Jump to content

Boater With Home Mooring - Court Action Started.


Alan de Enfield
 Share

Featured Posts

I think the point I made in my earlier post has been proven Alan. No matter how you now try to explain it away.....

Hardly, unless a single reply to a direct question where I'm trying to protect a source constitutes "on a regular basis".

 

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

Hardly, unless a single reply to a direct question where I'm trying to protect a source constitutes "on a regular basis".

Well, as they say, the proof is in the pudding.

As much as I would like to sit here all day listening to your excuses, I'm afraid I have better things to do.

Someone told me not so long ago that Alan Fincher had a hat of many colours. Looking back, I should have paid more attention to that comment. We live and learn eh?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

OK I'm starting to get confused now. Are we now saying we can moor at a lift bridges, but only if we have a valid RMP & only if it is backed up by some hitherto unseen document that is lurking somewhere on the interwebz?help.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

OK I'm starting to get confused now. Are we now saying we can moor at a lift bridges, but only if we have a valid RMP & only if it is backed up by some hitherto unseen document that is lurking somewhere on the interwebz?help.gif

 

None of that.

 

A couple of people on here feel they have won their rather narrow and trivial point, and clearly have a personal axe to grind with Alan.

 

I think we should all look at the bigger picture, which is the Tony Dunkley court case.

 

MtB

  • Greenie 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

MtB I was simply helping Alan in answer to this post

 

 

 

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

Stripping all this back to the bones, do we want canals that are a fully open with facilities available to support people enjoying then as they were designed to be used, i.e. on a boat that moves consistently over significant distance, or are we happy to sit back and let them turn into one big long linear housing estate?

 

At one end of this scale are the genuine CC'ers who no one has any issue with and those who have home moorings used in accordance with the rules. At the other are the piss takers who have discovered that the legislation governing boats on canals is a lot more woolly than that governing converted ambulances and buses. Any action that serves to dissuade, inconvenience or mildly bother the latter group gets my vote. Unfortunately dislodging the hard core abusers requires resources that C&RT haven't got and there's probably a tacit acknowledgement that anyone rendered homeless by the removal of their boat then becomes a burden on the local authority who haven't got any resources either. As a consequence the action is taken against individual easier targets. Not an unusual approach to enforcement.

 

One of the good things about court cases no matter how dodgy some might think they are is that the outcomes set precedents, for better or worse, for the future.

  • Greenie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

MtB I was simply helping Alan in answer to this post

 

 

 

 

As I said. Trivial and knit-picking. Your constant picking holes in Alan's posts makes you look petty and vindictive, frankly, in my personal opinion.

 

A diversion from the real issue, which is trying to find out WHAT is going on in the Dunkley case. Odd how he shows up in the thread but fails to furnish even the basic facts.

 

 

MtB

  • Greenie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Someone told me not so long ago that Alan Fincher had a hat of many colours. Looking back, I should have paid more attention to that comment. We live and learn eh?

Personally I find coming on here and admitting you've indulged in a bit of playground esque tittle tattle about another member as bad as, if not worse than what you are accusing Alan of.

  • Greenie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

As I said. Trivial and knit-picking. Your constant picking holes in Alan's posts makes you look petty and vindictive, frankly, in my personal opinion.

 

A diversion from the real issue, which is trying to find out WHAT is going on in the Dunkley case. Odd how he shows up in the thread but fails to furnish even the basic facts.

 

 

MtB

I suppose one should of course point out that Alan created a diversion by making a statement on Mr Dunkley, that consequently brought about the present theme

Obviously being stuck in your little bubble of naivety, you missed the outcry for a link to evidence. This was accordingly supplied :-)

As ever though, the trivial make their decry of "foul sir, foul"!

Personally I find coming on here and admitting you've indulged in a bit of playground esque tittle tattle about another member as bad as, if not worse than what you are accusing Alan of.

(cough, cough) Mr G Edited by jenlyn
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think Alan deserves the flack (or flak) he seems to be getting. Fair enough we all have different opinions, and long may it continue, but some of this seems a little personal to me.

Edited by Guest
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think Alan deserves the flack (or flak) he seems to be getting. Fair enough we all have different opinions, and long may it continue, but some of this seems a little personal to me.

Indeed

 

Richard

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think we should all look at the bigger picture, which is the Tony Dunkley court case.

