|
Post by kris on Aug 28, 2022 12:21:09 GMT
The fact that you give an address in order to be provided a liscence is the same as agreeing to their t&c’s it’s done under duress. It’s legally questionable, but still to be tested in law. But at best it gives crt a plausible deniability defence in any legal case. But this could be legally undermined pretty easily by the fact their own data and employees experience would make them aware of how many people live on boats. So if and when it’s tested in court on probability they would be found to have a duty of care. They know this which is why without the benefit of a legal ruling, they are trying to put responsibility onto councils. The fact is they have a duty of care to provide ammenities this just awaits legal confirmation.
|
|
|
Post by metanoia on Aug 28, 2022 19:07:00 GMT
I do know they check boat status closely ?
|
|
|
Post by Tony Dunkley on Aug 28, 2022 19:44:22 GMT
Don't look a gift horse in the mouth. Weird entitlememt problems. You got a great deal there. Deal with it. yes a very strange sense of entitlement, to think you might be entitled to somewhere to empty your bins. Or fancy feeling so entitled that you dare to think you might be entitled to access to a working tap. Let alone thinking you might be entitled to being able to empty your elsan in a clean safe environment. Crt can’t have it both ways. They have been taking money from livaboard boaters for years, both mooring fees and liscences. So if they like it or not they have a duty of care to boaters who live on there waterways. I’ve got a feeling this will come in front of a court quite shortly. In what form ?
|
|
|
Post by metanoia on Aug 28, 2022 19:49:06 GMT
The fact that you give an address in order to be provided a liscence is the same as agreeing to their t&c’s it’s done under duress. It’s legally questionable, but still to be tested in law. But at best it gives crt a plausible deniability defence in any legal case. But this could be legally undermined pretty easily by the fact their own data and employees experience would make them aware of how many people live on boats. So if and when it’s tested in court on probability they would be found to have a duty of care. They know this which is why without the benefit of a legal ruling, they are trying to put responsibility onto councils. The fact is they have a duty of care to provide ammenities this just awaits legal confirmation. There was certainly that feeling when reading the "boater census".. much emphasis on where you are rather than where you actually cruise - and making assumptions that you stay in one area.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 28, 2022 19:59:49 GMT
Eta reply to Tony
One imagines it might be related to the militant wing of CRT known as the NBTA.
shoot yourself in the foot innit.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 28, 2022 20:02:36 GMT
The fact that you give an address in order to be provided a liscence is the same as agreeing to their t&c’s it’s done under duress. It’s legally questionable, but still to be tested in law. But at best it gives crt a plausible deniability defence in any legal case. But this could be legally undermined pretty easily by the fact their own data and employees experience would make them aware of how many people live on boats. So if and when it’s tested in court on probability they would be found to have a duty of care. They know this which is why without the benefit of a legal ruling, they are trying to put responsibility onto councils. The fact is they have a duty of care to provide ammenities this just awaits legal confirmation. There was certainly that feeling when reading the "boater census".. much emphasis on where you are rather than where you actually cruise - and making assumptions that you stay in one area. Maybe they have finally worked it out. Putting towpaths under council control as local amenities including mooring is blatantly obvious. It is so obvious its silly.
|
|
|
Post by kris on Aug 28, 2022 20:19:06 GMT
The fact that you give an address in order to be provided a liscence is the same as agreeing to their t&c’s it’s done under duress. It’s legally questionable, but still to be tested in law. But at best it gives crt a plausible deniability defence in any legal case. But this could be legally undermined pretty easily by the fact their own data and employees experience would make them aware of how many people live on boats. So if and when it’s tested in court on probability they would be found to have a duty of care. They know this which is why without the benefit of a legal ruling, they are trying to put responsibility onto councils. The fact is they have a duty of care to providemmenities this just awaits legal confirmation. There was certainly that feeling when reading the "boater census".. much emphasis on where you are rather than where you actually cruise - and making assumptions that you stay in one area. I haven't looked at the cenus, because whatever it’s for it’s not for the benefit of boaters. If it’s like the other times they’ve had questinars etc. They’ve just gone ahead and done what they like anyway.
