Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 21, 2017 15:44:37 GMT
Well, it saddens me. On the brief face to face in court, I allowed myself a faint hope that he was made of more honourable stuff. The fledgling respect has died before having had a chance to spread its wings. The comments were not, after all, an off the cuff bit of carelessness; this was a considered Internal Review of how CaRT had handled the relevant request. I think you need to accept that if shit is developed there, the smell, and further development of shit will never end. With CRT, the shit has literally soaked into the walls. The condition will never change, until it's knocked down, buried under a motorway, and rebuilt from scratch.
|
|
|
Post by erivers on Jul 21, 2017 15:54:01 GMT
Sad indeed.
It seems to me that Richard should now consider referring this to the Information Commissioner's Office.
The FoI request was for factual information which, in almost all circumstances the Trust is statutorily obliged to provide. Whilst it appears that they may at times give scant regard to their own governing statutes they need to be brought to account in accordance with other legislation that doesn't allow them to attempt to play judge and jury.
|
|
|
Post by Allan on Jul 21, 2017 19:45:38 GMT
Sad indeed. It seems to me that Richard should now consider referring this to the Information Commissioner's Office. The FoI request was for factual information which, in almost all circumstances the Trust is statutorily obliged to provide. Whilst it appears that they may at times give scant regard to their own governing statutes they need to be brought to account in accordance with other legislation that doesn't allow them to attempt to play judge and jury Sometimes requesting information which you believe is not held can show that an authority has set out to mislead - www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/british_waterways_act_1971_secti
|
|
|
Post by naughtyfox on Jul 21, 2017 22:02:51 GMT
As I've suggested, a proper public inquiry into the asset-stripping and salaries the management award themselves. But, as with the Grenfell Tower fiasco, it will be "very sorry, I sympathise" and lots-of-pots of whitewash all the way.
|
|
|
Post by TonyDunkley on Jul 21, 2017 22:30:57 GMT
Well, it saddens me. On the brief face to face in court, I allowed myself a faint hope that he was made of more honourable stuff. The fledgling respect has died before having had a chance to spread its wings. The comments were not, after all, an off the cuff bit of carelessness; this was a considered Internal Review of how CaRT had handled the relevant request. I think that some of the C&RT 'in house' legal staff, especially the longer serving ones like Deards, have been so thoroughly indoctrinated and have actively participated in the corporate ethos of lying and invention for so long that they are now actually beginning to believe the tripe they spout themselves. I really don't think that they can any longer distinguish between fiction and reality.
|
|
|
Post by tadworth on Jul 22, 2017 14:13:57 GMT
I don't see where this FOI request can go now, there is no way to counter a claim that sect 43 gives CaRT the statutory power to do anything it wants, however ridiculous that is, unless its taken to court, until that happens they can in fact do what they want.
|
|
|
Post by TonyDunkley on Jul 22, 2017 16:01:22 GMT
I don't see where this FOI request can go now, there is no way to counter a claim that sect 43 gives CaRT the statutory power to do anything it wants, however ridiculous that is, unless its taken to court, until that happens they can in fact do what they want. Let's just sit back and wait to see how they try to squirm out of the follow-up FoI Request that Allan sent yesterday. C&RT can only get away with doing as they like if we allow them to do so, . . . . wearing them down bit by bit is the way to go. We need as many folk as possible flatly refusing to agree to the T&C's when renewing Licences and PBC's so as to force C&RT to either admit defeat by shutting-up about their ultra vires T&C's, or run a series of easily sabotaged, no-hope Section 8/Part 8 County Court claims that they are forced to discontinue via pre-trial compliance with their unlawful demands. Repeated frequently enough, the costly futility of it all, would eventually make even the most dedicated and fanatical members of Parry's 'einsatzgruppen' come to regard it as a waste of time, effort and money. If they can be goaded into initiating a number of, to all intents and purposes, identical and equally pointless actions that ultimately go nowhere for the same reasons, then the spectre of the Trust, and it's Trustees, being branded as vexatious litigants, would also begin to enter their reckoning.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 22, 2017 16:15:20 GMT
I don't see where this FOI request can go now, there is no way to counter a claim that sect 43 gives CaRT the statutory power to do anything it wants, however ridiculous that is, unless its taken to court, until that happens they can in fact do what they want. Let's just sit back and wait to see how they try to squirm out of the follow-up FoI Request that Allan sent yesterday. C&RT can only get away with doing as they like if we allow them to do so, . . . . wearing them down bit by bit is the way to go. We need as many folk as possible flatly refusing to agree to the T&C's when renewing Licences and PBC's so as to force C&RT to either admit defeat by shutting-up about their ultra vires T&C's, or run a series of easily sabotaged, no-hope Section 8/Part 8 County Court claims that they are forced to discontinue via pre-trial compliance with their unlawful demands. Repeated frequently enough, the costly futility of it all, would eventually make even the most dedicated and fanatical members of Parry's 'einsatzgruppen' come to regard it as a waste of time, effort and money. If they can be goaded into initiating a number of, to all intents and purposes, identical and equally pointless actions that ultimately go nowhere for the same reasons, then the spectre of the Trust, and it's Trustees, being branded as vexatious litigants, would also begin to enter their reckoning. In 2011, a judge at one hearing did actually state that BW were getting close to being vexatious, and that some within the law were getting a little tired of their games. Parry seems to be the "man of court". It's his only reply to most things, getting pretty pathetic really.
