Jump to content

thebfg

Member
  • Posts

    224
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by thebfg

  1. 45 minutes ago, Alan de Enfield said:

     

     

    Posted by Nigel Moore (RIP)

     

    A company can only do what the law says it can do.

     

    Looking back, I see that we covered the same ground more than 2 years ago. The case law most specifically addressing the issue that I cited back then was:

    Attorney-General v. Great Eastern Railway Co. (1880) 5 App.Cas. 473, Lord Blackburn said, at p. 481: 'where there is an Act of Parliament creating a corporation for a particular purpose, and giving it powers for that particular purpose, what it does not expressly or impliedly authorise is to be taken to be prohibited; ...' [my emphasis]

    This was cited with approval by the same House in the 1991 judgment in McCarthy & Stone v Richmond LBC, with all 5 Law Lords in unanimous agreement on the point.

    http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKHL/1989/4.html

    My use of “amounted to” arose from the “taken to be” wording. You were advancing the common-law distinction then also, in response to that, so I will not get repetitious over this.

    The Stourbridge case needs to be read in full, to understand the context. The canal company wanted to rely on the common law right of a landowner to charge for the use of their property, although their enabling Acts only gave powers to charge tolls for passage through locks on the original section, whereas an upper section had no locks at all. Not even commercial boats had to pay tolls on their cargoes if they stayed on the lock-free sections, and some carriers did just that. For awhile they paid demanded tolls anyway, but when the prices were arbitrarily increased inordinately [in their opinion], they baulked, and refused to pay anything at all anymore. The court agreed that they did not need to. The full judgment is online –

    http://www.commonlii.org/uk/cases/EngR/1831/276.pdf

     

     

     

     

    And again from Nigel :

     

     

    In response to a question as to why C&RT do not use the byelaws :

     

    Nigel Moore 8/2/20

     

    It was HH Judge Denyer QC in the judgment against George Ward of 20 December 2012 on the Bristol County Court :-

     

    Other than the removal of the boat the only sanction provided for in the legislation in respect of a contravention of the Rules by a person such as the Claimant is that of a derisory fine.  I think it has now reached the sum of £50.  If they are not entitled to take these steps i.e. removal of the boat from the river they are in truth substantially powerless to enforce the obligations of those who use the waterways.  I do not regard the ability to take debt recovery proceedings as being a sufficient alternative remedy.  Aside from anything else they would face problems of enforcement.  No doubt if they did obtain a money judgment the judgment debtor would seek to or could seek to pay at some derisory sum per week or per month.”

     

    He overlooked, of course, the fact that the same would apply to any County Court judgment as to costs etc, and also that the seizure of the boat even if leading to a sale could never be used to pay off the debt, because the relevant statute specifically bars that. They can only (legally) retain from the profits of a boat sale, the costs of seizing, storing and selling it. However it may be that this judge (and others) was misled into believing that BW could use possession of the seized boat as a lien on monies owed to them. This was pre-Ravenscroft after all.

     

    He was mistaken as to the level of fine which is £100 (plus, of course, costs, and nowadays ‘victim surcharges’). He was also off the mark about “problems of enforcement”. Having obtained a court order for fines and costs and charges, the collection could be left to court bailiffs, or payment could be sought for from central funds as respects costs at least. The judge also seems to be confusing pursuit of money judgments with prosecutions (pursuit of merely a money claim being a third option NOT, as the 1983 Act provides, preclusive of parallel criminal action.

     

    If the convicted boater proved evasive and in breach of a court order, then a warrant for their arrest could be issued, and once caught they could be sent to prison for contempt of court. There is nothing “derisory” about such implications as attached to the prosecution process. If this judge was correct, then the EA could be considered “powerless to enforce the obligations of those who use” - their – waterways” – and clearly, that is very far from the truth.

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

    Indirectly - yes you are correct.

    They withstood all of the direct action from the NBTA but crumbled when MPs became involved and suggested that they were 'maybe' breaking the law by discriminating against parents with Children of school age.

