Jump to content

Noise pollution


CompairHolman
 Share

Featured Posts

5 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. 

You said MOST terms and conditions were unenforceable or illegal, provide some evidence for that or stop sulking.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Alan de Enfield said:

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.

Unless you are lucky enough to follow  the right dogma and correct sky fairy, it's all the rest that will go to hell

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Since it states very unambiguously in the 1995 BW act that a licence must be granted if the conditions and only those conditions in the act are complied with and at no time did BW lawyers or anyone else claim anything different in the drafting of that act then I would think there is a good case to take to court.


However no one is interested in doing so because of the costs involved and there is already full protection from unlawful contract terms in law. It seems CRT are not stupid enough to pursue any of these false licence conditions in court, they always back down on them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

33 minutes ago, CompairHolman said:

You said MOST terms and conditions were unenforceable or illegal, provide some evidence for that or stop sulking.

 

15 minutes ago, CompairHolman said:

 

However no one is interested in doing so because of the costs involved and there is already full protection from unlawful contract terms in law. It seems CRT are not stupid enough to pursue any of these false licence conditions in court, they always back down on them.

Clown. Sort your ideas out. Aim at consistency. Watch out for the billy goats Gruff. 

Sound of a knackered Lister finally leaving a thread. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, tree monkey said:

Unless you are lucky enough to follow  the right dogma and correct sky fairy, it's all the rest that will go to hell

All religions are a manifestation of "extreme" groups.

An extreme group is one that has all the properties of a group taken to extreme.

A property of a group is that it promises better welfare for its members. Most religions cannot realistically offer its members better welfare here and now, so they invent a future life and promise the better welfare in that, not just better but the extreme in betterness.

To make this promise even more attractive, they then invent a worse alternative, Hell.

If you are a Catholic, they go one further and tell you that you already in a much worse state than you thought which they call original sin, to make Heaven even more attractive.

There is otherwise no evidence for Hell except perhaps AM's trombone, and some ukeles.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, system 4-50 said:

All religions are a manifestation of "extreme" groups.

An extreme group is one that has all the properties of a group taken to extreme.

A property of a group is that it promises better welfare for its members. Most religions cannot realistically offer its members better welfare here and now, so they invent a future life and promise the better welfare in that, not just better but the extreme in betterness.

To make this promise even more attractive, they then invent a worse alternative, Hell.

If you are a Catholic, they go one further and tell you that you already in a much worse state than you thought which they call original sin, to make Heaven even more attractive.

There is otherwise no evidence for Hell except perhaps AM's trombone, and some ukeles.

Err yes.

You forget concertinas  ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

47 minutes ago, CompairHolman said:

Since it states very unambiguously in the 1995 BW act that a licence must be granted if the conditions and only those conditions in the act are complied with and at no time did BW lawyers or anyone else claim anything different in the drafting of that act then I would think there is a good case to take to court.

May I draw your attention to C&RTs own documentation on the subject :

 

https://canalrivertrust.org.uk/media/library/1127.pdf

 

See 3rd para up from the bottom (page 6 of the document)

 

 

 

Screenshot (19).png

 

 

This is an extract of a post by Nigel Moore (20/7/17) on the same subject :

 

"In short, where the 1995 Act has expressly limited grounds for refusal/revocation of a licence to 3 specific conditions, then the issue of the licence CANNOT legally be subjected to compliance with anything else.

 

Where, under byelaw making powers passed on to CaRT by the terms of their Statutory Instrument, conditions of use of the waterways by licensed boats may still be added to, the relevant statutory procedure must be followed – but those, as with existing byelaws, could only govern use of the waterways by licensed boats, they could never be tied to issue or revocation of the licence. Any attempt to portray them as something issue and retention of the licence is subject to, is blatant falsehood.

The law quite simply does NOT permit T&C’s to be attached to issue of the licence, therefore the asserted contrary statements and actions are indeed unlawful. When elements of these T&C’s specifically claim to over-ride express statutory protections and prohibitions, the legal affront is all the more objectionable".

Edited by Alan de Enfield
  • Greenie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Alan de Enfield said:

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".

What happened next?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, bizzard said:

It's really the same old story and always has been. since year dot.   The minority twerps always spoil things for the majority, causiing mountains of laws, regulations at tremendous cost to us and the powers that be.

