George ward eviction taking place

[Tonka]

9 minutes ago, Paul Biddy said:

Double mooring is a traditional boating past-time. There's plenty of space on the waterways for everyone. No mooring can ever be continuous, in the same way that no cruise can ever be continuous. 

Not if their wide beams

[Tony Brooks]

39 minutes ago, MtB said:

 

 

I don't know. 

 

But IIRC it crops up when drafting The Articles and/or Memorandum of a limited company. A LtdCo can only undertake activities expressly allowed, leading to really vague stuff being said like "The company shall undertake activities which may or may not make a profit" or some such woolly stuff. All IIRC as it was 40 years ago! 

 

Also my understanding from when I was studying for my IMI exams nearly 60 years ago.

 

I would have thought CaRT would have Articles and Memorandum or something of similar nature, otherwise the "board" could act as it pleased on almost anything.

[Mike Todd]

2 hours ago, magnetman said:

They really should only use "armed police" if someone is walking around with a gun. I must admit this was my first assumption but I have now been disabused of this. 

 

 

 

To be fair it is a relief that nobody actually is walking around with a gun. 

 

I knew a bloke yars ago on a boat who had a 410 ratting gun. One day he showed it to subhuman scrotes who were annoying him and shortly afterwards his tiny little boat was raided by armed police. Real ones with guns. 

 

If a rumour gets out that someone has firearms on a boat it can rapidly escalate and become quite a serious situation. He got a council house in the local area and sold the boat. 

Don't have guns on boats. Even air rifles. If you discharge an air rifle across a public footpath someone -will- notice it and it could go bad quite quickly. 

I thought that getting a firearms licence involves showing that you have an appropriate place to keep them.

[thebfg]

45 minutes ago, Alan de Enfield said:

 

 

Posted by Nigel Moore (RIP)

 

A company can only do what the law says it can do.

 

Looking back, I see that we covered the same ground more than 2 years ago. The case law most specifically addressing the issue that I cited back then was:

Attorney-General v. Great Eastern Railway Co. (1880) 5 App.Cas. 473, Lord Blackburn said, at p. 481: 'where there is an Act of Parliament creating a corporation for a particular purpose, and giving it powers for that particular purpose, what it does not expressly or impliedly authorise is to be taken to be prohibited; ...' [my emphasis]

This was cited with approval by the same House in the 1991 judgment in McCarthy & Stone v Richmond LBC, with all 5 Law Lords in unanimous agreement on the point.

http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKHL/1989/4.html

My use of “amounted to” arose from the “taken to be” wording. You were advancing the common-law distinction then also, in response to that, so I will not get repetitious over this.

The Stourbridge case needs to be read in full, to understand the context. The canal company wanted to rely on the common law right of a landowner to charge for the use of their property, although their enabling Acts only gave powers to charge tolls for passage through locks on the original section, whereas an upper section had no locks at all. Not even commercial boats had to pay tolls on their cargoes if they stayed on the lock-free sections, and some carriers did just that. For awhile they paid demanded tolls anyway, but when the prices were arbitrarily increased inordinately [in their opinion], they baulked, and refused to pay anything at all anymore. The court agreed that they did not need to. The full judgment is online –

http://www.commonlii.org/uk/cases/EngR/1831/276.pdf

 

 

 

 

And again from Nigel :

 

 

In response to a question as to why C&RT do not use the byelaws :

 

Nigel Moore 8/2/20

 

It was HH Judge Denyer QC in the judgment against George Ward of 20 December 2012 on the Bristol County Court :-

 

“Other than the removal of the boat the only sanction provided for in the legislation in respect of a contravention of the Rules by a person such as the Claimant is that of a derisory fine.  I think it has now reached the sum of £50.  If they are not entitled to take these steps i.e. removal of the boat from the river they are in truth substantially powerless to enforce the obligations of those who use the waterways.  I do not regard the ability to take debt recovery proceedings as being a sufficient alternative remedy.  Aside from anything else they would face problems of enforcement.  No doubt if they did obtain a money judgment the judgment debtor would seek to or could seek to pay at some derisory sum per week or per month.”

 

He overlooked, of course, the fact that the same would apply to any County Court judgment as to costs etc, and also that the seizure of the boat even if leading to a sale could never be used to pay off the debt, because the relevant statute specifically bars that. They can only (legally) retain from the profits of a boat sale, the costs of seizing, storing and selling it. However it may be that this judge (and others) was misled into believing that BW could use possession of the seized boat as a lien on monies owed to them. This was pre-Ravenscroft after all.

 

He was mistaken as to the level of fine which is £100 (plus, of course, costs, and nowadays ‘victim surcharges’). He was also off the mark about “problems of enforcement”. Having obtained a court order for fines and costs and charges, the collection could be left to court bailiffs, or payment could be sought for from central funds as respects costs at least. The judge also seems to be confusing pursuit of money judgments with prosecutions (pursuit of merely a money claim being a third option NOT, as the 1983 Act provides, preclusive of parallel criminal action.

