vexatious. .....

[mayalld]

So you say , just as well the the instance we are talking about was when Allan was posting the stuff on here and your complaining "again" was on here.

 

I think we get your point.

 

CRT are bad, and anybody accusing CRT of being bad is right, and any lack of evidence is down to CRT covering it up, and anybody pressing on against CRT in the face of an overwhelming lack of evidence is a superhero who should be praised to the heavens.

 

I continuously wonder how I manage to negotiate my interactions with officialdom without encountering these conspiracies. How it is that where I have a complaint, I find that I arrive at the end of the process having reached a satisfactory outcome.

[Rich]

 

I think we get your point.

 

CRT are bad, and anybody accusing CRT of being bad is right, and any lack of evidence is down to CRT covering it up, and anybody pressing on against CRT in the face of an overwhelming lack of evidence is a superhero who should be praised to the heavens.

 

I continuously wonder how I manage to negotiate my interactions with officialdom without encountering these conspiracies. How it is that where I have a complaint, I find that I arrive at the end of the process having reached a satisfactory outcome.

 

O would some power the giftie gie us to see ourselves as others see us.

[Ray T]

 

O would some power the giftie gie us to see ourselves as others see us.

 

Pedant alert:

 

O wad some Power the giftie gie us

Tae see oursels as ithers see us!

It wad frae mony a blunder free us,

An' foolish notion:

What airs in dress an' gait wad lea'e us,

An' ev'n devotion!

R Burns.

Edited December 17, 2013 by Ray T

[GillianOlcay]

According to an update on NBW, Mr Parry responded to Allan but has not specifically denied any alteration of a copy of the Terrier Map, which he says is routine practice. I can understand that, but he says that “use of the terrier plan as background evidence of its title was abandoned by British Waterways a long time ago so the issue of their use is entirely irrelevant’.

 

I guess my immediate reaction to the quote would be why was use of the plan abandoned?

 

It doesn't seem that Allan's pursuit of the matter is being considered vexatious or beneath their notice, so I would have expected a response that didn't raise more questions than it answered.

 

[Rich]

 

Pedant alert:

 

O wad some Power the giftie gie us

Tae see oursels as ithers see us!

It wad frae mony a blunder free us,

An' foolish notion:

What airs in dress an' gait wad lea'e us,

An' ev'n devotion!

R Burns.

 

Fair comment. I went for the third hit on the Google page, did yours come from the first? If not, I really am impressed.

[StarUKKiwi]

Simple question - I thought (and correct me if I am wrong) that as CaRT is a charity and no longer publicly funded, that FoI requests are useless as they can only be made against public sector organisations.

Edited December 17, 2013 by StarUKKiwi

[NigelMoore]

Simple question - I thought (and correct me if I am wrong) that as CaRT is a charity and no longer publicly funded, that FoI requests are useless as they can only be made against public sector organisations.

 

You are not quite correct, but it makes little practical difference. The issue was specifically addressed following a DEFRA consultation on the point in the lead up to the Transition Order. It was decided to make CaRT susceptible to the FoI Act in respect of all those functions of BW which the charity inherited.

 

Sadly, CaRT have been very inventive in interpreting the law, and the Information Commissioner has recently confirmed his agreement that all historic BW material is exempt. Further, most of the functions that might be thought by ordinary people to relate to running the waterways are now considered to be exercised under private company law rather than by virtue of functions inherited from BW.

 

So the intent of Parliament has been very effectively emasculated, and CaRT will only reveal such information as they choose, out of the kindness of their hearts.

[Ray T]

 

Fair comment. I went for the third hit on the Google page, did yours come from the first? If not, I really am impressed.

 

My mother was a Scot, came from Wick in Caithness.

 

I have a book of Rabbie Burns poems which belonged to my Mum.

[Guest]

You are not quite correct, but it makes little practical difference. The issue was specifically addressed following a DEFRA consultation on the point in the lead up to the Transition Order. It was decided to make CaRT susceptible to the FoI Act in respect of all those functions of BW which the charity inherited.