I totally agree, it is the boaters who encourage bad behaviour by pushing at every opportunity the point that you don't have to this or that because it isn't law that I can't get my head round.

 

You would think they actually want the canals to become less pleasant places.

  • Greenie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Jerra said:

I totally agree, it is the boaters who encourage bad behaviour by pushing at every opportunity the point that you don't have to this or that because it isn't law that I can't get my head round.

 

You would think they actually want the canals to become less pleasant places.

Many folk always kill the goose that lays their golden egg.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Can you remember before double yellow lines and the Highway code said not to park near junctions, on bends, on the brow of a hill and probably others. Today if there is no line people just park there, even up to the stop line of a junction. Everything has to be black and white and marked up. That is why some boaters think if they remove the mooring restriction sign they can stay as long as they like. No sign to say they cant. We will need double yellow lines in bridge holes next.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, ditchcrawler said:

Can you remember before double yellow lines?

. Everything has to be black and white

I know what you mean really (and chuckled at the idea of double yellows in bridge 'oles).

Edited by Athy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, tree monkey said:

Unless you are lucky enough to follow  the right dogma and correct sky fairy, it's all the rest that will go to hell

 

Man arrives in heaven and sees every imaginable race, colour and creed represented - but no Catholics.

He then asks what is behind the the enormous brick wall to one side. He is told "it's the Catholics, because they think they are the only ones here".

  • Greenie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Jerra said:

I totally agree, it is the boaters who encourage bad behaviour by pushing at every opportunity the point that you don't have to this or that because it isn't law that I can't get my head round.

 

You would think they actually want the canals to become less pleasant places.

This is a fallacy argument because pointing out what the law states and does not state doesn't promote crime or bad behaviour it improves the law, lawyers and judges do this every day, it is part of the legal process to review and define laws. 

 

Let me ask these questions to anybody.

 

 

 

 1. Do you agree that CRT should make clear which licence terms and conditions are the law and which are codes of conduct ?

 

Or

 

2. Do you agree codes of conduct can be misrepresented as laws if it fools some people into following them ?

 

 

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

42 minutes ago, CompairHolman said:

This is a fallacy argument because pointing out what the law states and does not state doesn't promote crime or bad behaviour it improves the law, lawyers and judges do this every day, it is part of the legal process to review and define laws. 

 

Let me ask these questions to anybody.

 

 1. Do you agree that CRT should make clear which licence terms and conditions are the law and which are codes of conduct ?

Or

 

2. Do you agree codes of conduct can be misrepresented as laws if it fools some people into following them ?

 

Dear God.  This is third form debating level.

Judge to man in dock "Will you please answer yes or no.  There is no question that cannot be answered with either a yes or no"

Man in dock to Judge: "Have you stopped beating your wife?"

I think CH is losing his grip on reality, must be the effect of too many noisy gennies on a Sunday afternoon.

But.  Question one is of course meaningless, because why the hell should they?  They don't claim their T&Cs are law, they are terms and conditions they impose in order for them to let you jiggle about on their water.  CRT think they are a good idea.  Anybody can write any terms and conditions they like into anything they are trying to control. The only way to find out if they are reasonable or lawful (if you want to do something that is officially under their control) if you disagree is to go to court.  If you don't have the guts to do that, then you have to either accept them or just behave as you think is right and face the consequences.  But get it into your head, T&Cs are not laws and no-one has ever, ever said that they are.  Of course, if you do challenge them, and end up in court, then they may well wind up as laws with heavier penalties.  Again, one dickhead messing it up for everyone else.

 Question two is so stupid it hardly bears looking at, about a twelve year old's level of argument.  If anyone has their wits about them, as most of us on here have, we behave in the way we do because we think it's a reasonable way to behave. We don't do anything because someone writes us a code of conduct, puts it into terms and conditions or even passes a law. This is because some of us accept responsibility for our actions and the way we behave, and we don't need to be fooled into behaving well, or blame other people - "them" - for forcing us to act in certain ways.   A law existing doesn't make people obey them - try driving down the motorway at 70mph in the fast lane if you don't believe me, or count the drivers on mobile phones.

All these things are just a way of trying to advise people how not to come over like a pratt.  Inexperienced people find that useful.

