|
Post by Tony Dunkley on Mar 6, 2023 16:32:27 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-2903333Nigel Moore is referring to Licence 'categories', . . whereas I'm referring to 'forms' of Licence. Nigel's references to 'categories' of Licence were references to licence charges, the periods for which any licence ran, and the boating related activities covered by the licence - ie. passenger boat, hire boat, trading boat etc. etc. The one and only 'form' of boat Licence that C&RT are mandated to issue - in other words, the only form of Licence that exists in a form laid down and specified in statute - is the 'licence' specified in S.17(1) of the 1995 Act ~ "a licence issued by the Board in respect of any vessel allowing the use of the vessel on any inland waterways".There is no mention anywhere, in any inland waterways related Act, order, statutory instrument, byelaw or any other enactment, of any form of (boat) licence other than the 'licence' specified in S.17(1) of the 1995 Act. Section 17, subsections (3)[c]{i} and (3)[c]{ii} DO NOT specify or create an alternative 'form' of Licence, . . but simply define and impose two sets of differing conditions under which the same one single 'form' of statutory (boat) Licence is lawfully issued, and carries the weight of the law. The above remarks apply equally well to the vacuous comments made by jd-blunt excrement.
|
|
|
Post by Jim on Mar 6, 2023 16:36:14 GMT
Flattery will get you everywhere. Dont you mean Phil Atterley? He was a grumpy tw@ who copied another grumpy tw@'s posting style on cwdf.
|
|
|
Post by Jim on Mar 6, 2023 16:38:01 GMT
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-2903333Nigel Moore is referring to Licence 'categories', . . whereas I'm referring to 'forms' of Licence. Nigel's references to 'categories' of Licence were references to licence charges and the periods for which any licence ran. The one and only 'form' of boat Licence that C&RT are empowered to issue - and therefore the only form of Licence that exists and is specified in statute - is the 'licence' specified in S.17(1) of the 1995 Act ~ "a licence issued by the Board in respect of any vessel allowing the use of the vessel on any inland waterways".There is no mention anywhere, in any inland waterways related Act, order, statutory instrument, byelaw or any other enactment of any form of (boat) licence other than the 'licence' specified in S.17(1) of the 1995 Act. Section 17(3){c} and [ii] DO NOT specify or create an alternative 'form' of Licence, . . but simply impose differing conditions under which the same 'form' of statutory (boat) Licence may lawfully be issued. The above remarks apply equally well to the vacuous comments made by jd-blunt excrement. So have you booked a day or two in court? You'll soon have it sorted.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 6, 2023 16:47:44 GMT
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-2903333Nigel Moore is referring to Licence 'categories', . . whereas I'm referring to 'forms' of Licence. Nigel's references to 'categories' of Licence were references to licence charges, the periods for which any licence ran, and the boating related activities covered by the licence - passenger boat, trading boat etc. etc. The one and only 'form' of boat Licence that C&RT are empowered to issue - and therefore the only form of Licence that exists and is specified in statute - is the 'licence' specified in S.17(1) of the 1995 Act ~ "a licence issued by the Board in respect of any vessel allowing the use of the vessel on any inland waterways".There is no mention anywhere, in any inland waterways related Act, order, statutory instrument, byelaw or any other enactment of any form of (boat) licence other than the 'licence' specified in S.17(1) of the 1995 Act. Section 17(3){c} and [ii] DO NOT specify or create an alternative 'form' of Licence, . . but simply impose differing conditions under which the same 'form' of statutory (boat) Licence may lawfully be issued. The above remarks apply equally well to the vacuous comments made by jd-blunt excrement. You're talking bollox as usual. Totally ignorant of the law hence why you lost two boats, and aided and abetted the loss of a third.
|
|
|
Post by Tony Dunkley on Mar 6, 2023 16:55:08 GMT
Nigel Moore is referring to Licence 'categories', . . whereas I'm referring to 'forms' of Licence. Nigel's references to 'categories' of Licence were references to licence charges and the periods for which any licence ran. The one and only 'form' of boat Licence that C&RT are empowered to issue - and therefore the only form of Licence that exists and is specified in statute - is the 'licence' specified in S.17(1) of the 1995 Act ~ "a licence issued by the Board in respect of any vessel allowing the use of the vessel on any inland waterways".There is no mention anywhere, in any inland waterways related Act, order, statutory instrument, byelaw or any other enactment of any form of (boat) licence other than the 'licence' specified in S.17(1) of the 1995 Act. Section 17(3){c} and [ii] DO NOT specify or create an alternative 'form' of Licence, . . but simply impose differing conditions under which the same 'form' of statutory (boat) Licence may lawfully be issued. The above remarks apply equally well to the vacuous comments made by jd-blunt excrement. So have you booked a day or two in court? You'll soon have it sorted. You don't "book" days in Court, . . not even under the half-arsed Ministry of so-called Justice, . . with which Blair's government replaced the Lord Chancellor's Department, and a distinctly more independent and less politically influenced Judiciary.
|
|
|
Post by Jim on Mar 6, 2023 17:00:58 GMT
So have you booked a day or two in court? You'll soon have it sorted. You don't "book" days in Court, . . not even under the half-arsed Ministry of so-called Justice, . . with which Blair's government replaced the Lord Chancellor's Department, and a distinctly more independent and less politically influenced Judiciary. You'll find it's a euphemism for taking action of any sort. I don't mean posting repetitive twaddle here, I mean effective action, perhaps getting Parry jailed. You should tell these people you are always right. That'll sort it.
|
|
|
Post by on Mar 6, 2023 17:16:34 GMT
It is quite funny the way Tony keeps changing the subject.
We all know there is only one type of licence for canals. This is not something which is being argued about.
The point is that the CRT can charge different amounts of money depending on the use of the boat.
