|
Post by tadworth on Jan 1, 2017 15:08:09 GMT
My email is now blocked by CRT, they claim they have given me a "single point of contact" which is one enforcement supervisor, so I cannot contact any one in CRT directly, without it being filtered by this person, looks like they want to stop me finding out anything that is not the official line ? All my correspondence has been polite and stuck strictly to business. Just set up another Id with a new email addy I know its that easy, but i was just pointing out the way they think they can censor what i find out.
|
|
|
Post by lollygagger on Jan 1, 2017 15:13:20 GMT
Just set up another Id with a new email addy I know its that easy, but i was just pointing out the way they think they can censor what i find out. From their point of view (not mine, don't shoot the messenger!) they are protecting themselves from a smart arse asking questions of people unqualified to answer, then as publicly as possible pulling up the whole organisation on the response when it's incorrect. You need special "handling" to ensure they don't put their foot in it, again.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 1, 2017 15:33:55 GMT
My email is now blocked by CRT, they claim they have given me a "single point of contact" which is one enforcement supervisor, so I cannot contact any one in CRT directly, without it being filtered by this person, looks like they want to stop me finding out anything that is not the official line ? All my correspondence has been polite and stuck strictly to business. If you use gmail, you can create multiple addresses which all go to the same inbox. This is very useful if you need to give an email address out as you can delete them if you get spammed. You can also tell if they have sold your address. For example, if your address is george@gmail.com and you need an email address to register with Tesco, you can just enter tesco+george@gmail.com. Gmail will treat this exactly as if it was the original email. So add cart or fart to your email and it will bypass their filter!
|
|
|
Post by lollygagger on Jan 1, 2017 15:36:25 GMT
As a general point, would it not be better to save pointing out their legal gaffing for when it could save someone's arse in court? It strikes me that pointing out illegal ways for no immediate gain assists them in sharpening their tools.
Alternatively sit on stuff until there's a sizeable list that demonstrates the wholeness of their attitude and wave more effectively under someone's (God knows who) nose at some point.
|
|
|
Post by NigelMoore on Jan 6, 2017 16:58:17 GMT
As a general point, would it not be better to save pointing out their legal gaffing for when it could save someone's arse in court? It strikes me that pointing out illegal ways for no immediate gain assists them in sharpening their tools. Alternatively sit on stuff until there's a sizeable list that demonstrates the wholeness of their attitude and wave more effectively under someone's (God knows who) nose at some point. It is far more important, I believe, to disseminate facts and legal arguments as widely as possible amongst the boating fraternity, than to try keeping those under wraps. In the first place – if the general public affected do not know of these, how is it going to help them? In the second place – exposure in discussion forums allows for weaknesses and errors to be brought to light, with accompanying improvement and understanding, with development of better ways to present the arguments so as to be clearly comprehended by anybody. In the third place – the Courts take a dim view of ‘surprises’ being sprung on either side; it is essential that both sides to the dispute are fully aware of everything possessed by either side. In the fourth place [and by no means last] – what better way to educate the authority? I cannot think of any alternative route to their ears. We should be looking for the betterment of the authorities for the benefit of good administration, not trying to catch them out unawares.
|
|
|
Post by tadworth on Jan 6, 2017 20:01:20 GMT
As above, I wish CRT would contribute to this, and legal professionals, but the former want to keep all this secret, and the latter don't do anything unless there is money involved.
Its interesting that there are just a couple of legal forums I can find, all have very low traffic, and most questions go unanswered, or only answered by ameteurs. In contrast to nearly every other profession where thousands of proffesionals are all over internet forums sharing their knowledge.
|
|
|
Post by tomsk on Jan 6, 2017 20:27:56 GMT
As above, I wish CRT would contribute to this, and legal professionals, but the former want to keep all this secret, and the latter don't do anything unless there is money involved. Its interesting that there are just a couple of legal forums I can find, all have very low traffic, and most questions go unanswered, or only answered by ameteurs. In contrast to nearly every other profession where thousands of proffesionals are all over internet forums sharing their knowledge. I have said this before but it bears repetition. Most professionals are too busy selling their services to spend time when not at work giving them away on internet forums.
