George Ward evicted.

[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.

 

 

 

[Paul C]

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. 

 

 

 

 

Its on the K&A though, CRT are the navigation authority for that waterway. Are you saying the K&A is private property?

[magnetman]

I suppose some people may never have been aware of the 2011 BW K&A Order.

 

Before that it seems possible there were some grey areas down there which people may have spotted and been taking advantage of. 

 

 

 

 

[Higgs]

2 minutes ago, Paul C said:

Its on the K&A though, CRT are the navigation authority for that waterway. Are you saying the K&A is private property?

 

Are you not sure if one is the same as the other, and therefore have problems with differentiation?

 

 

[magnetman]

I would have thought moving to the other side would be wise if the CRT start getting lairy. 

 

Maybe when it actually is private land you get a man with a 12 bore over his shoulder, hunting dogs and a muck spreader on demand. 

 

The CRT are a soft touch. 

[Alan de Enfield]

35 minutes ago, Higgs said:

The system should be equal. Boaters should follow the law. CRT work as the law gives them authority to do, it does extend onto private properly & CRT use a third party that are compelled by contract to apply the conditions. They follow the law. 

 

 

Corrected your post for you.

[Paul C]

4 minutes ago, Higgs said:

 

Are you not sure if one is the same as the other, and therefore have problems with differentiation?

 

 

It doesn't actually matter if K&A is private land or not, because that's not what determines if CRT can remove a boat from there. K&A IS a navigation under the authority of CRT, so they have the authority to operate there including taking enforcement action.

[Higgs]

Just now, Alan de Enfield said:

 

Corrected your post for you.

 

Never bothered to read it. 

 

 

Just now, Paul C said:

It doesn't actually matter if K&A is private land or not, because that's not what determines if CRT can remove a boat from there. K&A IS a navigation under the authority of CRT, so they have the authority to operate there including taking enforcement action.

 

See, you have problems with differentiation. Aren't they lucky that the K&A is a CRT waterway.

 

 

[magnetman]

I can smell a MNC argument here but doubt this would apply in areas that are not river sections. 

 

People who aggressively take the piss of the system should not be tolerated because they put the existence of the waterway at risk. Get rid of these people. 

 

If the K&A fills up with entitled smartphone wielding semi-organised freemen on the land it will cause significant cost implications for the CRT and one can't help thinking someone might consider taking proper action to deal with the problem.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Paul C]

7 minutes ago, Higgs said:

 

Never bothered to read it. 

 

 

 

See, you have problems with differentiation. Aren't they lucky that the K&A is a CRT waterway.

 

 

 

I don't have problems with it; its just that I know the two things aren't equivalent. Being private, doesn't necessarily mean that its not CRT's authority to enforce it. Take the corollary of roads: many footpaths and rights of way go over private land, but it being on private land doesn't mean it doesn't also meet the definition of "road or other public place" for the prosecution of motoring offences, or right of way for the issue of access.

 

There is a list of waterways the CRT have authority over, which includes the K&A. There is no question here, that CRT have the authority in the area George Ward's boats were moored.

[Higgs]

8 minutes ago, Paul C said:

 

I don't have problems with it; its just that I know the two things aren't equivalent. Being private, doesn't necessarily mean that its not CRT's authority to enforce it. Take the corollary of roads: many footpaths and rights of way go over private land, but it being on private land doesn't mean it doesn't also meet the definition of "road or other public place" for the prosecution of motoring offences, or right of way for the issue of access.

 

There is a list of waterways the CRT have authority over, which includes the K&A. There is no question here, that CRT have the authority in the area George Ward's boats were moored.

 

On the one hand, you're asking me to side with CRT, because someone has been an aggravation. On the other hand, you're asking me to ignore CRT, when they are an aggravation. The argument of right and wrong is unbalanced. I know who has the most clout in this issue. And they use it to work within the law of authority, as it suits.

 

 

 

 

Edited July 22, 2023 by Higgs

[Paul C]

12 minutes ago, Higgs said:

 

On the one hand, you're asking me to side with CRT, because someone has been an aggravation. On the other hand, you're asking me to ignore CRT, when they are an aggravation. The argument of right and wrong is unbalanced. I know who has the most clout in this issue. And they use it to work within the law of authority, as it suits.

 

 

 

 

 

I'm not asking you to do anything.

 

Also......why use the word "aggravation" - in the case of George Ward, it is clear that he was breaking the law. By describing it as such, you are almost approving of it. Are you approving of George Ward's actions? Or if you disapprove of CRT's actions in this case, are you also disapproving of George Ward's actions? Because it was clearly illegal, or moral reasons? Or ethical ones? Or do you actually mean aggravation is something illegal? In which case, what has CRT done which is illegal in this case?

[Barneyp]

33 minutes ago, Higgs said:

 

On the one hand, you're asking me to side with CRT, because someone has been an aggravation. On the other hand, you're asking me to ignore CRT, when they are an aggravation. The argument of right and wrong is unbalanced. I know who has the most clout in this issue. And they use it to work within the law of authority, as it suits.

I don't think that is what's being asked of you, but even if it was why would it be so hard, why do you insist on saying that CRT as an entire organisation must be either good or bad, and that you have decided they are bad and therefore refuse to support or agree with anything they've done.