|
Post by Aloysius on Mar 27, 2023 20:13:45 GMT
Something tells me the CRT have moved on Advancing years or a tumour?
|
|
|
Post by on Mar 28, 2023 8:26:26 GMT
Anyone been bright enough to figure out what's really behind the B & T nonsense yet ? Was I right? Did I get top banana? Do we think that forcing the removal of non portable craft on the B&T which are registered as having no home mooring is a precursor to withdrawal of funding / maintenance under the 1968 Transport Act? Here is the text. I believe the B&T is part of the "remainder" and that the CRT have no legal duty to continue with maintenance. Transport Act 1968 section 105 "(1)With a view to securing the general availability of the commercial and cruising waterways for public use, it shall be the duty of the Waterways Board [F2and of Canal & River Trust, in relation to the waterways comprised in their respective undertakings], subject to the provisions of this section— (a)to maintain the commercial waterways in a suitable condition for use by commercial freight-carrying vessels; and (b)to maintain the cruising waterways in a suitable condition for use by cruising craft, that is to say, vessels constructed or adapted for the carriage of passengers and driven by mechanical power. (2)Neither paragraph (a) nor paragraph (b) of subsection (1) of this section shall impose on the Board [F3or Canal & River Trust] any duty to maintain a waterway, or any part of a waterway, in a suitable condition for use by any vessel of the kind mentioned in that paragraph unless the dimensions of the vessel (that it to say, its length, width, height of superstructure and draught)— (a)correspond to, or are less than, those of a vessel of that kind which customarily used that waterway or part during the period of nine months ending with 8th December 1967; or (b)if the waterway or part has been restored or improved since that date, are such as to make it suitable for use on that waterway or part;but, save as aforesaid, the duty imposed by that paragraph shall extend to any vessel of the kind therein mentioned as respects the dimensions of which paragraph (a) or (b) of this subsection is satisfied." Remainder waterways are NOT subject to this obligation. Also Section 104 "(1)For the purposes of sections 105 to 111 of this Act the inland waterways comprised in the [F2undertakings] of the Waterways Board [F3and Canal & River Trust] shall be divided into— (a)the waterways for the time being specified in Part I of Schedule 12 to this Act, being waterways (in this Part of this Act referred to as “the commercial waterways”) to be principally available for the commercial carriage of freight; (b)the waterways for the time being specified in Part II of that Schedule, being waterways (in this Part of this Act referred to as “the cruising waterways”) to be principally available for cruising, fishing and other recreational purposes; and (c)the remainder. (2)The description contained in the said Schedule 12 of any waterway shall be read subject to any order made by the Minister [F4or, in the case of a waterway in Scotland, the Scottish Ministers] for giving greater precision to that description by reference to a map. (3)The Minister [F5or, in the case of a waterway in Scotland, the Scottish Ministers] may by order transfer any waterway from one Part of the said Schedule 12 to the other Part, remove any waterway from either of those Parts or add to either of those Parts any inland waterway for the time being comprised in the undertaking of the Board [F6or Canal & River Trust] which is not for the time being a commercial waterway or a cruising waterway. [F7(3A)Canal & River Trust may apply to the Minister for the making of an order under subsection (3). (3B)In deciding whether to make an order under subsection (3), the Minister must have regard to the financial position of Canal & River Trust.]" ------ Dangerous situation here.
