|
Post by NigelMoore on Oct 23, 2016 20:26:12 GMT
I get there in the end Graham; it just tends to need revisiting. It is not just the site formatting; on [very rare of course] occasions I miss little slip ups and spacing, and I just can't rest comfortable seeing something all laid out wrong.
|
|
|
Post by Graham on Oct 24, 2016 8:11:25 GMT
I get there in the end Graham; it just tends to need revisiting. It is not just the site formatting; on [very rare of course] occasions I miss little slip ups and spacing, and I just can't rest comfortable seeing something all laid out wrong. Think I know what you mean, I bang away in Word and then put it up and seem to find umpteen faults and pop backwards and forwards tweaking it Ed2 on one line post
|
|
|
Post by tadworth on Oct 24, 2016 14:45:00 GMT
Jackie Smith has fled from the sinking CRT legal departments sunk, stranded and abandoned boat, and gets away scot free after screwing so many people over and lying about the law ?
( in my personal opininon, and not of this forums owners )
|
|
|
Post by thebfg on Nov 2, 2016 20:43:07 GMT
I like how their website just shows their total contempt of the law.
one page shows it as
"Section 8 of the British Waterways Act 1983 permits the Trust, after giving at least 28 days notice, to remove a craft which is sunk, stranded, abandoned or unlawfully moored on the Trust’s waterways."
but the license or lose it page says.
"Our main tool for enforcement is the power for the Canal & River Trust to 'section 8' unlicensed boats. This relates to powers given in the British Waterways Act 1983 (and transferred to the Canal & River Trust) and allows us to remove boats from the waterway if they are there without our permission or persistently in breach of our licence terms and conditions – including not having a licence." (my bold)
Is there anything legally they can use to back up that statement?
|
|
|
Post by tonyqj on Nov 2, 2016 21:28:01 GMT
I like how their website just shows their total contempt of the law. one page shows it as "Section 8 of the British Waterways Act 1983 permits the Trust, after giving at least 28 days notice, to remove a craft which is sunk, stranded, abandoned or unlawfully moored on the Trust’s waterways." but the license or lose it page says. "Our main tool for enforcement is the power for the Canal & River Trust to 'section 8' unlicensed boats. This relates to powers given in the British Waterways Act 1983 (and transferred to the Canal & River Trust) and allows us to remove boats from the waterway if they are there without our permission or persistently in breach of our licence terms and conditions – including not having a licence." (my bold) Is there anything legally they can use to back up that statement? Does 'not having a licence' equate to 'unlawfully moored'? Is a licence a legal requirement?
|
|
|
Post by tadworth on Nov 2, 2016 22:13:32 GMT
The canal and river trust cannot legally create any of its own licence terms and conditions. The issue of standard licences is entirely a statutory matter, legislation created by Parliament, the law, interfering with that is illegal. Put another way, there is no such thing as "licence terms and conditions " apart from the three listed in the 1995 BW act, boat safety certificate, insurance and a mooring OR the intention to constantly cruise.
|
|
|
Post by NigelMoore on Nov 2, 2016 22:55:20 GMT
I like how their website just shows their total contempt of the law. one page shows it as "Section 8 of the British Waterways Act 1983 permits the Trust, after giving at least 28 days notice, to remove a craft which is sunk, stranded, abandoned or unlawfully moored on the Trust’s waterways." but the license or lose it page says. "Our main tool for enforcement is the power for the Canal & River Trust to 'section 8' unlicensed boats. This relates to powers given in the British Waterways Act 1983 (and transferred to the Canal & River Trust) and allows us to remove boats from the waterway if they are there without our permission or persistently in breach of our licence terms and conditions – including not having a licence." (my bold) Is there anything legally they can use to back up that statement? No. I have had enough of today, but you should read some of Hildyard J’s judgment. For all the things he got wrong, one of the points of interest was on precisely this point of confusion between “left or moored without lawful authority” and “unlawfully moored”. Although he claimed I was confusing the two, in actual fact HE was. Just google “bullying british waterways” and the top result will find an article with that heading by ukhumanrightsblog.com, wherein a link is provided at the beginning, to the judgment in question. According to this judgment re: boat licences – and the following Appeal judgment re: moorings – s.8 has nothing to do with CaRT’s permission to be on the waterways or with their permission to moor. There is nothing whatsoever in law anywhere, that allows CaRT to sanction breach of unilaterally imposed “contract” conditions – and Hildyard commented on that also, in discussing s.43.
