Man threatens to blow up boat on canal

[NigelMoore]

1 hour ago, Alan de Enfield said:

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

 

Thanks for that reminder Alan. I should note, however, that I doubt it addresses the element of Mike’s post you quoted. He referred to a requirement to grant moorings (in the context of approving or disapproving mooring to private lands), not, as I understood him, to any obligation to provide moorings (which they and their predecessors could always do, on offside land belonging to them).

[NigelMoore]

10 hours ago, Mike Todd said:

. . . 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). 

True enough. An apposite example would be where BW “may refuse a relevant consent unless . . .” That does not demand that they refuse a consent if the conditions are not meant, and they could choose to set aside the requirement to comply with a particular condition should they deem that appropriate in certain circumstances. They could even choose to exempt a vessel from the requirement for a relevant consent in the first place, which in fact is what they do in practice respecting, for example, canoes where the owner is a member of the British Canoe Union.

 

The Board is also empowered to recover through court action any legitimately owed charges e.g. unpaid licence fees, yet certainly CaRT never choose to do so, so far as I know; they choose to s.8 instead. The empowerment to recover charges is something they “may” do; there is no compulsion to do so (whether s.8 instead is a valid alternative is another argument).

 

That comes under the banner of discretion in applying applicable powers respecting what they “may” do, whereas no such discretion is exercisable where they “shall” do certain things (“duties” as you have put it).

 

That agreed, I do not see the applicability of the principle to the Jericho situation, where what was at issue was what constituted part of “the track” which BW were obligated to maintain for purposes of maintaining the viability of the system, and which they were not at liberty to transfer away into private ownership. The situation is perhaps clearer under the present CaRT legislation, where any such disposition of “the track” – in present parlance “operational property” as vested in the waterways Infrastructure Trust – requires permission from the Secretary of State.

 

CaRT could not possibly, under the terms of the Transfer Order 2012, decide for themselves as a matter of changing internal policy, what property did or did not constitute part of that which is vested in the Infrastructure Trust as belonging to the British public in perpetuity.

 

(A disgruntled postscript could be added that they scarcely need powers anyway, to redefine what is operational Trust property, when getting SoS permission to flog it off is seemingly an automatic rubber-stamp exercise.)

[Athy]

On 22/11/2019 at 12:10, Mike the Boilerman said:

 

Because I have noticed you refuse to apply the rules when requested on a number of occasions. This is a good example. 

 

Another example was when I was called a rather unpleasant name in open forum and you declined to apply the 'no name-calling' rule, saying the name I was being called "wasn't that bad".

 

 

 

 

 

On 22/11/2019 at 12:10, Mike the Boilerman said:

 

Because I have noticed you refuse to apply the rules when requested on a number of occasions. This is a good example. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Since no breach of the rules was committed, I can't see how. 

Requests to apply the rules are considered on their merits, 

On 22/11/2019 at 12:10, Mike the Boilerman said:

 

 

 

Another example was when I was called a rather unpleasant name in open forum and you declined to apply the 'no name-calling' rule, saying the name I was being called "wasn't that bad".

 

 

 

 

Whilst I do not recall this instance, I'm sure that I did not decline to apply the rule. As you have pointed out, I gave an explanation which stated that in my opinion no rule had been broken.

Edited November 24, 2019 by Athy

[wiltshirewonderer]

On 23/11/2019 at 06:29, peterboat said:

Whilst I appreciate the effort you put in to help fellow beaters less of the swearing please 

Apologies for that, I was just very annoyed about myself and this boater being attacked for (as far as I could tell) no good reason. I shall try and stick to non swearword insults going forward.

 

The good news is that CRT has finally decided to let the chap in question pay for the mooring he had with them and thus the boat removal is no longer an issue. He still has a police charge to deal with but TBH he is in a better place negotiating that than being homeless (especially given that the police appear to be on his side).

 

Thankfully learned baton twirling hippies saved he day / his life.

 

From what I've seen, it is another left hand vs right hand issue, no individual to blame at CRT but definitely broken processes. 

[mrsmelly]

3 hours ago, wiltshirewonderer said:

Apologies for that, I was just very annoyed about myself and this boater being attacked for (as far as I could tell) no good reason. I shall try and stick to non swearword insults going forward.

 

The good news is that CRT has finally decided to let the chap in question pay for the mooring he had with them and thus the boat removal is no longer an issue. He still has a police charge to deal with but TBH he is in a better place negotiating that than being homeless (especially given that the police appear to be on his side).

 

Thankfully learned baton twirling hippies saved he day / his life.

 

From what I've seen, it is another left hand vs right hand issue, no individual to blame at CRT but definitely broken processes. 

Love it!!