Jump to content

Man threatens to blow up boat on canal


Sir Percy

Featured Posts

1 hour ago, wiltshirewonderer said:

A lot more going on than is being publicised. Appears to me to be another CRT boat removal on very shaky grounds using police 'support'.

 

Unfortunately I can't say more but thankfully the chap has kept good email and audio records.

 

After a bit of external support to deescalate the situation, my understanding is that he and his dogs are now with the police and latter being spoilt.

 

Its a shame more boaters wouldn't give a hand to those that look like they need a bit of support, rather than just spreading malicious gossip down the towpath telegraph. If they did, this wouldn't have happened.

Oh let me guess, he's got the support of the Baton Twirlers non-travellers associates
And no-one on here has said anything malicious.

1 hour ago, Goliath said:

It is shameful

 

 

And no-one here has done anything of the kind!
 

  • Greenie 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, mrsmelly said:

I knew her mum, lived on Saxon way ?

I actually know this  guy he used to work at cassy boatyard but was given the push for thieving, I am sure its the same boat and he did have a load of staffys on board,  he is totally barking mad!!

Crt were trying to remove his boat years ago so its no surprise to see the film 

Edited by peterboat
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, mrsmelly said:

Forgive me for being a tad sceptical, but I in my 30 years have never felt the need to keep any email, audio or other records to prove my movement or indeed re any other aspect of my boating on CART waters. It seems to me that the only people who feel the need to do this are those that are deliberately pushing the boundaries and not genuine ccers. My rule of thumb is ususaly that the only people who feel the need to ask how far does a ccer need to travel are the ones who arent genuine ccers. I hasten to add that I am in no way suggesting this boater is extracting the urine, its a generalisation.

I hope you have another 30 years (and more) living on the cut. ?

 

I’ve only a comparatively short experience of boating but it’s always caught me out when I make assumptions and generalisations. 

 

 

Edited by Goliath
  • Greenie 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, mrsmelly said:

Forgive me for being a tad sceptical, but I in my 30 years have never felt the need to keep any email, audio or other records to prove my movement or indeed re any other aspect of my boating on CART waters. It seems to me that the only people who feel the need to do this are those that are deliberately pushing the boundaries and not genuine ccers. My rule of thumb is ususaly that the only people who feel the need to ask how far does a ccer need to travel are the ones who arent genuine ccers. I hasten to add that I am in no way suggesting this boater is extracting the urine, its a generalisation.

 

I've been unlucky and have had two run-ins with CRT management through no fault of my own. The only way I survived them going into self protect mode was through keeping hold of my email communications, having 3rd parties record videos and having good contacts. 

 

I really do hope you never have to face  similar situations. PS these records had nothing to do with movements (boats or otherwise), either for me or this chap.

Edited by wiltshirewonderer
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Graham Davis said:

And pigs fly!
 

Apparently all is now well and the 'pigs' as you call the police that were in attendance are *really* not happy about what they got dragged into and are on side with the boater in question.

 

Thinks its time for you to stop drinking and go to bed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, wiltshirewonderer said:

Apparently all is now well and the 'pigs' as you call the police that were in attendance are *really* not happy about what they got dragged into and are on side with the boater in question.

 

Thinks its time for you to stop drinking and go to bed.

My reference to pigs was not about the Police, so I await your apology.
And I haven't had a drop of alcohol for the last week, so that is another apology required.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, wiltshirewonderer said:

Oh ok, so you are just a troll. I'll just ignore you going forwards :)

Says the person with 190 posts and who ignores the rules about making personal insults.

 

5 minutes ago, Machpoint005 said:

Don't hold your breath, Graham, will you?

Obviously not, Ian, but it is still worth trying to teach some people manners.
 

Edited by Graham Davis
  • Greenie 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Graham Davis said:

Says the person with 190 posts and who ignores the rules about making personal insults.

 

Obviously not, Ian, but it is still worth trying to teach some people manners.
 

Another keyboard warrior then... Post count isn't everything. Some of us are out living in the real world trying to sort things out for fellow boaters. In terms of manners, the two of you really should take a look at your own posts on this thread and the default position and attitudes you have taken.

 

Wishing you a good night, hope neither of you end up on the wrong side of CRT through no fault of your own. 

