BW reg number display

[tomsk]

But the fact that the act contains some obsolete requirements does not change the legality of bits that are not obsoleted, does it ?

 

If there were a law saying I could never exceed 50 mph on the M1, and later they got rid of the M1, it would not affect any other motoring laws, or change the fact that I am able to break them.

 

I guess to some extent we are back to the age old argument about what BW need a bye-law to enforce, and what becomes "enforceable" just because they choose to put it in licence conditions. The two sometimes misalign, (although in this case it sounds like both still require display of both name and index number).

 

Since I have owned the latest boat, (about 4 years now ?), I don't think BW have ever seen fit to send me any details of licence conditions, or amendments to them that may have occurred. I must admit I've never bothered to find out why.

 

 

At the risk of accusations of going 'Totally Mexico' in my thought processes and being shot down in flames, surely if you took that arguement to it's (il)logical conclusion and applied it to legislation in general, would it not follow that everything was illegal, just that parliment havn't got round to passing a law that prohibits 'it' yet?

[David Schweizer]

I did no such thing Dave, but I did point out that I think you might need help, as anyone who reads the last couple of posts will see.

 

Your take on what people post and what those posters actually post seems persistantly at odds, I have noted this trait across several threads involving your 'discussions' with many members, it's facinating how everyone is always wrong except you.

Well I hope that you are either a solicitor, or have a good one available. Defending libel can be costly.

 

There is a difference between vigorously defending your point of view, even if it is a minority view, and making public allegations about another person's sanity. I recommend the former approach.

[Naughty Cal]

Well I hope that you are either a solicitor, or have a good one available. Defending libel can be costly.

 

There is a difference between vigorously defending your point of view, even if it is a minority view, and making public allegations about another person's sanity. I recommend the former approach.

 

Not that old chestnut

[David Schweizer]

Not that old chestnut

?

[mayalld]

I did no such thing Dave, but I did point out that I think you might need help, as anyone who reads the last couple of posts will see.

 

Your take on what people post and what those posters actually post seems persistantly at odds, I have noted this trait across several threads involving your 'discussions' with many members, it's facinating how everyone is always wrong except you.

 

So, you ARE purporting to offer a diagnosis.

 

Having a different opinion to other people isn't an illness.

[David Schweizer]

So, you ARE purporting to offer a diagnosis.

 

Having a different opinion to other people isn't an illness.

If it was, the rest of the EEC would have had Margaret Thatcher sectioned years ago!!

[NB Alnwick]

There is no such thing as the 1995 revision of the Bye-Laws.

 

OK I meant 'The British Waterways Act 1995' which appears to overide some of the provisions made in earlier BW Bye-Laws.

[tomsk]

Well I hope that you are either a solicitor, or have a good one available. Defending libel can be costly.

 

There is a difference between vigorously defending your point of view, even if it is a minority view, and making public allegations about another person's sanity. I recommend the former approach.

 

I think if you read my post you would see that I expressed general concern. Dave, in his usual fashion incorrectly stated that I had made a diagnosis, it seems you may also have similar problems with basic comprehension of the English language, but thanks for the 'advice'. Perhaps I should brief my legal team pending an action for misrepresentation? Buns anyone?

[mayalld]

OK I meant 'The British Waterways Act 1995' which appears to overide some of the provisions made in earlier BW Bye-Laws.

 

Even where the 1995 act specifies something new, the bye-law remains in force, UNLESS the two are incompatible, in which case the 1995 Act has precedence.

[NB Alnwick]

Even where the 1995 act specifies something new, the bye-law remains in force, UNLESS the two are incompatible, in which case the 1995 Act has precedence.

 

So how can BW impose a set of rules in their licence conditions that are not aligned completely with requirements of the 1965 Bye-Laws - since the latter now appear to be current in this respect - as argued by Alan Fincher and others.

 

And if taken literally, a BW officer on the bank properly equipped with 'night vision binoculars' will have no difficulty in reading my licence number at 20 yards.

 

Edited, with 'tongue in cheek' mode off, to say that I will be writing to BW to claim my metal number plates.

Edited September 17, 2009 by NB Alnwick

[mayalld]

I think if you read my post you would see that I expressed general concern. Dave, in his usual fashion incorrectly stated that I had made a diagnosis, it seems you may also have similar problems with basic comprehension of the English language, but thanks for the 'advice'. Perhaps I should brief my legal team pending an action for misrepresentation? Buns anyone?

 

No, you didn't express "general concern"

 

You threw in a cheap jibe, and suggested that as you have had a realative sectioned, you can see the signs.

 

But please stand down the legal team. As Phylis already knows, I have better thing to do than sue gobshites who run around libelling me.

[carlt]

So how can BW impose a set of rules in their licence conditions that are not aligned completely with requirements of the 1965 Bye-Laws - since the latter now appear to be current in this respect - as argued by Alan Fincher and others.

They are, according to some, allowed to impose a set of rules that are not even aligned with the 1995 Act, so the bye-laws should hold no great fear, for them.

[David Schweizer]

I think if you read my post you would see that I expressed general concern. Dave, in his usual fashion incorrectly stated that I had made a diagnosis, it seems you may also have similar problems with basic comprehension of the English language, but thanks for the 'advice'. Perhaps I should brief my legal team pending an action for misrepresentation? Buns anyone?

