|
Post by JohnV on Dec 21, 2016 19:45:35 GMT
snip< Anyway it looks like CRT may have won in the planet case so no license payers money has been wasted. As this is only the first skirmish, I do hope they have not. The completely disproportionate actions of CRT are an obscenity. The owner of Planet might have been taking the piss, but he has paid what he owed and even allowing for the (unproven) claims of further charges due for unpaid moorings, their actions in running up completely unnecessary bills, for tens of thousands of pounds in excess of the unpaid moorings and continuing to do so, while not giving the owner any way out are disgusting. You might consider that the owner of the Planet deserved some punishment for taking the piss but their actions are out of all proportion and are totally disgusting and contemptible
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 21, 2016 20:03:13 GMT
snip< Anyway it looks like CRT may have won in the planet case so no license payers money has been wasted. As this is only the first skirmish, I do hope they have not. The completely disproportionate actions of CRT are an obscenity. The owner of Planet might have been taking the piss, but he has paid what he owed and even allowing for the (unproven) claims of further charges due for unpaid moorings, their actions in running up completely unnecessary bills, for tens of thousands of pounds in excess of the unpaid moorings and continuing to do so, while not giving the owner any way out are disgusting. You might consider that the owner of the Planet deserved some punishment for taking the piss but their actions are out of all proportion and are totally disgusting and contemptible I can sum up in one word, scum.
|
|
|
Post by JohnV on Dec 21, 2016 20:17:49 GMT
As this is only the first skirmish, I do hope they have not. The completely disproportionate actions of CRT are an obscenity. The owner of Planet might have been taking the piss, but he has paid what he owed and even allowing for the (unproven) claims of further charges due for unpaid moorings, their actions in running up completely unnecessary bills, for tens of thousands of pounds in excess of the unpaid moorings and continuing to do so, while not giving the owner any way out are disgusting. You might consider that the owner of the Planet deserved some punishment for taking the piss but their actions are out of all proportion and are totally disgusting and contemptible I can sum up in one word, scum. I agree with that 100% ...... I very rarely get as angry and disgusted with the actions of any organisation. The sheer contempt with which they show for any sort of natural justice and fairness is appalling. I don't think your description of them is anything like severe enough ..... but it will do for now.
|
|
|
Post by Telemachus on Dec 21, 2016 22:09:29 GMT
For me it is a case of choosing one's battles carefully, since you can't win every one. So for example if it is a battle to improve maintenance and facilities, count me in. If it is a battle for those who seek to tread the finest possible path between "legal" and "not legal" which the intent of getting as much for themselves as possible and hang everyone else, I'm probably out but it would "depend". But if it is a battle to get revenge for a chap who used his boat on the cut for a prolonged period whilst steadfastly refusing to pay for a licence, cost CRT and hence ultimately me and others like me a lot of money to resolve, then I am definitely out. It didnt cost you anything. I didnt use my boat, i didnt refuse to pay for a licence, nor does questioning the legal basis of CRT's schemes equal revenge. Otherwise a great post. You are obfuscating. The cost was not due to your using or not using your boat. It was due to the legal costs incurred by CRT trying to enforce the requirement for you to have a licence for your boat that was on the cut, in accordance with the law. If you are going to say that you should be entitled to decide whether you should pay the licence or not, depending on whether you are actually using your boat or merely dumping it, then we are not on the same wavelength nor ever will be. Your whining about CRT is sour grapes, plain and simple.
|
|
|
Post by Telemachus on Dec 21, 2016 22:11:29 GMT
Me too. On the other hand my first canal boat trip (in a day cruiser, but you'll have to forgive me that as it was pretty much all that was available at the time!) was in 1966. Hmmmm, I think that is 50 years ago! By 1969 my schoolmate Chris and I were "allowed out" in his dad's boat for a weekend on the BCN sans-parents (centre cockpit cruiser). Early 70s our family hired from Wolverhampton and went to Llangollen and back in a week. The next year we hired from Trevor and went to Whaley Bridge and back in a week. On leaving school a group of us took his Dad's new narrowboat up to Ripon and back (to Warwickshire). Etc. So don't talk to me about a paltry 30 years and "passing through", you nouveau-boating young whipper-snapper you. OK nick. So I consider you to be "just passing" through, but taking a bloody long time doing so. I rather get the feeling that you are claiming that "MY experience is highly valuable. Anyone else's experience is irrelevant." There's a name for that sort of viewpoint.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 21, 2016 22:14:17 GMT
OK nick. So I consider you to be "just passing" through, but taking a bloody long time doing so. I rather get the feeling that you are claiming that "MY experience is highly valuable. Anyone else's experience is irrelevant." There's a name for that sort of viewpoint.Nick?
|
|
|
Post by Telemachus on Dec 21, 2016 22:30:21 GMT
I rather get the feeling that you are claiming that "MY experience is highly valuable. Anyone else's experience is irrelevant." There's a name for that sort of viewpoint.Nick? Nope, I can't say I've ever heard of an inflated sense of self-importance being called "nick". Perhaps I need to get a new dictionary.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 21, 2016 22:32:24 GMT
Nope, I can't say I've ever heard of an inflated sense of self-importance being called "nick". Perhaps I need to get a new dictionary. Or stop trying to be self important ? π
|
|
|
Post by kris on Dec 22, 2016 1:17:26 GMT
Nope, I can't say I've ever heard of an inflated sense of self-importance being called "nick". Perhaps I need to get a new dictionary. Or stop trying to be self important ? π thats never going to happen.
