Jump to content

Bridgewater permits and licenses


gigoguy

Featured Posts

3 minutes ago, gigoguy said:

Some boats are exempt from charge on the bridgewater canal and we're trying to establish what they are too. Read the article and make up your own mind

Well Dave I'm taking action by challenging them and by reporting them to trading standards and by reporting them to the police and by writing to my MP as IWA have requested and by posting in here and TB to try to get other people to also challenge a company that threatens to take your boat off you and sell or scrap it if you don't pay them some money.

You want to join me?

I salute your passion for this, i really do, i wont be joining though as to me its trivial and if i ever do make it that far oop north, i would more than likely just pay the £20 and enjoy my day.

 

  • Greenie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Dave Payne said:

I salute your passion for this, i really do, i wont be joining though as to me its trivial and if i ever do make it that far oop north, i would more than likely just pay the £20 and enjoy my day.

 

Well Dave if you feel that challenging extortion is trivial that's your view and you're obviously entitled to it. 

Maybe by the time you make it up here the toll will be 50 quid and hopefully you'll still be happy to pay it. Because if you don't, well it'll all be your fault when it closes down.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, gigoguy said:

Well Dave if you feel that challenging extortion is trivial that's your view and you're obviously entitled to it. 

Maybe by the time you make it up here the toll will be 50 quid and hopefully you'll still be happy to pay it. Because if you don't, well it'll all be your fault when it closes down.

 

By the time i get up there i would hope you have took them to court and won...

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, gigoguy said:

I mentioned swing bridges only as a passing comment that there are no time wasting obstacles to hinder travel along the canal. And that transit from one end to the other is possible within one day. Therefore if I went from Preston Brook to Leigh on Sunday and worked all week on my mates boat with him. I'd have to pay 20 quid to go home again on Friday.

If I was on holiday on a boat and went from manchester to Liverpool I'd have to pay 20 quid to go back again.

If I set off to Ashton and the locks are closed I'd have to pay 20 quid to go back round the other way. Or the same with Marple as is the case at the minute.

Graham decided that it would suit some strange agenda of his to divert the conversation from the point in hand to something totally irrelevant. And that has been carried on by others also wishing to stifle the debate.

Can we let Barton tank go now. OK it opens and it opens regularly. It isn't opened by a boater and it doesn't as a general rule impede transit from one end to the other.

You have been picked up over the inaccuracies that you keep bringing into this topic, not only by me, but both others too.

I have no agenda other than to point out that to support any "action" against yourself, you have to be totally correct in ALL matters., otherwise the other side can (and will) take you to pieces, and you are therefore much more likely to lose. You have taken that personally and have resorted to petty insults, who further denigrates your argument and loses you support.

So far you have provided no actual legal reasons for Peel not to act in the way they do. All you have provided is your interpretation and your opinion. You can do nothing else until either Peel take you to Court or you are able to obtain a ruling otherwise. The fact that Peel haven't as yet taken you to Court does not prove they don't have the legal right to do so. They could be ignoring you because it isn't economically viable to carry on, it could be because they can't be bothered or it could be because they are building up a bigger case. You don't and can't know why and they don't have to tell you. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re them having to prove it... I remember a long thread some years back on here about the illegality of CRT (though it may well have been BW back then) charging for mooring permits, and some highly vocal members being absolutely certain that there was no legal justification for it.  The same arguments as here were used - that it was illegal extortion with no basis in law and that anyone who paid for a permit was an idiot (not that gigoguy has said any such thing in this case).  As far as I am aware, no-one ever got BW/CRT to write to them explaining the bit of Act which it was based on, and everyone just kept paying it.

I suspect this will end up going the same way.  I know that gigoguy, CRT and many others have tried to persuade Peel to change their minds, and Peel say tough and won't budge - but they don't have to UNLESS someone can clearly show that they can't. Possession, as they say, is, rightly or wrongly, nine tenths of the law and it's their canal. And it would seem that the obscurity of the original documentation is such that you could argue about it for years and not reach a conclusion and therefore all the clout is with Peel, because no-one is going to do that for forty quid. And as Peel aren't even going to try to go to court, or take someone's boat off them, for forty quid either, it'll never end up in court.  They may for other reasons, but not that.  And most people who are forced to return within 28 days and spotted, will stump up. For the same reason, people will carry on paying for their boat licences, because they will assume that any argument saying they don't need to is simply daft and not worth considering.

As I've said, with enough pressure and the right kind of political action, you might get the return limit reduced.  You certainly won't get licence fees scrapped, and picking a fight that you can't win is not sensible - all it does if force your opponent to refuse to give ground on smaller matters to avoid looking weak.  You need to make them feel good about giving way, that by doing what you want that they have actually beaten you.  This may of course be impossible...

  • Greenie 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Arthur Marshall said:

Re them having to prove it... I remember a long thread some years back on here about the illegality of CRT (though it may well have been BW back then) charging for mooring permits, and some highly vocal members being absolutely certain that there was no legal justification for it.  The same arguments as here were used - that it was illegal extortion with no basis in law and that anyone who paid for a permit was an idiot (not that gigoguy has said any such thing in this case).  As far as I am aware, no-one ever got BW/CRT to write to them explaining the bit of Act which it was based on, and everyone just kept paying it.

