Is C&RT's Boat/Location Logging System Fit for Purpose?

[Paul G2]

This is a serious thread about a boater who is being prosecuted by CRT when he believed he was operating within the rules. Many of us may find ourelves in a similar situation in the future and we feel the need to ask questions to clarify the CRT position and/or help TD to be rid of his differences with CRT.

 

Interference from the 'Apostrophe Police' and personal attacks (e.g. shared braincell) are counterproductive and dilute the excellent advice from Nigel Moore etc.

 

This thread is not the place for wit or humour. I see neither in the above posts, only an irresponsible attempt to destroy a valid discussion.

 

Alan

 

Dude, lighten up!

 

The time shared brain cell remark was priceless, and NC and mayalid handled it with dignity and aplomb. NC coming back with wanting to reserve that one brain cell for the weekend was comic gold.

 

Granted, playing grammar police is almost always a recipe for humiliation for the person who starts it. But it happens sometimes and it's often fun to see people sticking their foot in their mouth.

 

There's nothing wrong with a little amusement and comic relief whilst waiting for Nigel's next erudite comment.

[John V]

 

Dude, lighten up!

 

The time shared brain cell remark was priceless, and NC and mayalid handled it with dignity and aplomb. NC coming back with wanting to reserve that one brain cell for the weekend was comic gold.

 

Granted, playing grammar police is almost always a recipe for humiliation for the person who starts it. But it happens sometimes and it's often fun to see people sticking their foot in their mouth.

 

There's nothing wrong with a little amusement and comic relief whilst waiting for Nigel's next erudite comment.

 

 

I trust it is something you will try and keep in mind next time you are at the receiving end of some ragging?

[bassplayer]

This is a serious thread about a boater who is being prosecuted by CRT when he believed he was operating within the rules. Many of us may find ourelves in a similar situation in the future and we feel the need to ask questions to clarify the CRT position and/or help TD to be rid of his differences with CRT.

 

Interference from the 'Apostrophe Police' and personal attacks (e.g. shared braincell) are counterproductive and dilute the excellent advice from Nigel Moore etc.

 

This thread is not the place for wit or humour. I see neither in the above posts, only an irresponsible attempt to destroy a valid discussion.

 

Alan

I don't see the problem with a bit of light hearted banter and humour either. It cheers me up. Now we have Apostrophe policing policing on this thread....hmmm...

 

It's a very interesting thread and thanks to Tony and Nigel for their input. I really hope common sense will prevail in the end rather than the selfish needs of a few.

[Paul G2]

 

 

I trust it is something you will try and keep in mind next time you are at the receiving end of some ragging?

 

That will depend upon the situation. If someone encourages an unknowledgeable third party to damage their boat just to get under my skin, I'll react accordingly. Sometimes I bite back, sometimes I don't. It depends on the circumstances.

[MtB]

I think it's rather unfortunate that Mr Dunkley chose to insult me with his one braincell comment. I don't think he was joking.

 

Unfortunate because I think it means he takes my questions and criticisms of his position as criticism of him as a person, which they aren't, but it explains the personal insults he tends to respond to my questions with.

 

On another forum I use criticising a poster personally is called 'playing the man not the ball'. On that site this is out of order and such posts get deleted if reported. Playing the man not the ball happens frequently on this site, and not just to me.

 

Criticising what we say on a discussion board is fine. Criticizing the poster personally is not. So c'mon boys and girls, play the ball not the man, please.

 

MtB

[Naughty Cal]

There is no wit and humour here, but if NC continues to attack me she might at least learn to use the English language properly. After all, by missing out apostrophes she seems to be inventing her own language, with strange results. Rather as the Americans who miss out hyphens, which results in some strange looking words. It would be interesting to know the reason for her continual ignoring of the '. Is it a lack of understanding its use or just an in built deficiency on her part. This latest bout of name calling has been provoked by my thinking that for the licence people in Canal and River Trust to do the job they are paid for by getting licences out on time is not a cause for congratulations. Am I missing something here and it is just such a cause?

 

As far as grammatical pedantry goes I would agree. Would you say it was any worse than someone commenting on a post with a "double negative" therein. Especially as there was not such device.

He's, one's

 

Teddy and dummy thrown well and truly from the pram there Rich, sorry Dick.

 

 

However if you will continue to "attack" <tongue firmly in cheek there> my use of the English language then at least you should make the effort to ensure that what you say is correct.

[John V]

 

That will depend upon the situation. If someone encourages an unknowledgeable third party to damage their boat just to get under my skin, I'll react accordingly. Sometimes I bite back, sometimes I don't. It depends on the circumstances

 

 

 

eta ...not worth the effort

Edited September 11, 2014 by John V

[Tony Dunkley]

I think it's rather unfortunate that Mr Dunkley chose to insult me with his one braincell comment. I don't think he was joking.

 

Unfortunate because I think it means he takes my questions and criticisms of his position as criticism of him as a person, which they aren't, but it explains the personal insults he tends to respond to my questions with.

 

On another forum I use criticising a poster personally is called 'playing the man not the ball'. On that site this is out of order and such posts get deleted if reported. Playing the man not the ball happens frequently on this site, and not just to me.