|
|
|
Post by tadworth on Jul 22, 2017 16:43:47 GMT
I don't see where this FOI request can go now, there is no way to counter a claim that sect 43 gives CaRT the statutory power to do anything it wants, however ridiculous that is, unless its taken to court, until that happens they can in fact do what they want. Let's just sit back and wait to see how they try to squirm out of the follow-up FoI Request that Allan sent yesterday. C&RT can only get away with doing as they like if we allow them to do so, . . . . wearing them down bit by bit is the way to go. We need as many folk as possible flatly refusing to agree to the T&C's when renewing Licences and PBC's so as to force C&RT to either admit defeat by shutting-up about their ultra vires T&C's, or run a series of easily sabotaged, no-hope Section 8/Part 8 County Court claims that they are forced to discontinue via pre-trial compliance with their unlawful demands. Repeated frequently enough, the costly futility of it all, would eventually make even the most dedicated and fanatical members of Parry's 'einsatzgruppen' come to regard it as a waste of time, effort and money. If they can be goaded into initiating a number of, to all intents and purposes, identical and equally pointless actions that ultimately go nowhere for the same reasons, then the spectre of the Trust, and it's Trustees, being branded as vexatious litigants, would also begin to enter their reckoning. That depends on an organised number of boaters all acting in unison, a number more than CaRT can afford to bully, and with a good legal backup to defend themselves in court. The implications for CaRT loosing that battle would be all their licencing and enforcement present and future plans would be trashed, I would think loosing would not be an option for them.
|
|
|
Post by TonyDunkley on Jul 22, 2017 17:10:49 GMT
Let's just sit back and wait to see how they try to squirm out of the follow-up FoI Request that Allan sent yesterday. C&RT can only get away with doing as they like if we allow them to do so, . . . . wearing them down bit by bit is the way to go. We need as many folk as possible flatly refusing to agree to the T&C's when renewing Licences and PBC's so as to force C&RT to either admit defeat by shutting-up about their ultra vires T&C's, or run a series of easily sabotaged, no-hope Section 8/Part 8 County Court claims that they are forced to discontinue via pre-trial compliance with their unlawful demands. Repeated frequently enough, the costly futility of it all, would eventually make even the most dedicated and fanatical members of Parry's 'einsatzgruppen' come to regard it as a waste of time, effort and money. If they can be goaded into initiating a number of, to all intents and purposes, identical and equally pointless actions that ultimately go nowhere for the same reasons, then the spectre of the Trust, and it's Trustees, being branded as vexatious litigants, would also begin to enter their reckoning. In 2011, a judge at one hearing did actually state that BW were getting close to being vexatious, and that some within the law were getting a little tired of their games. . . . . . That's useful to know, . . . any more details ?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 22, 2017 17:33:24 GMT
In 2011, a judge at one hearing did actually state that BW were getting close to being vexatious, and that some within the law were getting a little tired of their games. . . . . . That's useful to know, . . . any more details ? Not really anymore from it. The comment was made at one of the meetings I attended when we initially started talking about roving mooring permits. They were looking for options that would steer them away from court cases. That little snippet popped out and sort of silenced the room. 😂
|
|
|
Post by TonyDunkley on Jul 22, 2017 19:06:01 GMT
That's useful to know, . . . any more details ? Not really anymore from it. The comment was made at one of the meetings I attended when we initially started talking about roving mooring permits. They were looking for options that would steer them away from court cases. That little snippet popped out and sort of silenced the room. 😂 Can you remember the year, or who said it, . . . anything at all ? I've long thought that it should be possible to lead C&RT down the vexatious litigant path, . . . after all they work hard enough themselves in fulfilling the primary requirement by way of constructing cases that are totally devoid of merit, which is why they invariably do their best to avoid judicial scrutiny or having to prove or argue anything in Court by adopting the Part 8 procedure from the Civil Procedure Rules.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 22, 2017 19:26:34 GMT
Not really anymore from it. The comment was made at one of the meetings I attended when we initially started talking about roving mooring permits. They were looking for options that would steer them away from court cases. That little snippet popped out and sort of silenced the room. 😂 Can you remember the year, or who said it, . . . anything at all ? I've long thought that it should be possible to lead C&RT down the vexatious litigant path, . . . after all they work hard enough themselves in fulfilling the primary requirement by way of constructing cases that are totally devoid of merit, which is why they invariably do their best to avoid judicial scrutiny or having to prove or argue anything in Court by adopting the Part 8 procedure from the Civil Procedure Rules. The person who blurted it out has left, as for the year, it was late 2011 to early 2012. It's Not really worth anything Tony, other than the knowledge of knowing that at least some were getting well pissed off with BW and its love affair with courts. I did try to see if it was worth anything, but at the end of the day, whose going to admit anything? I took satisfaction in hoping that a continuation of cases would throw petrol on the flames, however, the courts seem to be grabbing at anything to feed themselves now legal aid has gone.