  • Greenie 2
  • Unimpressed 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, wiltshirewonderer said:

hope neither of you end up on the wrong side of CRT through no fault of your own. 


That hardly seems possible to me. Could you give an example of how this can happen please?

 

Much obliged if you can. 
 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Mike the Boilerman said:


That hardly seems possible to me. Could you give an example of how this can happen please?

 

Much obliged if you can. 
 

 

 

 

Don't you remember the issue with me getting stuck in a lock that CRT had rebuilt several inches narrower? It was my fault despite the boat having been through dozens of times previously.

 

I haven't previously discussed the issue on here but I bid on and won a mooring (Finger pontoon) that was advertised as supporting a 10 foot wide boat, which after having one commissioned as such and me turning up with it, only happened to only be 9 foot 6 inches wide (My fault obviously). 

 

I could add a long list of stories from others I have helped but I dont think its worth the effort.

 

I'd rather not add you to the list (You don't know me on here but we have met in person a few times and have got on well) but happy to do so if you so wish.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Mike the Boilerman said:

Oh ok, yes i do remember the lock debacle! Failed to join up the dots, sorry. 


Weird about the mooring. No wonder your view of crt is jaded. 

Whilst I'm not a hippy spinning whatever the insult was (Nor part of the NBTA), I get out and help the boating community rather than just bash the keyboard on here. I have helped in well over a dozen situations similar to mine in the last year. That said, thee guy in the OP was only saved due to a member of the NBTA defusing the whole thing, he would have likely been homeless and/or shot otherwise.

 

On Sunday, an OAP on a boat with NO HEATING due to issues outside of her control is getting a new burner fitted due to a few of us getting together and sorting things out in the real world. A normal weekend for us with low post counts.....

 

EDIT: No need to respond, I'm in danger of doubling my post count tonight and I'd rather avoid that.

Edited by NB Lola
Swearing
  • Unimpressed 1
  • Angry 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, Mike the Boilerman said:


That hardly seems possible to me. Could you give an example of how this can happen please?
 

It is all too easy. People can land in trouble by reason of arbitrarily altered ‘policies’ regarding EoG moorings for example. Which is an increasing scenario. Licensed for years as being on a legitimate home mooring, then having further licences refused because the mooring becomes no longer accepted as legitimate.

 

That situation can arise, through no fault of the boater, not just because of a yo-yo-ing policy shift ( a couple I know were about to be dragged into court on a s.8 case, then asked to agree to an adjournment to allow them to re-apply for a licence for both mooring & hence boat, because CaRT had suddenly realised that their policy had altered 7 months previously), but also because development opportunities arise, where the moorings are wanted by the developer, so the moorings are declared invalid by BW/CaRT in order to shift the existing boats off (with agreements in already in place to grant permission to the developers once eviction of the current incumbents is accomplished).

 

A particularly outrageous example was the s.8’ing of a number of boats below the Thames Locks in Brentford, back in around 2005, on the basis that their (Council approved residential) moorings of many years standing were unsafe – an expensive commissioned professional report so declaring.

 

Aside from the illegitimacy of s.8 on that section as the boats did not require a licence in the first place (only established in Court many years later, although BW records had already acknowledged this from around 1989), BW did an about-turn once the boats were removed, and supported the adjacent developer’s proposals to build massive pontoon moorings in the same place - which their own Report had pronounced to be even more dangerous!

 

It transpired during the planning Inquiry that ensued, that BW had already granted a lease of half the riverbed (which they did not even own) to the developer, some years prior to undertaking the whole removal exercise. At the Inquiry they even managed to get the ‘expert’ writer of the Report to backtrack on his prior findings.

 

However morally indefensible such latter actions are, at least they have a fiscal policy driving them. What is less explicable is the refusal to accept continued income from both mooring 'licences' and consequently boat licences, which people are wanting to pay, but have run into the aforesaid policy shift.

  • Greenie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

27 minutes ago, NigelMoore said:

It is all too easy. People can land in trouble by reason of arbitrarily altered ‘policies’ regarding EoG moorings for example. Which is an increasing scenario. Licensed for years as being on a legitimate home mooring, then having further licences refused because the mooring becomes no longer accepted as legitimate.

