|
Post by NigelMoore on Oct 21, 2016 23:13:01 GMT
But nevertheless, and true to form, it hasn't prevented them from including the 'River Ouse' in the schedule of waterways prohibited to boats under the Injunctions in the Section 8 Court Orders. The map accompanying the Injunction schedule even shows the prohibition extending along the tidal river from Naburn Locks, some 4-5 miles from York, all the way to the Humber and up the Trent to the tidal limit at Cromwell Lock. That is a very telling point, that urgently needs addressing before the courts – that County Court judges are being routinely misled into making ultra vires Orders denying the public right of navigation. They do NOT have the authority to do this. Any PRM can be abolished or modified by Parliament, so long as it is set out in express terms under an Act, which is exactly what the 1971 Act did. It does take primary legislation to achieve that, however - secondary legislation does not cut the mustard [let alone the compliant rubber-stamping of a unilaterally operating, lowly circuit judge]. That last is illustrated by the explicit terms of the British Waterways Act 1975, where although extended powers for making byelaws were granted [that would enable BW to ban boats from certain of their waterways or to make entry onto their waterways conditional], that power was NOT to extend to tidal waters. The licensing requirement of the 1976 Byelaws could never, therefore, be taken to apply to such waters, even if the PRN’s had not been otherwise an impediment to the imposition. The 1971 Act, by comparison, as primary legislation, WAS able to modify the public right, because the tidal section of the Trent between Cromwell Lock and Gainsborough Bridge was included within the scheduled river sections under that Act.
|
|
|
Post by NigelMoore on Oct 21, 2016 23:57:03 GMT
By way of illustrating Tony’s point – the map below is one of the standard maps appended to all s.8 Orders issued by the County Court at BW/CaRT’s behest, this example having the relevant river Ure/Ouse coloured in light Blue for easy appreciation [darker blue is the Humber]. All the bold lines are waterways within BW/CaRT's jurisdiction, from which the s.8'd boats are excluded under the Court Orders. Both the Ure and the Ouse are specifically named in the 3 page list appended to this map. At one stage I went through this list, to identify the river sections with PRN’s and so immune from eviction for want of permission, but this version suffices to illustrate the point that tidal waters and unmodified public navigable rivers are included in the exclusion terms of every one of BW/CaRT’s injunctions attendant on CCJ’s over s.8. It is a curious quirk of British jurisprudence that a situation can arise wherein, through sheer ignorance and trust in the assumed probity of a national institution, the courts can be persuaded to authorise criminal action [which every impeding of the PRN involves].
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 24, 2016 18:55:06 GMT
|
|
|
Post by NigelMoore on Oct 24, 2016 19:49:00 GMT
A point that had escaped my notice, which one of the Ouse boaters pointed out – the Terms & Conditions of the boat licence ALSO specifically list the Ure and Ouse as “river waterways” under the 1971 Act!
It should not be possible, after the decades of experience with them, but it still somehow manages to astonish me how brazen the lies are, in what have to be very carefully drafted and revised publications, under the eagle eye of CaRT’s legal department.
|
|
|
Post by TonyDunkley on Oct 24, 2016 22:02:08 GMT
A point that had escaped my notice, which one of the Ouse boaters pointed out – the Terms & Conditions of the boat licence ALSO specifically list the Ure and Ouse as “ river waterways” under the 1971 Act! It should not be possible, after the decades of experience with them, but it still somehow manages to astonish me how brazen the lies are, in what have to be very carefully drafted and revised publications, under the eagle eye of CaRT’s legal department. BW/C&RT's Enforcement and Legal staff have become so accustomed over many years to having boaters meekly agreeing to and complying with their extra-statutory, D-I-Y 'laws' and regulations, and I can't help wondering if most, or if not all, of the more recent and current instances of attempts to impose and enforce their imagined, self-conferred powers are not a consequence of them falling in the trap of actually beginning to believe that the tripe they dream up and publish really does carry the weight of real law. A recurring feature evident, to a greater or lesser degree, in every example of this particular manifestation of their corporate megalomania is an apparently almost unshakable belief that statute is not only subsidiary to their wishes and pronouncements, but something to which they can opt in or out of compliance, as and when convenient.
|
|
|
Post by tadworth on Oct 24, 2016 23:14:29 GMT
If there is no consequences what's to stop them abusing the law ?
|
|
|
Post by Jim on Oct 25, 2016 6:45:16 GMT
If there is no consequences what's to stop them abusing the law ? Charity Commission?
|
|
|
Post by kris on Oct 25, 2016 8:01:48 GMT
If there is no consequences what's to stop them abusing the law ? Charity Commission? they are a public ltd company with special discompensation to use trust in their name.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 25, 2016 8:04:13 GMT
they are a public ltd company with special discompensation to use trust in their name. So does that mean they are not accountable to them? Has anyone actually tried filing a complaint through their complaints procedure?
|
|
|
Post by kris on Oct 25, 2016 8:10:41 GMT
they are a public ltd company with special discompensation to use trust in their name. So does that mean they are not accountable to them? Has anyone actually tried filing a complaint through their complaints procedure? im not Sure, because they have some charitable aims, and are registered with the charities commission. But how it actually works i don't know.
