|
Post by Mr Stabby on Nov 10, 2018 22:59:28 GMT
I can't help feeling that it would be a lot cheaper in the long term for all of us if somebody set up a JustGiving page to pay for Tony's licence? It could turn out to be - quote "a lot cheaper in the long term for all of us" if the gullible masses of boat owners, who patronize C&RT via their boat usage whilst accepting, and effectively condoning, their dishonesty, made some loud, well directed, and effective objections on the manner in which this so-called navigation authority wastes hundreds of thousands of pounds on pointless legal actions instigated for no other reason than to scare C&RT's 'customers' into meek compliance with their unlawful excesses. No-one except C&RT themselves is forcing them into endless unwarranted litigation against those who won't knuckle under to their self-conferred, fictitious 'powers' and unlawful demands. Incidentally, there is no obligation/requirement under any statute, or byelaw, to take out a licence for a boat kept where mine is on a scheduled river waterway. The 1971 BW Act imposes an obligation to register pleasure boats kept or used within the Main Navigable Channel [MNC] of these waterways, the lawful authority for the vessel to be on/in the waterway is derived, not from any 'licence', but from the common law Public Right of Navigation [PRN]. Err, right, so you whinge and whine that CRT don't maintain the network properly and then you do your very best to wriggle out of paying your licence fee, forcing CRT to spend tens of thousands of pounds in legal fees and encourage everybody else to do the same. The sooner your boat is craned out of the cut and crushed under a Section 8 notice the better, as far as I'm concerned.
|
|
|
Post by NigelMoore on Nov 11, 2018 2:42:05 GMT
. . . you do your very best to wriggle out of paying your licence fee, forcing CRT to spend tens of thousands of pounds in legal fees . . . There can be no genuine question of “ forcing CaRT to spend tens of thousands of pounds” over an unpaid licence or registration fee. If the Asplin judgment remains unchallenged, then that is sufficient precedent to successfully prosecute the 1971 Act offence in cases such as Tony’s. Environment Agency prosecutions for the same offence under similar legislation record awarded costs to the EA for successful prosecutions, of anything between £80 to around £1700, most of them in the £115 to £250 range. Now that such actions are performed by CaRT in-house, rather than (as previously) employing outside legal firms such as Shoosmiths, the costs should be similar. The only basis for spending more arises from the decision NOT to prosecute, but to pursue s.8 sanctions with attendant requests for injunctions; in making such choices CaRT stands alone amongst the national navigation authorities.
|
|
|
Post by NigelMoore on Nov 11, 2018 3:07:09 GMT
The sooner your boat is craned out of the cut and crushed under a Section 8 notice the better . . . Section 8 does not authorise the destruction of a boat seized following exercise of that power, in circumstances where the owner of the vessel is known. Even where such ownership is not established, destruction (rather than sale) could only be justified in circumstances where the sums realistically recoverable upon sale of the vessel could not hope to cover the expenses of the removal and storage. The ceiling of value which CaRT use for such a decision has been published as £3,000 - which means (given the usual minimum costs of around £5,000 demanded by their preferred contractors) that they would make a loss of at least a couple of thousand pounds for every destroyed boat.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 11, 2018 7:55:46 GMT
5 grand to dispose of a canal boat ?
|
|
|
Post by Telemachus on Nov 11, 2018 9:12:53 GMT
However the definition of “poverty” is when your income is in the bottom 20%. (Or something close to that). So it’s a self-fulfilling prophesy. I'm sorry that you have been taken in by this deception but please look up the definition of “poverty” in that context. You are wrong in your definition of poverty. I'm mot going to argue though just provide A link en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poverty_in_the_United_Kingdom and let you do your own research. As you obviously don't live on the same planet as most people in this country. The article you link to is rather lengthy and wittery but as far as I can see having scanned it very briefly, it doesn’t attempt to define poverty. Of course there are two concepts, relative poverty and absolute poverty. When we talk about poverty in the U.K. it generally means relative poverty, which is defined in the U.K. as people whose household income is less than 60% of the median. This means that no matter how rich a population there will always be poverty unless incomes are levelled. So in Monaco for example, the family who can only afford one Aston Martin and a small boat, are living in poverty compared to the average family who have 3 Aston Martins and a super-yacht. So in the U.K. a family can be in poverty whilst still having many modern trappings that a family in a poor African country could only dream of - fresh running water, leak-proof house, Internet, one smartphone per family member, colour telly, central heating, rubbish collection, schooling for the kids, free health care etc. As as I said, with the definitions used for “poverty” there will always be poverty no matter how rich people are, until everyone gets a fixed state income or other means of levelling income, even though they might have every home comfort. Absolute poverty is much harder to define and as such there isn’t really a definition. With the exception of the homeless sleeping on the street I would say there are very few people in the U.K. living in absolute poverty if you look at the big world picture. Even the street-sleepers don’t tend to starve to death and do have access to healthcare if they choose, which puts them well ahead of many of the poorest people on the planet.
