|
Post by Jim on Dec 23, 2021 11:59:54 GMT
What's wrong with picking on idiots who moor badly, those of you who approve, how long should they be able to stay badly moored? The idiots get a talking to, awarded with a move along certificate, but no serious action is taken for 28 days. River Lee is a different issue, pandering to rich rowers.
|
|
|
Post by wandering on Dec 23, 2021 12:19:16 GMT
My view is that there is scope for both approaches to attempt to hold the monopoly that is CRT to account. Boaters have got a choice of which type of group, if any, to support.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 23, 2021 12:22:16 GMT
My view is that there is scope for both approaches to attempt to hold the monopoly that is CRT to account. Boaters have got a choice of which type of group, if any, to support. I think most will support the one that’s actually making the effort rather than the one claiming it.
|
|
|
Post by Jim on Dec 23, 2021 12:23:12 GMT
NABO has and continues to criticise and get legal advice on the T&C's from the moment the first draft was published, some of which were then removed; has helped fund legal advice on the River Lee issues; has strongly objected to the use of District Enforcement when the EA began to use them (who cancelled the contract) and continues to regard their use as totally inappropriate by CRT. These are just a very few of the on-going boater issues that NABO are actively engaged with so if you would like to support and keep up to date with all that NABO quietly do, maybe sometimes from their armchairs but mainly face to face with CRT, please join them, you would be so much better informe The only funding nabo did towards the river lee was a donation through nbta. care to give me any examples or situations where nabo has backed an individual wronged by crt? You can’t, because we all know nabo has done f all for years. The only criticism nabo gives, is on social media. Nabo has no legal representation whatsoever, hence why the likes of tizard etc are constantly scavenging social media for info. All a bit of a joke really. Both nabo and IWA have become joke shops, whilst nbta are constantly helping boat owners with legal advice, and on the ground representation by means of intermediaries. Nabo likes to claim all sorts of successes for themselves, when in truth they ride bareback on other organisations, and seek to thrive of other’s successes. You’re obviously a member, but not very well informed. (Even though you think you are, or perhaps you’re just the naive type). Nabo is doing more than the ACC then. How many members does that have these days? Mostly seems publish wind and piss on t'interweb.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 23, 2021 12:26:12 GMT
The only funding nabo did towards the river lee was a donation through nbta. care to give me any examples or situations where nabo has backed an individual wronged by crt? You can’t, because we all know nabo has done f all for years. The only criticism nabo gives, is on social media. Nabo has no legal representation whatsoever, hence why the likes of tizard etc are constantly scavenging social media for info. All a bit of a joke really. Both nabo and IWA have become joke shops, whilst nbta are constantly helping boat owners with legal advice, and on the ground representation by means of intermediaries. Nabo likes to claim all sorts of successes for themselves, when in truth they ride bareback on other organisations, and seek to thrive of other’s successes. You’re obviously a member, but not very well informed. (Even though you think you are, or perhaps you’re just the naive type). Nabo is doing more than the ACC then. How many members does that have these days? Mostly seems publish wind and piss on t'interweb. Go back to your porn sites jimbo, keep tugging your brain cell. Your iq doesn’t really have the facility for these conversations.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 23, 2021 12:27:08 GMT
Up the AAC
|
|
|
Post by Jim on Dec 23, 2021 12:28:41 GMT
Nabo is doing more than the ACC then. How many members does that have these days? Mostly seems publish wind and piss on t'interweb. Go back to your porn sites jimbo, keep tugging your brain cell. Your iq doesn’t really have the facility for these conversations. Bright enough to spell IQ with capitals. Get nurse to check your spelling.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 23, 2021 12:32:35 GMT
No wonder CRT get away with things - boaters just like a good diss of other boaters.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 23, 2021 13:00:14 GMT
|
|
|
Post by kris on Dec 24, 2021 10:26:29 GMT
What's wrong with picking on idiots who moor badly, those of you who approve, how long should they be able to stay badly moored? The idiots get a talking to, awarded with a move along certificate, but no serious action is taken for 28 days. River Lee is a different issue, pandering to rich rowers. The problem with this new, procedure is that it is trying to usurp the present legislation let alone carts own procedures. The next step is to seize the boat for no liscence. Unless the boater is clever the question about the real issue why the liscence has been revoked is never brought before a court. Far to crafty a policy for a third sector organisation, me thinks. Yes there has been an increase in idiots on the water and the number of boats that moor in stupid places. Most organisations would be providing more services for the increased customer base. But not cart, oh no they in tend to take peoples boats. The question is why don’t they use the current legislation and prosecute for breaking bye laws ? They would rather try and usurp the law. This is how arrogant Richard parry’s cart has become. This nonsense will only persist until the core issue is brought before the appropriate authority.
