Higgs Posted March 20, 2020 Report Share Posted March 20, 2020 Just now, mayalld said: Yes. And theft? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mayalld Posted March 20, 2020 Report Share Posted March 20, 2020 Just now, Higgs said: And theft? Well, if you were to accuse a marina or CRT of theft, that would be defamatory, because they have not stolen anything Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Higgs Posted March 20, 2020 Report Share Posted March 20, 2020 (edited) 7 minutes ago, mayalld said: You have made many previous posts. None of them have made any sense. Well, I can see an illogical situation. And, I'm not about to start thinking the statutory power entrusted to CRT, and the issuing of a licence, can simply be fobbed off with a business arrangement. 6 minutes ago, mayalld said: Well, if you were to accuse a marina or CRT of theft, that would be defamatory, because they have not stolen anything Appropriation of a right is classed under the theft act. For the weekend. Edited March 20, 2020 by Higgs Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alan de Enfield Posted March 20, 2020 Report Share Posted March 20, 2020 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mayalld Posted March 20, 2020 Report Share Posted March 20, 2020 30 minutes ago, Higgs said: Appropriation of a right is classed under the theft act. A person is guilty of theft if he dishonestly appropriates property belonging to another with the intention of permanently depriving the other of it; and “thief” and “steal” shall be construed accordingly. Theft Act 1968 The moorer has no absolute right to moor. What right he has devolves upon him by virtue of a contract entered into with the Marina Owner and is contingent upon the terms of that contract. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike Todd Posted March 20, 2020 Report Share Posted March 20, 2020 1 hour ago, Higgs said: Well, someone is having to turn a blind eye. If it isn't required, what force of power in court would prosecute for non compliance of a rule that has no support in the law that actual does make up the legal framework for the requirement of a licence. Because the marina pre-dated NAA Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oddjob Posted March 20, 2020 Report Share Posted March 20, 2020 How about when on a marina NO licence required, however you want to go out on the cut you require a licence of 20% of yearly amount per week/month. Or maybe a barrier across the entrance that requires a smart card to open barrier on CRT side of entrance no licence no access, "Simples" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BilgePump Posted March 20, 2020 Report Share Posted March 20, 2020 Now the pubs are shut, some of us must be a bit lost, but 457 posts or so in and this is beginning to look like a pub argument. Boat in water connected to CaRT's, pay the licence Don't want to pay licence? Hardstanding or non-CaRT waters Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MtB Posted March 20, 2020 Report Share Posted March 20, 2020 I think Higgsy is just having one big laugh winding up all the respondents here, including me! He understands the position perfectly well, but is amusing himself pretending not to. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Captain Pegg Posted March 20, 2020 Report Share Posted March 20, 2020 7 minutes ago, Mike the Boilerman said: I think Higgsy is just having one big laugh winding up all the respondents here, including me! He understands the position perfectly well, but is amusing himself pretending not to. I do wonder. Every time we seem to be getting to a point of understanding it suddenly backtracks to go back through the same arguments again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MtB Posted March 20, 2020 Report Share Posted March 20, 2020 3 minutes ago, Captain Pegg said: I do wonder. Every time we seem to be getting to a point of understanding it suddenly backtracks to go back through the same arguments again. Well yes, quite. He is determined not to understand no matter how clearly explained. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cuthound Posted March 21, 2020 Report Share Posted March 21, 2020 11 hours ago, Captain Pegg said: I do wonder. Every time we seem to be getting to a point of understanding it suddenly backtracks to go back through the same arguments again. Yes, just like in the film Groundhog Day ? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MtB Posted March 21, 2020 Report Share Posted March 21, 2020 40 minutes ago, cuthound said: Yes, just like in the film Groundhog Day ? Yes Higgsy appreciates once a joint understanding is reached, all the fun stops. So he loops back to an earlier point in the argument and we all start explaining it again! Keep playing the game chaps, just don't back him too tightly into a corner with logic or this will spoil the never ending fun! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cuthound Posted March 21, 2020 Report Share Posted March 21, 2020 1 hour ago, Mike the Boilerman said: Yes Higgsy appreciates once a joint understanding is reached, all the fun stops. So he loops back to an earlier point in the argument and we all start explaining it again! Keep playing the game chaps, just don't back him too tightly into a corner with logic or this will spoil the never ending fun! Perhaps when we reach 500 posts, the admin team could copy and paste all of the earlier posts to the end of the thread to save us all from having to keep responding to him? ?? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim Riley Posted March 21, 2020 Report Share Posted March 21, 2020 3 hours ago, Mike the Boilerman said: Yes Higgsy appreciates once a joint understanding is reached, all the fun stops. So he loops back to an earlier point in the argument and we all start explaining it again! Keep playing the game chaps, just don't back him too tightly into a corner with logic or this will spoil the never ending fun! I'm not so sure, days ago he promised to block me for post #364, the pythons Black Knight sketch, totally apt in this situation. I must have touched a nerve! ???? Now don't wind him up quoting me or that post again so he can see it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ditchcrawler Posted March 21, 2020 Report Share Posted March 21, 2020 (edited) 8 hours ago, cuthound said: Yes, just like in the film Groundhog Day ? The first sensible comment I have read for some time, have a greeny Edited March 21, 2020 by ditchcrawler Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Higgs Posted March 23, 2020 Report Share Posted March 23, 2020 (edited) The story, so far... Treated as independents, and outside of the NAA contract, as two serparate parties: Neither CRT or the marina have the statutory power to require the possesion of a licence within the private area of a marina. A marina could always insist, in an officious and domineering way, and by right, on whatever it wanted in its T&Cs. However, to be able to do what it wants, it has to have full autonomy. In regards to the NAA, that autonomy is partially removed, and the marina is obliged to accept conditions. The contract removes rights of the marina to decide, and the marina signed away its right to a choice, by entering into a contractual arrangement with CRT. The marina, in signing away its discretionary right to choose, also signed away the moorer's right. The right to have the support of law, which, implicit in its regulatory authority, does not make the licence compulsory on private property. The NAA seeks to make it compulsory. It can't (statutory law), but it tries. The contract (NAA) interfered with the rights of the marina, of course, by the marina's own choice. The choice of the marina to write its own T&Cs is no longer discretionary throughout. Therefore, the arguement that the marina can do what ever it chooses cannot be wholly accurate. The contradiction of positions. Statutory Law - Those, specific to which, CRT derives its authority. Statutory Law. - Implicit in it is that you don't need a licence inside a marina, on private property. The licence is a permit with a relative legal value. It has value, only in designated and legally relevant areas. CRT waterways only. And the NAA is, in effect, creating a nonsense of the statutory position... NAA - Network Access Agreement NAA. Contract Law. - Statutory or regulated practice is being circumvented, in part. What good is statutory law, if contract law can manipulate it. What use the legislature. If it isn't being ignored, how else can you force people to have a licence, when a licence is not a requirement in a private place. Legislation does not require it. And yet, now by 'contract', a deal, it is a requirement. And, in my opinion, leading to an exploitation. So, , up and down the canal, which groups can ignore statutory law with apparent impunity? Two groups presume to have that right - CRT, and the marinas. And why is that the case, if not for gain. It has done nothing for the rule of law. That's clear. An element of the contract (NAA) is not in step with the statutory law that governs CRT: This is the basis of the problem, as I interpret it. My words, my phrasing, my conclusions: With or without a boat. Edited March 23, 2020 by Higgs 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Captain Pegg Posted March 23, 2020 Report Share Posted March 23, 2020 48 minutes ago, Higgs said: The story, so far... Treated as independents, and outside of the NAA contract, as two serparate parties: Neither CRT or the marina have the statutory power to require the possesion of a licence within the private area of a marina. A marina could always insist, in an officious and domineering way, and by right, on whatever it wanted in its T&Cs. However, to be able to do what it wants, it has to have full autonomy. In regards to the NAA, that autonomy is partially removed, and the marina is obliged to accept conditions. The contract removes rights of the marina to decide, and the marina signed away its right to a choice, by entering into a contractual arrangement with CRT. The marina, in signing away its discretionary right to choose, also signed away the moorer's right. The right to have the support of law, which, implicit in its regulatory authority, does not make the licence compulsory on private property. The NAA seeks to make it compulsory. It can't (statutory law), but it tries. The contract (NAA) interfered with the rights of the marina, of course, by the marina's own choice. The choice of the marina to write its own T&Cs is no longer