 

Doing just that, and considering options, the alternative/additional sanction available to CaRT for boats on their waterways without the requisite lawful authority, is a fine, and in the case of river waterways [as in this case] an additional running daily fine. To my mind, pursuing this alternative in the first instance would have to be the most productive response [leaving aside for this point, whether the boater under discussion should have been refused the relevant consent]. The procedure is a straightforward action for money [empowered under the '83 Act] and would serve to increase income at minimal cost in resources compared to s.8 procedures.

 

It’s interesting to see a considerable difference between the penalty for being on the canals without a Licence, and the penalty for being on the river waterways without a Licence/Certificate:

 

Canals [General Canal Byelaws 1976]

 

3. (1) No person shall knowingly cause or permit to be brought, kept, let for hire or used on any canal (not being a river waterway) any pleasure boat unless there is then in force in relation to the pleasure boat a pleasure boat licence.

 

5. Any person who contravenes the foregoing . . . shall be liable on summary conviction to a penalty not exceeding one hundred pounds for each offence . . .

 

River Waterways [bWA 1971]

 

s.5(1) It shall not be lawful to keep, let for hire or use any pleasure boat on a river waterway unless a certificate, in this Act referred to as a “pleasure boat certificate”, in relation to the pleasure boat is then in force or unless there is then in force in relation to it a licence issued by the Board allowing the use of all inland waterways without further payment.

 

(2) Any person who contravenes subsection (1) of this section shall, for each offence, be liable to a fine not exceeding twenty pounds and a daily fine of two pounds. [increased under the 1975 Act to fifty pounds and 5 pounds respectively.]

 

Perhaps the disparity has been deliberately allowed to remain, as being roughly in proportion to the difference in cost between the Certificate and the Licence. Of course, for this sanction, as for the s.8 sanction, the boat would have to be on the river waterway, defined in the 1971 Act as:-

 

s.4(1) This part of the Act applies to the main navigable channel of each of the inland waterways specified in Schedule 1 to this Act which channel so specified is in this Act referred to as a “river waterway”. [my bold]

 

(2) The description of any waterway contained in the said schedule shall be read subject to any order made by the Secretary of State for further defining the waterway by reference to a map.

 

As I’ve noted previously, no such maps have ever been agreed, so any argument over the extent of “the main navigable channel” would have to be referred to the Secretary of State. Until that was defined, s.8 cannot possibly [legally] be applied to boats simply kept on the banks of the scheduled rivers – only the offence of using the waterways without a Certificate/Licence could be pursued, as legislated above. [i have to presume that it would be a different offence to moor within the main navigable channel, although the fact that the statute includes "keep" on a river waterway necessarily suggests that there will be places where this is permitted].

Link to comment
Share on other sites

One of the good things about court cases no matter how dodgy some might think they are is that the outcomes set precedents, for better or worse, for the future.

 

If that were true, yes it would be useful. However given that the vast majority of these cases begin and end at County Court level, no such precedent is set. Only the High Courts and above have power to create precedents.

 

It is perfectly in order [whether proportionate or not] for the authority to ask the County Courts to rubber stamp routine cases – which the majority of them are. It is mostly a waste of public [our] money to use the County Courts to ‘test the waters’ in cases of borderline/arguable cases, with the idea of achieving what are claimed as precedents but which are not.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I suppose one should of course point out that Alan created a diversion by making a statement on Mr Dunkley, that consequently brought about the present theme

Obviously being stuck in your little bubble of naivety, you missed the outcry for a link to evidence. This was accordingly supplied :-)

As ever though, the trivial make their decry of "foul sir, foul"!

(cough, cough) Mr G

That's quite right, and the reason I "showed up in the thread" (MtB) was to invite Alan Fincher to elaborate on his remark . . . . he didn't, and I see he's now withdrawn it . . . . enough said. So lets get back to what a lot of you seem keen to know, like the background and reasons for C&RT's legal action to remove me from all waterways under their control to. . . . . and I quote from the papers filed by Shoosmiths (C&RT Solicitors) with the Court, "enable CRT to comply with its Statutory duty to ensure that the inland waterways controlled by CRT are safe, well managed and properly conserved."