 

Criticising what we say on a discussion board is fine. Criticizing the poster personally is not. So c'mon boys and girls, play the ball not the man, please.

 

MtB

Of course I was joking . . . if you really were in the single cell organism category you would be an amoeba.

[Tuscan]

Of course I was joking . . . if you really were in the single cell organism category you would be an amoeba.

So they can split apart and one each , jobs a goodun

[Allan(nb Albert)]

For future reference and for the benefit of those with an interest in the more particular details of the court saga thus far, I am posting up the relevant court documentation to date. This will assist those with the taste to delve deeper by having access to all relevant documentation.

 

CaRT Part 8 Claim

 

http://www.scribd.com/doc/239355054/Dunkley-CaRT-Filed-Court-Case

 

CaRT Exhibits –

 

http://www.scribd.com/doc/239355055/Dunkley-CaRT-Filed-Court-Case-Exhibits

 

June Notice of Hearing

 

http://www.scribd.com/doc/239355053/Dunkley-Case-June-Notice-of-Hearing

 

July Notice of Allocation

 

http://www.scribd.com/doc/239355052/Dunkley-Case-July-Notice-of-Allocation

 

Part 8 Reply

 

http://www.scribd.com/doc/238237047/Dunkley-Part-8-Reply

 

Dunkley Defence

 

http://www.scribd.com/doc/238236701/Dunkley-Defence

 

August Consent Order to adjourn Directions Hearing

 

http://www.scribd.com/doc/238042868/Dunkley-Consent-Order

 

I’ll leave it to Tony to publish the most particularly relevant correspondence when the time is right.

 

 

Forgot to add the initial Part 8 Reply Exhibits –

 

http://www.scribd.com/doc/239360256/Dunkley-Part-8-Reply-Exhibits

 

I will add just the Index to the exhibits for the main Defence

 

http://www.scribd.com/doc/239360255/Dunkley-Defence-Exhibits-Index

 

Thanks for making this information available Nigel.

 

Can you explain the meaning of 'in order to resolve the matter' in the Consent Order.

 

As I understand it the options discussed earlier are -

 

CaRT file for discontinuance.

 

CaRT and TD agree to a discontinuance.

 

... but what of the third option, that discontinuance does not happen. Would the case be dismissed because the court understands the matter resolved?

 

 

Edited September 11, 2014 by Allan(nb Albert)

[matty40s]

Thanks for making this information available Nigel.

Can you explain the meaning of 'in order to resolve the matter' in the Consent Order.

As I understand it the options discussed earlier are -

CaRT file for discontinuance.

CaRT and TD agree to a discontinuance.

... but what of the third option, that discontinuance does not happen. Would the case be dismissed because the court understands the matter resolved?

 

This will be unusual.

A NBW exclusive that has its facts right.

[Allan(nb Albert)]

This will be unusual.

A NBW exclusive that has its facts right.

Actually, I was asking for Nigel's opinion because I value it.

[Tony Dunkley]

 

 

Thanks for making this information available Nigel.

 

Can you explain the meaning of 'in order to resolve the matter' in the Consent Order.

 

As I understand it the options discussed earlier are -

 

CaRT file for discontinuance.

 

CaRT and TD agree to a discontinuance.

 

... but what of the third option, that discontinuance does not happen. Would the case be dismissed because the court understands the matter resolved?

 

 

That wording was in the first drafted Consent Order which Shoosmiths wanted me to agree to and sign, and I took it to mean that once C&RT had renewed my Licence, as they were obliged to do, then there would be no need, and indeed no basis, to continue with their Claim.

Discontinuing by means of a Consent Order, which is signed by both parties, is what C&RT are now trying to get me to agree to, but this is definitely not going to happen because C&RT would then be free to start the whole process going again at will. Stopping proceedings by means of a Notice of Discontinuance, which is what C&RT have agreed to in writing but, as yet, not done, leaves them unable to begin "substantially similar" proceedings against me again without first obtaining the permission of the Court.

If proceedings are not stopped by means of either a Consent Order (not going to happen) or a Notice of Discontinuance (from the Claimant only) then the process resumes at the re-scheduled Directions Hearing on 24 November.

Edited September 11, 2014 by tony dunkley

[NigelMoore]

Can you explain the meaning of 'in order to resolve the matter' in the Consent Order.

 

As I understand it the options discussed earlier are -

 

CaRT file for discontinuance.

 

CaRT and TD agree to a discontinuance.

 

... but what of the third option, that discontinuance does not happen. Would the case be dismissed because the court understands the matter resolved?

 

 

 

It is a weird situation altogether Allan!

 

Just to be clear, in case there is any confusion – the Consent Order published is the one adjourning the Directions Hearing for a month – it is nothing to do with the proposed mutual agreement to discontinue the case.

 

“In order to resolve the matter” as written ought, in common parlance, to be read with the understanding that once the ‘licence’ has been issued, there will be no further reason for the case to continue – the entire s.8 case will have been resolved – there being no basis for the boat to be classified any longer as on the relevant waterways “without lawful authority”.

