|
Post by NigelMoore on Oct 12, 2017 20:11:57 GMT
What the results show though is that most people went for the picture that had a bit of a 'story' to it rather than one which was perfectly composed/lit/technically perfect which I think is great personally. I can accept that as a valid point of view; I took a different one. I was torn between Chagall and Delta9, but for me, although I enjoyed the colour, composition, and ‘story’, I am just too sensitive to irritation with perceived ‘wonkiness’; the offset verticals in Chagall’s were off-putting, even though rectifying that would have cut off the duck positioning – but they were too near the frame anyway. The Delta9 picture, on the other hand, was immaculately framed as well as powerfully composed and deeply atmospheric, so I voted for that one. My other favourite was Patty’s, for its lovely, almost abstract effect. Judicious cropping would have enhanced it even further.
|
|
|
Post by NigelMoore on Oct 11, 2017 21:52:01 GMT
CaRT want Peel to win so they can start selling off all the canals, or at least the ones that can make a profit. That cannot happen. CaRT have of course succeeded in gaining the Secretary of State's consent to selling off tiny increments of the national asset, which is appalling enough, but to sell whole canals would be too much of an obvious violation of the terms of the Waterways Infrastructure Trust. CaRT are not owners but merely current [and replaceable] trustees of the property placed in trust "in perpetuity" for the nation.
|
|
|
Post by NigelMoore on Oct 10, 2017 17:51:36 GMT
I think the fishing club are being silly. If dredging was to blame as they claim, is CaRT not to ever fulfil their statutory obligation to keep a minimum main navigable channel open, for fear of killing fish that would never have existed there if the canal had not been built in the first place?
That said, it would probably not be too difficult to do what CaRT do at times of draining sections down altogether – and drag net the stretch beforehand so as to keep the fish out until safe to return. Then again, much of what CaRT claim to be dredging is nothing of the sort; they prefer for several reasons to do what they call “re-profiling” instead, because in badly polluted sections [as the southern Grand Union really is], the difficulty of disposing of the dredgings is very real and very costly.
So a possible explanation is that this is what happened here; the poisonous muck was stirred up as they bulldozed it from centre to edges.
|
|
|
Post by NigelMoore on Sept 26, 2017 11:57:22 GMT
Yes. TA triple chainset with 68 teeth on the largest chainwheel. With my usual rear sprocket set it gave me 21 gears from 20" to 91". [and the bike isn't 'bendy' if constructed, set up, and ridden correctly].
I have geared it to 120" using a Moulton adaptor with 9t cog, but it was too wide a spread physically to be practical, given the short distance between front and rear.
p.s. Comparative sturdiness may be a valid criticism of the factory produced bike, but after various breakdowns during travels - requiring roadside reconstructions - I rebuilt it as designed by the inventor, using some of his hand-built prototype parts with a few extra modifications, and it never broke down since, despite years of off-road travel through deserts and over mountain goat trails.
|
|
|
Post by NigelMoore on Sept 26, 2017 0:41:44 GMT
One of the more basic versions, on the beach north of Kuala Lumpur. Probably not ‘official’.
|
|
|
Post by NigelMoore on Sept 25, 2017 23:29:22 GMT
That is the book [The Cyclist] I have just received as a birthday present from my sister! I had better read it; she was miffed at my cool response to the last one she gave me.
|
|
|
Post by NigelMoore on Sept 25, 2017 11:25:31 GMT
It has indeed, and I am told it will need to be voiced at some stage. But it hasn't finished it's touring yet .