|
|
|
Post by NigelMoore on Nov 2, 2016 22:57:51 GMT
Jackie Smith has fled from the sinking CRT legal departments sunk, stranded and abandoned boat . . . Jackie Smith? Must be some long lost paramour surfacing from the sub-conscious; I think you meant Jackie Lewis?
|
|
|
Post by NigelMoore on Nov 2, 2016 23:36:16 GMT
"Section 8 of the British Waterways Act 1983 permits the Trust, after giving at least 28 days notice, to remove a craft which is sunk, stranded, abandoned or unlawfully moored on the Trust’s waterways." What is faintly bizarre is that CaRT are using the term “unlawfully moored” in place of “without lawful authority”, even though this was directly contradicted by Hildyard J in reaching his conclusion IN THEIR FAVOUR! 156. “In my view, the Claimant's approach is based on the assumption (to my mind, readily understandable) that the phrase in section 8(2) of the 1983 Act ("without lawful authority") is the same in legal meaning and effect as the phrase later used in sections 19 of the 1995 ("unlawfully moored"). In my view, the two phrases, even if interchangeable in ordinary usage or language, are not used in the same way in the relevant statutory provisions.
157. The Claimant's assumption, and the importance of it to his analysis, appears most clearly from the following paragraph in the Claimant's Skeleton Argument:
""Left or moored therein without lawful authority" can only be interpreted as moored against the law, and where there is no law there is no offence. Other than the two Bye-Laws, a boat can now [since the 1995 Act] be considered "unlawfully" moored only if creating an obstruction or danger to navigation." [My interpolation]
158. I have concluded that the assumption is misplaced and the two phrases bear different meanings and connotations. The phrase "unlawful mooring" as used in section 19 of the 1995 Act denotes a mooring in contravention of section 18 of the 1995 Act, such as to constitute a criminal offence under section 18 of the 1995 Act. It is a mooring in breach of the criminal law: and it is to be noted in that context the care taken in section 19(8) of the 1995 Act to ensure that a continued mooring after receipt of a notice served under section 19(1) is not, without more, to be unlawful in that sense.
159. By contrast, the phrase "without lawful authority" in section 8(1) of the 1983 Act focuses on the lack of lawful authority, not on breach of a regulation or provision regulating mooring (and constituting a criminal offence). The gist is not contravention, but lack of authority.”
This section is where Mr Justice Hildyard went so horribly wrong, of course. As the Appeal Court later agreed, it is anti-constitutional to convict a person of wrong-doing in the absence of a law prohibiting it, just because there is no law specifically permitting it.
|
|
|
Post by Ssscrudddy on Nov 3, 2016 13:44:07 GMT
I dont think I've ever seen NigelMoore get pissy about something. Glad I came here!
