FEDUP.

[jenlyn]

You make a good point in that cotswoldman has said previously I think that CRT may use this as a template to others who want it, and i suspect also potentially impose it on those that don't .

It's just an extra option that is nothing more than a short term solution. As more permanent solutions to moorings are found, it will phase out.

Actually, it might pay NABO to get involved, before it gets left behind.

[Tuscan]

It's just an extra option that is nothing more than a short term solution. As more permanent solutions to moorings are found, it will phase out.

Actually, it might pay NABO to get involved, before it gets left behind.

You may be right , what are the permanent solutions to moorings that are being discussed.?

[jenlyn]

You may be right , what are the permanent solutions to moorings that are being discussed.?

Ask David and Simon. I believe they both are up to speed.

[Tuscan]

Ask David and Simon. I believe they both are up to speed.

We are indeed. So your answer is......... ?

[catdancer]

Am flattered by your assumption of it all being my plan, however, there are many boaters involved in it.

 

 

My apologies. From reading the comments, I assumed you were the driving force behind the scheme. No offence was intended.

[dew]

Well ignoring your implied accusation and that the word is "affect", you appear not to have understood my comment.

 

I am interested in the proposals you have suggested to CRT (let us call it the "Jenlyn Plan"), as although they only affect the Uxbridge area at present, they might well impinge on my cruising arrangements in the future.

 

Although you understandably have a parochial view of what you see as just a local problem, CRT being a national organisation, are very likely to use the "Jenlyn Plan" as a model for other areas. What is a purely local arrangement one moment, can be national policy the next.

 

"Forearmed is forewarned" as the saying goes.

 

I do not have a problem in abiding with the conditions of my licence, as they match my chosen lifestyle, but please do not think that overstaying is only a problem in your area.

 

BTW Thank you for adding me to the Facebook groups.

As I see it, this is contract law. When you buy a license then you contract into the terms and conditions of that contract. This contract law can then be sorted out in court if there is a dispute. If you break the contract then you should lose unless the terms of the contract aren't clear at the 'signing'. I believe not all contracts have to be signed by both parties but in any contract both parties will have responsibilities. You will notice that the 'terms of the contract' with cart will have many conditions for you but disproportionately few for themselves. Their terms and conditions are not signed and are very weighted in their favour. Notice in the terms and conditions of the contract, there are a few for them and many for you. This is typical of this pretend free society we live in.

 

You don't buy a license then you don't go on the river 'owned' (ownership isn't what you think it is) by a group of people who are basically looking after it for the crown - exactly as you are when you buy land or land with a house on it. None of the people at cart actually have ownership of anything, and neither do you, they work for the Trust and the Trust - a manufactured idea - owns the land / river bed but really they only take responsibility to care for that land and it can't be sued for not carrying out it's responsibilities and nor can it campaign for a change in any law - bring in IWA and RYA and any of the other groups pretending to represent boaters.

 

Our 'society' is based on a Monarchy. The government was set up originally by the King / Queen to appease the 'peasants' (you and me) and prevent another peasants revolt which soon became the government 'of the people and for the people' at your expense but which very quickly became the government of a tiny group of people taking from the people and taking more and more. This group of people then grew, completely loosing touch with what it was originally intended for and began to boss the people around without any real benefit for the people but a great parasitic burden on them. I know this seems abstract but it is where we are and is often forgotten whilst focussing on this shit we think is our situation, now.

 

Do you have a mooring? Why do you have it? What benefits do you get from having one? Do you really need to be looking at what others are doing while you are getting your benefits? If you are in a situation you don't like, is it ok to point the finger at others to point out the fairness when really you should point the finger at yourself and ask why you accept your situation? Do you really like this restricted life you live in, in a cage, whether it is a boat cage or a house cage or a caravan cage really doesn't matter at all? Do you really think you are free? Do you really think you live in a free country? Is this all pretend? Who makes up the rules? Who decides on our fate? Who sends our family to war? Why are they in danger and what is the benefit? Do you think this same old shit is past it's sell by date and we should move on as a race of beings? Who and what are you? Do you know?

[NigelMoore]

It may have been the way I read Paul's post in thinking that the quoted Human Rights Act applied to all boaters and not just liveaboards.

 

The Human Rights Act does, of course, apply to all boaters; indeed, it applies to everyone – boaters, after all, whether live-aboards or not, are not the only humans on the planet. [i have carefully refrained from light-hearted quips here, as potentially too easily misinterpreted].

 

While the respect for home is the most emotive and dramatic clause in the Act, there are also the less dramatised rights to possessions, which may not be confiscated without good reason. So the HRA is invoked whether the boat is a live-aboard or not.