 

Sadly, CaRT have been very inventive in interpreting the law, and the Information Commissioner has recently confirmed his agreement that all historic BW material is exempt. Further, most of the functions that might be thought by ordinary people to relate to running the waterways are now considered to be exercised under private company law rather than by virtue of functions inherited from BW.

 

So the intent of Parliament has been very effectively emasculated, and CaRT will only reveal such information as they choose, out of the kindness of their hearts.

Interesting.....

[LoneWolf]

 

You are not quite correct, but it makes little practical difference. The issue was specifically addressed following a DEFRA consultation on the point in the lead up to the Transition Order. It was decided to make CaRT susceptible to the FoI Act in respect of all those functions of BW which the charity inherited.

 

Sadly, CaRT have been very inventive in interpreting the law, and the Information Commissioner has recently confirmed his agreement that all historic BW material is exempt. Further, most of the functions that might be thought by ordinary people to relate to running the waterways are now considered to be exercised under private company law rather than by virtue of functions inherited from BW.

 

So the intent of Parliament has been very effectively emasculated, and CaRT will only reveal such information as they choose, out of the kindness of their hearts.

 

sometimes they will answer questions when they don't have to https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/money_spent_on_answering_questio

 

[MtB]

Get a .50 cal. They use a disintegrating style belt. Less jams.

Bob

 

Fewer!

 

 

MtB

[Guest]

sometimes they will answer questions when they don't have to https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/money_spent_on_answering_questio

 

They go the extra mile and get mocked for it...??

[Allan(nb Albert)]

sometimes they will answer questions when they don't have to https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/money_spent_on_answering_questio

 

Here is another example of CaRT responding to a request when they don't have to (or at least they claim they don't have to) -

 

Key Performance Indicators

 

 

[Guest]

Here is another example of CaRT responding to a request when they don't have to (or at least they claim they don't have to) -Key Performance Indicators

 

This is incisive stuff, god it's great you ask this sort of stuff, I mean where would we be with out it?

Edited December 17, 2013 by The Dog House

[LoneWolf]

They go the extra mile and get mocked for it...??

 

who's mocking? not me - full marks to Sarina Young for that answer

[Guest]

who's mocking? not me - full marks to Sarina Young for that answer

I agree, I misunderstood the meaning of your grinning smiley.

[Allan(nb Albert)]

This is incisive stuff, god it's great you ask this sort of stuff, I mean where would we be with out it?

Well, for one thing, we would not be in the position of having this data published for September's board meeting where some of the green stuff turns to amber and red.

[Allan(nb Albert)]

According to an update on NBW, Mr Parry responded to Allan but has not specifically denied any alteration of a copy of the Terrier Map, which he says is routine practice. I can understand that, but he says that “use of the terrier plan as background evidence of its title was abandoned by British Waterways a long time ago so the issue of their use is entirely irrelevant’.

 

I guess my immediate reaction to the quote would be why was use of the plan abandoned?

 

It doesn't seem that Allan's pursuit of the matter is being considered vexatious or beneath their notice, so I would have expected a response that didn't raise more questions than it answered.

 

CaRT have now responded twice on the matter and I can confirm that neither response has suggested that the original article was vexatious -

 

Forgery and fraud

 

No forgery or fraud

 

Parry on 'Forgery and fraud'

 

My understanding is that after an exchange of emails with narrowboatwold's editor (and taking into account my response), CaRT no longer hold that the original article is defamatory.

 

I would agree that Richard Parry's response leaves more questions than he answers. This is particularly so bearing in mind that it is a month since I told him that if he had any doubts regarding the Moore allegations then he simply had to look at CaRT's terrier to see that it differs from the copy used to dispute BYB's claim.

[Paul C]

Can I ask:

 

- what's the claim to the land BYB have? Did they buy it? Or are they claiming it due to adverse possession (squatting)?

 

- are BYB still in liquidation?

[Guest]

Well, for one thing, we would not be in the position of having this data published for September's board meeting where some of the green stuff turns to amber and red.

Ah OK ....

 

~ wanders off to figure out if this should worry or concern us in any way shape or form ~

[mayalld]

 

O would some power the giftie gie us to see ourselves as others see us.

