George Ward evicted.

[Higgs]

Just now, Alan de Enfield said:

 

I guessed it was your usual (totally false) hobby horse.

C&RT can apply conditions, within the contract, that allows a marina to operate - it is nothing to do with the 'waterways laws' that you appear to accuse C&RT of circumventing.

 

Unless you can come up with actual, real, examples we will just ignore your outrage.

 

You tell me then, how CRT is authorised on private property. And it doesn't bother me, if you wish to ignore my point. 

 

 

 

 

[Barneyp]

10 minutes ago, Higgs said:

I don't think CRT are that bothered with how one views the law. They are able to circumvent it.

 

7 minutes ago, Higgs said:

I never said it wasn't legal. I merely say that the morals aren't an easy cut thing.

Err, these 2 posts seem to contradict each other.

 

I agree that "morals aren't an easy cut thing", I would argue that if CRT chose to ignore George Ward and let him live on the canals without a license or BSS they would be failing in their moral duty to all the other boaters who do comply, and potentially to the wider society.

 

So to make it really simple, what do you think CRT should have done in this case?

(And just saying something about ethics,  morals or even accusing CRT of having ignored/broken/circumvented the law in relation to something else is not an answer)

 

[Higgs]

1 minute ago, Paul C said:

 

Reponut (in my example) isn't a finance company, he's a free agent who is contracted by them. If he didn't enter a contract, they'd not use his services. In a similar way, the marinas are free agents who could choose to not enter a contract with CRT and not be connected to the canal.

 

The marinas are not free agents. They are obliged, by contract, if they want to continue to have a business. 

 

 

[Paul C]

Just now, Higgs said:

 

You tell me then, how CRT is authorised on private property. And it doesn't bother me, if you wish to ignore my point. 

 

 

 

 

Sounds a bit like a "Freeman of the Land" argument - ooooh that's PRIVATE property, it is not within the Kingdom of CRT, I don't recognise their authority because I am the Right Side of the dividing line. Which of course, is actually true in this case - they can only seize off of their own property. But they aren't seizing, they aren't using their authority.

 

The marina provider is using their authority on THEIR land.

[Barneyp]

2 minutes ago, Higgs said:

 

You tell me then, how CRT is authorised on private property. And it doesn't bother me, if you wish to ignore my point. 

 

Because the owner of the private property gave them authorisation. 

[Higgs]

Just now, Barneyp said:

 

Err, these 2 posts seem to contradict each other.

 

I agree that "morals aren't an easy cut thing", I would argue that if CRT chose to ignore George Ward and let him live on the canals without a license or BSS they would be failing in their moral duty to all the other boaters who do comply, and potentially to the wider society.

 

So to make it really simple, what do you think CRT should have done in this case?

(And just saying something about ethics,  morals or even accusing CRT of having ignored/broken/circumvented the law in relation to something else is not an answer)

 

 

I know what is required of a boater. I am one. I require CRT not to wiggle around the law. It cuts both ways.

 

 

 

 

[Paul C]

1 minute ago, Higgs said:

 

The marinas are not free agents. They are obliged, by contract, if they want to continue to have a business. 

 

 

They're free agents. They can choose to enter or not enter contracts. They are not obligated. A more accurate name for a marina which chooses to NOT enter the contract with CRT might be "pond", though.

[Higgs]

Just now, Barneyp said:

Because the owner of the private property gave them authorisation. 

 

Only under duress. No sign on the dotted line, no business.

 

 

[Barneyp]

Just now, Higgs said:

 

I know what is required of a boater. I am one. I require CRT not to wiggle around the law. It cuts both ways.

Why quote my post if you are going to completely ignore my question.

 

What do you think CRT should have done about George Ward?

1 minute ago, Higgs said:

 

Only under duress. No sign on the dotted line, no business.

 

 

Lots of commercial contracts involve a large organisation stipulating the terms and conditions under which they will do business, no one has to open a marina, and presumably if it wasn't financially viable with the conditions CRT impose they wouldn't go to the trouble of building them

Marinas that were connected before the obligation to ensure all boats were licensed did not have the condition retrospectivly enforced on them.

[Higgs]

Just now, Barneyp said:

Why quote my post if you are going to completely ignore my question.

 

What do you think CRT should have done about George Ward?

 

I'm not coming down on the side of CRT. If they can screw with the law, it's a laugh to see them relying on it. 

 

 

[Paul C]

4 minutes ago, Higgs said:

 

Only under duress. No sign on the dotted line, no business.

 

 

 

Has any marina operator successfully annulled the contract claiming duress? Do you realise the NAA was an industry-wide agreement, done to simplify marina operator's contractual position, and it was their governing body who negotiated it? And that negotiation was amicable? 

[Midnight]

5 minutes ago, Higgs said:

 

The marinas are not free agents. They are obliged, by contract, if they want to continue to have a business. 

