Jump to content

Boater With Home Mooring - Court Action Started.


Featured Posts

I will unconditionally apologise to Tony if he wins a case against CRT.

 

What would you be apologising for in such an event?

 

Winning or losing a case at this stage may mean little about the rights or wrongs, and less about the character of the protagonists.

 

In instances of somewhat obscure claims [which this qualifies for so far as I can see], the fight is often won or lost at case management level, where the court decides exactly what issues are to be decided. That can make it impossible to counter. It is where litigants in person are most vulnerable, because they cannot appreciate the import of the choice or the procedure.

 

Boaters before me were illegally evicted from the Brent upon BW winning a supposedly deciding issue that was entirely beside the point – but the import of which was lost on the boaters concerned. History eventually proved the evictions unlawful, but those boaters have been branded forever as litigious bankrupts with vexatious claims.

 

As to character playing a part, it was Nigel Johnson’s response to an initial reasonable communication that, according to the later High Court judge, set BW and myself on an aggressively litigious course for the next 6 years, while the fact that I defended myself through appeals against initial judgments declaring I had lost, made me, according to the same judge, “stubborn and relentless”.

 

Truth is, while anyone can end up in court, however unwillingly, only those with a certain aggressive side to their character are going to fight back. That doesn’t make them right or wrong, and whether this boater wins or loses will be irrelevant to the veracity or otherwise of any personal criticism.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If I was Tony I certainly would not reveal my defence on an open CRT read forum before the court case. It is CRT that are taking him to court wouldn't it be more appropriate for CRT to make there case public. I agree with Paul C's post above.

 

Yes, but it was Tony himself that made the very first post on this matter, (in another thread), although in his opening gambit he did not actually say that he was the boater concerned, I think.

 

If he wants to keep his case close to his chest, then of course he is more than entitled to do so, but then why raise it in the first place, if he doesn't want to fully discuss it?

 

As the forum is increasingly becoming a target for "NBW-esque" threads that start off with a "CRT are being the bad guys again" post, then if people make those posts, I think they should be prepared to discuss them openly.

 

It is dead easy for people to keep knocking CRT, and it always makes a good headline, but why are we expected to make our minds up without being given enough of the story?

 

I am certainly not a BW/CRT apologist, and I think there is plenty they still get wrong, (sometimes very wrong), but am not prepared to form a view on anything where we are fed some information, but much of the story is withheld, (for whatever reason).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

 

I am certainly not a BW/CRT apologist, and I think there is plenty they still get wrong, (sometimes very wrong), but am not prepared to form a view on anything where we are fed some information, but much of the story is withheld, (for whatever reason).

Again this does not seem to apply to yourself you make a statement about Tony in the 70's but seem to withold the facts to back up that statement

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

If he wants to keep his case close to his chest, then of course he is more than entitled to do so, but then why raise it in the first place, if he doesn't want to fully discuss it? [unquote]

 

What hypocrisy from someone who does this on a regular basis within this forum!

 

"I happen to know something, but am not in a position to disclose publicly"... How many times have I read that?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

What would you be apologising for in such an event?

 

Winning or losing a case at this stage may mean little about the rights or wrongs, and less about the character of the protagonists.

 

In instances of somewhat obscure claims [which this qualifies for so far as I can see], the fight is often won or lost at case management level, where the court decides exactly what issues are to be decided. That can make it impossible to counter. It is where litigants in person are most vulnerable, because they cannot appreciate the import of the choice or the procedure.

 

Boaters before me were illegally evicted from the Brent upon BW winning a supposedly deciding issue that was entirely beside the point – but the import of which was lost on the boaters concerned. History eventually proved the evictions unlawful, but those boaters have been branded forever as litigious bankrupts with vexatious claims.

 

As to character playing a part, it was Nigel Johnson’s response to an initial reasonable communication that, according to the later High Court judge, set BW and myself on an aggressively litigious course for the next 6 years, while the fact that I defended myself through appeals against initial judgments declaring I had lost, made me, according to the same judge, “stubborn and relentless”.

 

Truth is, while anyone can end up in court, however unwillingly, only those with a certain aggressive side to their character are going to fight back. That doesn’t make them right or wrong, and whether this boater wins or loses will be irrelevant to the veracity or otherwise of any personal criticism.

 

If he's so confident, he could always hire a barrister.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I can't remember the last time somebody came on here with an anti-CRT story, that when the full story was told, didn't become a load of twaddle and nothing like the original story.

Short term memory loss can be dealt with if approached early enough :-)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I see parallels with Nick Brown's recent Judicial Review case on the CRT guidance for CCers - in his flowery and long-winded defence, he provided only very vague details about the actual critical facts - his movement pattern . . .

 

Hopefully Tony in his court case will take heed and actually provide proper details of his boat movements (which, at the end of the day, are the important facts of the case such as this).

 

Just on a point of accuracy, Nick Brown’s submissions were not a Defence – he brought the case, not BW - and his boat movement were accordingly irrelevant; they were not being challenged [and would never have been, given the extent of his cruising area according to the limited details given.] Being "flowery and long-winded" is often an inescapable result of inexperience and unfamiliarity with legal expression and argument. A layman will take a necessarily circumlocutory path to arrive at a point that trained professionals could achieve in minimal time.

 

Whether the boat movements are relevant to this case depends very much on what issues are chosen for decision. For example, CaRT could simply say: He doesn’t have a licence, because he does not qualify for one, and is therefore left or moored within our jurisdiction without our lawful authority – can we or can’t we evict him?

 

The only possible answer would be ‘Yes’, on those terms. It would only be possible to gain a contrary finding if other related issues were admitted – such as: Does he need a licence simply to remain within the jurisdiction if he does not go cruising? Does he need to use his home mooring to validate the fact that it is available to him – hence, was refusal to licence justified?

 

His pattern of use is common ground between the parties, so is not at issue – only the ramifications of such use are being contested.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

If he wants to keep his case close to his chest, then of course he is more than entitled to do so, but then why raise it in the first place, if he doesn't want to fully discuss it?

 

What hypocrisy from someone who does this on a regular basis within this forum!

 

"I happen to know something, but am not in a position to disclose publicly"... How many times have I read that?

 

Trying a quick search of the forum, I can't find any example of me using a wording anything like that, (ever), though that is not to say non exist, as I may not have used the every search criteria for a similar meaning, but a somewhat different wording.

 

I'm am, however, wondering if you may have mixed me up with someone else on this occasion, as I'm struggling to think of many times I know very much that the rest of you haven't heard already!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Trying a quick search of the forum, I can't find any example of me using a wording anything like that, (ever), though that is not to say non exist, as I may not have used the every search criteria for a similar meaning, but a somewhat different wording.

I'm am, however, wondering if you may have mixed me up with someone else on this occasion, as I'm struggling to think of many times I know very much that the rest of you haven't heard already!

Hmmm. Explain it away as you see fit, but perhaps think in future before making such statements yourself.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hmmm. Explain it away as you see fit, but perhaps think in future before making such statements yourself.

 

Does that mean you have been unable to find past examples of me saying what you claimed, then? Should be easy, if I'm doing it regularly!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You hire a barrister when you are not "so confident", and only if you have the money to do so.

Or, so confident that you know you will get costs awarded.

Anyway, seems to me the guy came on here to scatter some seeds of antiCRT feeling in the hope of garnering support for his case. That he is reluctant to give any details strongly suggests that if we knew the whole picture we would be unsympathetic to his plight. He is using (or abusing) the forum purely for his own gain, and disingenuously at that, although fortunately it has backfired (except for the few who think that boaters can do no wrong any any "hassle is entirely the fault of CRT).

  • Greenie 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Or, so confident that you know you will get costs awarded.

Anyway, seems to me the guy came on here to scatter some seeds of antiCRT feeling in the hope of garnering support for his case. That he is reluctant to give any details strongly suggests that if we knew the whole picture we would be unsympathetic to his plight. He is using (or abusing) the forum purely for his own gain, and disingenuously at that, although fortunately it has backfired (except for the few who think that boaters can do no wrong any any "hassle is entirely the fault of CRT).

Have you noticed it is always the same few who all have their own hidden agendas?

  • Greenie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Does that mean you have been unable to find past examples of me saying what you claimed, then? Should be easy, if I'm doing it regularly!

I just don't see the need to search through the forum Alan, it's pretty common knowledge. Even your mate David schweizer accused you of it a few weeks ago.

Perhaps you would do better to address the problem rather than live in denial....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you can provide your document on lift bridges, I will gladly link what you request Rachel. One good turn deserves another and all that :-)

 

As you aren't waiting on any documents from me, can you provide me with the link?

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.