|
Post by kris on Feb 3, 2023 22:27:25 GMT
Kris Nadin the psychotic fantasist who believes everything NBTA tells him via email. Oh look a troll.
|
|
|
Post by Mr Stabby on Feb 3, 2023 22:36:10 GMT
Oh look, a skint follower of the National Batton Twurling Assoc…. Anything to save a few pound Kris. Akcherrly, "NBTA" stands for "No Boaters Travel Anywhere".
|
|
|
Post by Mr Stabby on Feb 3, 2023 22:49:50 GMT
Suits freeloading Nadin to the ground. I've met Kris a couple of times over the years, spent a few days with him and to be honest, I considered him to be a pretty decent and likeable bloke. Obviously your experience of him is different and that's fair enough.
|
|
|
Post by on Feb 3, 2023 22:53:18 GMT
I like acronyms.
|
|
|
Post by Jim on Feb 6, 2023 18:07:33 GMT
Nadin is adamant boaters will receive the money though because his mates at NBTA told him so. Who is Nadin? Have I missed something? It's Kris, the rude little man is being rude to big himself up. It's "Baton" and "Twirl" too.
|
|
|
Post by Tony Dunkley on Mar 6, 2023 12:08:42 GMT
From the Guardian article in this link < www.theguardian.com/business/2023/mar/06/yorkshire-canal-boaters-hebden-bridge-locked-fuel-support > , and other sources, it appears that the C&RT has scored yet another 'own goal' with the pseudo-legalistic garbage it has fed to the Government about what it dishonestly describes and sells to its customers without a 'home mooring' as a 'Continuous Cruising Licence'. In reality, and in fact in statute, there is no such thing as Continuous Cruiser/Cruising Licence, . . it is simply another invention of the dishonest self-appointed statute amending lawyers who work under the direction of Tom Deards - C&RT's Company Secretary, and Head of its Illegal & Connivance Services. The one and ONLY form of Licence that C&RT have the statutory powers and authority to issue is the pleasure boat 'Licence' that, under Section 17(1) of the 1995 Act, authorises and covers the "use of the vessel on any inland waterways". There can, however, be two distinctly different sets of circumstances under which the Licence is issued. Section 3(c) of the 1995 Act provides that the Licence can only be issued in respect of boats that (i) have a 'home mooring', or (ii) do not remain "continuously in any one place for more than 14 days or such longer period as is reasonable in the circumstances". To qualify for the £400 fuel bill assistance payout, boats licensed under S.3)c)[ii] of the 1995 Act must, according to the Government rules, be moored at a fixed recognizable postal address at the time of applying for the £400 fuel payout. By its own hand, and moreover, by it own dishonesty therefore, the C&RT has created the very "circumstances" in which it is "reasonable" to stay "continuously in any one place for more than 14 days".
|
|
|
Post by on Mar 6, 2023 12:17:48 GMT
NigelMoore did a good piece on this in canalworld a few yars ago.
The CRT can effectively create a Cc licence. It is within their powers to do this in reality and is highly likely to happen.
I suspect it was the nbta who caused the words continuous cruiser to turn up on a .gov website.
There is a subtle difference between wha the CRT are technically allowed to do and what they actually do.
People have lost possession of their boats in the past due to not understanding this basic fact.
|
|
|
Post by Aloysius on Mar 6, 2023 12:25:57 GMT
By its own hand, and moreover, by it own dishonesty, the C&RT has created the very "circumstances" in which it is "reasonable" to stay "continuously in any one place for more than 14 days". One would venture a small and somewhat timid toe into the bathwater to suggest that, as the current administrators of the canal system, they are in fact entitled to define what 'reasonable circumstances' entails. While I have no personal experience of such things in action, it seems that they are generally most reasonable and willing to accommodate a range of reasons why a boat may be permitted to overstay and are often happy to accept the word of the boater in question via nothing more elaborate than an email. I hear they sometimes get a bit upset with bad-tempered piss-taking malcontents though.
|
|
|
Post by Tony Dunkley on Mar 6, 2023 12:36:00 GMT
NigelMoore did a good piece on this in canalworld a few yars ago. The CRT can effectively create a Cc licence. It is within their powers to do this in reality and is highly likely to happen. I suspect it was the nbta who caused the words continuous cruiser to turn up on a .gov website. There is a subtle difference between wha the CRT are technically allowed to do and what they actually do. People have lost possession of their boats in the past due to not understanding this basic fact. Rubbish -- DON'T misrepresent or try to attribute any of your crackpot drivel to Nigel Moore, . . or try to link it, however tenuously, to anything he said or wrote. C&RT most certainly DOES NOT have any powers to create any form of Licence differing in any respect from that which is laid down and specified in statute.
