Incident with bridge keeper-Licence suspended

[Guest]

1 minute ago, Markblox said:

IMO it's called self defence.

 

Which the bridge keeper is probably claiming.

[nicknorman]

1 hour ago, David Mack said:

But if you 'voluntarily' tick the box saying you agree to the Ts and Cs, does that mean that both you (and CRT) are thereafter bound by those Ts and Cs, notwithstanding that CRT had no right to insist on them?

I would say no. Ts and Cs apply to contracts. They don’t apply to statute. And it you can’t get your statutory rights without ticking some superfluous box then those Ts and Cs have no value.

[The Grey Goose]

I have found many keepers and volunteers to be an inconvenience I could do without.

In fact I mainly use locks before 8am and after 6pm to avoid confrontations.

[Arthur Marshall]

19 minutes ago, nicknorman said:

I would say no. Ts and Cs apply to contracts. They don’t apply to statute. And it you can’t get your statutory rights without ticking some superfluous box then those Ts and Cs have no value.

Once the T&Cs are agreed to, by signing or paying for your licence, the imposer will carry on treating them as legitimate and legally binding on the signee until a court says otherwise. For some reason that escapes me, the law usually comes down on the side with the most property (and sometimes just the most money). That's not a bloke with a boat. Trust your "statutory rights" and watch your bank balance disappear, together with your boat.

[Graham Davis]

42 minutes ago, Markblox said:

IMO it's called self defence.

I suggest you need to take a dozen steps backwards!

It appears from what you have said that a bridge keeper verbally assaulted (shouted at) you so you stopped your boat, tied it up, and then approached and assaulted that member of staff. I would also suggest that if that member of staff assaulted you once you were on the land that he was defending himself against someone approaching him "with intent".

You need to be apologising, and looking to your own anger management.
 

33 minutes ago, nicknorman said:

I would say no. Ts and Cs apply to contracts. They don’t apply to statute. And it you can’t get your statutory rights without ticking some superfluous box then those Ts and Cs have no value.

Then how come people are regularly prosecuted for Breach of Contract for breaking the T & C's of numerous contracts?

[nicknorman]

8 minutes ago, Graham Davis said:

I suggest you need to take a dozen steps backwards!

It appears from what you have said that a bridge keeper verbally assaulted (shouted at) you so you stopped your boat, tied it up, and then approached and assaulted that member of staff. I would also suggest that if that member of staff assaulted you once you were on the land that he was defending himself against someone approaching him "with intent".

You need to be apologising, and looking to your own anger management.
 

Then how come people are regularly prosecuted for Breach of Contract for breaking the T & C's of numerous contracts?

Sorry I may not have been clear. Since the licence is a statutory right, any Ts and Cs are simply fraudulent and therefore not enforceable.
 

In some other transaction that is a contract, of course Ts and Cs can apply and if you breach them you are in breach of contract and the contract may become null and void. I would just say that a breach of contract is something that you can be sued for, not prosecuted for. The latter is for a breach of the law, not a breach of contract.

[junior]

57 minutes ago, Markblox said:

IMO it's called self defence.

Only if you believe that force was absolutely necessary to protect yourself from harm, I.e you couldn't walk away etc...

 

I'd put it to you that if you got off your boat to go and have it out with somebody, then it wasn't absolutely necessary. Unless of course the bridge keeper got onto your boat and this '50/50' happened on your boat.

[nicknorman]

1 minute ago, junior said:

Only if you believe that force was absolutely necessary to protect yourself from harm, I.e you couldn't walk away etc...

 

I'd put it to you that if you got off your boat to go and have it out with somebody, then it wasn't absolutely necessary. Unless of course the bridge keeper got onto your boat and this '50/50' happened on your boat.

However none of that is relevant to the issue at hand. None of us is empowered to be judge and jury to circumstances that we don’t actually have any solid evidence for.

