Eh? C&RT lose section 8 case.

[Leonie]

Anarchy beckons......

 

Utter madness.

 

Mmm my licence is due at the end of this month, don't think I need to bother now do I?

 

 

What an utter 'Daily Mailesque' interpretation of the situation. Stop jerking your knees about and predicting anarchy on the basis of how and where one man moored his boats.

[Guest]

What an utter 'Daily Mailesque' interpretation of the situation. Stop jerking your knees about and predicting anarchy on the basis of how and where one man moored his boats.

 

It was semi tongue in cheek but in the absence of an appropriate 'smiley' that has got lost.

[Athy]

What an utter 'Daily Mailesque' interpretation of the situation. Stop jerking your knees about and predicting anarchy on the basis of how and where one man moored his boats.

Was your sense of humour bypass painful?

[Guest]

Was your sense of humour bypass painful?

 

 

That is exactly what I am saying.

 

CRT are the enforcing authority but if they abuse that power and break the rules then they are brought to account by a higher authority.

 

I think that once we get to the dizzy heights of the appeal courts then "seemingly" no longer needs to be used.

 

I used seemingly as a caution against the NBW article thus far being the only report of this, they are not known for always being 100% accurate with their facts.

[Leonie]

Was your sense of humour bypass painful?

 

Not as painful as reading the bickering on this forum can sometimes be.

 

I don't see the 'joke' in The Dog House's response given that he's gone on to defend his stance with Carlt in a few other pots.

 

It's possible I'm reading that exchange incorrectly and they are actually impersonating a Two Ronnies routine I'm unfamiliar with.

[Guest]

Not as painful as reading the bickering on this forum can sometimes be.

 

I don't see the 'joke' in The Dog House's response given that he's gone on to defend his stance with Carlt in a few other pots.

 

It's possible I'm reading that exchange incorrectly and they are actually impersonating a Two Ronnies routine I'm unfamiliar with.

 

As you are so intently following the debate I wonder then why you missed this bit (in red) -

 

I suppose it depends on how you define it, may take is that if an authority loses it's right to govern and enforce it's 'Rules and laws' and impose sanctions for those that break them then the resulting 'free for all' is anarchy... as in people will do just what the heck they like with no fear of sanction. (Of course I realise this may not meet the Oxford Dictionary definition which I haven't bothered to check).

 

It will be interesting to see as others have said though what this ruling does actually mean as the closing paragraph in the NBW article refers to Moore not requiring a licence etc. not 'nobody' requires a licence.

 

Which acknowledges that quite possibly it may not be 'anarchy' around the corner at all......

 

 

and BTW making posts like -

 

What an utter 'Daily Mailesque' interpretation of the situation. Stop jerking your knees about and predicting anarchy on the basis of how and where one man moored his boats.

 

is exactly the type that triggers the 'bickering' you seem to dislike so.... you cannot make a post like that and not expect a reaction......

Edited February 15, 2013 by The Dog House

[Leonie]

As you are so intently following the debate I wonder then why you missed this bit (in red) -

 

 

 

Which acknowledges that quite possibly it may not be 'anarchy' around the corner at all......

 

Yeah I did miss that bit so sorry but without that sentence the rest of your posts read like a toys out of the pram, the canal will fill up with no-good-nicks rant.

 

 

 

is exactly the type that triggers the 'bickering' you seem to dislike so.... you cannot make a post like that and not expect a reaction......

 

I did expect a reaction. I always expect one from reactionaries ;-)

[Guest]

I did expect a reaction. I always expect one from reactionaries ;-)

 

Then don't complain when you do.

[carlt]

I used seemingly as a caution against the NBW article thus far being the only report of this, they are not known for always being 100% accurate with their facts.

 

Perhaps this story in the more respectable journal The Hounslow Chronicle will ease any doubts...

 

Clicky

[Leonie]

Then don't complain when you do.

 

Alright but heh heh you just admitted to being a reactionary and I don't recall complaining.

[Guest]

Perhaps this story in the more respectable journal The Hounslow Chronicle will ease any doubts...

 

Clicky

 

Cheers yes I've been 'agoogling' and just seen that too -

 

"it's a free country" and everyone can do whatever the like - so long as they don't break the law.

[BargeeSpud]

What an utter 'Daily Mailesque' interpretation of the situation.