As to that, I take some sort of comfort from my recent reading of some of Dervla Murphy's later books of her [attempted] cycling trips through Siberia at the age of 80 plus.
|
|
|
Post by NigelMoore on Sept 25, 2017 11:21:20 GMT
Thanks. It was the best sort of day for me - thrusting aside all joky cards and inflatable zimmer frames, and sprawled in the sunshine doing nothing but lose myself in fiction.
|
|
|
Post by NigelMoore on Sept 24, 2017 22:03:05 GMT
I always felt that Youth Hostels were a wonderful idea, especially when they were a standard 40c per night for a bare roof over your head. They sadly degenerated into expensive options to the point where B&B’s were more affordable. Only in “third world” countries were prices still attractive, though I took out life membership many years ago, to give me that extra option should it ever prove a favourable one. Mostly, when travelling I prefer to sleep rough, out on my own. I stayed in quite a few throughout south east Asia, though most of the time local alternative accommodation was as cheap or cheaper. They were always good though, for the occasional contact with fellow foreigners with potentially useful tips about the area. Most of the time however, I would be the only one there, let alone the only foreigner. I have my booklet somewhere , but buried too deep in some forgotten garage for me to look up, and photos were few. This is on the west coast of Malaysia, in Malacca – And in Bangkok [in the grounds of a primary school, where students could look through onto the beds from their upstairs classrooms!
|
|
|
Post by NigelMoore on Sept 24, 2017 20:54:50 GMT
Nigel Moore's hostel story is crying out to be told. Please don't keep us in suspense. Rog There is not much to the story from the Hostel angle – I hadn’t violated any YH rules, honest. There was a slight misunderstanding that I might have been an Israeli spy scoping out the Lebanese border, and after 4 days and nights of rather intensive probing, they couldn’t make their minds up, so contented themselves with taking me back to the hostel so they could confiscate my films, and see me off in a shared taxi to Amman [at my expense]. p.s. I received my films back, processed carefully in immaculate condition, two years later, having been forwarded to London in the Aussie Consulate’s diplomatic bag.
|
|
|
Post by NigelMoore on Sept 24, 2017 19:05:40 GMT
The last Youth Hostel I stayed in, Damascus, back in 1987 - Taken after 4 days and nights in an interrogation centre prior to deportation to Jordan.
|
|
|
Post by NigelMoore on Sept 24, 2017 16:55:55 GMT
Happy birthday Nigel, I hope you haven't got to read lots of legal documents today. Should have been - Leigh has a supplementary Bundle to prepare, but I have resolutely set that chore aside, and settled down to lazing in the sunshine with a novel instead. Thanks to all.
|
|
|
Post by NigelMoore on Sept 24, 2017 16:43:22 GMT
A very happy birthday to you. I see you more as a cognac and cigars man, than bubbles and cake, but may you have whatever fun you choose. Rog How very insightful; a good brandy and a Royal Jamaican Director’s Choice would have been a welcome luxury [though whisky and a pipe is my usual fare]. However my brother in law provided bubbles and cake instead – and at least it was that childhood favourite of ours, ice-cream cake, covered with frozen cream [with a bicycle leaning against a chocolate and mint palm tree atop, as he had just been looking through my Bickerton travel postings].
|
|
|
Post by NigelMoore on Sept 21, 2017 11:30:08 GMT
I should mention that Leigh lodged the necessary Core Bundle and other required Appeal documents on Monday. I have not yet spoken with him about what he wants to do regarding possible applications for allowing as yet undisclosed definitive evidence in his favour to be incorporated in a supplementary bundle.
The transcript of Judgment - relating to his application to the judge for permission to appeal – is with the judge for approval, but the discussion over it is here, wherein it can be seen that she went to some lengths to be seen as fair over the issue –
MRS JUSTICE ASPLIN: We then have to turn, as you say, to the issue of appeal. You wish to appeal in relation to all aspects of this case?
MR MOORE: Yes.
MRS JUSTICE ASPLIN: Is that right? Okay. It’s not normal, well it’s not usual, but on some occasions I ask the other side what they say about that and I’m going to ask Mr Stoner what he says.
MR STONER: My Lady, I would oppose any application for appeal. Obviously one has only had an opportunity to have a relatively speedy look at the judgment. On the point of construction, the point----
MRS JUSTICE ASPLIN: That’s something that one might consider.
MR STONER: Yes, I would going to say the point that was, will be taken against me, I think, no disrespect to Mr Moore, but if he was experienced counsel who had just been handed, would be “Well this is a point of construction”.
MRS JUSTICE ASPLIN: Well that’s partly why I have asked you to make submissions, because I felt it was fair to air these things----
MR STONER: Yes.
