canal trust making people homeless

[Phil Ambrose]

 

 

 

 

 

A lot depends on the lady's date of birth, for example:

I was born in 1953 so get my pension at 65 (2018), but my wife was born in 1955 and won't get her's until she is 63 (also 2018). If she had been born a year later it would have been at 2020.

Currently most younger workers of both sexes now will not get their pensions until they are 67 and the present Government would like to move that until the 70th birthday.

Exactly right, Chris has her birthday on 15-06-1954 and falls into the "You're just gonna have to wait" category.

Phil

[NigelMoore]

I've got to ask... which bits of the HRA are engaged? Case law?

 

Further to my last response, I can give you some background to what I said re: proportionality criteria and less onerous options for achieving the legitimate purposes of an authority -

 

In de Freitas v Permanent Secretary of Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries, Lands and Housing [1999] 1 AC 69 the Privy Council adopted a three-stage test for determining proportionality. Lord Clyde observed, at p 80, that in determining whether an act, rule or decision is arbitrary or excessive the court should ask itself:

 

"whether: (i) the legislative objective is sufficiently important to justify limiting a fundamental right; (ii) the measures designed to meet the legislative objective are rationally connected to it; and (iii) the means used to impair the right or freedom are no more than is necessary to accomplish the objective."

 

According to EU Law (5th edn OUP 2011) 526 by P Craig and G de Burca, the test of proportionality is generally acknowledged to comprise 4 stages:

 

• there must be a legitimate aim for a measure

• the measure must be suitable to achieve the aim (potentially with a requirement of evidence to show it will have that effect)

• the measure must be necessary to achieve the aim, that there cannot be any less onerous way of doing it

• the measure must be reasonable, considering the competing interests of different groups at hand.

 

[my emphasis in bold throughout] These considerations have never been aired in s.8 cases to date.

[MtB]

Only because you believehe is someone who doesn't fit the "perfect profile" of your idea of a boater.

 

Not really. I believe no such thing. As Nigel points out I can see past the personal insults from Tony and still grasp the principles.

 

My comment was that his insults and general nastiness leads to loss of support on here. Not necessarily from me, but from a broad cross section of readers who take exception to his writing style. It does him no favours.

 

MtB

[Tuscan]

Not really. I believe no such thing. As Nigel points out I can see past the personal insults from Tony and still grasp the principles.

 

My comment was that his insults and general nastiness leads to loss of support on here. Not necessarily from me, but from a broad cross section of readers who take exception to his writing style. It does him no favours.

 

MtB

I suspect that this is probably part of the problem in several of the recent cases , it is very difficult but the enforcement process from CRTs perspective needs to be impersonal , once this changes it's not the pursuit of the law but of the individual.

[cotswoldsman]

 

 

 

My comment was that his insults and general nastiness leads to loss of support on here. Not necessarily from me, but from a broad cross section of readers who take exception to his writing style. It does him no favours.

 

MtB

I think he will survive. Having read some of the posts on various threads I imagine he might well take exception to a lot of them some of us can see what has happened to Tony and the quality of his posts would not influence the ability yo see that the guy has been through a lot of stress

[MtB]

I think he will survive. Having read some of the posts on various threads I imagine he might well take exception to a lot of them some of us can see what has happened to Tony and the quality of his posts would not influence the ability yo see that the guy has been through a lot of stress

 

Of course he will survive.

 

It's just very unfortunate that he interprets my questions about his dispute with CRT as personal attacks and responds with personal insults instead of factual responses to my questions. Makes him look rather foolish in my opinion.

 

MtB

[NigelMoore]

I suspect that this is probably part of the problem in several of the recent cases . . .

 

It is all but inevitable, so far as the boaters are concerned, because it takes a certain minimum amount of “strop” in one’s character to enable standing up to the process [guilty or innocent].

[Tony Dunkley]

I think he will survive. Having read some of the posts on various threads I imagine he might well take exception to a lot of them some of us can see what has happened to Tony and the quality of his posts would not influence the ability yo see that the guy has been through a lot of stress

You're right about that John, I have taken exception to some of the posts on here, but I think anyone wanting to indulge in airing ill informed and unhelpful views and opinions, based on incorrect assumptions and preconceptions, really shouldn't start whingeing when they get a reaction they don't like.

It does seem that there are still some who believe that in publicising C&RT's action against me, I was seeking help and support for myself, and I also recall being labelled as a "troll", a "piss taker" and indulging in scaremongering. Well, if anyone wants to continue thinking that, they are free to do so, but I would welcome them doing it quietly amongst themselves, as that may be of considerably more help in achieving what was my intention from the start, to make as many boaters as possible aware of how C&RT are prepared to treat them, and more importantly, the fact that due to C&RT's tendency to disregard, and operate outside of the Law, it need not be assumed that they will always succeed.