 

If the convicted boater proved evasive and in breach of a court order, then a warrant for their arrest could be issued, and once caught they could be sent to prison for contempt of court. There is nothing “derisory” about such implications as attached to the prosecution process. If this judge was correct, then the EA could be considered “powerless to enforce the obligations of those who use” - their – waterways” – and clearly, that is very far from the truth.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Indirectly - yes you are correct.

They withstood all of the direct action from the NBTA but crumbled when MPs became involved and suggested that they were 'maybe' breaking the law by discriminating against parents with Children of school age.

 

C&RT wrote back saymg they could not relax the legal requirements, but then they did by saying they had worked out how to meet the requirements by just shuffling up and down 3 miles of canal in term time

 

 

 

Slightly larger

 

 

I do remember this happening and I'm still surprised the MPs believe having children on school age is a protected characteristic as that is the only way discrimination can occur.

[Mike Todd]

1 hour ago, Bod said:

I would like to be shown how and when were the "old continous cruisong" guidelines changed to the system of today?

The wording of the Act has not been changed since it was created.  The distance requirement was never stipulated, however it was the Boaters responsibility to "Satisfy the Board" now the Board (C&RT) require a 20 miles per year minium "Range" to "Satisify the Board", the required distance is now clear.

 

Bod

Wrong as CaRT cannot say that. What they do say is that anyone doing less than this is unlikely to satisfy the Board. May sound pedantic but the kaw generally is. 

[magnetman]

10 minutes ago, Mike Todd said:

I thought that getting a firearms licence involves showing that you have an appropriate place to keep them.

Yes. You can get a licence to have firearms on a boat and the gentleman involved did have one but you still aren't allowed to show them to scrotes on public land. 

[kris88]

5 minutes ago, magnetman said:

Yes. You can get a licence to have firearms on a boat and the gentleman involved did have one but you still aren't allowed to show them to scrotes on public land. 

Better not to show scrotes anything. 

[Bod]

10 minutes ago, Mike Todd said:

Wrong as CaRT cannot say that. What they do say is that anyone doing less than this is unlikely to satisfy the Board. May sound pedantic but the kaw generally is. 

I was on the understanding that C&RT could publish any information that would help the boater satisfy the board, but the distance was not specified in legislation.

 

Bod

[Alan de Enfield]

13 minutes ago, magnetman said:

Yes. You can get a licence to have firearms on a boat and the gentleman involved did have one but you still aren't allowed to show them to scrotes on public land. 

 

The problem with Firearms on a boat is that every time you cross a country / Police Force area border you are required to notify the Police of the county you have been in that that you are leaving their juristriction, and notify the Police responsible for the county you are entering that you wil be within their juristriction.

 

 

 

3 minutes ago, Bod said:

I was on the understanding that C&RT could publish any information that would help the boater satisfy the board, but the distance was not specified in legislation.

 

Bod

 

No - see what I posted earlier which was from the Enforcement Manager and explained their criteria.

Edited April 20, 2023 by Alan de Enfield

[GUMPY]

Air pistols are fine😎

In 2001 I had the armed response squad called out to me as I threatened to shoot a fisherman who was threatening me with a catapult loaded with stones😱.

As I told the  nice officers there were 5 fishermen and one of me and I felt scared for my safety 🤔

Edited April 20, 2023 by Loddon

[magnetman]

15 minutes ago, kris88 said:

Better not to show scrotes anything. 

I think showing them the hand grenades might work. 

They probably would not want to be included in the group suicide movement. Or maybe they would need to think about it first. 

[Arthur Marshall]

1 hour ago, Paul Biddy said:

Double mooring is a traditional boating past-time. There's plenty of space on the waterways for everyone. No mooring can ever be continuous, in the same way that no cruise can ever be continuous. 

Ten years in the same spot is as near as you can get  though.

Double mooring is rarely practical on narrow canals. I've never done it in thirty years. Maybe you don't know much about boating? Judging by your apparent belief that BW is still involved  that would seem to be the case.

[Alan de Enfield]

1 minute ago, Arthur Marshall said:

Ten years in the same spot is as near as you can get  though.

Double mooring is rarely practical on narrow canals. I've never done it in thirty years. Maybe you don't know much about boating? Judging by your apparent belief that BW is still involved  that would seem to be the case.

 

I'd guess that he is an active member of the

No

Boats
Travel

Anywhere

 

Or

 

National

Boats

Tied up

Association

 

Clubs.

[Bod]

17 minutes ago, Alan de Enfield said:

 

The problem with Firearms on a boat is that every time you cross a country / Police Force area border you are required to notify the Police of the county you have been in that that you are leaving their juristriction, and notify the Police responsible for the county you are entering that you wil be within their juristriction.

