Running engines when moored "out of hours" #2 - The CRT view.

[MtB]

10 hours ago, waterworks said:

In Para 14.7 of the Mayor of London document CRT claims they can refuse a licence renewal if fines or charges are not paid, this is totally false.

 

And yet if CRT refuse to issue the license, the applicant has a whole tonne of pain heaped on them in order to persuade CRT to perform their statutory duty, in the face of their reluctance and the inertia inherent in using the court/legal system to force their hand.

[waterworks]

3 hours ago, Arthur Marshall said:

False-ish. If a boat has been fined for overstaying, as it now can be in certain places, then presumably the board would argue that it is not satisfied the boat is continuously cruising, and that nonpayment of the fine shows lack of contrition and intention to re-offend. End of argument. Much the same if licences haven't been paid for.

Nonsense.

[Arthur Marshall]

35 minutes ago, waterworks said:

Nonsense.

I do like a considered response. Not someone who likes a discussion then, just someone with a chip on their shoulder having a moan. Fair enough,  there's room for us all...  

[Jerra]

34 minutes ago, Arthur Marshall said:

I do like a considered response. 

And that was nothing like a considered response.

[Alan de Enfield]

4 minutes ago, Jerra said:

And that was nothing like a considered response.

 

 

O' I don't know - maybe he considered that it reflected fully his feelings towards the post he was replying to.

[Jerra]

5 minutes ago, Alan de Enfield said:

 

 

O' I don't know - maybe he considered that it reflected fully his feelings towards the post he was replying to.

Not in my opinion  considered response for a discussion forum.   It doesn't exactly give reasons for it being nonsense so discussion can follow.   There is a clue in the forum title for those who care to look.

[Arthur Marshall]

32 minutes ago, Jerra said:

Not in my opinion  considered response for a discussion forum.   It doesn't exactly give reasons for it being nonsense so discussion can follow.   There is a clue in the forum title for those who care to look.

Harping on about legal niceties instead of trying to find solutions to current problems is usually accompanied by a refusal to face the reality that problems exist or that usage has changed, and that application of bits of a parliamentary law made almost irrelevant by the passage of time is not a practical answer, so other methods have to be used. Some of us prefer to live in the real world rather than Waterworks fantasy one.

It's a bit like the Labour party, faced with petrol queues, driver shortages and empty supermarkets deciding the most important thing to discuss is a conference rule change, or the band on the Titanic arguing about which piece to play...

[waterworks]

7 hours ago, Arthur Marshall said:

I do like a considered response. Not someone who likes a discussion then, just someone with a chip on their shoulder having a moan. Fair enough,  there's room for us all...  

You previously said you would not reply to my posts, please keep it that way.

[IanD]

On 25/09/2021 at 00:13, waterworks said:

You previously said you would not reply to my posts, please keep it that way.

If you don't want people replying to your asinine posts, maybe you should stop making them... 😉

[Arthur Marshall]

On 25/09/2021 at 00:13, waterworks said:

You previously said you would not reply to my posts, please keep it that way.

Interesting. I've paged through all my responses in this thread and can't find any evidence that I've said that, though admittedly your posts aren't really worth much attention.  Were you posting under a different name when I said that? Or about something completely different, and in an equally agressive manner? You've obviously struck me as someone not worth discussing anything with as, like all pseudononymous bigots, you only seem to want an argument, not a discussion.

However, as this is a forum, and some of us have open minds which can change if data or circumstances require, you can take your attitude and shove it. I'll post as and when I want.  Entirely up to you whether you read them or not. I certainly wouldn't expect a constructive response.

 

[Tam & Di]

On 24/09/2021 at 19:14, Arthur Marshall said:

Harping on about legal niceties instead of trying to find solutions to current problems is usually accompanied by a refusal to face the reality that problems exist or that usage has changed, and that application of bits of a parliamentary law made almost irrelevant by the passage of time is not a practical answer, so other methods have to be used.

 

When BWB wished to close the K&A a group harping on about legal niceties stopped that happening because it could be shown that someone had recently made a trip in a kayak, and the law BWB claimed as irrelevant by the passage of time meant they were unable to carry out their intended closure.

 

For better or for worse the law is the law. I personally find the continuous moorers' actions generally unacceptable, but BW/C&RT brought that upon themselves by not nipping it in the bud when they had some chance of success.

 

Tam

Edited September 27, 2021 by Tam & Di

[beerbeerbeerbeerbeer]

On 24/09/2021 at 12:00, Arthur Marshall said:

False-ish. If a boat has been fined for overstaying, as it now can be in certain places, then presumably the board would argue that it is not satisfied the boat is continuously cruising, and that nonpayment of the fine shows lack of contrition and intention to re-offend. End of argument. Much the same if licences haven't been paid for.

But if a boat a boat does pay it’s fine ?

 

And payment of licenses are offered?

[Alan de Enfield]

1 minute ago, Goliath said:

But if a boat a boat does pay it’s fine ?

