Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 22, 2016 9:13:48 GMT
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. Erm..I think that's all a bit extreme TBH. I think a lot of tbe problems CRT are having is due to the fact they don't really have the powers to back up enforcement of the law. They are spending an excessive amount of our licence money trying to fight silly borderline cases in court. Mind you, I still think they only do this to keep boaters under control using fear tactics. The bottom line is that the police ARE the official law enforcement body for this country and we ARE paying for that with our taxes already. I'm sure boaters would feel safer seeing a few bobbies out on the cut looking out for trouble makers instead of volunteers slapping paperwork on boats as they see fit...
|
|
|
Post by JohnV on Dec 22, 2016 9:18:38 GMT
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. Erm..I think that's all a bit extreme TBH. I think a lot of tbe problems CRT are having is due to the fact they don't really have the powers to back up enforcement of the law. They are spending an excessive amount of our licence money trying to fight silly borderline cases in court. Mind you, I still think they only do this to keep boaters under control using fear tactics. The bottom line is that the police ARE the official law enforcement body for this country and we ARE paying for that with our taxes already. I'm sure boaters would feel safer seeing a few bobbies out on the cut looking out for trouble makers instead of volunteers slapping paperwork on boats as they see fit... Well Nigel has explained many times how bylaw enforcement can be carried out ..... no powers of arrest are required
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 22, 2016 9:30:58 GMT
Erm..I think that's all a bit extreme TBH. I think a lot of tbe problems CRT are having is due to the fact they don't really have the powers to back up enforcement of the law. They are spending an excessive amount of our licence money trying to fight silly borderline cases in court. Mind you, I still think they only do this to keep boaters under control using fear tactics. The bottom line is that the police ARE the official law enforcement body for this country and we ARE paying for that with our taxes already. I'm sure boaters would feel safer seeing a few bobbies out on the cut looking out for trouble makers instead of volunteers slapping paperwork on boats as they see fit... Well Nigel has explained many times how bylaw enforcement can be carried out ..... no powers of arrest are required ...and I would agree with him. I was just exploring a deeper issue really.
|
|
|
Post by Telemachus on Dec 22, 2016 11:21:48 GMT
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 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. It sunk in the first time. Sure, there is fault on the side of CRT. But in the particular case in question it only became significant when the law was broken by not licensing the boat. So I would prefer to treat the cause not the symptom and say that the primary cause of the wasted money was the failure to licence the boat. I just don't buy the argument that "everyone else must be expected to be squeaky clean and abide by the law, but not me."
|
|
|
Post by NigelMoore on Dec 22, 2016 11:23:52 GMT
Surely criminal actions are a police matter. If that's the case, how come CRT waste time and our money chasing them? Are you confusing police ‘action’ with police ‘prosecution’? 1. Police have not prosecuted offences since 1986. 2. Prosecution of Byelaw offences and authority-specific statutory offences are the responsibility of the relevant authority. 3. CaRT have NEVER and do not “ waste time and our money” prosecuting offences under either byelaws or statute. They have never brought such prosecutions.
|
|
|
Post by NigelMoore on Dec 22, 2016 11:28:06 GMT
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? The origin of the “rule” is irrelevant; it is a matter of statutory requirement one way or another and nothing to do with the police. Infringement only becomes a criminal offence if in breach of obstruction byelaws or of s.18 of the 1995 Act, otherwise it has only the potential to lead to a situation wherein an offence for not being licensed arises.
|
|
|
Post by NigelMoore on Dec 22, 2016 11:31:49 GMT
I think a lot of tbe problems CRT are having is due to the fact they don't really have the powers to back up enforcement of the law. They do. They need only present the facts before a Magistrates Court [or a Small Claims Court if feeling generous] and let the courts decide whether an offence has been committed. Enforcement following a court decision is down to the court and its officers, not CaRT.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 22, 2016 11:45:55 GMT
Surely criminal actions are a police matter. If that's the case, how come CRT waste time and our money chasing them? Are you confusing police ‘action’ with police ‘prosecution’? 1. Police have not prosecuted offences since 1986. 2. Prosecution of Byelaw offences and authority-specific statutory offences are the responsibility of the relevant authority. 3. CaRT have NEVER and do not “ waste time and our money” prosecuting offences under either byelaws or statute. They have never brought such prosecutions. Ok, I'll try to clarify my thinking (and it is only thinking!). I was responding to the idea of a criminal action being commited. i.e. someone has broken a statutory law whether it be staying in the same place for more than 14 days or not having a licence to be on a waterway. 1) Anyone can report a crime but I presume you normally report 'crime' through the police. 2) If a T&C has been broken then that is surely between you and the organisation to sort out. However, neither should be allowed to break a statutory law in the process of dealing with that dispute. It seems from what I'm reading that CRT can bypass statutory law just by convincing a judge to agree with T&C's. I'm still learning!
|
|
|
Post by NigelMoore on Dec 22, 2016 12:17:10 GMT
Ok, I'll try to clarify my thinking (and it is only thinking!). I was responding to the idea of a criminal action being commited. i.e. someone has broken a statutory law whether it be staying in the same place for more than 14 days or not having a licence to be on a waterway. 1) Anyone can report a crime but I presume you normally report 'crime' through the police. 2) If a T&C has been broken then that is surely between you and the organisation to sort out. However, neither should be allowed to break a statutory law in the process of dealing with that dispute. It seems from what I'm reading that CRT can bypass statutory law just by convincing a judge to agree with T&C's. I'm still learning! There are quite enough general crimes on the books for the police not to have to be bothered over such as byelaw offences which are pertinent not between the [alleged] perpetrator and the general public, but only between them and the specific authority. If you see what you believe to be an unlicensed boat, for example, you do not report that to the police, but [if that is your inclination] to CaRT [or other relevant navigation authority]. A judge, especially at overworked County Court level, can potentially be convinced of anything by a sufficiently impressive and canny advocate; that applies across the board of adverse actions. The only defence is knowledge [which even then only works if you really are innocent] and the ability to put the legal argument across convincingly. CaRT cannot legally bypass statutory law, but yes, they can betimes convince a judge they they are not doing so.
