|
Post by TonyDunkley on Jul 20, 2020 19:11:56 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 definately doesn’t get people to do what you want. For the benefit of those not blessed with your knowledge and wisdom, please be good enough to explain the dire consequences which would follow the grounding of your boat on a clean unobstructed sandbank in a river with water levels already as low as they're going to get for at least the next few weeks. For my benefit - can you explain what sort of ''help'' you need to run your boat aground in water too shallow for it to float in ?
|
|
|
Post by kris on Jul 20, 2020 19:25:24 GMT
A load of hassle is the answer if it was just “clean unobstructed sandbank”as you claim. I mean you’ve been up and down that stretch recently haven’t you? Well you seem to have missed the sunken boat on the turn at Barton island which is the biggest obstacle to navigation.
|
|
|
Post by patty on Jul 21, 2020 5:30:05 GMT
No-one needs unnecessary hassle in life..but with what has been written on here.... If now Kris were to run aground at that point couldn't it be seen as 'deliberate intent' ?...stuff written on Face Ache and Tweeted come back to bite people years down the line..
I would not be surprised if some minion in CRT follows these boaters forums.
|
|
|
Post by NigelMoore on Jul 21, 2020 7:51:52 GMT
I would not be surprised if some minion in CRT follows these boaters forums. That has been a long known fact Patty. It is probably even still the same person – Debbie Figueiredo. Her emailed copies of my posts on CWDF comprised the exhibits to 2 successive Witness Statements filed by CaRT's Lucy Barry (their Solicitor/Advocate) in their case to have me barred from representing Leigh Ravenscroft. So yes, whatever gets posted on these forums needs to be done with that in mind. I always saw it as a good thing - one sure way to get a message across!
|
|
|
Post by TonyDunkley on Jul 21, 2020 9:05:54 GMT
Earlier in this thread I said - "the pleasure boating fraternity really have now got just the sort of joke navigation authority they deserve, . . and there's no-one to blame but themselves !". Anyone inclined to be dismissive of those sentiments, and supportive of Kris's reluctance to demonstrate that C&RT are falling well short of their statutory maintenance obligations in respect of dredged depth of the waterways they have in their dubious care, should acquaint themselves with the following sub-paragraphs from the C&RT/Defra Memorandum of Understanding that accompanied the handover of our inland waterways in 2012 :
CRT’s priorities for maintaining navigability of the waterways
12.4 CRT is successor to statutory duties under the Transport Act 1968 to maintain
certain of the waterways in its care (those classified as either commercial or
cruising waterways under the provisions of that Act) to specified statutory
dimensions. BW (as its predecessor in respect of those statutory duties) had
been subject to a long standing ministerial direction that in its management of
such waterways it should maintain to such dimensions as reflected their use
and prospects of use. It was further understood between BW and Government
that, in the event of enforcement of the statutory dimensions in circumstances
that did not reflect use and prospects of use, Government would exercise its
powers under the Transport Act 1968 to revise those dimensions so that they
reflected actual use and prospects of use.
12.5 Defra confirms to CRT its intention that the maintenance of statutory
dimensions of the classified waterways should continue to reflect actual use
and prospects of use.
______________________________________
The implications are clear. If there's no demonstrable need to maintain cruising or commercial waterways to present depth standards, the maintained depth WILL be reduced as appropriate.
Long, drawn out legal wrangles over C&RT's statutory maintenance obligations will simply provide them with ample time to demonstrate and argue that the present depth dimensions are unnecessarily generous. Navigations blocked by stranded boats, on the other hand, will leave them nothing to argue with or about !
|
|
|
Post by TonyDunkley on Jul 21, 2020 10:36:33 GMT
If now Kris were to run aground at that point couldn't it be seen as 'deliberate intent' ? . . . . . . . . . . . I would not be surprised if some minion in CRT follows these boaters forums. Nigel has already commented with regard to C&RT's monitoring of boating forums, so there's no need for me to add to what he's already said, . . except, perhaps, to point out just how much satisfaction C&RT will have gained from the general reluctance to hold them to their statutory obligations which is becoming increasingly apparent from this thread. As for any 'deliberate intent' element in running aground and blocking a navigation with a vessel drawing around 9''- 10'' less than the depth to which C&RT are, for the present, statutorily obliged to maintain the Trent Navigation above Nottingham, . . isn't that precisely what is needed to prevent the present statutory depth dimension for that waterway being reduced by default - as per the C&RT/Defra MoU sub-para's reproduced in my last post on this page ?