Personally, I haven't been at all stressed by what C&RT have been doing for the past few months, I think a few people may have noticed that I am quite fond of an argument, but I am really concerned that now C&RT's attempt to make an example of me in order to help them impose CC'ing rules on boats with home moorings looks likely to fail, they will now turn their attention to others who may be more suitable for their purposes.

Edited September 14, 2014 by tony dunkley

[matty40s]

...... but I am really concerned that now C&RT's attempt to make an example of me in order to help them impose CC'ing rules on boats with home moorings looks likely to fail, they will now turn their attention to finding a more suitable target.

 

MikeTB, you need to keep moving all them boats matey, no slip ups.......

[captain birdseye]

Might I add this topic was not started by me . Note slightly different user name

Edited September 14, 2014 by captain birdseye

[mayalld]

No but boaters are not immune for example from one of the cases I dealt with of husbands dieing unexpectedly. As I said CRT are happy to help and the fact that they are appointing a Welfare Officer does show that CRT realise they have a duty of care

And there we have it. The reason why BW and CRT have shied away from being too helpful.

 

The moment they do something voluntarily somebody announces that this proves that they have a DUTY to do it.

[mayalld]

Apologies to Naughty Cal, MtB and Mayalld. I didn't know you were all being kind enough to let a fourth one have the use of it as well.

Indeed so, but it clearly isn't you that is that fourth one

Might I add this topic was not started by me . Note slightly different user name

I was somewhat confused, as the OP didn't really sound like you.

[MtB]

You're right about that John, I have taken exception to some of the posts on here, but I think anyone wanting to indulge in airing ill informed and unhelpful views and opinions, based on incorrect assumptions and preconceptions, really shouldn't start whingeing when they get a reaction they don't like.

 

 

It would have been for more constructive to correct the ill-information and explain why the incorrect assumptions and preconceptions are incorrect.

 

This would have been far better than hurling insults.

 

 

MtB

 

MikeTB, you need to keep moving all them boats matey, no slip ups.......

 

 

I don't see much point, do you?

 

After all according to Mr Dunkley fully complaint boaters with a home mooring are just as much at risk as the piss takers.

 

 

MtB

[Smelly]

 

Further to my last response, I can give you some background to what I said re: proportionality criteria and less onerous options for achieving the legitimate purposes of an authority -

 

In de Freitas v Permanent Secretary of Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries, Lands and Housing [1999] 1 AC 69 the Privy Council adopted a three-stage test for determining proportionality. Lord Clyde observed, at p 80, that in determining whether an act, rule or decision is arbitrary or excessive the court should ask itself:

 

"whether: (i) the legislative objective is sufficiently important to justify limiting a fundamental right; (ii) the measures designed to meet the legislative objective are rationally connected to it; and (iii) the means used to impair the right or freedom are no more than is necessary to accomplish the objective."

 

According to EU Law (5th edn OUP 2011) 526 by P Craig and G de Burca, the test of proportionality is generally acknowledged to comprise 4 stages:

 

there must be a legitimate aim for a measure

the measure must be suitable to achieve the aim (potentially with a requirement of evidence to show it will have that effect)

the measure must be necessary to achieve the aim, that there cannot be any less onerous way of doing it

the measure must be reasonable, considering the competing interests of different groups at hand.

 

[my emphasis in bold throughout] These considerations have never been aired in s.8 cases to date.

Considering the arguments that have been bandied around how does that weigh against the "manifestly without reasonable justification" test?

 

Bear in mind I'm not arguing a point, just sat in the pub being random

[NigelMoore]

Not being in the pub myself, but sat on the sofa with the nth glass of Scotch, I am wrestling with quite what the question is.

 

Plus, I’ve just had my ear bent for the last hour by boaters with problems on the Thames that have used up today’s tolerance quotient.

 

So – would it be OK if I poured another glass and let you clarify your query for me tomorrow, before seeking to respond intelligently?

 

[MtB]

What sort of scotch??

 

MtB

[NigelMoore]

An acceptable but uninspiring “Queen Margot” blend which I’ve never heard of before, which a neighbour brought back from a French supermarche following a trip to Holland to see to the wintering of his pranged yacht.

 

Not exactly a Balvenie, but a man must be polite about these things.

[tats]

It is not a pleasant idea that this is happening.