|
|
|
Post by Tony Dunkley on Mar 29, 2023 8:10:21 GMT
Anyone been bright enough to figure out what's really behind the B & T nonsense yet ? Was I right? Did I get top banana? Do we think that forcing the removal of non portable craft on the B&T which are registered as having no home mooring is a precursor to withdrawal of funding / maintenance under the 1968 Transport Act? Here is the text. I believe the B&T is part of the "remainder" and that the CRT have no legal duty to continue with maintenance. Transport Act 1968 section 105 "(1)With a view to securing the general availability of the commercial and cruising waterways for public use, it shall be the duty of the Waterways Board [F2and of Canal & River Trust, in relation to the waterways comprised in their respective undertakings], subject to the provisions of this section— (a)to maintain the commercial waterways in a suitable condition for use by commercial freight-carrying vessels; and (b)to maintain the cruising waterways in a suitable condition for use by cruising craft, that is to say, vessels constructed or adapted for the carriage of passengers and driven by mechanical power. (2)Neither paragraph (a) nor paragraph (b) of subsection (1) of this section shall impose on the Board [F3or Canal & River Trust] any duty to maintain a waterway, or any part of a waterway, in a suitable condition for use by any vessel of the kind mentioned in that paragraph unless the dimensions of the vessel (that it to say, its length, width, height of superstructure and draught)— (a)correspond to, or are less than, those of a vessel of that kind which customarily used that waterway or part during the period of nine months ending with 8th December 1967; or (b)if the waterway or part has been restored or improved since that date, are such as to make it suitable for use on that waterway or part;but, save as aforesaid, the duty imposed by that paragraph shall extend to any vessel of the kind therein mentioned as respects the dimensions of which paragraph (a) or (b) of this subsection is satisfied." Remainder waterways are NOT subject to this obligation. Also Section 104 "(1)For the purposes of sections 105 to 111 of this Act the inland waterways comprised in the [F2undertakings] of the Waterways Board [F3and Canal & River Trust] shall be divided into— (a)the waterways for the time being specified in Part I of Schedule 12 to this Act, being waterways (in this Part of this Act referred to as “the commercial waterways”) to be principally available for the commercial carriage of freight; (b)the waterways for the time being specified in Part II of that Schedule, being waterways (in this Part of this Act referred to as “the cruising waterways”) to be principally available for cruising, fishing and other recreational purposes; and (c)the remainder. (2)The description contained in the said Schedule 12 of any waterway shall be read subject to any order made by the Minister [F4or, in the case of a waterway in Scotland, the Scottish Ministers] for giving greater precision to that description by reference to a map. (3)The Minister [F5or, in the case of a waterway in Scotland, the Scottish Ministers] may by order transfer any waterway from one Part of the said Schedule 12 to the other Part, remove any waterway from either of those Parts or add to either of those Parts any inland waterway for the time being comprised in the undertaking of the Board [F6or Canal & River Trust] which is not for the time being a commercial waterway or a cruising waterway. [F7(3A)Canal & River Trust may apply to the Minister for the making of an order under subsection (3). (3B)In deciding whether to make an order under subsection (3), the Minister must have regard to the financial position of Canal & River Trust.]" ------ Dangerous situation here. Yes, that's the main and by far the most important piece of the selection of legislation, and precedents, at C&RT's disposal for completely closing the Bridgewater & Taunton to boat traffic, . . other than leaving it available for only walking, angling, and canoeing. The next waterways on the cards for similar treatment are the Kennet & Avon, and the Leeds & Liverpool, . . both relying on a carefully misinterpreted minor rehash of the above, . . plus the resurrection of the arguments and reasoning resorted to by the British Transport Commission [BTW] for the practical, but wholly unofficial, original closure of the K & A in the late 1950's. Back then, the process began with neglect induced failures leading to supposedly temporary cessation of boat traffic, pending the necessary repairs, . . . which never actually happened, . . and then, due to the 'temporary cessation' of boat traffic gradually morphing into a 'lack of demand' for the use of the waterway, . . the cost of repairs becoming an 'uneconomic' proposition. Any of that sound familiar ?
|
|
|
Post by on Mar 29, 2023 9:27:50 GMT
I spent the winter of 2001/02 on the K&A and even back then it was quite overcrowded down the western end and as it was not part of a cruising ring I did wonder about its long term viability.
It does seem to be one of the more sensible ones to withdraw from as it would also help 'lose' the "overentitled" liveaboards which is something I think the CRT are keen on doing.
Leeds to Liverpool canal? Really? Thats. pretty major one.
Someone on the other side suggested the Rochdale might go.
