George Ward evicted.

[Higgs]

Just now, Paul C said:

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.

 

Don't want this to get too confusing. The post you replied to has been changed. It now may require a review of your response.

 

 

3 minutes ago, Barneyp said:

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.

 

A and B is a choice of two. 

 

I'm quite sure a marina would know the score. But in the end, they knew who was the dominant partner, and they dominated.

 

 

[Barneyp]

7 minutes ago, Higgs said:

 

A and B is a choice of two.

Yes I agree, one choice between two options.

[Alan de Enfield]

10 minutes ago, Higgs said:

 

Don't want this to get too confusing. The post you replied to has been changed. It now may require a review of your response.

 

 

 

A and B is a choice of two OPTIONS

 

 

 

 

 

 

Corrected that for you, no need to thank me.

[Higgs]

1 minute ago, Barneyp said:

Yes I agree, one choice between two options.

 

In the case of a marina, it was already decided that they would have only one rational choice.

 

 

[Barneyp]

9 minutes ago, Higgs said:

 

I'm quite sure a marina would know the score. But in the end, they knew who was the dominant partner, and they dominated.

 

 

Yes, but they were not forced in to the agreement, they chose to build a marina knowing there were many other options available to them, and it's likely that a lot of those options would have involved agreeing to someone else's conditions.

[Higgs]

Just now, Alan de Enfield said:

 

 

Corrected that for you, no need to thank me.

 

Thank you, but I correct my own posts. 

 

 

Just now, Barneyp said:

Yes, but they were not forced in to the agreement, they chose to build a marina knowing there were many other options available to them, and it's likely that a lot of those options would have involved agreeing to someone else's conditions.

 

You would have to be a serious chump to invest without knowing what would be to your benefit. Not signing wouldn't count as an option.

 

 

[Paul C]

6 minutes ago, Higgs said:

 

 

 

 

 

You would have to be a serious chump to invest without knowing what would be to your benefit. Not signing wouldn't count as an option.

 

 

Investor or marina operator? Because they're likely to be two different people.

[Alan de Enfield]

1 minute ago, Higgs said:

Thank you, but I correct my own posts. 

 

But when you posts are incorrect, or just 'wrong' it is easier to amend them for you.

 

You still have not corrected your statement that C&RT 'circumvent the law', when you appear to actually mean that C&RT do not meet YOUR perception of some ethical standards.

[Higgs]

Just now, Alan de Enfield said:

 

But when you posts are incorrect, or just 'wrong' it is easier to amend them for you.

 

You still have not corrected your statement that C&RT 'circumvent the law', when you appear to actually mean that C&RT do not meet YOUR perception of some ethical standards.

 

Well, just write it in your own post. I'll get the message and you wouldn't have trespassed. 

 

 

3 minutes ago, Paul C said:

Investor or marina operator? Because they're likely to be two different people.

 

For the sake of argument. The people who stand to gain financially.

 

 

[magnetman]

Lakeside marina Thurrock is interesting. Not connected to any inland waterways but it has boats on it. 

 

I disagree with the suggestion that no connection to the canal means no business. I also think that if your business model relies on a canal which is maintained by a navigation authority you should be paying them (in this case the CRT) for the privilege. 

 

Having said that I don't know if marinas on the Thames pay anything to the EA but in 2010 the EA did get an Order requiring all boats to have Thames registration certificates. 

 

 

 

 

[Jon57]

59 minutes ago, Midnight said:

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 will probably take 10 yrs to answer your question. Morals and all that.🤭

[Paul C]

46 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.

 

 

 

Yes it is - I posted a reply to your post. When I pressed the "Quote" button, it took the text and formatting of the post at the time - which was the original. If you subsequently edit a post after I've pressed the "Quote" button, but before I press the "Submit Reply" button, the forum software neither amends the quoted text to update it, nor advises the original post has been edited/updated. I don't go back and review the original post manually (which would need a second browser tab, so as not to lose my unsubmitted reply) so I'd be none the wiser to your edit. But the original post stands, and must stand, and is available to see with the quote function.

