|
Post by NigelMoore on Jul 19, 2020 16:26:28 GMT
It is not the few thousands it would cost for a diy claim that you need factor in - it is the potential liability for whatever they chose to throw at it that gives pause for thought. Hence my suggestion of a "mutual" goal. Sorry to keep troubling you Nigel. But I think this is an idea that has got legs, well it’s entertaining me to think about it at the moment. I know these are how long is a bit of string questions, but some sort of approximations would help work out the feasibility. What would the amount be that cart would use to try and scare any would be complainant? Also how long would it take to get to court? Quite a few years I would have thought, so if a certain amount of boaters would subscribe as it where. Then it might be possible to have accumulated quite a war chest by the time any judgment was reached. I think this kind of action brought by one person but backed up by numerous other boaters that had amassed evidence of the “neglect,” might have the desired effect of highlighting the situation and getting a judge or judges to have a closer look. Maybe some form of association created just for the bringing of this case? Anyway I again apologise for pestering you with my musings. Ps even though I’m not rich I think I could commit to £10 a month for the long haul. I’d much rather do this, than give cart more money through over inflated liscence fees. Which is nothing but a disguised gentrification scheme. Anybody who thinks giving cart more money will result in better maintained waterways is delusional. Predicting case timing is beset with problems currently for obvious reasons, but one could ordinarily expect a clearly presented case to go before the Court in 6-9 months. Costs CaRT would/could throw at it? Depends on whether they want to be vindictive or cooperative. IF they saw this as an opportunity to more widely publicise their claimed lack of funds for maintenance purposes (and regardless of what you or anybody else believes, that would constitute their sole available defence), then they might agree to each side bearing their own costs. Minimising their own expenditure would help bolster their case. IF on the other hand, they wanted to avoid any risk of Secretary of State censure and re- direction of funds from perks to maintenance, AND crush the upstarts who dared challenge them, then for limits you need to look at their budget allocation for the Legal Department. You could be looking at 6 figure minimums. Scaring potential opponents with such costs is always the first tactic of the big boys. The only way past that is to find someone with literally nothing to lose (ideally also, via Legal Aid, though whether that could apply to such a case brought in the public interest I couldn't comment).
|
|
|
Post by NigelMoore on Jul 19, 2020 17:13:03 GMT
Canal towpaths are not generally public rights of way. That could well be about to change next year. I'm not sure on the legal ins and outs, but I understand that there is some legal wrangling over the towpaths being made public rights of way. Despite the persistent bluffing by BW on this topic for the whole of their existence, the legal situation has always been that they inherited from the BTC a system whose towpaths had in many cases become public pedestrian rights of way following due process after the National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act 1949. The BTC vigorously opposed (during the obligatory public consultations and examinations) listing the affected towpaths as public access, but largely unsuccessfully. By the time BW came officially into existence,the PROW status of many towpaths had become legally identified by the “Definitive Maps and Statements” memorialising the national Borough findings. Not, of course, that BW let that inconvenient fact hinder them from lying about the true situation, and their success in maintaining the bluff is a matter of record. Bullshitting worked for them, and their successor has been finessing the techniques involved assiduously. The very fact that there is this talk of creating public access to already public access is quite extraordinary testimony to geneal ignorance and trust in corporate probity. Of course, I have not bothered to examine just how much of the towpath system remained unaffected by the 1949 Act; the BTC had certainly been correct in claiming that the Enabling Acts had conferred no public access, other than for boat operators, to the towpaths. So there might be something in the nature of a "clean sweep" by government in whatever may be envisaged in this "legal wrangling" - presuming that the government are actually involved in the wrangle? Extension of access to cycles was a further condition imposed under the Transfer Order 2012.
