Jump to content

Another new way to lose your Licence


Tony Dunkley

Featured Posts

I never knew that happened with people on an ignore list, interesting.

Thanks for quoting him junior - I would never have had to read that pile of vitriole otherwise!

 

I'll leave further comment until later - I've had a few drinks so now is not the best time for a measured response. Suffice to say that this man's ability to twist any innocent hoping to be funny comment into something spiteful (including misinterpreting my smileys to the point where I've been worried about using them) has been breathtaking.

 

I feel very sorry for him.

 

No doubt there will be a vitriolic response accusing me of playing the victim as he did the last time I threw my hands up and wondered why he was taking my posts the wrong way. C'est la vie.

 

PS it'd be really great if you folks didn't quote his response - I've blocked him because his nastiness lost me sleep and came close to making me leave the forum. It's right that he has his say but I don't want to read it. Thank you :)

Edited by Ange
  • Greenie 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks for quoting him junior - I would never have had to read that pile of vitriole otherwise!

 

I'll leave further comment until later - I've had a few drinks so now is not the best time for a measured response. Suffice to say that this man's ability to twist any innocent hoping to be funny comment into something spiteful (including misinterpreting my smileys to the point where I've been worried about using them) has been breathtaking.

 

I feel very sorry for him.

 

No doubt there will be a vitriolic response accusing me of playing the victim as he did the last time I threw my hands up and wondered why he was taking my posts the wrong way. C'est la vie.

 

PS it'd be really great if you folks didn't quote his response - I've blocked him because his nastiness lost me sleep and came close to making me leave the forum. It's right that he has his say but I don't want to read it. Thank you smile.png

Ange I seriously think you should have a word with yourself.

 

You are getting things completely out of proportion. If you read this or don't read it is not of my concern but I still need to say it for the clarity of others.

 

I could point to several examples of your 'nastiness; including silly childish comments added to your profile like "shudders" - remember?, merely because I was logged in at the time on my tablet and not as usual logged in 'anonymously' and hit your user name with my fat fingers which of course took me to your profile. It was another member who drew my attention to that one.

 

And what about this little gem?

 

After dismissing the notion of using this facility many times I've finally succumbed and blocked someone.

 

I wish I'd done it years ago!

 

It is a bugger when you still get to see the crap they post when they're quoted by other members but it's easier to ignore when it's not accompanied by an avatar that you just want to spit at as soon as it appears.

 

All is good in my world now smile.png

Is not anybody that can talk about spitting at somebodies avatar being rather spiteful?, how does that need 'twisting into something else', I think the meaning is pretty clear.

 

And the big show you made of blocking me, what's that all about? - just do it, don't make a song and dance about it, or turn it into a childish guessing game 'Oooooh guess who I've just blocked today'

 

And the bit about calling somebody 'shallow' ( I think that was the word) just because his wife bought him a personal reg. for his fiftieth birthday... how the hell can you judge me as shallow you don't even know me having only briefly met twice I think it is..... does that not warrant a response.. damn right it does.

 

Not forgetting the rubbishing of posts on matters unrelated to living aboard (internet access) because I don't live aboard or only manage to use our boat in short bursts is that not 'nastiness' as you call it???

 

I have no need for you to feel sorry for me, I have a lot of friends on here and in real life, there is truly nothing to feel sorry for.

 

Get over yourself, and yes, stop playing the innocent victim.

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

 

Ange I seriously think you should have a word with yourself.

 

You are getting things completely out of proportion. If you read this or don't read it is not of my concern but I still need to say it for the clarity of others.

 

I could point to several examples of your 'nastiness; including silly childish comments added to your profile like "shudders" - remember?, merely because I was logged in at the time on my tablet and not as usual logged in 'anonymously' and hit your user name with my fat fingers which of course took me to your profile. It was another member who drew my attention to that one.

 

And what about this little gem?

 

 

Is not anybody that can talk about spitting at somebodies avatar being rather spiteful?, how does that need 'twisting into something else', I think the meaning is pretty clear.

 

And the big show you made of blocking me, what's that all about? - just do it, don't make a song and dance about it, or turn it into a childish guessing game 'Oooooh guess who I've just blocked today'

 

And the bit about calling somebody 'shallow' ( I think that was the word) just because his wife bought him a personal reg. for his fiftieth birthday... how the hell can you judge me as shallow you don't even know me having only briefly met twice I think it is..... does that not warrant a response.. damn right it does.

