CRT statement Nick BrownvCRT

[jenlyn]

Truth of the matter, you have set yourself in a position to represent CC's via the ACC. I have never met you, and your profile says not a jot, so how else can I draw any conclusions if my only source is your written content? You seem very quick to rubbish another persons point of view. I just wonder what it is that makes someone in your position feel that a retort is always necessary. Silence is golden ....

 

As far as I'm concerned, I see both sides of the dispute, even the hidden muddied bits and all very confusing. I see them as part of a great muddle that maybe needs to be sorted out. As a relative newcomer to the cruising fraternity I will not take or join sides. I hope that CaRT will move along a path that is of a consequence of the natural order of things and not as a result of political meandering.

 

As for the "telling it as it isn't" ... its on the bottom of your posts and I thought it ironical that you suggested you were at a meeting but you wasn't!

Very confusing post......

Quite true. Ever the optimist, I was hoping for something different from Mr Parry. Seems not though. When are boaters gonna wake up and realise that there's a hell of a lot more that unites us than divides us? Surely it suits CaRT perfectly for us all to be arguing with each other all the time.

 

Another quote: "They're pointing out the enemy to keep you deaf and blind,they wanna sap your energy incarcerate your mind..." - Mark Knopfler

I've not made my mind up about Richard Parry, my view, he comes across as very corporate, leans into you when your talking, makes you notice he is hanging onto your every word. Goes out of his way to talk to as many as possible. Not bad things.

Far too early to judge him further though.

So he is making a stance of no more nonsense from Nick Brown, I cant honestly blame him for that, even though I also believe in our judicial system.

[NigelMoore]

Can't say I blame them. The absolute rubbish that is sometimes spouted by nick brown beggars belief. I can't be bothered to quote what he and panda were spouting at a meeting in Rickmansworth yesterday, but advising people to throw in FOI requests (because CRT hate it, and it costs them money), and moor your boat on a shallow stretch so it grounds and you can't move, more or less shows how silly and annoying it all gets. How can you take someone seriously when they come out with such rubbish?

Judging by the attendance though, I am thankfull that not too many take him seriously. Time perhaps to move on.

You had your moment as well nigel, no one can take that away from you, and I feel personally that you were justified, but now, you are allowing your victory to be used. To me, it is now becoming a bit of a sour apple.

 

I understand and take your point Jenlyn, regarding frivolous and vexatious recommendations, if such were made. My point above remains valid nevertheless, and I have made no comment on Nick’s case beyond the claim that the authority’s interpretation of the relevant legislative section is open to question.

 

That central point is the one the Lord Justice has agreed with. It is ridiculous for Johnson to claim that the judge was wrong, and to insist that the interpretation is not open to question – especially in the context of ongoing proceedings; I strongly suspect it amounts to contempt of court to so belittle the judge’s exercise of his discretion – which is what his press release is doing, as though the opinion of the 3 lesser judges and Johnson himself should have been unquestioningly acknowledged and accepted by the more senior judge.

 

It is all the more ridiculous in being so pointless – the judge has not agreed with either party as to the interpretation; what he has agreed with, is that it is open to question.

 

As to use being made of my own case – the arguments won there were on entirely different issues and have no relevance to the argument Nick and Johnson will have to engage in at court, now that Mr Parry has decreed that litigation is the only course to take. What IS of relevance from my case, are the characterisations of Mr Justice Hildyard as to the overbearing and hasty manner of the authority’s approach, using faulty legal argument, for no discoverable rationale having anything to do with their legitimate function.

 

When an authority is in a position to exercise the draconian powers they favour above more relevant sanctions, the history of their approach to wielding them, and whether or no they have, in the past, rightly discerned the legal framework, is of considerable importance when reflecting on the possible validity of future action and their interpretation of parallel legislation. If they can get it so wrong in a simple case, how much more likely are they to have got it wrong with a deliberately vague clause in the Act?

 

The authority having never once acknowledged anything more than an administrative slip-up in my case, poo-poohing the Human Rights abuse as a technicality only [unsustainable in view of the later Appeal Court ruling], it is obvious that the approach for which they were so severely criticised has not in fact been abandoned, their press releases and ‘commentary’ revealing just how unrepentant they are. This rather desperate-sounding Press Release is itself, evidence that nothing has changed. Under those circumstances, I am more than happy for Nick or anyone else to use that hard historical [and currently relevant] evidence in the Hildyard judgment, in arguing the real need for constraints and accountability regarding the charity’s exercise of its functions.

 

I do blame them for throwing all this money at outsourced legal teams. The charity in this case, would have done far better to have rested on their former position that they were not presenting the guidance as any more than that, and left Nick and the court to come to some conclusion if the court chose. I stand by my position that the charity need have done no more than allow Jackie Lewis – a barrister in her own right and in a position to represent the charity on her own in court - to confirm to the court that the guidance was not intended as a statement of law, but as useful guidelines only. If the court then chose to make some observations on a closer interpretation, well and good; although I personally regret attempts by either side [if that is what is being done] to give rigidity to what is best left flexible.

