|
Post by Mr Stabby on May 14, 2023 8:18:50 GMT
It does all seems a bit keystone cops when one starts imagining how it went down, and that's all it is - speculation - but if it wasn't like that then they were lucky to catch him literally with his pants down, if the rumours are true. The most important thing (from their perspective) was to avoid a repeat of the first attempt. And anyone can fly a drone. It’s not just the comedy factor. This is a third sector organisation that keeps pleading poverty, yet they spend a fortune on nonsense like this. The only real alternative would be to do nothing, and announce that henceforth action will no longer be taken against unlicenced boats. One problem I could foresee with this is that I personally wouldn't spend £1,000 on a licence if it was an optional purchase, a voluntary donation to charity if you will, and I imagine most boat owners would be of a similar mindset. It would then become difficult for central Government to justify their financial support for the canal network to the general public. After all, if we won't pay for upkeep of the canals, then why should they?
|
|
|
Post by thebfg on May 14, 2023 8:19:24 GMT
As far as I can tell it was Tony who introduced the crowbar into the story. If this is the case then it is likely to be wholly fictitious. It probably is, but I made a point that they may have a defence to walking along a towpath with a crowbar and that they may not have. It would be a matter for a jury to decide and I've made no statement otherwise. My explanation was correct.
|
|
|
Post by on May 14, 2023 8:20:18 GMT
Why is it nonsense to get rid of unlicensed non compliant boats from canals? Or did you mean they should execute far more quickly and get the job done rather than dragging it out for years? Do the CRT perhaps need some new powers to deal with reality. Its nonsense because if they enforced the bye laws and used them to deal with situations like this, then there’s no way it would drag on for ten years. So the expense would be less. No they don’t need new powers, they need to go away and have a rethink maybe wobble their heads and come up with a new strategy. The course of action that they follow now is one they inherited from BW, in my opinion it’s not appropriate for a third sector organisation. Yes but what are the fines for byelaw offences? Some people will just pay and get on with it. I'm not convinced byelaws can deal with the problems faced by the CRT. It would be interesting to see them used. It seems odd they never are used. Not even for things like magnet fishing offences.
|
|
|
Post by thebfg on May 14, 2023 8:20:29 GMT
hence why I added the paragraph. If they didn't need to enter or indeed even plan on entering, what would be their excuse for carrying the equipment if asked by an officer of the law? It is a good question.. if the boat was chained to the piling and the chain was wedged somehow one might need a bar to release it. Usually one would carry this on the workboat though. In my opinion, I agree. That would be a reasonable reason.
|
|
|
Post by dogless on May 14, 2023 8:25:29 GMT
They have stepped up powers re uninsured vehicles on roads, to seizure and removal, rather than the old way of simply summons to court.
I see no problem with seizure and removal of none compliant boats other than the speed (or rather lack of) with which it is completed.
Rog
|
|
|
Post by thebfg on May 14, 2023 8:36:37 GMT
The legislation around uninsured drivers was long overdue for a variety of reasons.
CRT could definitely work a lot faster to either get a boater to comply or remove the boat. I suspect it would reduce their costs and help improve compliance.
|
|
|
Post by thebfg on May 14, 2023 8:50:21 GMT
If it turns out that their s8 powers in removing a boat does not give them powers of entry then their lawful excuse for carrying a crowbar disappears. Are powers of entry required where the structure in question is not, in legal terms, a home / domicile (such as a boat, which is legally a chattel when not kept on a bona fide residential mooring)? Out of interest do you know what legislation gives power of entry or removes the need for that power for a chattel?
|
|
|
Post by Murgatroyd on May 14, 2023 9:10:16 GMT
Are powers of entry required where the structure in question is not, in legal terms, a home / domicile (such as a boat, which is legally a chattel when not kept on a bona fide residential mooring)? Out of interest do you know what legislation gives power of entry or removes the need for that power for a chattel? Being neither a legal professional or a law enforcement officer...not really, but if I had to make a bet I'd go for the 'Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984'. Incidentally, police can enter and search a domicile or any other property if they have reasonable suspicion of the presence of wanted crims or criminal activity being carried out on the premises, or suspect that life is at risk (probably not an exhaustive list) without the need for a search warrant.
