More volockie hassle

[Arthur Marshall]

2 hours ago, Machpoint005 said:

 

Nothing apparent about them.

 

 

The bible is part myth,  part history and part poetry. It's full of contradictions, as I presume are all religous texts (I did start the Koran, but it appeared to be so ridiculous I couldn't face carrying on). That's largely why organised religion spends most if its time trying to stop people reading its particular holy book, and the rest of it arguing about the interpretation. Most of them contain some advice of practical value and a lot of encouragement to nobble anyone who follows different gods. Bit like CRTs t&cs, apart from the nobbling.

Edited July 3, 2021 by Arthur Marshall

[Austin]

Thank goodness nicknorman is in the minority or else volunteering at any flight would be an unenviable chore and demoralise any sane helpful volockie .

[nicknorman]

1 minute ago, Austin said:

Thank goodness nicknorman is in the minority or else volunteering at any flight would be an unenviable chore and demoralise any sane helpful volockie .

Yes there are some sane helpful volockies, and I’m always nice to them, so they have no need to be demoralised. The little Hitler control freak types I am not nice to. Is there something wrong with that?

[haggis]

4 minutes ago, Austin said:

Thank goodness nicknorman is in the minority or else volunteering at any flight would be an unenviable chore and demoralise any sane helpful volockie .

Thank goodness Vlockies who order boaters about are in a minority

 

[frangar]

7 minutes ago, Austin said:

Thank goodness nicknorman is in the minority or else volunteering at any flight would be an unenviable chore and demoralise any sane helpful volockie .

Losing the lock vols wouldn't be a great shame....I happily boated before they came along....in some cases much happier!....if they just wanted to paint things or mow some grass if they must that would be fine by me...it seems to be something that lets say attracts a certain type of person.....

Edited July 3, 2021 by frangar

[Tracy D'arth]

3 minutes ago, frangar said:

Losing the lock vols wouldn't be a great shame....I happily boated before they came along....in some cases much happier!....if they just wanted to paint things or mow some grass if they must that would be fine by me...it seems to be something that lets say attracts a certain type of person.....

It does, they enjoy working locks!  Many are boater, they are OCD about locks, what a wonderful opportunity for them to extend their pleasure time.

Doesn't make them bad people.

I think they deserve medals for putting up with some people who moan about them here and elsewhere. 

[frangar]

Just now, Tracy D'arth said:

It does, they enjoy working locks!  Many are boater, they are OCD about locks, what a wonderful opportunity for them to extend their pleasure time.

Doesn't make them bad people.

I think they deserve medals for putting up with some people who moan about them here and elsewhere. 

You can have your personal one to follow you round then.....I will happily give them up...I dont ask or expect them to help

[Tracy D'arth]

1 minute ago, frangar said:

You can have your personal one to follow you round then.....I will happily give them up...I dont ask or expect them to help

Sadly I am old, slightly infirm but intend to continue boating till I fall off the stern dead. The volunteers help me when I need it, usually very well.

No one is perfect despite their stature and education.

[nicknorman]

I think I will set up as a wife or husband shagger (I’m not fussy, provided the lights are out). Surely any self respecting spouse should be delighted when they arrive on the scene to find me helping their spouse into bed without the bother of me actually asking them whether they would like to be bedded. After all, I am doing it as a volunteer so it must be welcomed by all.

Edited July 3, 2021 by nicknorman

[frangar]

10 minutes ago, nicknorman said:

I think I will set up as a wife or husband shagger (I’m not fussy, provided the lights are out). Surely any self respecting spouse should be delighted when they arrive on the scene to find me helping their spouse into bed without the bother of me actually asking them whether they would like to be bedded. After all, I am doing it as a volunteer so it must be welcomed by all.

Even when Ive done that Ive listened more to whats required of my services than most lock vols ever will....

[Rob-M]

41 minutes ago, frangar said:

Losing the lock vols wouldn't be a great shame....I happily boated before they came along....in some cases much happier!....if they just wanted to paint things or mow some grass if they must that would be fine by me...it seems to be something that lets say attracts a certain type of person.....

As long as they don't paint every lock bollard at the same time as they did a few years ago in Fradley and then couldn't understand when I asked them what do I attach the boat to whilst setting the lock 

[canalboat]

49 minutes ago, Tracy D'arth said:

It does, they enjoy working locks!  Many are boater, they are OCD about locks, what a wonderful opportunity for them to extend their pleasure time.

Doesn't make them bad people.

I think they deserve medals for putting up with some people who moan about them here and elsewhere. 

Well said - Covid aint the only severe sickness around.

[Rob-M]

The volockie on at Hurleston when we came through couldn't have been any better, he checked we wanted help, checked before raising a paddle and stayed by the raised paddle until the lock was full.  We had a chat about windlasses as he had a nice old single header.

[Tracy D'arth]

5 minutes ago, Rob-M said:

The volockie on at Hurleston when we came through couldn't have been any better, he checked we wanted help, checked before raising a paddle and stayed by the raised paddle until the lock was full.  We had a chat about windlasses as he had a nice old single header.

They pulled me out of the cut once when I slid in ( gracefully ) whilst waiting for the bottom lock.

[ditchcrawler]

9 hours ago, nicknorman said:

however as we know, the Ts and Cs have no standing in law. Licensing of boats is controlled by the 1995 act which places the well known 3 requirements to be met at which point a licence will be issued. The licence cannot legally be revoked on CRT’s whim. And they know that.

 

In addition, any T/C that says “you must obey our volunteers” is clearly an unreasonable one. A rogue volunteer might say “you must give me all your money / murder my enemy for me” etc etc. Unreasonable Ts and Cs are not binding. Had the T/C said “you must obey the lawful and reasonable instruction of our volunteers” then it might not be an unreasonable one, but that isn’t what it says.

