Nbta's Nick Brown Finally Is Granted Permission For A Judicial Review

[jenlyn]

With comments like this, (and plenty others you've made) you risk becoming the preverbiable.

If the guidance is 'not that bad' there'd be no need for this discussion.

All anyone wants is clear interpretation of the guidelines.

Personally, I prefer an interpretation of guidlines that benefits boaters and a boating community. An interpretation that allows boaters to act lawfully and fairly.

I don't want an interpretation, by C&RT, that is unlawful and an abuse of power for some other gain.

As for talks: C&RT may well put on a lovely lunch with plenty of butter, but by the time invites are sent out for such an event they'll have decided their agenda.

Glenn

It's much easier to negotiate the guidance. It's impossible to negotiate law. Simple for most, obviously difficult for a few!

[MtB]

I don't expect the review will nail much down.

 

Surely the JR is to rule on whether the guidelines as they are, represent a fair interpretation of the act AIUI.

 

If the JR says YES they do, then the guidelines as they exist now will acquire the force of law, so plenty gets nailed down. I agree with LadyMuck, they are perfectly clear, it's just that Nick says they don't represent the act. The JR will give a ruling on whether they represent the Act or not.

 

If the JR says NO they don't, then the guidelines will have to be scrapped and CRT get to make up a different set of guidelines. So in the unlikely event that Nick's JR says NO, nothing will have been nailed down. Everything will have come UNnailed in fact!

 

As

 

 

MtB

[churchward]

 

Surely the JR is to rule on whether the guidelines as they are, represent a fair interpretation of the act AIUI.

 

If the JR says YES they do, then the guidelines as they exist now will acquire the force of law, so plenty gets nailed down. I agree with LadyMuck, they are perfectly clear, it's just that Nick says they don't represent the act. The JR will give a ruling on whether they represent the Act or not.

 

If the JR says NO they don't, then the guidelines will have to be scrapped and CRT get to make up a different set of guidelines. So in the unlikely event that Nick's JR says NO, nothing will have been nailed down. Everything will have come UNnailed in fact!

 

As

 

 

MtB

I agree in theory in could be a black & white outcome (it should be) but this is a review of what has already been ruled in a court of law wasn't that outcome clear?

 

I just do not have faith that the outcome will be any help to anyone no matter the result.

[Jerra]

I think the guidance is really, really clear as it stands. Am I the only one?

No your not I feel it is as well.

[beerbeerbeerbeerbeer]

It's much easier to negotiate the guidance. It's impossible to negotiate law. Simple for most, obviously difficult for a few!

 

That makes no sense.

What you mean is :

Meekly allow an organisation to push the boundary of their powers without challenge.

 

Glenn

[MtB]

I think the guidance is really, really clear as it stands. Am I the only one?

 

It IS clear. We all think the guidance is clear. Nick Brown thinks it's clear too.

 

He is not arguing it's unclear, he is arguing it does not apply. The JR is to rule on whether it is a suitable test as the whether the requirements of the act have been met, AIUI.

 

And as Natalie says, even if the JR rules that complying with the guidance meets the requirements of the act, there may be other and different patterns of behaviour which also comply with the act. A whole nother can of worms....

 

 

MtB

[Smelly]

and of course where the legislation lays a discretion at the feet of CRT, only fettered by the Wednesbury rules and definitions of "navigation" it can only remain wooly.

 

Which it necessarily must be for however grave your accident Mr Boiler man it would be inhuman to turf you off your boat 15 days later...

 

As I sit stuck in one place with my knackered shoulder, having failed to find a mooring within commutable distance of work for 8 months now and otherwise having diligently stuck to "da rules" in that time, i wonder whether my experience might temper your comments above.

[magpie patrick]

It would mine, Smelly, because the shoulder surely counts as "reasonable in the circumstances". Whilst I empathise over the commuting problem I would also caution that I didn't go applying for jobs in Exeter when I had a house in Frome: too far.

 

For the other arguments from others about "what if..." Last October it was quite literally true that I was a taxi fare off spending the night on a park bench. Going "home" wasn't an option, and a lack of buses on a Sunday evening left me with precious few others. Thankfully I had enough money on me to get a taxi to Juno's mooring. But if I hadn't, was it really the taxi company's job to give me a free lift?