|
|
|
Post by NigelMoore on Jul 21, 2020 13:27:18 GMT
Government would exercise its
powers under the Transport Act 1968 to revise those dimensions so that they
reflected actual use and prospects of use.
Note two things from that quote – first, that the 1968 Act has ALWAYS allowed government to shift the goalposts as and when desired; second, that neither BW nor the government ever bothered to go through the necessary legal process to do so. The cosy agreement between DEFRA and CaRT that the law would be changed as needed to accommodate the fully anticipated maintenance failures, is something neither of them bother about either. Why should they? Nobody effectively protests the criminality of this authority in ignoring the statutes intended to bind them, least of all, it seems, the government that created them. When nobody knows or cares, or worse still knows, but supinely permits such abuse of authority and flaunting of the law to go unchallenged, then (to be dramatic about it) the very constitutional principles by which we are supposedly governed are undermined. Authorities no longer need right, they just need might. The failure to maintain the MNC to the current standard continues as an offence against the statute, enforceable under law unless and until the statutory process to diminish the dimensional parameters has been complied with. This is largely why – even though my reply to Kris observed at the outset that a s.106 case would be doomed to fail in the ostensible prime objective – I support the idea of a legal challenge. It sends the message home that some citizens at least, are concerned about both the worsening condition of the canals and the appalling freedom of the company entrusted with the care of them, to blatantly act against the law with never a hint of censure from government.
|
|
|
Post by Jim on Jul 21, 2020 16:18:48 GMT
Government would exercise its
powers under the Transport Act 1968 to revise those dimensions so that they
reflected actual use and prospects of use.
Note two things from that quote – first, that the 1968 Act has ALWAYS allowed government to shift the goalposts as and when desired; second, that neither BW nor the government ever bothered to go through the necessary legal process to do so. The cosy agreement between DEFRA and CaRT that the law would be changed as needed to accommodate the fully anticipated maintenance failures, is something neither of them bother about either. Why should they? Nobody effectively protests the criminality of this authority in ignoring the statutes intended to bind them, least of all, it seems, the government that created them. When nobody knows or cares, or worse still knows, but supinely permits such abuse of authority and flaunting of the law to go unchallenged, then (to be dramatic about it) the very constitutional principles by which we are supposedly governed are undermined. Authorities no longer need right, they just need might. The failure to maintain the MNC to the current standard continues as an offence against the statute, enforceable under law unless and until the statutory process to diminish the dimensional parameters has been complied with. This is largely why – even though my reply to Kris observed at the outset that a s.106 case would be doomed to fail in the ostensible prime objective – I support the idea of a legal challenge. It sends the message home that some citizens at least, are concerned about both the worsening condition of the canals and the appalling freedom of the company entrusted with the care of them, to blatantly act against the law with never a hint of censure from government. So is there a means of compelling CRT to fulfill their statutory duties cheaply?