It does seem likely that claims (be they true or false) of impecuniosity by the CRT could cause some fairly dramatic outcomes if the sec of state is easy.
|
|
|
Post by Aloysius on Mar 29, 2023 9:39:00 GMT
You really hate those guys! Jeez.
|
|
|
Post by on Mar 29, 2023 9:45:45 GMT
Not really. I can see why the CRT do though.
|
|
|
Post by kris on Mar 29, 2023 10:42:05 GMT
I still think your an agent provocateur for crt.
|
|
|
Post by naughtyfox on Mar 29, 2023 16:01:27 GMT
No, . . Shit-for-Brains, . . For as long as the sick child rapist Tony Dunkley continues with these totally unprovoked personal attacks, I will continue to flag up his criminal record in an attempt to damage his business and expose him to the risk of being given a beating or have his house vandalised. TONY DUNKLEY /A.K.DUNKLEY - Paedophile, child molester. Three convictions for sexual offences against children, five convictions for theft. Served six years of an eleven-and-a-half year sentence at HMP Whatton, Nottinghamshire for raping an eight year old girl. Son of Nottinghamshire's most infamous prostitute. Died aged 42 from compications of syphillis. Complete and total slut. Some men just like dressing up:
|
|
|
Post by naughtyfox on Mar 29, 2023 16:15:58 GMT
Some boaters are unable to get fully comprehensive insurance for their old boats, because they dare not get a hull survey, as requested by the insurance company. Know anyone like this? I got scammed and ran off to get a jab for a non-existent pandemic. I'm sorry the Government frightened you and made you think taking an experimental 'vaccine' would keep you safe from a 'mystery virus that originated from bat soup in the wet market in Wuhan'. Whereas I have seen 'Covid' as the money-making fiddle it is right from the beginning.
|
|
|
Post by on Mar 29, 2023 16:17:53 GMT
The latest theory is that it came from a quadruped not a bat.
|
|
|
Post by kris on Mar 29, 2023 16:19:28 GMT
In France there are thousands of medical professionals who refused the vaccine, who still have not been reinstated after being fired.
|
|
|
Post by kris on Mar 29, 2023 16:35:42 GMT
Must be terrible to be more intelligent and knowledgeable than everybody else. But only be able to share that knowledge on a small niche Internet forum. Where nobody takes you seriously.
|
|
|
Post by Mr Stabby on Mar 29, 2023 17:22:04 GMT
It's nice that Tony has a New Best Friend.
|
|
|
Post by kris on Mar 29, 2023 17:28:46 GMT
It's nice that Tony has a New Best Friend. I suppose it’s anyone who shows the slightest bit of interest.
|
|
|
Post by Tony Dunkley on Mar 30, 2023 7:47:44 GMT
Was I right? Did I get top banana? Do we think that forcing the removal of non portable craft on the B&T which are registered as having no home mooring is a precursor to withdrawal of funding / maintenance under the 1968 Transport Act? Here is the text. I believe the B&T is part of the "remainder" and that the CRT have no legal duty to continue with maintenance. Transport Act 1968 section 105 "(1)With a view to securing the general availability of the commercial and cruising waterways for public use, it shall be the duty of the Waterways Board [F2and of Canal & River Trust, in relation to the waterways comprised in their respective undertakings], subject to the provisions of this section— (a)to maintain the commercial waterways in a suitable condition for use by commercial freight-carrying vessels; and (b)to maintain the cruising waterways in a suitable condition for use by cruising craft, that is to say, vessels constructed or adapted for the carriage of passengers and driven by mechanical power. (2)Neither paragraph (a) nor paragraph (b) of subsection (1) of this section shall impose on the Board [F3or Canal & River Trust] any duty to maintain a waterway, or any part of a waterway, in a suitable condition for use by any vessel of the kind mentioned in that paragraph unless the dimensions of the vessel (that it to say, its length, width, height of superstructure and draught)— (a)correspond to, or are less than, those of a vessel of that kind which customarily used that waterway or part during the period of nine months ending with 8th December 1967; or (b)if the waterway or part has been restored or improved since that date, are such as to make it suitable for use on that waterway or part;but, save as aforesaid, the duty imposed by that paragraph shall extend to any vessel