MRS JUSTICE ASPLIN: -- and that you would air them and then Mr Moore would be able to respond to it.
MR STONER: Thank you.
MRS JUSTICE ASPLIN: Which is why, despite the fact that it’s usually just something between me and counsel who is asking, I thought it was best that we ventilated all of this.
MR STONER: Thank you, my Lady. So, on the question of, because, for Mr Ravenscroft’s and Mr Moore’s benefit of course, points of construction are often said to be arguable points and the question is, is there an arguable case to move forward to the Court of Appeal? My opposition to that would be, on the point of construction, that in this particular case it was a relatively straightforward point of construction and one point I noted from my Lady’s judgment was that if Mr Ravenscroft’s contention was correct it would make a nonsense of the ‘71 Act, which of course is the basis upon which the waterways have been managed since the inception of or the passing of that Act in 1971. So, yes, in theory points of construction can be arguable, but this is not such a point in my submission. It is in fact a relatively clear cut point and certainly a point that if Mr Ravenscroft wishes to pursue the appeal he should be asking the Court of Appeal as to whether they consider there to be merit in that.
MRS JUSTICE ASPLIN: What about there being a, the test, Mr Moore, is whether there’s a real prospect of success in relation to any issue and, secondly and alternatively, whether there is a compelling reason why an appeal should go forwards. So why isn’t there a compelling reason in relation to construction, Mr Stoner?
MR STONER: What I would say is effectively piggybacking on my first submission, because (1), again for Mr Moore and Mr Ravenscroft, I’m sure it would be said there’s a compelling reason because it was agreed that this was a point of some importance----
MRS JUSTICE ASPLIN: Yes.
MR STONER: -- in relation to the waterways and, of course, we agree with that. We always have. But, in my submission, it still ultimately comes back, the point of importance in this case, just on the point of construction, will still feed back into the strength of the point of construction and if there’s a point of construction which I’m wrong and my Lady considers that it’s an, there’s an arguable case, then one could say there’s also the compelling ground. But if I’m right and in fact this is a relatively clear cut case, then there isn’t the other ground, because it can’t be another compelling reason simply to have a second hearing, when there’s a comprehensive judgment and the matter has taken the time in this division.
MRS JUSTICE ASPLIN: Hmm mm.
MR STONER: So that’s what I say on that. In relation to the proportionality and the Art.8, in my submission, and this also goes to the question of distress, one of the fundamental difficulties with Mr Ravenscroft’s claim was to assert, as a fundamental principle, that the boat was taken because of the license arrears and, of course, my submissions, and as I read or have read my Lady’s judgment, it was accepted that the boat was removed because it was unlicensed, not because of the judgment arrears. So there is little or no prospect, in my submission, of that finding being overturned in the Court of Appeal.
Then one looks at the question of the proportionality and the s.8 and the proper operation of s.8. There is no ground-breaking legal principle and it is really an application and, as with all proportionality/human rights, it’s a detailed application of the facts on this particular case, but once that fundamental point is corrected there’s no grounds, in my submission, meeting the test on that particular aspect.
Then one comes to distraint and the Statute of Marlborough and, again, based on the point I’ve already made about the fundamental premise, there was, therefore, no distraint. Therefore, the Statute of Marlborough simply isn’t engaged and there’s also the difficulty of the confusion in the claimant’s case as to the two provisions relied upon. The 2007 Act, again, simply not engaged in this particular case, so there’s nothing there. So, for all of those reasons, I oppose any application for permission. Of course, it’s within Mr Ravenscroft’s gift to seek permission from the Court of Appeal and I think I have mentioned in discussion when we were here in May that, to Mr Moore about the rule change, where it is now a paper application and there won’t necessarily be an oral hearing in the Court of Appeal.
MRS JUSTICE ASPLIN: Thank you. Mr Moore, I took that course so that you also saw the shape of these kind of submissions and also the battleground. Is there anything you want to say now?