|
|
|
Post by Tony Dunkley on Aug 28, 2022 20:24:57 GMT
Don't look a gift horse in the mouth. Weird entitlememt problems. You got a great deal there. Deal with it. yes a very strange sense of entitlement, to think you might be entitled to somewhere to empty your bins. Or fancy feeling so entitled that you dare to think you might be entitled to access to a working tap. Let alone thinking you might be entitled to being able to empty your elsan in a clean safe environment. Crt can’t have it both ways. They have been taking money from livaboard boaters for years, both mooring fees and liscences. So if they like it or not they have a duty of care to boaters who live on there waterways. I’ve got a feeling this will come in front of a court quite shortly. In what form ?
|
|
|
Post by kris on Aug 28, 2022 20:36:06 GMT
Thinking about it. Crt actually get what passes for housing benefit payments for moorings and liscences from the goverment. So there is no plausibility deniability. They have a duty of care towards people who live on boats on the waters they are “responsible,” for.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 28, 2022 20:38:04 GMT
earwigoagain
|
|
|
Post by Tony Dunkley on Aug 28, 2022 20:42:45 GMT
The fact that you give an address in order to be provided a liscence is the same as agreeing to their t&c’s it’s done under duress. It’s legally questionable, but still to be tested in law. But at best it gives crt a plausible deniability defence in any legal case. But this could be legally undermined pretty easily by the fact their own data and employees experience would make them aware of how many people live on boats. So if and when it’s tested in court on probability they would be found to have a duty of care. They know this which is why without the benefit of a legal ruling, they are trying to put responsibility onto councils. The fact is they have a duty of care to provide ammenities this just awaits legal confirmation. Defence against what ?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 28, 2022 20:58:45 GMT
What happens if you want to licence a boat but have no address to declare?
|
|
|
Post by naughtyfox on Aug 29, 2022 6:53:14 GMT
Never mind. I expect Rishi Sunak and Priti Patel care deeply about Kris and think about him often. Anyway, Richard Parry & Pals Ltd best keep their distance from Kris as he's read 'The Art of War' written by some Chinese person and has said that he is a proponent of 'direct action'.
|
|
|
Post by Tony Dunkley on Aug 29, 2022 8:01:21 GMT
The fact that you give an address in order to be provided a liscence is the same as agreeing to their t&c’s it’s done under duress. It’s legally questionable, but still to be tested in law. But at best it gives crt a plausible deniability defence in any legal case. But this could be legally undermined pretty easily by the fact their own data and employees experience would make them aware of how many people live on boats. So if and when it’s tested in court on probability they would be found to have a duty of care. They know this which is why without the benefit of a legal ruling, they are trying to put responsibility onto councils. The fact is they have a duty of care to provide ammenities this just awaits legal confirmation. Providing your address is part of the usual process of applying for a licence, . . ANY type of licence, from any sort of licensing authority, . . 'duress' doesn't come into it. Being coerced by C&RT into putting your name to a set of T&C's drawn up in the main for the purpose of imposing conditions and sanctions beyond it's statutory powers is something else altogether. What, in God's name, is a "plausible deniability defence", . . and what would C&RT be defending itself against with such a thing ? How about, say, . . coming up with something to put C&RT into a position that could lead to it having to defend itself against breach of contract, . . the 'contract' that C&RT falsely claim the issuing of boat licences subject to its ultra vires T&C's is under S.43 of the 1963 Transport Act, . . the contract that the NBTA and the Community Law Partnership appear to have swallowed whole on nothing more than C&RT's Illegal & Connivance Services say so ?
|
|
|
Post by kris on Aug 29, 2022 9:17:30 GMT
Is Tony really expecting me to reply to him?
|
|