of the kind therein mentioned as respects the dimensions of which paragraph (a) or (b) of this subsection is satisfied." Remainder waterways are NOT subject to this obligation. Also Section 104 "(1)For the purposes of sections 105 to 111 of this Act the inland waterways comprised in the [F2undertakings] of the Waterways Board [F3and Canal & River Trust] shall be divided into— (a)the waterways for the time being specified in Part I of Schedule 12 to this Act, being waterways (in this Part of this Act referred to as “the commercial waterways”) to be principally available for the commercial carriage of freight; (b)the waterways for the time being specified in Part II of that Schedule, being waterways (in this Part of this Act referred to as “the cruising waterways”) to be principally available for cruising, fishing and other recreational purposes; and (c)the remainder. (2)The description contained in the said Schedule 12 of any waterway shall be read subject to any order made by the Minister [F4or, in the case of a waterway in Scotland, the Scottish Ministers] for giving greater precision to that description by reference to a map. (3)The Minister [F5or, in the case of a waterway in Scotland, the Scottish Ministers] may by order transfer any waterway from one Part of the said Schedule 12 to the other Part, remove any waterway from either of those Parts or add to either of those Parts any inland waterway for the time being comprised in the undertaking of the Board [F6or Canal & River Trust] which is not for the time being a commercial waterway or a cruising waterway. [F7(3A)Canal & River Trust may apply to the Minister for the making of an order under subsection (3). (3B)In deciding whether to make an order under subsection (3), the Minister must have regard to the financial position of Canal & River Trust.]" ------ Dangerous situation here. Yes, that's the main and by far the most important piece of the selection of legislation, and precedents, at C&RT's disposal for completely closing the Bridgewater & Taunton to boat traffic, . . other than leaving it available for only walking, angling, and canoeing. The next waterways on the cards for similar treatment are the Kennet & Avon, and the Leeds & Liverpool, . . both relying on a carefully misinterpreted minor rehash of the above, . . plus the resurrection of the arguments and reasoning resorted to by the British Transport Commission [BTW] for the practical, but wholly unofficial, original closure of the K & A in the late 1950's. Back then, the process began with neglect induced failures leading to supposedly temporary cessation of boat traffic, pending the necessary repairs, . . . which never actually happened, . . and then, due to the 'temporary cessation' of boat traffic gradually morphing into a 'lack of demand' for the use of the waterway, . . the cost of repairs becoming an 'uneconomic' proposition. Any of that sound familiar ? It is worth noting that the textual amendments that form Sub-subsections 3A) and 3B) of Sub-section 3) of Section 104 of the Transport Act 1968 were not included in the 1968 Act as originally enacted. Subsection 3) of Section 104 ended with the words - ". . . . . . which is not for the time being a commercial waterway or a cruising waterway." - in the original enactment. Inspired, no doubt, by the British Transport Commission[BTC]/British Transport Waterways[BTW] shenanigans (see above) that were so successful in bringing about the 1950's unlawful/illegal 'temporary' permanent closures of such as the Kennet & Avon, and other canals, sub-subsections 3A) and 3B) of sub-section 3) of Section 104 of the Transport Act 1968 were quietly slid into place in 2012 by means of The British Waterways Board (Transfer of Functions) Order 2012, . . when the Government were actively perpetuating the lie that C&RT Ltd - a private limited company - was a "charity" that had been formed for the sole purpose of taking over and rescuing the administration and running of the inland waterways formerly the responsibility of the by then wholly discredited (nationalized) British Waterways Board. This sly 'get C&RT off the hook' card should of course have been resisted and buried at the time, by bodies such as the IWA, . . but by that time, long since in fact, there was nobody remaining in such organizations with the will or the wit to raise objections or take the necessary action.
|
|