 

All Parliamentary Acts passed prior to the Human Rights Act fall to be interpreted as commensurate with that Act, or else be subjected to a Declaration of Incompatibility. The UK has not yet fully grasped the essential force of this Act; enforcement involving seizure of goods or home must not simply be provided for by a statute, it must now also be balanced against the legitimate public purposes of the relevant legislation and be shown to be proportionate to the public interest.

 

The Supreme Court is still slowly exploring the ramifications in a monstrously careful, incremental fashion – so the main help of bringing in the HRA is to give the court pause for reflection on the seriousness and proportionality of any action.

 

Non of this matters if the boater does not go to court to apply for an injunction as soon as he is served a Section 8.

 

Absolutely correct. Of course, you would need to have a sound case for why such an injunction should be granted, so you would need to be confident that the Notice was issued unlawfully and be able to demonstrate that to the judge. But, it is no value at all simply to have rights – unless you are able and willing to enforce them, they may as well not exist; nor can you expect others, least of all the judiciary system, to enter the lists on your behalf.

 

A note of advice for those who genuinely find themselves s.8’d unlawfully – it is best to avoid the County Courts, whose judges are likely to be less qualified and experienced in the relevant law than the authority’s highly experienced barristers. ‘Even’ the High Court judges fall into that category, but at least it is one step further along the litigation path - so unless you have a solid reason to be happy with delay, best to bypass the first step. The extra cost [if you DIY] is marginal.

 

There are reasons you can invoke to justify bringing your case into the High Court instead of the lower Courts: If the case involves charges, then the High Court is the only one with jurisdiction to decide upon tolls. If your case involves interpretation of ancient statute, then again, the High Court is the appropriate modern-day substitute for the original Commissioners – as per Swan Hill Developments v BWB.

[NigelMoore]

By the time the notice is served there will have been a lot of correspondence over a considerable period of time.

 

True, but only if the Patrol Officer/enforcement branch know the law; care about the law; have a clear quotient of sensibility and sensitivity; know what procedures are appropriate, and have the moral probity to act accordingly. It does not necessarily follow that they care a toss. The highly experienced Patrol officer in our case was happy to inform the court that he often served s.8 Notices as “a wake-up call” to get boater’s attention as the first contact. He couldn’t be bothered to pick up a phone even if he had the boater’s number to hand.

 

And as far as he was concerned, if the bosses said ‘jump’ he didn’t need to ask how high; he was prepared to do whatever they asked, regardless of whether he knew it was right or not. It would be dangerous, in other words, to make assumptions that proper procedure will be followed. It should be remembered that this Patrol Officer gave his evidence with the full approval and coaching of BW's Legal Department.

[Tuscan]

Think it will be interesting going forward with volunteers doing the monitoring based on the above.

[nicknorman]

Think it will be interesting going forward with volunteers doing the monitoring based on the above.

So will it be alright in reverse? (Or to put it another way, please could we keep management bullshit-speak out of CWDF. Pretty please!)

[NigelMoore]

As I see it, this is contract law. When you buy a license then you contract into the terms and conditions of that contract. This contract law can then be sorted out in court if there is a dispute. If you break the contract then you should lose unless the terms of the contract aren't clear at the 'signing'.

 

See my comments in post #62 under “boaters target boaters”. You cannot be bound by the terms of an illegal contract.

 

. . . but really they only take responsibility to care for that land and it can't be sued for not carrying out it's responsibilities . . .

 

With caution, I suggest that the Transport Act 1968 s.106 provides an avenue for forcing them to carry out at least some responsibilities. I have no knowledge of whether this has ever been actioned.

 

. . . and nor can it campaign for a change in any law -

 

CART are empowered to bring out secondary legislation [such as Statutory Instruments and Byelaws] for the Secretary of State to approve, by express clause to that effect in the Public Bodies Bill [to the disgust of the House of Lords].

[NigelMoore]

Think it will be interesting going forward with volunteers doing the monitoring based on the above.

 

That raises a serious point. I’ve been concerned about the level of tuition given the staffers, let alone volunteers. Optimistically, BW promised the Court that they were reviewing procedures and tightening them up, so that enforcement officers could be kept up to speed at all times. Mind you, that was based on some compute –type updating stuff which was really beside the point, and the review was not in respect of s.8 procedures.

 

However, embarrassment over the very public and severe Hildyard J rebukes are likely to make them more sensitive on the subject, and it might be hoped that the importance of correct procedure will be forcefully impressed upon all volunteers as well as on permanent staff. It would be sensible. But of course, one still has to factor in the attitude and approach of the existing legal department, which has not yet changed [either policy or personnel].