|
Post by thebfg on Mar 24, 2023 14:15:49 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Aloysius on Mar 24, 2023 14:31:24 GMT
Ok I get it now. It certainly seems that George was doing his best not to buy a licence right up until the point any pathway to obtaining one was revoked. I didn't know that such might happen for aggressive behaviour toward ground staff but in light of the incident where one of them ended up dead it seems obvious enough.
|
|
|
Post by on Mar 24, 2023 14:39:12 GMT
Bizarrely enough the CRT have 3 vacancies for mooring rangers in the London area.
One wonders if going armed with a decent barge hook is allowed.
|
|
|
Post by Aloysius on Mar 24, 2023 14:42:36 GMT
Sounds like your ideal job 🤣
|
|
|
Post by thebfg on Mar 24, 2023 15:06:31 GMT
Ok I get it now. It certainly seems that George was doing his best not to buy a licence right up until the point any pathway to obtaining one was revoked. I didn't know that such might happen for aggressive behaviour toward ground staff but in light of the incident where one of them ended up dead it seems obvious enough. Oh he's definitely tried every trick in the book over the years and now he may have a legitimate defence, no one is listening. Interestingly the prosecution offered no evidence that the alleged incident happened yet still CRT got awarded an injunction.
|
|
|
Post by Aloysius on Mar 24, 2023 16:25:27 GMT
Ok I get it now. It certainly seems that George was doing his best not to buy a licence right up until the point any pathway to obtaining one was revoked. I didn't know that such might happen for aggressive behaviour toward ground staff but in light of the incident where one of them ended up dead it seems obvious enough. Oh he's definitely tried every trick in the book over the years and now he may have a legitimate defence, no one is listening. Interestingly the prosecution offered no evidence that the alleged incident happened yet still CRT got awarded an injunction. That's a bit shocking. You seem very well informed on the subject - I assume the source isn't entirely reliant on local news or is it?
|
|
|
Post by anothernarrowescape on Mar 24, 2023 16:30:47 GMT
I think the thing with the pedal powered boat is a bit odd. She takes the power plant out of her boat, and then claims she cannot meet the minimum cruising recommendation which you would presume she could more easily with diesel power. This is also coupled with her saying there are no downsides to pedal power before binning it into the bank at a water point with the slightest breeze. George is a bit of a minor player in the doc, and sadly seems to have mentally declined somewhat since filming however I don't have anywhere near enough letters after my name to have that be anything more than speculation. The real significance of that video is the way it illustrates the extent to which it is accepted that C&RT have the lawful authority and powers to evict boat owners from their privately owned pleasure craft, then to seize the vessel, remove it from whatever C&RT controlled waterway it happens to be on, and then finally to transport it away for disposal by means of either selling it on, illegally, to a new unsuspecting owner, or breaking it up, . . a regrettable state of affairs for which the responsibility rests wholly with the Community Law Partnership - the relatively useless and rather thick lawyers who advise and act for the NBTA and its members. The C&RT management regard themselves and the organisation as being above the Law, . . and exempt from the standards of common decency by which most of the UK population live. Rock and a hard place IMO. CRT are or should be well within their rights to remove pretty much any boat the feel like from their system, however choose to only do so in extreme circumstances and I guess there is no way to do that without kicking the owner off. As far as I understand, boat removal is a last, last, last resort.
|
|
|
Post by thebfg on Mar 24, 2023 16:57:57 GMT
Oh he's definitely tried every trick in the book over the years and now he may have a legitimate defence, no one is listening. Interestingly the prosecution offered no evidence that the alleged incident happened yet still CRT got awarded an injunction. That's a bit shocking. You seem very well informed on the subject - I assume the source isn't entirely reliant on local news or is it? Which part? Smelly bridge was part of our regular cruise. I've picked up a lot from local boaters either in face or on the local Facebook groups(which I'm not a member now) I could get the other half to have a look see what the locals are saying now.
|
|
|
Post by Aloysius on Mar 24, 2023 17:12:43 GMT
The real significance of that video is the way it illustrates the extent to which it is accepted that C&RT have the lawful authority and powers to evict boat owners from their privately owned pleasure craft, then to seize the vessel, remove it from whatever C&RT controlled waterway it happens to be on, and then finally to transport it away for disposal by means of either selling it on, illegally, to a new unsuspecting owner, or breaking it up, . . a regrettable state of affairs for which the responsibility rests wholly with the Community Law Partnership - the relatively useless and rather thick lawyers who advise and act for the NBTA and its members. The C&RT management regard themselves and the organisation as being above the Law, . . and exempt from the standards of common decency by which most of the UK population live. Rock and a hard place IMO. CRT are or should be well within their rights to remove pretty much any boat the feel like from their system, however choose to only do so in extreme circumstances and I guess there is no way to do that without kicking the owner off. As far as I understand, boat removal is a last, last, last resort. It has taken, and always seems to take, a long time for push to come to shove. I find it hard to imagine that George isn't so divorced from reality that he can't have realised this day would eventually come. On the other hand he seems to have genuinely believed that the wooden motor could be 'fixed'. It's still a pity though, god alone knows what else the chap is going to do.