 

Under those circumstances, I believe the answer to your question would have to be “yes” – I see no leeway for the court to do anything other than summarily dismiss the case at the Directions Hearing in October. That would look even worse for CaRT than if they filed a unilateral Notice of Discontinuance as they promised Tony they would.

 

The faint possibility might exist, however, that the judge could agree to have a trial of pertinent issues without entertaining the Claim itself. I doubt it though, that is more something for the High Court and upwards to consider, in circumstances where they deem it desirable to create a precedent, independent of any outcome [this happened with the BW appeal against the decision in BWB v Peter James, 2003].

 

The County Court cannot create the precedent, however, so no purpose would be served by exploring the issues in circumstances where all grounds for the filed Claim had been resolved.

[Naughty Cal]

That wording was in the first drafted Consent Order which Shoosmiths wanted me to agree to and sign, and I took it to mean that once C&RT had renewed my Licence, as they were obliged to do, then there would be no need, and indeed no basis, to continue with their Claim.

Discontinuance by means of a Consent Order, which is signed by both parties, is what C&RT are now trying to get me to agree to, but this is definitely not going to happen because C&RT would then be free to start the whole process going again at will. Stopping proceedings by means of a Notice of Discontinuance, which is what C&RT have agreed in writing to do, leaves them unable to begin "substantially similar" proceedings against me again without first obtaining the permission of the Court.

If proceedings are not stopped by means of either a Consent Order (not going to happen) or a Notice of Discontinuance (from the Claimant only) then the process resumes at the re-scheduled Directions Hearing on 24 November.

Look forward to the hearing in November then

[Sabcat]

 

It is a weird situation altogether Allan!

 

Just to be clear, in case there is any confusion – the Consent Order published is the one adjourning the Directions Hearing for a month – it is nothing to do with the proposed mutual agreement to discontinue the case.

 

“In order to resolve the matter” as written ought, in common parlance, to be read with the understanding that once the ‘licence’ has been issued, there will be no further reason for the case to continue – the entire s.8 case will have been resolved – there being no basis for the boat to be classified any longer as on the relevant waterways “without lawful authority”.

 

Under those circumstances, I believe the answer to your question would have to be “yes” – I see no leeway for the court to do anything other than summarily dismiss the case at the Directions Hearing in October. That would look even worse for CaRT than if they filed a unilateral Notice of Discontinuance as they promised Tony they would.

 

The faint possibility might exist, however, that the judge could agree to have a trial of pertinent issues without entertaining the Claim itself. I doubt it though, that is more something for the High Court and upwards to consider, in circumstances where they deem it desirable to create a precedent, independent of any outcome [this happened with the BW appeal against the decision in BWB v Peter James, 2003].

 

The County Court cannot create the precedent, however, so no purpose would be served by exploring the issues in circumstances where all grounds for the filed Claim had been resolved.

 

So, this is all over bar the shouting, Tony has effectively knocked C&RT back into their box?

[MtB]

 

So, this is all over bar the shouting, Tony has effectively knocked C&RT back into their box?

 

It looks that way! Just like Paul Lillie did...

 

I think the legal dept there are beginning to look rather foolish.

 

MtB

[Paul C]

 

So, this is all over bar the shouting, Tony has effectively knocked C&RT back into their box?

 

I don't think either side can claim a victory. Or more accurately, I think both sides could claim a victory, but whether its a meaningful one is moot.

[NigelMoore]

 

So, this is all over bar the shouting . . .

 

There will be a bit more ‘shouting’ yet as the brinksmanship game is played out. If Tony was to start using his boat to cruise once more and fall foul of some mooring restriction somewhere, CaRT could/would revoke the licence again and be in a position to continue fighting the case. It would be rather silly for them to do so, but . . .

[Tony Dunkley]

 

So, this is all over bar the shouting, Tony has effectively knocked C&RT back into their box?

It would be nice to think so, but I wouldn't bet on it. If the C&RT instigators of all this nonsense were fair minded, honest and sensible people then they would serve and file Notice of Discontinuance and put an end to it all, but having said that, if they were any of those things, then they would not have embarked on this course of action in the first place.

Edited September 11, 2014 by tony dunkley

[Sabcat]

It would be nice to think so, but I wouldn't bet on it. If the C&RT instigators of all this nonsense were fair minded, honest and sensible people then they would serve and file Notice of Discontinuance and put an end to it all, but having said that, if they were any of those things, then they would not have embarked on this course of action in the first place.

 

From Nigel's posts it doesn't seem they have anywhere else to go with this. All you appear to have to do is sit tight and not do anything nuts between now and November.

[Tony Dunkley]

Look forward to the hearing in November then

If that's so, I'm sure C&RT will be glad of your support and approval. They are certainly not looking forward to it at all.

[Naughty Cal]

If that's so, I'm sure C&RT will be glad of your support and approval. They are certainly not looking forward to it at all.

So why have they not signed the deal?

[Tony Dunkley]

So why have they not signed the deal?

For the reasons explained in earlier posts of Nigel's and mine.

[MtB]

For the reasons explained in earlier posts of Nigel's and mine.

 

 

Cut Naughty Cal some slack will you?

 

It's my turn with the brain cell today...

 

 

MtB