|
|
|
Post by Aloysius on Mar 6, 2023 12:39:56 GMT
NigelMoore did a good piece on this in canalworld a few yars ago. The CRT can effectively create a Cc licence. It is within their powers to do this in reality and is highly likely to happen. I suspect it was the nbta who caused the words continuous cruiser to turn up on a .gov website. There is a subtle difference between wha the CRT are technically allowed to do and what they actually do. People have lost possession of their boats in the past due to not understanding this basic fact. Rubbish -- DON'T misrepresent or try to attribute any of your crackpot drivel to Nigel Moore, . . or to link it, however tenuously to anything he said or wrote. I don't see why not since the precedent has well and truly been made already 😂
|
|
|
Post by on Mar 6, 2023 12:48:32 GMT
NigelMoore did a good piece on this in canalworld a few yars ago. The CRT can effectively create a Cc licence. It is within their powers to do this in reality and is highly likely to happen. I suspect it was the nbta who caused the words continuous cruiser to turn up on a .gov website. There is a subtle difference between wha the CRT are technically allowed to do and what they actually do. People have lost possession of their boats in the past due to not understanding this basic fact. Rubbish -- DON'T misrepresent or try to attribute any of your crackpot drivel to Nigel Moore, . . or try to link it, however tenuously, to anything he said or wrote. C&RT most certainly DOES NOT have any powers to create any form of Licence differing in any respect from that which is laid down and specified in statute. So Nigel didn't write this then: Nigel Moore 6/1/18 The 1971 Act has already been ‘changed’ twice: first in 1974 and then in 1983. The charging schedules of the 1971 Act, which specified charges for categories according to length, were eventually abolished, so that charges for a PBC are now merely pegged at 60% of whatever fees [according to whatever category] CaRT choose to charge for a PBL for the same vessel. I have argued back and forwards on this in my own mind, but currently conclude that CaRT can legally do whatever they wish in respect of licence categories and charges, subject only to that percentage discount for PBC’s. The only [purely implicit] further restriction on the creation of yet more categories would be the restriction on charging more for such categories than for the ‘standard’ licence. Easily subverted, as Alan has suggested, by making the ‘standard’ licence category sufficiently costly, with discounts tailored to suit the managerial aspirations. -------- Quoted by a canal world contributor in this thread: www.canalworld.net/forums/index.php?/topic/117644-crt-license-survey/page/34/#comment-2903333If you can't view canalworld just go to history and clear cache and cookies then you will be able to see it. Don't call my content crackpot drivel.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 6, 2023 12:56:55 GMT
NigelMoore did a good piece on this in canalworld a few yars ago. The CRT can effectively create a Cc licence. It is within their powers to do this in reality and is highly likely to happen. I suspect it was the nbta who caused the words continuous cruiser to turn up on a .gov website. There is a subtle difference between wha the CRT are technically allowed to do and what they actually do. People have lost possession of their boats in the past due to not understanding this basic fact. C&RT most certainly DOES NOT have any powers to create any form of Licence differing in any respect from that which is laid down and specified in statute. They do. I'm not spending the afternoon digging up the necessary information, but I looked into it extensively back in 2014. They can sub divide the licence. So stop talking out of your backside. I know you are noseblind to what comes out of it, but sadly the rest of us are not.
|
|
|
Post by Mr Stabby on Mar 6, 2023 15:51:41 GMT
Your details, including your location, are required for the purpose of an investigation into your internet activities under Sections 1), 2), and 2A) of the Protection from Harrassment Act 1997.
It's doubtful that you'll have either the honesty or the backbone to reveal any of the required information and details on the internet. You can therefore provide them via Thunderboat PM or e-mail to < Tonydtrent@gmail.com >.
|
|
|
Post by Jim on Mar 6, 2023 16:20:23 GMT
Rubbish -- DON'T misrepresent or try to attribute any of your crackpot drivel to Nigel Moore, . . or try to link it, however tenuously, to anything he said or wrote. C&RT most certainly DOES NOT have any powers to create any form of Licence differing in any respect from that which is laid down and specified in statute. So Nigel didn't write this then: Nigel Moore 6/1/18 The 1971 Act has already been ‘changed’ twice: first in 1974 and then in 1983. The charging schedules of the 1971 Act, which specified charges for categories according to length, were eventually abolished, so that charges for a PBC are now merely pegged at 60% of whatever fees [according to whatever category] CaRT choose to charge for a PBL for the same vessel. I have argued back and forwards on this in my own mind, but currently conclude that CaRT can legally do whatever they wish in respect of licence categories and charges, subject only to that percentage discount for PBC’s. The only [purely implicit] further restriction on the creation of yet more categories would be the restriction on charging more for such categories than for the ‘standard’ licence. Easily subverted, as Alan has suggested, by making the ‘standard’ licence category sufficiently costly, with discounts tailored to suit the managerial aspirations. -------- Quoted by a canal world contributor in this thread: www.canalworld.net/forums/index.php?/topic/117644-crt-license-survey/page/34/#comment-2903333If you can't view canalworld just go to history and clear cache and cookies then you will be able to see it. Don't call my content crackpot drivel. Is it ok to call you a driveling crackpot though? Asking for a friend.
|
|
|
Post by on Mar 6, 2023 16:25:05 GMT
Flattery will get you everywhere.
|
|