|
Post by geoffm on Feb 3, 2019 14:04:44 GMT
I think a brief synopsis is needed here, to let everyone know what this is about. In a nutshell, like, not the full 543 pages. There have already been, here on Thunderboat, contrary opinions expressed already about "how things are supposed to be by Acts of Parliament, etc." and "how things really are and if you want to take CRT to Court you will need big bucks and be prepared to lose your house, wife and cat." Issues need to be documented properly and calmly, and the finger firmly pointed at those who are guilty, they should be named, shamed and suitably punished. Those in 'positions of power' can rake it all in with their scams and lies, but they will eventually run out of places to hide and be subject, one hopes, to the revenge they have garnered. That's right. Someone should challenge BW/CRT and document the whole story of what happened over several years and with evidence and court transcripts. Unfortunately it will be more than a couple of paragraphs long and may contain 'big words' so not many of the armchair ranters will be bothered to read it or able to understand it. And I'm still 'wasting my time' pursuing the criminal abusers who have damaged so many people's lives. But then I am, of course, completely mad and, according to CRT, 'dangerous'.
|
|
|
Post by naughtyfox on Feb 3, 2019 14:20:20 GMT
"All the division, denunciation and misdirected enforcement action, and the 1995 Navigation Act, are a result of the influx and behaviour of those who choose to adopt the attitude and selfish behaviour of New Age Travellers. Something that nobody- except me - seems to understand." Oh dear, sounds like me
|
|
|
Post by Jim on Feb 3, 2019 14:41:00 GMT
"All the division, denunciation and misdirected enforcement action, and the 1995 Navigation Act, are a result of the influx and behaviour of those who choose to adopt the attitude and selfish behaviour of New Age Travellers. Something that nobody- except me - seems to understand." Oh dear, sounds like me There are legal ways to combat the boundary pushers without resorting to making up or generally twisting existing laws. Two wrongs don't make a right.
|
|
|
Post by naughtyfox on Feb 3, 2019 14:55:41 GMT
Your legal ways don't seem very effective:
|
|
|
Post by Jim on Feb 3, 2019 16:52:04 GMT
Your legal ways don't seem very effective: wtf? They aren't water gypsies!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 3, 2019 17:11:09 GMT
British Waterways Act 1995. To be accurate. Not sure who thought it was Navigation Act but they are mistaken.
I do wonder if this DEFRA group that's hanging over the heads of anyone interested in off grid living in future is going to result in some sort of primary legislation.
As I understand it crt may not be able to pursue this themselves but suspect defra probably can.
|
|
|
Post by NigelMoore on Feb 3, 2019 17:47:54 GMT
British Waterways Act 1995. To be accurate. Not sure who thought it was Navigation Act but they are mistaken. I do wonder if this DEFRA group that's hanging over the heads of anyone interested in off grid living in future is going to result in some sort of primary legislation. As I understand it crt may not be able to pursue this themselves but suspect defra probably can. I presume it to be a quote from Geoff’s site; it will be intended only as descriptive (it is, after all, a navigation Act) rather than as a citation of the correct title. The DEFRA group could well make recommendations to Parliament for an all-embracing Act, but I doubt there would be much support – even after concentration on Brexit has passed. Existing legislation suffices after all – each affected authority has relevant byelaw making powers. The most sensible recommendation the group could make – supposing it ever does meet again with an agenda – would be to suggest that each authority pursue the byelaw route.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 3, 2019 18:34:52 GMT
Thanks for that Nigel.
I'm no expert but it seems to me that acts of parliament regarding waterways have been a relatively common occurence in the past. Is there a particular reason why waterways would not be included in future primary legislation?
|
|
|
Post by NigelMoore on Feb 3, 2019 20:58:05 GMT
Thanks for that Nigel. I'm no expert but it seems to me that acts of parliament regarding waterways have been a relatively common occurence in the past. Is there a particular reason why waterways would not be included in future primary legislation? Acts of Parliament in respect of waterways generally, have been rare to non-existent since the 13thC. The Transport Acts of the sixties are the closest Parliament has come to such a thing since then. In 1972 there was a sizeable thrust towards passing such legislation (given the woeful performance of the British Waterways Board in particular), but it never reached fruition, due in part to the recognition that fulfilling election promises would embarrass the establishment. Re-establishing PRN’s abolished in the 1968 Act was one of the stumbling blocks – The whole concept of a unifying national waterways Act withered away with nary a whimper back then. If anything, the situation has worsened since, and existing established authorities have become more deeply entrenched and jealous of their perceived prerogatives. edit to redress typo re: date of relevant Transport Act.