|
|
|
Post by NigelMoore on Jul 19, 2020 17:24:47 GMT
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 19, 2020 17:33:24 GMT
That could well be about to change next year. I'm not sure on the legal ins and outs, but I understand that there is some legal wrangling over the towpaths being made public rights of way. Despite the persistent bluffing by BW on this topic for the whole of their existence, the legal situation has always been that they inherited from the BTC a system whose towpaths had in many cases become public pedestrian rights of way following due process after the National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act 1949. The BTC vigorously opposed (during the obligatory public consultations and examinations) listing the affected towpaths as public access, but largely unsuccessfully. By the time BW came officially into existence,the PROW status of many towpaths had become legally identified by the “Definitive Maps and Statements” memorialising the national Borough findings. Not, of course, that BW let that inconvenient fact hinder them from lying about the true situation, and their success in maintaining the bluff is a matter of record. Bullshitting worked for them, and their successor has been finessing the techniques involved assiduously. The very fact that there is this talk of creating public access to already public access is quite extraordinary testimony to geneal ignorance and trust in corporate probity. Of course, I have not bothered to examine just how much of the towpath system remained unaffected by the 1949 Act; the BTC had certainly been correct in claiming that the Enabling Acts had conferred no public access, other than for boat operators, to the towpaths. So there might be something in the nature of a "clean sweep" by government in whatever may be envisaged in this "legal wrangling" - presuming that the government are actually involved in the wrangle? Extension of access to cycles was a further condition imposed under the Transfer Order 2012. I'm not sure where the government stand, but I understand a couple of mp's have taken an interest, and crt's legal are working on the subject. For some reason (I have no idea what), it will become an issue next year, 2021. Perhaps laws or legislation are being proposed? Or, perhaps the government are looking at ways to cut funding to crt. (This is my preferred suspicion).
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 19, 2020 17:57:25 GMT
Personally, I don't see a court case having any legs. It's hard enough getting most boaters to write an email complaint. I think IWA or NBTA are the best options on taking a stance. Both have substantial parliamentary weight with sympathetic MP's. Pressure on either of these two groups would in my opinion garner more of a following. NBTA won a little battle when CRT were doing their best to ignore them, and which consequently saw Parry getting his ear bent by a couple of prominent MP's. These days, CRT are very respective of NBTA. I only see the situation itself getting worse, because CRT just don't give a fuck.
|
|
|
Post by kris on Jul 19, 2020 18:12:57 GMT
Personally, I don't see a court case having any legs. It's hard enough getting most boaters to write an email complaint. I think IWA or NBTA are the best options on taking a stance. Both have substantial parliamentary weight with sympathetic MP's. Pressure on either of these two groups would in my opinion garner more of a following. NBTA won a little battle when CRT were doing their best to ignore them, and which consequently saw Parry getting his ear bent by a couple of prominent MP's. These days, CRT are very respective of NBTA. I only see the situation itself getting worse, because CRT just don't give a fuck. I only see a court case being of any benefit if it is backed by a number of boaters not only financially but by taking photos of the incidents of neglect they see. This then couldn’t be dismissed as one persons personal vendetta. It might even make a judge pay more attention to the situation.
|
|
|
Post by TonyDunkley on Jul 20, 2020 0:35:35 GMT
Instead of dreaming up ideas on how to provide C&RT's lawyers with opportunities to dump massive costs liabilities on anyone with enough backbone to stand up to them, why don't you take your boat down to Barton Island and ground it in what's left of the MNC, . . the resulting inconvenience to all the boats that are unlikely to be able to get past should lead to at least some measure of outrage directed at C&RT's negligence. Because Tony I care for my boat more than you obviously do. Taking that course of action when knowing there is an obstruction would be considered bloody minded at best. I intend to call your best friend Stuart who is the local enforcement officer at the moment, to see what crt intend to do. I’m also hoping to sail down on a friends narrowboat in person before attempting it in Medlock. So, . . you're quite happy to routinely bounce your boat over all the assorted junk in the canal through Beeston and Nottingham, . . but you're unwilling to run it aground on a bank of clean level sand that was deposited in the MNC by last year's floods. Sounds to me like a pretty lame excuse for staying inconspicuously in the background whilst others make your points and arguments for you ! As for C&RT's intentions with regard to dredging out all the flooding induced shoaling in the Trent, I can tell you right now exactly what they plan to do, . . . absolutely nothing, . . for just as long as the reticent and the mealy-mouthed allow them to get away with it !