|
|
|
Post by Clinton Cool on Jul 21, 2020 16:53:02 GMT
Note two things from that quote – first, that the 1968 Act has ALWAYS allowed government to shift the goalposts as and when desired; second, that neither BW nor the government ever bothered to go through the necessary legal process to do so. The cosy agreement between DEFRA and CaRT that the law would be changed as needed to accommodate the fully anticipated maintenance failures, is something neither of them bother about either. Why should they? Nobody effectively protests the criminality of this authority in ignoring the statutes intended to bind them, least of all, it seems, the government that created them. When nobody knows or cares, or worse still knows, but supinely permits such abuse of authority and flaunting of the law to go unchallenged, then (to be dramatic about it) the very constitutional principles by which we are supposedly governed are undermined. Authorities no longer need right, they just need might. The failure to maintain the MNC to the current standard continues as an offence against the statute, enforceable under law unless and until the statutory process to diminish the dimensional parameters has been complied with. This is largely why – even though my reply to Kris observed at the outset that a s.106 case would be doomed to fail in the ostensible prime objective – I support the idea of a legal challenge. It sends the message home that some citizens at least, are concerned about both the worsening condition of the canals and the appalling freedom of the company entrusted with the care of them, to blatantly act against the law with never a hint of censure from government. So is there a means of compelling CRT to fulfill their statutory duties cheaply? I may be wrong but my understanding: CRT operates as a privately run charity but its ultimate arbiter is the government. It's a QUANGO. Whether a judicial review could be sought against the actions of such an organisation is beyond my knowledge. I suspect not. It may be that a judicial review could be sought against the charter issued to it by government. In practical terms I suspect the only recourse would be heavy (but non-legal) pressure on the minister responsible. The Environment Minister, I believe. Such pressure would probably require a catastrophe e.g. a dam bursting through lack of maintenance with hundreds of people killed and it coming out that money that should have been spent preventing such an event was spent on grass cutting and 'woof woof' signs instead.
|
|
|
Post by Telemachus on Jul 21, 2020 17:07:52 GMT
So is there a means of compelling CRT to fulfill their statutory duties cheaply? I may be wrong but my understanding: CRT operates as a privately run charity but its ultimate arbiter is the government. It's a QUANGO. Whether a judicial review could be sought against the actions of such an organisation is beyond my knowledge. I suspect not. It may be that a judicial review could be sought against the charter issued to it by government. In practical terms I suspect the only recourse would be heavy (but non-legal) pressure on the minister responsible. The Environment Minister, I believe. Such pressure would probably require a catastrophe e.g. a dam bursting through lack of maintenance with hundreds of people killed and it coming out that money that should have been spent preventing such an event was spent on grass cutting and 'woof woof' signs instead. As I understand it, a Judicial Review can only be made of a specific decision that an organisation has made, and on the way the decision was made (adherence to their own policies etc) rather than the rights and wrongs of it. I don’t think you can JR an organisation just for being crap and wasting money on the wrong priorities.
|
|
|
Post by kris on Jul 21, 2020 17:34:21 GMT
The failure to maintain the MNC to the current standard continues as an offence against the statute, enforceable under law unless and until the statutory process to diminish the dimensional parameters has been complied with. This is largely why – even though my reply to Kris observed at the outset that a s.106 case would be doomed to fail in the ostensible prime objective – I support the idea of a legal challenge. It sends the message home that some citizens at least, are concerned about both the worsening condition of the canals and the appalling freedom of the company entrusted with the care of them, to blatantly act against the law with never a hint of censure from government. I never had any doubt the case would fail and it would only be a case of highlighting the situation to a wider audience. I still think taking photos to back up these stories of dangerously under maintained infrastructure, if enough boaters did it would be powerful evidence and couldn’t be dismissed as one persons personal vendetta. Anyway just to add Tony would be proud of me, ( well not really.) I managed to run aground at Barton island, even though I knew where the sunken boat is. It took about an hour an a half to get off, a passing narrowboat gave me a little pull which is all it took. I’m sure Tony would want me stuck in the middle of the Trent for weeks on end, but I’m afraid that was never going to happen. So now I’m moored at Beeston and will move again when the water level rises.
|
|
|
Post by TonyDunkley on Jul 21, 2020 17:39:18 GMT
I'm grateful to Nigel for drawing readers and contributors attention to the fact that - quote "the 1968 Act has ALWAYS allowed government to shift the goalposts as and when desired; second, that neither BW nor the government ever bothered to go through the necessary legal process to do so." This is unquestionably so, but it must also go on record that their attempts to diminish maintenance standards - specifically, dredged depth - on the NE commercial waterways by default, just as C&RT are now doing throughout the entire length of the Trent Navigation, were in fact frustrated by way of successful S.106(Transport Act 1968) actions through the Courts.
