without either a PBC or PBL irrespective of whether or not that boat ever makes use of the MNC ?
|
|
|
Post by NigelMoore on Jun 3, 2017 23:22:29 GMT
"They" being CaRT or the Court?
CaRT obviously were touchy over the PRN issue, hence the nonsense in Grimes' statement, and in the 'Amended Defence' urging the argument that the 1971 regime was abolished under the 1983 Act [neither pursued at Court].
Quite honestly, although I recall that Mr Stoner made disapproving noises over the effect of the PRN on s.8 and 'lawful authority', I cannot remember what points he made. The Judge did question me on the point, which I attempted to clarify, but I was left feeling that I had failed to get the point across properly.
We would need to get transcripts to be able to dissect the arguments as made in Court.
|
|
|
Post by NigelMoore on Jun 10, 2017 12:02:42 GMT
I have noticed a comment in the “Promediate” website - www.promediate.co.uk/three-wise-monkeys-shouldve-mediated/“ Mr Ravenscroft is represented by a MacKenzie friend who has been given permission to represent him at the trial. This means that the other party will have an advantage. This is clearly a case crying out for mediation.” It is of course true that the ‘other party’ has an advantage, but that is always going to be the case where such a national organisation is involved, no matter who represents the opposition, and as the organisation resolutely declined to enter into discussion over the issues, it is difficult to understand how it could have been brought to mediation. That too, costs money which the Claimant is in no position to fork out for. The costs issues are the biggest pitfall for ordinary people seeking to sue organisations such as CaRT, and they play the game on that score to the max – even if you end up winning the case, you can find yourself owing them thousands from interim costs orders due to bizarre judgments along the way and especially resulting from procedural challenges that have you penalised for not conforming to the rules. The very fact that they can throw unlimited money at the process, means that you are immediately disadvantaged, because your own costs are going to be minimal compared with those of full legal teams with QC’s. So they can get extravagant costs for challenging procedural hiccups, whereas any costs awarded against them in your favour, are trivial. Mediation, as distinct from negotiation, does not improve that situation significantly, even if the overall figures are less. The only way out is if both parties agreed to bear their own costs of a mediation service. Besides, in Leigh’s case there was never a chance that they would agree to a settlement – a position maintained in court even in the face of severe displeasure voiced by the judge. Of course, returning to the original point made in the article over the differential in quality of representation, that has to be admitted; a practised professional will always be more capable of presenting their case to the best advantage with full knowledge of the methodology required. In that respect Leigh has admittedly laboured under a disadvantage - but all we can hope for is that the judge will make appropriate allowances, and we rely on the facts and arguments in the skeleton argument speaking for themselves. It is this recognition of inadequacies in oral presentation that has led to far more detailed skeleton argument than any pro would produce, so that everything vital is at least laid out in writing, in case anything gets forgotten or missed in speaking before the court. Getting the balance right between annoying the judge with voluminous written material, and supplying the essentials of the argument, is the tricky bit.
|
|
|
Post by tadworth on Jun 10, 2017 17:24:18 GMT
Money should play no part in justice.
|
|
|
Post by tonyqj on Jun 10, 2017 18:41:34 GMT
Money should play no part in justice. Agreed but my missus had to drop out of a case simply because she couldn't afford to continue.
|
|
|
Post by bargemast on Jun 10, 2017 18:43:21 GMT
Money should play no part in justice. Wouldn't it be nice if you didn't have to use the word "should" in this line and read :"Money play's no part in justice".
It would be even nicer if that would be the reality, we can just dream on about that.
Peter.
|
|
|
Post by lollygagger on Jun 10, 2017 19:26:29 GMT
Money should play no part in justice. Wouldn't it be nice if you didn't have to use the word "should" in this line and read :"Money play's no part in justice".
It would be even nicer if that would be the reality, we can just dream on about that.
Peter.
At risk of sounding revolutionary, the courts purpose is to legitimise the rich and powerful's illegitimate behaviour. That has always started with the "state" and it's apparatus. Nowadays that includes entities like CRT. However there must be a notion that the little man can sometimes prevail and to prop that notion up, sometimes the little man does, but he must be willing to stake ALL and be as determined as Leigh. I get the impression that Leigh is a bit marmite, I might even despise some of his behaviour, but for his dogged persuit of this I applaud him. It's quite possible that in 100 years time history will look back at people like Leigh with the same regard as suffragettes.
|
|
|
Post by NigelMoore on Jun 11, 2017 5:37:22 GMT
|
|
|
Post by tadworth on Jun 11, 2017 14:32:38 GMT
Wouldn't it be nice if you didn't have to use the word "should" in this line and read :"Money play's no part in justice".
It would be even nicer if that would be the reality, we can just dream on about that.
Peter.
At risk of sounding revolutionary, the courts purpose is to legitimise the rich and powerful's illegitimate behaviour. That has always started with the "state" and it's apparatus. Nowadays that includes entities like CRT. However there must be a notion that the little man can sometimes prevail and to prop that notion up, sometimes the little man does, but he must be willing to stake ALL and be as determined as Leigh. I get the impression that Leigh is a bit marmite, I might even despise some of his behaviour, but for his dogged persuit of this I applaud him. It's quite possible that in 100 years time history will look back at people like Leigh with the same regard as suffragettes. I think its more to do with the legal profession wanting to exclude anyone from the law unless they are willing to pay £650 an hour for them to untangle what they made as difficult as possible for the ordinary person to understand in the first place.
|
|