     

    C&RT wrote back saymg they could not relax the legal requirements, but then they did by saying they had worked out how to meet the requirements by just shuffling up and down 3 miles of canal in term time

     

     

    Screenshot (2076).png

     

    Slightly larger

     

     

    Screenshot (2077).png

    I do remember this happening and I'm still surprised the MPs believe having children on school age is a protected characteristic as that is the only way discrimination can occur.

  2. 3 hours ago, Iain_S said:

    The Wiltshire news mentioned one armed officer: probably one qualified on a Taser, who always carries one. Although technically "armed", the same could be said of any officer. Baton and (nowadays) CS spray are also "arms".

    It should also be noted that any decision to send an "armed" officer was made by Wiltshire constabulary and by them alone.

     

  3. On 20/01/2021 at 14:06, Arthur Marshall said:

     

    But re TB's poll, you really wouldn't expect them to come out in favour of CRT over anything, seeing as how the majority left here because we didn't hate CRT enough.

     

    Nice try at rewriting history.

     

    Much like the TD saga. There are plenty of views on his threads that support CRTs actions and some balanced ones too. 

     

    A poll of what 10 people is hardly representing of anythimg.

     

     

    • Greenie 1
  4. On 14/11/2019 at 16:52, Nut said:

    a crime ref usually carries the year at the end of it as in 2019

    My local force puts the date at the end of incident numbers. So they can start at 1 each day.

     

    Crime reference numbers have no date and is just an ever increasing number.

     

    But I guess different forces use different ways.

     

  5. On 08/09/2019 at 18:53, Paul C said:

    I've just had a look through the previous thread. I'm afraid the above is inaccurate - I can only find one poster - DeanS - who thought it was reasonable. kris88 got a widespread amount of good advice from a wide variety of posters and it was pretty universal - I didn't count the number who thought it was unreasonable though.

    What makes you think Jim was referring to people on here?

    • Greenie 1
  6. 22 hours ago, frangar said:

    I have to say so far on this trip the vollies have been spot on....especially the Standedge Tunnel chaperone, Alistair, who was a top bloke and a mine of tunnel information both in when to duck...and the history...so much so that I’m going back when he’s a guide on a through tunnel trip so I can take more in. 

     

    Will see how we get on with the rest of the trip!  

    The tunnel blokes are paid staff, aren't they?

  7. On 07/08/2019 at 20:10, Onionman said:

    It's not actually a winding hole, btw, and you may find it full of boats. There's a winding hole about a mile and a half further on. If you need to use that instead it'll render your question moot.

    I always use it, i would say if they are winding midweek then it should be empty.

     

    If its full and there is a queue it will be real tight to wind there.

     

    I hate that lock, if you time it wrong there is always a massive queue during silly season.

  8. On 22/04/2019 at 21:14, Heffalump said:

    Hi everyone, new and old :)

     

    Just wanted to pop in and say hello, Emma and I got married this weekend and were having a boating mini-moon.  We've hired hector and we are going from falls Bridge to crick and back. We are currently moored South of Hillmorton locks for the night and will be going through Braunston tomorrow. 

     

    So if any of you see a couple on a small boat with a tug deck and a just married sign on the rear fender please stop us and say hello! 

     

    Happy Easter everyone x

    Congratulations, I saw your post on Facebook. Hector does look nice

  9.  

    On 16/04/2019 at 18:52, Mike the Boilerman said:

     

     

    Actually the one on front of it doesn't look that great either....

     

     

     

    Or is it behind? :giggles:

    My pic is from the same angle too.

     

    However once I've powered up my hard drive I have a photo from last Easter and I'm pretty sure it's the same boat.

     

    Where it is seems to have a massive homeless problem. We walked down onto the river below and found a rather large camp. To be honest they had done a good job and looked like they had some good facilities.

    We wanted to get past to do something further on but left them to be.

    • Greenie 1
  10. On 25/02/2019 at 09:13, RLWP said:

    You may have to replan quickly if you turn up at Kate and find your hire boat is pointing the other way

     

    Richard

    When we hire a 58ft one from there, they told me to wind there. They have a small winding point at the end. 

     

    The Cape is a good spot and if I remember right, there is visitor moorings opposite.

