|
Post by on Mar 7, 2023 9:12:38 GMT
Out of interest Tony what do you think about the CRT offering "trading licences"?
I would be quite interested to hear your view on this because the CRT do actually sell these to people and the need to buy one is directly related to the use of the boat.
|
|
|
Post by Aloysius on Mar 7, 2023 9:15:56 GMT
He's against it?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 7, 2023 9:36:42 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Aloysius on Mar 7, 2023 9:42:51 GMT
Wishes have nothing to do with it. It's a demonstrable fact.
|
|
|
Post by on Mar 7, 2023 10:53:05 GMT
That was odd calling Pulcinella a drunk.
Keep up at the back! He isn't.
|
|
|
Post by on Mar 7, 2023 10:54:56 GMT
As for the trading licence here it is. Quite a long list of different licence types.
--------
Fees (1 April 2023 to 31 March 2024)
Roving Traders (RT) & Fixed location trading boats (FLTB)
Self Drive Day Hire (SDDH)
Self Drive Holiday Hire (SDHH) & Skippered Hotel Boat (SKH)
Skippered Passenger
Fixed price licence price list
Static Lettings (SL)
--------
|
|
|
Post by Tony Dunkley on Mar 7, 2023 10:58:35 GMT
Out of interest Tony what do you think about the CRT offering "trading licences"? I would be quite interested to hear your view on this because the CRT do actually sell these to people and the need to buy one is directly related to the use of the boat. I have no doubts or concerns regarding the issuing of different categories of the standard boat Licence issued under Section 17, subsections (3)[c]{i} or (3)[c]{ii} of the 1995 Act. Why should I, why would I have ? As I have already said, . . the issuing of different categories of the one and only standard boat Licence by C&RT is perfectly legitimate. What you appear unable, or unwilling to grasp, is that by feeding all the pseudo-legalistic claptrap about the mythical BWB/C&RT invented "Continuous Cruising Licence" to the Government to use as a rationale for denying continuous cruisers with no fixed postal address the £400 fuel payment, C&RT have effectively painted themselves into something of a corner, having actually handed the NBTA a very useful stick with which to beat them over the head regarding the requirement to move to a different 'place' every 14 days. It's a shame that the NBTA haven't yet cottoned on to this fortuitous little gift that Deards and the rest of his team of professional liars and tripe pedlars at C&RT's Illegal & Connivance Services have handed them, . . but with ineffectual deadheads such as Marcus Trower and Kris Nadin representing or speaking up for the NBTA and its membership, . . hardly surprising.
|
|
|
Post by on Mar 7, 2023 11:05:54 GMT
You are just changing the subject again.
"The continuous cruiser licence" turning up on the .gov website was actually an attempt to include this group not exclude them.
The CRT can charge people a different amount of money depending on how the boat is used. This is all that I have been saying from the start.
You always come up with some technical bullshit and swerve the conversation but at the end of the day if the CRT want to they can charge more money for people who declare no home mooring on their licence applications.
It is simple. The CRT can call the licences different things. They do this. It is factual. At some stage a continuous cruiser licence will become a recognised thing even if in your fictitious mind it isn't.
Reality is often a good indicator as to what is actually happening.
Living in some bizarre fantasy where you still own your boat won't get you anywhere.
|
|
|
Post by kris on Mar 7, 2023 11:22:14 GMT
. . but with ineffectual deadheads such as Marcus Trower and Kris Nadin representing the NBTA and its membership, . . hardly surprising. For the sake of honesty and clarity I don’t represent the NBTA or it’s membership in anyway in the Slightest. This is just a figment of Tony’s imagination. So Tony I’d suggest you remove this statement. You never know you might find yourself being prosecuted under the legislation you keep quoting.
|
|
|
Post by Tony Dunkley on Mar 7, 2023 11:33:43 GMT
You are just changing the subject again. "The continuous cruiser licence" turning up on the .gov website was actually an attempt to include this group not exclude them. The CRT can charge people a different amount of money depending on how the boat is used. This is all that I have been saying from the start. You always come up with some technical bullshit and swerve the conversation but at the end of the day if the CRT want to they can charge more money for people who declare no home mooring on their licence applications. It is simple. The CRT can call the licences different things. They do this. It is factual. At some stage a continuous cruiser licence will become a recognised thing even if in your fictitious mind it isn't. Reality is often a good indicator as to what is actually happening. Living in some bizarre fantasy where you still own your boat won't get you anywhere. Rubbish, . . I'm neither changing the subject, . . nor am I having the same extreme difficulties with it that you're so obviously struggling to overcome. Give it a while for the effects of whatever it was you were smoking, drinking or taking last night to wear off, . . then have another go at following what's being said. In case you can't manage to find the last two posts I made, . . here they are again :- "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"."