 

That situation can arise, through no fault of the boater, not just because of a yo-yo-ing policy shift ( a couple I know were about to be dragged into court on a s.8 case, then asked to agree to an adjournment to allow them to re-apply for a licence for both mooring & hence boat, because CaRT had suddenly realised that their policy had altered 7 months previously), but also because development opportunities arise, where the moorings are wanted by the developer, so the moorings are declared invalid by BW/CaRT in order to shift the existing boats off (with agreements in already in place to grant permission to the developers once eviction of the current incumbents is accomplished).

 

A particularly outrageous example was the s.8’ing of a number of boats below the Thames Locks in Brentford, back in around 2005, on the basis that their (Council approved residential) moorings of many years standing were unsafe – an expensive commissioned professional report so declaring.

 

Aside from the illegitimacy of s.8 on that section as the boats did not require a licence in the first place (only established in Court many years later, although BW records had already acknowledged this from around 1989), BW did an about-turn once the boats were removed, and supported the adjacent developer’s proposals to build massive pontoon moorings in the same place - which their own Report had pronounced to be even more dangerous!

 

It transpired during the planning Inquiry that ensued, that BW had already granted a lease of half the riverbed (which they did not even own) to the developer, some years prior to undertaking the whole removal exercise. At the Inquiry they even managed to get the ‘expert’ writer of the Report to backtrack on his prior findings.

 

However morally indefensible such latter actions are, at least they have a fiscal policy driving them. What is less explicable is the refusal to accept continued income from both mooring 'licences' and consequently boat licences, which people are wanting to pay, but have run into the aforesaid policy shift.

That is very helpful - whilst it takes us away from the original case in this thread that is no bad thing as we (openly) know very little about that case and, certainly, you know a lot about Brentford.

 

What you comment does highlight is the uncertainty about how CaRT (and others) can change their policies relating to the navigations. In a society that makes progress (or at least where things change!) is that it is to be expected that such policy changes will also occur. The question then is how that change is moderated, not allowing anyone, including government, just to change without transparency and fairness, seeking the widest possible public support whilst simultaneously protecting proper rights of the minority (heaven help us if the HRA is repealed). There is also a question of how to promulgate such policy changes - it is unacceptable in the main for policies to be covert. Of course, there is a need for a mechanism to check whether a specific policy change remains consistent with extant legislation - taking into account the age of most legislation regarding navigations and hence a lot of ambiguity in the context of everything that has evolved since they were first enacted.

 

One point in your text where I would take issue is with the phrase no fault of the boater - it is generally the case that there is a duty on all citizens to make themselves aware of the law (even if in many cases that is something beyond the capacity of many individuals) For example, skilled tradespeople (such as electricians and plumbers) have a duty to make sure that they keep abreast of regulatory changes in order to check that their work complies today even if it was different yesterday. Ignorance of the law is no excuse?

 

That said, there is clearly a commonsense duty to make people aware if they are likely to be affected by a change.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

56 minutes ago, Mike Todd said:

 

One point in your text where I would take issue is with the phrase no fault of the boater - it is generally the case that there is a duty on all citizens to make themselves aware of the law (even if in many cases that is something beyond the capacity of many individuals) For example, skilled tradespeople (such as electricians and plumbers) have a duty to make sure that they keep abreast of regulatory changes in order to check that their work complies today even if it was different yesterday. Ignorance of the law is no excuse?

 

You are of course correct Mike, as to ignorance of the law being no excuse – but a variable internal departmental policy is not the law.

 

Leaving aside the vexed question of whether, in most cases, CaRT have any legal right to charge for EoG moorings, the parameters applied as to whether they approve or not such moorings have nothing to do with law.

 

Awhile back, CaRT adopted a published policy of not approving any more EoG moorings unless they were at the bottom of a plot with a residential dwelling on it. On those grounds, applications for approval of moorings alongside vacant farmland have been denied, and boat licences based on such ‘home mooring’ refused/revoked. It was on that basis that the couple I referred to ended up with a s.8 because their boat licence was refused (unless they declared themselves to be ‘continuous cruisers’, which they were not).

 

The relevant guide stated: “Permission will only be granted in specific circumstances: 1. The mooring is for a single boat against a residential property on the offside of the navigation . . .” And elsewhere: “You can moor a boat at the end of a canal or riverside garden as long as it is associated with a single residential property.”