MR MOORE: Just very briefly, my Lady, because obviously I will need to find out from Mr Ravenscroft, you know, the extent of his feelings on all the different aspects to this and also discuss what has been said this morning and what is important and what is possible going forward. Basically, I would say on his behalf that the issue of construction is one that is not only important, but it is something that has had quite a few aspects to it, especially with the fact that this is a private act. I haven’t comprehensively read through all of your judgment, so I haven’t seen whether you’ve made any, you lit upon the private act aspect of it or not, but I would say that there is definitely room for argument in that.
Briefly on the issues, for example, of proportionality, I know Mr Ravenscroft has a simplistic view on this, that if you’re required to have something and you don’t then the most direct application of a remedy is always going to be more proportionate than something which, however, in certain circumstances, lawful it may be, has the result of costing ten times as much as, or, you know, as the alternative remedy.
As far as the distress point, he feels that he was at least entitled to an order that s.8 was not designed for the recovery of alleged license arrears. So I can’t say anything more than that without having discussed and gone through your judgment very much more, my Lady.
MRS JUSTICE ASPLIN: I am very grateful. Thank you, Mr Moore.
|
|
|
Post by NigelMoore on Sept 21, 2017 11:14:39 GMT
Have just received the transcript of the final throes of the handing down of judgment. An excerpt relating to costs: -
MRS JUSTICE ASPLIN: One sees in the third recital that it says: “UPON hearing the Claimant’s application with a statement of truth dated 1st December 2015 that he be granted permission to have assistance from Mr Nigel Moore as a McKenzie Friend and for Mr Nigel Moore to have rights of audience”. Then one goes over, “IT IS ORDERED:” (1) that that is granted and (2) that the costs of that application, which when you then look back at the recital is the application for you to speak on behalf of Mr Ravenscroft, that that be costs in the case. So that means in fact that it goes with the decision; those costs go with who wins. Overall, the answer to that is that CRT have won, so those costs are also paid by Mr Ravenscroft, I’m afraid. I think that I would have made a different order, but that is what the order says.
MR MOORE: All I can comment on that, my Lady, is that it wasn’t really how Mr Ravenscroft understood it. He thought that it meant there was something yet to be decided, that they won one application, he won the other. They should cancel each other out on a, on a fair basis of balancing out things.
MRS JUSTICE ASPLIN: Well that is the order----
MR MOORE: Yes.
MRS JUSTICE ASPLIN: -- which was made by Chief Master Marsh. There’s no question that it’s not the order that was made. There is no appeal against that order and anyway it would be too late and it’s not an order made by me. It’s not, therefore, for me to change it and I’m afraid that’s what it says. So there’s nothing that I can do about that right now. So it seems as if that is the position. In fact, that is the position. It seems, therefore, that the precedent H, and I think, I don’t know whether you’ve got a copy of that, which is this----
MR MOORE: No.
MRS JUSTICE ASPLIN: -- form in relation to costs, suggests that the full amount which could be claimed by CRT was the 81,000 odd figure, but in fact there was a sum, which is in relation to, it’s the £4,800, which is the penultimate item in the right hand column, which is in fact in relation to that very issue. So we seem to be coming round the house, Mr Stoner, in relation to why you’ve got to £76,000. MR STONER: We do. I think it was, I said wrongly that it was in relation to the strike out, and, of course, having, my Lady having gone to that order----
MRS JUSTICE ASPLIN: Hmm.
MR STONER: -- obviously there was for 9,000 and the reason that there’s a disparity is it was a different sum. So, in fact, it’s my error. The 4,800 should in fact be included, because it was in relation to the costs.
MRS JUSTICE ASPLIN: Yes.
MR STONER: So it is just the 81,000 figure. I apologise to everyone for that.
MRS JUSTICE ASPLIN: Yes, so Mr Stoner was assuming that that 4,800 had to come off and it seems to me that that figure was in relation to the very costs that we’ve just been talking about, Mr Moore.
MR MOORE: Right.
MRS JUSTICE ASPLIN: About your acting and speaking on behalf of Mr Ravenscroft. So, in fact, Mr Stoner I think went down a bit of a cul-de-sac there in relation to whether that amount should come off the 81,000.
So in short, because Leigh lost the whole case, he has to pay the £4,800 CaRT claim it cost them to oppose my assistance, even though he won on that issue.
|
|