CRT mean business......Trust attempts to recover £76k from man

[Naughty Cal]

Amazing how you will accept the judgment against him keeping his boats on the water without questioning it in the slightest, yet refuse to accept the judgment that he is eligible for disability benefits. It's almost as if you have some sort of personal vendetta against the man.

Nothing of the sort. I just don't agree with piss takers playing the system and then stamping their feet when it all goes tits up.

Alstublieft.

 

I do think, that you are what is known, as an 'early pensioner'? You have spend all of your life, working hard, paying your dues into the system? And now, you are enjoying the fruits of your labour, as you should?

 

I, Of all people,don't deny you that, because you worked hard, and were told there would be a reward. Even better, you may have saved in a private pension, and be one of the last lucky ones, who actually gets a return.

 

Think of us for a moment. We work to pay for your pesion, as you did for your elders. We may well save in a pension, but what future do we have? Would you, if you were 30 today, invest in a pension?

 

Life is as it is, and I never envy people for what I don't have, but don't you see how you denounce people who may not have choosen where they are?

 

Dat is waar

Yes I will invest in my pension when I am 30. Much the same as I have done for the last 13 years since I was 16.

[Delta9]

Nothing of the sort. I just don't agree with piss takers playing the system and then stamping their feet when it all goes tits up.

CaRT must be very pleased to have so many people like you defending their actions on this forum.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Useful_idiot

[Naughty Cal]

CaRT must be very pleased to have so many people like you defending their actions on this forum.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Useful_idiot

So you condone this chaps actions?

[steven wilkinson]

 

Law abiding model citizens can have no reasonable expectation that courts will judge rightly at all times

 

 

 

I think that a law abiding model citizen has every expectation that they will be judged rightly at all times.

[luctor et emergo]

Ohhh' nearly lost a good example.

 

So what would you do with Stephen, if it wasn't for his brain?

[NigelMoore]

I'm not sure that you are using that quote in the context that it was intended. The document you linked to is specifically about mooring permits, not boat licenses

 

The document is specifically about mooring policies. My use of the quote is exactly in context; it notes that they cannot refuse a boat licence for anything other than failure to meet the 3 specific criteria, noting that “There are no statutory provisions for refusing a licence on grounds of say, congestion . . .” as a prelude to saying that “adequate moorings control is therefore essential for preserving the amenity” etc. [my emphasis]

 

You’ve placed the quote in full in your post, I can’t see how you have missed the point which they are making.

 

It is because they cannot refuse to issue further new boat licences on the grounds that there is insufficient space for them, that they see it necessary to cope with increasing congestion via increasing regulation.

[haggis]

Are we not losing sight of what seems to be the root of the problem? This gentlemans boat was due to get a new BSS certificate before hs licence was due for renewal. He appears to have done nothing about it at that stage. When his licence was due, he couldn't renew it in advance or on time because he didn't have a valid BSS certificate. When CRT/BW was made aware of this and that the gentleman said he was having difficulty finding a BSS examiner , they seem to have made several attempts to give him information about where he might find one. Several months then seem to have elapsed before a BSS certificate was obtained. I think most boat owners are well aware of when their BSS is due for renewal and whether the licence renewal is due or not, they do something about it. Not this gentleman.

At some point the gentleman sold his original boat and bought two others which he tried to licence but they don't seem to have had BSS certificates either.

 

Never mind whether he is disabled or not, he seems to have been able to play the system quite nicely and from the Utube video he seems to be of the opinion that because he wants to live on a boat, he should be allowed to do so without having to abide by the rules which most other boaters comply with.

 

The word "chancer" springs to mind.

 

No doubt if I have got it wrong, someone will tell me :-)

 

haggis

[Naughty Cal]

 

The document is specifically about mooring policies. My use of the quote is exactly in context; it notes that they cannot refuse a boat licence for anything other than failure to meet the 3 specific criteria, noting that There are no statutory provisions for refusing a licence on grounds of say, congestion . . . as a prelude to saying that adequate moorings control is therefore essential for preserving the amenity etc. [my emphasis]

 

Youve placed the quote in full in your post, I cant see how you have missed the point which they are making.

 

It is because they cannot refuse to issue further new boat licences on the grounds that there is insufficient space for them, that they see it necessary to cope with increasing congestion via increasing regulation.

But that document is specifically relating to mooring licences/permits not a boat licence.

 

The two are not the same and the chap in this case had a cc licence not a mooring and permit. What you have quoted isn't relevant!

