|
Post by thebfg on Apr 3, 2024 10:47:15 GMT
But it has been challenged in court, and the action was successful; the beak ruled that the two weeks part was (deep breath, believe I have this right) temporal and not geographical eg the demand that a boat moves every two weeks is supported but the mileage is not, and that any reference to 'reasonable' distance is wholly dependent on the circumstances of the individual. Happy to be corrected if I'm in error. Your probably right. But that supports my point that there can be a distance and its down to individual boaters.
|
|
|
Post by kris on Apr 3, 2024 10:51:47 GMT
If you have more info to add, add it, to busy to look it all up etc, but afaik I'm right about the judgement and it's a shame that's the way it is. You are right and I said as much in an earlier post; the vocab is that a county court or a magistrate's court is not a court of record; but a court of appeal is. So to effectively challenge the distance rule an s8 case needs to be appealed, and thus it requires muchos funding to occur. Maybe Branson could be roped in, he used to have a boat. Bransons old boat is Mersey which is sat in cbs’s yard in Chester after being section8ed by crt. It was called Arthur when Branson lived on it
|
|
|
Post by Aloysius on Apr 3, 2024 11:00:09 GMT
But it has been challenged in court, and the action was successful; the beak ruled that the two weeks part was (deep breath, believe I have this right) temporal and not geographical eg the demand that a boat moves every two weeks is supported but the mileage is not, and that any reference to 'reasonable' distance is wholly dependent on the circumstances of the individual. Happy to be corrected if I'm in error. Your probably right. But that supports my point that there can be a distance and its down to individual boaters. That's a somewhat wobbly way of looking at it but essentially we seem to agree; the point is that arbitrarily stating a minimum distance is nonsense and those at CRT responsible for introducing it know this right well, which is why they refuse to be drawn into any discussion regarding specific distance; they've already thought it through and reached the conclusion it's a loser some time ago. I believe.
|
|
|
Post by brummieboy on Apr 3, 2024 11:02:02 GMT
Just wait and see. The London, and other problem areas will be solved by putting the booking of moorings into an enforcement company's hands, and the existing towpath mooring in London will be extended and enforced rigoursly because it will pay the operator to do so. it has worked on the Thames in the main; you don't get the 'honeypots' being abused. Where you have to book moorings in London, it works. Bridge hopping will not be viable and it may also increase revenue for CaRT to minimise future increase, or provide funds for real maintenence, though I suspect it would only encourage further tree huggers and yoghourt knitters to expand their ideals.
|
|
|
Post by fi on Apr 3, 2024 11:07:31 GMT
I suspect London is about the only place where boaters actually provide enough income to maintain the system they live within.
|
|
|
Post by kris on Apr 3, 2024 11:08:13 GMT
The exspression is yogurt weavers, twat. If your going to try to ridicule and demean people by using stereo types then get them right.
|
|
|
Post by kris on Apr 3, 2024 11:12:20 GMT
I suspect London is about the only place where boaters actually provide enough income to maintain the system they live within. Well at least provide some bins.
|
|
|
Post by thebfg on Apr 3, 2024 11:25:39 GMT
Not at all Martin, I said it was down to individual boaters and the judgement you refer to says the same. Mayers lost didn't he? When that judgement was made. Its quite important to take the whole paragraph rather than one sentence. The comment wasn't about distance but CRTs incorrect claim on the wording of the act. It's quite interesting. And I note that the judgement wasn't a judgment on the wording of the act but a judgement on whether the defendant complied with it and couldn't be used as any kind of case law. It's also worth noting that Bona fida was judged on and it has to be a genuine journey and not a journey to circumnavigate the legislation.
|
|
|
Post by Jim on Apr 3, 2024 11:26:04 GMT
The exspression is yogurt weavers, twat. If your going to try to ridicule and demean people by using stereo types then get them right. I've heard and seen the ex(s)pression "knitted yoghurt hat" many times.
|
|
|
Post by Andyberg on Apr 3, 2024 11:33:11 GMT
Bransons old boat is Mersey which is sat in cbs’s yard in Chester after being section8ed by crt. Cant find any trace of it or Wyre in the for sale ads now…mebbee they have both sold? 🤷🏻♂️
|
|
|
Post by kris on Apr 3, 2024 11:40:13 GMT
Bransons old boat is Mersey which is sat in cbs’s yard in Chester after being section8ed by crt. Cant find any trace of it or Wyre in the for sale ads now…mebbee they have both sold? 🤷🏻♂️ Maybe crt gave them back to the owner🙃
|
|
|
Post by Aloysius on Apr 3, 2024 18:34:12 GMT
Not at all Martin, I said it was down to individual boaters and the judgement you refer to says the same. Mayers lost didn't he? When that judgement was made. Its quite important to take the whole paragraph rather than one sentence. The comment wasn't about distance but CRTs incorrect claim on the wording of the act. It's quite interesting. And I note that the judgement wasn't a judgment on the wording of the act but a judgement on whether the defendant complied with it and couldn't be used as any kind of case law. It's also worth noting that Bona fida was judged on and it has to be a genuine journey and not a journey to circumnavigate the legislation. Do you have a link to the paper you've cited?
|
|
|
Post by Tony Dunkley on Apr 4, 2024 12:59:18 GMT
Bransons old boat is Mersey which is sat in cbs’s yard in Chester after being section8ed by crt. Cant find any trace of it or Wyre in the for sale ads now…mebbee they have both sold? 🤷🏻♂️
No, . . idiot, . . that isn't the reason. Both boats have been taken off the market because of the increasingly widespread publicity given to the fact that neither vessel is C&RT's or Commercial Boat Services to sell.
'Seizing' goods, an item, property, or belongings does not equate with acquiring 'good title', . . unless the seizure of the goods (etc.) has been properly and specifically authorized or ordered by way of an enactment, a Writ, or a Warrant.
This, apparently, incomprehensible (for all C&RT's unthinking blinkered supporters) and inconvenient fact is what makes every single one of C&RT's Section 8 boat "removals" unlawful, . . because the 'seizure' of the vessel in question is executed with the predetermined intention of either destroying the vessel, or selling it on to a third party.
|
|
|
Post by Jim on Apr 4, 2024 13:01:57 GMT
.
|
|
|
Post by Tony Dunkley on Apr 4, 2024 13:13:43 GMT
Bransons old boat is Mersey which is sat in cbs’s yard in Chester after being section8ed by crt. Cant find any trace of it or Wyre in the for sale ads now…mebbee they have both sold? 🤷🏻♂️ No, . . idiot, . . that isn't the reason. Both boats have been taken off the market because of the increasingly widespread publicity given to the fact that neither vessel is C&RT's or Commercial Boat Services to sell.
'Seizing' goods, an item, property, or belongings does not equate with acquiring 'good title', . . unless the seizure of the goods (etc.) has been properly and specifically authorized or ordered by way of an enactment, a Writ, or a Warrant.
This, apparently, incomprehensible (for all C&RT's unthinking blinkered supporters) and inconvenient fact is what makes every single one of C&RT's Section 8 boat "removals" unlawful, . . because the 'seizure' of the vessel in question is executed with the predetermined intention of either destroying the vessel, or selling it on to a third party.
|
|