Jump to content

Interim Head of Boating announced


howardang

Featured Posts

5 hours ago, mayalld said:

The problem is that you seem to imagine that everywhere should be some kind of socialist utopia, where people who can't afford something can just have it anyway.

You can argue about whether the fine is significant or not, but the fact remains that if CRT stops using s8 and simply uses bye-law powers to prosecute, the amount that people who don't buy a licence will be fined is less than the licence.

Failing to use s8 gives people an incentive to not pay

I have no idea how you can you possibly create all that out of my simple statement about fines ?

Bizarre.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 22/03/2017 at 19:29, Alan de Enfield said:

Do you not have 'history' / 'previous' In your previous live(s) ?

 

Just because you are paranoid doesn't mean they are not out to get you.

 

Of course he does. Onionbargee all over again. Have you not read the whole thread?!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, Muddy Ditch Rich said:

I have no idea how you can you possibly create all that out of my simple statement about fines ?

Bizarre.

 

Of course you don't.

That's because I'm smarter than you.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 22/03/2017 at 16:00, NigelMoore said:

I was sure that I had posted the results of recent enquiries to the EA respecting this situation. They routinely and successfully prosecute for the specific offence rather than use their equivalent of s.8. Anyone failing to comply with Court directions following conviction would face contempt proceedings and/or bailiff action – but none of that appears to have proved necessary. Boats ARE occasionally removed, mostly where owners are untraceable, but such actions are proportionately insignificant to the prosecution route.

Because the prosecution results in Orders to pay the licence - besides the fine, and besides the costs - the EA reap the reward of getting the boats’ licence fees and a continuing, chastened customer. Fines go to the Exchequer [or whatever it’s called]. This obviously works for the EA; I completely fail to understand why CaRT could not make it work also.

 

Thanks Nige, this appears to be the explanation I was asking MuddyDichRich for earlier.

However on closer examination, forgive my turgid mind for still not understanding. The EA actions you cite appear to revolve around making boaters buy a licence. CRT's problem is how to give licenced boaters a strong incentive to cruise compliantly rather than CMing. Their current regime of witholding a licence then S.8 seems to work very well. The main objection seems to be it is disproportionate. Mr Ditch asserts prosecuting boaters for CMing would be just as effective but is unable to explain how fining boaters would provide any incentive to cruise compliantly.

Are you saying the court fining a boater would accompany a fine with an order to 'cruise compliantly', on pain of contempt of court proceedings? How might the order be draughted I wonder. 'Cruise compliantly' is notoriously difficult to define, and any fule kno. 

 

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Sir Nibble said:

Is this a variation of the old forum game "spot Chris Pink"?

I'm sticking with CP - OB is just not even a challenge.

I'm pretty certain Chris is still with us as well, so plus ca change!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 23/03/2017 at 09:40, alan_fincher said:

I'm sticking with CP - OB is just not even a challenge.

I'm pretty certain Chris is still with us as well, so plus ca change!

 

So am I, and there is no reason he shouldn't continue posting here in my opinion. (Given he is reasonably civil - mostly - these days.)

On 23/03/2017 at 09:40, alan_fincher said:

I'm sticking with CP - OB is just not even a challenge.

I'm pretty certain Chris is still with us as well, so plus ca change!

 

So am I, and there is no reason he shouldn't continue posting here in my opinion. (Given he is reasonably civil - mostly - these days.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If old banned posters want to re-register a doppel and comply with the posting rules in future, I see no reason why they shouldn't. CWF policy however is once a poster is banned, the person remains banned no matter what doppel they use.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

39 minutes ago, Mike the Boilerman said:

If old banned posters want to re-register a doppel and comply with the posting rules in future, I see no reason why they shouldn't. CWF policy however is once a poster is banned, the person remains banned no matter what doppel they use.

Perhaps you should defeat by wit, debate and skill rather than just keep wittering on about a poster you have a fixation on. 

I am quite sure that our CWDF software would be able to spot Onionbargee if he was still using the same kit he used to, if not, then it's more difficult.

If it is indeed him,He also brings to debate some issues of CRT management having been proven untruthful and bullying in their non issue of licence.

I also see nothing in theT&C of joining this site that Rich has to admit to MTB that he has previously been someone else.

I'm sure Lala Minnow will be along shortly to back me up on this.

Edited by matty40s
  • Greenie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 23/03/2017 at 10:53, matty40s said:

Perhaps you should defeat by wit, debate and skill rather than just keep wittering on about a poster you have a fixation on. 

I am quite sure that our CWDF software would be able to spot Onionbargee if he was still using the same kit he used to, if not, then it's more difficult.

If it is indeed him,He also brings to debate some issues of CRT management having been proven untruthful and bullying in their non issue of licence.

 

How about you adding something constructive to the debate then? Rather than just moaning about me or CRT?

How do you think CRT should keep CMing under control if not by licence refusal/section 8?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

18 hours ago, NigelMoore said:

Hot off the press - he will NOT be showing up.

