Alf Roberts
-
Posts
694 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
5
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Gallery
Blogs
Store
Posts posted by Alf Roberts
-
-
The fact that a blogger WANTS information doen't make it right and proper for CRT to release it.
For all you or I know, the case might have been settled on the basis that the boater suffers from a particular medical condition, and they have agreed that it would violate his privacy to disclose this.,
then there is provision within the FOI act for this ( as your are aware).
Your criticism was against Allan Richards for FOI requests in general so really you are clutching at straws in your reply and my points stand.
incidentally it is amusing that you should consider blogging to be an inferior channel of information but, strictly as point of interest, could you point me at Allan Richards' blog please.
-
how is it you criticise Allan Richards for making FOI requests rather than CRT for not being open and transparent with the data he wants?
-
3
-
-
my memory was that it was the then legal director Nigel (?) Johnson who was determined to take it to the wire. Of course, it wasn't his money, home or livelihood at stake.
-
Others haven't in the past, believing they're 100% in the right - Moore vs CRT springs to mind.
Was Nigel Moore offered a settlement in his case?
At what point was that? During the case proper or during his appeal?
-
Looks like Mr Wingfield agreed to accept a compromise!:
Upon the Claimant's claim and upon the parties agreeing to compromise the claim upon the
terms set out in the document entitled "Settlement of claim number 3NG01237 between the
Canal and River Trust and Mr Andy Wingfield" ("The Settlement").
Wouldn't you? If an all-powerful said "we'll lay off evicting you if you keep quiet about our reasons for backing down" - would you accept the terms and keep your home or fight with the possibility of losing for any unforeseeable reason - one of which might be continuing to fight after your opponent had offered to withdraw the claim?
Courts don't take kindly to 'grandstanding' actions even when they are justified.
There is, of course, no reason for Mr Wingfield to pursue his defence to the bitter end just to please the observing public.
Pragmatism is the order of the day when your home is at risk.
and...
let's enter the realms of speculation for a moment (as seems the fashion here) - what if CRT had said "keep quiet and we'll give you a cheap mooring" ?
Again what would you do?
As I say speculation.
So your statement "Looks like Mr Wingfield agreed to accept a compromise!" doesn't say much about him or CRT or the case.
I do hope one of the FOI requests arising from this is how much of our money was given to Shoosmiths to pursue this action when is was apparent to all observers long ago that compromise could have been reached without court action.
-
a little too long.... yes battery terminals when load is applied. they recover their voltage pretty quickly once the load is removed and there is no fault with the load.
I'm pretty sure they've had it, I'm just a little surprised at the behaviour of semi-traction batteries ( versus a starter battery) under these circumstances.
-
My feeling is that the solar was 'almost' keeping up hence the light being on when I arrived but over the months it had gradually drained the batteries.
I was assuming sulphation hence a few 15.5V equilisation charges. I have an old fashioned Sealey charger with boost charge so I might replace them and then see if, disconnected from the system I can jolt them into life.
I am curious as to what would he the chemical process of 'battery death'
-
this one is slightly out of my experience.
A pair of 6v us2200 copies, so 232Ah. Left on a boat for 3 months this winter with 80W of solar, commoned with a start battery 664 type.
I returned to the boat to find a 2W LED light had been left on and both batteries flat* - though the light was still on. They've been on charge for a couple of weeks, being gently cycled with 3 equalisation charges.
*flat = the 664 at 10.6V the 2200s at 7.4V
The 664 has recovered fine, is now sat at 12.8V and after being left a couple of days starts the engine easily.
the other two are behaving a little strangely. they seem to charge OK, take them off and they run low power loads fine, seeming to have capacity. As soon as I put a medium load - theoretically around 10A on them they just die, going down to a terminal voltage of 4V (!)
now my feeling is they are dead. so far so simple.
but they have had an easy life up until now, 3.5 years old, landline, easy loads, constant solar so it seems a little odd they should 'just' die.
what is going on in the battery that causes the death? is it extremely heavy sulphation? have they shed their lead?
any ideas as to a revival programme or shall I just junk them?