 

 

 

 

No - see what I posted earlier which was from the Enforcement Manager and explained their criteria.

Unless there is an internal memo, I have never heard of this criteria.

There has however been a lot of missunderstanding amongst C&RT employees as to the running of the waterways.

 

Bod

[Slim]

4 hours ago, kris88 said:

Interesting question is an action illegal if you have not been prosecuted for it? 

YES. 

If I speed it's an illegal act even if I don't receive a ticket. If I break into your boat/house it's illegal, even if I'm not caught and prosecuted.

[Alan de Enfield]

8 minutes ago, Bod said:

Unless there is an internal memo, I have never heard of this criteria.

There has however been a lot of missunderstanding amongst C&RT employees as to the running of the waterways.

 

Bod

 

It was nothing to do with C&RT, that was what I was told by the Police Firearms Department when I asked the question.

 

Have a look at your licence / certificate - there is a condition of ownership that you must "inform the Chief of Police ..................."

Edited April 20, 2023 by Alan de Enfield

[Bee]

9 minutes ago, Slim said:

YES. 

If I speed it's an illegal act even if I don't receive a ticket. If I break into your boat/house it's illegal, even if I'm not caught and prosecuted.

I always used to break a speed limit by just a teensy weensy bit on the way to work, it made me feel good just not doing as I was told (Yes, I know its silly and childish) These days it's hard to get past my breakfast cornflakes without breaking some sort of rule or regulation.  

[tree monkey]

1 hour ago, Mike Todd said:

I thought that getting a firearms licence involves showing that you have an appropriate place to keep them.

It is possible on a boat, I know someone who has a firearms licence and lives on a boat, but it needs, like you say, a secure location approved by the firearms officer and (I suspect) a proper residential mooring 

[matty40s]

48 minutes ago, Alan de Enfield said:

 

The problem with Firearms on a boat is that every time you cross a country / Police Force area border you are required to notify the Police of the county you have been in that that you are leaving their juristriction, and notify the Police responsible for the county you are entering that you wil be within their juristriction.

Problem is with some counties is that they are now 2 years behind in issuing renewals, never mind taking on more files!!

[Alan de Enfield]

4 minutes ago, matty40s said:

Problem is with some counties is that they are now 2 years behind in issuing renewals, never mind taking on more files!!

 

Number 2 Son applied to renew his licence 12 weeks in advance of expiry (the Police instruction is 8 weeks) 

As his licence approached the expiry date, and no sign of a new licence the Police contacted him and said they would be coming and siezing his firearms as of XX date as he would no longer be licenced.

 

He had to take them to a local RFD to be kept in their safe, and, it took a further 6 months to get the new licence issued.

 

It is a very similar situation to C&RT removing a boaters licence, and then siezing their boat as it is not licenced.

[magnetman]

Maybe stabbing people with a garden fork would be more wise. 

 

Or even better a proper barge hook on the end of a 12ft ash pole. 

 

Quite heavy though..

 

My favourite hook is on the end of a 9ft japanese oval bo staff I found in the canal. It is an oak staff and very strong while not being heavy.

 

Good tool for recovering lost objects.

 

 

 

[matty40s]

1 minute ago, Alan de Enfield said:

 

 

It is a very similar situation to C&RT removing a boaters licence, and then siezing their boat as it is not licenced.

Which is exactly how they have seized many of the boats in the last 10 years.

[Alan de Enfield]

1 minute ago, matty40s said:

Which is exactly how they have seized many of the boats in the last 10 years.

 

Which is why I mentioned it.

[magnetman]

No more action today presumably at BoA.

 

Maybe the boat is gone like a long dog. 

 

 

[Allan(nb Albert)]

Quote

 

Statement
20 April 2023

 

Boat removal from the Kennet & Avon Canal

 

Unfortunately, following a long period of time liaising with the owner of two longstanding unlicenced boats on the Kennet & Avon Canal, the Trust yesterday (19 April) removed one of them.  Unless the owner is able to secure a home mooring for the second boat, we will have no other option but to return and remove it.
 
Taking action to remove a boat from the water is upsetting and is always a last resort.  It only happens when a boat owner refuses to follow the rules over a long period of time, during which we have repeatedly tried to resolve the issues and difficulties with them.
 
We make sure that in all cases any decision to remove a boat that is lived on has first been independently scrutinised by a Judge.  We act within the law at all times, with the Judge considering each and every case and confirming that we are acting in accordance with our powers under s.8 of the British Waterways Act 1983.

-ends- 

For further media requests please contact:
Jonathan Ludford, Canal & River Trust 
m 07747 897783 e jonathan.ludford [at] canalrivertrust.org.uk  

 

For the above please read "We retired after the police told us to stop threatening the boat owner in an attempt to evict him".