Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 8, 2016 13:52:05 GMT
I stopped using photobucket, it was being hacked daily. I had loads of pics blacking out, returning, then blacking out again. The site is a bloody nightmare, and seemingly a practice ground for hackers. So I am not alone? This is the first time it has happened to me - that I know of, anyway. I have sent an enquiry to the site about this, but meanwhile do you have any suggestions as to good alternatives? It still seems odd that this particular picture should have been the one blacked out [do CaRT have a black-arts department?] I just use one drive and Google now. It might be in your interest to look at simplesite.com. Gives you a free website, with advantage of storing videos and pictures. www.simplesite.com/
|
|
|
Post by tonyqj on Nov 8, 2016 14:16:06 GMT
So I am not alone? This is the first time it has happened to me - that I know of, anyway. I have sent an enquiry to the site about this, but meanwhile do you have any suggestions as to good alternatives? It still seems odd that this particular picture should have been the one blacked out [do CaRT have a black-arts department?] I just use one drive and Google now. It might be in your interest to look at simplesite.com. Gives you a free website, with advantage of storing videos and pictures. www.simplesite.com/How do their hosting costs compare to say Weebly or Squarespace?
|
|
|
Post by NigelMoore on Nov 8, 2016 14:18:31 GMT
Thanks, will certainly look into that.
|
|
|
Post by tadworth on Nov 8, 2016 14:39:48 GMT
Be afraid Nigel , CRT are going to make you "dissapear" you might end up as towpath "infill" somewhere.
We will never forget you Neil.
|
|
|
Post by tonyqj on Nov 8, 2016 14:42:14 GMT
Be afraid Nigel , CRT are going to make you "dissapear" you might end up as towpath "infill" somewhere. We will never forget you Neil. Neil?
|
|
|
Post by NigelMoore on Nov 25, 2016 11:29:25 GMT
Fascinating response to Allan’s FoI request over this issue. www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/use_of_s8_to_recover_outstanding?nocache=incoming-900507#incoming-900507 How does one utilise the Torts process without having taken the vessel into custody? The Act provides that even up to 12 months after seizure, and even if the vessel has already been sold under the Act, ALL proceeds bar the removal and storage costs must be handed over to the owner. I have not investigated this, but it appears that Torts action are taken where goods have been delivered into and left in a party’s custody by the owner, rather than the goods being in the custodian’s hands through deliberate seizure outwith authorised exercise of lien. It is a cleverly worded answer [as usual]. It conveys the impression that their website could be mistakenly understood as only “suggesting” that the s.8 process was used to recover owed fees, while this understanding was [hand on heart] never intended. From their point of view, it is unfortunate that online news items and Ombudsman Reports have clarified that this recovery of fees via the s.8 powers has been a routine practice without ever troubling to go the Torts route [though they use that as well in cases where there is no prospect of getting their costs, which are invariably far in excess of the original debt]. Allan has noted this in asking for an internal review. I do wonder, when it is said “ we usually try to recover” fees owed through the Torts process, what their alternative unusual method is? It is also very interesting to note their acknowledgement here, as was the case with the Mayers situation, that legal costs must be recovered through the courts. That is directly contrary to what they are currently arguing in the High Court case of Ravenscroft.
|
|
|
Post by bargemast on Nov 25, 2016 13:21:17 GMT
I'm often wondering if there is a special school where the staff of CaRT get their training to become expert hypocrits, professional liars and law-transformers, or do they have to be trained like that before they can apply for a function with CaRT ?
Peter.
|
|
|
Post by tadworth on Nov 25, 2016 13:36:51 GMT
I think we should start to see some jumpers out of the windows of CRT towers quite soon.