|
|
|
Post by NigelMoore on Jul 22, 2017 20:16:00 GMT
This just might be pertinent to jenlyn's comment - the Judge in Leigh's case was dismayed that CaRT were prepared to go to the lengths of fighting Leigh in the High Court [albeit that it was Leigh who brought the case and wanted it there]. She twice adjourned proceedings on the first day to give the parties a chance to work something out, but while Leigh was willing to do so, CaRT were not. Hence some closing submissions on Mr Stoner's part:
“MR STONER: The only other point I wanted to make was just to say a few words as to why I have just made all the submissions I have, and why we are here, lest there be any confusion from Monday. The first point, of course, is that the Trust were sued, and the main navigable channel point is an important point to the Trust. Now, this isn’t a test case. This isn’t a case where there are a whole number of cases where this point is being taken where it can come forward.
THE DISTRICT JUDGE: It is or it isn’t, Mr Stoner, and if it isn’t, why are you here?
MR STONER: It’s not a test case in the normal sense, but it is a test case or it is an important case in the sense that, for example, there is another case involving a Mr Dunkley on the River Trent who, I think I am right in saying, is being assisted by Mr Moore, and exactly the same point is being taken. In fact, I will not take you to it but it is referred to in Mr Ravenscroft’s witness statement and his letter before action. Obviously that informs matters, because although the sums are small in this case, my client is a charitable trust which is responsible for the running, and it’s not a viable option, I’m not suggesting that the court at any stage has thought this, to look at this as simply saying: Well, proportionately, even if we disagree, we will come to a settlement with a particular boater which results in a payment, or something of that sort, because all that is going to encourage is the situation of what happens when the point is taken again. The reality of the situation is if we had been able to settle this case on Monday, which we weren’t, or before – and I know that my Lady knows that attempts were made before – I would have been my Lady or another judge of this division, or perhaps in a County Court and then the Court of Appeal, arguing what I’ve argued on the main navigable channel, because the point is a live one amongst the boating community and it’s obviously an important one from a management and revenue perspective.
THE DISTRICT JUDGE: Well, you know what I think about it.
MR STONER: Yes.
THE DISTRICT JUDGE: I’m not very impressed."
Why the transcribers identify Lady Justice Asplin as a District Judge, I am at a loss; I doubt she'd be pleased [the transcription was a bit shoddy overall]. I should note that Mr Stoner is NOT right that I am assisting Tony in the case that has been adjourned pending this judgment; he scarcely needs my help in the matter! And just to be clear - the Judge was not saying she was unimpressed with CaRT's arguments over the MNC, she was unimpressed with them allowing the situation to get into the High Court. I do feel, however, that Mr Stoner's point is perfectly reasonable: that a binding judgment on the matter will help prevent further litigation over the same issue in the County Courts. What he does gloss over - and which I sadly failed to respond to properly - is that so far as "attempts were made before" to resolve the issues, Leigh had been prepared to leave the MNC issue as something each side could agree to disagree over, if CaRT only publicly accepted the wrong in holding the boat as lien on the alleged licence arrears and compensated him for that. The difficulty was that establishing that position was not possible without reference to correspondence that would be considered privileged. It is not significant taken overall, except in respect of liability for costs either way.
|
|
|
Post by TonyDunkley on Jul 22, 2017 21:06:42 GMT
This just might be pertinent to jenlyn's comment - the Judge in Leigh's case was dismayed that CaRT were prepared to go to the lengths of fighting Leigh in the High Court [albeit that it was Leigh who brought the case and wanted it there]. She twice adjourned proceedings on the first day to give the parties a chance to work something out, but while Leigh was willing to do so, CaRT were not. Hence some closing submissions on Mr Stoner's part: . . . . . . And just to be clear - the Judge was not saying she was unimpressed with CaRT's arguments over the MNC, she was unimpressed with them allowing the situation to get into the High Court. I do feel, however, that Mr Stoner's point is perfectly reasonable: that a binding judgment on the matter will help prevent further litigation over the same issue in the County Courts. What he does gloss over - and which I sadly failed to respond to properly - is that so far as "attempts were made before" to resolve the issues, Leigh had been prepared to leave the MNC issue as something each side could agree to disagree over, if CaRT only publicly accepted the wrong in holding the boat as lien on the alleged licence arrears and compensated him for that. The difficulty was that establishing that position was not possible without reference to correspondence that would be considered privileged. It is not significant taken overall, except in respect of liability for costs either way. From the general tone and content of those snippets from Stoner's closing submissions I do get the impression that he was not at all comfortable with what he was having to argue, . . . an almost gibberish-like quality to it in parts ! I wonder if the comments and criticisms from the likes of Judges Halbert and Pugsley have dented their confidence to a greater degree than it at first seemed ?
|
|