I suspect this will end up going the same way.  I know that gigoguy, CRT and many others have tried to persuade Peel to change their minds, and Peel say tough and won't budge - but they don't have to UNLESS someone can clearly show that they can't. Possession, as they say, is, rightly or wrongly, nine tenths of the law and it's their canal. And it would seem that the obscurity of the original documentation is such that you could argue about it for years and not reach a conclusion and therefore all the clout is with Peel, because no-one is going to do that for forty quid. And as Peel aren't even going to try to go to court, or take someone's boat off them, for forty quid either, it'll never end up in court.  They may for other reasons, but not that.  And most people who are forced to return within 28 days and spotted, will stump up. For the same reason, people will carry on paying for their boat licences, because they will assume that any argument saying they don't need to is simply daft and not worth considering.

As I've said, with enough pressure and the right kind of political action, you might get the return limit reduced.  You certainly won't get licence fees scrapped, and picking a fight that you can't win is not sensible - all it does if force your opponent to refuse to give ground on smaller matters to avoid looking weak.  You need to make them feel good about giving way, that by doing what you want that they have actually beaten you.  This may of course be impossible...

Arthur have you heard about the Euro car park charges being illegal? Now that you know they can't charge you. Would you, out of loyalty and feeling you have a moral duty to pay for what you use. Now pay and tell everyone else to pay?

If you got a parking ticket in town and you had a valid parking permit would you say. 'Oh well never mind I'll pay anyway'?

And this is just exactly the same. They don't have authority and if they can't prove they do they are breaking the law. And it's a criminal offence to demand money with no right to demand it.

You try it. Just stand outside your house with a couple of big chaps and try to charge every car that drives past 20 quid. See how long it takes for the busy's to turn up

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

35 minutes ago, Graham Davis said:

You have been picked up over the inaccuracies that you keep bringing into this topic, not only by me, but both others too.

I have no agenda other than to point out that to support any "action" against yourself, you have to be totally correct in ALL matters., otherwise the other side can (and will) take you to pieces, and you are therefore much more likely to lose. You have taken that personally and have resorted to petty insults, who further denigrates your argument and loses you support.

So far you have provided no actual legal reasons for Peel not to act in the way they do. All you have provided is your interpretation and your opinion. You can do nothing else until either Peel take you to Court or you are able to obtain a ruling otherwise. The fact that Peel haven't as yet taken you to Court does not prove they don't have the legal right to do so. They could be ignoring you because it isn't economically viable to carry on, it could be because they can't be bothered or it could be because they are building up a bigger case. You don't and can't know why and they don't have to tell you. 

 

Graham everything you have posted has been trivial, off topic, irrelevant or pedantic. Starting with 'you can't charge a company' to tree preservation orders.

If you've got something of any use to say then please say it. If all you're going to do is find any obscure example to impede the debate or make attacks on me. Then I'm going to just block you altogether. As for the legal challenges there have been many. Posts by Nigel, erivers, IanS, myalld, myself and others have all argued the legalities and still no firm agreement has been reached. Therefor my claim that they can't charge me without legal authority to do so is still unchallenged by Peel.

It seems some posters would like to have the topic closed. I hope that doesn't happen because the people who are interested would have to keep up on Thunderboat. Because it won't stop me campaigning it will just stop me posting in here.

 

Edited by gigoguy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, gigoguy said:

Well even though this is another ridiculous waste of time......I've read the page here it is

I want to cut down/prune a tree in my garden, do I need permission?

Yes

And your point it what exactly?

Unless the tree has a TPO or is in a conservation area (dbh 75mm or over) no consent is required, unless the works are for more than 5 cubic metres of timber in which case a felling licence is required.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, tree monkey said:

Unless the tree has a TPO or is in a conservation area (dbh 75mm or over) no consent is required, unless the works are for more than 5 cubic metres of timber in which case a felling licence is required.

 

My point was that you can't do what you want with something just because you own it, if you don't have permission. An example I gave was trees.....Graham said you can cut them down. He sent me a link to a web site. It said you can't without permission..........and so you can't without permission...... if etc etc

Graham is the one who likes to be pedantic and in a court of law he'd have his testicles removed for such an obvious school boy error

So....you  can't do what you want with something just because you own it if you don't have permission. Trees being an example....would you agree?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, tree monkey said:

Unless the tree has a TPO or is in a conservation area (dbh 75mm or over) no consent is required, unless the works are for more than 5 cubic metres of timber in which case a felling licence is required.

 

How do you measure the amount of timber in the tree before you have chopped it down? I can imagine 5 cubic metres of logs but not of living tree, especially if it has numerous branches as well a sa substantial trunk..

But I'll bough to your specialist knowledge.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, Athy said:

How do you measure the amount of timber in the tree before you have chopped it down? I can imagine 5 cubic metres of logs but not of living tree, especially if it has numerous branches as well a sa substantial trunk..

But I'll bough to your specialist knowledge.

There are calculation (spreadsheets) on the relevant website where you enter the tree size and it will tell you the cubic metres of the tree.