I am quite happy, and prepared, to make all the correspondence from both sides, and forthcoming Court dates available to members of this Forum and anyone else who wants to know. Before I can do this, however, I would need C&RT's permission to publish all their relevant paperwork, and I authorize and invite interested members of this Forum to request that permission from C&RT on my behalf. Because so much of the relevant paperwork has not been revealed to the Court it may be that C&RT will be reluctant to reveal it to anyone else, but please feel free to ask them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's quite right, and the reason I "showed up in the thread" (MtB) was to invite Alan Fincher to elaborate on his remark . . . . he didn't, and I see he's now withdrawn it . . . . enough said.

Tony,

 

The one error serious error I hope I have freely conceded was posting what I did in the first place.

 

I was quickly persuaded by people I respect that I was out of order - what is in the past, I now fully accept, has no bearing on your current circumstances, and I showed poor judgement in making any comment at all. I should not have done it, and quickly realised that.

 

Having conceded that point, and withdrawn my comments, I have no intention in this thread of going back to what you or I were doing 40 years ago - it simply has nothing to do with it, (and it was a very different world on the canals then, anyway).

 

I apologise unconditionally for an unhelpful post.

 

As to the rest of what is being heaped my way, I leave it to others to decide how much of a villain I am. I made a mistake here, and I have just admitted to that again. All of us make the occasional mistake, but if I'm being accused of bad behaviours, I'd rather that it was for things it could be demonstrated I am actually doing. I have adequately explained the exact special circumstances that pertained to the one example that has been suggested - that alone doesn't establish it as a regular behaviour, and however long they Google they are not going to manage to do that.

  • Greenie 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's quite right, and the reason I "showed up in the thread" (MtB) was to invite Alan Fincher to elaborate on his remark . . . . he didn't, and I see he's now withdrawn it . . . . enough said. So lets get back to what a lot of you seem keen to know, like the background and reasons for C&RT's legal action to remove me from all waterways under their control to. . . . . and I quote from the papers filed by Shoosmiths (C&RT Solicitors) with the Court, "enable CRT to comply with its Statutory duty to ensure that the inland waterways controlled by CRT are safe, well managed and properly conserved."

I am quite happy, and prepared, to make all the correspondence from both sides, and forthcoming Court dates available to members of this Forum and anyone else who wants to know. Before I can do this, however, I would need C&RT's permission to publish all their relevant paperwork, and I authorize and invite interested members of this Forum to request that permission from C&RT on my behalf. Because so much of the relevant paperwork has not been revealed to the Court it may be that C&RT will be reluctant to reveal it to anyone else, but please feel free to ask them.

 

Tony, no need to reveal court documents etc before the trial, but can you tell us the date of the hearing and possibly the time the hearing might be published after this?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No-one is asking for court documents, just some really basic facts, e.g.

 

1) Have CRT revoked your licence?

 

2) If so, what was the reason they give?

 

3) Is the court action a Section 8 to remove your boat from the system?

 

4) Is your boat you home?

 

5) Which court is dealing with this?

 

6) Will there be a hearing or is it being dealt with in some other way?

 

 

Many thanks.

 

MtB

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Tony,

 

The one error serious error I hope I have freely conceded was posting what I did in the first place.

 

I was quickly persuaded by people I respect that I was out of order - what is in the past, I now fully accept, has no bearing on your current circumstances, and I showed poor judgement in making any comment at all. I should not have done it, and quickly realised that.

 

Having conceded that point, and withdrawn my comments, I have no intention in this thread of going back to what you or I were doing 40 years ago - it simply has nothing to do with it, (and it was a very different world on the canals then, anyway).

 

I apologise unconditionally for an unhelpful post.

 

As to the rest of what is being heaped my way, I leave it to others to decide how much of a villain I am. I made a mistake here, and I have just admitted to that again. All of us make the occasional mistake, but if I'm being accused of bad behaviours, I'd rather that it was for things it could be demonstrated I am actually doing. I have adequately explained the exact special circumstances that pertained to the one example that has been suggested - that alone doesn't establish it as a regular behaviour, and however long they Google they are not going to manage to do that.

You have responded to only the first sentence of what I said . . . . there was no need and it wasn't actually directed at you anyway.

I'm sure you would like to know what really is going on so why not accept my invitation and ask C&RT for all the relevant paperwork. You will be doing so with my full permission (in writing if you so wish . . . let me know if that's what you need before asking them) so they should be prepared to make any or all of it available.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, as they say, the proof is in the pudding.

As much as I would like to sit here all day listening to your excuses, I'm afraid I have better things to do.

