Boat seized and owner left homeless and sleeping in a car.

[Captain Pegg]

1 hour ago, Alan de Enfield said:

 

Liveaboards, knowing that C&RT will always seek a court order before taking action against them, and that it will take 'months' to go thru' the process will 'play the game', get an extra 'year' without moving, then move on the day before the boat is siezed.

 

You need to look at the Section 8 Process documents but I only have them as Pdf's so cannot post them on the forum.

 

If you do a search on the 'What do they know'  (The FOI information site) you'll see a lot of detail on how, when and why section 8's have been issued.

 

If you look at the K&A for example :

 

Over a 4 month period :

 

During this period 199 unique boats were identified that did not move between two or more sightings Boat owners have been contacted by text, email or letter to remind them to move, or to contact the trust if there is a reason that they cannot move.  

95 have been contacted once

40 have been contacted twice

16 have been contacted three times

18 have been contacted four or more times

 

The Trust is in contact with the owners of the remaining 30 boats for a number of different reasons. Allowances were made when ice on the canal made movement difficult or dangerous. All of the boats that received multiple 14 day reminders in this period were already in the enforcement process.

 

 

 

The final report shows that a number of boats had 'removed themselves' onto Non-C&RT waters, & others had taken up 'home moorings'.

None of which answers the question, which before you interjected was about the implications of the Gold licence in relation to enforcement.

[Alan de Enfield]

6 minutes ago, Captain Pegg said:

None of which answers the question, which before you interjected was about the implications of the Gold licence in relation to enforcement.

 

I was answering your question, and agreeing about the process.

 

 I know how it works. But the first stage is to warn of potential breaches giving the licence holder the opportunity to correct whatever CRT deem to be problematic. So how often does all that play out such that licenses are revoked during their validity. I assume you have a report that tells us.

Edited October 30, 2020 by Alan de Enfield

[Captain Pegg]

Just now, Alan de Enfield said:

 

I was answering your question :

 

 I know how it works. But the first stage is to warn of potential breaches giving the licence holder the opportunity to correct whatever CRT deem to be problematic. So how often does all that play out such that licenses are revoked during their validity. I assume you have a report that tells us.

But you didn’t. And it wasn’t you I asked the original question of in any case.

[Alan de Enfield]

1 minute ago, Captain Pegg said:

But you didn’t. And it wasn’t you I asked the original question of in any case.

 

I think you had better go back and read thru the various posts and see who you were answering, or to save you time :

 

I'll leave you to it now.

 

[Captain Pegg]

1 minute ago, Alan de Enfield said:

 

I think you had better go back and read thru the various posts and see who you were answering, or to save you time :

 

I'll leave you to it now.

 

Please do. You can use the time to read back further to where you joined in.

[magnetman]

6 hours ago, Captain Pegg said:

Why would they do that if you have a licensed boat?

 

Do CRT ever actually make anyone unlicensed within the validity of an issued licence anyway? I would assume they just refuse to agree to a renewal. Surely they can also do that for a Gold licence?

CRT will restrict your license to 6 months if you do not satisfy the board. 

 

This is a fairly recent tactic. 

 

After this no more license unless you satisfy the board then it's section 8 or remove the boat yourself. 

 

 

I just find the fact that a Gold license runs from 01/01/XX and is only available as a yearly option is interesting . 

 

Are CRT allowed to over-rule somebody's eligibility for a Gold license which is a combined CRT/EA waterway license? 

 

I suspect they would be able to do this at an application form level but...

 

As it happens one of my boats has a gold license but I have never used it on CRT water. I did intend to but Covid and Hammersmith bridge prevented it. 

 

The same could easily apply the other way around. The Trent is not an EA waterway but there is no reason why someone with a narrow boat up there may  not -intend- to spend a significant amount of time on EA water and choose the convenience of a Gold license ...

Edited October 30, 2020 by magnetman
Edit to remove information likely to cause collapse of government

[Captain Pegg]

16 minutes ago, magnetman said:

CRT will restrict your license to 6 months if you do not satisfy the board. 

 

This is a fairly recent tactic. 

 

After this no more license unless you satisfy the board then it's section 8 or remove the boat yourself. 

 

 

I just find the fact that a Gold license runs from 01/01/XX and is only available as a yearly option is interesting . 

 

Are CRT allowed to over-rule somebody's eligibility for a Gold license which is a combined CRT/EA waterway license? 

 

I suspect they would be able to do this at an application form level but...

 

As it happens one of my boats has a gold license but I have never used it on CRT water. I did intend to but Covid and Hammersmith bridge prevented it. 

 

The same could easily apply the other way around. The Trent is not an EA waterway but there is no reason why someone with a narrow boat up there may  not -intend- to spend a significant amount of time on EA water and choose the convenience of a Gold license ...

Restrict as in only renew for 6 months? That’s how I understood it. That’s different from revoking a current licence before its expiry date, but I see your point about the longer period of the Gold licence.

 

I wonder though if CRT/EA are indeed obliged to issue a Gold licence rather than just a basic licence/certificate to satisfy their legal duty. I would be surprised if they were.
 

Still, buying an expensive licence does seem a peculiar way of going about making enforcement difficult.

 

JP

[GUMPY]

On 28/10/2020 at 13:22, doratheexplorer said:

No.  It's this one.

 

 

 

Please do not use photographs without permission or acknowledging the source.

[magnetman]

Indeed 

 

 

[Mike Todd]

56 minutes ago, Captain Pegg said:

Restrict as in only renew for 6 months? That’s how I understood it. That’s different from revoking a current licence before its expiry date, but I see your point about the longer period of the Gold licence.

