Jump to content

To set the record straight

Naughty Cal

By Naughty Cal
in General Boating

 Share

Featured Posts

Naughty Cal Veteran II

Naughty Cal

Posted
  • Author
Posted
Yes.

 

However, the issue is that should Phylis's employers ever realise that she does no work, she will have to declare it.

 

Most employers ask "Have you been convicted of any offence (other than a motoring offence) that is not 'spent' under the rehabilitation of offenders act".

 

Whilst it is of a similar standard to a motoring offence, it is not a motoring offence, and would have to be declared.

 

Oh, and it's goodbye to visa-free travel to the USA for life!

 

Shame

 

yeah but what was the arguement about with hubby?

 

Beer (or lack of in this case) and an overheating engine which fixed itself in the end.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Robbo Veteran II

Robbo

Posted
Posted
You really would think i had commited a murder the way the local press have latched onto this one. The local rag want to speak to me about my side of the story (brought on because i rang this morning to complain about their inaccurate coverage).

 

I wouldn't. Your words will be edited or cut to reflect the story they want to portray.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
RLWP Veteran II

RLWP

Posted
Posted (edited)
Yes.

 

However, the issue is that should Phylis's employers ever realise that she does no work, she will have to declare it.

 

Most employers ask "Have you been convicted of any offence (other than a motoring offence) that is not 'spent' under the rehabilitation of offenders act".

 

Whilst it is of a similar standard to a motoring offence, it is not a motoring offence, and would have to be declared.

 

Oh, and it's goodbye to visa-free travel to the USA for life!

 

I would like to understand where you are going with this Dave.

 

Are you using this as an opportunity to explore and discover the many and differing consequences of breaking a BW bye-law so as to educate and inform yourself and the rest of us.

 

Or are you taking the opportunity to point your finger at Phylis and yell gleefully "look what's going to happen to you now"!

 

Richard

Edited by RLWP
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Naughty Cal Veteran II

Naughty Cal

Posted
  • Author
Posted
I would like to understand where you are going with this Dave.

 

Are you using this as an opportunity to explore and discover the many and differening consequences of breaking a BW bye-law so as to educate and inform yourself and the rest of us.

 

Or are you taking the opportunity to point your finger at Phylis and yell gleefully "look what's going to happen to you now"!

 

Richard

 

I thought it was yet another example for the "holier than thou" routine he has perfected of late

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Matthew Knowles Proficient

Matthew Knowles

Posted
Posted
Most employers ask "Have you been convicted of any offence (other than a motoring offence) that is not 'spent' under the rehabilitation of offenders act".

 

Isn't Phylis's offence now 'spent'? She's has (or will have) paid the fine, there is no jail time to serve so is it not spent?

 

Will she now have to sign the Boat Offender's Register and I think that all local boaters should be informed of her presence under the newly formed Rachael's Law.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Naughty Cal Veteran II

Naughty Cal

Posted
  • Author
Posted
Isn't Phylis's offence now 'spent'? She's has (or will have) paid the fine, there is no jail time to serve so is it not spent?

 

Will she now have to sign the Boat Offender's Register and I think that all local boaters should be informed of her presence under the newly formed Rachael's Law.

 

Too late. The local boat owners are already well aware of my presence. In fact we are going to Boston with the majority of them next weekend. So Boston beware :lol:

Link to comment
Share on other sites
mayalld Veteran II

mayalld

Posted
Posted
I would like to understand where you are going with this Dave.

 

Are you using this as an opportunity to explore and discover the many and differing consequences of breaking a BW bye-law so as to educate and inform yourself and the rest of us.

 

Or are you taking the opportunity to point your finger at Phylis and yell gleefully "look what's going to happen to you now"!

 

Richard

 

Whilst I may have allowed myself a (naughty, wicked, unworthy) moment on the train this morning where I reflected upon Phylis getting her just deserts, I am truly not posting here to pile onto Phylis.

 

In many discussions here as to the rights and wrongs of various behaviours on the waterways, I have made reference to the BW bye-laws. Some here (no, not Phylis) have taken the attitude that the bye-laws can be pretty much disregarded, just as they disregard some of the licence conditions.

 

It is worthy of note that if you do push it such that BW prosecute under the Bye-laws, it IS a criminal matter, and it does carry all the baggage that comes with a criminal conviction.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
mayalld Veteran II

mayalld

Posted
Posted
Isn't Phylis's offence now 'spent'? She's has (or will have) paid the fine, there is no jail time to serve so is it not spent?

 

No.

 

A conviction is not spent once the sentence is served. It is spent a specific length of time after conviction.

 

For a fine, that period is 5 years.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
mikevye Rising Star

mikevye

Posted
Posted
blimey, i thought this was a wind up..