The amount of money people pay (those who can be arsed to get a BS ticket and a licence for their boats) is the only thing which is relevant. Whether or not the CRT can claim someone has a "continuous cruiser licence" is an irrelevant diversion.
It is especially irrelevant for someone who actually doesn't have a boat.
|
|
|
Post by Tony Dunkley on Mar 6, 2023 18:18:38 GMT
Nigel Moore is referring to Licence 'categories', . . whereas I'm referring to 'forms' of Licence. Nigel's references to 'categories' of Licence were references to licence charges, the periods for which any licence ran, and the boating related activities covered by the licence - passenger boat, trading boat etc. etc. The one and only 'form' of boat Licence that C&RT are empowered to issue - and therefore the only form of Licence that exists and is specified in statute - is the 'licence' specified in S.17(1) of the 1995 Act ~ "a licence issued by the Board in respect of any vessel allowing the use of the vessel on any inland waterways".There is no mention anywhere, in any inland waterways related Act, order, statutory instrument, byelaw or any other enactment of any form of (boat) licence other than the 'licence' specified in S.17(1) of the 1995 Act. Section 17(3){c} and [ii] DO NOT specify or create an alternative 'form' of Licence, . . but simply impose differing conditions under which the same 'form' of statutory (boat) Licence may lawfully be issued. The above remarks apply equally well to the vacuous comments made by jd-blunt excrement. You're talking bollox as usual. Totally ignorant of the law hence why you lost two boats, and aided and abetted the loss of a third. If I'm ever in need of advice or guidance, especially on points of law, from a universally loathed and mistrusted loudmouthed arsehole who singlehandedly drove away the entire membership and destroyed the Association of Continuous Cruisers, . . then wound the organization up and pocketed the cash surplus from the member's subscriptions, . . you'll be the first to know. Until then, . . . button it, . . and keep your worthless opinions to your poisonous despicable self !
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 6, 2023 20:10:13 GMT
You're talking bollox as usual. Totally ignorant of the law hence why you lost two boats, and aided and abetted the loss of a third. If I'm ever in need of advice or guidance, especially on points of law, from a universally loathed and mistrusted loudmouthed arsehole who singlehandedly drove away the entire membership and destroyed the Association of Continuous Cruisers, . . then wound the organization up and pocketed the cash surplus from the member's subscriptions, . . you'll be the first to know. Until then, . . . button it, . . and keep your worthless opinions to your poisonous despicable self ! And still you talk utter bollox. Have you paid pam back the money you owe her yet?
|
|
|
Post by Mr Stabby on Mar 6, 2023 20:58:03 GMT
You're talking bollox as usual. Totally ignorant of the law hence why you lost two boats, and aided and abetted the loss of a third. a universally loathed and mistrusted loudmouthed arsehole who singlehandedly drove away the entire membership This has a familiar ring to it.
|
|
|
Post by on Mar 6, 2023 21:05:38 GMT
This is a fair point.
|
|
|
Post by Aloysius on Mar 7, 2023 6:39:02 GMT
a universally loathed and mistrusted loudmouthed arsehole who singlehandedly drove away the entire membership This has a familiar ring to it. True, but it has a far stronger relationship with reality than many of his other recent posts.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 7, 2023 8:00:09 GMT
This has a familiar ring to it. True, but it has a far stronger relationship with reality than many of his other recent posts. Says the drunk.
|
|
|
Post by Aloysius on Mar 7, 2023 8:16:59 GMT
True, but it has a far stronger relationship with reality than many of his other recent posts. Says the drunk. Aw but you did though. Incidentally the last alcoholic drink to pass my lips was sometime last summer; it was a very hot day.
|
|
|
Post by Tony Dunkley on Mar 7, 2023 8:29:48 GMT
It is quite funny the way Tony keeps changing the subject. We all know there is only one type of licence for canals. This is not something which is being argued about. The point is that the CRT can charge different amounts of money depending on the use of the boat. The amount of money people pay (those who can be arsed to get a BS ticket and a licence for their boats) is the only thing which is relevant. Whether or not the CRT can claim someone has a "continuous cruiser licence" is an irrelevant diversion. It is especially irrelevant for someone who actually doesn't have a boat. There's no changing of subject on my part, . . only an inability and a failure, on your and others parts to grasp and understand the significance of what I'm saying. The sloppy use of lanuage and wording doesn't help either. You speak above of differing levels of charging being dependant - " on the use of the boat". Vague meaningless claptrap, . . a reference to amount, or quantity, or frequency of use, . . or a reference to type of use ? The one and only 'form' of boat Licence that C&RT are mandated to issue - in other words, the only form of Licence that exists in a form laid down and specified in statute - is the 'licence' specified in S.17(1) of the 1995 Act ~ "a licence issued by the Board in respect of any vessel allowing the use of the vessel on any inland waterways". There is no mention anywhere, in any inland waterways related Act, order, statutory instrument, byelaw or any other enactment, of any form of (boat) licence other than the 'licence' specified in S.17(1) of the 1995 Act. Section 17, subsections (3)[c]{i} and (3)[c]{ii} DO NOT specify or create an alternative 'form' of Licence, . . but simply define and impose two sets of differing conditions under which the same one single 'form' of statutory (boat) Licence is lawfully issued, under all of its various legitimate categories, and carries the weight of the law. Going back to the original point I was making, on the last page. To qualify for the £400 fuel bill assistance payout, boats holding a standard boat Licence issued under the condition specified under S.17, subsection(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 their own hand, and by their own dishonesty therefore, the professional liars at C&RT's Illegal and Connivance Services have, to quote from S.17, subsection(3)[c]{ii} of the 1995 Act, created the very " circumstances" in which it is " reasonable" to stay " continuously in any one place for more than 14 days".
|
|