|
|
|
Post by kris on May 14, 2023 9:16:42 GMT
Its nonsense because if they enforced the bye laws and used them to deal with situations like this, then there’s no way it would drag on for ten years. So the expense would be less. No they don’t need new powers, they need to go away and have a rethink maybe wobble their heads and come up with a new strategy. The course of action that they follow now is one they inherited from BW, in my opinion it’s not appropriate for a third sector organisation. Yes but what are the fines for byelaw offences? Some people will just pay and get on with it. I'm not convinced byelaws can deal with the problems faced by the CRT. It would be interesting to see them used. It seems odd they never are used. Not even for things like magnet fishing offences. I seem to recall Nigel Moore thought there where better ways of dealing with these issues using the bye laws.
|
|
|
Post by thebfg on May 14, 2023 9:18:31 GMT
Out of interest do you know what legislation gives power of entry or removes the need for that power for a chattel? Being neither a legal professional or a law enforcement officer...not really, but if I had to make a bet I'd go for the 'Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984'. Incidentally, police can enter and search a domicile or any other property if they have reasonable suspicion of the presence of wanted crims or criminal activity being carried out on the premises, or suspect that life is at risk (probably not an exhaustive list) without the need for a search warrant. I'd bet that only gives a constable powers not anyone else.
|
|
|
Post by Murgatroyd on May 14, 2023 9:26:06 GMT
Just did a quick google...over on CWDF there has already been a ding-dong or two on this very subject.
However there is this:
"Section 23(2) of the MDA(opens an external website in the same tab) provides that a constable may search a person suspected of being in possession of a controlled drug and detain them for the purpose of the search. They may also search any vehicle or vessel in which they suspect the drug may be found, and can require the person in control of the vehicle or vessel to stop it for that purpose."
I expect there are similar things relating to weapons.
|
|
|
Post by thebfg on May 14, 2023 9:27:57 GMT
Yes but what are the fines for byelaw offences? Some people will just pay and get on with it. I'm not convinced byelaws can deal with the problems faced by the CRT. It would be interesting to see them used. It seems odd they never are used. Not even for things like magnet fishing offences. I seem to recall Nigel Moore thought there where better ways of dealing with these issues using the bye laws. He did and I remember him putting a good case forward as well. In terms of Andrews points I bet not licencing a boat is a fine of about £10. But the byelaws allow CRT, as soon a a boat is moored unlawfully to remove the boat after 28days. And to recover the costs from the owner. No fines involved. Boat is gone but they can pay all the costs and get it back. Job done. How many times will people go through that process before realising they should just comply. I suspect using byelaws in the Courts would give boaters a bigger chance to get their defences heard and won. An owner, after having their boat removed could take CRT to court and argue why they were actually lawfully moored and their boat needs to be returned. If crt receive payment and return the boat then there is very minimal cost to them. And the boat is now complying. Job done. If they don't they sell it and recover as much as possible. For some loss but not as much as currently. They could and should do things much better and fairer.
|
|
|
Post by thebfg on May 14, 2023 9:29:43 GMT
Just did a quick google...over on CWDF there has already been a ding-dong or two on this very subject. However there is this: "Section 23(2) of the MDA(opens an external website in the same tab) provides that a constable may search a person suspected of being in possession of a controlled drug and detain them for the purpose of the search. They may also search any vehicle or vessel in which they suspect the drug may be found, and can require the person in control of the vehicle or vessel to stop it for that purpose." I expect there are similar things relating to weapons. A constable. Crt does not employ any constables. I have a good understanding of most police powers at a basic laymans level. But AFAIK they don't transfer to anyone else. Such as CRT or CBS.
|
|
|
Post by Murgatroyd on May 14, 2023 9:33:59 GMT
Well, assuming that's true (not disputing it) CRT can go from 0-100 in 28 days if they so wished, but the system as practised seems to give much opportunity to do something about it over a far longer period, which in turn suggests a strong reluctance to move to a confiscation / removal, and that anyone who finds themselves in this situation really had to work at it. Like Tony.
|
|
|
Post by thebfg on May 14, 2023 9:47:35 GMT
Agreed. There is plenty of time to get any issues fixed and CRT have shown with Tony, George and Kris that they are very willing to give boaters time to sort out problems. I suppose the issue is the only resolution at the moment is to comply with what CRT want I.e get a licence.
If there are any factors such as the reason CRT revoked a licence is incorrect there is no outside adjudicator(for want of a word) to decide, CRT will just rule in their own favour.
And then boat owners just become entrenched in their view that they are right and CRT are wrong and shouldn't have to comply.
P.s it would be at least 30 days. But that's just a pedantic point.
|
|