Tom Deards has belatedly stepped in to do what he ought to have done in the first place, and will appear at court in support of everything that was put into the 'Grimes' statement for him, with its exhibits, filing a short Statement to that effect. Leigh has just sent the new Statement, but I have not read it yet.

I recall that Mike Grimes statement suggests that his 'evidence' is based on Shoosmiths legal opinion rather than that of his own legal department ...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 3/23/2017 at 11:01, Allan(nb Albert) said:

 

I recall that Mike Grimes statement suggests that his 'evidence' is based on Shoosmiths legal opinion rather than that of his own legal department ...

Excellent point I never considered, this is why CaRT are using Shoosmiths more and more when they already have a fully qualified in house legal team, its so they cannot be held responsible. 

Edited by Muddy Ditch Rich
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

3 hours ago, Muddy Ditch Rich said:

Excellent point I never considered, this is why CaRT are using Shoosmiths more and more when they already have a fully qualified in house legal team, so they cannot be held responsible. 

Going back some years, C&RT was not afraid to allow 'in-house' to take responsibility. However, this changed following  'legal director'  Nigel Johnson's response to Nick Browns judicial review challenge.

Johnson 'retired' within hours of it being revealed that a £25m discrepancy existed between  his sworn statement and a figure given by operations director , Vince Moran.

Edited by Allan(nb Albert)
mild dyslexia
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 3/23/2017 at 09:05, Mike the Boilerman said:

 

Thanks Nige, this appears to be the explanation I was asking MuddyDichRich for earlier.

However on closer examination, forgive my turgid mind for still not understanding. The EA actions you cite appear to revolve around making boaters buy a licence. CRT's problem is how to give licenced boaters a strong incentive to cruise compliantly rather than CMing. Their current regime of witholding a licence then S.8 seems to work very well. The main objection seems to be it is disproportionate. Mr Ditch asserts prosecuting boaters for CMing would be just as effective but is unable to explain how fining boaters would provide any incentive to cruise compliantly.

Are you saying the court fining a boater would accompany a fine with an order to 'cruise compliantly', on pain of contempt of court proceedings? How might the order be draughted I wonder. 'Cruise compliantly' is notoriously difficult to define, and any fule kno. 

 

 

 

 

 

I am well aware of the direction of travel in Nigel's argument regarding proportionality but I too was wondering how well it might fly. Firstly, almost every legal situation has multiple means of seeking remedy to a specific situation and it is up to the litigant to determine which they present to the court (I know that sometimes litigants hedge their bets with optional alternatives if the court reject the first one). Just because one litigant chooses a specific route does not bind all others to follow suit. This means that as well as showing that there are alternatives to s8, it is necessary to demonstrate that those alternatives are equally effective as well as significantly less punitive. (If in doubt, consider the Shylock case!)

Which then leads to the second point: the context of the EA waters is very different from those covered by CaRT under canal legislation, not least because of the Right of Navigation, however that is interpreted. This may well mean that it is not easy to argue that the EA approach will be as effective in the CaRT context, although I note that EA can be quite draconian on occasions - it took agreement with a LA to change byelaws to sort some long stay problems!

Where I would have thought that there was room for argument (as in another well known case or two) is whether the subsequent action with a seized boat is proportionate. On the other hand, how many s8 cases have there been which did not have considerable history that is germane to a case based on having to satisfy the Board that the commitments made by the boater are genuine? As far as I can see, the only argument open to a boater once a s8 case is initiated is to seek judicial review that the Board were not reasonable in failing to be satisfied. Once they are reasonably 'not satisfied' then all else flows naturally from that point.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My observation on your last paragraph is that recent events have shown that a Section 8 does not prevent a boat being relicensed;  if, for instance, it obtains a mooring, or a 'new' owner, or a demonstrable journey, CRT are forced back to square one.

In this context the byelaws are so much more effective.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, hounddog said:

My observation on your last paragraph is that recent events have shown that a Section 8 does not prevent a boat being relicensed;  if, for instance, it obtains a mooring, or a 'new' owner, or a demonstrable journey, CRT are forced back to square one.

In this context the byelaws are so much more effective.

I don't have a problem with the situation you quote: if a boater can properly satisfy the board and can show the necessary documentation (BSS, insurance) then as it stands there is a right to have a licence (along with a duty to abide by it!). I would not be keen on moving to a situation in which CaRT or their successor had the right to deny a licence without having to show reasonable cause. Go to a private supplier and they can shut their door in your face if they do not like the look of it and, save for cases covered by laws against discrimination on the grounds of a protected characteristic, you cannot force them to supply you. (Marinas are, for example, permitted to ban boats they think make their site look untidy!)

I am a bit unsure how you think a byelaw (current or future) would help in the particular situation.

As I said, I think there is greater room for debate about what happens after a s8 rather than before it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, hounddog said:

My observation on your last paragraph is that recent events have shown that a Section 8 does not prevent a boat being relicensed;  if, for instance, it obtains a mooring, or a 'new' owner, or a demonstrable journey, CRT are forced back to square one.

In this context the byelaws are so much more effective.

 

 

Could you expand on how the bylaws can be used to bear down on boats that don't move please.

No-one has managed to explain this yet.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.