NICK BROWN vs CANAL & RIVER TRUST Charity responds to misconceived claim for judicial review

[MtB]

Satisfy the board means that the board are satisfies that boaters are following the laws as set out by Parliament. The board are the the authority that ensures that the Acts of parliament are followed it does not give them the power to change Acts of parliament

 

Aha, now we are getting somewhere.

 

My understanding was that 'satisfy the board' means that the board needs to be satisfied the boater in question is engaged in 'bona fide navigation'. is that wrong then?

 

I'll turn the question around. Do YOU have a link to the legislation please?

 

Thanks.

 

MtB

[nicknorman]

Nick still not seen a prefix on a licence that defines "genuine CCer" one would asume if he is not under enforcement he must be compliant surely

Why on earth would you think that an absence of enforcement proves compliance? I suppose that you, as a genuine CCer don't have quite the same picture as I, as a marina based leisure boater, do. Because we are marina based and often go out just for the weekend, we tend to see the same stretch of canal over and over again - in our case it's typically Fazeley to Fradley. On that 12 mile stretch there are numerous boats that we recognise as always being there. A dozen at least. One has not moved since we got our boat 3 years ago. Another has been in the same place for at least a year. Half a dozen at least only move within a range of a couple of miles - one told me he would like to move more but couldn't because he had to get the kids to school every day.

 

This is not a particularly big deal but does show that CMing is alive and well and CRT are not bothering with it in this area. I have never seen any of these boats with a patrol notice on it, with the exception of a couple that were not licensed, and one that looks like its been abandoned on visitor moorings.

[jenlyn]

The biggest issue I see is the attempt to define. A continuing roundabout that serves no purpose whatsoever.

 

There are 5076 registered as CC boats on the system as of yesterday, and I suspect rather conservatively, another 1000 that have not declared cc.

That's 3 boats for every mile of system. That suggests there is a problem developing, which if you can't see it, you must be blind.

 

Defining place will not solve this problem.

Fiddling with Vm's will not solve this problem.

 

Getting new legislation might solve it, but is more likely to cause a massive headache for all concerned, Council's, government and CRT.

People living on boats will not be something that goes away, it's now become too established. The council's and housing associations are not equipped to deal with such an influx of homeless people.

 

CRT needs to sit down, talk and work towards a solution with those directly concerned.

The legislation they have is more than sufficient to deal with the issues of non compliance they are experiencing.

They first and foremost need to bring their enforcement team into line by being consistent, as this is a major hurdle with which they are in constant denial.

 

Start moving the people that do not move at all, they have the legislation to do this.

 

For heavens sake, stop trying to define. Look for solutions.

[NBDensie]

...... The Rules (Laws) are set by Acts of Parliament and CRT try and define the Law

 

CRT have every right to interpret and enforce the Law in what they consider a reasonable way. If someone considers the CRT interpretation is not reasonable ultimately their only recourse is to convince a judge. If they are successful it is then up to the judge to identify a reasonable interpretation of the Law.

[cotswoldsman]

 

Aha, now we are getting somewhere.

 

My understanding was that 'satisfy the board' means that the board needs to be satisfied the boater in question is engaged in 'bona fide navigation'. is that wrong then?

 

I'll turn the question around. Do YOU have a link to the legislation please?

 

Thanks.

 

MtB

As I said I do have some stuff to do (CCers meeting hehe) but start at this point if you want if I had more time I would try and point you at the exact part

 

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukla/1995/1/section/17/enacted

[David Schweizer]

can not argue with any of that but we are where we are and I can not see parliamentary time being given up any time soon to sort this out. I think IWA were the main lobby group at the time for all the good reasons you mention

 

Which is why CaRT should get themselves in the queue, in the meantime a Departmental, or Ministerial memorandum would take up far less time. When I was in Education, we were working under the 1944 Education Act, which barely mentioned the service I was engaged in, but we had legal status applied to us by a sucession of Ministerial memoranda and and guidance notes. It's how Government works.

[cotswoldsman]

 

CRT have every right to interpret and enforce the Law in what they consider a reasonable way. If someone considers the CRT interpretation is not reasonable ultimately their only recourse is to convince a judge. If they are successful it is then up to the judge to identify a reasonable interpretation of the Law.

Never said I do not agre with that, all I am saying is CRT do not have the power to make new rules they can only offer guidance and the Nick Brown case is all about those Guid Lines

[magnetman]

I remember when the first guidance for cc'ers came out it said

 

"...this defines what continuous cruising is NOT"

 

Made me giggle at the time

[carlt]

...not being under an enforcement process does not mean he is a compliant CCer....

Not being under investigation for murder doesn't mean you haven't murdered somebody.

 

Fortunately we have something in this country called "innocent until proven guilty".

[David Schweizer]

The biggest issue I see is the attempt to define. A continuing roundabout that serves no purpose whatsoever.

 

There are 5076 registered as CC boats on the system as of yesterday, and I suspect rather conservatively, another 1000 that have not declared cc.

That's 3 boats for every mile of system. That suggests there is a problem developing, which if you can't see it, you must be blind.

 

Defining place will not solve this problem.

Fiddling with Vm's will not solve this problem.

 

Getting new legislation might solve it, but is more likely to cause a massive headache for all concerned, Council's, government and CRT.

People living on boats will not be something that goes away, it's now become too established. The council's and housing associations are not equipped to deal with such an influx of homeless people.

 

CRT needs to sit down, talk and work towards a solution with those directly concerned.

The legislation they have is more than sufficient to deal with the issues of non compliance they are experiencing.