 

Even if the OP was “guilty” of being a bad person and causing the strife, that does not empower CRT to suspend or revoke his licence. It would be a police matter. They are trying to act outside their powers.
 

Do the ends justify the means? I would say not,

[Sue68]

I assume you aren't a member of Nabo or Rboa which is a pity as they could help you. They may support you if you were to join. As I'm no longer involved with either I don't know what there stance is. I do know that when I was involved we supported our members and often just acting as a mediator solved the problem.

[PeterF]

2 hours ago, magnetman said:

Bylaws usually include a restriction on offensive behaviour. 

 

This includes verbal abuse. 

Section 10.16 of the current licensing T&Cs.

 

10.16. You will not behave in a way that causes Our employees or representatives to fear violence or feel harassed or distressed. This includes verbal abuse or threats. It includes harassment, aggressive behaviour, or physical assault. If others on your Boat behave this way, we may take action against Your Licence.

[nicknorman]

3 minutes ago, PeterF said:

Section 10.16 of the current licensing T&Cs.

 

10.16. You will not behave in a way that causes Our employees or representatives to fear violence or feel harassed or distressed. This includes verbal abuse or threats. It includes harassment, aggressive behaviour, or physical assault. If others on your Boat behave this way, we may take action against Your Licence.

Bylaws are … laws! And therefore can be enforced in a court and have consequences. Ts and Cs are a recent CRT invention and have absolutely no clout outside CRT’s inflated sense of their own ego.

[MtB]

What is a bylaw anyway?

 

Presumably it it created by some body or other, other than parliament.

 

CRT perhaps?

 

 

[magnetman]

 

Somebody needs to act outside of the t&c and find out what happens when they push it through the full legal process. 

 

Maybe the OP is the person to do this. 

 

There could be a crowd funder appeal for the lawyers fees or perhaps a quality lawyer would do a CFA. 

 

 

[ditchcrawler]

3 minutes ago, MtB said:

What is a bylaw anyway?

 

Presumably it it created by some body or other, other than parliament.

 

CRT perhaps?

 

 

Note the bottom line

 

Byelaws are effectively local laws to deal with local issues. They are made by a body, such as a local authority, using powers granted by an Act of Parliament, and so are a  form of delegated legislation. Some byelaws are made by private companies or charities that exercise public or semi-public functions, such as airport operators, water companies or the National Trust
Byelaws generally require something to be done - or not done - in a particular location. As the non-observance of a byelaw result in a criminal offence tried in a Magistrates' Court, they must be approved by central government before they can come into force

[Markblox]

34 minutes ago, junior said:

Only if you believe that force was absolutely necessary to protect yourself from harm, I.e you couldn't walk away etc...

 

I'd put it to you that if you got off your boat to go and have it out with somebody, then it wasn't absolutely necessary. Unless of course the bridge keeper got onto your boat and this '50/50' happened on your boat.

Yet more off topic speculation.

[StephenA]

Just now, Markblox said:

Yet more off topic speculation.

 

Speculation? Yes. Off topic. maybe or maybe not.

[Markblox]

Just now, StephenA said:

 

Speculation? Yes. Off topic. maybe or maybe not.

Yes off topic, just to remind everyone these are the questions I have asked a reply about:

 

It seems they have pre judged the situation because they never contacted me for my side of the story before suspending me.

 

My questions to you:

Can I move the boat to get food, water gas, diesel black tank etc, possibly under the ECHR article 8 because I don't intend to die of thirst, starvation or hypothermia?

In the event of having my licence revoked, what would be the timeline of them getting a court order and what might it cost me?

Would I have the option of leaving the network under my own steam or would it be overland transportation?

I want to avoid EA waterways until the spring.

I intend buying a house and selling the boat in two years time, when I receive my state pension and I can't wait!

Do the CRT exchange info with the EA?

[Graham Davis]

2 minutes ago, Markblox said:

Yet more off topic speculation.

