Jump to content

mayalld

Member
  • Posts

    12,315
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    91

Everything posted by mayalld

  1. Courts evict people all the time who haven't broken any law. No breach of the law is required, just a breach of the contract. And (not that it is remotely relevant to whether the court would evict), the boat could be kept on hardstanding or floated in a marina that doesn't require a licence (and there are many of them)
  2. The boat owner can remove his boat in any way he sees fit, that could be by crane.
  3. Nobody (except you) is suggesting that anybody can be prosecuted for not having a licence in a marina. What can be done is that the marina owner can evict the boat from his marina, on the basis that the boat owner has breached his contract.
  4. We have already established that licences are not a statutory requirement in marinas, but are a contractual requirement in some marinas. Enforcement is by the usal remedies for breach of contract, nit by means of statutory powers. There are quite a lot of marinas where a licence is not required.
  5. Yes it does. Go any buy your moorings from somebody who doesn't have a requirement for you to licence your boat
  6. At the point he signed the contract, he was a landowner, not a marina owner. He could have done many things with his land. He chose to build a marina, knowing that he would have to enter into this contract. That is the way contracts work.
  7. Your contract is with the marina. The content of contracts that you are not a party to is, frankly, none of your business. It is a fundamental of contract law that if I impose a condition on you by contract, you must where necessary impose that condition in contracts with others. Let us assume that you are a landlord, and you rent a property to me. In the lease (a contract), you prohibit smoking, but you allow subletting. I sublet the property. I must impose the no smoking restriction. Not because I have decided to, but because it has been imposed on me by somebody else.
  8. And with every passing day, the utter bilge that you spout gets more ridiculous. Let me correct your sentence for you; It is the moorer's right to be able to moor the boat on private property, with the permission of the owner of that property, free of the enforcement of the licence requirements. And I will add that it is the right of the owner to make that permission contingent upon anything that he damn well pleases, without having to justify why he imposes that condition to the moorer.
  9. No, it doesn't overrule the statute. The statute says that to keep a boat on a CRT canal you must have a licence (actually it says "a relevant consent", but lets not confuse you) The Marina doesn't attempt to overrule that. To overrule it, the marina would have to say "we say you don't have to have a licence on CRT waters" The statute does not require holders of a licence to keep a boat on CRT waters, so no contradiction there. We really are into the realms of logical fallacies here.
  10. Well of course you wouldn't wish to entertain it dear boy. It is an inconvenient truth doesn't help your "argument"
  11. Well, if you read the rest of the post, you might see. To make it simple for you; A marina makes you have a CRT licence that there is no legal requirement for in order to buy a mooring from them FIA makes you have a car driving licence that there is no legal requirement for in order to buy an F1 permit from them Can you see the similarity?
  12. Perhaps you should read the rest of the post?
  13. Well, there is an interesting one. We can, I think agree that most race tracks are NOT public roads? As they are not public roads, the law does not require anybody to hold a driving licence to drive there, and indeed some tracks are used for young driver experiences where people who are too young to hold a licence drive cars. Are you with me so far? Yet, if I wish to race in Formula 1, I must purchase a (very expensive) "FIA Super Licence". It isn't strictly speaking a licence, because it isn't a statutory thing. It is more akin to a club membership, but nothing in the argument rests upon that point. In order to obtain my membership that allows me to drive F1 cars, I must hold a valid ordinary driving licence, and not be banned. So, there we have it. The FIA requires its drivers to hold a driving licence that there is no legal requirement for or they won't let you drive. How is this different to the case in point?
  14. Nobody is suggesting that they need to decide which legal position to follow, or creating laws. What is happening is that a private organisation (the marina) is imposing requirements for its customers. It is not illegal to have a boat licence but not to go cruising. Companies can do things like that. They don't have to justify themselves to you, and it is not material to you that they do so as part of a contract they have entered into, or because they think all their customers should help fund the canals.
  15. Of course they have enforcement powers. Let me explain step by step! 1) CRT note an unlicenced boat 2) CRT say to marina owner "that boat is unlicenced. It is a condition of our agreement for etwork connection that only licenced boats are allowed in your marina. 3) Marina Owner tells boater to licence boat. 4) Boater fails to comply 5) CRT remind Marina Owner that if they allow unlicenced boat to remain moored, the stop planks will go in. 6) Marina Owner evicts boat Looks like enforcement to me,
  16. Well, unless they made you a moderator, I think I will continue to point out the error of your ways. Purely because I am fascinated that I might one day understand your compulsion to make yourself look silly here,
  17. All you do is repeat the same non sequiturs again and again, adding ever more verbiage to try and conceal the fact that, right or wrong, IT IS OF NO IMPORTANCE. Regardless of whether there is a statutory basis for the requirement, it can be enforced by contractual means, and there is no PRACTICAL effect of the basis on which enforcement occur.
  18. It isn't really about whether you are wrong or not. More that you move from a series of points to an apparent conclusion that is a non sequitur. Put at its broadest, you claim that there is no statutory requirement for a licence in a marina. That is true. Those who You also claim that there is a contract for the mutual benefit of CRT and Marina. That too is true. You then claim that in exposing this, it gives more power to the boaters elbow. Those of us who still bother with your drivel sit here thinking "and how the hell does he conclude that" The lack of statutory basis for licences in marinas does not affect the ability of CRT and Marinas to agree that one is required, and for them to agree to enforce it. Naturally, enforcement would not make use of s8 powers, but would be a matter of contract. Therein lies the difference. CRT has to jump through lots of hoops for s8. Marina owners do not.
