NBTA London Legal Rights Meeting

[NigelMoore]

Nick Brown DID lose his case, he then applied for a JR , which was allowed one point , which he withdrew at the last minute.

 

There might be some confusion over this. The case WAS an application for Judicial Review – something for which permission must first be granted.

 

What was lost/refused, at several levels, was that permission for the JR, until the second most senior judge in the land decided that permission SHOULD be given – on the core argument over whether the Guidance reflected the law; disregarding the peripheral issues that had been raised.

 

The only criticism levelled by the judge that was appointed to conduct the Review that subsequently ensued, was that it lacked a material context, hence the withdrawal - not 'at the last minute', but only after some time having been taken up with the hearing of facts and argument. Neither a win nor a loss, but an invaluable airing of judicial discussion of some important defining terms involved.

[NigelMoore]

. . . on the rights and responsibilities I'd raise a question mark. It is a very legalistic view to to say we have a right to absolutely anything we choose so long as it isn't illegal. Put it another way there is a need for responsible behaviour when exercising one's right . . . I would hope the NBTA would, in some small way, promote the idea of being a good neighbour (which isn't the same thing as being a pushover) and if they do I would applaud it.

 

I cannot be emphatic over the extent to which my own views were endorsed, but the NBTA website does publish talks of my own given on headings they requested, which included:

 

“I will deal with both judgments as to what your active rights are, following the determination that you have a liberty to enjoy the waterways in all ways not prohibited by statute. But also, it would be inappropriate not to make the point that there is a price for such liberties as we enjoy to date - and that price is equally a matter of interest/concern. I have little interest in damaging either the organisation entrusted, however unwisely, with running the waterways, or the community of boaters using them, and this session is not designed to be an authority-bashing one; rather it is intended to provoke a little thought and debate and hopefully a consensus of behaviour that is [theoretically at least], designedly an important element of the “new” constitution of the waterways authority . . .”

 

. . . . . . . .

 

“Thus, in the case of O’Fallon exr. of Mallanphy v Daggett & Price in 1836, respecting the public right of navigation and its impact upon private riparian rights, the same test of reasonable user propounded by Woods, B was applied to the case, with the result that the court held - “that everyone should so use his rights as not to injure or molest others in the enjoyment of theirs, is a maxim that well applies in this case. The Law of the Partidas . . . seems to be an exemplification of the maxim.”

 

. . . . . . . .

 

“The application to ourselves ought to be obvious – we have rights to do a great many things; we have the right to moor most places, for as long as convenient and/or for as long as is reasonable under particular circumstances – but how we use or abuse those rights will have an effect on the time left wherein such freedom remains in place."

 

. . . . . . . .

 

“For harmony to reign without busybodies demanding the imposition of more and more laws to the detriment of our current level of freedom then, those freedoms must be exercised in harmony with the quintessentially just principle of applied law – to repeat the words of the Louisiana court: “Every one should so use his rights as not to injure or molest others in the enjoyment of theirs.”

 

I would have thought that publishing such comment on their website went some way towards recognising a responsibility for the impact of one's behaviour to others, and so promoting the concept of 'good neighbourliness'.

[MtB]

I didn't spot ANY of that on their website Nige. I did however, immediately spot what I believ to be an incorrect and misleading assertion that CRT had published a map of 'places'....

 

CANAL & RIVER TRUST “PLACES” MAPS DEFY LAW AND GEOGRAPHY

The Canal & River Trust (CRT) has published maps purporting to define “places” for the entire waterway system in an unlawful attempt to prescribe and control the movement of boats licensed without a home mooring.

 

http://www.bargee-traveller.org.uk/?page_id=23

 

The fact is, they didn't publish the maps. Someone else did. One wonders who. There was never a link on the CRT site to the maps page under development. When it became clear to CRT the page URL had been leaked, they changed it..

Gosh this Viognier is good....

[NigelMoore]

. . . his inability to countenance WORKING with the (then) BW authorities, his aim was to seek a judicial review . . .

 

Actually, I remember Nick and Panda calling by some time before the JR came up, they having visited London with the express purpose of meeting up with Mr Parry in an attempt to discuss the possibilities of avoiding the court action through constructive working on the issues at conflict. At the [abbreviated] meeting, Parry reportedly had dismissed all possibility of the idea, stating that he felt the courts were the most appropriate forum to pronounce upon the issues.

