|
Post by NigelMoore on Oct 22, 2016 22:47:52 GMT
The alteration to the wording on that webpage was 15 days after they failed to persuade the High Court to agree to denying Nigel right of audience as MF to Leigh Ravenscroft, . . In fact they did not know, immediately following the hearing on the first September, what the decision was about my involvement, because the Master reserved judgment on the point. The date of the sealing of the judgment is the 14 September 2016; it probably was published either then or the following day on Bailii, with the accompanying Law Gazette article dealing with it being dated the same day as the alteration of the website!
|
|
|
Post by bargemast on Oct 23, 2016 12:28:43 GMT
I like the way you spelled the name of the Cart spy.
Peter.
For some reason I always seem to misspell like that, Peter, . . . . quite unintentional, of course ! Of course, misspellings like that are ever so easily made, I completely understand.
Peter.
|
|
|
Post by naughtyfox on Oct 23, 2016 12:51:38 GMT
All onions or other root vegetables gratefully received.
|
|
|
Post by erivers on Oct 23, 2016 13:19:02 GMT
The alteration to the wording on that webpage was 15 days after they failed to persuade the High Court to agree to denying Nigel right of audience as MF to Leigh Ravenscroft, . . In fact they did not know, immediately following the hearing on the first September, what the decision was about my involvement, because the Master reserved judgment on the point. The date of the sealing of the judgment is the 14 September 2016; it probably was published either then or the following day on Bailii, with the accompanying Law Gazette article dealing with it being dated the same day as the alteration of the website! And significantly, I think, the same wording appears to have been used by C&RT right back to the very start of their existence. Here is the archived web page from 8th July 2012: Licence it or Lose It - July 2012The earlier BW (waterscape.com) web pages appear to have been prevented from appearing in the web archive by robots.txt.
|
|
|
Post by NigelMoore on Oct 23, 2016 15:49:28 GMT
And significantly, I think, the same wording appears to have been used by C&RT right back to the very start of their existence. Better and better! Thanks erivers, I have pdf’d that one as well. What is interesting is the header – “ We’ve decided to preview our website prior to our public launch on 12 July – so here it is!” They took a long hard look, in other words, at what they wanted to state as their position before they had even taken up the reins of power. What we saw, right up until mid September this year, was the consistent public assertion of a right to operate outside of the most ancient statutory laws of the land. Garner was not acting unilaterally as a dispensible rogue operator, he was implementing institutional policy from the very foundation of CaRT itself, as were the legal and enforcement personnel. All of them backed to the hilt, needless to say, by Parry. That position is one they have maintained until Leigh challenged them in his Claim last year. And even following their admissions then, and later in their Amended Defence, they were still prepared to keep the false declarations running, in the face of tadworth’s demand that they alter the objectionable wording, for a further two and a half months.
|
|
|
Post by Graham on Oct 23, 2016 16:45:16 GMT
Very interesting, I smell head stew and not Parry's of course not
|
|
|
Post by NigelMoore on Oct 23, 2016 17:04:12 GMT
I have found another bit of historical record that demonstrates, not only that CaRT have asserted that they would use s.8 as an illicit extortion tool – as per the now altered website, but that they have done so in practice, in other cases prior to Leigh’s, again, from their very inception. www.waterways-ombudsman.org/case-summaries/2015-16-case-summaries/Waterways Ombudsman cases, 2015/2016
Case No 838 – the Trust’s actions in the section 8 removal and subsequent sale of a boat. Note: Although the earlier events in this complaint took place before the functions of British Waterways were transferred to the Trust, I have for convenience referred in all cases to the Trust.
Mr F moored his boat at a Trust canal mooring from around 2001. In 2008, after a period in hospital, he went into arrears on his mooring account. He did not pay off the arrears, and the Trust eventually terminated his mooring agreement and also refused to issue him with a new licence, because he did not have a home mooring, which meant that his boat was unlicensed. As it was unlicensed, the Trust issued a removal notice under section 8(2) of the British Waterways Act 1983. It eventually seized and sold the boat, and paid Mr F the balance after deducting its costs.
. . .
The Trust issued a section 8 notice on 8 November 2011, and a seven day notice on 8 February 2012, and eventually removed the boat in September 2012 while Mr F was away. It subsequently obtained an independent valuation of the boat, sold it, and sent Mr F the balance after deducting its costs, which included licence and mooring fee arrears as well as boat removal and storage costs.