- and :- "I have no doubts or concerns regarding the issuing of different categories of the standard boat Licence issued under Section 17, subsections (3)[c]{i} or (3)[c]{ii} of the 1995 Act. Why should I, why would I have ? As I have already said, . . the issuing of different categories of the one and only standard boat Licence by C&RT is perfectly legitimate.
What you appear unable, or unwilling to grasp, is that by feeding all the pseudo-legalistic claptrap about the mythical BWB/C&RT invented "Continuous Cruising Licence" to the Government to use as a rationale for denying continuous cruisers with no fixed postal address the £400 fuel payment, C&RT have painted themselves into something of a corner, having actually handed the NBTA a very useful stick with which to beat them over the head regarding the requirement to move to a different 'place' every 14 days.
It's a shame that the NBTA haven't yet cottoned on to this fortuitous little gift that Deards and the rest of his team of professional liars and tripe pedlars at C&RT's Illegal & Connivance Services have handed them, . . but with ineffectual deadheads such as Marcus Trower and Kris Nadin representing or speaking up for the NBTA and its membership, . . hardly surprising."
|
|
|
Post by on Mar 7, 2023 11:53:32 GMT
"having actually handed the NBTA a very useful stick with which to beat them over the head regarding the requirement to move to a different 'place' every 14 days."
Why is this relevant?
Obviously someone who spends the whole time looking for loopholes will tend to concentrate on them but look what happened there. You lost the boat because of over reliance on a loophole.
Do you think at some point other authorities such as local councils may become interested in the "reasonable in the circumstances" part of the wording?
I know you think it is all about the CRT but it actually isn't.
|
|
|
Post by on Mar 7, 2023 11:56:44 GMT
It isn't the CRT who have fed the "continuous cruiser licence" wording to the government it is the NBTA. Obviously the NBTA is effectively a militant wing of the CRT so I see what you mean.
As for the £400 payment how would you avoid fraudulent claims using postal addresses?
It seems much better to base it on council tax lists.
Do you pay council tax?
|
|
|
Post by kris on Mar 7, 2023 12:36:56 GMT
You are just changing the subject again. . . but with ineffectual deadheads such as Marcus Trower and Kris Nadin representing or speaking for the NBTA and its membership, . . hardly surprising." [/b][/i] [/quote] I’d suggest you change the wording of this as you keep repeating it and it’s not correct. I in no way represent NBTA or it’s membership. All views or opinions expressed are my own.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 7, 2023 12:59:20 GMT
Wishes have nothing to do with it. It's a demonstrable fact. It's bullshit, and the only fact is you're to spineless to do anything about it.
|
|
|
Post by Tony Dunkley on Mar 7, 2023 14:19:10 GMT
It isn't the CRT who have fed the "continuous cruiser licence" wording to the government it is the NBTA. Whichever one of them introduced it into the reckoning, the NBTA is missing an opportunity to add to the pressure Parry and his lying cronies are already under from other directions by not exploiting the situation for everything it's worth. They and their blinkered lawyers, the Community Law Partnership, continue to swallow and perpetuate the multi-faceted C&RT line in pseudo-legalistic claptrap with sickening regularity, . . the greatest mileage being had out of the 1963 Transport Act Section 43 con, with all the attendant baggage, . . closely followed by contemptuously deceiving the Courts into making voidable ultra vires Orders for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief via the well practised conjuring tricks with the 1983 Act's Sections 8 and 9, . . Orders that C&RT's crooked contractor, Brian Clarke of Commercial Boat Services, then fraudulently passes off as Writs or Warrants of Control with his bogus Bailiffs.
|
|