|
|
|
Post by TonyDunkley on Dec 22, 2016 12:18:15 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!). They ARE the appropriate authority, . . . the real issue is that they're just not fit to be ! As the Navigation Authority for the waterways under their control, they have a comprehensive range of Byelaw and statutory powers, and contravening Byelaws is a criminal offence
|
|
|
Post by TonyDunkley on Dec 22, 2016 12:26:22 GMT
Ok, I'll try to clarify my thinking (and it is only thinking!). I was responding to the idea of a criminal action being commited. i.e. someone has broken a statutory law whether it be staying in the same place for more than 14 days or not having a licence to be on a waterway. 1) Anyone can report a crime but I presume you normally report 'crime' through the police. 2) If a T&C has been broken then that is surely between you and the organisation to sort out. However, neither should be allowed to break a statutory law in the process of dealing with that dispute. It seems from what I'm reading that CRT can bypass statutory law just by convincing a judge to agree with T&C's. I'm still learning! CaRT cannot legally bypass statutory law, but yes, they can betimes convince a judge they they are not doing so. I've a feeling that there was a recent instance of this happening somewhere in the North West, . . . Chester possibly ?
|
|
|
Post by tadworth on Dec 23, 2016 11:09:09 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. 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. A. You dont even know what legal costs were involved you are talking out of your hoop, as usual. Lets get CRT v Tadworth crimes out for an airing... 1. Lied about the meaning of a court order. Contempt of court. 2. Lied about their powers to refuse licence applications. Breach of statutory duty. 3. Unlawfully cancelled a valid licence without any notice, or reason given, breaching statute, and their own licence terms and conditions. 4. Threatened seizure under an expired court order in contempt of court, a criminal act if carried out. 5. Claimed my boat was " unfit to navigate " and couldnt even explain why. Breach of statute. 6. Claimed the details of my licence application were incorrect, then used the same application form to finally issue the licence proving themselves liars yet again. 7. Refused to admit any fault. Formal complaint not upheld on any of these points. 8. Enforcement supervisor Peter Palmer claimed he did not know the relevant legislation so was not to blame. Still in his job after admitting in writing he doesnt know how to do his job !
|
|
|
Post by Telemachus on Dec 23, 2016 14:58:51 GMT
I don't need to know exactly what legal costs were involved, but the fact is there were costs (legal and internal), unnecessarily incurred by CRT in dealing with your breach of the law.
These are all your opinions. There are always two sides to every story and I have absolutely no doubt that you would exaggerate and inflate your criticisms to the greatest extent possible - look at your use of inflammatory language like "lied". A lie must be a deliberate attempt to mislead, not simply a mistake. You admit that the EO wasn't familiar with the law. A mistake and incompetence perhaps, but a lie? It would seem not.
By contrast there is one certainty in all this - that you kept your boat on the canal system for a prolonged period where, under statute, a licence is required. But you didn't obtain the required licence.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 23, 2016 15:06:46 GMT
I don't need to know exactly what legal costs were involved, but the fact is there were costs (legal and internal), unnecessarily incurred by CRT in dealing with your breach of the law. These are all your opinions. There are always two sides to every story and I have absolutely no doubt that you would exaggerate and inflate your criticisms to the greatest extent possible - look at your use of inflammatory language like "lied". A lie must be a deliberate attempt to mislead, not simply a mistake. You admit that the EO wasn't familiar with the law. A mistake and incompetence perhaps, but a lie? It would seem not. By contrast there is one certainty in all this - that you kept your boat on the canal system for a prolonged period where, under statute, a licence is required. But you didn't obtain the required licence. Shaddup nick, your like a fuckin parrot with a limited vocabulary.
|
|
|
Post by NigelMoore on Dec 23, 2016 15:35:55 GMT
Enforcement supervisor Peter Palmer claimed he did not know the relevant legislation so was not to blame. Still in his job after admitting in writing he doesnt know how to do his job ! Peter Palmer had a role in my 2012 High Court case, as the then new employee responsible for breaching an Undertaking to the Court. He did not, however, appear in court; Nigel Johnson and others were deputised to give evidence [although none of them went prepared to address Mr Palmer’s actions at all]. In fact, the judge was so incensed that Nigel Johnson had ignored my complaints about Mr Palmer’s faux pas in both witness statements and in evidence on the stand, that he refused to release Johnson from his oath for the duration of the trial, and demanded a full investigation and report on what had happened. Curiously, although at the time I had put Mr Palmer’s actions down to ignorance and a failure on the part of management to make sure he knew about the Undertaking, it transpired from Johnson’s belated report that he HAD been fully informed of the situation, but had unilaterally decided to interpret things in his own way. Johnson had to apologise to the Court and myself, admitting that - his excuses regardless - it was “clearly unacceptable”. The judge agreed. Since then, as we can see, Mr Palmer has gone from strength to strength, insisting now, to some boaters with queries over the legalities of certain procedures, that all such questions should be channelled through him. Presumably his approach to legal interpretation in my case equated to making his bones in this field.
|
|