 

Something of a non-sequitur that.

 

I merely wonder why it is that (for example), Nigel repeatedly finds that in disputes those who are empowered to judge the dispute find against him.

 

Why is it that when I find myself faced with disputes or complaints, I don't have this problem, and usually end up with a ruling in my favour.

 

Could it be that I only fight for things when I am actually right, whereas Nigel fights where he imagines himself to be right, but objectively he isn't.

[Rich]

The people attempting to get answers, to what seem to be important questions, from Canal and River Trust bring to mind Heather Brooke, of expenses scandal fame, and her battles.

 

I have no doubt that the powers that be thought her most vexatious, but because she wouldn't give up she uncovered an appalling situation and the matter was then taken up by the press. I have a suspicion that very many of the MPs affected by the revelations still can't really see what they did wrong.

 

Mr. Moore's efforts are possibly a half house brick in the shoe of Canal and River Trust, as were Ms. Brooke's efforts.

 

Big business like the banks, insurance companies and the like count on the fact that most people haven't the money, stamina or expertise to fight them. Thankfully the occasional reef appears in their little lagoons of complacency. All power to the reefs of this world.

[mayalld]

The people attempting to get answers, to what seem to be important questions, from Canal and River Trust bring to mind Heather Brooke, of expenses scandal fame, and her battles.

 

I have no doubt that the powers that be thought her most vexatious, but because she wouldn't give up she uncovered an appalling situation and the matter was then taken up by the press. I have a suspicion that very many of the MPs affected by the revelations still can't really see what they did wrong.

 

Mr. Moore's efforts are possibly a half house brick in the shoe of Canal and River Trust, as were Ms. Brooke's efforts.

 

Big business like the banks, insurance companies and the like count on the fact that most people haven't the money, stamina or expertise to fight them. Thankfully the occasional reef appears in their little lagoons of complacency. All power to the reefs of this world.

 

It is fair to say that VERY occasionally, somebody who might in the ordinary run of things be thought vexatious does find the smoking gun, but to extrapolate this into thinking that everybody who goes down this route is of the same ilk is fanciful.

 

I have taken on Banks. I have taken on an insurance company (very large judgement from the Ombudsman in my favour, I have taken on BW (two formal complaints settled in my favor).

 

Why do I win, when Nigel loses.

[Guest]

The people attempting to get answers, to what seem to be important questions, from Canal and River Trust bring to mind Heather Brooke, of expenses scandal fame, and her battles.

 

I have no doubt that the powers that be thought her most vexatious, but because she wouldn't give up she uncovered an appalling situation and the matter was then taken up by the press. I have a suspicion that very many of the MPs affected by the revelations still can't really see what they did wrong.

 

Mr. Moore's efforts are possibly a half house brick in the shoe of Canal and River Trust, as were Ms. Brooke's efforts.

 

Big business like the banks, insurance companies and the like count on the fact that most people haven't the money, stamina or expertise to fight them. Thankfully the occasional reef appears in their little lagoons of complacency. All power to the reefs of this world.

 

The problem is the resources (both financial and human) consumed while you try and deal with the issues they are raising even when there is no issue to raise.

 

At one point of my dealing with a vexatious complainant/litigant as a manager of several health services I could find myself working up to two or three days per week just dealing with just one patient and their family. This is against a background of the services I was responsible for having a total of around a total of 3,500 patients.

 

It was way too far away from being proportionate. You actually start to feel harassed in the truest sense of the word. I of course am speaking generally here as I have no idea how much money or time has been spent on this issue by CRT but I can only surmise the answer to both is considerable.

 

It is easy to see somebody as some sort of hero 'pursuing the cause' so to speak or even 'David V Goliath' but the truth is their actions have consequences for people and organisations not least in somebody being forced out of what they should be doing into doing something that added no value what so ever for any body else.

 

There are two sides of the coin.

[Rich]

 

Why do I win, when Nigel loses.

 

So are you saying that because you and a few others on this forum say he has no case Mr. Moore should stop. According to what is available online elsewhere there does appear to be evidence that there is a case.

 

I don't know and neither do you. You only think you know and wise you may be but infallible?