. . . Just goes to show the uselessness of the Adjudicator in these sorts of cases; he is utterly dependent upon CaRT telling him what the law allows them [neither did the boater in this instance have a clue as the underlying law]. It would be interesting to know just how many such violations of the law have repeatedly been instigated over the years since 1983. Now that CaRT no longer proclaim their right to do this - what of all their previous victims? I know exactly what their response is - they have placed it on record in the pleadings over Leigh's case: " the money was owed anyway, so even if we extorted it unlawfully, so what?" Any ordinary citizen applying self-help in similar ways would be banged up in prison, and rightly so.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 23, 2016 17:40:03 GMT
Not sure what the edit was but the 'users viewing' spiked for a bit then went back down.
I definitely think CWDF is missing a trick by disallowing discussion on this rather important topic !!
|
|
|
Post by erivers on Oct 23, 2016 17:43:49 GMT
The old BW (waterscape.com) web pages, at least for 2008, are in the National Archives (as opposed to the internet archive - archive.com - from which they appear to have been censored!). Link below .... waterscape.com 2008There doesn't appear to have been a corresponding 'Licence it or lose it' page on the BW site. The Private Pleasure Boat Licensing Terms dated 2008 refer to removal of a boat and BW's right to recover the costs of doing so: "It is a criminal offence to keep a Boat on our Waterways without a Licence, and you could face legal action, which may result in removal of the Boat from our Waterways""5.3 Once the Licence has ended, unless you re-license the Boat, you must remove it from our waters. If you do not, we have powers to remove it and to charge you for the costs we incur in doing this"
C&RT's asserted power to be permitted to recover outstanding licence fees from sale of an impounded vessel even though against statute appears to be entirely their own invention.
|
|
|
Post by TonyDunkley on Oct 23, 2016 17:52:00 GMT
Not sure what the edit was but the 'users viewing' spiked for a bit then went back down. I definitely think CWDF is missing a trick by disallowing discussion on this rather important topic !! It would be 'Parry's Fusiliers' all logging on for a spot more of intelligence gathering to go scuttling back to the great man with on Monday morning. They will certainly be keeping an eye on this facet of the basis for the Ravenscroft action, because thanks to all the criminal activity in Liverpool last month, and the continuing illegal impoundment of the Lightship in Sharpness, they are perilously close to another very similar action in respect of that.
|
|
|
Post by NigelMoore on Oct 23, 2016 19:06:03 GMT
Not sure what the edit was . . . My edit [as with most of them] was purely formatting. Obviously, I have yet to get to grips with how this site handles input, because weird things happen that I do not see until after posting. In this case, wording was lost and italicising of the survivors introduced instead [?!?!] I had originally written the words “my paraphrase” after interpretively quoting Mr Stoner. That was lost, and I had to return to change the surviving words back to non-italic.
|
|
|
Post by Graham on Oct 23, 2016 19:27:22 GMT
Nigel are you using the quick reply window or the yellow reply button which takes you to a full editing window
|
|
|
Post by NigelMoore on Oct 23, 2016 19:30:26 GMT
It is important to clarify exactly what the point and importance is, of the issue tadworth has highlighted in this topic.
In the webpage in question on the Licensing requirement, CaRT assert that: “Our main tool for enforcement is the power for the Canal & River Trust to ‘section 8’ unlicensed boats.”
That is, as they know full well, unmitigated garbage. Even the useless Parry parrots an acknowledgement that use of s.8 powers “is a lose, lose situation for both boater and CaRT.”
CaRT, as BW before them, are failing to enforce licence requirements as they ought. The ONLY way that s.8 proceedings achieve a positive result in this respect is by frightening people into compliance for fear of the drastic consequences. It achieves NOTHING in terms of enforcing acquisition of the licence, and not only does it NOT result in repayment of owed fees [legally], it costs CaRT considerable - mostly irrecoverable - sums excessively incurred on top of the original debt.
The ONLY way they can indulge their taste for such extremist measures while maintaining a pretence that their income is assisted by this method, is to flout the law, and convince the gullible that they are entitled so to do.
Because s.8 does NOT, as they have been belatedly forced to admit in the cited court pleadings, enable recovery of fees owed, the use of that power is manifestly provided for purposes OTHER THAN enforcement of licensing requirements.
For the sake of increased and maintained licence revenue – not to mention respect – CaRT must diligently and promptly prosecute offences as specifically provided for under the appropriate legislation.
|
|
|
Post by NigelMoore on Oct 23, 2016 19:31:02 GMT
Nigel are you using the quick reply window or the yellow reply button which takes you to a full editing window both, betimes
|
|
|
Post by Graham on Oct 23, 2016 19:36:48 GMT
Nigel are you using the quick reply window or the yellow reply button which takes you to a full editing window both, betimes OK I tend to do my formating using the big window. Mind you that does not always work. DRop D9 a message and see if he can help
|
|