 

However on 20 March 2019 CaRT published “Online Mooring Policy Updated”, stating - “single ‘end of garden’ mooring applications will now be considered against privately-owned land, not just that which has a residential dwelling on it.”

 

If CaRT themselves had ‘overlooked’ their own policy change, being willing to go through the s.8 boat seizure process to enforce (effectively) out-dated internal policy, how were the land/boat owners to be expected to know about it? Only when Defence documentation revealed that the relevant title deeds actually specified use of the land to be only for the mooring of boats, did they ‘remember’ the awkward fact that they had changed their published policy 7 months prior to the court case.

 

Again, such internal policies are not the law, ignorance of which is no excuse, much as CaRT (and BW before them) like to consider them.

 

Apropos, I have cited it before, but am reminded again, of the evidence given by BW’s Mr Green to the Jericho boatyard Inquiry. He claimed that BW had issued an internal memorandum classifying the boatyard as non-essential operational land. Asked by the Council’s barrister whether he considered that an internal memo of the Board sufficed to overturn Parliamentary authority, he replied “Yes, because it was of later date than the legislation”!

 

The barrister was understandable flummoxed, and could only retort: “So BW have declared UDI have they?

Edited by NigelMoore
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, NigelMoore said:

You are of course correct Mike, as to ignorance of the law being no excuse – but a variable internal departmental policy is not the law.

 

Leaving aside the vexed question of whether, in most cases, CaRT have any legal right to charge for EoG moorings, the parameters applied as to whether they approve or not such moorings have nothing to do with law.

 

Awhile back, CaRT adopted a published policy of not approving any more EoG moorings unless they were at the bottom of a plot with a residential dwelling on it. On those grounds, applications for approval of moorings alongside vacant farmland have been denied, and boat licences based on such ‘home mooring’ refused/revoked. It was on that basis that the couple I referred to ended up with a s.8 because their boat licence was refused (unless they declared themselves to be ‘continuous cruisers’, which they were not).

 

The relevant guide stated: “Permission will only be granted in specific circumstances: 1. The mooring is for a single boat against a residential property on the offside of the navigation . . .” And elsewhere: “You can moor a boat at the end of a canal or riverside garden as long as it is associated with a single residential property.”

 

However on 20 March 2019 CaRT published “Online Mooring Policy Updated”, stating - “single ‘end of garden’ mooring applications will now be considered against privately-owned land, not just that which has a residential dwelling on it.”

 

If CaRT themselves had ‘overlooked’ their own policy change, being willing to go through the s.8 boat seizure process to enforce (effectively) out-dated internal policy, how were the land/boat owners to be expected to know about it? Only when Defence documentation revealed that the relevant title deeds actually specified use of the land to be only for the mooring of boats, did they ‘remember’ the awkward fact that they had changed their published policy 7 months prior to the court case.

 

Again, such internal policies are not the law, ignorance of which is no excuse, much as CaRT (and BW before them) like to consider them.

 

Apropos, I have cited it before, but am reminded again, of the evidence given by BW’s Mr Green to the Jericho boatyard Inquiry. He claimed that BW had issued an internal memorandum classifying the boatyard as non-essential operational land. Asked by the Council’s barrister whether he considered that an internal memo of the Board sufficed to overturn Parliamentary authority, he replied “Yes, because it was of later date than the legislation”!

 

The barrister was understandable flummoxed, and could only retort: “?

Of course I was not trying to address the right-hand-not-knowing-the-left-hand problem which most organisations suffer from at times! That's where the oversight of how laws are applied is important as well as deciding whether a policy is correct not. In many circumstances, policy can only be challenged through individual cases and not in the abstract.

 

That said, 'the law' covers many general principles as well as the specific  for example, it is not necessary to spell out the law on contracts wherever it applies. AFAIK, there is no requirement for CaRT or its predecessors to grant moorings, although it is mostly agreed that they have the power to do so, should they so choose. Hence, surely it would be difficult to argue that changing the policy in the way that it has is actually contrary to a specific act. On the other hand, there is also a general presumption of acting with due proportion and in a fair manner.

 

I am not sure how the deeds for a piece of land can affect the specific case as the right of CaRT to grant moorings, or not, lies in their ownership of the land under the water, unless perhaps there was some specific covenant involved if they, or a predecessor, sold off some land.

