|
|
Post by tadworth on Apr 29, 2016 22:13:31 GMT
This is not news to some people but i am summing up the situation now I've seen actual proof this is happening.
The law that allows a boater to overstay over 14 days in one place "when it is reasonable to do so" i.e illness or mechanical breakdown is under attack from CRT now, they have created by stealth " authorised" and "unauthorised" overstays, the local EO decides that now, and in one case (Glyn Bumford) is asking for " detailed and specific medical evidence" and some of that which he has been given he has rejected as not specific enough. I have seen the letter he rejected, it says the boater in question has a "chronic health condition", is receiving treatment locally, and "does not feel well enough to move his boat", it couldn't say much more to be obviously valid. I am not 100% certain of what exactly the "unauthorised " overstay will do to your record yet, but the boater in question has been asked to move, that means his overstay is being recorded as a negative one, when the truth is he is fully entitled to do so.
Obviously this is ultra vires, and CRT does not have any powers to decide or authorise or not an overstay, the question is are we going to let them get away with it ?
|
|
|
|
Post by ammodels on Apr 29, 2016 22:23:00 GMT
CRT are getting into very boggy ground trying to judge peoples illnesses as worthy or unworthy but it is a trend the govt has been setting for years now, should decisions on health be down to bureaucrats or doctors? My feeling is that Drs are the only ones who can judge on health.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 30, 2016 4:16:28 GMT
At some point they will push too far tragically (don't forget we are talking about some people who's boat is their only home or lifestyle).
If this happens and it triggers court action, the unwinding of what those behind CRT have been doing for the last few years will become exposed and judged in law accordingly. Possibly under the harassment and unreasonable distress umbrellas.
I'm quite surprised nobody has already taken them on down this route actually. Maybe it's because the legal support has focused on other avenues instead!
|
|
|
|
Post by JohnV on Apr 30, 2016 7:58:18 GMT
Unfortunately for your argument bassplayer, it is probable that the main reason proof is being required is because of boaters pushing it too far.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 30, 2016 8:21:49 GMT
At some point they will push too far tragically (don't forget we are talking about some people who's boat is their only home or lifestyle). If this happens and it triggers court action, the unwinding of what those behind CRT have been doing for the last few years will become exposed and judged in law accordingly. Possibly under the harassment and unreasonable distress umbrellas. I'm quite surprised nobody has already taken them on down this route actually. Maybe it's because the legal support has focused on other avenues instead! These are the issues that the NBTA should be progressing rather than some of the more marginal issues which is currently on their Agenda,I welcome some comment from people such as Kris who I believe enjoys some contact with the NBTA.Are the London people aware of Thunderboat ? should we not be organising some mandating meetings if they are to enjoy our support ?Is it not better we widen the debate and agenda to a more inclusive one ? This is the direction I would like to see us go in rather than Mike the Boilerman is a prick rubbish. Is there contact established with the NBTA hierarchy ?Is indeed anyone interested in this? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 30, 2016 8:25:57 GMT
Unfortunately for your argument bassplayer, it is probable that the main reason proof is being required is because of boaters pushing it too far. Supposition again John and if there is Medical Confidentiality,who wants to reveal to CRT they are HIV positive for example. You keep on advancing this argument that every time CRT drive a coach through the law its boaters pushing it too far, utter bollocks in most cases John.It almost seems that some believe that continuous cruisers play some game of "Spot The Loophole" in order not to move every 14 days. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 30, 2016 8:34:51 GMT
Unfortunately for your argument bassplayer, it is probable that the main reason proof is being required is because of boaters pushing it too far. I've already said that I accept this could be a problem too (hence my comments about there being P takers on both sides). I do think that it is over exaggerated by the same people over an over again though. What we have here is an organisation (supposedly a charity) who are gradually creeping in more and more of their own rules. How far will they go? Will parts of the waterways get sold off to the private sector and prevent us all from enjoying the freedom we currently have? Or perhaps CRT are genuinely interested in things like historic boats, keeping the navigation thriving with boats and respecting everyones lifestyles. What do we think? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 30, 2016 8:45:27 GMT
Unfortunately for your argument bassplayer, it is probable that the main reason proof is being required is because of boaters pushing it too far. I've already said that I accept this could be a problem too (hence my comments about there being P takers on both sides). I do think that it is over exaggerated by the same people over an over again though. What we have here is an organisation (supposedly a charity) who are gradually creeping in more and more of their own rules. How far will they go? Will parts of the waterways get sold off to the private sector and prevent us all from enjoying the freedom we currently have? Or perhaps CRT are genuinely interested in things like historic boats, keeping the navigation thriving with boats and respecting everyones lifestyles. What do we think? I think your right but what do you think as regards this NBTA and the protest on the 10th,is what I suggest valid ? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 30, 2016 8:52:28 GMT