 

I don't think C&RT are actually (legally) allowed to make fines if a boat overstays, etc.

The only fines that can be applied are those laid out in the various Waterways Acts, or the ByLaws.

 

This discussion has been had many times in the past and I seem to remember that our learned friend, Nigel Moore RIP, said they could only charge for a 'service provided'.

"You can have the 1st 24 hours free, then there is a charge for the service of £x per day" is very different to "You can have the 1st 24 hours free, then you will be fined £x for each day of overstaying"

[beerbeerbeerbeerbeer]

8 minutes ago, Alan de Enfield said:

 

I don't think C&RT are actually (legally) allowed to make fines if a boat overstays, etc.

The only fines that can be applied are those laid out in the various Waterways Acts, or the ByLaws.

 

This discussion has been had many times in the past and I seem to remember that our learned friend, Nigel Moore RIP, said they could only charge for a 'service provided'.

"You can have the 1st 24 hours free, then there is a charge for the service of £x per day" is very different to "You can have the 1st 24 hours free, then you will be fined £x for each day of overstaying"

Yea I know (or think I do 🤷‍♀️)

 

Just making a reply to an invented scenario. 

Edited September 27, 2021 by Goliath

[Cheese]

On 22/09/2021 at 13:13, cuthound said:

 

I disagree, the Basingstoke Canal, River Wey Navigation and parts of the Thames within the M25 are nothing like slums (but you knew that anyway didn't you...). 😉

The Basingstoke is completely outside the M25 (admittedly only by about 25m).  But I agree it is nothing like a slum!

[waterworks]

On 27/09/2021 at 10:50, Arthur Marshall said:

Interesting. I've paged through all my responses in this thread and can't find any evidence that I've said that, though admittedly your posts aren't really worth much attention.  Were you posting under a different name when I said that? Or about something completely different, and in an equally agressive manner? You've obviously struck me as someone not worth discussing anything with as, like all pseudononymous bigots, you only seem to want an argument, not a discussion.

However, as this is a forum, and some of us have open minds which can change if data or circumstances require, you can take your attitude and shove it. I'll post as and when I want.  Entirely up to you whether you read them or not. I certainly wouldn't expect a constructive response.

 

How many keyboards do you get through a week smashing them with your fists like this ?

[Arthur Marshall]

1 minute ago, waterworks said:

How many keyboards do you get through a week smashing them with your fists like this ?

There you go. Constructive as ever! And it only took you three weeks to put all those words together, some of them even with more than one syllable. Well done.

[waterworks]

On 12/10/2021 at 13:51, Arthur Marshall said:

There you go. Constructive as ever! And it only took you three weeks to put all those words together, some of them even with more than one syllable. Well done.

You literally have no life except on this forum everyday commenting on every topic , are you in an old peoples home? If so try to get out more, get your carers to take you to the park and you won't be so miserable and upset all the time. 

[john.k]

I think to complain about noise out of hours you would complain to police and/or council..........both of who(m) have the power to issue enforcement orders,on the spot penalties ,and confiscation of the offending noise maker.....and if any of the parties disagree ,then there is any number of ombudsmen,decision appeal/review tribunals ,and finally ,every court of law in the land ,if you care to spend millions on a 3d ferry ticket ,as someone did.

[Arthur Marshall]

4 hours ago, waterworks said:

You literally have no life except on this forum everyday commenting on every topic , are you in an old peoples home? If so try to get out more, get your carers to take you to the park and you won't be so miserable and upset all the time. 

Fool.

[MtB]

16 minutes ago, Arthur Marshall said:

Fool.

 

Very commendable and restrained response. 

[ditchcrawler]

46 minutes ago, MtB said:

 

Very commendable and restrained response. 

I thought so to

5 hours ago, john.k said:

I think to complain about noise out of hours you would complain to police and/or council..........both of who(m) have the power to issue enforcement orders,on the spot penalties ,and confiscation of the offending noise maker 

Like this Lowestoft resident charged over nuisance noise offences » East Suffolk Council

[Athy]

6 hours ago, waterworks said:

You literally have no life except on this forum everyday commenting on every topic , are you in an old peoples home? If so try to get out more, get your carers to take you to the park and you won't be so miserable and upset all the time. 

I wonder in what sense you use the word "literally".

This topic has descended into a slanging match, occasioning at least one report from a member. Please refrain from offensive personal comments, or the topic will have to be closed down, which would be a pity.

[frahkn]

2 minutes ago, Athy said:

I wonder in what sense you use the word "literally".

This topic has descended into a slanging match, occasioning at least one report from a member. Please refrain from offensive personal comments, or the topic will have to be closed down, which would be a pity.

Really?

 

Are you sure?

[MtB]

46 minutes ago, Athy said:

I wonder in what sense you use the word "literally".

This topic has descended into a slanging match, occasioning at least one report from a member. Please refrain from offensive personal comments, or the topic will have to be closed down, which would be a pity.

 

Why not delete the slanging, and let the more civil posters here carry on with the discussion?