 

The argument in front of the Judicial Review isn't about what we would like the law to be (and "we" are not of one mind on that anyway) but on what it actually is. As the law stands prior to JR, it looks like Smelly is fine if he keeps moving and discretion allows for the odd knackered shoulder. Do we really want that "clarifying" to death? How bad would his shoulder have to be? Would Atos get the contract to determine this?

[jenlyn]

That makes no sense.

What you mean is :

Meekly allow an organisation to push the boundary of their powers without challenge.

Glenn

It wont make sense to someone who only hears what they wish to hear. ;-)

[churchward]

I just googled NBTA and got the "National Baton Twirling Association"

 

It seemed rather apt in a way

 

Let me Google that for you

Edited July 26, 2013 by churchward

[jenlyn]

If you paint your boat so it looks like a vole, you can stay indefinately on visitor moorings, especially if you make it look like your habitat is established. I have this on good authority.

 

This from jeff whyatt

 

"Yes , indeed if we sighted voles on a visitor mooring we would have a real problem, its against the law to disturb their habitat"

Edited July 26, 2013 by jenlyn

[MtB]

If you paint your boat so it looks like a vole, you can stay indefinately on visitor moorings, especially if you make it look like your habitat is established. I have this on good authority.

 

This from jeff whyatt

 

"Yes , indeed if we sighted voles on a visitor mooring we would have a real problem, its against the law to disturb their habitat"

 

Ah but what does the law mean by 'disturb', and by 'habitat'?

 

I suggest the whole of the cut is the voles' 'habitat'. I think CRT is closer to their goal of finding a way to get rid of all the pesky troublesome boaters than we realise!

 

Then, they can stop wasting money on fixing locks and get on with spending it all on widening the towpaths, freely dumping the spoil in the cut as there will be no boaters there to complain

 

 

MtB

[jenlyn]

Ah but what does the law mean by 'disturb', and by 'habitat'?

 

I suggest the whole of the cut is the voles' 'habitat'. I think CRT is closer to their goal of finding a way to get rid of all the pesky troublesome boaters than we realise!

 

Then, they can stop wasting money on fixing locks and get on with spending it all on widening the towpaths, freely dumping the spoil in the cut as there will be no boaters there to complain

 

 

MtB

Definitely sounds a bell ;-)

[matty40s]

Ive just renamed my boat...

Vole Friends.

[cotswoldsman]

 

Ah but what does the law mean by 'disturb', and by 'habitat'?

 

I suggest the whole of the cut is the voles' 'habitat'. I think CRT is closer to their goal of finding a way to get rid of all the pesky troublesome boaters than we realise!

 

Then, they can stop wasting money on fixing locks and get on with spending it all on widening the towpaths, freely dumping the spoil in the cut as there will be no boaters there to complain

 

 

MtB

Well according to the email exchanges taking place at present with Wyatt stage one is to stop cutting the grass on the towpath close to the canal to save the Water Vole. Now stage 2 might be to stop props turning in the water in case of Water Voles in the water.

[Lady Muck]

Ive just renamed my boat...

Vole Friends.

I've said it before and I'll say it again, we're renaming our boat No Mooring. Could come in handy for next trip to Oxford, I hear.

[DeanS]

 

Now there he may have had a point!

 

It is not uncommon for me to lift the engine covers and go "Oh God!".......

 

LongSufferingWife thinks she's gone to heaven...when I connected the boat to shorepower today

[matty40s]

...rabbit back on charge...

[carlt]

...rabbit back on charge...

Well the mouthful of tea missed the keyboard, flew over the screen and hit the dog on the other side of the room.

 

Greenie!

[beerbeerbeerbeerbeer]

Greenie from me too.

[alan_fincher]

I've said it before and I'll say it again, we're renaming our boat No Mooring. Could come in handy for next trip to Oxford, I hear.

 

Ours is already renamed "24 hours maximum"!

[carlt]

 

Ours is already renamed "24 hours maximum"!

Repaint Sickle in CRT livery and you can moor up for as long as you like, as long as it is on a lock landing or water point with a piece of blue string.

[MtB]

That's an interesting point, what IS 'CRT livery'?

 

The same as BW, or are they gonna repaint all their vessels at our expense?

 

MtB

[alan_fincher]

That's an interesting point, what IS 'CRT livery'?

 

The same as BW, or are they gonna repaint all their vessels at our expense?

 

MtB

 

They will probably sell any of their few remaining boats, and have to hire one in whenever there is a job that needs one......

[Ange]

...rabbit back on charge...

Greenie from me too Matty - one of your finest gems

Edited July 27, 2013 by Ange