I've already said that I accept this could be a problem too (hence my comments about there being P takers on both sides). I do think that it is over exaggerated by the same people over an over again though. What we have here is an organisation (supposedly a charity) who are gradually creeping in more and more of their own rules. How far will they go? Will parts of the waterways get sold off to the private sector and prevent us all from enjoying the freedom we currently have? Or perhaps CRT are genuinely interested in things like historic boats, keeping the navigation thriving with boats and respecting everyones lifestyles. What do we think? I think your right but what do you think as regards this NBTA and the protest on the 10th,is what I suggest valid ? That's why I want to go along and find out. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 30, 2016 9:34:50 GMT
I think your right but what do you think as regards this NBTA and the protest on the 10th,is what I suggest valid ? That's why I want to go along and find out. I look forward to meeting both you and Tadworth there and hopefully build some contact with the NBTA to try and reach more of a consensus |
|
|
|
Post by tadworth on Apr 30, 2016 12:01:41 GMT
CRT may be using cases like Tadworth, and others, to deliberately test how far they can corrupt the law and get away with it, god knows what kind of management strategy that is, basically a criminal one, ultimately it will bring down the CRT. Is this coming from the CEO ? I would think so, he is steering the ship (Titanic).
They seem to want to create a theme park, where livaboard boaters have no rights, and are just customers of their services, which is totally against the spirit of the legislation laid down by Parliament. Richard Parry needs to be appear before Parliament, and be reminded that the waterways are public property.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 30, 2016 12:49:00 GMT
CRT may be using cases like Tadworth, and others, to deliberately test how far they can corrupt the law and get away with it, god knows what kind of management strategy that is, basically a criminal one, ultimately it will bring down the CRT. Is this coming from the CEO ? I would think so, he is steering the ship (Titanic). They seem to want to create a theme park, where livaboard boaters have no rights, and are just customers of their services, which is totally against the spirit of the legislation laid down by Parliament. Richard Parry needs to be appear before Parliament, and be reminded that the waterways are public property. What are your feelings about my Post earlier regarding the NBTA ? and attempting to build some common goals and aspirations because I feel what you say in some of your posts could be very easy victories if tested in the proper theatre. |
|
|
|
Post by naughtyfox on Apr 30, 2016 13:18:44 GMT
"chronic health condition" - bit vague that, innit? I mean, Life itself is a 'chronic health condition'.
Does the doctor really not have a clue what it is/could be?
(otherwise yes I agree with you not having the canals as a theme park, etc.)
(and - are the canals Public Property? I thought the railways were, and the National Bus Company - and British Gas, and British Airways (the list goes on) - could the canals be in danger of the government just flogging them off and getting rid of all the problems once and for all?)
|
|
|
|
Post by ammodels on Apr 30, 2016 13:36:56 GMT
CRT may be using cases like Tadworth, and others, to deliberately test how far they can corrupt the law and get away with it, god knows what kind of management strategy that is, basically a criminal one, ultimately it will bring down the CRT. Is this coming from the CEO ? I would think so, he is steering the ship (Titanic). They seem to want to create a theme park, where livaboard boaters have no rights, and are just customers of their services, which is totally against the spirit of the legislation laid down by Parliament. Richard Parry needs to be appear before Parliament, and be reminded that the waterways are public property. Liveaboard boaters are customers the same as everyone else, they own or rent their boats which are their homes, the canal is just where they travel. CRT should never be subject to the same rules as a landlord. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 30, 2016 15:31:45 GMT
CRT may be using cases like Tadworth, and others, to deliberately test how far they can corrupt the law and get away with it, god knows what kind of management strategy that is, basically a criminal one, ultimately it will bring down the CRT. Is this coming from the CEO ? I would think so, he is steering the ship (Titanic). They seem to want to create a theme park, where livaboard boaters have no rights, and are just customers of their services, which is totally against the spirit of the legislation laid down by Parliament. Richard Parry needs to be appear before Parliament, and be reminded that the waterways are public property. Liveaboard boaters are customers the same as everyone else, they own or rent their boats which are their homes, the canal is just where they travel. CRT should never be subject to the same rules as a landlord. Yes but they have rights as customers enshrined in the 95 Act covering Tadworths points that he is raising |
|
