Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 7, 2021 15:00:37 GMT
Dear Mr Deards You were entrusted by the Board of Trustees to file its approved Annual Report with Companies House and the Charity Commission. As you admit, you broke that trust by conspiring with your chair, deputy chair and chief executive to file an altered report on your website and with the Charities Commission. You have now compounded the matter by failing to disclose to the Charity Commission and myself - - the full nature of your chairs involvement in this matter - that you altered 'visitor satisfaction' figures as well as 'heritage' figures - the names of those that were complicit in altering 'visitor satisfaction' figures I note also, that you have also failed to address the possible outcomes that this maladministration will have on Defra funding and public perception. Please respond within five working days. Based on your response I will decide if I need to take the matter further or leave it to the Charity Commission who are carry out its own investigation. Kindest Regards Allan Richards Is this something you have put in a letter and sent to him?
|
|
|
Post by Allan on Jun 7, 2021 16:32:29 GMT
I emailed him this morning. Edited to make it clear.
|
|
|
Post by TonyDunkley on Jun 7, 2021 17:24:48 GMT
Dear Mr Deards You were entrusted by the Board of Trustees to file its approved Annual Report with Companies House and the Charity Commission. As you admit, you broke that trust by conspiring with your chair, deputy chair and chief executive to file an altered report on your website and with the Charities Commission. You have now compounded the matter by failing to disclose to the Charity Commission and myself - - the full nature of your chairs involvement in this matter - that you altered 'visitor satisfaction' figures as well as 'heritage' figures - the names of those that were complicit in altering 'visitor satisfaction' figures I note also, that you have also failed to address the possible outcomes that this maladministration will have on Defra funding and public perception. Please respond within five working days. Based on your response I will decide if I need to take the matter further or leave it to the Charity Commission who are carry out its own investigation. Kindest Regards Allan Richards It seems that the C&RT Company Secretary, Tom Deards, is in dire need of some sound legal advice. Given that there's no realistic prospect of getting any such thing from his colleagues at C&RT's Legal & Governance Services, . . I would guess that he may well go scuttling off to enlist the services of solicitor Zoe Wright, from law firm Blake Morgan, . . and Deards refuge of choice last January when he was so desperate for help in trying to cover-up the extent of C&RT's wrongdoings with regard to the illegal seizure of the Liverpool Lightship in September 2016. Now a partner at law firm Blake Morgan, and formerly a partner at Shoosmiths, . . the delightful Ms Wright was, by coincidence, the author of the Witness Statement that accompanied the false written evidence submitted to the High Court in December 2016 attesting to the outright lie that the C&RT seized ex-Liverpool Bar Lightship "Planet" pursuant to a "High Court Warrant".
|
|
|
Post by Allan on Jun 7, 2021 22:34:54 GMT
Dear Mr Deards You were entrusted by the Board of Trustees to file its approved Annual Report with Companies House and the Charity Commission. As you admit, you broke that trust by conspiring with your chair, deputy chair and chief executive to file an altered report on your website and with the Charities Commission. You have now compounded the matter by failing to disclose to the Charity Commission and myself - - the full nature of your chairs involvement in this matter - that you altered 'visitor satisfaction' figures as well as 'heritage' figures - the names of those that were complicit in altering 'visitor satisfaction' figures I note also, that you have also failed to address the possible outcomes that this maladministration will have on Defra funding and public perception. Please respond within five working days. Based on your response I will decide if I need to take the matter further or leave it to the Charity Commission who are carry out its own investigation. Kindest Regards Allan Richards It seems that the C&RT Company Secretary, Tom Deards, is in dire need of some sound legal advice. Given that there's no realistic prospect of getting any such thing from his colleagues at C&RT's Legal & Governance Services, . . I would guess that he may well go scuttling off to enlist the services of solicitor Zoe Wright, from law firm Blake Morgan, . . and Deards refuge of choice last January when he was so desperate for help in trying to cover-up the extent of C&RT's wrongdoings with regard to the illegal seizure of the Liverpool Lightship in September 2016. Now a partner at law firm Blake Morgan, and formerly a partner at Shoosmiths, . . the delightful Ms Wright was, by coincidence, the author of the Witness Statement that accompanied the false written evidence submitted to the High Court in December 2016 attesting to the outright lie that the C&RT seized ex-Liverpool Bar Lightship "Planet" pursuant to a "High Court Warrant". On facebook, for the moment, I am considered as something of a hero for taking on CRT. However, I am lucky insomuch as I have been able to disappear as a licence applicant and boat owner (CRT's records will show that I terminated my licence in August 2020). My heart goes out to those who challenge CRT but are not in my fortunate position. They are the real heroes.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 7, 2021 22:47:44 GMT
This is all quite emotive language but for people that have major issues with the CRT do we actually think there are any particularly useful and/or better options out there?