[MtB]

It is not a pleasant idea that this is happening.

 

I agree. Not many good blended malts around, are there?

 

MtB

[Smelly]

Not being in the pub myself, but sat on the sofa with the nth glass of Scotch, I am wrestling with quite what the question is. Plus, I’ve just had my ear bent for the last hour by boaters with problems on the Thames that have used up today’s tolerance quotient. So – would it be OK if I poured another glass and let you clarify your query for me tomorrow, before seeking to respond intelligently?

 

The question is still...

 

How does the HRA apply

 

?

[Wanderer Vagabond]

 

Further to my last response, I can give you some background to what I said re: proportionality criteria and less onerous options for achieving the legitimate purposes of an authority -

 

In de Freitas v Permanent Secretary of Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries, Lands and Housing [1999] 1 AC 69 the Privy Council adopted a three-stage test for determining proportionality. Lord Clyde observed, at p 80, that in determining whether an act, rule or decision is arbitrary or excessive the court should ask itself:

 

"whether: (i) the legislative objective is sufficiently important to justify limiting a fundamental right; (ii) the measures designed to meet the legislative objective are rationally connected to it; and (iii) the means used to impair the right or freedom are no more than is necessary to accomplish the objective."

 

According to EU Law (5th edn OUP 2011) 526 by P Craig and G de Burca, the test of proportionality is generally acknowledged to comprise 4 stages:

 

• there must be a legitimate aim for a measure

• the measure must be suitable to achieve the aim (potentially with a requirement of evidence to show it will have that effect)

• the measure must be necessary to achieve the aim, that there cannot be any less onerous way of doing it

• the measure must be reasonable, considering the competing interests of different groups at hand.

 

[my emphasis in bold throughout] These considerations have never been aired in s.8 cases to date.

Like Smelly above I'm intrigued as to the 'manifestly without unreasonable justifiaction' test. I accept that I have come to this debate late so have tried to get up to speed by reading the result of the appeal, that hasn't really helped.

 

It strikes me that whether or not the actions of CRT are reasonable would rather depend upon what their intentions are. As you say, if their intentions are to collect outstanding debts then removing boats from the waterways by use of Section 8 is unlikely to achieve that aim. If I were the Devil's advocate on behalf of CRT however I would claim that my intention would be to free up a section of canal for use by legitimate Licence payers by removing boats from the waterways that do not pay for their licence, on that criteria removing boats under Section 8 would be eminently reasonable. The aim is legitimate, the measure will achieve that aim, there is no less onerous way to achieve it and it is reasonable. For all of the emotion that this seems to raise, CRT are not actually evicting people from their homes, they are evicting them from the waterways, they still have every right to remain in their boats and live in them if they can find some hard standing to put their boats on and a sympathetic 'landlord'.

[NigelMoore]

 

Not many good blended malts around, are there?

 

I must confess, MtB [at risk of censure from purists], that in terms of blends I find the Waitrose own ‘brand’ very pleasant.

The question is still...

 

Obviously a hard and uncompromising man, on a better brew than I am.

[NigelMoore]

Like Smelly above I'm intrigued as to the 'manifestly without unreasonable justifiaction' test.

 

 

 

So am I. If I knew what it was, there would hopefully be some possibility that I could speak to it. I am trusting that you gentlemen can provide some enlightening analysis for my deliberation on the morrow.

[NigelMoore]

Sadly, as an OAP [shades of the running commentary on this topic elsewhere], I have found reason to conclude that the Government’s calculations of what the minimum is [that a man needs to live on], take absolutely no account of any need for a regular diet of single malts.

 

This simply has to be a violation of the HRA; I fully expect to discover what exact protocol might be applicable to the situation once my own lonely little grey cell has absorbed sufficient spiritual nourishment. Please be assured that I am working towards this solution.

[MtB]

Sadly, as an OAP [shades of the running commentary on this topic elsewhere], I have found reason to conclude that the Government’s calculations of what the minimum is [that a man needs to live on], take absolutely no account of any need for a regular diet of single malts.

 

This simply has to be a violation of the HRA; I fully expect to discover what exact protocol might be applicable to the situation once my own lonely little grey cell has absorbed sufficient spiritual nourishment. Please be assured that I am working towards this solution.

You can borrow mine if you like tomorrow - grey cell that is - when Naughty Cal gives it back. The pair of them should be able to figure it out twice as fast, provided Rachel hasn't worn it out. I'm hoping on the other hand she may have left it in its box over the weekend and not even used it...

 

Hmmmmm nice Viognier tonight

 

 

MtB