Jump to content

CRT statement Nick BrownvCRT


jenlyn

Featured Posts

 

 

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”.

 

 

I struggle to see any way they can legally charge for not providing a service. Even their loose interpretation of s.43 won't stretch that far.

I dont think I said that, I think your generalising. oooops, manipulating.

So are ncccers going to be allowed to join or not?

 

Straight question, no "manipulation".

 

Any chance of a straight answer?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I struggle to see any way they can legally charge for not providing a service. Even their loose interpretation of s.43 won't stretch that far.

So are ncccers going to be allowed to join or not?

 

Straight question, no "manipulation".

 

Any chance of a straight answer?

You've been talking rubbish most of the day carl, now your trying to talk some more. It's disappointing, I had some respect for you not too long ago.

Shame really. Night

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You've been talking rubbish most of the day carl, now your trying to talk some more. It's disappointing, I had some respect for you not too long ago.

Shame really. Night

That'll be a no then....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You've been talking rubbish most of the day carl, now your trying to talk some more. It's disappointing, I had some respect for you not too long ago.

Shame really. Night

So you cannot give a straight answer to a straight question.

 

...and you say I talk rubbish. rolleyes.gif

That'll be a no then....

that'll be a "ooh ohh! I've no idea how to answer any of Carl's questions so I'll just try and rubbish him. I wish John was here to tell me what to say." then.

  • Greenie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I struggle to see any way they can legally charge for not providing a service. Even their loose interpretation of s.43 won't stretch that far.

 

Of course not; but when did that ever stop them? Leaving aside the legal nonsense that he is spouting, however, even the mechanics for implementing this one goes beyond my imaginative capabilities.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Perhaps they'll use Google Earth to spot boats on peoples' drives.

 

Yes, you are to be caught out too. Mind you, they would have to cross-reference the addresses of the googled boats to details on the boat licence, to determine that the boat at that address ever intended using the ‘charity’s property’ for the only public purpose allowed. Of course, it could all be made simpler [if that approach was taken], for them to be the sole navigation authority for the entire British Isles. Now there’s a cheerful thought.

 

It is morbidly fascinating to trawl through Johnson’s revelations of the ‘behind-the-scenes’ action with the BW statutes vis-a-vis change to charitable status; who knew the ramifications that could be involved?

 

The argument he espouses as I quoted above, regarding the obligation to set terms and charges beyond that envisaged in the Transport Acts, is developed further in his para. 55.

 

He notes: “Although these issues of charitable law have arisen only after transfer of the British Waterways undertaking to the Trust and indeed after publication by British Waterways of the Guidance on mooring that Mr Brown challenges, they are in the view of the Trust relevant considerations that the Trust needs to take into account looking forwards.”

 

What he does then is to argue that placing the BW successor under new obligations as a charity, has the effect of placing their interpretation of s.17(3)( c )(ii) into the elevated status of the Parliamentary sanctioned, by way of his leaving s.17 intact in the Transfer Order [all on his own authority!] You might find the reasoning tricky, but here it is: -

 

It is the view of the Trust that these charity law obligations are wholly consistent with its interpretation of section 17 of the 1995 Act (and that of British Waterways before it). Indeed in ensuring that the statutory framework to be inherited by the Trust was consistent with its charitable obligations I sought and obtained certain amendments to that framework (for example to the Transport Act 1968) which were put into effect by the Transfer Order. I took the view that no amendment to s.17(3)( c )(ii) British Waterways Act 1995 was necessary and that it would be an appropriate underpinning to the Trust’s charitable obligations.”

 

So because he felt that s.17 was compatible with the further obligations [as interpreted by him] of charity status - so long as his interpretation of s.17 was upheld – his acceptance that s.17 could be left intact [and that Parliament accepted that it could be left intact] is sufficient proof that his interpretation is correct, without needing to have amended the wording to make that clear!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

May I politely point out to all concerned that this issue affects the homes and lives of real people, and is not just some sort of academic, legal or accounting exercise.

 

If I remember correctly the discussion of a matter that is sub judice (as this appears to be), can be viewed as a contempt of court.

 

I suspect that CRT's curiously worded statement may well be referred to when the Judicial Review takes place.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

May I politely point out to all concerned that this issue affects the homes and lives of real people, and is not just some sort of academic, legal or accounting exercise.

 

If I remember correctly the discussion of a matter that is sub judice (as this appears to be), can be viewed as a contempt of court.

 

I suspect that CRT's curiously worded statement may well be referred to when the Judicial Review takes place.