Maybe a full privatisation and selling off local areas to marina operators would be better.
While there are a few internet based voices complaining about it all I can't help thinking that for the incredibly large majority of boat owners who are subjected to paying money to the CRT it actually isn't all that bad.
|
|
|
Post by Allan on Jun 7, 2021 23:03:04 GMT
How bad is bad?
Most will be familiar that I have a program that takes a snapshot of the number of closures on CRT's waterways.
Is 17 bad or good?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 7, 2021 23:23:38 GMT
I know it is deteriorating but there is also the internet to take into account.
More information available to more people at a faster rate.
I actually think it would be quite good if the system was broken up and run by vested interests which would involve quite big changes and increase in costs to boaters. CRT is a stepping stone as I always said.
It seems to me that the existence of the canals is more important than the existence of boaters.
Obviously one needs the other in funding terms but it's definitely an interesting situation.
Like you I am no longer involved with CRT waterways. I do have a boat with a residential mooring on CRT water which never goes anywhere and is paid for by local authority anyway but other than that no interest in CRT waterways now or in the future.
Still quite an interesting topic though going forward.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 7, 2021 23:28:53 GMT
It was the "my heart goes out to..." That got me.
This is the sort or language they use when some kid gets violently killed and everyone's heart goes out to the parents.
It just seems slightly odd language to use about a rather nackered canal system due for some reality upgrades in terms of who is actually using it and who should be funding it.
|
|
|
Post by JohnV on Jun 8, 2021 4:15:52 GMT
It was the "my heart goes out to..." That got me. This is the sort or language they use when some kid gets violently killed and everyone's heart goes out to the parents. It just seems slightly odd language to use about a rather nackered canal system due for some reality upgrades in terms of who is actually using it and who should be funding it. Disagree Andrew. If someone, who lives on CRT waters, takes them on, they risk their home.
If I pick a fight with CRT, I cannot be thrown off their waters or potentially lose my home because of their actions ....... I live on a PRN water., if a licence was refused for any reason for my little boat it would merely irritate me, it cannot be thrown off their water because it's home mooring is not on their waters. I would simply restrict it's travel to non CRT areas.
Taking a big organisation to task is usually hard due to their monolithic structure, but with CRT it is more risky because of their well catalogued vindictive behaviour.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 8, 2021 7:44:04 GMT
It was the "my heart goes out to..." That got me. This is the sort or language they use when some kid gets violently killed and everyone's heart goes out to the parents. It just seems slightly odd language to use about a rather nackered canal system due for some reality upgrades in terms of who is actually using it and who should be funding it. Disagree Andrew. If someone, who lives on CRT waters, takes them on, they risk their home.
If I pick a fight with CRT, I cannot be thrown off their waters or potentially lose my home because of their actions ....... I live on a PRN water., if a licence was refused for any reason for my little boat it would merely irritate me, it cannot be thrown off their water because it's home mooring is not on their waters. I would simply restrict it's travel to non CRT areas.
Taking a big organisationto task is usually hard due to their monolithic structure, but with CRT it is more risky because of their well catalogued vindictive behaviour.
You make it sound like they have expelled people from 'their' waterways out of spite rather than because of things like persistent overstaying. It's an interesting topic to me because I can't buy a CRT license or a Gold license without having a mooring. This is due to persistent overstaying. I have been blocked. Not sure by whom but they have prevented me from purchasing any of these things. Whether that is legal I am not quite sure. Of course it's easy to get around it by simply saying boat kept out of water then you can pay for the license but the new t&c mentions this so it's a known loophole. I think I have failed to satisfy the bored. Not that worried about it as have had more than enough canal towpath dwelling for a lifetime already but it is sort of intriguing.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 8, 2021 7:53:00 GMT
Disagree Andrew. If someone, who lives on CRT waters, takes them on, they risk their home.