|
|
|
Post by patty on Jul 20, 2020 5:52:04 GMT
TBH I don't think I'd have deliberately run my boat aground, not even to make a valid point with CRT. There has to be different ways of highlighting issues without extreme measures.
|
|
|
Post by kris on Jul 20, 2020 7:22:00 GMT
Because Tony I care for my boat more than you obviously do. Taking that course of action when knowing there is an obstruction would be considered bloody minded at best. I intend to call your best friend Stuart who is the local enforcement officer at the moment, to see what crt intend to do. I’m also hoping to sail down on a friends narrowboat in person before attempting it in Medlock. So, . . you're quite happy to routinely bounce your boat over all the assorted junk in the canal through Beeston and Nottingham, . . but you're unwilling to run it aground on a bank of clean level sand that was deposited in the MNC by last year's floods. Sounds to me like a pretty lame excuse for staying inconspicuously in the background whilst others make your points and arguments for you ! As for C&RT's intentions with regard to dredging out all the flooding induced shoaling in the Trent, I can tell you right now exactly what they plan to do, . . . absolutely nothing, . . for just as long as the reticent and the mealy-mouthed allow them to get away with it ! To be honest Tony your making yourself look stupid even suggesting that I deliberately ground my boat and block the navigation. Would you come and help if I did? I doubt that very much. So I’m not going to do what you want and calling names definately doesn’t get people to do what you want.
|
|
|
Post by Jim on Jul 20, 2020 8:08:11 GMT
So, . . you're quite happy to routinely bounce your boat over all the assorted junk in the canal through Beeston and Nottingham, . . but you're unwilling to run it aground on a bank of clean level sand that was deposited in the MNC by last year's floods. Sounds to me like a pretty lame excuse for staying inconspicuously in the background whilst others make your points and arguments for you ! As for C&RT's intentions with regard to dredging out all the flooding induced shoaling in the Trent, I can tell you right now exactly what they plan to do, . . . absolutely nothing, . . for just as long as the reticent and the mealy-mouthed allow them to get away with it ! To be honest Tony your making yourself look stupid even suggesting that I deliberately ground my boat and block the navigation. Would you come and help if I did? I doubt that very much. So I’m not going to do what you want and calling names definitely doesn’t get people to do what you want. On the other hand he's not asking you to do anything he wouldn't do himself. eg Selby Mike is currently grounded firmly. Perhaps you could have chosen a shoal TonyDunkley, two birds with one stone.
|
|
|
Post by TonyDunkley on Jul 20, 2020 8:17:07 GMT
To be honest Tony your making yourself look stupid even suggesting that I deliberately ground my boat and block the navigation. Would you come and help if I did? I doubt that very much. So I’m not going to do what you want and calling names definitely doesn’t get people to do what you want. On the other hand he's not asking you to do anything he wouldn't do himself. eg Selby Mike is currently grounded firmly. Perhaps you could have chosen a shoal TonyDunkley , two birds with one stone. There's a major flaw in your reasoning, Jim, I didn't dump it there, . . C&RT did !
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 20, 2020 8:21:35 GMT
And it's not his home anyway !
Rog
|
|
|
Post by kris on Jul 20, 2020 9:07:42 GMT
To be honest Tony your making yourself look stupid even suggesting that I deliberately ground my boat and block the navigation. Would you come and help if I did? I doubt that very much. So I’m not going to do what you want and calling names definitely doesn’t get people to do what you want. On the other hand he's not asking you to do anything he wouldn't do himself. eg Selby Mike is currently grounded firmly. Perhaps you could have chosen a shoal TonyDunkley, two birds with one stone. It does make you question if Tony would deliberately use Selby Micheal to get at cart? As it’s exactly the kind of action that he’s trying to badger me into with my boat.
|
|
|
Post by naughtyfox on Jul 20, 2020 9:43:11 GMT
Has the Association been formed yet?
|
|
|
Post by Jim on Jul 20, 2020 15:56:35 GMT
Has the Association been formed yet? Canal Association for Repair and Transformation?
|
|