 

It is good if belated advice. The fact however, is that Mr Johnson and Mr Parry have between them published their statements, together with the court documents, for all the world to see, read and discuss. Any contempt of court lies with them, not [i sincerely hope] with those discussing what they, the protagonists in the proceedings, have [whether rightly or wrongly] put into the public domain.

 

It is precisely becausethis issue affects the homes and lives of real people, and is not just some sort of academic, legal or accounting exercise” that concerned boaters of any and all persuasions [hopefully] are having this discussion over what these top executives and trustees have vouchsafed to us. In doing so, we are mostly debating arguments already bounced back and forth between the authority and boaters out in this, the real world. There are a couple of new tricks that have been revealed though . . .

 

I sincerely hope that the Statement will be referred to, - and without waiting until the Judicial Review takes place either; it was unprecedented folly on the part of the new CEO to consent to be part of this manoeuvre. The tactic was all too revealing of the nature of the beast.

 

This would not be the first time they have been in contempt of court, which Johnson’s comments on the judge and his permission decision amounts to, I suspect; if publishing the pleadings amounts to contempt also [i have been told otherwise, but I don’t know], then Messrs Johnson and Parry have only exacerbated their error.

 

I would be curious to learn what the Charity Commission thought of the matter, but they probably are disinterested.

  • Greenie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

So you cannot give a straight answer to a straight question.

 

...and you say I talk rubbish. :rolleyes:

that'll be a "ooh ohh! I've no idea how to answer any of Carl's questions so I'll just try and rubbish him. I wish John was here to tell me what to say." then.

I think the constitution on the link below adequately explains what the ACC is about.

 

http://www.associationofcontinuouscruisers.org.uk/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think the constitution on the link below adequately explains what the ACC is about.

 

http://www.associationofcontinuouscruisers.org.uk/

This is a discussion forum why can't you discuss instead of giving out links.

 

You talk about me "manipulating" when you cannot answer a direct question.

 

I believe you when you said you contemplated a career in politics.

 

Edited to add: It is interesting, though, that you cannot even give your real name out on your club's pages.

Richard Parry, Chief Executive of the Canal & River Trust, said: “Continuous cruisers make an important contribution to the life and vibrancy of our waterways and so the creation of the Association of Continuous Cruisers is a positive step forward which we very much welcome. We hope the new Association will help improve communications and mutual understanding between continuous cruisers, the Trust and other boating groups. The more we all work together the more we can improve the waterways we all care for.”

 

No wonder you're busy defending CRT against other boaters here.

 

Was your last meeting with CRT held at the Crossroads? wink.png

Edited by carlt
Link to comment
Share on other sites

see, for example, http://www.channel4.com/producers-handbook/media-law/contempt-and-reporting-legal-proceedings/contempt-or-sub-judice-rules

 

suggests that current forum discussion is not liekly to be in contempt of court (thankfully!)

 

It is good if belated advice. The fact however, is that Mr Johnson and Mr Parry have between them published their statements, together with the court documents, for all the world to see, read and discuss. Any contempt of court lies with them, not [i sincerely hope] with those discussing what they, the protagonists in the proceedings, have [whether rightly or wrongly] put into the public domain.

 

It is precisely becausethis issue affects the homes and lives of real people, and is not just some sort of academic, legal or accounting exercise” that concerned boaters of any and all persuasions [hopefully] are having this discussion over what these top executives and trustees have vouchsafed to us. In doing so, we are mostly debating arguments already bounced back and forth between the authority and boaters out in this, the real world. There are a couple of new tricks that have been revealed though . . .

 

I sincerely hope that the Statement will be referred to, - and without waiting until the Judicial Review takes place either; it was unprecedented folly on the part of the new CEO to consent to be part of this manoeuvre. The tactic was all too revealing of the nature of the beast.

 

This would not be the first time they have been in contempt of court, which Johnson’s comments on the judge and his permission decision amounts to, I suspect; if publishing the pleadings amounts to contempt also [i have been told otherwise, but I don’t know], then Messrs Johnson and Parry have only exacerbated their error.

 

I would be curious to learn what the Charity Commission thought of the matter, but they probably are disinterested.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

see, for example, http://www.channel4.com/producers-handbook/media-law/contempt-and-reporting-legal-proceedings/contempt-or-sub-judice-rules

 

suggests that current forum discussion is not liekly to be in contempt of court (thankfully!)

 

Thanks for that useful link Mike. It still is not quite clear to me even now. I can see the basis for the “sub-judice” rule, as respects undue influence where juries are concerned – although no jury is involved in this instance.