discretionary throughout. Therefore, the arguement that the marina can do what ever it chooses cannot be wholly accurate. The contradiction of positions. Statutory Law - Those, specific to which, CRT derives its authority. Statutory Law. - Implicit in it is that you don't need a licence inside a marina, on private property. The licence is a permit with a relative legal value. It has value, only in designated and legally relevant areas. CRT waterways only. And the NAA is, in effect, creating a nonsense of the statutory position... NAA - Network Access Agreement NAA. Contract Law. - Statutory or regulated practice is being circumvented, in part. What good is statutory law, if contract law can manipulate it. What use the legislature. If it isn't being ignored, how else can you force people to have a licence, when a licence is not a requirement in a private place. Legislation does not require it. And yet, now by 'contract', a deal, it is a requirement. And, in my opinion, leading to an exploitation. So, , up and down the canal, which groups can ignore statutory law with apparent impunity? Two groups presume to have that right - CRT, and the marinas. And why is that the case, if not for gain. It has done nothing for the rule of law. That's clear. An element of the contract (NAA) is not in step with the statutory law that governs CRT: This is the basis of the problem, as I interpret it. My words, my phrasing, my conclusions: With or without a boat. Show us a clause in the NAA and a clause in a statute that are contradictory. JP Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Higgs Posted March 23, 2020 Report Share Posted March 23, 2020 Just now, Captain Pegg said: Show us a clause in the NAA and a clause in a statute that are contradictory. JP If you seem to think I'm wrong, take the time to prove it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WotEver Posted March 23, 2020 Report Share Posted March 23, 2020 2 minutes ago, Higgs said: If you seem to think I'm wrong, take the time to prove it. It doesn’t work that way. You have made an assertion so the onus is on YOU to prove that claim. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chewbacka Posted March 23, 2020 Report Share Posted March 23, 2020 You may have a compelling argument (I don’t think you do) but the only way to clarify is to go through the courts. If you choose that route, I hope you have a lot a lot of spare money to pay all the costs you will be responsible for. Based on others futile fights I have read about, £50k might cover it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Higgs Posted March 23, 2020 Report Share Posted March 23, 2020 (edited) 10 minutes ago, WotEver said: It doesn’t work that way. You have made an assertion so the onus is on YOU to prove that claim. I've given everyone ample opportunity to say more than - they do it, because they can. I made a statement and, that, as far as I am concerned, is that. Isn't it slightly obvious that, if CRT are regulated, that regulation doesn't stop, because of a business deal. It's statutory regulation. CRT can only operate where that regulation permits. Private property is not part of the permit. Edited March 23, 2020 by Higgs Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Captain Pegg Posted March 23, 2020 Report Share Posted March 23, 2020 (edited) 23 minutes ago, Higgs said: If you seem to think I'm wrong, take the time to prove it. Nothing to prove. I understand the situation and while I can see it’s unfortunate if you don’t ever leave a marina it’s not unlawful. You still ask questions that have been answered at length but to which you have claimed you don’t have the capacity to read the full answers. That’s your problem. 14 minutes ago, Chewbacka said: You may have a compelling argument (I don’t think you do) but the only way to clarify is to go through the courts. If you choose that route, I hope you have a lot a lot of spare money to pay all the costs you will be responsible for. Based on others futile fights I have read about, £50k might cover it. Or he could just demonstrate his point with an excerpt from the NAA and a excerpt from a statute that he believes to be contradictory. JP Edited March 23, 2020 by Captain Pegg Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Higgs Posted March 23, 2020 Report Share Posted March 23, 2020 1 minute ago, Captain Pegg said: Nothing to prove. I understand the situation and while I can see it’s unfortunate if you don’t ever leave a marina it’s not unlawful. You still ask questions that have been answered at length but to which you have claimed you don’t have the capacity to read the full answers. That’s your problem. JP My argument does not rely on the possession of a boat, or the need of a marina. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Captain Pegg Posted March 23, 2020 Report Share Posted March 23, 2020 36 minutes ago, Higgs said: My argument does not rely on the possession of a boat, or the need of a marina. Surely it needs a marina? As I said earlier I don’t think you really understand your own argument. Either that or it shifts as it gets unpicked. JP Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Featured Posts
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 accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now