|
|
|
Post by tadworth on Jan 6, 2017 20:44:07 GMT
As above, I wish CRT would contribute to this, and legal professionals, but the former want to keep all this secret, and the latter don't do anything unless there is money involved. Its interesting that there are just a couple of legal forums I can find, all have very low traffic, and most questions go unanswered, or only answered by ameteurs. In contrast to nearly every other profession where thousands of proffesionals are all over internet forums sharing their knowledge. I have said this before but it bears repetition. Most professionals are too busy selling their services to spend time when not at work giving them away on internet forums. That doesnt tally with what i said though. If i want to know about plumbing, building regs or a car repair, or software fix i can find out from professionals in minutes, this doesnt happen with legal issues.
|
|
|
Post by tomsk on Jan 6, 2017 21:08:36 GMT
I have said this before but it bears repetition. Most professionals are too busy selling their services to spend time when not at work giving them away on internet forums. That doesnt tally with what i said though. If i want to know about plumbing, building regs or a car repair, or software fix i can find out from professionals in minutes, this doesnt happen with legal issues. No it doesn't.
|
|
|
Post by NigelMoore on May 13, 2017 13:31:26 GMT
It is interesting to note that exactly a year earlier than the OP, CaRT published in their 'Boater's Update' of October 2015, an interview with the Enforcement Operations Manager [Paul Griffin]. This, to put into context of the wider pertinent chronology, was over 9 months after the Ravenscroft seizure, and 4 months after CaRT's first admission that s.8 does not entitle recovery of licence fees owed by that method. Commenting on the s.8 procedure, Mr Griffin states: - “ An independent surveyor values the boat and the Trust’s contractor moves it to the closest lifting point, where the boat will be craned out and taken to a secure storage area. The owner still has the opportunity to get the boat back but will have to pay not only the outstanding debt but also all the removal costs in order to do so.
If a boat is valued at less than £3000 the Trust will consider destroying it, otherwise the contractor will hold it for six weeks before the Trust can look into selling the boat.” canalrivertrust.org.uk/refresh/media/thumbnail/24281-towpath-talk-enforcement-interview.pdfIt really does highlight the need for a binding High Court Order as to this, because the above demonstrates that what they plead in court does NOT get translated into managerial decisions by the heads of the relevant departments. No wonder they are still trying to get this aspect of the Ravenscroft claim swept under the carpet. They wish to continue doing what they acknowledge is unlawful. They would welcome the clarity otherwise.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 13, 2017 14:32:42 GMT
It is interesting to note that exactly a year earlier than the OP, CaRT published in their 'Boater's Update' of October 2015, an interview with the Enforcement Operations Manager [Paul Griffin]. This, to put into context of the wider pertinent chronology, was over 9 months after the Ravenscroft seizure, and 4 months after CaRT's first admission that s.8 does not entitle recovery of licence fees owed by that method. Commenting on the s.8 procedure, Mr Griffin states: - “ An independent surveyor values the boat and the Trust’s contractor moves it to the closest lifting point, where the boat will be craned out and taken to a secure storage area. The owner still has the opportunity to get the boat back but will have to pay not only the outstanding debt but also all the removal costs in order to do so.
If a boat is valued at less than £3000 the Trust will consider destroying it, otherwise the contractor will hold it for six weeks before the Trust can look into selling the boat.” canalrivertrust.org.uk/refresh/media/thumbnail/24281-towpath-talk-enforcement-interview.pdfIt really does highlight the need for a binding High Court Order as to this, because the above demonstrates that what they plead in court does NOT get translated into managerial decisions by the heads of the relevant departments. No wonder they are still trying to get this aspect of the Ravenscroft claim swept under the carpet. They wish to continue doing what they acknowledge is unlawful. They would welcome the clarity otherwise. Paul griffin is a prick. I have him on recording where he completely makes a twat of himself by comments made about a boat owner and his boat. He makes some very nasty vindictive remarks in a private meeting after a dwp workshop.
|
|
|
Post by NigelMoore on May 16, 2017 11:31:57 GMT
But the important thing is that it is not just the inaccuracies of a single employee's statement - which alone should concern us - this article was reproduced by CaRT who had asked Towpath Talk for permission to do so, as something obviously having met with their full approval as the institution's enforced policy!
|
|