 

There is lack of clarity in the ‘Civil proceedings documents’ paragraph too – I see disclosed documents should not be published in live proceedings, but do pleadings qualify?

 

I wonder whether the disparaging personal comments by Parry and Johnson constitute an offence as per: “Publishing details of a defendant's lifestyle, if relevant to the charge.

 

The preceding one is interesting also: “Anticipating the course of a trial or predicting the outcome on television.”

 

If the basic test is that of potential influence of the outcome, then probably none of those would apply; as the article says: “professional judges are largely considered to be immune to prejudicial media reporting”. Nor is this properly a trial of an individual; it concerns the reviewing of an authority's decision at the behest of an individual affected by that decision.

 

All ‘bad form’ though, is it not?

p.s. I just had a swift look at the Contempt of Court Act 1981, wherein s.2(2) states:

 

The strict liability rule applies only to a publication which creates a substantial risk that the course of justice in the proceedings in question will be seriously impeded or prejudiced.”

 

s.5: “A publication made as or as part of a discussion in good faith of public affairs or other matters of general public interest is not to be treated as a contempt of court under the strict liability rule if the risk of impediment or prejudice to particular legal proceedings is merely incidental to the discussion.”

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks for that useful link Mike. It still is not quite clear to me even now. I can see the basis for the “sub-judice” rule, as respects undue influence where juries are concerned – although no jury is involved in this instance.

 

There is lack of clarity in the ‘Civil proceedings documents’ paragraph too – I see disclosed documents should not be published in live proceedings, but do pleadings qualify?

 

I wonder whether the disparaging personal comments by Parry and Johnson constitute an offence as per: “Publishing details of a defendant's lifestyle, if relevant to the charge.

 

The preceding one is interesting also: “Anticipating the course of a trial or predicting the outcome on television.”

 

If the basic test is that of potential influence of the outcome, then probably none of those would apply; as the article says: “professional judges are largely considered to be immune to prejudicial media reporting”. Nor is this properly a trial of an individual; it concerns the reviewing of an authority's decision at the behest of an individual affected by that decision.

 

All ‘bad form’ though, is it not?p.s. I just had a swift look at the Contempt of Court Act 1981, wherein s.2(2) states:

 

The strict liability rule applies only to a publication which creates a substantial risk that the course of justice in the proceedings in question will be seriously impeded or prejudiced.”

 

s.5: “A publication made as or as part of a discussion in good faith of public affairs or other matters of general public interest is not to be treated as a contempt of court under the strict liability rule if the risk of impediment or prejudice to particular legal proceedings is merely incidental to the discussion.”

 

Dare I suggest the trust got permission before making this public?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dare I suggest the trust got permission before making this public?

 

Of course you may dare, it’s an interesting thought. But if it was so serious a matter, would they not have stated so? Certainly, if permission for publishing the pleadings was required [i’m still uncertain whether it is], one would hope they did get it. Maybe they will come out and say so, after this kerfuffle.

 

My target was the accusation by Johnson that the Lord Justice had got it wrong, in contradicting him and the lesser judges.

 

Reassured by the discovery that “discussion in good faith of . . . matters of general public interest is not to be treated as a contempt of court”, I’ll post a final snippet of comment on what Johnson has revealed – regarding acknowledgement of more varieties of boater v boater conflict [this time involving boating businesses], referring to their involvement in the 2011 consultation over the guidelines. Johnson’s para. 72: -

 

There then followed a general discussion much of which focused on the problems

arising from non-compliance with the requirements of s.17. The representatives from

the trade organisations (to which businesses such as boat hire companies and inland

marina providers belong) emphasised the difficulties that their customers were

experiencing and urged more intensive enforcement by British Waterways.” [my emphasis]

 

The British Marine Federation is quoted also [para. 80(2)]: -

 

People who are constantly mooring at online sites designated as visitor or short

term moorings has become a major problem for our members and their

customers. It is impairing the quality of the waterway experience for the private

boater and holiday hirerswe want to see “robust enforcement of the BW guidelines and

byelaws” that will address the problems caused by “continuous cruisers”.” [my emphasis]

 

No distinction made there, between ‘compliant’ and ‘non-compliant’; the CC’ers as a class are considered to be a problem to other private [presumably those with home moorings] and hire boaters.