[jenlyn]

I personally regret attempts by either side [if that is what is being done] to give rigidity to what is best left flexible.

I agree 100% with you on this point, I just wish nick would do the same.

[carlt]

I agree 100% with you on this point, I just wish nick would do the same.

and CRT??...

[jenlyn]

and CRT??...

CRT did not put this to the courts. As it is, it's negotiable. There's leeway, the court may take that away.

[NigelMoore]

In flat contradiction of Johnson’s expressed opinion, there is this from CART’s ‘Grounds of Resistance’ as published on their website -

 

Jackson LJ stated:

 

“… there is room for argument on whether the Guidance document is a fair and accurate

summary of the way in which s.17(3)( c )(ii) should be applied. The Appellant has not

assisted his case by putting forward reams of analysis of the Parliamentary process. I do

not think that Pepper v Hart principles enable discussion of this. But the Appellant does

have a point that merits pursuit in judicial review proceedings.”

 

My bold. So what purpose was served by Johnson so vehemently contradicting this, and why not let the court discuss the matter in a non-contentious way, and leave the outsourced legal team out of it?

 

[NigelMoore]

They are masters of "divide and conquer" tactics and boaters fall for it every time.

 

What is worse – and has anybody else noticed this? - is that the expressed grievances of those resentful at CC’ers ‘getting away cheaply’ is now being used – in Johnson’s Witness Statement no less, as a legal justification for herding CC’ers into the mooring requirement.

 

Paragraph 42(2) when itemising the problems faced by the charity, he refers to boaters: -

 

“Avoiding the costs associated with having a Home Mooring. Not only does this

deprive the Trust of much needed revenue (if the Home Mooring is on the Inland

Waterways within the Trust’s jurisdiction) but it acts as a real agitation to those

who have paid the appropriate sums for a Home Mooring. Accordingly, in addition

to dealing within the individual concerned directly, the Trust then loses valuable

enforcement resources in dealing with complaints from others.” [my bold]

 

Frankly, that paragraph alone is all the justification needed for alarm bells to go off very loudly indeed, and all the evidence that should be needed for boaters to understand just how real is the tactic ‘carlt’ highlights.

[carlt]

CRT did not put this to the courts.

So on the one hand you say in post #32 "I can't say I blame them" for "the refusal by the CART executive to consider any alternative to fighting boaters through the courts" (your bold) and on the other you say they didn't put this to the courts...

 

It's starting to seem like you will defend CRT to the hilt even if it means directly contradicting yourself.

Edited October 6, 2013 by carlt

[jenlyn]

So on the one hand you say in post #32 "I can't say I blame them" for "the refusal by the CART executive to consider any alternative to fighting boaters through the courts" (your bold) and on the other you say they didn't put this to the courts...

 

It's starting to seem like you will defend CRT to the hilt even if it means directly contradicting yourself.

Your being silly now. You'll be writing for NBW next lol

[carlt]

Your being silly now. You'll be writing for NBW next lol

Again, you have no response to the point so you resort to off-topic digs.

 

Did you not defend CRT, in post 32, for refusing to discuss the matter anywhere other than in the courtroom and yet, in post #55 you defend them for not bringing it to court?

Make your mind up.

[jenlyn]

Again, you have no response to the point so you resort to off-topic digs.

 

Did you not defend CRT, in post 32, for refusing to discuss the matter anywhere other than in the courtroom and yet, in post #55 you defend them for not bringing it to court?Make your mind up.

Tut tut, attempting to draw my queen out with a measly pawn ;-)

Nigels post 57 actually pinpoints the need for ACC don't you think?

[LoneWolf]

 

What is worse – and has anybody else noticed this? - is that the expressed grievances of those resentful at CC’ers ‘getting away cheaply’ is now being used – in Johnson’s Witness Statement no less, as a legal justification for herding CC’ers into the mooring requirement.

 

Paragraph 42(2) when itemising the problems faced by the charity, he refers to boaters: -

 

“Avoiding the costs associated with having a Home Mooring. Not only does this

deprive the Trust of much needed revenue (if the Home Mooring is on the Inland

Waterways within the Trust’s jurisdiction) but it acts as a real agitation to those

who have paid the appropriate sums for a Home Mooring. Accordingly, in addition

to dealing within the individual concerned directly, the Trust then loses valuable

enforcement resources in dealing with complaints from others.” [my bold]

 

Frankly, that paragraph alone is all the justification needed for alarm bells to go off very loudly indeed, and all the evidence that should be needed for boaters to understand just how real is the tactic ‘carlt’ highlights.

 

good posts Nigel, thanks

 

yes, I only skimmed the docs in the links but it stood out to me.