 

Not forgetting the rubbishing of posts on matters unrelated to living aboard (internet access) because I don't live aboard or only manage to use our boat in short bursts is that not 'nastiness' as you call it???

 

I have no need for you to feel sorry for me, I have a lot of friends on here and in real life, there is truly nothing to feel sorry for.

 

Get over yourself, and yes, stop playing the innocent victim.

There are always two sides to every story, and what surprises me is that people get so worked up about things that are said on the internet, I guess I have been around long enough on the interweb not to take it at all seriously, after all its not real life is it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This really looks to me like a call for solidarity based on a pretence that if we don't all rally to the defence of the OP that the CaRT stormtroopers will be kicking down our doors next. Like it or not there are some visitor mooring spots where there a weekly scramble for space at weekends and ruling that locally moored boats should not use them leaves them leaves space for who? It makes no sense whatever and I don't believe it. I accept that CaRT do try to reforge their powers to suit individual cases and often operate in a grey area but I do not think there is any sensible motive to extend this past what CaRT see as "problem" boats.

CaRT really must have powers to manage the waterways and I do not believe they have the powers they need to do so. We so, so need a new act with clarity for all so that we have a clear vision of what waterways are for in the 21st century and a plain view of what is needed to achieve that and where the lines not to be crossed exist.

Much is made of the problems on the Western K&A, well I keep my boat there and I can tell you the problems are not as bad as is portrayed. They were mind, worse if anything. There were 48 hour mooring which were full with boats that moved only for services, they lived there. There were lengths of good mooring where some even went so far as to paint the boat name on the concrete! Spaces reserved by the roof cargo left behind or "gone for water" signs. It was bad, large areas had effectively been pre empted by selfish people who felt the canal to be theirs and the cruising boater to be interlopers. It has changed solely because of the pressure brought to bear culminating in the new plan. This is why I support what some see as "Draconian" action by CaRT and whilst I would certainly not say I completely trust them I do trust them to not behave in a way that is actually underpants on the head I am Napoleon insane.

 

 

very sensible post IMHO have a greenie

Edited by John V
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Some clarity and less anxiety might result from more care in using the word “Rules”. There seems to be a general muddling together of law and guidance under that one heading.

 

Thanks for that Nigel.

My lay understanding is that 'Acts of Parliament' are binding on all parties. Guidance is given by CaRT to boaters as an aid for boaters to understand CaRT's interpretation of the acts. As a boater your interpretation of the acts may be different to that held by CaRT. Generally CaRT is saying follow our guidelines and we will not prosecute you win or lose!

In such a situation where conflict exists the courts can be asked under certain circumstances to adjudicate upon the disputed interpretation. Generally limited to some small section within the guidelines. Depending upon the type and nature of judgement handed down. This interpretation can be binding upon the individual or upon everyone especially if it is enacted later.

One problem is that 'interpretative guidance' if not drafted without bias and is also proportionate and fair, can of itself create an even more confused understanding. Leading to further rounds of the courts to get interpretative guidance upon the interpretation of the guidance. There is also nothing to stop a current set of guidance being superseded at any time by a new set of guidance issued under another name. This is the 'get out of jail card' for whoever issues the interpretive guidance.

What worries some people is as you say 'mission creep' where guidance is given, clarity is handed down by the courts and is generally accepted. Only to be later used in a different context to that which it was intended. Mission creep might be illustrated by looking at the recent changes proposed to the use of visitor moorings. The changes within a local area, which under the circumstances could/would seem to be proportionate and fair. Boaters were consulted for a view and a new improved all singing and dancing guidance document issued.

Later CaRT may come along and say. The new set of guidance issued for xxx has worked so well over the last couple of years that we now wish to apply this nationally here is a set of new guidelines. The changes that applied to a local area, which under the circumstances seemed to be proportionate and fair. Is now felt to be the opposite when applied nationally.

There is also a question of the 'equality of arms' where CaRT with access to a huge amount of money. Which can be spent creating a formidable legal challenge, which can out gun and dwarf the individual boater who may only be able to afford to represent themselves. Who might well submit because he/she is at greater risk of being bankrupted through high costs of relatively minor issues being taken through the higher courts. This is a ploy that only the very wealthy or those entrusted to manage our collective finances without redress to their own personal finances can deploy. The courts are aware of such issues taking place. There is also vexatious litigation where the use of taking a defendant to the high court is intended to be a punishment in itself.