|
|
|
Post by Telemachus on Nov 11, 2018 9:26:20 GMT
Actually, thinking more about this, the better metric would be levels of happiness. Which seems to be pretty low in the U.K. these days. Funny how people will pay a fortune to fly out to some tropical paradise and live happily in a straw hut with no electricity, communal water/catering/ablutions block, no telly or internet and eat local food not flown in from the other side of the world. The same people observing from some urban residence in the U.K. the lifestyle of the local residents living in straw huts with the same facilities, might pity them for their poverty. However the straw-hut-residing locals are likely to be very happy, whilst the urban dwellers will typically be miserable as sin and feeling hard done by.
So we should bear in mind that money isn’t a good metric for quality of life, happiness is.
|
|
|
Post by kris on Nov 11, 2018 9:30:37 GMT
Absolute poverty is much harder to define and as such there isn’t really a definition. With the exception of the homeless sleeping on the street I would say there are very few people in the U.K. living in absolute poverty if you look at the big world picture. Even the street-sleepers don’t tend to starve to death and do have access to healthcare if they choose, which puts them well ahead of many of the poorest people on the planet. So all those working people in the uk who are having to use food banks must be deluded, they really are rich and should stop moaning. There are a lot of people in this country who if they lived in the developing world would be considered rich, but this is hardly relevant as they live in the uk where they can be paying 40% of their income to keep a roof over their heads plus maybe another 30% of their income on fuel. So your comparison is facile and just confirms your lack of understanding of reality as lived in by most people. Oh and just for the hell of it, the "real" poor as you call the homeless, or the visible face of homelessness has quadrupled in the last few years. But then they are a minor inconvience for you as you step over them.
|
|
|
Post by naughtyfox on Nov 11, 2018 9:36:32 GMT
5 grand to dispose of a canal boat ? Rip-off Britain. Although I'm sure there's a lot involved stripping a boat of its ornaments, cutting the steel and melting it down. Possibly cheaper just to pull it into any ship crossing the North Sea / English Channel and push it out when half-way across.
|
|
|
Post by naughtyfox on Nov 11, 2018 9:40:45 GMT
Actually, thinking more about this, the better metric would be levels of happiness. Which seems to be pretty low in the U.K. these days. Funny how people will pay a fortune to fly out to some tropical paradise and live happily in a straw hut with no electricity, communal water/catering/ablutions block, no telly or internet and eat local food not flown in from the other side of the world. The same people observing from some urban residence in the U.K. the lifestyle of the local residents living in straw huts with the same facilities, might pity them for their poverty. However the straw-hut-residing locals are likely to be very happy, whilst the urban dwellers will typically be miserable as sin and feeling hard done by. So we should bear in mind that money isn’t a good metric for quality of life, happiness is. Might be worth a watch. Apparently being addicted to 'Social Media' causes depression:
|
|
|
Post by NigelMoore on Nov 11, 2018 9:42:53 GMT
5 grand to dispose of a canal boat ? No. A minimum £5,000 - £5,500 to remove the boat from the water and take into storage. Disposing of it will cost more on top of that. I am not claiming that this is a reasonable charge; it is the bottom-line charge to CaRT by their preferred contractors. You have to remember that when first streamlining and 'bullet-proofing' the s.8 process in readiness for mass s.8 cases, the contract was touted as an excellent business opportunity. edit to add: the most expensive removal and storage bill for a canal boat I know of, was 'Pearl', at some £12,500 odd - whether it has since been disposed of I do not know; last I heard it was being offered for sale at around £4,000. Of course the lightship 'Planet' was an extreme case costing CaRT tens of thousands ( and still not 'disposed of').