You started a thread on a DISCUSSION forum and have given us just some of YOUR details of what happened. Therefore nothing is "off topic".

If you don't like the way this discussion is going perhaps you should either give us the true facts of what happened, or not start a DISCUSSION in the first place.

[MtB]

Ok I'll have a bash seeing as no-one else seems willing:

 

2 minutes ago, Markblox said:

My questions to you:

Can I move the boat to get food, water gas, diesel black tank etc, possibly under the ECHR article 8 because I don't intend to die of thirst, starvation or hypothermia?

 

No. There is nothing stopping you walking or cycling to a restaurant or the shops. 

 

 

3 minutes ago, Markblox said:

In the event of having my licence revoked, what would be the timeline of them getting a court order and what might it cost me?

 

They don't need a court order so it will cost you nothing, other than loss of the remaining term of your licence.

 

 

4 minutes ago, Markblox said:

Would I have the option of leaving the network under my own steam or would it be overland transportation?

 

Dunno. 

 

5 minutes ago, Markblox said:

I want to avoid EA waterways until the spring.

I intend buying a house and selling the boat in two years time, when I receive my state pension and I can't wait!

 

These are statements not questions.

 

 

5 minutes ago, Markblox said:

Do the CRT exchange info with the EA?

 

Dunno either, but probably yes. 

 

 

[Guest]

8 minutes ago, Markblox said:

Yet more off topic speculation.

 

Not really given the thread title you chose.

 

Incident with bridge keeper-Licence suspended

[Markblox]

4 minutes ago, Graham Davis said:

You started a thread on a DISCUSSION forum and have given us just some of YOUR details of what happened. Therefore nothing is "off topic".

If you don't like the way this discussion is going perhaps you should either give us the true facts of what happened, or not start a DISCUSSION in the first place.

This is why it's off topic.  This isn't about the rights and wrongs, if it was I would provide more details.  

These are the questions I asked just to try to get back on track:

 

It seems they have pre judged the situation because they never contacted me for my side of the story before suspending me.

 

My questions to you:

Can I move the boat to get food, water gas, diesel black tank etc, possibly under the ECHR article 8 because I don't intend to die of thirst, starvation or hypothermia?

In the event of having my licence revoked, what would be the timeline of them getting a court order and what might it cost me?

Would I have the option of leaving the network under my own steam or would it be overland transportation?

I want to avoid EA waterways until the spring.

I intend buying a house and selling the boat in two years time, when I receive my state pension and I can't wait!

Do the CRT exchange info with the EA?

[Graham Davis]

I suppose that if the OP and his boat is capable and they would let him out of Sharpness Lock he could scurry over the Severn to Lydney Harbour

[junior]

12 minutes ago, Markblox said:

Yet more off topic speculation.

I think you are showing a lot about your personality. It's not off topic, it is literally in response to your post about self defense. But you are trying to control people's responses, on a DISCUSSION forum, and because you can't control it or it's not what you want to hear, you don't like it.

[Graham Davis]

2 minutes ago, Markblox said:

 

This is why it's off topic.  This isn't about the rights and wrongs, if it was I would provide more details.  

These are the questions I asked just to try to get back on track:

 

It seems they have pre judged the situation because they never contacted me for my side of the story before suspending me.

 

I don't think you understand how forums work!

And suspending people in many situations whilst an investigation is undertaken is quite normal. CaRT have done nothing unusual. It's just that you don't like it. Perhaps it might teach you a lesson.

[Markblox]

Just now, junior said:

I think you are showing a lot about your personality. It's not off topic, it is literally in response to your post about self defense. But you are trying to control people's responses, on a DISCUSSION forum, and because you can't control it or it's not what you want to hear, you don't like it.

OK, that's it please carry on without me or find another topic to get involved with.  Out of five pages I have had about six or seven good answers to the questions I have asked.  The rest of you are a bit sad tbh, about usual in my experience with this forum. Bye.