 

I wonder though if CRT/EA are indeed obliged to issue a Gold licence rather than just a basic licence/certificate to satisfy their legal duty. I would be surprised if they were.
 

Still, buying an expensive licence does seem a peculiar way of going about making enforcement difficult.

 

JP

Is there an entitlement o a Gold Licence or is it a concession for convenience?

[Captain Pegg]

22 minutes ago, Mike Todd said:

Is there an entitlement o a Gold Licence or is it a concession for convenience?

That was my question, or least I intended it to be. Perhaps I wasn’t clear. I suspect the latter. The obligation is to issue a licence, rather than a specific form of licence.

[Jerra]

42 minutes ago, Loddon said:

 

Please do not use photographs without permission or acknowledging the source.

Acknowledging the source probably still means you are breaking copyright.

[GUMPY]

13 minutes ago, Jerra said:

57 minutes ago, Loddon said:

 

Please do not use photographs without permission or acknowledging the source.

Acknowledging the source probably still means you are breaking copyright

Hence asking permission from the owner.

[Jerra]

5 minutes ago, Loddon said:

Hence asking permission from the owner.

True but you said or acknowledge which for the uniformed may make them think they can use any photo they want provided they say where it has come from.

[GUMPY]

5 minutes ago, Jerra said:

True but you said or acknowledge which for the uniformed may make them think they can use any photo they want provided they say where it has come from.

Don't use other peoples pictures without asking for permission and giving them credit.

 

Is that better?

 

[Jerra]

32 minutes ago, Loddon said:

Don't use other peoples pictures without asking for permission and giving them credit.

 

Is that better?

 

Much.   I knew that was what you meant at the start, but there are far too many people who think if something is on the internet you can copy it to your heart's content.

[Alan de Enfield]

26 minutes ago, Jerra said:

Much.   I knew that was what you meant at the start, but there are far too many people who think if something is on the internet you can copy it to your heart's content.

We all agreed to the forum's T&Cs when we joined, yet many of us break at least one rule on a regular basis :

 

It is not permitted to post any material unless the copyright is owned by you or unless you have permission from the copyright holder. Members are deemed responsible for the material they post on the site

 

Just look at the "Post your Covid 19 Memes" thread.

 

The forum would not consist of 'very much' (eg 'cut & paste' extracts, no copies of legislation etc)  particularly when a poster is asked to 'prove it'.

[GUMPY]

4 minutes ago, Alan de Enfield said:

The forum would not consist of 'very much' (eg 'cut & paste' extracts, no copies of legislation etc)  particularly when a poster is asked to 'prove it'.

That's true, However my posting was  because of a specific complaint elsewhere (he is not a member here ) by the owner of the picture.

 

[Jerra]

1 hour ago, Alan de Enfield said:

We all agreed to the forum's T&Cs when we joined, yet many of us break at least one rule on a regular basis :

 

It is not permitted to post any material unless the copyright is owned by you or unless you have permission from the copyright holder. Members are deemed responsible for the material they post on the site

 

Just look at the "Post your Covid 19 Memes" thread.

 

The forum would not consist of 'very much' (eg 'cut & paste' extracts, no copies of legislation etc)  particularly when a poster is asked to 'prove it'.

This is true and personally I make a distinction between materials probably wrongly.   I will happily use say a graph from Worldometers but I would never use another person's photograph, painting etc without permission.    Perhaps being married to a photographer colours my attitude, but when you realise somebody has put time and effort into producing an illustration it really isn't fair to steal it.

 

Incidentally it isn't a case of the forum rules it is a case of law.

[TheBiscuits]

59 minutes ago, Loddon said:

That's true, However my posting was  because of a specific complaint elsewhere (he is not a member here ) by the owner of the picture.

 

 

Technically, @kris88 is a member, he just can't log in despite being told several times he should be able to.

[Arthur Marshall]

I'm afraid that while it may well be a technical infringement of copyright,the general assumption is that once you've shared something on the web, and social media in particular, your rights have gone up in smoke and unless you have specified that it's copyrighted and given contact details, it's in the public domain. Everything you write or post is stored, used and, if possible, sold by Google, FB etc, so I don't think you can complain too much about someone copying a photo from one site to another, as long as they aren't making money out of it. For example, I post a lot of music, and people use some of my stuff and I don't get a penny (or, usually, credit) for it unless they record it. I don't mind.

The rule is, if you don't want it in the public domain, keep it to yourself. The law might catch up with reality one day, but as it usually doesn't, i doubt it.

[David Mack]

If you post a link to an image hosted elsewhere, so that the forum software displays that image in a post, have you breached any copyright?

It's not the same as copying the image from elsewhere and then uploading it to the forum.

[TheBiscuits]

2 minutes ago, David Mack said:

If you post a link to an image hosted elsewhere, so that the forum software displays that image in a post, have you breached any copyright?

It's not the same as copying the image from elsewhere and then uploading it to the forum.

 

Debatable either way - as indeed it has been in the EU and US Supreme Courts - but not in this instance.

 

Dora's photo was uploaded to Canalworld's server, not linked from Kris's post on Thunderboat.

[matty40s]

7 minutes ago, TheBiscuits said:

 

Debatable either way - as indeed it has been in the EU and US Supreme Courts - but not in this instance.

 

Dora's photo was uploaded to Canalworld's server, not linked from Kris's post on Thunderboat.

Have you got a licence for that thing....

[TheBiscuits]

18 minutes ago, matty40s said:

Have you got a licence for that thing....

 

Hey, it's a sext-cycle.

 

Get those effing boats out of the way, I'm coming through!

 

 

 

Ah, you mean for the image!

 

No. It's out of copyright and in the public domain due to it's age.

 

Here's the water mode view:

 

 

And here's another, in land mode: