Protesters to block GU link

[Ray T]

What about borrowing a Trireme? I'm sure we could get enough volunteers to man her.

 

Edited May 30, 2014 by Ray T

[jelunga]

Maybe they will get lost around the MK infamous roundabouts.

 

(Alledgedly this is an example)

 

Isnt that in Hemel Hempstead?

[Delta9]

Isnt that in Hemel Hempstead?

It's in Swindon. http://www.swindonweb.com/index.asp?m=8&s=115&ss=289

Edited May 30, 2014 by Delta9

[CV32]

Hemel Hempstead's magic roundabout is much more substantial !

Edited May 30, 2014 by CV32

[BEngo]

The REAL magic roundabout is in Swindon!

 

N

[MtB]

No, THIS is the real Magic Roundabout!

 

 

 

MtB

[mark99]

There is alreay a blockade on lock 9 of the Aylesbury.

 

Oh hang on that just another stoppage.

[John V]

If they slapped on, and enforced, a level 3 fine on each boat involved ......that would pay for a lot of maintenance!

[Alan de Enfield]

If they slapped on, and enforced, a level 3 fine on each boat involved ......that would pay for a lot of maintenance!

It would take a lot of boats at a £100 a time (level 3 fine) - the call out charge for May Gurney is probably "50 boats" worth

[John V]

It would take a lot of boats at a £100 a time (level 3 fine) - the call out charge for May Gurney is probably "50 boats" worth

 

according to the link in # 48 it's £1,000 for level 3

[Alan de Enfield]

 

according to the link in # 48 it's £1,000 for level 3

 

According to the C&RT legislation that Mr Moore posted, causing a 'restriction to navigation' was £100 fine.

[John V]

 

According to the C&RT legislation that Mr Moore posted, causing a 'restriction to navigation' was £100 fine.

 

having hunted back to look, it appears that you may be correct, unless of course it could be bumped up to show they were causing material loss.....anyway 50 boats at a hundred quid each plus costs would still grease a few paddle gears

[David Schweizer]

 

According to the C&RT legislation that Mr Moore posted, causing a 'restriction to navigation' was £100 fine.

 

As I cannot find any contribution from Nigel Moore, i am unable to assess anything he may or may not have said , However the 1995 Wateways Act states :-

(1) No person shall moor or otherwise leave a vessel on an inland waterway so as to cause obstruction or hindrance to navigation or to the free passage of persons or vehicles over and along the towing path beside the inland waterway.

 

(2) Any person who without reasonable excuse contravenes subsection (1) above in such a way as to cause, or give rise to the risk of, injury to any person or damage to property shall be guilty of an offence and liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 3 on the standard scale.

The maximum penalty at level 3 on the standard scale is £1,000

So it would appear that any assurances that Mr Moore may, or may not have said is incorrect. Any fine imposed would within the remit of the Courts and not CaRT, and considering that CaRT do not have any powers to impose any fines, any reference to CaRT legislatiuon is erroneous.

Edited May 31, 2014 by David Schweizer

[Alan de Enfield]

In which case i could well be in error having quoted Mr Moore.

[NigelMoore]

In which case i could well be in error having quoted Mr Moore.

 

"O ye of little faith"!

 

You are not in error.

 

A distinction needs to be made between penalties under the Byelaws, and penalties under Statute.

 

Penalties under Byelaws are fixed to a stated maximum, currently £100, whereas the Statute provides for a maximum level determined on a sliding scale that rises as determined from time to time.

 

The relevant offences relating to obstruction could be any of the following -

 

General Canal Byelaws 1965

 

#13 “. . . not obstruct the passage of any other vessel . . .”

#20 “. . . not to cause obstruction or interference to any other vessel . . .”

#28 “. . . shall be moored . . . as not to cause any obstruction to the navigation of other vessels.”

#31(1) “No person . . . shall: ( b ) Obstruct any towing path . . .”

#32 “No person . . . shall obstruct, interfere with or hinder the towing or navigation of any vessel . . .”

#49 “No person shall . . . execute any works . . . so as to obstruct or interfere with the navigation of any canal . . .”

 

1976 Byelaws [revising the level of fines relating to any of the above]

 

#5 “Any person who contravenes the foregoing or any of the General Canal Byelaws . . . shall be liable on summary conviction to a penalty not exceeding one hundred pounds for each offence . . .”

 

British Waterways Act 1995

 

This statute does not provide for a penalty for mere obstruction under s.18 – it provides [s.18(2)] for an offender to be “liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 3 on the standard scale” only in circumstances where the person contravenes s.18(1) “in such a way as to cause, or give rise to the risk of, injury to any person or damage to property . . .” Where no such risk or actual damage has occurred, the penalty will be that provided for under the Byelaws, with the added sanction of simple removal out of the way [and potentially, by attenuated argument, subject to removal from the waterways altogether.]

 

I might add that suggesting that the Courts make their judgments without “any reference to CaRT legislation” is ludicrous – they can only administer the law, not make it up, any more than CaRT can make it up ["judge-made law" refers to interpretations of statute and common law]. One has to refer to the legislation when determining the penalty for an offence. I had already made it clear that CaRT cannot themselves impose the fine, which is within the remit of the Court alone – as is the determination of whether an offence was committed in the first place.

 

[Alan de Enfield]

 

"O ye of little faith"!

 

You are not in error.

 

 

 

Thank-you. The old memory is going (unfortunately its inherited) but I was sure I had seen you quote it - however when not 100% certain I can always be 'persuaded' I'm wrong.

[NigelMoore]

 

. . . when not 100% certain I can always be 'persuaded' I'm wrong.

 

Quite right too – the same applies to me!

 

In this instance, however, John V has done [#62] what David Schweizer did not – undertaken a proper check: “having hunted back to look, it appears that you may be correct, unless of course it could be bumped up to show they were causing material loss . . .” [as in "actual damage"].

 

One wonders what, if referral to CaRT legislation is "erroneous", quite what legislation David Schweizer believes the Courts do have the remit to administer, in cases of canal obstruction.

 

[Paul G2]

 

 

As I cannot find any contribution from Nigel Moore, i am unable to assess anything he may or may not have said ,...

 

~snip~

So it would appear that any assurances that Mr Moore may, or may not have said is incorrect.

 

 

Translated this basically means, "I don't know what what Mr. Moore said, however, he was wrong regardless of if he said anything or not.."

 

You seem like a pretty smart guy, and I usually enjoy reading your posts. But stuff like this is just absurd.

[Supertramp]

Following a couple of comments on the article, - the author emailed me the link from CRT - saying this was the 'balance'

 

http://www.mkweb.co.uk/News/Canal-River-Trust-comment-on-Milton-Keynes-protest-after-disabled-and-elderly-evicted-20140530135851.htm

 

edited - The original story on their website seem to be removed for some reason, ? - anyone else having trouble with the first story

Edited June 2, 2014 by Supertramp

[John V]

Yes......looks like the author has edited out their article on MKweb

 

just read your link.....MMMMM!!! somewhat a different picture from the original, wish I had learned how to do a "screen grab" must learn to so can keep track of things like that

Edited June 2, 2014 by John V

[carlt]

 

 

just read your link.....MMMMM!!! somewhat a different picture from the original, wish I had learned how to do a "screen grab" must learn to so can keep track of things like that

 

This is the text of the original article:

 

Protesters to block canal in Milton Keynes over evictions of elderly and disabled

Written byKATHRYN O’NEILL

On Saturday 7th June, the boating community and those who use the Grand Union Canal in Milton Keynes will be protesting against the Canal and River Trust (CRT) evictions of disabled, elderly and vulnerable boat dwellers on the canal.

Starting at 2pm on the towpath opposite the Pear Tree Bridge Pub, the demonstration will take the form of a blockade with speakers from the People’s assembly Against Austerity, The Green Party, the National Bargee-Traveller Association (NBTA) and Milton Keynes Against the Cuts group. At 4pm the protesters will march to the Canal and River Trust’s offices at MK station to hand in a petition with over 5000 signatures calling for the Canal and River trust to stop evicting the elderly, disabled and vulnerable from their homes on the canal.

The rally and blockade is part of a wider campaign, called for by the People’s Assembly Against Austerity in opposition to the government’s imposed cuts agenda. The People’s Flotilla Against Austerity was launched at the National People’s Assembly Against Austerity recall conference on the 15th March 2014.

A call has been sent to all boats around the country, who cannot make it to Milton Keynes, to block their local canals in support of the action in Milton Keynes against the Canal and River Trust’s attempts to rid the canal system of live-aboard boats who they deem as the ‘scum’ of the canal.

The People’s Flotilla Against Austerity forms part of a national campaign in the lead up to a national demonstration in London on the 21st June 2014.

The People’s Flotilla Against Austerity supports all anti-cuts actions against the government’s austerity programme.

 

[John V]

Thanks Carlt.....as I said must learn to do that.....yep that's pretty much the tone I remembered

[RLWP]

Have we had this: http://www.thepeoplesassembly.org.uk/_people_s_assembly_fighting_cuts_on_the_cut

 

Or this: http://www.counterfire.org/index.php/articles/opinion/17123-why-we-need-a-peoples-flotilla

 

Richard

Edited June 2, 2014 by RLWP

[John V]

Anita de Klerk nee Wolfie

 

(Citizen "Wolfie" Smith for those too young to remember)

Edited June 2, 2014 by John V

[Peter X]

To add to, and I hope clarify, what Nigel Moore said about the excerpt from the 1995 Waterways act quoted by RWLP:

 

18Obstruction by vessels

(1)No person shall moor or otherwise leave a vessel on an inland waterway so as to cause obstruction or hindrance to navigation or to the free passage of persons or vehicles over and along the towing path beside the inland waterway.

(2)Any person who without reasonable excuse contravenes subsection (1) above in such a way as to cause, or give rise to the risk of, injury to any person or damage to property shall be guilty of an offence and liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 3 on the standard scale.

(3)Any vessel moored or allowed to remoor in contravention of subsection (1) above shall be deemed to be a relevant craft for the purpose of section 8 (Removal of vessels) of the Act of 1983 or, in Scotland, a vessel for the purposes of section 19 (As to vessels sunk, stranded or abandoned) of the [1958 c. xliv.] British Transport Commission Act 1958

I think the discussion of the level 3 fines is irrelevant to the protest planned for June 7th, if that protest is peaceful, because of the words I've shown in bold. But subsection (3) looks very relevant, and appears to me to give CRT the tool they need to break up the stoppage. Just deem each boat in the middle of the cut whose crew refuse to move on to be "a relevant craft for the purpose of section 8 (Removal of vessels)", or use section 19 if the boat has no-one aboard... One boater complaining to the police that the canal is obstructed, one CRT employee with a megaphone, one policeman witnessing it all and noting down the evidence, job done?

As the CRT will certainly not have used the word "scum" in any press release, interview or other pronouncement, I also think they have a case for libel against Kathryn O'Niell. Bring it on, any money they can get off her in damages will be handy for mending locks.