 

I am fully confident that the tenor of that meeting was faithfully reported, as he [Parry] had only just emailed me earlier that day, with the same message, regarding an ongoing case which I had urged him to re-evaluate in light of personally visiting to see just what ‘his’ money was being wasted on – there too, he said that litigation was the best course to follow.

 

Innocuous ‘engagements’ he undoubtedly and sensibly involves himself with, but given the unbending nature of his determination to stick with the litigation path over WORKING with his clientele, it is somewhat difficult to see how anyone countenancing the discussion route could overcome that.

 

[alan_fincher]

The maps get a mention in Notes of meeting between CRT & National Boating Organisations on 22 September 2014

 

Places, Bona Fide Navigation and Enforcement

DD summarised the feedback received from boating organisations re places. There was full agreement that there needed to be wider discussion on guidance for bona fide for navigation, as well as on the use of ‘places’. As the two subjects are so closely interlinked it was agreed to temporarily suspend the implementation of places (and their associated maps) so that the discussion today could focus on bona fide for navigation.

 

 

"Temporarily suspend" doesn't exactly mirror the suggestions made elsewhere that they are now dead, does it?

Edited October 4, 2014 by alan_fincher

[NigelMoore]

Gosh this Viognier is good....

 

Rub it in, me being [relatively] dry and too far from that beckoning barrel.

 

Try this link [and disregard the spelling; this has been deliberately altered by them to an incorrect spelling of ‘judgment’ that grates still, but . . .]

 

http://www.bargee-traveller.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/WHAT-THE-JUDGEMENT-MEANS-TO-BOATERS.doc

[MtB]

The maps get a mention in Notes of meeting between CRT & National Boating Organisations on 22 September 2014

 

 

"Temporarily suspend" doesn't exactly mirror the suggestions made elsewhere that they are now dead, does it?

 

 

Interesting. The map site seemed a fundamentally Good Idea to me so I'm pleased it is not 'dead'.

 

But as the NBTA suggests, it appears to me they cannot be 'legal'. I expect a few more £100ks of maintenance money will be spent in the courts squabbling about it, as and when they are adopted as formal policy.

 

MtB

[NigelMoore]

it appears to me they cannot be 'legal'.

 

To me also, they seem a good idea – for so long as they are viewed and used as a useful measuring-stick to reassure boaters that using such indicative areas will ensure that no ‘enforcement’ will be considered.

 

The only problem would arise if used as a legally compellable stricture, which the NBTA are evidently seeing as a distinct possibility, based doubtless on how the same plan on the K&A is being viewed by CaRT enforcement.

 

In other words, it is not valid to say “they cannot be legal”, because publishing any guidance can be legal – it is only that such guidance cannot be legally binding.

[Graham Davis]

I want to know why they call themselves the National BARGEES Travellers Assoc?

They aren't!

[MtB]

 

To me also, they seem a good idea – for so long as they are viewed and used as a useful measuring-stick to reassure boaters that using such indicative areas will ensure that no ‘enforcement’ will be considered.

 

The only problem would arise if used as a legally compellable stricture, which the NBTA are evidently seeing as a distinct possibility, based doubtless on how the same plan on the K&A is being viewed by CaRT enforcement.

 

In other words, it is not valid to say “they cannot be legal”, because publishing any guidance can be legal – it is only that such guidance cannot be legally binding.

 

 

Yes I see what you mean. The best CRT can offer is a guarantee that boaters cruising in accordance with the guidelines and/or the maps will not be subject to 'enforcement'. Boaters cruising outside the guidelines may also be able to satisfy the board, etc....

 

 

MtB

I want to know why they call themselves the National BARGEES Travellers Assoc?

They aren't!

 

Not what? Travelers you mean?

 

 

MtB

[Alf Roberts]

 

Not what? Travelers you mean?

 

 

MtB

Graham Davis doesn't like them, so like at school he starts poking at them because of their name, like teasing the fat boy with glasses.

[jenlyn]

To me also, they seem a good idea – for so long as they are viewed and used as a useful measuring-stick to reassure boaters that using such indicative areas will ensure that no ‘enforcement’ will be considered.

 

The only problem would arise if used as a legally compellable stricture, which the NBTA are evidently seeing as a distinct possibility, based doubtless on how the same plan on the K&A is being viewed by CaRT enforcement.

 

In other words, it is not valid to say “they cannot be legal”, because publishing any guidance can be legal – it is only that such guidance cannot be legally binding.