I'd love to see these CaRT criminals lose their houses & pensions & put in prison for their constant breaches of the law
|
|
|
Post by NigelMoore on Nov 3, 2016 14:52:01 GMT
I'd love to see these CaRT criminals lose their houses & pensions & put in prison for their constant breaches of the law So would I. It would concentrate their minds a little. Their apparent immunity is a very large part of what encourages them in their actions. No matter what they do, even if found to have committed crimes in a civil court, they escape any condemnation and penalty. One might have hoped that now they are a private company, the governmental protection cast over them was lessened, but I suspect not. The classic example of the disparity between treatment of BW by the courts, and their treatment of ‘common’ companies, was the criminal conviction of both BW and their contractor over the death of a diver through their negligence. www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/criminal_prosecutions#incoming-191418 www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/criminal_case_judgments#outgoing-153922 From my comments following disclosure: “ The second of the cases listed in BW’s answer above is the case that caught my attention. Whereas BW, as the party most at fault, were fined the greatest sum [£100,000] compared with the sub-contracting party, a Director of the sub-contracting company was, in accord with the new legislation, found guilty also, and fined a sum payable personally. My immediate reaction was: how is it that a Director of the sub-contracting company [who bore the least proportion of responsibility] could be fined in circumstances wherein no Director of the more responsible body was held responsible? How can it be equitable when the law is applied [correctly] against those responsible for a small company but not to those responsible for the greater company at most fault? The law should apply equally to all.
I was interested to learn whether the case was anomalous or indicative of a general trend. It appears from the answer that no judge has yet been prepared to apply the law to BW. The result is inevitable – BW employees and their executive body are encouraged to feel immune from prosecution; it would seem in fact that BW officers can, almost literally in the latter case, “get away with murder”." One of the judgments I cited when trying to have Tony Hales held to account in the early stages of my main case was that of the judge in Seymour v Leeds City Council 1986/7. According to Mr Seymour’s account: “. . . the Council ignored the Order to put the road into repair. Another action for Contempt was commenced, and the Court took the step of issuing a further Order in the specific name of The Director of Highways personally. The Court also stated that if the road was not repaired within the stated time the Director would be brought before the Court and held to account for his failure to comply. As the Judge said (Arthur Myerson QC) “I may not be able to jail the City Council, but I can jail a named officer”. [my bold] Would that such a judge had been around for the BW/CaRT cases [although in fairness, one would have to have brought prosecutions in the criminal courts for many of the known incidents to have been properly addressed]. Had I known of the contempt of court procedures, I could have had BW up for that in their violation of the Court Undertaking - but there was just too much going on at once, for me to be able on my own to research all that was needed. It is just such ignorance amongst boaters, of what can and should be done, that needs remedying; until then, and until Parry & Co get brought up abruptly facing personal accountability, they will blithely carry on as they have been doing. If it is of any consolation meantime though, I am assured that he is well aware of the content of threads discussing his approach to the cases of Leigh and of the lightship, and finds the relevant commentaries distressingly uncomfortable. So I should hope.
|
|
|
Post by tonyqj on Nov 3, 2016 15:25:57 GMT
I'd love to see these CaRT criminals lose their houses & pensions & put in prison for their constant breaches of the law ... I am assured that he is well aware of the content of threads discussing his approach to the cases of Leigh and of the lightship, and finds the relevant commentaries distressingly uncomfortable. A small start, but a welcome one
|
|
|
Post by NigelMoore on Nov 3, 2016 15:41:07 GMT
A small start, but a welcome one Just for clarity, the awareness specifically extends to BOTH forums, which are assiduously scoured for relevant content which is copied to the legal department & Shoosmiths. An example re: CWDF - [Lucy Barry is a Shoosmiths solicitor; Stephen Holder is a CaRT solicitor] It would be interesting to know who the TB mole is, but the important thing is that there is one. In circumstances where flat refusal to meet and talk things over is the executive directive and consequent institutional ethos, then forums such as these form the one effective conduit of opinion to such people.
|
|
|
Post by TonyDunkley on Nov 3, 2016 15:55:39 GMT
A small start, but a welcome one Just for clarity, the awareness specifically extends to BOTH forums, which are assiduously scoured ......... ........... .......... It would be interesting to know who the TB mole is, but the important thing is that there is one. There is one member of TB who considers himself, and the Forum he owns, to have a 'special relationship' with C&RT !
|
|
|
Post by kris on Nov 3, 2016 16:00:02 GMT
Do you think he's got a new job then Tony, maybe he's a volunteer?
|
|