Victor Waddington, of barge operators E.V.Waddington of Swinton - anyone unfamiliar with the name or the company should look him up on the internet - was the successful claimant against BWB's failure to maintain the S&SYN to the statutory dimensions (depth) obligatory under the 1968 Transport Act, as a direct consequence of the barges he was loading down to the statutory depth for the S&SYN in Goole consistently grounding at several points along the canal and unable to reach their intended destinations.
Going by the selection of adverse comments in response to my suggestion on how Kris could draw attention to C&RT's failure to maintain the statutory depth in the river Trent, I'm sure Victor Waddington's actions in loading his barge fleet down to a depth at which he knew they would ground and block the navigation would meet with the same hearty disapproval from a great many of those who nowadays populate our inland waterways, . . and probably for similarly irrational reasons !
|
|
|
Post by Telemachus on Jul 21, 2020 17:42:10 GMT
I'm grateful to Nigel for drawing readers and contributors attention to the fact that - quote "the 1968 Act has ALWAYS allowed government to shift the goalposts as and when desired; second, that neither BW nor the government ever bothered to go through the necessary legal process to do so." This is unquestionably so, but it must also go on record that their attempts to diminish maintenance standards - specifically, dredged depth - on the NE commercial waterways by default, just as C&RT are now doing throughout the entire length of the Trent Navigation, were in fact frustrated by way of successful S.106(Transport Act 1968) actions through the Courts. Victor Waddington, of barge operators E.V.Waddington of Swinton - anyone unfamiliar with the name or the company should look him up on the internet - was the successful claimant against BWB's failure to maintain the S&SYN to the statutory dimensions (depth) obligatory under the 1968 Transport Act, as a direct consequence of the barges he was loading down to the statutory depth for the S&SYN in Goole consistently grounding at several points along the canal and unable to reach their intended destinations. Going by the selection of adverse comments in response to my suggestion on how Kris could draw attention to C&RT's failure to maintain the statutory depth in the river Trent, I'm sure Victor Waddington's actions in loading his barge fleet down to a depth at which he knew they would ground and block the navigation would be heartily disapproved of by a great many of those who nowadays populate our inland waterways, . . and probably for similarly irrational reasons ! However it’s obvious that Victor’s interests were purely commercial and hence not altruistic, whereas kris has his home to think about.
|
|
|
Post by kris on Jul 21, 2020 17:51:05 GMT
He is also a very rich man.
|
|
|
Post by TonyDunkley on Jul 21, 2020 17:52:24 GMT
I'm grateful to Nigel for drawing readers and contributors attention to the fact that - quote "the 1968 Act has ALWAYS allowed government to shift the goalposts as and when desired; second, that neither BW nor the government ever bothered to go through the necessary legal process to do so." This is unquestionably so, but it must also go on record that their attempts to diminish maintenance standards - specifically, dredged depth - on the NE commercial waterways by default, just as C&RT are now doing throughout the entire length of the Trent Navigation, were in fact frustrated by way of successful S.106(Transport Act 1968) actions through the Courts. Victor Waddington, of barge operators E.V.Waddington of Swinton - anyone unfamiliar with the name or the company should look him up on the internet - was the successful claimant against BWB's failure to maintain the S&SYN to the statutory dimensions (depth) obligatory under the 1968 Transport Act, as a direct consequence of the barges he was loading down to the statutory depth for the S&SYN in Goole consistently grounding at several points along the canal and unable to reach their intended destinations. Going by the selection of adverse comments in response to my suggestion on how Kris could draw attention to C&RT's failure to maintain the statutory depth in the river Trent, I'm sure Victor Waddington's actions in loading his barge fleet down to a depth at which he knew they would ground and block the navigation would be heartily disapproved of by a great many of those who nowadays populate our inland waterways, . . and probably for similarly irrational reasons ! However it’s obvious that Victor’s interests were purely commercial and hence not altruistic, whereas kris has his home to think about. I fail to see how the fact that Kris lives on his boat makes any difference to the situation, . . or creates any real, as opposed to imaginary, problems with regard to grounding it on a clean obstruction free and relatively level sandbank.
|
|