-
Just wiring in my 12 V tv and radio. I was wondering if it is acceptable to connect 3 wires using a butt splice crimp connector, so, I'd have 2 going in one end, and one coming out the other. I would have used wago connectors but I'm using 4.5 mm2 flex and those connectors seem to only go up to 4 mm2.
Thanks
Three ways:
1. bootlace ferrules and chocolate block
2. 2 5mm machine screws through a block of wood with M5 x 4mm2 uninsulated ring terminals and heat shrink
3. barrier terminal and M4 x 4mm2 uninsulated ring terminals and heat shrink
-
Including one notable member of this forum moored in a lock for weeks.
Does that not count as overstaying? Perhaps locks are excluded from time limits.
-
Not "what you are prepared to pay for", then?
Presumably, from now on, data will be per GB with providers trying to undercut each other.
Someone recently suggested £1 per GB which seems to me about right.
I know that 4GB per month is only going to be any good for occasional users, even moderate users go over that, especially when 4G is common.
-
I don't think its 'piss taking' as you term it. My brother (who works for a Japanese mobile co. Owned by EE) says its because their unlimited contract breached EU law. Because it wasn't truly unlimited, something to do with the throttling, I think, we could never use 3 for work, because of this.
We use about 50gb a month. Its incredibly easy to achieve this on 4g. i watch no tv, my partner watches very little.
Yes, 4G does change the ballgame completely.
As for Dropbox, it's been dropkicked off of my computer after using 1GB in a day - I have nothing on my local computer to justify this, my shared folders (with 2 small exceptions) are all on the web. I still don't know what it was doing to use such bandwidth.
I think it pays absolutely no attention to bandwidth. I know a lot of people who have been caught out having dropbox installed.
We will, one day, live in the world where data and bandwidth keep up with our desire. Until then, it's more a case of what you need rather than what you want.
-
I am personally amazed at some of the data usage reports I am hearing. I would say I'm fairly average in my internet use, I don't do an awful lot of watching films etc and occasionally use iPlayer but I have an actual TV with Freeview+ which is much more convenient (for me). Whilst on broadband at home, my usage was around 7-8GB/month. With a little effort, I got it down to around 6GB/month so I could go over to using mobile broadband only. I tried the Three One plan, it was pathetically low speed at times of congestion, so it was soon ditched. I was going to go for their 5gb/month but I found and went for an O2 package with 8gb/month which suited. I also tried EE - too low speed around here to be useful.
Given that Three's network seems to be throttled or congested at peak times, the only way one could get 20+ GB/month must have been to be downloading a high amount of videos/films using some kind of file sharing through the night - probably more downloaded than you could ever watch????
This is essentially my experience. I do from time to time, with a critical eye, download TV and movies but you have to be dedicated to get over 20Gb or so especially, as you say, as it has to be done between 0000 and 1500.
-
If they were brave bringing this to public attention why did it take them 8 months to pluck up the courage to do so?
In their press release they state they were aware of this on the 18th June 2014, yet they didn't issue a press release until the 22nd February 2015. I've questioned (post 49) why they've kept this quiet for 8 months and only chosen now to release it. Unfortunately no one, especially the OP (who has been on the site since I posted) has chosen to answer this. A reason for the delayed press release might go some way to understanding NBTA's motivation (other than just bashing C&RT).
My sincere apologies; I overlooked your question. I shall now answer it.
I have no idea, why don't you ask them.
-
it's not rocket science to realise that if unlimited Is seen as an opportunity for greed that the offer won't last very long.
there's a real difference yo anyone with half a brain that unlimited can mean, don't worry about it but don't take the piss rather than the childish and absurd everyone can have as much as they can download
-
Not being a Three customer I don't know, but I'd be very surprised if somewhere in the terms and conditions of contract there wasn't a clause to the effect that the supplier may vary the terms whenever it wants to -- which is what is now happening.
And lo and behold, the 'something for nothing' people find out that there is actually no such thing.
Exactly. And at the expense of those who signed up in good faith.
-
I didn't actually say they were telling lies if you read my posts more carefully.