[Guest]

It is strange how a contingent of this forum will defend those quiet clearly in the wrong to the bitter end.

 

This case has been judged in court in CRT's favour.

 

How would this be the case if he was a law abiding model citizen?

 

It matters not which party I agree with, which for the record isn't Tory. I don't agree with giving generous handouts to those not willing to help themselves.

 

Not that that matters here anyway.

Possibly because some are not prepared to judge other boaters in the absence of all the facts, including in this case the full extent of his disability and it's effect on him.

 

There is a cadre of members on here who simply write people off on the basis of scant and sometimes blatantly incorrect and or missing information.

 

I possibly may have done the same in the past bit my time on here and conversations with other boaters has taught me that it's not always black and white.

[Naughty Cal]

Are we not losing sight of what seems to be the root of the problem? This gentlemans boat was due to get a new BSS certificate before hs licence was due for renewal. He appears to have done nothing about it at that stage. When his licence was due, he couldn't renew it in advance or on time because he didn't have a valid BSS certificate. When CRT/BW was made aware of this and that the gentleman said he was having difficulty finding a BSS examiner , they seem to have made several attempts to give him information about where he might find one. Several months then seem to have elapsed before a BSS certificate was obtained. I think most boat owners are well aware of when their BSS is due for renewal and whether the licence renewal is due or not, they do something about it. Not this gentleman.

At some point the gentleman sold his original boat and bought two others which he tried to licence but they don't seem to have had BSS certificates either.

 

Never mind whether he is disabled or not, he seems to have been able to play the system quite nicely and from the Utube video he seems to be of the opinion that because he wants to live on a boat, he should be allowed to do so without having to abide by the rules which most other boaters comply with.

 

The word "chancer" springs to mind.

 

No doubt if I have got it wrong, someone will tell me :-)

 

haggis

You must be a Tory as well!

Possibly because some are not prepared to judge other boaters in the absence of all the facts, including in this case the full extent of his disability and it's effect on him.

 

There is a cadre of members on here who simply write people off on the basis of scant and sometimes blatantly incorrect and or missing information.

 

I possibly may have done the same in the past bit my time on here and conversations with other boaters has taught me that it's not always black and white.

You still stand a defend a blatant player?

 

Would you be so happy if he had been moored in your patch for five years with no bss and no licence on the same spot for five years?

 

Hey if you can't be bothered with the bss and licence why bother with insurance?

[haggis]

You must be a Tory as well!

I wasn't the last time I looked :-)

 

haggis

[Delta9]

So you condone this chaps actions?

Unlike you, I won't jump in to condone or condemn someone's actions based upon the limited facts presented to me in a newspaper article.

[NigelMoore]

 

I think that a law abiding model citizen has every expectation that they will be judged rightly at all times.

 

I’m sure that most do have such expectations; they certainly have a legitimate expectation that they will be so judged, but it isn’t one borne out by reasoned analysis of the relevant history. Courts are handled by men and women with limited time available, often ignorant of the specialist law they deal with, who make mistakes and have prejudices they try to set aside but will not always be able to, even if only because they cannot recognise them.

 

For all the faults, our legal system is probably the best there is – but it is not and cannot be infallible; if it were, we wouldn’t have a High Court to appeal from the County Courts; a Court of Appeal to challenge a High Court decision, nor a Supreme Court to appeal from the Court of Appeal!

 

The problem is the emotional and financial expense of the process, which means most cases stop at level 1 in the County Courts– for pragmatic reasons, not because the winner is right.

[steven wilkinson]

Unlike you, I won't jump in to condone or condemn someone's actions based upon the limited facts presented to me in a newspaper article.

 

But it isn't just based upon a newspaper article. There is the complete court judgement that is readily available too!

[Graham Davis]

Amazing how you will accept the judgment against him keeping his boats on the water without questioning it in the slightest, yet refuse to accept the judgment that he is eligible for disability benefits. It's almost as if you have some sort of personal vendetta against the man.

Oh FFS!!

What has his eligibility for Diablement Benifits got to do with him abiding by the rules of CaRT?

He has been given plenty of chances to comply, but has stuck 2 fingers up to CaRT. He seems to think CaRT and society owe him a living. Dream on, sunshine!!

[Naughty Cal]

Unlike you, I won't jump in to condone or condemn someone's actions based upon the limited facts presented to me in a newspaper article.

What about the judgement or the word of those who moor in the area?