I really thought the schools had gone back.  We used to get this all the time on the old newsgroups when the ten year olds started to play with their Amigas and be naughty on the internet.  Of course, it happens on here when the weather's cold and people don't cruise much.  It all calms down in summer.  I shan't be respond any more as I've blocked CH, so I won't be seeing any more of his posts. I'm sure he's very nice, really.

  • Greenie 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 12/11/2019 at 23:59, Arthur Marshall said:

Dear God.  This is third form debating level.

Judge to man in dock "Will you please answer yes or no.  There is no question that cannot be answered with either a yes or no"

Man in dock to Judge: "Have you stopped beating your wife?"

I think CH is losing his grip on reality, must be the effect of too many noisy gennies on a Sunday afternoon.

But.  Question one is of course meaningless, because why the hell should they?  They don't claim their T&Cs are law, they are terms and conditions they impose in order for them to let you jiggle about on their water.  CRT think they are a good idea.  Anybody can write any terms and conditions they like into anything they are trying to control. The only way to find out if they are reasonable or lawful (if you want to do something that is officially under their control) if you disagree is to go to court.  If you don't have the guts to do that, then you have to either accept them or just behave as you think is right and face the consequences.  But get it into your head, T&Cs are not laws and no-one has ever, ever said that they are.  Of course, if you do challenge them, and end up in court, then they may well wind up as laws with heavier penalties.  Again, one dickhead messing it up for everyone else.

 Question two is so stupid it hardly bears looking at, about a twelve year old's level of argument.  If anyone has their wits about them, as most of us on here have, we behave in the way we do because we think it's a reasonable way to behave. We don't do anything because someone writes us a code of conduct, puts it into terms and conditions or even passes a law. This is because some of us accept responsibility for our actions and the way we behave, and we don't need to be fooled into behaving well, or blame other people - "them" - for forcing us to act in certain ways.   A law existing doesn't make people obey them - try driving down the motorway at 70mph in the fast lane if you don't believe me, or count the drivers on mobile phones.

All these things are just a way of trying to advise people how not to come over like a pratt.  Inexperienced people find that useful.

I really thought the schools had gone back.  We used to get this all the time on the old newsgroups when the ten year olds started to play with their Amigas and be naughty on the internet.  Of course, it happens on here when the weather's cold and people don't cruise much.  It all calms down in summer.  I shan't be respond any more as I've blocked CH, so I won't be seeing any more of his posts. I'm sure he's very nice, really.

Arthur Marshal replies to threads only in the hope he can get himself wound up, then when it doesn't go his way he flounces off with a long angry diatribe shouting his half baked opinions , don't be like Arthur Marshal.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, CompairHolman said:

Arthur Marshal replies to threads only in the hope he can get himself wound up, then when it doesn't go his way he flounces off with a long angry diatribe shouting his half baked opinions , don't be like Arthur Marshal.

Not been my observation but, then, I largely support his latest contribution. Certainly as it refers to badly phrased questions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Mike Todd said:

Not been my observation but, then, I largely support his latest contribution. Certainly as it refers to badly phrased questions.

Not my observation either. I was thinking 3026 post with 1326 "reputation points sort of trumps 171 posts and 28 "reputation points".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 12/11/2019 at 23:59, Arthur Marshall said:

They don't claim their T&Cs are law, they are terms and conditions they impose in order for them to let you jiggle about on their water.  CRT think they are a good idea.  Anybody can write any terms and conditions they like into anything they are trying to control. The only way to find out if they are reasonable or lawful (if you want to do something that is officially under their control) if you disagree is to go to court.  If you don't have the guts to do that, then you have to either accept them or just behave as you think is right and face the consequences.  But get it into your head, T&Cs are not laws and no-one has ever, ever said that they are. 

No they are not laws and I agree with much of what you have said - however - in the case of refusing the issue a licence unless you accept the T&Cs as binding it actually contravenes the law.

If you think it is OK for them to break the law, then at what stage do you thing their actions would become unacceptable ? (Thin end of the wedge !)

 

 

There was an interesting quote in court which shows the contempt that BW/C&RT have for the Law of the Land

 

It was a Mr Green as witness for BW who, responding to a challenge from a barrister, justified his claim that an internal BW memo over ruled an Act of Parliament, by reason of its later date.

It left the barrister nonplussed. All he could come out with once back on his chair, was – “Oh, so BW have declared UDI have they?

 

 

(I don't think he was referring to an "Unidentified Drinking Injury"

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
 Share

  • 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.