George Ward evicted.

[Higgs]

Just now, Barneyp said:

In relation to George Ward how have CRT bent the rules?

I know that it's a distressing situation for him, and for others who are personally involved, but are you really saying if someone refuses to comply they should be allowed to do whatever they want?

Even if you don’t like CRT do you not accept that whoever for society to function we need rules and people need to follow them?

 

 

 

I'm saying that people in glass houses shouldn't throw stones. I don't believe CRT act in an altogether ethical way themselves.

 

 

[Jon57]

4 minutes ago, Higgs said:

 

Ask him, I don't know. 

 

 

Will do next time I’m down that way in a few years. Thanks 

[Alan de Enfield]

3 minutes ago, Higgs said:

 

I'm saying that people in glass houses shouldn't throw stones. I don't believe CRT act in an altogether ethical way themselves.

 

 

 

What has ethics got to do with it ?

 

George Ward has failed to comply with the law, a court has convened and the Judge found him guilty and said he must pay the penalty - can you cite any actual law breaking by C&RT, where they have been prosecuted and found guilty ?

Edited July 22, 2023 by Alan de Enfield

[Higgs]

 

 

Just now, Alan de Enfield said:

 

What has ethics got to do with it ?

 

George Ward has broken the law - can you cite any actual law breaking by C&RT, where they have been prosecuted and found guilty ?

 

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

 

 

[Paul C]

There's a lengthy enforcement process, I can't find the flowchart (I am sure somebody better than me can, though) which involves 6 letters sent, over a number of months (maybe years). Here is an article which might help: http://kanda.boatingcommunity.org.uk/what-to-do-if-you-get-enforcement-letters-from-bw-such-as-a-cc1-or-pre-cc1/

 

I would support a simplification of the process on cost-saving grounds and also a simplification/"right sizing" of the complaints team too. Obviously it would need to be legal though. (I await Higgs to point out details on how the current, long-winded process isn't legal).

[Higgs]

1 minute ago, Paul C said:

There's a lengthy enforcement process, I can't find the flowchart (I am sure somebody better than me can, though) which involves 6 letters sent, over a number of months (maybe years). Here is an article which might help: http://kanda.boatingcommunity.org.uk/what-to-do-if-you-get-enforcement-letters-from-bw-such-as-a-cc1-or-pre-cc1/

 

I would support a simplification of the process on cost-saving grounds and also a simplification/"right sizing" of the complaints team too. Obviously it would need to be legal though. (I await Higgs to point out details on how the current, long-winded process isn't legal).

 

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

 

 

 

 

[Alan de Enfield]

Just now, Paul C said:

There's a lengthy enforcement process, I can't find the flowchart (I am sure somebody better than me can, though)

 

I have it and tried to post it weeks ago, but it is in Powerpoint format and this forum will not allow PP to be posted.

 

I have posted some individual pages from it.

 

Here is the 1st page (of 13 pages) again ...................

 

 

 

[Higgs]

13 pages? Takes you ten years to read it.

 

 

[Paul C]

3 minutes ago, Higgs said:

 

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

 

 

 

 

 

There's always 2 sides to every story though. For example: 

 these kinds of things have similarities - but that video is less than 7 minutes long; not 10 years long.

2 minutes ago, Higgs said:

13 pages? Takes you ten years to read it.

 

 

Exactly

[Alan de Enfield]

6 minutes ago, Higgs said:

 

 

 

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

 

 

 

In which case would you be kind enough to give examples of which laws they have circumvented and the details of how you consider they have done so.

 

(Remember - they have not broken or circumvented any laws by having a contractual requirement for marinas to ensure that boats are licenced.)

[Higgs]

1 minute ago, Paul C said:

 

There's always 2 sides to every story though. For example: 

 these kinds of things have similarities - but that video is less than 7 minutes long; not 10 years long.

Exactly

 

I've noticed how the law is applied - or not.

 

 

2 minutes ago, Alan de Enfield said:

 

In which case would you be kind enough to give examples of which laws they have circumvented and the details of how you consider they have done so.

 

(Remember - they have not broken or circumvented any laws by having a contractual requirement for marinas to ensure that boats are licenced.)

 

They are using the marina's authority, not their own.

 

 

[Alan de Enfield]

1 minute ago, Higgs said:

 

I've noticed how the law is applied - or not.

 

 

 

They are using the marina's authority, not their own.

 

 

 

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.

[Paul C]

5 minutes ago, Higgs said:

 

They are using the marina's authority, not their own.

 

 

 

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.

[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?