Boater With Home Mooring - Court Action Started.

[MtB]

I quite like both of those ideas, especially the 'blowing up' of an offending boat.

 

Presumably they mean with Dynamite not Photoshop.

 

 

 

MtB

[NigelMoore]

I just knew reminding you of these options was fraught with peril!

[luctor et emergo]

Christ, I spend five minutes just moving through this thread, and you wonder what's going to happen to the canals..

[NigelMoore]

Worried about the environmental effect of all those CM’ers being dynamited?

 

Blame MtB.

[luctor et emergo]

EA

Broads Authority

 

And if you are really fed up with authority in general head to the coast

 

 

Can't be bothered edit

Edited July 19, 2014 by luctor et emergo

[NigelMoore]

The changes wrought between the BW Bill introduced in ( IIRC) 1994 and the 1995 Act which eventually emerged were significant, but essential to enable the Bill to proceed at all.

 

For the sake of accuracy, the Bill was introduced in 1990 - which I think gives emphasis to your point.

[MtB]

Worried about the environmental effect of all those CM’ers being dynamited?

 

Blame MtB.

Don't blame me, you discovered and pointed out CRT's legal right to do it in the first place!

 

Maybe we should plead with CRT to only Dynamite them a little bit. I mean, think of the voles...

 

 

MtB

[Higgs]

The consequences of the governing authority getting “creative” with the law is, on the other hand, something that gives genuine ground for concern, for every user of the waterway.

 

 

 

We would obviously expect a higher degree of ethical rigour from the authorities. However, two adages come to mind - Fight fire with fire; What's good for the goose is good for the gander.

 

It is very difficult to cry foul if the tactical use of ambiguity is used by both sides.

[Naughty Cal]

 

Would that guard against sickness being caused by things nautical, regardless as to how it is spelled.

You perhaps have the wrong pastime if you don't like things nautical!

[Rich]

You perhaps have the wrong pastime if you don't like things nautical!

Sorry, you are obviously too short to understand the question.

[Naughty Cal]

You are obviously too short sighted to get the answer........

[Alan de Enfield]

Sorry, you are obviously too short to understand the question.

 

WHoosh -

[Rich]

You are obviously too short sighted to get the answer........

What answer would that be?

[Naughty Cal]

Do keep up Rich.

[Rich]

Do keep up Rich.

What question and keep up with what or whom?

[Naughty Cal]

Ah bless.

[MtB]

There's nothing to keep up with Rich.

 

She's just amusing herself yanking your chain.

 

MtB

[Naughty Cal]

He even quoted the post. Poor old chaps befuddled himself

 

Never mind Rich.

 

Maybe next time......

[NigelMoore]

Don't blame me, you discovered and pointed out CRT's legal right to do it in the first place!

 

OK, mea culpa.

 

[i was going to try mitigating the effects of this disclosure by looking up something suitably environmental that could act as Implied Repeal, but I need to get away from this screen and go for a swim in the river while the sun still shines.]

 

Enjoyment and all that . . .

[Rich]

There's nothing to keep up with Rich.

 

She's just amusing herself yanking your chain.

 

MtB

You may think she is yanking my chain but I am seriously trying to help the poor soul. She seems to have wandered off into a quiet backwater of her own where the logical procession of a line of thought is somewhere she hangs her washing.

 

One of the problems is that I don't know with whom I am swapping silly comments. Could be Phyllis, Rachael, Rachel or conceivably Naughty Cal. I suppose I shouldn't really "poke the inmates" (sorry NC, your ducks disease problem will apply there) but the temptation is great.

 

I have a problem now in that I have to decide what to do next, either carry on a message exchange with NC or empty the cassette. Which is more interesting? No competition really. Nite nite NC.

[Naughty Cal]

Oh dear.

 

He still doesn't get it does he?

[NigelMoore]

It is very difficult to cry foul if the tactical use of ambiguity is used by both sides.

 

Not at all. The law is absolutely clear on this – ambiguity in the legislation is to be construed against the canal companies and successors. Where-ever vagueness in the legislation brings uncertainty over the extent of the liberty of the public and the authority of CaRT, the court is duty bound to find in favour of the public against CaRT’s interests.

 

The classic case often cited is that of Stourbridge Canal v Wheeley in 1831 – approved yet again most recently in my own case, as it had been previously in the 1996/7 case of Swan Hill Developments v BWB.

 

In the words of the Lord Chief Justice: ‘The canal having been made under the provisions of an Act of Parliament, the rights of the plaintiffs are derived entirely from that Act. This, like many other cases, is a bargain between a company of adventurers and the public, the terms of which are expressed in the statute; and the rule of construction in all such cases is now fully established to be this, – that ambiguity in the terms of the contract must operate against the adventurers, and in favour of the public; and the plaintiffs can claim nothing which is not clearly given to them by the Act.’

 

Boaters exploiting ambiguities are therefore acting within the law, while for CaRT to seek exploitation of ambiguities is to act directly counter to the law. You may not care for that situation, but those are the facts.

 

 

[MtB]

I am totally in awe of the stuff like this you come up with, Nige.

 

Good swim was it?!

 

MtB

[Captain Zim]

 

Not at all. The law is absolutely clear on this ambiguity in the legislation is to be construed against the canal companies and successors. Where-ever vagueness in the legislation brings uncertainty over the extent of the liberty of the public and the authority of CaRT, the court is duty bound to find in favour of the public against CaRTs interests.

 

The classic case often cited is that of Stourbridge Canal v Wheeley in 1831 approved yet again most recently in my own case, as it had been previously in the 1996/7 case of Swan Hill Developments v BWB.

 

In the words of the Lord Chief Justice: The canal having been made under the provisions of an Act of Parliament, the rights of the plaintiffs are derived entirely from that Act. This, like many other cases, is a bargain between a company of adventurers and the public, the terms of which are expressed in the statute; and the rule of construction in all such cases is now fully established to be this, that ambiguity in the terms of the contract must operate against the adventurers, and in favour of the public; and the plaintiffs can claim nothing which is not clearly given to them by the Act.

 

Boaters exploiting ambiguities are therefore acting within the law, while for CaRT to seek exploitation of ambiguities is to act directly counter to the law. You may not care for that situation, but those are the facts.

 

 

It's not just canal Acts either. It's more or less most legislation. If legislation is written in such a way that it allows for a bit of flexibility or ambiguity, that is not the fault of the individual, but the fault of the lawmaker. Both sides are bound by the same set of rules but where ambiguity favours the individual, it is a hindrance to the authority. Well that's tough. It doesn't then mean that they can make the rules less flexible simply to counter the opposite behaviour from individuals. To do so they would be acting outside the law by making extra rules up. Such as a definition of place etc etc.

 

I think where people are upset by this is because most people, me included like to think that we all Act in the spirit of the law. But this is not the same thing and is not necessarily a requirement.

Edited July 19, 2014 by Captain Zim

[Naughty Cal]

I am totally in awe of the stuff like this you come up with, Nige.

 

Good swim was it?!

 

MtB

Not sure awe would be the word I would use.

 

Rhymes with it though ............