 

It is going to take a very serious effort on all sides, for this artificial state of damaging resentments to be dispensed with. Not only will accurate statistics be needed to show that the hogging of mooring spaces cannot be definitively laid at the door of one ‘class’ or the other, a conscious decision needs to be made by the occasionally discommoded, to keep their [however justified] irritation to themselves – to ‘suck it up’ [inelegant expression but I can’t think of a better for the moment] in the interests of withholding ammunition for an offensive that, as Johnson’s Witness Statement and the Defence is beginning to reveal 'from the horse’s mouth’, is aimed at all classes of boater; others have observed it before now – CC’ers are the initial target only; the home moorers and 'off-line'ers' are next in the ‘increase the income’ drive.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Is it not the case that what is to come before the court is not an Appeal but an application for judicial review?

 

Also, has a date for the hearing been set? This is important in the context of the cited advice re sub judice.

 

 

Of course you may dare, it’s an interesting thought. But if it was so serious a matter, would they not have stated so? Certainly, if permission for publishing the pleadings was required [i’m still uncertain whether it is], one would hope they did get it. Maybe they will come out and say so, after this kerfuffle.

 

My target was the accusation by Johnson that the Lord Justice had got it wrong, in contradicting him and the lesser judges.

 

Reassured by the discovery that “discussion in good faith of . . . matters of general public interest is not to be treated as a contempt of court”, I’ll post a final snippet of comment on what Johnson has revealed – regarding acknowledgement of more varieties of boater v boater conflict [this time involving boating businesses], referring to their involvement in the 2011 consultation over the guidelines. Johnson’s para. 72: -

 

There then followed a general discussion much of which focused on the problems

arising from non-compliance with the requirements of s.17. The representatives from

the trade organisations (to which businesses such as boat hire companies and inland

marina providers belong) emphasised the difficulties that their customers were

experiencing and urged more intensive enforcement by British Waterways.” [my emphasis]

 

The British Marine Federation is quoted also [para. 80(2)]: -

 

People who are constantly mooring at online sites designated as visitor or short

term moorings has become a major problem for our members and their

customers. It is impairing the quality of the waterway experience for the private

boater and holiday hirerswe want to see “robust enforcement of the BW guidelines and

byelaws” that will address the problems caused by “continuous cruisers”.” [my emphasis]

 

No distinction made there, between ‘compliant’ and ‘non-compliant’; the CC’ers as a class are considered to be a problem to other private [presumably those with home moorings] and hire boaters.

 

It is going to take a very serious effort on all sides, for this artificial state of damaging resentments to be dispensed with. Not only will accurate statistics be needed to show that the hogging of mooring spaces cannot be definitively laid at the door of one ‘class’ or the other, a conscious decision needs to be made by the occasionally discommoded, to keep their [however justified] irritation to themselves – to ‘suck it up’ [inelegant expression but I can’t think of a better for the moment] in the interests of withholding ammunition for an offensive that, as Johnson’s Witness Statement and the Defence is beginning to reveal 'from the horse’s mouth’, is aimed at all classes of boater; others have observed it before now – CC’ers are the initial target only; the home moorers and 'off-line'ers' are next in the ‘increase the income’ drive.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<"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”.

 

I struggle to see any way they can legally charge for not providing a service. Even their loose interpretation of s.43 won't stretch that far.>

Surely this just relates to those of us on off-side nonCART long term moorings or in a marina paying for a mooring permit? Can't see it's any more threatening than that. Can't actually see that it's threatening at all...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<"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”.

 

I struggle to see any way they can legally charge for not providing a service. Even their loose interpretation of s.43 won't stretch that far.>

Surely this just relates to those of us on off-side nonCART long term moorings or in a marina paying for a mooring permit? Can't see it's any more threatening than that. Can't actually see that it's threatening at all...

Finally managed to pluck out my post quoted.

 

Marina and private moorings are not "off the network" and they also pay either a connection fee or and EOG mooring charge.

 

He was referring to those of us with a mooring on waters other than CRT or somewhere else where their boat can be reasonably and lawfully kept (a driveway, for example).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Finally managed to pluck out my post quoted.

 

Marina and private moorings are not "off the network" and they also pay either a connection fee or and EOG mooring charge.

 

He was referring to those of us with a mooring on waters other than CRT or somewhere else where their boat can be reasonably and lawfully kept (a driveway, for example).

 

Even more inclusively probably, given that not all marinas or EoG moorings pay fees, Johnson is referring to every situation wherein a licensed boat is not paying for ‘resting’ while not actively engaging in navigation; including of course, the driveways and alternative jurisdictions.