If I pick a fight with CRT, I cannot be thrown off their waters or potentially lose my home because of their actions ....... I live on a PRN water., if a licence was refused for any reason for my little boat it would merely irritate me, it cannot be thrown off their water because it's home mooring is not on their waters. I would simply restrict it's travel to non CRT areas.
Taking a big organisationto task is usually hard due to their monolithic structure, but with CRT it is more risky because of their well catalogued vindictive behaviour.
Whether that is legal I am not quite sure. It’s illegal. Satisfying the board means you have to supply the three things legislation dictates to obtain a licence. CRT interpretation is irrelevant on this issue, as Nigel stated many times. The legislation on this is very clear, hence why several people have successfully reapplied and received a licence.
|
|
|
Post by kris on Jun 8, 2021 7:58:18 GMT
The point is the navigation authority should be acting within the legislation. Not trying to make it up or even worse acting in legally dubious ways. Which it has been shown to do on numerous occasions.
|
|
|
Post by Telemachus on Jun 8, 2021 8:01:37 GMT
Whether that is legal I am not quite sure. It’s illegal. Satisfying the board means you have to supply the three things legislation dictates to obtain a licence. CRT interpretation is irrelevant on this issue, as Nigel stated many times. The legislation on this is very clear, hence why several people have successfully reapplied and received a licence. No, you have to satisfy the board specifically that you will “CC”. If you have persistent history of saying in writing that you will CC, but then not doing so, IMO the board couldn’t reasonably be expected to be satisfied that you are suddenly going to change your spots and be a good little CCer. Legal cases won have been based on whether someone was actually CCing, not whether “the board” can refuse CCing on the basis of past behaviour. (ii)the applicant for the relevant consent satisfies the Board that the vessel to which the application relates will be used bona fide for navigation throughout the period for which the consent is valid without remaining continuously in any one place for more than 14 days or such longer period as is reasonable in the circumstances.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 8, 2021 8:06:48 GMT
It’s illegal. Satisfying the board means you have to supply the three things legislation dictates to obtain a licence. CRT interpretation is irrelevant on this issue, as Nigel stated many times. The legislation on this is very clear, hence why several people have successfully reapplied and received a licence. No, you have to satisfy the board specifically that you will “CC”. If you have persistent history of saying in writing that you will CC, but then not doing so, IMO the board couldn’t reasonably be expected to be satisfied that you are suddenly going to change your spots and be a good little CCer. Legal cases won have been based on whether someone was actually CCing, not whether “the board” can refuse CCing on the basis of past behaviour. (ii)the applicant for the relevant consent satisfies the Board that the vessel to which the application relates will be used bona fide for navigation throughout the period for which the consent is valid without remaining continuously in any one place for more than 14 days or such longer period as is reasonable in the circumstances.I’m not spending the day explaining this to you, it just goes around in circles. There have been several cases whereby people have successfully reapplied and obtained a licence. A declaration of intent is sufficient.
|
|
|
Post by Telemachus on Jun 8, 2021 8:11:15 GMT
No, you have to satisfy the board specifically that you will “CC”. If you have persistent history of saying in writing that you will CC, but then not doing so, IMO the board couldn’t reasonably be expected to be satisfied that you are suddenly going to change your spots and be a good little CCer. Legal cases won have been based on whether someone was actually CCing, not whether “the board” can refuse CCing on the basis of past behaviour. (ii)the applicant for the relevant consent satisfies the Board that the vessel to which the application relates will be used bona fide for navigation throughout the period for which the consent is valid without remaining continuously in any one place for more than 14 days or such longer period as is reasonable in the circumstances.I’m not spending the day explaining this to you, it just goes around in circles. There have been several cases whereby people have successfully reapplied and obtained a licence. A declaration of intent is sufficient. But each of those cases had other factors at play. Can you cite one case where a boater with long history of persistent overstaying for no good reason, won a case against CRT for the renewal of a licence with no home mooring? No, I thought not.
|
|