Jump to content

CRT statement Nick BrownvCRT

jenlyn

By jenlyn
in General Boating

 Share

Featured Posts

Ex- Member Veteran II

Ex- Member

Posted
Posted

You can no longer use "I don't see the other associations publishing such figures." as an excuse for claiming recruitment success but declining to give proof of this, either.

 

RYA are happy to say that they have over 100,000 members, btw.

Indeed.

 

It would appear that the other organisations have no need of such evasive tactics.

 

The other organisations aren't just a week old either LOL

 

Why not join, your membership number might give a clue LOL

  • Greenie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
jenlyn Veteran II

jenlyn

Posted
  • Author
Posted

The other organisations aren't just a week old either LOL

 

Why not join, your membership number might give a clue LOL

Lol lol

Do we need to issue a FOI??

Yeh, you could, it will cost you 25 quid though, to cover the cost of tea and biscuits for the meeting we would need, to discuss the FOI reply.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Guest

Guest

Posted
Posted (edited)

Lol lol

Yeh, you could, it will cost you 25 quid though, to cover the cost of tea and biscuits for the meeting we would need, to discuss the FOI reply.

And you are wanting to be taken seriously??

 

And what's with this LOL bollocks?

Edited by The Dog House
Link to comment
Share on other sites
NigelMoore Veteran

NigelMoore

Posted
Posted

Johnson Statement para.s 30,31 “I do, however, consider that one aspect of the statutory framework does deserve special mention, for in my experience it is often wrongly assumed to the contrary of the actual position. It is that although the Trust manages the inland waterways for public benefit, there is no right to keep or use a vessel on the canal network without the Trust’s permission. Section 105(5) of the Transport Act 1968 specifically repealed any local enactment so far as that enactment conferred any private or public rights of navigation.”

 

Same old song, same sweeping generalisation which, despite holding true for the most part, does NOT extend, as he implies, to the whole network - as he found to his cost in my case. As Hildyard J commented regarding this very stance: -

 

“it is not impossible that Mr. Johnson thinks that is still the case, but if he did it would not matter a row of beans . . .”

 

It is sadly evident that he never learns that accuracy is a characteristic which it behoves a man in his position to cultivate, and that misleading manipulation of the truth can still be caught out. I’m sure he knows exactly what he is saying and doing, which makes it all the more reprehensible.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
NigelMoore Veteran

NigelMoore

Posted
Posted

Reverting to the “divide and rule” topic – Johnson para.s 41,42: -

 

“A particular problem, however, is caused for the Trust by those individuals who do not move round the inland waterway network but instead seek to live within easy reach of a particular location, usually a town or city, but do not have a ‘Home

Mooring’.” . . . “This category of boaters not only causes considerable difficulties for the effective management of the inland waterway network, but also causes considerable disquiet and frustration amongst other users of the waterways.”

Link to comment
Share on other sites
jenlyn Veteran II

jenlyn

Posted
  • Author
Posted (edited)

Reverting to the divide and rule topic Johnson para.s 41,42: -

 

A particular problem, however, is caused for the Trust by those individuals who do not move round the inland waterway network but instead seek to live within easy reach of a particular location, usually a town or city, but do not have a Home

Mooring. . . . This category of boaters not only causes considerable difficulties for the effective management of the inland waterway network, but also causes considerable disquiet and frustration amongst other users of the waterways.

Obviously no one has informed him of the roving mooring permits nigel.

 

Sorry, couldn't resist that.

 

I am hearing you though, and it's all being noted. Thanks for taking time to point this stuff out.

Edited by jenlyn
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Boat&Bikes Experienced

Boat&Bikes

Posted
Posted

Lol...Have I clicked into "Facebook junior" by accident...lolol

My eighteen year old daughter informed me recently that its the older(that means over twentyfives) people who use text type speech now.I now have to text her carefully to avoid being laughed at.

 

Ian.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
NigelMoore Veteran

NigelMoore

Posted
Posted

One for those with home moorings, finagling the charity rules angle; Johnson para. 54: -

 

“It is the view of the Trust that temporary mooring that is incidental to navigation is a

personal benefit that is ‘a necessary result or by product’ of carrying out the

charitable purpose, namely that of navigation, and therefore a permissible use of the

Trust’s charitable property without further consideration. Other mooring, either long

term (e.g. at a ‘home mooring’ on or off the network) or in circumstances where it is

not in the course of ‘bona fide’ navigation, is a personal benefit for which fair

consideration should be paid to the Trust.” [my bold]

 

It will be interesting to discover how he will seek to determine and recover a “fair consideration” for the Trust for those cheating them of valuable revenue by mooring “off the network”.

 

So beware: he is not just after the CC’ers.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
carlt Veteran II

carlt

Posted
Posted

Given your performances today carl, I have learnt you have the ability to manipulate anything to how you would like to view it.

No manipulation.

 

In the ACC announcement thread you and your cohorts specifically said that "ncccers" would not be allowed to join though you struggled to say how you would identify and exclude these miscreants.

 

"Divide and conquer"

Link to comment
Share on other sites
jenlyn Veteran II

jenlyn

Posted
  • Author
Posted

No manipulation.

 

In the ACC announcement thread you and your cohorts specifically said that "ncccers" would not be allowed to join though you struggled to say how you would identify and exclude these miscreants.

 

"Divide and conquer"

 

I dont think I said that, I think your generalising. oooops, manipulating.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share
Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.