|
|
|
Post by Telemachus on Dec 24, 2021 18:23:49 GMT
What's wrong with picking on idiots who moor badly, those of you who approve, how long should they be able to stay badly moored? The idiots get a talking to, awarded with a move along certificate, but no serious action is taken for 28 days. River Lee is a different issue, pandering to rich rowers. The problem with this new, procedure is that it is trying to usurp the present legislation let alone carts own procedures. The next step is to seize the boat for no liscence. Unless the boater is clever the question about the real issue why the liscence has been revoked is never brought before a court. Far to crafty a policy for a third sector organisation, me thinks. Yes there has been an increase in idiots on the water and the number of boats that moor in stupid places. Most organisations would be providing more services for the increased customer base. But not cart, oh no they in tend to take peoples boats. The question is why don’t they use the current legislation and prosecute for breaking bye laws ? They would rather try and usurp the law. This is how arrogant Richard parry’s cart has become. This nonsense will only persist until the core issue is brought before the appropriate authority. I do agree that CRT shouldn’t be trying to usurp the 1995 act etc. But set against that is what I suspect is the practical difficulty of bringing a bylaw prosecution against a “no fixed abode” boater. The courts are dysfunctional enough even for “normal” stuff, but when you add in the difficulty of summoning a nfa person who chooses not to play the game, I can just see the courts moving it onto the “too difficult” pile to languish gathering dust. And of course none of this would be necessary if it wasn’t for a small minority of selfish idiots.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 24, 2021 18:43:02 GMT
The problem with this new, procedure is that it is trying to usurp the present legislation let alone carts own procedures. The next step is to seize the boat for no liscence. Unless the boater is clever the question about the real issue why the liscence has been revoked is never brought before a court. Far to crafty a policy for a third sector organisation, me thinks. Yes there has been an increase in idiots on the water and the number of boats that moor in stupid places. Most organisations would be providing more services for the increased customer base. But not cart, oh no they in tend to take peoples boats. The question is why don’t they use the current legislation and prosecute for breaking bye laws ? They would rather try and usurp the law. This is how arrogant Richard parry’s cart has become. This nonsense will only persist until the core issue is brought before the appropriate authority. I do agree that CRT shouldn’t be trying to usurp the 1995 act etc. But set against that is what I suspect is the practical difficulty of bringing a bylaw prosecution against a “no fixed abode” boater. The courts are dysfunctional enough even for “normal” stuff, but when you add in the difficulty of summoning a nfa person who chooses not to play the game, I can just see the courts moving it onto the “too difficult” pile to languish gathering dust. And of course none of this would be necessary if it wasn’t for a small minority of selfish idiots. I remember NigelMoore going on about the byelaw thing. I believe in a lot of cases your NFA comment probably doesn't apply although I suspect you could be right in terms of the majority. There is something else going on, slightly awkward to work out what it is. Some people assume it is vindictiveness. Which seems unlikely but not impossible. I mean you could get a Hitler type person who has a pathological hatred of liveaboard gits and also influence in CRT policy. Certainly not impossible. Others assume it is a heavy handed maximum publicity approach to discourage others, which is quite likely. I reckon it's got quite a lot to do with the level of fines related to byelaw offences. Yes there will be some people who are NFA and CBA etc but there will be some who just won't be deterred by the fines. And also, how easy is it to actually collect these fines if and when they get applied by a court ? Something tells me the accountants are in on this and have done a spreadsheet. A really intriguing case at the moment is the Trotman slum barges at the bottom end of the non tidal Thames. Basically the bloke has been letting box cabins on several unsafe converted lighter barges for over a decade, mooring the boats in blatantly illegal positions and really taking the piss badly. While raking in shed loads of cash. Finally the Environment Agency get him convicted of byelaw offences. "Sentencing in January". If it's just byelaw fines on the standard scale that's not going to stop the problem. If the boats had been lifted and transported hundred miles away that would help! But they are far too big for road transport. Not comparable to canal boats but I think there is method in this CRT action at the end of the day. They are worried about something.