Now, if someone feels up to it – maybe they could lead on a set of interpretative guidance to the acts on behalf of boaters. I know for instance that NABO had taken legal advice upon some issues which it has shared with CaRT. Guidance is just informed opinion and any groups could give their interpretation issued as guidance to boaters. Maybe CWF could come up with a set of guidelines.

The above is only my opinion, it has no legal basis, it may or may not agree with your interpretation and I would be surprised if you held the same view.

Much of the pontification given in this thread is the individuals interpretation of some minor point of the interpretation of CaRT's interpretation of the actual Acts. Which in turn CaRT may or may not agree with. However rather than debate ad infinitum and arrive at no generally accepted consensus. Why not debate what would constitute a reasonable, proportionate and fair set of guidelines for boaters drawn up by boaters. As a starting point you could use a version of CaRT's own guidance.

I'm sure that a boaters guidance document would give so much more clarity to interpretation of the acts than the opaque guidance as issued by CaRT. Maybe someone could start a whole new thread with the name 'A boaters guide to CaRT's guidance, to the Waterways acts'

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

There is also a question of the 'equality of arms' . . .

 

Both the fear of consequences and a reputation for probity is something heavily relied on by the authority. It has to be remembered that even for the impecunious defending themselves, there is a massive cost in terms of life itself, with years being taken up in fending off the behemoth. And even those with an individual, differing interpretation [of either the law or the guidance] must stop to wonder whether or not the authority are best placed to interpret their own law. They might even naively believe that the authority will always act with honesty, in the interests of the waterways.

 

Problem is, even an individual's success at court usually helps no one other than that individual. Even the rare court findings against the authority have little impact on how the authority conducts itself – they will continue to act as they please, confidently self-assured that such precedent determination against their interpretation of the law - at the highest levels - will not be brought to bear on them by the next person.

 

By way of example, despite the High Court ruling that BW/CaRT could not demand boat licences on the tidal Brent – together with condemnation for serving s.8 notices without warning, and despite the Appeal Court ruling that s.8’s were invalid there where no unlawful mooring could be established – a recent arrival below the Thames Locks, investigating noises on his roof, found the new local Enforcement Officer clambering over it, fixing a s.8 to his boat.

 

So – an offence in boarding the boat illegally; violating the 1983 Act on notice procedures; and ignoring the Court rulings that such notices were illegal anyway – and this, in the wake of a year’s worth of CaRT correspondence to all boaters in the relevant stretch, confirming that pleasure boats do indeed need no licence there, if they don’t travel above the Gauging Locks.

 

It’s not as though this was an inadvertent mistake on the part of a rookie [which would open another topic, on the need for effective training in the law such officers are empowered to enforce]; on being queried over the power to section 8 pleasure boats on the tidal section, the office [presumably] went to the legal department for an answer, and came back with a clause from the 1965 Byelaws, supposedly adequate to overturn the Appeal Court ruling!

 

If [as I am told] this boater genuinely intends to move off up the Thames anyway in a month [once finishing touches to his fit-out are done], then it will all be a storm in a teacup and ‘only’ a waste of public money – but it illustrates that, contrary to the beliefs and even experiences of most, the authority will indeed act against the law if it chooses, and spout entirely spurious legal justifications if challenged by the presumably ignorant.

 

I agree that the vast majority of boaters 'playing the game' with considerate boating will never confront such behaviour, but it does happen, and it is not scare-mongering to put people on alert. it is doubtful whether it would ever affect you, but it is just plain silly to believe in the essential benevolence of salaried managerial bureaucrats.

  • Greenie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

There are always two sides to every story, and what surprises me is that people get so worked up about things that are said on the internet, I guess I have been around long enough on the interweb not to take it at all seriously, after all its not real life is it.

 

Life's to short to get so bitter , guess family feuds start over the little things and grow.

 

Back on topic , as so much is open to interpretation or guidance. It might be better to focus on the one thing that everybody seems to agree on the need to move every 14 days and get this enforced. Then I guess work together to understand the scale of the overstaying/lack of continous movement problem and get some general consensus on how to deal with it, if at all.

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.