|
Post by on Mar 17, 2024 14:18:58 GMT
I'm slowly beginning to understand that my vocation was to be a posh pikey squatter.
It's taken ages to work this out.
|
|
|
Post by kris on Mar 17, 2024 14:38:15 GMT
I'm slowly beginning to understand that my vocation was to be a posh pikey squatter. It's taken ages to work this out. That’s okay then.
|
|
|
Post by dogless on Mar 17, 2024 16:54:05 GMT
You're right kris ... no one wins the Internet. But you're not a victim... C&RT are not the enemy ... and if you choose to test the system and play games, you will lose. I can evidence with examples if you wish 😁 Rog What we started talking about was crt stopping to send out letters to non compliant boaters. I still don’t see why your so adamant that it’s a good idea. It’s seems like a false economy. If they sent out a thousand letters let’s say at a cost of £1500 they are all the same letter just regurgitated. So it’s not as if someone has to sit and write everyone. If those letters stop one person from going into enforcement, then they have saved money. So why is it a bad idea? As I’ve pointed out the increasing number of boats you see around the system with no name, no number and no licence visible. Don’t come under enforcement as it’s too difficult for crt to trace the owners. The worst crt do to most of these, is to cable tie a notice to them occasionally. That has the desired effect of getting local boaters to think something is happening. I am a lucky man. I have a house and pay council tax etc. I don't need the council to spend limited funds reminding me of my obligations. We have a car. I don't need the DVLA to spend money on constant reminders of my obligations. Why would I need C&RT to have a bureaucracy and spend limited funds to remind me of obligations I accepted and agreed to abide by when I first licenced my boat ? Why would anyone unless their intention is to 'push the boundaries'?. And you still haven't explained how all boaters are now at risk of enforcement or how someone can accidently find themselves in enforcement. Rog ETA I'm not really having a go. I'm just tired of C&RT spending funds that ought to go on maintaining a very old, fragile system, on chasing folks who never really intended boating as such, just wanted a cheap home
|
|
|
Post by kris on Mar 17, 2024 16:57:30 GMT
I have never said all boaters are now at risk of enforcement. Comparing dvla or the local council with crt achieves nothing. The one thing you said in that post that rings true is your lucky. As I’ve explained over and over again. This is going to cost crt more in the long run. You still haven’t answered why you think not sending out warning letters is a good idea?
|
|
|
Post by dogless on Mar 17, 2024 17:04:31 GMT
Because the people being warned AGREED to abide by the rules when they got their first licence.
Where's the shock or surprise?
Do what you agreed to or expect enforcement.
Isn't that a cheaper option ?
Rog
|
|
|
Post by kris on Mar 17, 2024 17:06:29 GMT
Because the people being warned AGREED to abide by the rules when they got their first licence. Where's the shock or surprise? Do what you agreed to or expect enforcement. Isn't that a cheaper option ? Rog The problem with this line of thought, is the lack of clarity about distance needed to be travelled. Anyway I really can’t be arsed anymore. You win I give in.
|
|
|
Post by Tony Dunkley on Mar 17, 2024 17:09:25 GMT
Remove the boat solves the problem, once and for all doesn't it ? Rog Yes it does, . . but the way C&RT and Commercial Boat Services go about doing it is wholly unlawful. If C&RT want the statutes amending, they're obliged to get Parliament to do that, . . C&RT simply CANNOT rewrite the Law, however and whenever it happens to suit its crooked management, and its bent lawyers, who wilfully mislead (lie to) the Courts as to the extent of the boat 'removal' powers that C&RT actually does have.
|
|
|
Post by brummieboy on Mar 17, 2024 17:16:24 GMT
If you park your car where you shouldn't, you don't get a warning letter, you get a fine. If you pay within a certain time it is cheaper. If you don't pay council tax, you get a notice of impending prosecution that follows a natural course if you don't pay. You don't start a discussion. If you don't pay your income tax by the due date, you immediately incur a fine that increases with time.
Why should boaters get preferential treatment. If it was as easy for CaRT to remove a boat to a pound as it is for the police to impound a car, I suspect there would be a lot less cases for them to follow up, but like the councils with contracted outlitter wardens, if they follow the same pattern, the persistent offenders would drastically reduce.
|
|
|
Post by dogless on Mar 17, 2024 17:22:19 GMT
Because the people being warned AGREED to abide by the rules when they got their first licence. Where's the shock or surprise? Do what you agreed to or expect enforcement. Isn't that a cheaper option ? Rog The problem with this line of thought, is the lack of clarity about distance needed to be travelled. Anyway I really can’t be arsed anymore. You win I give in. You made a statement. I disagreed and explained why. Up to you whether you want to uphold your statement or not. But that's what a discussion forum is. Did you need a reminder letter ? Sorry ... cheap joke 😁 Rog
|
|
|
Post by kris on Mar 17, 2024 17:25:03 GMT
C.B.A.
|
|
|
Post by dogless on Mar 17, 2024 17:35:14 GMT
Shocked.
Rog
|
|
|
Post by Tony Dunkley on Mar 17, 2024 17:53:02 GMT
Why should boaters get preferential treatment. If it was as easy for CaRT to remove a boat to a pound as it is for the police to impound a car, I suspect there would be a lot less cases for them to follow up, but like the councils with contracted outlitter wardens, if they follow the same pattern, the persistent offenders would drastically reduce. Who is advocating that they should, . . I'm certainly not. C&RT is strictly controlled and limited in whatever it does, by the various British Waterways Acts. The provisions written into those Acts are Law. C&RT regards itself as above the Law, and consistently lies to and misleads the Courts as to the extent of its powers under the Law. What is so difficult to understand about that ?
|
|
|
Post by Mr Stabby on Mar 17, 2024 18:44:12 GMT
It's difficult to understand why you didn't explain all this in Court, in fact didn't even bother to turn up at Court, but instead blether on and on about it to us when nobody here really gives a shit.
|
|
|
Post by Andyberg on Mar 17, 2024 18:47:11 GMT
C&RT is strictly controlled and limited in whatever it does, by the various British Waterways Acts. The provisions written into those Acts are Law. C&RT regards itself as above the Law, and consistently lies to and misleads the Courts as to the extent of its powers under the Law. ? Perfect example of CRT misleading the Courts….Come on Tony, bring them to task!👍
|
|
|
Post by Tony Dunkley on Mar 18, 2024 0:48:50 GMT
Remove the boat solves the problem, once and for all doesn't it ? Rog Yes it does, . . but the way C&RT and Commercial Boat Services perform their joint boat 'removal' exercises is wholly unlawful, . . and is facilitated by means of wilfully lying to and misleading the Courts in respect of the true limits to its statutory powers under Section 8 the British Waterways Act 1983.If C&RT want to change the Law, the statutes have to be either amended or replaced, and ONLY Parliament can do that. C&RT simply CANNOT rewrite the Law, . . however and whenever it happens to suit the purposes of its crooked management, and its bent lawyers, who wilfully mislead (lie to) the Courts as to the extent of the boat 'removal' powers that C&RT actually does have. _______________________________________________________ I'm not prepared to continue this conversation in a thread/topic that began with an appropriate title, but was then re-titled by the mindless lowlife who first opened it. The conversation will now be moved to The C&RT Section 8 Notice topic.
|
|