Someone told me not so long ago that Alan Fincher had a hat of many colours. Looking back, I should have paid more attention to that comment. We live and learn eh?

So, despite what has been posted NOT backing what you said, you are simply going to claim it does, and hope that if you fling enough mid it will stick.

 

Is this the kind of person that CCers want to represent them to CRT?

 

Whilst we are at it, your regular obfuscation as to exactly how many identities you use on here and Facebook is something that we could discuss

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi all,

 

I know it was me that said if its a 48 hour mooring I dont go back for 14 days that was back at page page one I was told that rule when I first got my boat 9 years ago by our local patrol officer. He used to have a quick 10 minutes with all the new boaters on his patch. His reasoning was that the canals are for all, and if people moor wherever they want for as long as they want nobody will be able to go anywhere as all the VMs will be blocked up. Mark has long gone but his chat remains with me today. we have broad canals he said brest up with friends it means others can get in. Moor considertly dont just plonk your boat in the middle of the mooring because its easy. Their was lots of other stuff that has no place here but I try and do at the end of the day he wanted all boaters to consider others and his job would be an easier one captain.gif

 

Peter

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So, despite what has been posted NOT backing what you said, you are simply going to claim it does, and hope that if you fling enough mid it will stick.

 

Is this the kind of person that CCers want to represent them to CRT?

 

Whilst we are at it, your regular obfuscation as to exactly how many identities you use on here and Facebook is something that we could discuss

Oh you let the cat out of the bag now :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's quite right, and the reason I "showed up in the thread" (MtB) was to invite Alan Fincher to elaborate on his remark . . . . he didn't, and I see he's now withdrawn it . . . . enough said. So lets get back to what a lot of you seem keen to know, like the background and reasons for C&RT's legal action to remove me from all waterways under their control to. . . . . and I quote from the papers filed by Shoosmiths (C&RT Solicitors) with the Court, "enable CRT to comply with its Statutory duty to ensure that the inland waterways controlled by CRT are safe, well managed and properly conserved."

I am quite happy, and prepared, to make all the correspondence from both sides, and forthcoming Court dates available to members of this Forum and anyone else who wants to know. Before I can do this, however, I would need C&RT's permission to publish all their relevant paperwork, and I authorize and invite interested members of this Forum to request that permission from C&RT on my behalf. Because so much of the relevant paperwork has not been revealed to the Court it may be that C&RT will be reluctant to reveal it to anyone else, but please feel free to ask them.

 

Sometimes I'm a bit slow, and not necessarily the sharpest knife in the drawer, so this whole thing about needing to be secretive about something that you have apparently made public in at least two on-line publications, and something that you are apparently seeking public support and public sympathy for your side, really escapes me.

 

Court appearances are public hearings, court dates are public knowledge. Why on earth would you, or anyone, need CRT's permission to pass along the date and time of a court hearing? Anyone who wanted to put the time and effort into searching for it could find the hearing date and time, so why not just say what it is? The same goes for court documents. They are public record. Why pretend that you can't divulge their content? I also have difficulty understanding why you feel you need CRT's permission to reveal the content of letters they have sent to you. Those letters are your property, to do with as you please. Why would you think that CRT has any say, or any authority to control, what you do with your property? It's not like the documents in question are State Secrets and I would even hazard to opine that they might very well be subject to an FOI request if anyone were interested enough to make one. Even if you felt that revealing the actual letters you have received would somehow be out of line, surely a synopsis of their content would not contravene any criminal statutes, would it?

 

When someone has a problem such as yours and publicizes that problem in an attempt to garner public sympathy for their position, it should be incumbent upon that person to provide a clear, accurate and comprehensive account of exactly what occurred, what the other side is alleging and what your position is as to why you feel you have done no wrong. Anything else, really, is just obfuscation. What you are doing here is akin to someone going before the media claiming that the state is persecuting them for being poor and merely trying to make a living, whilst neglecting to mention that they did so by robbing a bank.

 

If you have a story to tell and you feel that you are in the right, then tell your whole story, completely and truthfully. Otherwise, you do appear to be someone who is in the wrong and is merely trying to use hysteria in a desperate attempt to pressure the authorities with unwarranted and unsubstantiated bad publicity. Maybe the complexities of this situation are more than my simple mind can comprehend, but it seems to me that, if the truth won't do then something is wrong.

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
 Share

  • 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.