|
Post by kris on Sept 3, 2018 7:46:49 GMT
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 3, 2018 10:51:58 GMT
That’s the problem when any organisation gets too big, it’s harder to keep control of those in control. Look at the EU for example. The NBTA seem to be very effective, I suspect that’s because it’s not got big enough yet?!
|
|
|
Post by kris on Sept 3, 2018 11:07:00 GMT
The NBTA seem to be very effective, I suspect that’s because it’s not got big enough yet?! It's also a grass roots movement so fulling the requirements of its membership isn't so difficult, because the "leadership" aren't so far away from the membership.
|
|
|
Post by naughtyfox on Sept 3, 2018 14:11:26 GMT
"and enable Mr Kurpil to gain significant wealth from enforcement against boaters
District Enforcement has lost a number of legal challenges to its enforcement practices; see for example the judge’s comments here:
parking-prankster.blogspot.com/2014/12/district-enforcement-lose-to-lecturer.html?m=1
The NBTA advises boaters not to let themselves be bullied by aggressive and threatening tactics to extort charges for alleged overstaying, especially where displayed signs which are a requirement of a civil contract are not clear, not visible from the water and where the imposition of the charge is contrary to the right to moor for a reasonable time contained in the Public Right of Navigation."
Ukrainian finds Brits a soft target, ripe for the picking.
|
|
|
Post by IainS on Sept 3, 2018 14:16:28 GMT
Quote from article : How long after mooring does navigation cease? For the purposes of Section 79(2), I would suggest that "reasonable time" would be measured in minutes, or perhaps hours, rather than days Totally agree with the comments in the article about conflict of interest. It is difficult to see how Danylo Kurpil can perform a director's function, as almost every decision they take will involve a conflict of interest.
|
|
|
Post by naughtyfox on Sept 3, 2018 14:24:06 GMT
|
|
|
Post by NigelMoore on Sept 3, 2018 17:17:42 GMT
Quote from article : How long after mooring does navigation cease? For the purposes of Section 79(2), I would suggest that "reasonable time" would be measured in minutes, or perhaps hours, rather than days The 1932 Act does indeed define the rights of navigation as including mooring – but that is not intended to over-ride private riparian rights, which are themselves protected under the Act. The section 79(2) referred to specifically says: “Provided that nothing in this section or in any byelaws made thereunder shall be construed to deprive any riparian owner of any legal rights in the soil or bed of the Thames which he may now possess for the prevention of anchoring mooring loitering or delay of any vessel . . .” The Act does not, in other words, give any right to moor to private property without consent. Outside of the statute, common law in this country has accepted that a right to anchor to a riverbed in the course of navigation is part of the public right, but that no such right exists under the PRN to attach to the riverbank even momentarily. I have argued as nauseum with Mr Trotman over this (he firmly believes that the Act over-rides private rights), and we will never agree, but that is my own considered opinion. The navigation authority is obliged to allow use of their own moorings overnight without charge, but that does not apply to land belonging to others.
|
|
|
Post by IainS on Sept 3, 2018 22:46:03 GMT
Agreed. You have gone into the situation a bit more deeply than I have, but the end result is the same. The "reasonable time" would apply only to the navigation authority's moorings, as in other cases, the riparian rights would take precedence. The obvious solution is for the NBTA, or some of their members, to buy land on the banks of the Thames, and moor by riparian right!!! All of which is perhaps beside the point: the appointment of Mr. Kurpil to the River Thames Alliance Board is a development which does not bode well for the future.
|
|