A few years ago (when we sold the business) part of the deal was that I removed almost 1000 trees that varied from Whips to 'full size' trees.

I managed to get the volume down to 15 cubic metres (well that's what the calculation showed), I did 5 cubic metres in the last week of one quarter, 5 cubic metres in the first week of the 2nd quarter and then had to wait 3 months to do the final 5 cubic metres.

No licence was required - I owned them so I could do what I like with them

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, Alan de Enfield said:

No licence was required - I owned them so I could do what I like with them

No preservation orders, not on protected land so you could cut them down if you complied with the restrictions.

Edited by gigoguy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, gigoguy said:

No preservation orders, not on protected land

No - my agricultural land and my trees - many of which we had planted - no public footpaths, no do-gooders, no 'tree-huggers', no one claiming that they interpreted the law in a different way, no law to stop me doing what I did so it was all legal.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Alan de Enfield said:

No - my agricultural land and my trees - many of which we had planted - no public footpaths, no do-gooders, no 'tree-huggers', no one claiming that they interpreted the law in a different way, no law to stop me doing what I did so it was all legal.

as long as you didn't chop down more than they allowed you too........the tree hugging legal bods I mean

Link to comment
Share on other sites

43 minutes ago, Athy said:

How do you measure the amount of timber in the tree before you have chopped it down? I can imagine 5 cubic metres of logs but not of living tree, especially if it has numerous branches as well a sa substantial trunk..

But I'll bough to your specialist knowledge.

As Alan has said there are standard calculations that are used, Forest mensuration is a very involved and boring subject :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

50 minutes ago, gigoguy said:

My point was that you can't do what you want with something just because you own it, if you don't have permission. An example I gave was trees.....Graham said you can cut them down. He sent me a link to a web site. It said you can't without permission..........and so you can't without permission...... if etc etc

Graham is the one who likes to be pedantic and in a court of law he'd have his testicles removed for such an obvious school boy error

So....you  can't do what you want with something just because you own it if you don't have permission. Trees being an example....would you agree?

As long as the tree isn't protected under conservation or TPO constraints you can do what you wish

Just now, Alan de Enfield said:

Is that a 'monthly' thing ?

Last time I spent any time with an old school forester,  it was a daily thing

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, tree monkey said:

As long as the tree isn't protected under conservation or TPO constraints

You can't do what you want with it if you don't have permission........so being protected means you don't have permission is that right? Being over a certain cc you don't have permission is that also right? Being in a conservation area you don't have permission.....right again?

Edited by gigoguy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, gigoguy said:

But that's just it. It doesn't open 4 times a week it probably doesn't open 4 times a year. I have spoken this moning to someone who works on the canal. He said they don't open it for the trip boat because it can pass under. It opens ONLY for big ships to go to the scrap yard. Probably 4-6 times a year. And it won't open at the minute because the seals need replacing.

It opens very regularly Steve, on our trip to Liverpool from the Bridgewater in July or was opened for the Manchester Ship Canal cruise...

I've just checked the Mersey Ferry schedule and it's only showing October as it's the end of the season now but here's the dates...

It shows 2 trips a week, so fairly regularly as we can't forget the other traffic it gets swung for.

Screenshot_2017-10-11-16-42-21-1.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Mike the Boilerman said:

Why did the thread 'die a death' on thunderboat? 

Did everyone just get bored with the subject never reaching a conclusion as it appears set to do here?

It didn't and hasn't died a death. There is nothing new to report so no need to post. I'm not getting loads of personal abuse or petty argument on TB that's why it's quiet.

Just now, Liam said:

It opens very regularly Steve, on our trip to Liverpool from the Bridgewater in July or was opened for the Manchester Ship Canal cruise...

I've just checked the Mersey Ferry schedule and it's only showing October as it's the end of the season now but here's the dates...

It shows 2 trips a week, so fairly regularly as we can't forget the other traffic it gets swung for.

Screenshot_2017-10-11-16-42-21-1.png

I think we've established it doesn't matter how often it opens. It doesn't impede transit and it isn't operated by a boater

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, gigoguy said:

It didn't and hasn't died a death. There is nothing new to report so no need to post. I'm not getting loads of personal abuse or petty argument on TB that's why it's quiet.

 

So why did you start this thread on here? Not enough personal abuse on TB presumably...

TB is a bit of an echo chamber. Everyone nodding in agreement with you probably, playing the game 'aint it awful'. 

  • Greenie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Mike the Boilerman said:

 

So why did you start this thread on here? Not enough personal abuse on TB presumably...

I posted an update and I thought that the members in here who don't use TB might be interested........and obviously I was right.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, gigoguy said:

You can't do what you want with it if you don't have permission........so being protected means you don't have permission is that right? Being over a certain cc you don't have permission is that also right? Being in a conservation area you don't have permission.....right again?

As I said as long as its not protected under the various constraints you can fill your boots

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, tree monkey said:

As I said as long as its not protected under the various constraints you can fill your boots

So let me get this clear.....just for the record like.

If a tree stands on your land and is......protected by a tpo, is over a certain size, your land is a protected area.....then you don't have permission to do with it as you will....correct?

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.