 

I know your quote but do not know the Jericho case in detail but it is plausible, speaking generally, that a law gives powers (rather than duties) which later actions/decisions of the power-holder can modify, insofar as they choose to use that power (which, of course, they could later further modify). 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, Mike Todd said:

That said, 'the law' covers many general principles as well as the specific  for example, it is not necessary to spell out the law on contracts wherever it applies. AFAIK, there is no requirement for CaRT or its predecessors to grant moorings, although it is mostly agreed that they have the power to do so, should they so choose.

BW / C&RT seem to be of the opinion that they obliged to provide moorings :

 

An extract from one of Nigel Moore's post some time ago :

 

 

Of interest, perhaps, to the topic, Nigel Johnson made certain pertinent statements in his Proof of Evidence in the Ladies Bridge Appeal against the LPA enforcement action against the home moorings established there.

Para. 19 – Given the statutory requirement in the 1995 Act, BW has treated ‘home’ moorings as one of the key facilities that it has a duty, under section 10 Transport Act 1962, to provide on the Kennet and Avon Canal “to such extent as it thinks expedient”.”

Para. 22 “The need to provide facilities for the mooring of boats when not used for navigation is an inevitable consequence of the creation of a manmade canal navigation – in practical terms, they cannot go anywhere else.”  [my bold]

Para. 23 “Historically . . . the main waterspace available for the ‘parking’ of boats when not being navigated on a canal was along the sides of the canal itself . . . in most cases, vessels awaiting cargos; workboats when not in use; vessels laid up during periods of downturn in trade; and pleasure boats when not in use, were predominantly moored in the canal when not in use.”  [my bold]

Para. 24 “The 1827 byelaws of the Kennet and Avon Canal provided, at byelaw 16: ‘That every boatman or other person having the conduct of any boat, barge, or other vessel shall, when the same is not navigating upon the Canal, moor and fasten the same at both ends, close to the bank on the side of the Canal opposite to the towing path, but not under a bridge, upon an aqueduct, or in a lock or stopgate, not within a hundred yards of the same, under penalty of twenty shillings’.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Mike Todd said:

 

 AFAIK, there is no requirement for CaRT or its predecessors to grant moorings, although it is mostly agreed that they have the power to do so, should they so choose. Hence, surely it would be difficult to argue that changing the policy in the way that it has is actually contrary to a specific act.  . . .

 

I am not sure how the deeds for a piece of land can affect the specific case as the right of CaRT to grant moorings, or not, lies in their ownership of the land under the water, unless perhaps there was some specific covenant involved if they, or a predecessor, sold off some land.

 

 

It would not be appropriate to drift off-topic to the extent necessary to properly respond to your (pertinent) points, but just to clarify my position (without denying your points) –

 

You are right that there was never any “requirement for CaRT or its predecessors to grant moorings” but that is because Parliament had already granted the right for riparian owners to provide those for themselves, and the right to charge for use of such private facilities vested in the owners, not the canal companies. CaRT are bound by such provisions by the 1962 Act, in respect of levying charges in relation to those. For them to charge for something that their predecessors were not allowed to, is certainly contrary to statute.

 

(The BW/CaRT argument against this relies upon the 1968 Transport Act being interpreted so as to abolish all such private rights of mooring, although it is difficult to see how they square that with s.20 of the 1995 Act.)

 

You are also correct that “it is mostly agreed that they have the power to do so”, although I respectfully disagree that they do, principally for the above reason, amongst others.

 

I have no knowledge of any specific covenants involved in the case mentioned, nor of the chain of conveyance, which could of course have thrown more light on the subject in that case. What could be observed, however, is that it certainly establishes a custom of mooring practice at the site, and BW (hence CaRT) were enjoined in s.20 of the 1995 Act against using any powers to control private rights of mooring in such a manner as to prevent them – and such “private rights” specifically included “established mooring practices” besides conferred rights and common law riparian rights.

 

As to BW/CaRT’s powers to charge for moorings based on canal bed ownership, it should be noted that no binding judgment on the matter has ever been handed down. Even the (mistaken in my view) obiter dicta of Lewison LJ in my final appeal, related to a general right of riverbed owners to charge for mooring over their land even where not also the riparian owner, and was made in the context of deliberately leaving aside examination of the BW legislation relating to application of that principle (in the interests of limiting the issues at appeal).

  • Greenie 1
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.