 

The onus is on YOU to ensure when you post, you mean what you mean, and don't simply post without thinking things through properly. If your post is not detailed enough or you didn't mean to type what you did, or you want to change its meaning or emphasis, then that must be taken into account BEFORE you originally press the "Submit Reply" button. If you don't, then you are likely going to be ignored or the edit remain unread.

 

Is it a distraction because your argument is weak? Or is it because you're emotive? Or are you yourself unsure of the points your trying to make?

[Higgs]

1 minute ago, magnetman said:

I disagree with the suggestion that no connection to the canal means no business. I also think that if your business model relies on a canal which is maintained by a navigation authority you should be paying them (in this case the CRT) for the privilege. 

 

Marinas do pay for the privilege. And the moorers there also pay for the marina's privilege. 

 

 

[magnetman]

 

 

This topic is about a geyser who has been "pushing the envelope" with regards to licensing, moving and keeping a boat on CRT controlled waterways. 

 

Getting into discussion about legal status of marinas and NAA is off topic. 

 

 

The problem of unlicensed reprobates is going to hit hard and it won't be long before this happens. 

 

Discussion needs to be had about what the system should do. 

 

 

[Higgs]

1 minute ago, Paul C said:

 

Yes it is - I posted a reply to your post. When I pressed the "Quote" button, it took the text and formatting of the post at the time - which was the original. If you subsequently edit a post after I've pressed the "Quote" button, but before I press the "Submit Reply" button, the forum software neither amends the quoted text to update it, nor advises the original post has been edited/updated. I don't go back and review the original post manually (which would need a second browser tab, so as not to lose my unsubmitted reply) so I'd be none the wiser to your edit. But the original post stands, and must stand, and is available to see with the quote function.

 

The onus is on YOU to ensure when you post, you mean what you mean, and don't simply post without thinking things through properly. If your post is not detailed enough or you didn't mean to type what you did, or you want to change its meaning or emphasis, then that must be taken into account BEFORE you originally press the "Submit Reply" button. If you don't, then you are likely going to be ignored or the edit remain unread.

 

Is it a distraction because your argument is weak? Or is it because you're emotive? Or are you yourself unsure of the points your trying to make?

 

 

I posted and edited before you posted. I could not have known you were going to post. I bear no responsibility for your long post above.

 

 

[Paul C]

1 minute ago, Higgs said:

 

 

I posted and edited before you posted. I could not have known you were going to post. I bear no responsibility for your long post above.

 

 

I quoted before you edited. I could not have known you were going to edit. I bear no responsibility for your off-topic posts and their subsequent replies.

[Arthur Marshall]

1 minute ago, magnetman said:

The problem of unlicensed reprobates is going to hit hard and it won't be long before this happens. 

 

Discussion needs to be had about what the system should do. 

 

 

There are only two options, police it properly or ignore it, the latter being the usual choice.

CRT aren't really losing money by not pursuing unlicensed boats because those people (like Ward) aren't going to pay anyway, and it costs money to either take them to court or just remove the boat.

Longterm, as is probably happening, it will cost money because dumped boats and wrecks make the system unattractive to those who do pay, but then so does the current lack of maintenance and constant stoppages.

[Higgs]

2 minutes ago, magnetman said:

 

 

This topic is about a geyser who has been "pushing the envelope" with regards to licensing, moving and keeping a boat on CRT controlled waterways. 

 

Getting into discussion about legal status of marinas and NAA is off topic. 

 

 

The problem of unlicensed reprobates is going to hit hard and it won't be long before this happens. 

 

Discussion needs to be had about what the system should do. 

 

 

 

The system should be equal. CRT should work as the law gives them authority to do, it does not extend onto private properly. CRT hide behind a third party that are not authorised by statute. They mangle the law. 

 

 

4 minutes ago, Paul C said:

I quoted before you edited. I could not have known you were going to edit. I bear no responsibility for your off-topic posts and their subsequent replies.

 

The end.

 

 

[Paul C]

5 minutes ago, Higgs said:

 

 They mangle the law. 

 

 

They don't mangle the law, they just do something you don't understand.

 

5 minutes ago, Higgs said:

 

The end.

 

 

Promise?

[magnetman]

11 minutes ago, Higgs said:

 

The system should be equal. CRT should work as the law gives them authority to do, it does not extend onto private properly. CRT hide behind a third party that are not authorised by statute. They mangle the law. 

 

 

In the case of the George Ward situation the CRT have executed a section 8 which legally allows them to remove a craft moored without awful authority. 

 

This is, for rather obvious reasons. something which a navigation authority will be allowed to do. If they were not then it is not at all difficult to work out what would happen.

 

 

Be careful about people advising you as to the legal status of the CRT activity around unlicensed boats. 

 

In a lot of cases these people are simply internet ultracrepidarians. 

 

It is a common problem afflicting forums that people who know nothing present as knowledgeable persons.

 

https://jswilder16.medium.com/the-age-of-the-ultracrepidarian-2245b5d41516

https://psychology-spot.com/we-are-surrounded-by-ultracrepidarian/

 

 

[Higgs]

6 minutes ago, magnetman said:

In the case of the George Ward situation the CRT have executed a section 8 which legally allows them to remove a craft moored without awful authority. 

 

This is, for rather obvious reasons. something which a navigation authority will be allowed to do. If they were not then it is not at all difficult to work out what would happen.

 

 

Be careful about people advising you as to the legal status of the CRT activity around unlicensed boats. 

 

In a lot of cases these people are simply internet ultracrepidarians. 

 

It is a common problem afflicting forums that people who know nothing present as knowledgeable persons.

 

https://jswilder16.medium.com/the-age-of-the-ultracrepidarian-2245b5d41516

 

Never questioned CRT's authority, except on private property. I would question the morality of using the law in one instance to indicate following powers granted by statute, and then, of approving the circumvention of the law in another instance, by the same people. I can't see that any transgression by a boater could be any worse.

 

 

 

 

Edited July 22, 2023 by Higgs

[magnetman]

The boat on the K&A was not on private property. It was on land (canal and towpath as described in the Acts) managed by the CRT. They have jurisdiction here. 

 

Interesting that you would think a boater deliberately being unlicensed is okay if the CRT were acting ultra vires in other completely unrelated circumstances. 

 

Why would this be relevant? 

 

 

[Higgs]

Just now, magnetman said:

The boat on the K&A was not on private property. It was on land (canal and towpath as described in the Acts) managed by the CRT. They have jurisdiction here. 

 

I think it should be clear as to where CRT has authority, it doesn't seem to have registered that is not on private property. Where there is no statutory authorisation of CRT. But that doesn't seem to matter, to most of the people who want to hammer this one guy.

 

 

 

 

[magnetman]

 

 

 

I believe you may be falling into the trap of assuming that a large organisation such as the CRT is behaving as if it were an individual person. 

 

This is not how it works in reality but is a common misunderstanding. 

 

 

 

 

2 minutes ago, Higgs said:

 

I think it should be clear as to where CRT has authority, it doesn't seem to have registered that is not on private property. Where there is no statutory authorisation of CRT. But that doesn't seem to matter, to most of the people who want to hammer this one guy.

Do you agree that Mr Ward on the K&A near Smelly bridge / Bradford on Avon is and was occupying CRT owned land/water without lawful authority? 

 

 

Edited July 22, 2023 by magnetman

[Higgs]

Just now, magnetman said:

I believe you may be falling into the trap of assuming that a large organisation such as the CRT is behaving as it it were an individual person. 

 

This is not how it works in reality but is a common misunderstanding. 

 

I'm acting on the understanding that CRT is authorised by law, to do what they do. But it still doesn't apply to what applies on private property.