|
Post by Telemachus on Nov 29, 2018 22:49:06 GMT
I was just reading this on Facebook m.facebook.com/groups/73933281285 it seems cart have dropped the you can't turn around until you have done A,B,C,D nonsense. If so good because it was illegal and an infringement on people's rights. If the elsan,rubbish disposal or water point where behind you what where you suppose to do? Ah but the new degree-qualified CRT employees are now far more intelligent than those of old. They now know the entire alphabet and are busy redrafting the guidance so it goes A,B,C,D,E,F,G,H,I,J,K,L,M,N,O,P,Q,R,S,T. Well they are still not that clever, they haven’t mastered the alphabet after T!
|
|
|
Post by Clinton Cool on Nov 29, 2018 23:05:48 GMT
I was just reading this on Facebook m.facebook.com/groups/73933281285 it seems cart have dropped the you can't turn around until you have done A,B,C,D nonsense. If so good because it was illegal and an infringement on people's rights. If the elsan,rubbish disposal or water point where behind you what where you suppose to do? Ah but the new degree-qualified CRT employees are now far more intelligent than those of old. They now know the entire alphabet and are busy redrafting the guidance so it goes A,B,C,D,E,F,G,H,I,J,K,L,M,N,O,P,Q,R,S,T. Well they are still not that clever, they haven’t mastered the alphabet after T! Ah but does each letter represent an area, general area, town, city, county, village, hamlet or metropolis?
|
|
|
Post by NigelMoore on Nov 30, 2018 0:31:15 GMT
I really think the CaRT 'intelligentsia' should take time to read through their predecessor's protracted discussions in Select Committee examinations as to what was desirous of achievement in all this, wherein virtually everything presently debated was covered. The cardinal aim then was preventing the monopoly of local sites to the annoyance of all other boaters.
The simple means of addressing that specific congestion problem would have been accomplished with tweaked versions of the moorings controls they were after. I am tending more as time goes on, to reflecting that it was a mistake for the Committee (however wholly in sympathy with their reasons) to reject those provisions, though of course – as BW themselves argued – it remains possible to get byelaws specific to the problem, for the control of mooring at specific sites.
There is something inconceivably perverse in the authority's resistance to promoting this straightforward solution. Even if still fixated with Parry & Co's obsession with the idea that byelaw penalties are derisory – the reason they do not pursue breaches of them – it is perfectly straightforward while drafting appropriate new mooring controls, to have the penalties for ANY byelaw breach to be changed from the present £100 to a position on the standard sliding scale.
It is probably hopelessly optimistic to think that the current DEFRA group might promote so simple a solution for all parties involved, but what is life without some fantasy?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 30, 2018 9:42:27 GMT
I really think the CaRT 'intelligentsia' should take time to read through their predecessor's protracted discussions in Select Committee examinations as to what was desirous of achievement in all this, wherein virtually everything presently debated was covered. The cardinal aim then was preventing the monopoly of local sites to the annoyance of all other boaters. The simple means of addressing that specific congestion problem would have been accomplished with tweaked versions of the moorings controls they were after. I am tending more as time goes on, to reflecting that it was a mistake for the Committee (however wholly in sympathy with their reasons) to reject those provisions, though of course – as BW themselves argued – it remains possible to get byelaws specific to the problem, for the control of mooring at specific sites. There is something inconceivably perverse in the authority's resistance to promoting this straightforward solution. Even if still fixated with Parry & Co's obsession with the idea that byelaw penalties are derisory – the reason they do not pursue breaches of them – it is perfectly straightforward while drafting appropriate new mooring controls, to have the penalties for ANY byelaw breach to be changed from the present £100 to a position on the standard sliding scale. It is probably hopelessly optimistic to think that the current DEFRA group might promote so simple a solution for all parties involved, but what is life without some fantasy? Who enforces such bylaws? Would this be the same kind of private enforcement company who seem to be taking over control of council car parks everywhere?
|
|
|
Post by NigelMoore on Nov 30, 2018 10:56:08 GMT
I really think the CaRT 'intelligentsia' should take time to read through their predecessor's protracted discussions in Select Committee examinations as to what was desirous of achievement in all this, wherein virtually everything presently debated was covered. The cardinal aim then was preventing the monopoly of local sites to the annoyance of all other boaters. The simple means of addressing that specific congestion problem would have been accomplished with tweaked versions of the moorings controls they were after. I am tending more as time goes on, to reflecting that it was a mistake for the Committee (however wholly in sympathy with their reasons) to reject those provisions, though of course – as BW themselves argued – it remains possible to get byelaws specific to the problem, for the control of mooring at specific sites. There is something inconceivably perverse in the authority's resistance to promoting this straightforward solution. Even if still fixated with Parry & Co's obsession with the idea that byelaw penalties are derisory – the reason they do not pursue breaches of them – it is perfectly straightforward while drafting appropriate new mooring controls, to have the penalties for ANY byelaw breach to be changed from the present £100 to a position on the standard sliding scale. It is probably hopelessly optimistic to think that the current DEFRA group might promote so simple a solution for all parties involved, but what is life without some fantasy? Who enforces such bylaws? Would this be the same kind of private enforcement company who seem to be taking over control of council car parks everywhere? Enforcement of byelaws is the responsibility of the body whose byelaws they are.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 30, 2018 11:24:47 GMT
Who enforces such bylaws? Would this be the same kind of private enforcement company who seem to be taking over control of council car parks everywhere? Enforcement of byelaws is the responsibility of the body whose byelaws they are. So in the case of bylaws being used to enforce mooring conditions, which body would hire the private enforcement? The local council or the local navigation authority? (or some other). I can’t see the police getting too involved as they seem rather busy!