I shall be sitting in Costa coffee next door having a brew watching them hit the pavement.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 25, 2016 13:37:34 GMT
I'm often wondering if there is a special school where the staff of CaRT get their training to become expert hypocrits, professional lyers and law-transformers, or do they have to be trained like that before they can apply for a function with CaRT ? Peter. Ex civil servant's, they have been highly trained by bullshitting mp's and ministers.
|
|
|
Post by Allan on Nov 25, 2016 15:31:34 GMT
Fascinating response to Allan’s FoI request over this issue. www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/use_of_s8_to_recover_outstanding?nocache=incoming-900507#incoming-900507 How does one utilise the Torts process without having taken the vessel into custody? The Act provides that even up to 12 months after seizure, and even if the vessel has already been sold under the Act, ALL proceeds bar the removal and storage costs must be handed over to the owner. I have not investigated this, but it appears that Torts action are taken where goods have been delivered into and left in a party’s custody by the owner, rather than the goods being in the custodian’s hands through deliberate seizure outwith authorised exercise of lien. It is a cleverly worded answer [as usual]. It conveys the impression that their website could be mistakenly understood as only “suggesting” that the s.8 process was used to recover owed fees, while this understanding was [hand on heart] never intended. From their point of view, it is unfortunate that online news items and Ombudsman Reports have clarified that this recovery of fees via the s.8 powers has been a routine practice without ever troubling to go the Torts route [though they use that as well in cases where there is no prospect of getting their costs, which are invariably far in excess of the original debt]. Allan has noted this in asking for an internal review. I do wonder, when it is said “ we usually try to recover” fees owed through the Torts process, what their alternative unusual method is? It is also very interesting to note their acknowledgement here, as was the case with the Mayers situation, that legal costs must be recovered through the courts. That is directly contrary to what they are currently arguing in the High Court case of Ravenscroft. I have asked CaRT to review its response giving them examples that show the use of S8 to recover fees. I have also asked them for a copy of their Torts process.
|
|
|
Post by bargemast on Nov 25, 2016 16:01:53 GMT
Fascinating response to Allan’s FoI request over this issue. www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/use_of_s8_to_recover_outstanding?nocache=incoming-900507#incoming-900507 How does one utilise the Torts process without having taken the vessel into custody? The Act provides that even up to 12 months after seizure, and even if the vessel has already been sold under the Act, ALL proceeds bar the removal and storage costs must be handed over to the owner. I have not investigated this, but it appears that Torts action are taken where goods have been delivered into and left in a party’s custody by the owner, rather than the goods being in the custodian’s hands through deliberate seizure outwith authorised exercise of lien. It is a cleverly worded answer [as usual]. It conveys the impression that their website could be mistakenly understood as only “suggesting” that the s.8 process was used to recover owed fees, while this understanding was [hand on heart] never intended. From their point of view, it is unfortunate that online news items and Ombudsman Reports have clarified that this recovery of fees via the s.8 powers has been a routine practice without ever troubling to go the Torts route [though they use that as well in cases where there is no prospect of getting their costs, which are invariably far in excess of the original debt]. Allan has noted this in asking for an internal review. I do wonder, when it is said “ we usually try to recover” fees owed through the Torts process, what their alternative unusual method is? It is also very interesting to note their acknowledgement here, as was the case with the Mayers situation, that legal costs must be recovered through the courts. That is directly contrary to what they are currently arguing in the High Court case of Ravenscroft. I have asked CaRT to review its response giving them examples that show the use of S8 to recover fees. I have also asked them for a copy of their Torts process. Very good, and clear questions Allan, I' hope that their answers (if they ever answer) will be as good and as clear, but I'm thinking about something named "mud".
Peter.
|
|
|
Post by tadworth on Dec 30, 2016 16:09:21 GMT
My email is now blocked by CRT, they claim they have given me a "single point of contact" which is one enforcement supervisor, so I cannot contact any one in CRT directly, without it being filtered by this person, looks like they want to stop me finding out anything that is not the official line ?
All my correspondence has been polite and stuck strictly to business.
|
|
|
Post by naughtyfox on Dec 30, 2016 20:11:19 GMT
They'll be round to put rat poison in your milk - don't leave it on the back deck! Or perhaps they'll send Sonny to give you a lecture on the rules and regulations of the Bridgewater Canal to bore you to death.
|
|
|
Post by tadworth on Dec 30, 2016 20:59:42 GMT
They only try it on if they think you don't know the law, boaters who have stood up for themselves are rarely bothered again. The classic bully scenario.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 30, 2016 22:06:28 GMT
My email is now blocked by CRT, they claim they have given me a "single point of contact" which is one enforcement supervisor, so I cannot contact any one in CRT directly, without it being filtered by this person, looks like they want to stop me finding out anything that is not the official line ? All my correspondence has been polite and stuck strictly to business. Just set up another Id with a new email addy
|
|