 

 

That's how it works in most cases. Try opening a pub or a betting shop without a license. Anyway back to the subject. In your opinion should George Ward have been allowed two unlicensed boats and to stay in one place without any interference from C&RT?

[Higgs]

4 minutes ago, Paul C said:

 

Has any marina operator successfully annulled the contract claiming duress? Do you realise the NAA was an industry-wide agreement, done to simplify marina operator's contractual position, and it was their governing body who negotiated it? And that negotiation was amicable? 

 

Don't be daft, they're making money. Perhaps duress was the wrong word. They certainly had only two choices - a business or no business.

 

 

 

Edited July 22, 2023 by Higgs

[Barneyp]

Just now, Higgs said:

 

I'm not coming down on the side of CRT. If they can screw with the law, it's a laugh to see them relying on it. 

So you agree with their actions with regard to George Ward.

 

Life is complicated, sometimes people you don't like do things you agree with, and sometimes people you like and think are good people do things you disagree with, if you can't accept that, and simply classify people and organisations as either good or bad life must be very hard.

 

Your inability to engage in reasoned discussion on this forum is meaning you are alienating people who might otherwise agree with you.

[Higgs]

1 minute ago, Barneyp said:

So you agree with their actions with regard to George Ward.

 

Life is complicated, sometimes people you don't like do things you agree with, and sometimes people you like and think are good people do things you disagree with, if you can't accept that, and simply classify people and organisations as either good or bad life must be very hard.

 

Your inability to engage in reasoned discussion on this forum is meaning you are alienating people who might otherwise agree with you.

 

That they are clean? No.

 

 

Edited July 22, 2023 by Higgs

[Paul C]

2 minutes ago, Higgs said:

 

Don't be daft, they're making money. 

 

 

Good to have your agreement on it. Re: the "they're making money" part - they are operating as a business. I would be surprised if their aims did not include to make money and stay in business, since that's what businesses do.

[Higgs]

Just now, Paul C said:

Good to have your agreement on it. Re: the "they're making money" part - they are operating as a business. I would be surprised if their aims did not include to make money and stay in business, since that's what businesses do.

 

You might care to look at the edit, before your post. Was done, before you posted.

 

 

[Paul C]

1 minute ago, Higgs said:

 

The they are clean? No.

 

 

By "clean" do you mean legal or something else? Because (for clarity) it is important to establish if CRT are acting legally, or illegally. You need to decide then commit to say this one way or another, then back up that assertion with evidence or facts.

[Higgs]

Just now, Paul C said:

By "clean" do you mean legal or something else? Because (for clarity) it is important to establish if CRT are acting legally, or illegally. You need to decide then commit to say this one way or another, then back up that assertion with evidence or facts.

 

I guess I mean morally clean.

 

[Paul C]

1 minute ago, Higgs said:

 

You might care to look at the edit, before your post. Was done, before you posted.

 

 

I'll quote everything I reply to, that way it is clear what I am replying to. If you choose to go back and edit posts after I've replied, I won't be going back to read the edits - so its worth taking a breath and completing your posts in full, before pressing "Submit Reply".

[Higgs]

Just now, Paul C said:

I'll quote everything I reply to, that way it is clear what I am replying to. If you choose to go back and edit posts after I've replied, I won't be going back to read the edits - so its worth taking a breath and completing your posts in full, before pressing "Submit Reply".

 

But this post is not the post you posted. This is an additional explanation of your previous post. For me, I chose to edit a post. It now should be replied to on that basis.

 

 

[Alan de Enfield]

11 minutes ago, Higgs said:

They certainly had only two choices - a business or no business.

 

 

That is only a simple choice 'yes or no' (not two choices). It is two 'options' tho.

Two choices would have three options.

 

 

 

Words have specific meanings - particularly when discussing law and contracts.

[Higgs]

1 minute ago, Alan de Enfield said:

 

That is only a simple choice 'yes or no' (not two choices). It is two 'options' tho.

Two choices would have three options.

 

 

 

Words have specific meanings - particularly when discussing law and contracts.

 

The certainty is, if they didn't sign, they wouldn't be in business. 

 

 

 

 

[Paul C]

8 minutes ago, Higgs said:

 

But this post is not the post you posted. This is an additional explanation of your previous post. For me, I chose to edit a post. It now should be replied to on that basis.

 

 

If there is a problem with the "quote" button, then report the fault using the "report" button to the admin team, who can look into it.

 

I think its working okay though.

[Barneyp]

12 minutes ago, Higgs said:

 

Don't be daft, they're making money. Perhaps duress was the wrong word. They certainly had only two choices - a business or no business.

Firstly - "a business or no business" is not two choices, it is one choice with two options.

 

Secondly they had far more options and choices to make, they could build a marina to connect to CRT waters in the full knowledge that CRT would insist on certain conditions in return for allowing the connection, or they could build a marina elsewhere and not be bound by CRT'S conditions, or they could chose to operate a different business of which there are literally thousands of options.