|
|
|
Post by TonyDunkley on Oct 25, 2016 9:19:17 GMT
C&RT is in fact a limited company with no shareholders, and the 'charitable' status is only with regard to one way open to them to raise money. The Articles of Association make interesting reading, in that they've been largely ignored, especially the primary objective which was ~ "to preserve, protect, operate and manage Inland Waterways for public benefit", with navigation at the top of the list. Their track record to date makes them something akin to subsidized, unsuccessful licensed beggars who direct a considerable proportion of their efforts into crapping on the very people whose support they're in most need of.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 25, 2016 9:31:36 GMT
they are a public ltd company with special discompensation to use trust in their name. So does that mean they are not accountable to them? Has anyone actually tried filing a complaint through their complaints procedure? A few complaints were made in 2013, and were published. I don't remember it going any further though. They did in fact come third that year for most complained about charity.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 25, 2016 9:36:28 GMT
Alan richards did an foi to the commission which got this response; 1. In April 2013 the Commission received a concern about the terms of the Network Access Agreement (NAA); which is granted to CRT to authorise connection to it’s waterway network and to charge for service facilities. After considering this the Commission provided its response on 27 June 2013 (copy attached). 2. In May 2013 we received a concern primarily about the charity’s independence. We considered this matter and provided a full response on 19 November 2013 . Similar concerns were received and a further response was also provided on 5 February 2014. (Copies of both letters are attached). 3. In June 2013 we received a complaint about elements of the charity’s service provision. After considering the complaint the Commission responded on 17 June 2013 (copy attached). 4. In July 2013 we received a complaint relating to the charity’s management of the waterways. After considering the matter the Commission provided a response on 19 July 2014 (copy attached). I have therefore attached copies of the Commission’s response in each of the four complaint cases that were opened in 2013-14. www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/217476/response/541418/attach/html/3/Response%20to%20complaints%20Canal%20River%20Trust%20redacted%20multipage.pdf.html
|
|
|
Post by NigelMoore on Oct 25, 2016 9:47:59 GMT
A recurring feature evident, to a greater or lesser degree, in every example of this particular manifestation of their corporate megalomania is an apparently almost unshakable belief that statute is not only subsidiary to their wishes and pronouncements, but something to which they can opt in or out of compliance, as and when convenient. That will certainly be true of some of them. Parry of course, quite simply does not concern himself with whether things are right or wrong, only with whether they are effective; the legal department’s heads cannot possibly believe their own inventions, but it is always possible that enforcement employees swallow the company line, as will most of the others. I have told the story before elsewhere, but the most dramatic example of what you suggest has stayed with me for years. Back in 2004/5 I was involved with supporting the Jericho boatyard – then a current victim of BW’s program of selling off boatyards for residential re-development. Oxford Council rejected the planning application of Bellway Homes for the site, and BW came out in force to give evidence for the developer at the subsequent Appeal. BW’s main witness was a Mr Green, who blithely informed the Inspector that the matter of what constituted “the track” [the statutory term for operational land important to maintenance of the canal system] no longer included the boatyard. Mr Green was asked by the Council’s barrister how the land had come to be re-classified, and replied that it was by way of an internal memo, circulated amongst BW’s accountants and property departments some years before. The barrister asked: “ So are you suggesting that an internal memo within BW suffices to overturn an Act of Parliament?” There was no hesitation whatsoever in the reply – “ Yes, because the memo was of later date than the Act.” !!!!! The Council’s barrister was a very sharp professional, but he had not been prepared for that bombshell. He slumped back into his chair saying only: “ Oh, so BW have declared UDI have they?” Mind you, such unhesitating response to questioning does not necessarily entail an honest belief – I have had BW employees on the stand who have instantly responded to questions with totally obvious and outrageous lies that left me as bemused as Oxford’s barrister – but I don’t know; on that occasion Mr Green came across as perfectly sincere in his belief - that anything BW said carried more weight than Parliament.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 25, 2016 9:55:12 GMT
Alan richards did an foi to the commission which got this response; 1. In April 2013 the Commission received a concern about the terms of the Network Access Agreement (NAA); which is granted to CRT to authorise connection to it’s waterway network and to charge for service facilities. After considering this the Commission provided its response on 27 June 2013 (copy attached). 2. In May 2013 we received a concern primarily about the charity’s independence. We considered this matter and provided a full response on 19 November 2013 . Similar concerns were received and a further response was also provided on 5 February 2014. (Copies of both letters are attached). 3. In June 2013 we received a complaint about elements of the charity’s service provision. After considering the complaint the Commission responded on 17 June 2013 (copy attached). 4. In July 2013 we received a complaint relating to the charity’s management of the waterways. After considering the matter the Commission provided a response on 19 July 2014 (copy attached). I have therefore attached copies of the Commission’s response in each of the four complaint cases that were opened in 2013-14. www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/217476/response/541418/attach/html/3/Response%20to%20complaints%20Canal%20River%20Trust%20redacted%20multipage.pdf.htmlLooks like complaining through the Commission is a waste of time then. Having said that, at least it goes on public record so if one day a rats nest unfolds they would have to account for any decisions they made. So maybe, not a waste of time...
|
|