|
|
|
Post by Telemachus on Dec 24, 2021 18:58:34 GMT
I do agree that CRT shouldn’t be trying to usurp the 1995 act etc. But set against that is what I suspect is the practical difficulty of bringing a bylaw prosecution against a “no fixed abode” boater. The courts are dysfunctional enough even for “normal” stuff, but when you add in the difficulty of summoning a nfa person who chooses not to play the game, I can just see the courts moving it onto the “too difficult” pile to languish gathering dust. And of course none of this would be necessary if it wasn’t for a small minority of selfish idiots. I remember NigelMoore going on about the byelaw thing. I believe in a lot of cases your NFA comment probably doesn't apply although I suspect you could be right in terms of the majority. There is something else going on, slightly awkward to work out what it is. Some people assume it is vindictiveness. Which seems unlikely but not impossible. I mean you could get a Hitler type person who has a pathological hatred of liveaboard gits and also influence in CRT policy. Certainly not impossible. Others assume it is a heavy handed maximum publicity approach to discourage others, which is quite likely. I reckon it's got quite a lot to do with the level of fines related to byelaw offences. Yes there will be some people who are NFA and CBA etc but there will be some who just won't be deterred by the fines. And also, how easy is it to actually collect these fines if and when they get applied by a court ? Something tells me the accountants are in on this and have done a spreadsheet. A really intriguing case at the moment is the Trotman slum barges at the bottom end of the non tidal Thames. Basically the bloke has been letting box cabins on several unsafe converted lighter barges for over a decade, mooring the boats in blatantly illegal positions and really taking the piss badly. While raking in shed loads of cash. Finally the Environment Agency get him convicted of byelaw offences. "Sentencing in January". If it's just byelaw fines on the standard scale that's not going to stop the problem. If the boats had been lifted and transported hundred miles away that would help! But they are far too big for road transport. Not comparable to canal boats but I think there is method in this CRT action at the end of the day. They are worried about something. Yes in the case of Trotman he is probably quite happy to pay a fine, it will be a tiny % of his income from the venture. But anyway I come back to the fact that many, many live aboard boaters manage to go about their lives without pissing off other boaters or CRT, and so are never on CRT’s radar. So I rather disagree with the “CRT is out to get live aboard boaters”. Rather, it is “CRT are out to get boaters who take the piss and abuse the facility and make a nuisance of themselves.”
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 24, 2021 19:03:08 GMT
Things have changed over the years and in some areas it has got pretty bad.
A lot of this sort of thing tends to be focused on the "London problem" and the slums in some areas.
Nobody wants to see slums. Canals should ideally be pleasant places to take the kids out and get run over by idiot cyclists.
Less awful slum boats and half sunk wrecks wood definitely be an improvement.
Making life better by water does not include the slums ! Bye bye slums and anyone who gets swept aside in the process just deal with it you are a part of the problem not the solution..
This is why I was thinking of getting a caravan.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 24, 2021 20:15:07 GMT
I remember NigelMoore going on about the byelaw thing. I believe in a lot of cases your NFA comment probably doesn't apply although I suspect you could be right in terms of the majority. There is something else going on, slightly awkward to work out what it is. Some people assume it is vindictiveness. Which seems unlikely but not impossible. I mean you could get a Hitler type person who has a pathological hatred of liveaboard gits and also influence in CRT policy. Certainly not impossible. Others assume it is a heavy handed maximum publicity approach to discourage others, which is quite likely. I reckon it's got quite a lot to do with the level of fines related to byelaw offences. Yes there will be some people who are NFA and CBA etc but there will be some who just won't be deterred by the fines. And also, how easy is it to actually collect these fines if and when they get applied by a court ? Something tells me the accountants are in on this and have done a spreadsheet. A really intriguing case at the moment is the Trotman slum barges at the bottom end of the non tidal Thames. Basically the bloke has been letting box cabins on several unsafe converted lighter barges for over a decade, mooring the boats in blatantly illegal positions and really taking the piss badly. While raking in shed loads of cash. Finally the Environment Agency get him convicted of byelaw offences. "Sentencing in January". If it's just byelaw fines on the standard scale that's not going to stop the problem. If the boats had been lifted and transported hundred miles away that would help! But they are far too big for road transport. Not comparable to canal boats but I think there is method in this CRT action at the end of the day. They are worried about something. So I rather disagree with the “CRT is out to get live aboard boaters”. You always will and always have, no matter what. Crt policy is and always has been to rid the waterways of liveaboard boaters with no mooring. They have recently realised that this will be a long drawn out process, but have nonetheless set the ball rolling. It does not, or will not effect you, and owing to this fact plus your disinterest, your knowledge of the subject will be extremely poor.
|
|