  19. I consider it a matter of no consequence. But whilst the boat remains in the marina, it is a matter of Contract Law. It is all very well spouting about more power to the boater's elbow, but that is meaningless, because the consequences for him are the same come what may.
  20. The trouble with this argument is that the only response that I can give is "So what?" Whilst it may be of academic interest that the method by which licences are required is different, the practical effect is not substantially different.
  21. No, the conversion was already planned. My dad ran a petrol station back then, and all the pumps had been modified ready for the conversion to litres. These were mechanical displays, so there would have been an extra gear or two somewhere, and a lever to make the change. The price setting was done by 3 sets of changeable gears that went up to 99.9. As the metric conversion would take prices back under a pound (to about 25p per litre) within months, it wasn't work modifying pumps, so they provided "price per half gallon" and "X2" stickers for the pump heads.
  22. Of course they can enforce. They do so by permission of the Marina Owner, as part of the business relationship between them. The method of enforcement is different, in that they don't directly enforce against the owner. They simply say "that boat has no licence, get rid or you are in breach, and we will terminate your connection"
  23. It has been established via Court proceedings that CRT are acting legally in charging EOG fees. So, the only remaining avenue is to suggest that it is somehow morally wrong that they charge them. The argument there must (of necessity) rely upon the consequences of abolishing them because they are somehow "wrong" or "unfair". For the sake of argument, let us assume that all the charges that people argue against are abolished, so Network Access Charges go, and requirements to licence in Marinas goes. Having done away with all these charges, CRT will replace the lost income by hiking licence fees for all. Initially; CCers will lose big time. They will see no benefit from this, and their fees will increase a LOT Marina moorers will lose a bit. Their licence costs will probably increase more than the reduction in mooring costs (assuming operators pass on the reduction) On-line moorers will win a bit. Their mooring costs will reduce by more than the licence increase Those who never move will win a lot. Over time though people will be prepared to pay more for on-line moorings, so almost everybody will be back where they started, except CCers, who will have lost a lot.
  24. I was there as well. There was some reaction against the Slido polls. It is a tool that I use in a work environment, and I am comfortable with it, but I did think it was a leap of technology too far for this kind of session, and I got a sense that some people were concerned that they were being presented with a list of unacceptable options to choose from, and that there was a danger that this could then be trumpeted as "what the boaters asked for" They were very keen on stage 2 of restrictions (if required) being a 3 day block closure, rather than alternate days, and the driver there seemed to be cost. They also mentioned an even more severe 4 day closure as a further escalation (again in a block). These closures weren't well received by the hire boat operators, because it could kill their business. Back pumping was rather dismissed as not the solution, because losses are more than just lockage, but it didn't ring particularly true, and it seemed that there was (again) a cost issue here, and that this could be a part of a solution of several parts. The scale of the problem is that it looks like almost 50% of the reservoir capacity is NOT used for lockage, but leaks or evaporates, so losing 29% of your reservoir capacity means that you have lost about half of the water that you had available for lockage. My suggestion that as we have had 3 years of emergency stoppages preventing us from going places that it might be nice if resources were shepherded to allow locals preferential access (because we have very few cruising choices, whilst boaters from elsewhere have many more options that visiting the Macc at present) garnered a few murmurs of support in the room, and wasn't dismissed out of hand by CRT. In particular, they seemed amenable to a "golden ticket" solution such that if the locks are closed, they could provide a single passage back to home moorings. The idea of preferential passage wasn't welcomed by the volunteer lock keeper in the room, who wasn't keen on implementing it. It was interesting that there was a realism in the room. The attendees were very accepting of the premise that restrictions from the start of the "season", rather than when water levels get low would be best, and whilst CRT were suggesting a 7 hour daily window, there were suggestions from the floor for a shorter window each day from the start, as a way to ensure that they don't run out. The 2 week notice seemed a reasonable attempt to be customer friendly, and the message was that all 3 operational reservoirs are currently full, with restrictions coming as soon as they drop from weir level (with 2 weeks notice). Personally, I would advise people that restrictions start on 1st April. If at 1st April, the reservoirs are still spilling, just hold off on implementing. The presentation from the PM for the repairs was useful, although I would have hoped to see more planning as to how the Toddbrook inflow could be fed into the canal as part of the solution. The update from the Operations Manager was (in my view) horribly misjudged. A room full of people who are paying a lot of money and finding that year after year they can't go boating is definitely not an audience that wants to hear that you've put new interpretation boards in Whaley Bridge. There was a question to her about treating the giant hogweed, which resulted in the response "where is it". Sorry, but if you are Operations Manager for the Peak Forest and Macc Canals, and have to ask that, the next question would appear to be "Do you ever leave your office, and look at the canal" The national water resources manager clearly knew his stuff, and whilst there was an element of "I understand your frustrations" that wasn't entirely sincere, he seemed to have a handle, and had some ideas that could help maximise resources. There has been some work done to maximise reservoir inflow, and that is a positive. For all my cynicism, it was worth going, and I do thank CRT for engaging
  25. This post cannot be displayed because it is in a forum which requires at least 10 posts to view.
×
×
  • 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.