|
|
|
Post by TonyDunkley on Feb 3, 2019 21:08:46 GMT
Presumably the Court did not accede to your strike-out suggestion (which has to be formalised as an Application I think, anyway). Reference para. 4, do you have the EA’s skeleton from one of the Trotman cases, in which they make the same argument? The corollary issue arising is, of course, that a specific penalty is imposed for failure to register, if para.5 does not succeed – respecting which the reasons for granting permission to appeal in the Ravenscroft case are surely pertinent. I believe I posted a copy in the relevant thread. It is curious to note from your previous post the explanation from CaRT that “licence” continues to be used as a 'convenience' term only; in a legal context that must be a remarkable bit of twisting in the wind. It could nonetheless still be accepted I daresay. The strike-out suggestion was ignored, but I was considerably more miffed by the Court's total disregard of C&RT's blatant flounting of CPR 38.7. The 'facts' as stated in the Particulars of (this) Claim are in every respect identical to those in the discontinued Claim from 2014 and should therefore have precluded the issuing of this Claim absent the Court's permission. Am I correct in believing that the EA, unlike C&RT, don't have a mixture of 'no licence required' PRN waters and 'licence required' non-PRN waters under their control ?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 3, 2019 21:37:46 GMT
(Watching)
|
|
|
Post by erivers on Feb 3, 2019 22:20:47 GMT
Am I correct in believing that the EA, unlike C&RT, don't have a mixture of 'no licence required' PRN waters and 'licence required' non-PRN waters under their control ? Yes, although all the waterways for which the EA is the navigation authority (i.e, Thames, Medway and Anglian) are still largely governed by various Acts of Parliament, the requirement to register a vessel now comes through a Statutory Instrument - the EA (Inland Waterways) Order 2010 - and is identical for each waterway except for the actual amount of charges.
|
|
|
Post by NigelMoore on Feb 4, 2019 0:00:09 GMT
To expand on that, so far as I can think off the top of my head, the EA has no responsibility for any non-PRN waterways, and hence no licensing regime for any of their waterways. I would be interested to learn otherwise.
|
|
|
Post by NigelMoore on Feb 4, 2019 0:03:47 GMT
Presumably the Court did not accede to your strike-out suggestion (which has to be formalised as an Application I think, anyway). Reference para. 4, do you have the EA’s skeleton from one of the Trotman cases, in which they make the same argument? The corollary issue arising is, of course, that a specific penalty is imposed for failure to register, if para.5 does not succeed – respecting which the reasons for granting permission to appeal in the Ravenscroft case are surely pertinent. I believe I posted a copy in the relevant thread. It is curious to note from your previous post the explanation from CaRT that “licence” continues to be used as a 'convenience' term only; in a legal context that must be a remarkable bit of twisting in the wind. It could nonetheless still be accepted I daresay. The strike-out suggestion was ignored, but I was considerably more miffed by the Court's total disregard of C&RT's blatant flaunting of CPR 38.7. The 'facts' as stated in the Particulars of (this) Claim are in every respect identical to those in the discontinued Claim from 2014 and should therefore have precluded the issuing of this Claim absent the Court's permission. I think in this instance you have to accept that the Court have applied their discretion in overlooking procedural shortcomings on both sides, in the interests of bringing the arguments of both under judicial scrutiny.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 4, 2019 6:00:10 GMT
Thanks for that Nigel. I'm no expert but it seems to me that acts of parliament regarding waterways have been a relatively common occurence in the past. Is there a particular reason why waterways would not be included in future primary legislation? Acts of Parliament in respect of waterways generally, have been rare to non-existent since the 13thC. The Transport Acts of the sixties are the closest Parliament has come to such a thing since then. I'm obviously misunderstanding something as had assumed that the British Waterways 1995 act was relevant for some reason. It also appears there was a BW act 1971 and a BW act 1983. So that would be 12 years between each one including the 1995 act. Then a gap of 24 years. I'm sure I'm got the wrong end of the stick.
|
|