|
|
|
Post by TonyDunkley on Dec 22, 2016 2:53:32 GMT
It didnt cost you anything. I didnt use my boat, i didnt refuse to pay for a licence, nor does questioning the legal basis of CRT's schemes equal revenge. Otherwise a great post. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The cost was not due to your using or not using your boat. It was due to the legal costs incurred by CRT trying to enforce the requirement for you to have a licence for your boat that was on the cut, in accordance with the law. I've lost count of how many times Nigel M has pointed this out, and I don't know how many more times it has to be said before it finally sinks in, . . . but if C&RT desisted from misusing the inappropriate S.8 powers under the 1983 Act against genuine Licence and/or PBC dodgers and prosecuted them in the Magistrates Courts under either Byelaws or the powers that went into the statute books specifically for that purpose, and have been available to their predecessors BWB, and them, since the 1970's, then the cost of securing criminal convictions and fining the offenders would be recoverable as costs added to the fine, and it wouldn't cost them anything.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 22, 2016 5:50:10 GMT
. . . . . Β Β Β Β . . . . . Β Β Β Β . . . . . Β Β Β The cost was not due to your using or not using your boat. It was due to the legal costs incurred by CRT trying to enforce the requirement for you to have a licence for your boat that was on the cut, in accordance with the law.Β I've lost count of how many times Nigel M has pointed this out, and I don't know how many more times it has to be said before it finally sinks in, . . . but if C&RT desisted from misusing the inappropriate S.8 powers under the 1983 Act against genuine Licence and/or PBC dodgers and prosecuted them in the Magistrates Courts under either Byelaws or the powers that went into the statute books specifically for that purpose, andΒ have been available to their predecessors BWB, and them, since the 1970's, then the cost of securing criminal convictions and fining the offenders would be recoverable as costs added to the fine, and it wouldn't cost them anything. Surely criminal actions are a police matter. If that's the case, how come CRT waste time and our money chasing them? Also, the 14 day rule was probably born more out of the vagrancy act, so again, why are we paying CRT to carry out that police function?
|
|
|
Post by JohnV on Dec 22, 2016 7:39:03 GMT
I've lost count of how many times Nigel M has pointed this out, and I don't know how many more times it has to be said before it finally sinks in, . . . but if C&RT desisted from misusing the inappropriate S.8 powers under the 1983 Act against genuine Licence and/or PBC dodgers and prosecuted them in the Magistrates Courts under either Byelaws or the powers that went into the statute books specifically for that purpose, and have been available to their predecessors BWB, and them, since the 1970's, then the cost of securing criminal convictions and fining the offenders would be recoverable as costs added to the fine, and it wouldn't cost them anything. Surely criminal actions are a police matter. If that's the case, how come CRT waste time and our money chasing them? Also, the 14 day rule was probably born more out of the vagrancy act, so again, why are we paying CRT to carry out that police function? sorry but I don't see where you are coming from there. we are only paying CRT (as you put it) because of their misuse of S.8 whereas if they prosecuted through the magistrates court then we wouldn't. Their costs would be much smaller and recoverable ........ there wouldn't be the massive bills from external legal firms.
|
|
|
Post by bargemast on Dec 22, 2016 7:55:59 GMT
Surely criminal actions are a police matter. If that's the case, how come CRT waste time and our money chasing them? Also, the 14 day rule was probably born more out of the vagrancy act, so again, why are we paying CRT to carry out that police function? sorry but I don't see where you are coming from there. we are only paying CRT (as you put it) because of their misuse of S.8 whereas if they prosecuted through the magistrates court then we wouldn't. Their costs would be much smaller and recoverable ........ there wouldn't be the massive bills from external legal firms. These massive bills are causing a huge hole in their coffers because of their completely unnecessary wasting the of collected licence fees monies, only because they don't want to use the proper (and easier) legal way to sort these problems. Peter.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 22, 2016 8:16:51 GMT
Surely criminal actions are a police matter. If that's the case, how come CRT waste time and our money chasing them? Also, the 14 day rule was probably born more out of the vagrancy act, so again, why are we paying CRT to carry out that police function? sorry but I don't see where you are coming from there. we are only paying CRT (as you put it) because of their misuse of S.8 whereas if they prosecuted through the magistrates court then we wouldn't. Β Their costs would be much smaller and recoverable ........ there wouldn't be the massive bills from external legal firms. In short I'm just querying as to why CRT are in the game of law enforcement in the first place. They don't even have powers of arrest (unlike EA EO's BTW). The cost of enforcemnt would be zero if they left it to the appropriate authorities (and we'd save money!).
|
|
|
Post by JohnV on Dec 22, 2016 8:57:13 GMT
sorry but I don't see where you are coming from there. we are only paying CRT (as you put it) because of their misuse of S.8 whereas if they prosecuted through the magistrates court then we wouldn't. Their costs would be much smaller and recoverable ........ there wouldn't be the massive bills from external legal firms. In short I'm just querying as to why CRT are in the game of law enforcement in the first place. They don't even have powers of arrest (unlike EA EO's BTW). The cost of enforcemnt would be zero if they left it to the appropriate authorities (and we'd save money!).No chance !!! if it was handed over to the police there would be either ...... no action whatsoever except where a road runs immediately alongside a towpath ....or..... a large increase in the numbers of Police/PCSO's at vast expense to rate payers ....... the majority I reckon would believe it cheaper to fill the canals in.
|
|