  11. On 15/02/2019 at 12:19, sirweste said:

    After me old one died I just bought this:

    https://www.amazon.com/AUKEY-20000mAh-Lightning-Portable-Compatible/dp/B0176HQ1O8

     

    Basically since changing the central heating pump to 12 V I no longer need the inverter on overnight. As such I now use one of these power banks again. Take it to work with me, charge it up at me desk through the day.

     

    Your question was specific about recharge time, for big batteries I use the AC adapter supplied with iPads as it's something like 12 W, it is this that limits your recharge time. The pack I have has a capacity of ~ 74 W

    I've two of those banks. brilliant and can't fault them.

  12. 6 hours ago, MartynG said:

    Where is three feet claimed ?

    One  foot is 0.3m approximately  (0.3048m if wishing to be more precise )

    hehe. My eyes are deceiving me. My mistake.

     

    I agree a foot is nothing where were from, the solent. infact I've  been out kayacking in worse. I would be a tad annoyed if it was on the cut though.

  13. 36 minutes ago, MartynG said:

    I have experienced the same thing on the Aire and Calder from a commercial barge . The wave nearly bounced my boat over the sheet piles and kept on going several minutes. But there was no damage and I survived without making a big deal of it.

     

    It is a statement of fact.

    0.3m waves , by accepted marine standards,  is nothing much.

     

     

    however the claimed three foot is somewhat more than 0.3 metres

  14. On 08/12/2018 at 19:59, jonathanA said:

    I fail to understand why people pay any attention to parking eye DE and  other Sharp practice car parking operators. Simply ignore them it’s not worth their while taking you to court and if they did you stand a good chance of winning. They have to prove you knew you had entered a contract with them. 

    carefully. parking eye are very litigant, ignore them at your peril.

     

    out of the others some do and some don't. prefer to fight them as I've never lost a case yet and taking them to independent appeals costs them money 

  15. On 13/08/2018 at 20:43, Boater Sam said:

    Intuitive, an inspired guess if you like, with its foundation in local hearsay and loose talk.

    The supposition is pretty accurate as far as I know.

    Which causes me once again to question why the repair will be allowed to take so long.

     

    Taking a large sum weekly for no outlay or loss and gaining a new roadway where there was a muddy track for nothing seems to be an excessively good deal to me.

    one might say any charges he makes to CRT will include loss of his field and loss of any earnings that field would of brought.

     

    including the flood damage from when the leak started.

  16. we always took two weeks to do one week rings. or a week to do a tiny ring.

     

    gave us days off to explore and shorter days for pub lunches and incase of bad weather. boating for 8/9 hours a day in all weather's doesent seem too fun.

     

    having spent extra days moored in Birmingham and Manchester gave us a chance for seeing the sights and to give the crew a break.

     

    the warrickshire ring would be a great 14 day cruise with detours. or a relaxing cruise

    • Greenie 1
  17. On 03/10/2018 at 17:08, Clodi said:

    Who says he's a troublemaker?

    the word is his boats are legal.

    Let him without sin throw the first stone (and all that)

    I'm not the one calling him a trouble maker.

     

    it seems there are some sections that have been making unfounded accusations at him. maybe re read my post and some others on here where they clearly label him as an overstyer or unlicensed.

  18. 12 minutes ago, Mike Nicoll said:

    I also found this a good read.

    one part mentions being towed to the entrance of the Basingstoke canal  by the motor boat Arcturus when she was on her way back to the river way at Guildford.

    Getting back to the poor boat that was sunk, does anyone know of the boats name.

    Celtic. I think

  19. 2 minutes ago, Mike Hurley said:

    Who can do that sober, let alone after a skinfull.

    I once had to do a sobriety test. months and alphabet backwards. I thinkni did struggle with the alphabet

     

    and the walking and turning stuff.

     

    passed with flying colours much to the officers disgust.

    11 minutes ago, Chewbacka said:

    I think they would need objective evidence like before breath testing, so walking in a straight line, saying the alphabet backwards etc

    yes they could and give a statement as to why i felt it was the case.

     

    we all know how hard it is to  prove an officers opinion is wrong.

    • Haha 1
×
×
  • 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.