|
|
|
Post by NigelMoore on Nov 30, 2018 11:47:24 GMT
Same question, same answer.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 30, 2018 13:12:24 GMT
Looks like quite a nice business opportunity for private enforcement firms. They are already doing it on the Thames. Coming to a canal near you soon If their income is from fines and/or mooring charges they are incentivised (?) to enforce and collect. It seems the obvious way to sort the perceived problem. I hope it does not come to this but I can't help thinking it will.
|
|
|
Post by kris on Nov 30, 2018 13:52:54 GMT
Looks like quite a nice business opportunity for private enforcement firms. They are already doing it on the Thames. Coming to a canal near you soon If their income is from fines and/or mooring charges they are incentivised (?) to enforce and collect. It seems the obvious way to sort the perceived problem. I hope it does not come to this but I can't help thinking it will. well cart already seen to be clearing a path to private enforcement, with the £150 aday fine on their online moorings enforced by district enforcment. Although I don't know if anybody has actually paid one of these fines yet.
|
|
|
Post by NigelMoore on Nov 30, 2018 14:44:10 GMT
A fine cannot be imposed without Parliamentary authorisation. Where fines are legitimately imposed (on breaches of byelaws for example), the authority does not benefit from the fine, it goes to the Treasury once it has been imposed by a court.
The only way bodies such as Councils benefit from fines - for parking offences for example - is when they offer a half price deal if you do not go to Court over it. Not that I have looked into this at depth, so I am open to contradiction, but that is how I understand the process.
|
|
|
Post by thebfg on Nov 30, 2018 17:57:11 GMT
Looks like quite a nice business opportunity for private enforcement firms. They are already doing it on the Thames. Coming to a canal near you soon If their income is from fines and/or mooring charges they are incentivised (?) to enforce and collect. It seems the obvious way to sort the perceived problem. I hope it does not come to this but I can't help thinking it will. private companies will never enforce by laws. so they will do it with contracts, it won't take 5 minutes to work out how to beat them.
|
|
|
Post by naughtyfox on Nov 30, 2018 18:18:35 GMT
Ah but the new degree-qualified CRT employees are now far more intelligent than those of old. They now know the entire alphabet and are busy redrafting the guidance so it goes A,B,C,D,E,F,G,H,I,J,K,L,M,N,O,P,Q,R,S,T. Well they are still not that clever, they haven’t mastered the alphabet after T! Ah but does each letter represent an area, general area, town, city, county, village, hamlet or metropolis? You have to go from A to Z in this order: Aynho Banbury Coventry Daventry (wait until canal is built) Ely Froghall Gnosall Huddersfield Ilfracombe (out & back via Bristol) John O'Groats (round the coast whilst your at it!) Keadby Leamington Spa Marston Doles Nantwich Oxford Pangbourne Queen Adelaide Ring O' Bells pub (Macclesfield Canal, Marple) Stroud (Thames & Severn Canal being restored - 0pen 2067) Teddington Upwell lord Vernon's wharf Whatever X-marks-the-spot Yelverton Zennor (a lorry will take you)
|
|
|
Post by Jim on Dec 1, 2018 7:46:59 GMT
Ah but does each letter represent an area, general area, town, city, county, village, hamlet or metropolis? You have to go from A to Z in this order: Aynho Banbury Coventry Daventry (wait until canal is built) Ely Froghall Gnosall Huddersfield Ilfracombe (out & back via Bristol) John O'Groats (round the coast whilst your at it!) Keadby Leamington Spa Marston Doles Nantwich Oxford Pangbourne Queen Adelaide Ring O' Bells pub (Macclesfield Canal, Marple) Stroud (Thames & Severn Canal being restored - 0pen 2067) Teddington Upwell lord Vernon's wharf Whatever X-marks-the-spot Yelverton Zennor (a lorry will take you) Lord Vernon's Wharf doesn't start with a V. Just saying!
|
|
|
Post by kris on Dec 1, 2018 9:00:24 GMT
A fine cannot be imposed without Parliamentary authorisation. Where fines are legitimately imposed (on breaches of byelaws for example), the authority does not benefit from the fine, it goes to the Treasury once it has been imposed by a court. The only way bodies such as Councils benefit from fines - for parking offences for example - is when they offer a half price deal if you do not go to Court over it. Not that I have looked into this at depth, so I am open to contradiction, but that is how I understand the process. sorry I should have made it clear I was using "fine" in an ironic way. As the "overstay charges"are in effect fines.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 1, 2018 9:34:53 GMT
A fine cannot be imposed without Parliamentary authorisation. Where fines are legitimately imposed (on breaches of byelaws for example), the authority does not benefit from the fine, it goes to the Treasury once it has been imposed by a court. The only way bodies such as Councils benefit from fines - for parking offences for example - is when they offer a half price deal if you do not go to Court over it. Not that I have looked into this at depth, so I am open to contradiction, but that is how I understand the process. sorry I should have made it clear I was using "fine" in an ironic way. As the "overstay charges"are in effect fines. Exactly. £25 is not a reasonable ‘charge’ for mooring on the tow path side, especially when the law states you can for 14 days. Even at winter mooring prices, it shouldn’t be more than £5-10. No, it’s a fine. We all know that these signs were put up to discourage boaters from hogging honey pot moorings. It’s worked, and if Stoke Bruerne is anything to go by, it’s become a ghost village at the expense of the local pubs and businesses. It’s proof that many people come to places like that to see the boats.
|
|