|
Post by naughtyfox on Dec 1, 2018 9:41:29 GMT
Ukrainian bully boy makes English cowards run away.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 1, 2018 10:04:18 GMT
Venice
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 1, 2018 10:05:53 GMT
Ukrainian bully boy makes English cowards run away. If he is Ukrainian I wonder what happens if they start compulsory conscription ? Looks a bit iffy with Russia lately.
|
|
|
Post by naughtyfox on Dec 1, 2018 10:13:04 GMT
Heh, my thoughts exactly! Called back by Ukraine to fight on the Russian front. That will save the British public millions in fines. Your country needs you! Go away!
|
|
|
Post by TonyDunkley on Dec 1, 2018 13:37:35 GMT
C&RT Enforcement, or whatever they're calling themselves this week, seem obsessed with taking action against inanimate objects. The Injunctions they ask the County Courts for, and get, pursuant to their beloved Section 8 and 13 Notices are invariably aimed at the boat, and somewhat oddly, exclude the owner if he or she were to turn up and commit the same heinous crimes with another, different vessel. If I may correct that: in my own case they obtained a High Court Order (later quashed) banning me personally, under s.8 powers, from bringing ANY boat - to include anybody acting under my influence – onto the Grand Union and using a mooring they had approved as a home mooring for decades – even though the boat was licensed! I was otherwise allowed to use the boat on BW waterways as permitted by the licence, but could have the boat seized if I moored on that particular spot. Other boaters doing so were exempt. It was quite the most extraordinary and twisted achievement imaginable. I hope I have paraphrased the effect of the Order correctly; I cannot locate it while on the move with the laptop I am using. It was, admittedly, an exception to the rule. Targetting the boat rather than the owner is uniform across other navigation Acts, and it was one of the points I made as being a weakness in the Middle Level Bill proceedings – though the Committee failed to grasp the point fully. I have to admit that I'm at a complete loss in trying to speculate on or envisage the argument which would succeed in convincing a Court that a human being had become a "relevant craft" that was "sunk, stranded or abandoned" or left/moored in a BW waterway "without lawful authority". As for the Court that endorsed such utter tripe, . . words fail me ! Clearly, any action/proceedings under legislation aimed at controlling or terminating the presence of any vessel on a navigation authority's waters must of necessity be targeted on the specific vessel in question, but I can't imagine that any navigation authority other than BW/C&RT, or for that matter any authority of any sort administered and run by sane, normal people, would ever consider seeking a Court Order and/or an Injunction against an inanimate object. A Court functioning as it should be would, or should, dismiss any such nonsense as a frivolous Application totally lacking in merit and in the strictest legal sense, even bordering on the vexatious.
|
|
|
Post by NigelMoore on Dec 1, 2018 15:36:40 GMT
You will not find that Order published by CaRT anymore, though BW at the time were ecstatic about the result of the judge's "massively detailed and scrupulous analysis of the source of the BWB’s powers".
Interestingly, reading through SC minutes from 1993 this morning, I came across BW's earnest confirmation as to the persistence of private mooring rights on the canals.
|
|
|
Post by TonyDunkley on Dec 1, 2018 15:57:13 GMT
You will not find that Order published by CaRT anymore, though BW at the time were ecstatic about the result of the judge's "massively detailed and scrupulous analysis of the source of the BWB’s powers". A rather more apt description would have been ''a detailed and screw-loose analysis of the self-conferred powers to which BWB aspire", . . . typo perhaps ?
|
|
|
Post by TonyDunkley on Dec 1, 2018 17:00:42 GMT
Interestingly, reading through SC minutes from 1993 this morning, I came across BW's earnest confirmation as to the persistence of private mooring rights on the canals. BW, both in their previous form and their reincarnation as the C&RT, appear to be past masters in the art of shooting themselves in the foot by way of ill-considered and potentially damaging statements committed to record. Here's the latest gem, . . . their response to my request this week for a application form for a PBC : Fri, Nov 30, 1:19 PM (1 day ago)
Mr Trent
Thank you for your enquiry re a ‘Pleasure Boat Certificate’.
Unfortunately this is not a term we in Boat Licencing recognise. If you wish to use a boat of any kind on our waterways you are required to obtain a licence.
Terms and conditions, pricing, discounts and exemptions can all be found on our website using the link below.
canalrivertrust.org.uk/refresh/media/thumbnail/5962-boat-licence-terms-and-conditions-from-may-2015.pdf
Regards
Ben Ashdown Licensing Manager
________________________________________ For the information of anyone else, other than this C&RT 'Licensing Manager', and who is equally unfamiliar with the term 'Pleasure Boat Certificate' (PBC), it can be found halfway down page 15 of the Trust's current Boat Licence Terms and Conditions where it is falsely and misleadingly stated that their ficticious/non-existent 'Rivers only Licence' constitutes a 'Pleasure Boat Certificate' for the purposes of the 1971 BW Act. Truth is in fact that the standard Pleasure Boat Licence (PBL) does constitute a PBC for the purposes of that Act [see Section 5(1)], whereas the fictitious 'Rivers only Licence' most certainly does not for the simple reason that it is pure invention on the part of C&RT, and a lie that's propagated solely to fool boat owners, AND more especially the Courts into believing that the common law PRN on river waterways was extinguished long ago and replaced with a requirement for permission to navigate/use to be in the gift of the navigation authority. The term gets another airing in S17(1) of the 1995 BW Act, which states quite unequivocally in the glossary of terms that : [ “pleasure boat certificate” means a pleasure boat certificate issued under the Act of 1971; ]
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 1, 2018 17:05:20 GMT
And the wheels of privatisation keep rolling.
|
|
|
Post by TonyDunkley on Dec 1, 2018 17:19:05 GMT
And the wheels of privatisation keep rolling. I would say that, having got rolling in 2012 when the sham charity/private limited company that is C&RT was foisted on us by the Government, the wheels of privatization are now well and truly falling off !
|
|
|
Post by NigelMoore on Dec 1, 2018 17:20:37 GMT
Interestingly, reading through SC minutes from 1993 this morning, I came across BW's earnest confirmation as to the persistence of private mooring rights on the canals.
Unfortunately this is not a term we in Boat Licencing recognise. If you wish to use a boat of any kind on our waterways you are required to obtain a licence.
It IS rather extraordinary - whether ignorance or disingenuousness - especially coming from a managerial position. I sometimes wonder whether they have a program to reprise the argument Mr Stoner QC has put forward a couple of times in Court: that the whole registration scheme of 1971 was abolished by the Act of 1983? Then again, of course, neither they nor BW ever considered they needed those Acts to provide licensing/registration powers anyway.
|
|
|
Post by TonyDunkley on Dec 1, 2018 17:28:18 GMT
Unfortunately this is not a term we in Boat Licencing recognise. If you wish to use a boat of any kind on our waterways you are required to obtain a licence.
It IS rather extraordinary - whether ignorance or disingenuousness - especially coming from a managerial position. I sometimes wonder whether they have a program to reprise the argument Mr Stoner QC has put forward a couple of times in Court: that the whole registration scheme of 1971 was abolished by the Act of 1983? Then again, of course, neither they nor BW ever considered they needed those Acts to provide licensing/registration powers anyway. Genuine, copper bottomed ignorance, I think, Nigel. When Mr Trent (sic) was speaking with him on the phone he seemed genuinely baffled by the term and rang off to consult with a 'colleague' before calling back, stating that nobody else in Licensing had ever heard of it either, and following up with that e-mail. I would guess that his job specification and the instructions he and all his colleagues work to will have been carefully prepared and written up by all those honest, upright people in C&RT's Lying and Governance Services office.
|
|