What an utterly fatuous reference to make. A cheap shot designed to kill the debate which only shows up the person making it, to be lacking the ability to enter into a sensible discussion. A bit like labelling anyone who disagrees with your view as being a "....phobe" or "...ist".

[Guest]

Alright but heh heh you just admitted to being a reactionary and I don't recall complaining.

 

Then this then was ringing endorsement of how much you enjoy it was it...

 

Not as painful as reading the bickering on this forum can sometimes be.

 

I don't see the 'joke' in The Dog House's response given that he's gone on to defend his stance with Carlt in a few other pots.

 

It's possible I'm reading that exchange incorrectly and they are actually impersonating a Two Ronnies routine I'm unfamiliar with.

 

Reads a lot like a complaint to me.

 

You also need to check your dictionary for the definition of a 'reactionary' BTW because as far as I can see it doesn't mean what you think it means.

[Leonie]

Then this then was ringing endorsement of how much you enjoy it was it...

 

 

 

Reads a lot like a complaint to me.

 

You also need to check your dictionary for the definition of a 'reactionary' BTW because as far as I can see it doesn't mean what you think it means.

 

I'm loving the red highlighting work. It was actually an attempt at a dry humoured response to having my own humour called into question...

 

Using my dictionary defintion of reactionary, your anarchy comments and they way I read your participation in the thread once you'd made them definitely led to a level of enjoyment, yes.

[cotswoldsman]

This is a very specific case, I believe.

 

It doesn't seem to set great precedents for a more "typical" case.

 

However, I believe, (but have not read the judgement), that it upholds that BW abused his human rights by the manner in which they acted, which if nothing else is damaging to a former public body that now has to present a good image as a charitable trust.

 

It's probably no bad thing in the current climate for them to get a ruling that they are not always right, even if they are spending our licence money to lose!

 

They were distinctly subdued at last nights meeting, as Matty says, and perhaps now we know why.

It is as you say The Human Rights aspect of this that makes this ruling significant for future prosecutions under Section 8

[Guest]

I'm loving the red highlighting work. It was actually an attempt at a dry humoured response to having my own humour called into question...

 

Of course it was.....

[Guest]

More here from the K&A Boating Community Web site -

 

http://kanda.boatingcommunity.org.uk/wordpress/crt-lose-section-8-case-after-6-year-court-battle/#more-3029

[magnetman]

http://judgmental.org.uk/judgments/EWHC-Ch/2009/[2009]_EWHC_B12_(Ch).html

 

sorry if its been posted already but I found it interesting.

 

link won't work from my phone so its copy and paste I guess

Edited February 15, 2013 by magnetman

[RLWP]

More here from the K&A Boating Community Web site -

 

http://kanda.boatingcommunity.org.uk/wordpress/crt-lose-section-8-case-after-6-year-court-battle/#more-3029

 

“In this appeal the position simply is that on the agreed facts . . . BWB had no power under s.8 to require the claimant to remove vessels the mooring of which was lawful, as their presence was not unlawful: BWB is unable to support its notices on the basis that the mooring of vessels by the claimant was ‘without lawful authority’ within s.8.”

 

Richard

[bowten]

Surely if an appeal court rules that an action was unlawful then it is putting an end to anarchy?

 

Ensuring that large organisations respect and obey the law is just as, if not more, important as keeping individuals within the law.

I could not agree more and although I do not give these things very often,you will sir have a greenie thingy.

[blodger]

Just when you are about to give up on faith in British justice something happens to restore it. My congratulations to Mr Moore.

[Chris Pink]

I await Mr Mayall's apology to Mr Moore.

[Athy]

Only slightly off topic:

I just looked at the list of new posts on the forum. One entry said

"Industrial deafness".

The one below it(this one) started

"Eh?"

[Guest]

I await Mr Mayall's apology to Mr Moore.

 

Surely any apology should come from the Trust, Dave offered an opinion on the matter he wasn't the one who pursued the action.

[BlueStringPudding]

I think that is right Richard. As I recall from reading on this topic, the boats were kept on the tidal part of the GU at Brentford and not on the canal "proper". We should not be jumping to the conclusion that we can put boats anywhere on the system at no cost.

 

Or perhaps it opens up the opportunity for everyone to all move their boats down to that tiny stretch, breasting up four boats wide, and squeezing in for free!?