|
|
|
Post by Aloysius on Mar 24, 2023 17:14:49 GMT
That's a bit shocking. You seem very well informed on the subject - I assume the source isn't entirely reliant on local news or is it? Which part? Smelly bridge was part of our regular cruise. I've picked up a lot from local boaters either in face or on the local Facebook groups(which I'm not a member now) I could get the other half to have a look see what the locals are saying now. The part about offering no contest and still being found in favour. And yes, if you hear any chat on the subject it would be interesting.
|
|
|
Post by rockdodger on Mar 24, 2023 17:58:09 GMT
Bizarrely enough the CRT have 3 vacancies for mooring rangers in the London area. One wonders if going armed with a decent barge hook is allowed. With one of Foxy's red hot mooring pins lashed to the business end?
|
|
|
Post by Mr Stabby on Mar 24, 2023 18:19:55 GMT
Bizarrely enough the CRT have 3 vacancies for mooring rangers in the London area. One wonders if going armed with a decent barge hook is allowed. With one of Foxy's red hot mooring pins lashed to the business end? You still run the risk of having your heart ripped out and eaten in front of you.
|
|
|
Post by Tony Dunkley on Mar 24, 2023 18:21:06 GMT
The real significance of that video is the way it illustrates the extent to which it is accepted that C&RT have the lawful authority and powers to evict boat owners from their privately owned pleasure craft, then to seize the vessel, remove it from whatever C&RT controlled waterway it happens to be on, and then finally to transport it away for disposal by means of either selling it on, illegally, to a new unsuspecting owner, or breaking it up, . . a regrettable state of affairs for which the responsibility rests wholly with the Community Law Partnership - the relatively useless and rather thick lawyers who advise and act for the NBTA and its members. The C&RT management regard themselves and the organisation as being above the Law, . . and exempt from the standards of common decency by which most of the UK population live. Rock and a hard place IMO. CRT are or should be well within their rights to remove pretty much any boat the feel like from their system, however choose to only do so in extreme circumstances and I guess there is no way to do that without kicking the owner off. As far as I understand, boat removal is a last, last, last resort. C&RT's conduct and actions are governed by an extensive collection of inland waterways specific legislation collectively known or referred to as the various British Waterways Acts, . . all separately defined by means of including the year in which each Act went on to the statute book. Although C&RT claim that Section 8 of the British Waterways Act 1983 entitles it to remove certain specified craft, . . " from the inland waterways", . . the truth is that S.8 of the 1983 Act authorizes only the "removal" of certain specified craft from the location where they are "sunk, stranded or abandoned" or "left or moored without lawful authority". There is nothing in any of the governing legislation that gives the C&RT any lawful 'right' to seize, remove from, or transport away any pleasure craft from any of the inland waterways or reservoirs under its control. C&RT lies to its customers (boatowners) about its S.8 powers of 'boat removal' in its webpages, . . and C&RT's dishonest lawyers knowingly mislead and lie to the Courts for the purpose of obtaining misworded Court Orders for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief, . . which are then passed on to a contractor who fraudulently enforces the misworded Court Order using bogus Bailiffs who lie to the boatowner and the Police to fool them into believing that the (misworded) Court Order entitles the Trust to forcibly seize and transport away the named boat. More details and information on how this scam is worked are to be found in this TB post :- < thunderboat.boards.net/post/363286/thread >
|
|
|
Post by thebfg on Mar 24, 2023 18:37:35 GMT
Which part? Smelly bridge was part of our regular cruise. I've picked up a lot from local boaters either in face or on the local Facebook groups(which I'm not a member now) I could get the other half to have a look see what the locals are saying now. The part about offering no contest and still being found in favour. And yes, if you hear any chat on the subject it would be interesting. I was aware of the case, it was reported quite a lot locally, I don't know of I knew about the injuction before reading about it on the links here, I can't remember. From the few posts I just looked at, opinion seems divided. But that I guess is expected. There are few posts offering facts at the moment. I going to guess there will be activity once CRT sneak in.
|
|
|
Post by Tony Dunkley on Mar 24, 2023 18:50:00 GMT
The part about offering no contest and still being found in favour. And yes, if you hear any chat on the subject it would be interesting. There are few posts offering facts at the moment. There's one here :- C&RT's conduct and actions are governed by an extensive collection of inland waterways specific legislation collectively known or referred to as the various British Waterways Acts, . . all separately defined by means of including the year in which each Act went on to the statute book. Although C&RT claim that Section 8 of the British Waterways Act 1983 entitles it to remove certain specified craft, . . " from the inland waterways", . . the truth is that S.8 of the 1983 Act authorizes only the " removal" of certain specified craft from the location where they are "sunk, stranded or abandoned" or "left or moored without lawful authority". There is nothing in any of the governing legislation that gives the C&RT any lawful 'right' to seize, remove from, or transport away any pleasure craft from any of the inland waterways or reservoirs under its control. C&RT lies to its customers (boatowners) about its S.8 powers of 'boat removal' in its webpages, . . and C&RT's dishonest lawyers knowingly mislead and lie to the Courts for the purpose of obtaining misworded Court Orders for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief, . . which are then passed on to a contractor who fraudulently enforces the misworded Court Order using bogus Bailiffs who lie to the boatowner and the Police to fool them into believing that the (misworded) Court Order entitles the Trust to forcibly seize and transport away the named boat. More details and information on how this scam is worked are to be found in this TB post :- < thunderboat.boards.net/post/363286/thread >
|
|