 

The overall impression i got from my admittedly quick read was that they want boats to have a home mooring and they seemed to be trying to use the justification that things are different now that they are a charity at the end.

I'm going to give it a proper read now

 

Do you have a link to Nick Brown's side of things?

Tut tut, attempting to draw my queen out with a measly pawn ;-)

Nigels post 57 actually pinpoints the need for ACC don't you think?

 

yes

[carlt]

Tut tut, attempting to draw my queen out with a measly pawn ;-)

Nigels post 57 actually pinpoints the need for ACC don't you think?

No I think it highlights a need for a unified approach from an inclusive organisation, not one that has succeeded in widening the gap between different boating sectors.

 

It certainly doesn't pinpoint a need for a group that appears to agree with CRT to the point of self contradiction, if your contributions to this thread are anything to go by.

 

They already have the IWA for that, surely?

 

 

Frankly, that paragraph alone is all the justification needed for alarm bells to go off very loudly indeed, and all the evidence that should be needed for boaters to understand just how real is the tactic ‘carlt’ highlights.

[jenlyn]

No I think it highlights a need for a unified approach from an inclusive organisation, not one that has succeeded in widening the gap between different boating sectors.

 

It certainly doesn't pinpoint a need for a group that appears to agree with CRT to the point of self contradiction, if your contributions to this thread are anything to go by.

 

They already have the IWA for that, surely?

Lol, we are getting close to a "yawn" again aren't we..........

[carlt]

Lol, we are getting close to a "yawn" again aren't we..........

Yes because you are incapable of discussing the point and prefer glib comments as a distraction from questions you cannot answer.

[jenlyn]

Yes because you are incapable of discussing the point and prefer glib comments as a distraction from questions you cannot answer.

Ok :-)

[carlt]

Ok :-)

I'm pleased we agree on something and it's a credit to you that you are able to admit your shortcomings.

[jenlyn]

I'm pleased we agree on something and it's a credit to you that you are able to admit your shortcomings.

Lol, your too easy.......

[carlt]

Lol, your too easy.......

Lol, if your childish evasion of answering pertinent questions makes you think that then carry on Steve.

 

Personally I'd have thought someone trying to set up a group, as you are doing, would be keen to address criticism rather than try to distract with infantile games..

[jenlyn]

Lol, if your childish evasion of answering pertinent questions makes you think that then carry on Steve.

 

Personally I'd have thought someone trying to set up a group, as you are doing, would be keen to address criticism rather than try to distract with infantile games..

The ACC is growing very well thankyou. The council along with myself are quite taken aback by the amount of support. I won't be unfair though, I will thank you for helping me keep it in the limelight. Much appreciated.....

 

You might even get an honoury membership for services rendered... ;-)

Edited October 6, 2013 by jenlyn

[carlt]

The ACC is growing very well thankyou. The council along with myself are quite taken aback by the amount of support. I won't be unfair though, I will thank you for helping me keep it in the limelight. Much appreciated.....

More distraction.

 

You should have been a politician.

 

Perhaps you should change your signature to: "Steve Jenkins/Steve Jay/John Evans/Jenlyn/Whoever the silence of the waterways...not telling much at all"

[jenlyn]

You should have been a politician.

 

 

 

I did consider it a few years ago, but the blue tie didn't suit me ;-)

[Guest]

The more jenlyn posts the more I realise I was correct not to join ACC. John was astute and a gentleman, Jenlyn??

 

Least said....

[Ex- Member]

Tut tut, attempting to draw my queen out with a measly pawn ;-)

Nigels post 57 actually pinpoints the need for ACC don't you think?

 

Have to agree jenlyn

 

I'v had several occasions where I've awarded Nigel a greenie for his level headed common sense postings and especially his points about the obvious need for the ACC

 

I really find it strange why anyone would object to a group having accessibility to an association that specifically caters for their lifestyle and needs. I can only assume some kind of irrational fear. It wouldn't be so bad if some of the decenters could put forward a good argument why not, it's page 4 so clearly there isn't one LOL

 

You'll be pleased to know by the way we're now fully paid up members of the ACC confirmed Friday

 

I distributed the leaflets Matty dropped of for us and the feedback on the towpath was very positive btw, we'll be doing some more soon but I have other commitments back in Dorset the coming couple of weeks.

 

Keep up the good work though J

[carlt]

 

Have to agree jenlyn

 

I'v had several occasions where I've awarded Nigel a greenie for his level headed common sense postings and especially his points about the obvious need for the ACC

 

 

and yet post 57, which Jenlyn quotes in defence of the ACC finishes with:

 

Frankly, that paragraph alone is all the justification needed for alarm bells to go off very loudly indeed, and all the evidence that should be needed for boaters to understand just how real is the tactic ‘carlt’ highlights.

Jenlyn spent a lot of energy condemning the "divide and conquer" attitude yet here he is doing just what CRT seem to want to do.

Keep up CRT's good work though J