 

sounds daft to me unless they are going to police it everywhere, on every system.

 

and as said how do you judge 4mph?

 

4 MPH is fast walking pace should be relatively easy to judge that. In fairness to Filis it must be difficult to keep her boat below 4MPH but critically why would you want a boat with that speed potential on a navigation system restricted to 4MPH?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Allan(nb Albert) Veteran

Allan(nb Albert)

Posted
Posted
I think the point here is the "Sword of Justice" stance that NBW are taking. They are making out that no-one was prepared to tell people who it was but their brave and intrepid reporters were prepared to "Name and Shame".

 

In reality all of the information was freely available in the public domain. Phyis was hiding nothing although NBW imply that she was.

 

Is that it?

 

Richard

 

In fairness, I should point out that I have an email from NbW's editor on another subject dated 22/8/2009 which mentions this issue in passing. It says

 

I just couldn't understand the Press Release from BW who 'didn't want to point the finger' at the woman they prosecuted over the speeding at Brayford Pool, so wouldn't let me have her name.

 

It goes on to say that the name was obtained from elsewhere but is not specific.

 

I think NbW's stance is simply that BW issued a press release to deter speeders but were not prepared to give it any impact by "naming & shaming". Furthermore, BW were not prepared to divulge the name when asked so that it could be published.

 

NbW's article says -

 

British Waterways have not released the name of the culprit, not wishing to point the finger, but it is our policy that anyone acting so unselfishly towards other boaters should be named, hence the inclusion.

The bottom line is, it seems, that BW were not prepared reveal the offenders name either via the press release or when asked. NbW found it from elsewhere and published it. They also had a dig at BW for not doing so.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Naughty Cal Veteran II

Naughty Cal

Posted
  • Author
Posted
4 MPH is fast walking pace should be relatively easy to judge that. In fairness to Filis it must be difficult to keep her boat below 4MPH but critically why would you want a boat with that speed potential on a navigation system restricted to 4MPH?

 

Because we have easy access to the big rivers and the sea from two directions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
David Schweizer Veteran II

David Schweizer

Posted
Posted (edited)

I am a bit rusty on all this "spent convictions" issue nowadays, but from recollection under the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act, any criminal conviction is removed from the record after five years for a non custodial conviction, and details cannot be requested by a potential employer after that time, unless it is a Public Authority and the post being sought involves substantial access to Children or Young People.

 

Having processed a large number of CRO declarations in the past, the only type of job that I can think of, which could be compromised by a conviction for exceeding the speed limit and navigating a boat with undue care and attention, would be something like an instructor of Young people in Water Sports, where questions would need to be asked regarding the applicants regard for safety.

 

We had a similar (but not identical) case when I was working for the Local Authority where someone applied to become a part time Sailing Instructor, but had several recent convictions for dangerous driving. Questions were raised in respect to the applicants attitude towards safety, however after due consideration the Assistant Director agreed to the appointment, with a caviat that any further similar convictions would result in immediate dismissal.

 

Edited:- to correct period after which non custodial sentences are removed from the record.

Edited by David Schweizer
Link to comment
Share on other sites
mikevye Rising Star

mikevye

Posted
Posted
You could say that with many of the cars on the road.

 

I didn't, because its totally irrelevant to the topic.

 

Because we have easy access to the big rivers and the sea from two directions.

 

Could you stay on them?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Naughty Cal Veteran II

Naughty Cal

Posted
  • Author
Posted
Could you stay on them?

 

We could. But we like the marina we are in and we like the option of where to cruise. We are located within easy reach of all of the places we would wish to visit and a short stretch of 4mph isnt the end of the world to reach them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
RLWP Veteran II

RLWP

Posted
Posted
Whilst I may have allowed myself a (naughty, wicked, unworthy) moment on the train this morning where I reflected upon Phylis getting her just deserts, I am truly not posting here to pile onto Phylis.

 

In many discussions here as to the rights and wrongs of various behaviours on the waterways, I have made reference to the BW bye-laws. Some here (no, not Phylis) have taken the attitude that the bye-laws can be pretty much disregarded, just as they disregard some of the licence conditions.

 

It is worthy of note that if you do push it such that BW prosecute under the Bye-laws, it IS a criminal matter, and it does carry all the baggage that comes with a criminal conviction.

 

Thank you for this reply Dave.

 

It is interesting that it appears you can gain a criminal record from infringing a BW bye-law. It seems fair to be fined, but unfair to be sacked for, for instance, running a generator after 8:00pm.

 

It would be fascinating to explore this, but I'm not sure it will fit easily within the emotional turmoil of this thread.

 

Richard

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share
Go to topic listing

  • 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.