I have no difficulty with the the basic comprehension of the English language, but clearly you appear to have some difficulty wiith the understanding of Libel Law. The implication of insanity is the same as an outright accusation of insanity.

 

May I suggest that now seems an appropriate time for you to throw the shovel away.

Edited September 17, 2009 by David Schweizer

[Naughty Cal]

As Phylis already knows, .

 

I was keeping out of this one.

[tomsk]

No, you didn't express "general concern"

 

You threw in a cheap jibe, and suggested that as you have had a realative sectioned, you can see the signs.

 

But please stand down the legal team. As Phylis already knows, I have better thing to do than sue gobshites who run around libelling me.

 

 

Oh Dave, it's a shame your debating skills are not honed enough to see a discussion through to it's logical conclusion without resorting to base insults. I shall ignore your insulting and abusive post this time, but please note that such posts are clearly at odds with forum rules.

[WJM]

FIGHT FIGHT FIGHT!!!!!!!!!!

 

:-)

[mayalld]

So how can BW impose a set of rules in their licence conditions that are not aligned completely with requirements of the 1965 Bye-Laws - since the latter now appear to be current in this respect - as argued by Alan Fincher and others.

 

The licence conditions are a contractual matter, and breach of them is a matter of contract law.

 

The bye-laws are criminal law, and breach can lead to a fine.

 

There is no need to cover anything in both areas, and if the licence conditions are at odds with the bye-laws the bye-laws prevail.

 

So, if you run your engine at 9pm they can revoke your licence etc etc. If you wash your dog in the canal they can take you in front of a magistrate.

[tomsk]

I have no difficulty with the the basic comprehension of the English language, but clearly you appear to have some difficulty wiith the understanding of Libel Law. The implication of insanity is the same as an outright accusation of insanity.

 

May I suggest that now seems an appropriate time for you to throw the shovel away.

 

Suggest away Old Bean, suggest away.

[carlt]

The licence conditions are a contractual matter, and breach of them is a matter of contract law.

 

The bye-laws are criminal law, and breach can lead to a fine.

 

There is no need to cover anything in both areas, and if the licence conditions are at odds with the bye-laws the bye-laws prevail.

 

So, if you run your engine at 9pm they can revoke your licence etc etc. If you wash your dog in the canal they can take you in front of a magistrate.

So if they take away your licence, on a "contractual" matter that is at odds with the law (be it bye-law or Act of Parliament) are BW aiding and abetting a criminal act?

[Naughty Cal]

The licence conditions are a contractual matter, and breach of them is a matter of contract law.

 

The bye-laws are criminal law, and breach can lead to a fine.

 

There is no need to cover anything in both areas, and if the licence conditions are at odds with the bye-laws the bye-laws prevail.

 

So, if you run your engine at 9pm they can revoke your licence etc etc. If you wash your dog in the canal they can take you in front of a magistrate.

 

They are civil law. Breaching them is a civil matter not a criminal one.

[mayalld]

Oh Dave, it's a shame your debating skills are not honed enough to see a discussion through to it's logical conclusion without resorting to base insults. I shall ignore your insulting and abusive post this time, but please note that such posts are clearly at odds with forum rules.

 

Base insults?

 

I merely offer my opinion of those who run around freely spouting things about other people that are simply untrue, in the belief that nobody can do a thing about it.

 

You may find it insulting, which is good, because it is intended to be insulting, and to convey the contempt in which I hold you.

 

Let us not forget though just who it was who made groundless insinuations about another poster's sanity.

[carlt]

They are civil law. Breaching them is a civil matter not a criminal one.

Still time to edit this, before the wolves attack, Phylis.....

[mayalld]

They are civil law. Breaching them is a civil matter not a criminal one.

 

No, they are (as you well know) dealt with by a magistrate.

 

Magistrates don't deal with civil law.

[Naughty Cal]

Still time to edit this, before the wolves attack, Phylis.....

 

No need. I have all the evidence and experience on this one that i need.

 

Bye law offences; a good comparator is dog fouling, are betwen you and a particlaur authority unless HMG decides they're a public offence; BW bye laws have nothing citing involvement with public law.

 

Magistates courts are a civil court with a given jurisdiction to deal with matters too trivial for a proper court which, in crminal matters, is the Crown Court.

[mayalld]

So if they take away your licence, on a "contractual" matter that is at odds with the law (be it bye-law or Act of Parliament) are BW aiding and abetting a criminal act?

 

Only if it is at odds with an Act that creates an offence.

 

In Acts of Parliament, you can spot this by the words "shall be guilty of an offence"

 

In the BW bye-laws, the wording of Bye-Law 57, with its use of the words "summary conviction" and "offence" makes them a criminal matter.

 

No need. I have all the evidence and experience on this one that i need.

 

Bye law offences; a good comparator is dog fouling, are betwen you and a particlaur authority unless HMG decides they're a public offence; BW bye laws have nothing citing involvement with public law.

 

Magistates courts are a civil court with a given jurisdiction to deal with matters too trivial for a proper court which, in crminal matters, is the Crown Court.

 

Utterly, Utterly wrong.

 

Magistrates Courts are Criminal Courts of first instance. They NEVER try trivial civil matters.