 

The key problem for this interpretation of the combined effect of Charities Law and the waterways Acts, is that the Transfer Order insists in its preamble that it “does not remove any necessary protection or prevent any person from continuing to exercise any right or freedom which that person might reasonably expect to continue to exercise.”

 

So if you were legally permitted to park your boat on the driveway of your domicile prior to passage of the Transfer Order, or indeed if you were legally moored online without needing to pay a fee, then nothing consequent upon the Transfer Order can affect that; Mr Johnson may well think otherwise, “. . . but if he did it would not matter a row of beans .”

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Meanwhile I was hearing of a boater today who has been CC'ing within quite a restricted area on the southern GU for many years 20+, who is in the section 8 process. He is around 70 and managed to borrow £2k to get an initial 6 month mooring to comply with the new "charitable" regime however CRT have refused to issue a new license as he has not proved to their satisfaction that he now has a home mooring.

 

If we accept elsewhere that boaters have not moved enough but have been given the nod by the old BW regime which seems to be the premis for RMP's or community mooring permits and if the end game is to get boaters to take a home mooring it seems wrong not to relicense those that make an effort to do so albeit reluctantly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Meanwhile I was hearing of a boater today who has been CC'ing within quite a restricted area on the southern GU for many years 20+, who is in the section 8 process. He is around 70 and managed to borrow £2k to get an initial 6 month mooring to comply with the new "charitable" regime however CRT have refused to issue a new license as he has not proved to their satisfaction that he now has a home mooring.

If we accept elsewhere that boaters have not moved enough but have been given the nod by the old BW regime which seems to be the premis for RMP's or community mooring permits and if the end game is to get boaters to take a home mooring it seems wrong not to relicense those that make an effort to do so albeit reluctantly.

I've been working on that case with someone else, there's more to it than that.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Jenlyn aka Steve Jenkin/Steve J/John Evans etc etc whatever.

 

Mr Jenkin,

 

I have listened to the considerable vitriol that you have posted on this subject in this forum and others specifically directed at me and directed at a more general audience. I have noted your undemocratic ejection of members from your Facebook forum that take a stance that is opposed to your own that, without question, is designed to stamp out broad, democratic discussion of a subject that is extremely important.

 

To draw your attention to the judgement of the European Court of Human Rights in Kay v UK, there is little more important than home. I note that CRT is seeking to “price us off the system” (ie from our homes) (quote Sally Ash, who was videoed when she said this in a public meeting).

 

I have also had reported to me your actions in general in terms of harassment of and being threatening to itinerant boaters. Your language on the fora I have referred to is indeed consistent with this. I am also aware of the collusion between senior executives of CRT and yourself both in relation to the creation of the prototype Roving Mooring Permit scheme and your founding of the ACC.

 

In relation to this, I have no need to say anything further as your reputation appears now to precede you. I would not wish to be “undemocratic” and seek to staunch your vitriol. However should your prejudice extend to a level sufficently extreme that may be identified as hate crime then this would simply become a matter for the Police and I would stand back.

 

However in relation to the litigation in hand, of which I also wish to say nothing as the matter is sub judice, all I can reasonably observe (paying regard to not overstepping the line that woudl place me in contempt of Court) is that the Court will resolve Mr Johnson's actions in the way that it sees fit either before or at trial. Equally the Trustees will address Mr Johnson's professional conduct in the way that it sees fit. I am also aware of at least one local authority that is minded to bring the corporate conduct of CRT to the attention of the Equality and Human Rights Commission. This may in turn have bearing on the opinion of the Charities Commission. These things might have bearing on the wisdon of your support of CRTs ideals and the orgnaisation itself.

 

I would in normal circumstances request that in relation to your own conduct you “cease and desist” but I know that I would be wasting my breath.

 

 

@steve_timbeck – Steve could you e-mail me by some convenient route when you get a minute? Thanks!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've been working on that case with someone else, there's more to it than that.

I like the bit where they posted out his license then didn't bank the check if that's true. Just picking up the gossip from a mutual friend at the moment, will no doubt hear more as I get closer.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Nick Brown ;-)

 

Screenshot_2013-07-24-20-20-09.png

I like the bit where they posted out his license then didn't bank the check if that's true. Just picking up the gossip from a mutual friend at the moment, will no doubt hear more as I get closer.

The trouble is with this stuff, it's often half a dozen of one, and six of the other.

I've always stated with these meetings that no one can help unless the person at least makes an effort to help themselves, preferably before getting a cc3. Because that just leaves it to late.

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
  • 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.