|
|
|
Post by Telemachus on Nov 11, 2018 9:50:39 GMT
Absolute poverty is much harder to define and as such there isn’t really a definition. With the exception of the homeless sleeping on the street I would say there are very few people in the U.K. living in absolute poverty if you look at the big world picture. Even the street-sleepers don’t tend to starve to death and do have access to healthcare if they choose, which puts them well ahead of many of the poorest people on the planet. So all those working people in the uk who are having to use food banks must be deluded, they really are rich and should stop moaning. There are a lot of people in this country who if they lived in the developing world would be considered rich, but this is hardly relevant as they live in the uk where they can be paying 40% of their income to keep a roof over their heads plus maybe another 30% of their income on fuel. So your comparison is facile and just confirms your lack of understanding of reality as lived in by most people. Oh and just for the hell of it, the "real" poor as you call the homeless, or the visible face of homelessness has quadrupled in the last few years. But then they are a minor inconvience for you as you step over them. It’s a pity you are quite unable to have any sort of discussion without resorting to insults. It must be very tiring to be so angry all the time. You make a false premis that anyone who is not in poverty must be rich. By the definitions of the words, most people are neither in poverty nor rich, but somewhere in between. People who have to use food banks are not starving - by definition. I realise there is stigma attached to it but being dispassionate about it can you explain the difference between receiving state cash (benefits) to spend on food, vs receiving the food directly from food banks is? Well OK I’m sure there is less choice but the food bank users aren’t going to starve. One could question why it is anyone else’s responsibility to feed and house people. Until very recently one had to feed, house, clothe, educate and treat one’s self /pay for it one’s self. As is the case in most of the rest of the world. With the rise of the U.K. State in the past 70 years or so citizens have been able to abdicate responsibility for their own welfare and presume that “They” will look after them, they don’t need to bother to go to work, can have as many children as they feel like, and spend what money they have on non-essential stuff. Of course this may be the kind of society you want to live in but I think it leads to a dysfunctional society with a false sense of entitlement and a lot of unhappiness when the entitlement goes unfulfilled.
|
|
|
Post by naughtyfox on Nov 11, 2018 9:53:37 GMT
Absolute poverty is much harder to define and as such there isn’t really a definition. With the exception of the homeless sleeping on the street I would say there are very few people in the U.K. living in absolute poverty if you look at the big world picture. Even the street-sleepers don’t tend to starve to death and do have access to healthcare if they choose, which puts them well ahead of many of the poorest people on the planet. the "real" poor as you call the homeless, or the visible face of homelessness has quadrupled in the last few years. Perhaps that's because 'affordable housing' has been hijacked by thousands of illegal immigrants? Or because they're not really homeless, but work-shy men (yep - all the 'street beggars in almost every town in the UK we've seen are male) taking the piss? They all seem to sit on the ground with sleeping bag pulled up around them outside Greggs, always a spot to gain maximum publicity. Why aren't they at the Town Hall demanding a council flat, or harassing/persecuting the local politicians for not providing accommodation (and thus breaking the law?). Why aren't they walking from factory to factory asking for work? I've seen a lot of people sleeping in shop doorways - why? It's not warmer there at night, is it? There might be light for reading a book, I suppose. Why don't they go round the the councillor's house, the one who is responsible for Housing, and insist on sleeping in their house? If they won't let you in, force your way in. It's the only language these councillors and local politicians understand. They don't like it up 'em!
|
|
|
Post by naughtyfox on Nov 11, 2018 10:04:08 GMT
Food banks are inhumane. Are you really proud to live in a country that holds part of its population to ransom by doling out food? "Come here, my pretties, tch! tch! tch! Here's some tasty morsels!" - just like feeding the ducks.
Finland has food banks. Neither the Prime Minister nor any other Members of Parliament go to them for free food. And the Finnish government claims this is the country "where people are happiest".
Of course, the old catch - give people money into their bank accounts and who knows what they use it for? Make people stand in line (a bit like the Germans with the Jews during WW2) and give them food and make them eat it on the spot, then you can see they can't trade it for drugs/other.
My stance, as said before, is that everybody should have a good basic standard of living. Those who wish to laze around end up with that basic standard. Those who work/study/are active, etc. get more.
|
|
|
Post by Jim on Nov 11, 2018 10:08:26 GMT
100% of the people I know who live in finland are migrants taking homes from hard working finns. Something should be done.
|
|
|
Post by kris on Nov 11, 2018 10:23:12 GMT
My stance, as said before, is that everybody should have a good basic standard of living. Those who wish to laze around end up with that basic standard. Those who work/study/are active, etc. get more. This seems to be the reasoning behind the basic universal income that keeps getting talked about and I believe is being trailed at the moment by four Scottish councils. The owners of the means of production are perhaps beginning to realise that it's okay having robotic factories run by ai turning out goods for a fraction of the price of human manufactured goods. But who is going to buy the products if two thirds of the worlds population are in poverty?
|
|