However on the basis of the information provided in the thread there appears to be, shall we call it a discrepancy in the information in the amount of time the Trent was in flood at what appears to be a crucial time in the process.
And as I said right the beginning their claim that CRT kept things confidential is not known to be correct, in fact it was factually inaccurate, because it was the courts decision to keep the details of the settlement confidential and whilst it may indeed have been at CRT's request, we don't know this to be fact.
Even giving CRT an unfeasibly amount of benefit of the doubt; if Mr Wingfield insisted on confidentiality as part of the agreement CRT should have refused.
-
-
One can see that NBTA obviously puts its own slant on things and its plainly obvious that they don't like many aspects of CRT's operation, but we can read around these and make allowances for each of us to make our own minds up.
So, I thank NBTA for having the bravery of bringing this to the public's attention.
It will be interesting to see Richard Parry's views on this matter once it might have gained a bit more momentum - is this one bad egg within CRT or is the whole organisation corrupt to a greater or lesser degree?
Personally I think it's one particularly bad egg.
Unfortunately (for CRT) he has the personal backing of the Chief Executive which kind of makes it a systemic problem.
I think it would have been wiser for Parry to distance himself from this person and instigate an open investigation but it seems he has chosen to put the reputation of the organisation behind the individual.
-
Are you saying it's OK for a pressure group to tell porkies but it's not for CRT to do so? I agree CRT shouldn't but I also believe neither should NBTA.
NBTA are a pressure group, I think it natural they would put a slant on any facts that support their agenda, that's what pressure groups do.
Where have they told the lies you are accusing them of?
-
And this is the problem I think. I don't believe they can be relied upon to provide a voice to the a section of the boating community. (Though as I am not really part of that section my opinion will likely be seen by some as mater less).
However there is an issue of credibility and double standards in play here because as much as people like to criticise CRT for sometimes being 'economical with the truth' in their conduct and dealings with boaters the same people seem to conveniently over look the fact when NBTA appear to do the same.
It is interesting that, despite the absurdity of their name and being part of a minority group, they are rapidly gaining credibility and support from boaters of all types.
As for 'economical with the truth' some might agree with my post above that CRT have far more reason for absolute probity than a pressure group.
-
Until some people wake up and realise we're all in the same "boat" due to being customers of a large provider of navigable waterways there will continue to be fragmented representation of boater interests .
This is the main commonality in all these recent cases. We have a public body with an almost monopoly control over the inland waterways and immense powers over people's lives.
Yet much of the opinion on here and in the larger associations is that they shouldn't be held to account.
Of course they must be held to account for each and every action. They must not only be seen to operate with the utmost impartiality and probity they should also bear in mind the legal absolute that in all such disputes between public body and an individual the individual is the one who is given the 'benefit of the doubt'.
Would it be easier if you mentioned which weeks you didn't make an FOIA request?
I have reported this personal abuse.
-
Probably. It depends on the information contained in the judgement and whether that might prejudice other cases.
But Dave, I thought you said you didn't think it was CRT who inserted the confidentiality clause. In fact, to the casual observer, you implied you had reason to believe it was Mr Wingfield.
Now you state it's because it could influence other cases.
Are you changing your mind or is this simple hypocrisy?
-
Very misleading press Release. The first sentence is not true.
Surely if the allegation that CRT are misleading the public in this action outcome, then so are the NBTA with the wording of this press Release. Pot? Kettle?
Please note I am not commenting on the action itself, but on the actions of CRT and NBTA.
OK, I accept that you may have a valid criticism of NBTA - I don't say I agree with you but your points merit consideration - but don't you rather think there is something worth investigating if you, a vociferous supporter of CRT, find something there to criticise?
Answer the letters courteously, explaining, and requesting permission to overstay?
The other possibility is he aggressively told CRT to shove it.
Neither way should have resulted in court action but one of these options did, and I wonder which one...
.
Interesting that you should, with no data whatsoever, jump to this conclusion, exactly as you did in the long thread on Tony Dunkley's case until proved wrong.
You don't learn by your mistakes then Mike?
Anouncement made on canal and river trust fb page by Damian Kemp
in General Boating
Posted · Edited by Alf Roberts
innit.