Jump to content

Noise pollution


CompairHolman

Featured Posts

7 minutes ago, Alan de Enfield said:

 

The GDPR stipulates how information can be used, the limitations for which it can be used for and to whom it can be released.

 

GDPR does not "allow us to release your information to any one we consider has an interest...……."

Which carefully avoids answering my questions.   Does that mean you are happy for people to need to follow up an incident but be unable to get contact details etc

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, Alan de Enfield said:

 

The GDPR stipulates how information can be used, the limitations for which it can be used for and to whom it can be released.

 

GDPR does not "allow us to release your information to any one we consider has an interest...……."

It does if the subject has given consent, which they do by agreeing to the terms and conditions.

1 hour ago, Jim Riley said:

The nub of this fir me, is that CRat are saying we should agree to their guidelines, they claim they are ts & Cs, or we can't have a licence. Statute says we can have a licence if we have a BSC, insurance (and a boat). Nothing more, nothing less. So the t&cs have no force. 

Everyone should abide by the law and not push the boundaries, be it a cmer or big dick parry. 

(My bold)

 

So no need to pay for it, then? :):D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, Iain_S said:

It does if the subject has given consent, which they do by agreeing to the terms and conditions.

(My bold)

 

So no need to pay for it, then? :):D

Of course, only a numpty would think otherwise. Avoiding the issue? Or no real answer? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

39 minutes ago, Iain_S said:

What statute expressly permits runnng a generator between 8pm and  8am?

T&Cs can impose conditions, provided these conditions are not unlawful. If that were not the case, no terms and conditions are enforceable, which blows the whole area of contract law out of the water.

 

I actually cited two examples (neither of which were the 'generator rule') where C&RT were asking you/me/us to contract out of statute.

 

The thread has developed into more than just the 'generator rule' and is discussing the wider T&Cs

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, Arthur Marshall said:

I do find this whole preoccupation some boaters have with the T&Cs completely ridiculous.  Virtually every time you click on a website, or buy something online, from a sofa to a train ticket to a bit of software, you have to accept a raft of terms and conditions which no-one in their right mind ever bothers to read.  Most of these are legally unenforceable and some are probably totally illegal, but it really doesn't matter.  You accept them because otherwise you can't get what you want.

If you break them, accidentally or deliberately, it's up to the seller to try and enforce them, which, most of the time they won't bother to do because it isn't worth their while.  Most of the time neither the seller nor the buyer knows what they are anyway - remember that ferry firm without any ferries that had copied all theirs from, I think, something like the local chip shop?

Generally, they are how the firm issuing them thinks you should act and use their product.   And CRT's are exactly the same.  They are how CRT reckons boaters should behave in order to, in their opinion, based on the fact that they are likely to know more about the general economics and overall make-up of the system than any single individual, make the canal system last longer and be a good place for people to play and live on.  For most of us, they work fine and we never even get close to stretching the boundaries of them.  On the margins, there are precious few penalties that can be imposed, so they can generally be broken with impunity, usually the only result is inconvenience and annoyance to everyone else around.

They are just general rules of behaviour to be taken into account, just the same as when you buy your sofa. No-one gives a toss whether they are legal or not, just whether, in the main, they are sensible.  Which, in the main, they are.

And noisy and/or inconsiderate bastards aren't, and it really doesn't matter a fig whether they are being it legally or not. They're just a pain in the arse.

Rubbish. Stop making stuff up.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Like i said , I would be happy for CRT to publish a code of conduct separate from the licence conditions, but I'm not happy with any attempt to misrepresent them as laws or contractual terms, even if misrepresenting them makes them more widely followed. If an organisation requires to control its business then the correct way to do this is via the procedures already in place to petition Parliament to get the law changed.

 

There is no sound argument that an organisation can operate outside of the law IF it thinks that is more effective way to achieve its aims, and anyone arguing for that just because it doesn't affect them yet is naïve .


 

  • Greenie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, CompairHolman said:

Rubbish. Stop making stuff up.

Now, that's what I call a rational argument. 

CH has now, on this thread, become the equivalent of the prat runnng a genny at 9pm and so I shall untie my ropes and go somewhere quieter - he's just trying to keep an argument stirred up with no interest in anyone else's point of view. Probably moored under a bridge waiting for the billy goats. 

  • Greenie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, CompairHolman said:

Rubbish. Stop making stuff up.

No, it is not "rubbish". In recent months I've bought, via the internet, various goods and services including airline tickets and domestic heating oil I both those cases, and I'm sure in others, I've had to tick a box on the screen to say that I have read and accepted the company's terms and conditions. In no instance have I actually read them. I do not, therefore, know if any of these conditions are unenforceable or illegal. So, Mr. Marshall is not making things up - it really happens; have you never encountered it?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

33 minutes ago, Athy said:

No, it is not "rubbish". In recent months I've bought, via the internet, various goods and services including airline tickets and domestic heating oil I both those cases, and I'm sure in others, I've had to tick a box on the screen to say that I have read and accepted the company's terms and conditions. In no instance have I actually read them. I do not, therefore, know if any of these conditions are unenforceable or illegal. So, Mr. Marshall is not making things up - it really happens; have you never encountered it?

I once listened to a programme about T & Cs and an internet firm had added as an April Fool Joke that if you accepted the T & Cs you were selling your soul to the devil.

 

Less than 5% noticed, in other words 95% hadn't read the T & Cs as there was a way to opt out of the condition.  So even if you double the number saying those just laughed and carried on that is 9 in 10 who didn't read the T & Cs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, Jerra said:

I once listened to a programme about T & Cs and an internet firm had added as an April Fool Joke that if you accepted the T & Cs you were selling your soul to the devil.