 

Count for nothing I suppose?

[NigelMoore]

But that document is specifically relating to mooring licences/permits not a boat licence.

 

The two are not the same and the chap in this case had a cc licence not a mooring and permit. What you have quoted isn't relevant!

 

The quotation from the mooring policies document is specifically about BOAT licences not mooring permits. What I have quoted is exactly relevant by reason of the fact that as the publication explains, the authority is constrained from refusing to issue boat licences for anything other than the specified criteria – which do NOT, by way of given example, include the ability to refuse issuing new licences because there is no longer any physical room to house them on the system without them causing congestion.

 

The argument goes: because we cannot limit the numbers of boats, we need to bring sterner mooring regulations, because more boats create greater congestion.

 

Remember that the point was raised, not in direct reference to the judgment [and certainly not suggesting that it had anything to do with the past refusal of a licence], but in addressing the statement from the spokesperson in the original linked article, who claimed they might refuse a licence in future to this man, unless the court costs awarded against him were paid. The 3 specified criteria to which they are limited as reasons for refusing a boat licence do not allow for refusal on the grounds that the prospective boater owes a civil debt which needs to be paid first.

[jenlyn]

It is strange how a contingent of this forum will defend those quiet clearly in the wrong to the bitter end.

This case has been judged in court in CRT's favour.

How would this be the case if he was a law abiding model citizen?

 

It matters not which party I agree with, which for the record isn't Tory. I don't agree with giving generous handouts to those not willing to help themselves.

Not that that matters here anyway.

Actually I was holding back, what I wanted to say was, your comment made me feel sick. You felt ok with passing judgement on something you know absolutely nothing about, and why did you make such a remark? Possibly because it was the cheapest you could find.

[Ronniesonic]

Would it be the right time to close this thread before everyone falls out for good?

 

I have read all of this thread & it's the worse on here in my opinion. Reasoned debate & even agentle scuffle now & then is great,............

but this is getting too personal.

 

It's the weekend & the forecast is good everyone......... I was on a right high until 30 mins ago.

 

[lexicon]

Looking at the CRT link is there a possible angle not looked at so far. if Cart refuse to license uninsured boats. Is it possible the gentleman in question couldn't get insurance either due to finance issues or the state of repair of the craft in question.

[RLWP]

Would it be the right time to close this thread before everyone falls out for good?

 

I have read all of this thread & it's the worse on here in my opinion. Reasoned debate & even agentle scuffle now & then is great,............

but this is getting too personal.

 

It's the weekend & the forecast is good everyone......... I was on a right high until 30 mins ago.

 

 

I wouldn't worry too much Ronnie. Most of the rough players are forum 'big beasts' and are used to tussling with each other. I've been skimming the thread and i haven't noticed any innocents getting sideswiped

 

Going boating is, of course, a much better plan. Enjoy your weekend

 

Richard

[frangar]

Oh FFS!!

What has his eligibility for Diablement Benifits got to do with him abiding by the rules of CaRT?

He has been given plenty of chances to comply, but has stuck 2 fingers up to CaRT. He seems to think CaRT and society owe him a living. Dream on, sunshine!!

Have a green thing!

 

Cheers

 

Gareth

[mark99]

Have a green thing!

 

Cheers

 

Gareth

And another.

[Delta9]

What about the judgement or the word of those who moor in the area?

 

Count for nothing I suppose?

Correct! You are finally learning... The "judgment" and the word of those who moor in the area count for absolutely nothing.

Oh FFS!!

What has his eligibility for Diablement Benifits got to do with him abiding by the rules of CaRT?

He has been given plenty of chances to comply, but has stuck 2 fingers up to CaRT. He seems to think CaRT and society owe him a living. Dream on, sunshine!!

His eligibility for disability benefits has nothing to do with his ability to abide by the rules. Now try telling that to all the people in this thread saying that he is claiming benefit fraudulently and is a benefit scrounger...

 

Sounds like he did try to comply but was hindered by his financial situation and CaRT bureaucracy, there are probably a few other issues we don't know about.

 

How on earth would you know that "He seems to think CaRT and society owe him a living"

[MtB]

I've read the whole judgement and it makes no reference to the defendant's health or source of income. Being disabled or not is irrelevant.

 

It also appears that once Section 8 and Section 13 notices have been issued, there is no going back. Sending off an application for a license does not cancel them, CRT remain entitled to 'remove or demolish' the boat if the defendant fails to remove it from CRT waters.

 

 

MB