 

But actually think the point of the T/C is for places like Watford and Foxton where some degree of organisation of traffic is needed.

Very true, But I for one don't plan to try to fight CRT in court over it. Remember the anti terrorist laws were brought in for good reason but their use has often been very questionable

[nicknorman]

1 minute ago, ditchcrawler said:

Very true, But I for one don't plan to try to fight CRT in court over it. 

Neither do CRT. On the few occasions that CRT have refused a licence to people who meet the 1995 act requirements, CRT have always backed down before it went to court because they knew they’d lose.

[nicknorman]

1 hour ago, Tracy D'arth said:

It does, they enjoy working locks!  Many are boater, they are OCD about locks, what a wonderful opportunity for them to extend their pleasure time.

Doesn't make them bad people.

I think they deserve medals for putting up with some people who moan about them here and elsewhere. 

I also enjoy working locks. Why should they get to work the locks I’ve paid for a licence to use, in a boat I have paid a lot of money to own. If they like it so much and are boaters, I suggest a simple solution is to go boating in their own boats. Anyway, they don’t all put up with people who moan at them, they hit them with windlasses!

 

But the point is that if they don’t like people moaning about them, they shouldn’t be unwanted parasites on other people’s boating. It seems a simple concept even for you.

 

[Alan de Enfield]

9 hours ago, nicknorman said:

however as we know, the Ts and Cs have no standing in law. Licensing of boats is controlled by the 1995 act which places the well known 3 requirements to be met at which point a licence will be issued. The licence cannot legally be revoked on CRT’s whim. And they know that.

 

This was covered in some depth by Nigel Moore (RIP)

 

 

BW Agree Only 3 Conditions To Licence

Nigel Moore 20/7/17

The comments by the previous Waterways Ombudsman are very much to the point in this respect – “British Waterways themselves can sometimes interpret legislation in different ways depending on what suits them in a particular case”. [page 16 of her 2010-2011 Report]

http://www.waterways-ombudsman.org/media/1016/annualreports201to11final.pdf

CaRT’s submissions to the Mayor of London’s Report on mooring problems in London contains the accurate admission: “People enjoy the right to put a boat on our waterways, providing that they pay the necessary fee, that the boat meets safety standards and has insurance cover for third party liabilities – and that, unless it is used ‘bona fide’ for navigation throughout the period of consent, it must have a home mooring (somewhere where the boat ‘can lawfully be kept when not being used for navigation’2 ).”

https://www.london.gov.uk/sites/default/files/gla_migrate_files_destination/Combined responses_Part1_0.pdf  [see page 10]

 

This was more explicitly enunciated in  CaRT’s “Overview of statutory framework”, page 6, which acknowledges clearly enough:  –

“The British Waterways Act 1995 limits to three specific criteria our ability to refuse to licence a boat.”   [my emphasis]

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

 

They go on, however, in their submission to the GLA, to inaccurately claim [in effective contradiction of the above quoted public statement] that revocation of the licence with subsequent s.8 removal “is the only sanction available to us in respect of a breach in licence terms.” [page 12 of the GLA Report pack on Responses in the link above] Insofar as any breach of non-statutory terms can naturally have no sanction applicable, this would explain the s.8 process chosen - albeit with no legal justification whatsoever - while any breach of approved byelaws etc contains within the legislation the accompanying legislated sanction – which does NOT include revocation of a licence. If a sanction is not legislated for, then the claimed legal outrage does not exist and such T&C’s are – as acknowledged to Parliament by BW in the debates over the 1990 Bill – mere guidance without the force of law.

Revoking a licence can only be enabled upon breach of the s.17 conditions, exactly as, admitted by them above, refusing a licence can only be enabled by failure to meet those conditions.

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.

[nicknorman]

39 minutes ago, canalboat said:

Well said - Covid aint the only severe sickness around.

Would you care to be more specific or was it just a lazy snipe because you couldn’t be bothered to form a cogent point?

[frangar]

41 minutes ago, canalboat said:

Well said - Covid aint the only severe sickness around.

Crikey....a post that both me and Nick find equally irritating....Are you a vol by any chance?......if so take the points raised here on board and tell your friends!!

[magnetman]

It's a poll situation really. 

 

People going out on boats on canals have changed over the years. 

 

It's entirely plausible that the majority do actually see locks as an obstacle to be overcome preferably with help rather than the whole point of going boating on a canal. 

 

As mentioned earlier there might actually be quite a lot of people on boats who would go for fully automated rather than have the hassle of physical work.

 

More predictable, get where you are going at the right time etc. GPS. 

 

I remember graffiti on a canal bridge somewhere years ago "Stop motorway madness on canals" how astute that was. 

[Alan de Enfield]

1 minute ago, frangar said:

Crikey....a post that both me and Nick find equally irritating....Are you a vol by any chance?......if so take the points raised here on board and tell your friends!!

 

 

I think both you and Nick maybe misunderstood, wasn't he was agreeing that (some of) the Volockies have a 'little HItler' syndrome / sickness.

[magnetman]

46 minutes ago, canalboat said:

Well said - Covid aint the only severe sickness around.

5G is almost as bad !

[frangar]

2 minutes ago, Alan de Enfield said:

 

 

I think both you and Nick maybe misunderstood, wasn't he was agreeing that (some of) the Volockies have a 'little HItler' syndrome / sickness.

Maybe.....the quote function is very useful in such situations to avoid confusion........

[nicknorman]

7 minutes ago, Alan de Enfield said:

 

 

I think both you and Nick maybe misunderstood, wasn't he was agreeing that (some of) the Volockies have a 'little HItler' syndrome / sickness.

No, he was replying to Tracy’s post and seeming to agree with him.