Jump to content

George Ward evicted.


Featured Posts

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 by Higgs
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

  • Greenie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 by Higgs
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

  • Love 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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. 

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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. 

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.🤭

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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?

  • Greenie 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.