They first and foremost need to bring their enforcement team into line by being consistent, as this is a major hurdle with which they are in constant denial.

 

Start moving the people that do not move at all, they have the legislation to do this.

 

For heavens sake, stop trying to define. Look for solutions.

 

Perhaps some of them, will move back into their old converted Coaches and Vans which used to monopolise all the laybys in this part of the world!

[cotswoldsman]

As I said I do have some stuff to do (CCers meeting hehe) but start at this point if you want if I had more time I would try and point you at the exact part

 

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukla/1995/1/section/17/enacted

Soory seems to go staight to section 17 that must be because that was the last thing I read last time I was brushing up on the Act.

Happy reading

[magnetman]

I got my first Nb in 1995. Since then there has been a change in the type of people who are on boats.

 

I blame Gordon brown for BOE independence and housing cost increases

Mobile phones

BW

 

Maybe new legislation is needed because we are looking at a different population its no longer full of happy compliant hippies

[jenlyn]

Perhaps some of them, will move back into their old converted Coaches and Vans which used to monopolise all the laybys in this part of the world!

Thankyou for your...........input

[cotswoldsman]

 

Perhaps some of them, will move back into their old converted Coaches and Vans which used to monopolise all the laybys in this part of the world!

Talk about some type of stereo typing as long as people continue to have this sort of attitude there will always be a them and us.

[junior]

I've met 2 few boaters recently who have said to me I'm leaving the marina to CC.

Make that 3.

 

I leave my mooring in 10 days to become a CC'er. There are a few reasons why, but one of them is that it is an expense I can't afford at the moment.

[NBDensie]

Never said I do not agre with that, all I am saying is CRT do not have the power to make new rules they can only offer guidance and the Nick Brown case is all about those Guid Lines

 

I am afraid I disagree. If CRT need to create new rules to implement their interpretation of the Law, they have every right to do so. Indeed that is the only way that they can enforce their interpretation.

 

From Richard Parry's comments and actions so far I am at the moment confident that they will do this in way that will benefit the bona fide boater.

[cotswoldsman]

 

I am afraid I disagree. If CRT need to create new rules to implement their interpretation of the Law, they have every right to do so. Indeed that is the only way that they can enforce their interpretation.

 

From Richard Parry's comments and actions so far I am at the moment confident that they will do this in way that will benefit the bona fide boater.

lol they do not have the power to change Laws not even the police can do that the law is the Law or we might aswell get rid of Parliament (maybe not a bad idea) CRT do not have the power to interpret Laws the only person who can do that id a Judge. I keep coming back to it CRT issue Guidance to how they interpret the Law hence why for example they are not able to state a distance that CCers should travel in one year

[nicknorman]

Not being under investigation for murder doesn't mean you haven't murdered somebody.

 

Fortunately we have something in this country called "innocent until proven guilty".

You miss the point. It is not about innocent until proven guilty. Using your example, it is that not being under investigation for murder doesn't prove you have not murdered someone. No such legal proof is required of course, the sort of proof I am talking about is a natural one, like proving that 1+1 = 2. There is no law for that!

[David Schweizer]

Talk about some type of stereo typing as long as people continue to have this sort of attitude there will always be a them and us.

 

Sorry John, Nothing to do with stereotyping but fact. I don't think you were even around when this all started, but I know for a fact that the first influx of boats moored at the western end of the K&A claiming to be continuous cruisers were populated by people who had come off the road, Some of them still had their vans and coaches parked in the laybys along the Warminster Road before they were removed by the Authiorities. I knew many of them, and some of them are still there.

Edited February 20, 2014 by David Schweizer

[carlt]

No such legal proof is required of course, the sort of proof I am talking about is a natural one, like proving that 1+1 = 2. There is no law for that!

So are you saying that, based on things that Nick Brown has done or said in the past, you are able to form an opinion that he is not a "compliant ccer"?

[cotswoldsman]

 

Sorry John, Nothing to do with stereotyping but fact. I don't think you were even around when this all started, but I know for a fact that the first influx of boats moored at the western end of the K&A claiming to be continuous cruisers were populated by people who had come off the road, Some of them still had their vans and coaches parked in the laybys along the Warminster Road before they were removed by the Authiorities. I knew some of them, and some of them are still there.

David I meant stereotyping as in what is wrong with moving from a bus to a boat you post reads as if they are another class of people.

[Lady Muck]

Make that 3.

I leave my mooring in 10 days to become a CC'er. There are a few reasons why, but one of them is that it is an expense I can't afford at the moment.

I will have to too if my mooring goes up much more. Already getting the boat set up for cruising in case we have to. Installing a rather large solar array this spring.

It's stuff like the BWML price hikes that make me nervous and I don't want to get caught by surprise.

[MtB]

Soory seems to go staight to section 17 that must be because that was the last thing I read last time I was brushing up on the Act.

Happy reading

 

Thank you!

 

MtB

[nicknorman]

So are you saying that, based on things that Nick Brown has done or said in the past, you are able to form an opinion that he is not a "compliant ccer"?

As I said before, I have no idea whether he is a CCCer or not. All I do know is that the fact that he is not under enforcement doesn't prove it either way. But as I also said before, the organisation of which he seems to be a key figure, does promote policies that are non-compliant.

[carlt]

All I do know is that the fact that he is not under enforcement doesn't prove it either way.

You imply that he is non-compliant just by raising it.

 

Perhaps you should heed the advice of someone whose opinion I'm sure you respect...

 

....but people and their posts should be judged on the merit of their current actions / posts, not what they may have done/said in the distant past.