 

s.

This reminds me of an exercise which my father, an English teacher, used to set pupils to demonstrate the importance of reading things all the way through. It was a story about a new doctor arriving in a remote colony, and started something like "As my boat reached the shore, smiling islanders were there to greet me...." The exercise was to change the story into the third person.

 

   So, most of the class would blithely write down "As his boat reached the shore, smiling islanders were there to greet him...." until they reached the last sentence of the final paragraph: "I was the first female doctor they had ever seen". Dad used to say that he awarded the best marks only to pupils whose books were not full of crossings-out and corrections - and they were few.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, Jim Riley said:

The nub of this fir me, is that CRat are saying we should agree to their guidelines, they claim they are ts & Cs, or we can't have a licence. Statute says we can have a licence if we have a BSC, insurance (and a boat). Nothing more, nothing less. So the t&cs have no force. 

Everyone should abide by the law and not push the boundaries, be it a cmer or big dick parry. 

Have you managed to get a licence without agreeing to the T&Cs?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, Alan de Enfield said:

 

The GDPR stipulates how information can be used, the limitations for which it can be used for and to whom it can be released.

 

GDPR does not "allow us to release your information to any one we consider has an interest...……."

I thought that the principle was (and certainly the case with predecessor legislation) that you cannot use information in ways outside those to which the other party has given consent. It does not prescribe ways in which information may never be shared irrespective of apparent consent. Comes back to the point as to whether it is possible to obtain a licence without signing up to the T&Cs. Once you have done so then GDPR allows the uses as cited. IIUC

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 10/11/2019 at 18:47, Jerra said:

There may not be any specific canal related laws governing noise but surely for moorings the Environmental Protection Act could be applied at any time.

 

Councils must look into complaints about noise that could be a "statutory nuisance" (covered by the Environmental Protection Act 1990).

For the noise to count as a statutory nuisance it must do one of the following:

  • unreasonably and substantially interfere with the use or enjoyment of a home or other premises
  • injure health or be likely to injure health

My bold.

I would advise against doing this.  Councils are cash strapped enough and this will just waste more money.  The reason is that they have zero chance of getting a successful prosecution out of it.  The problem lies in the way a nuisance notice works.  In simple terms, once a boat moves on 50 yards, a new nuisance is created, at the new location, so the initial nuisance has been abated, in compliance with the notice. 

2 hours ago, Jerra said:

I once listened to a programme about T & Cs and an internet firm had added as an April Fool Joke that if you accepted the T & Cs you were selling your soul to the devil.

 

Less than 5% noticed, in other words 95% hadn't read the T & Cs as there was a way to opt out of the condition.  So even if you double the number saying those just laughed and carried on that is 9 in 10 who didn't read the T & Cs.

But did they become virtuoso guitar players?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, doratheexplorer said:

I would advise against doing this.  Councils are cash strapped enough and this will just waste more money.  The reason is that they have zero chance of getting a successful prosecution out of it.  The problem lies in the way a nuisance notice works.  In simple terms, once a boat moves on 50 yards, a new nuisance is created, at the new location, so the initial nuisance has been abated, in compliance with the notice. 

So our local landlord who was in court for noise problems could have avoided it by having bands alternately at each end of his land.  One week the marquee at the bottom the next at the top.

 

I will tell him I am sure he will be pleased, if not a little surprised his solicitor didn't suggest that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Jerra said:

So our local landlord who was in court for noise problems could have avoided it by having bands alternately at each end of his land.  One week the marquee at the bottom the next at the top.

 

I will tell him I am sure he will be pleased, if not a little surprised his solicitor didn't suggest that.

Maybe, are the two locations within different addresses?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

49 minutes ago, Mike Todd said:

Have you managed to get a licence without agreeing to the T&Cs?

I tried and was refused.

I even asked to be transferred to a 'Manager' who then said that it was a condition of being granted a licence that you agreed to the T&C's, I pointed out that the 1995 Act didn't mention it and was told "if you want a licence then you will agree, if you don't agree then you don't get a licence".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, doratheexplorer said:

Maybe, are the two locations within different addresses?

No but neither are two parts of the canal 50 m apart.

 

If 50m apart classes as a different address then CCers can move over say 400 m at 50 m a fortnight then return.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Arthur Marshall said:

Now, that's what I call a rational argument. 

CH has now, on this thread, become the equivalent of the prat runnng a genny at 9pm and so I shall untie my ropes and go somewhere quieter - he's just trying to keep an argument stirred up with no interest in anyone else's point of view. Probably moored under a bridge waiting for the billy goats. 

I go along with what you said Arthur, visit a site and accept there terms or just don't use it. I wonder what you have to agree to now to join CWDF, its several years since I joined.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

34 minutes ago, Jerra said:

No but neither are two parts of the canal 50 m apart.

 

If 50m apart classes as a different address then CCers can move over say 400 m at 50 m a fortnight then return.

The nuisance must come from a specific source.  If the source moves, a new nuisance is created.  You may wish it were otherwise but that's how it is.  The specific distance the source would have to move would be up to the man on the clapham omnibus.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Machpoint005 said:

 

It wouldn't be applicable if you had already sold your soul to the devil - or to anyone else, for that matter!

Would it really matter as everyone must go to Hell anyway.

 

Let's look at the different religions that exist in the world today.

Most of these religions state that if you are not a member of their religion, you will go to Hell.

Since there is more than one of these religions and since people do not belong to more than one religion, we can therefore presume that all souls go to Hell.

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.