Some of us know how these maps-places would be interpreted by the enforcement team. The old saying "give them sixpence, they'll take a pound". So although the maps and places may well be good initially, I have no doubt whatsoever that in time the enforcement team would use them as a weapon, rather than a guidance.

Attempting to fix a problem by developing new rules, before actually succeeding in fixing the problems by using the law seems somewhat strange.

Graham Davis doesn't like them, so like at school he starts poking at them because of their name, like teasing the fat boy with glasses.

I don't think he likes anyone. I ignore him, and get pleasure from doing so.

[NigelMoore]

As I read posts on here the NBTA couldn't represent any boater in dispute with the Trust, as in meaningfully represent them, has something suddenly changed?

 

Is that “meaningfully represent” as in “effectively represent”, or, be recognised by the court as “officially permitted to represent”?

 

They have certainly been permitted on occasion to act as something more than “Mackenzie Friends” where the boater was unable to conduct himself as needed in person at court.

 

As to effective – Panda composed the initial draft of the Defence for Tony Dunkley; nothing could be considered more effective than a defence that convinces the attacker to back off without a fight. Whether publicly in court or incognito behind the scenes, I classify that as meaningful representation.

Some of us know how these maps-places would be interpreted by the enforcement team. The old saying "give them sixpence, they'll take a pound". So although the maps and places may well be good initially, I have no doubt whatsoever that in time the enforcement team would use them as a weapon, rather than a guidance.

 

Yes, that is how the K&A scheme is viewed, hence the NBTA opposition. But that is true of everything CaRT publish on required movements, even when acknowledging it as guidance rather than law. MtB phrased the positive point better than I did.

Edited October 4, 2014 by NigelMoore

[Guest]

...

 

Wrong thread.

Edited October 4, 2014 by The Dog House

[Graham Davis]

Graham Davis doesn't like them, so like at school he starts poking at them because of their name, like teasing the fat boy with glasses.

 

Oh look another one who attacks the man when he doesn't have a relevant point of view. I see Jenlyn has joined you as well.

 

Actually I have no particular view of them other than a name that is inaccurate. In fact I think this is the first time I have actually bothered to join in a discussion about them. Their "members" are not "Bargees" they are "BOATERS". I doubt very many of them own a BARGE, but they do own a BOAT.

 

Perhaps you also need to read the Rules of this Forum, especially in reference to personal insults and attacks.

[magpie patrick]

 

I cannot be emphatic over the extent to which my own views were endorsed, but the NBTA website does publish talks of my own given on headings they requested, which included:

 

“I will deal with both judgments as to what your active rights are, following the determination that you have a liberty to enjoy the waterways in all ways not prohibited by statute. But also, it would be inappropriate not to make the point that there is a price for such liberties as we enjoy to date - and that price is equally a matter of interest/concern. I have little interest in damaging either the organisation entrusted, however unwisely, with running the waterways, or the community of boaters using them, and this session is not designed to be an authority-bashing one; rather it is intended to provoke a little thought and debate and hopefully a consensus of behaviour that is [theoretically at least], designedly an important element of the “new” constitution of the waterways authority . . .”

 

. . . . . . . .

 

“Thus, in the case of O’Fallon exr. of Mallanphy v Daggett & Price in 1836, respecting the public right of navigation and its impact upon private riparian rights, the same test of reasonable user propounded by Woods, B was applied to the case, with the result that the court held - “that everyone should so use his rights as not to injure or molest others in the enjoyment of theirs, is a maxim that well applies in this case. The Law of the Partidas . . . seems to be an exemplification of the maxim.”

 

. . . . . . . .

 

“The application to ourselves ought to be obvious – we have rights to do a great many things; we have the right to moor most places, for as long as convenient and/or for as long as is reasonable under particular circumstances – but how we use or abuse those rights will have an effect on the time left wherein such freedom remains in place."

 

. . . . . . . .

 

“For harmony to reign without busybodies demanding the imposition of more and more laws to the detriment of our current level of freedom then, those freedoms must be exercised in harmony with the quintessentially just principle of applied law – to repeat the words of the Louisiana court: “Every one should so use his rights as not to injure or molest others in the enjoyment of theirs.”

 

I would have thought that publishing such comment on their website went some way towards recognising a responsibility for the impact of one's behaviour to others, and so promoting the concept of 'good neighbourliness'.

 

Thank you Nigel, good stuff and I hadn't seen or noticed that before

[Jerra]

Two comments which may be seen as off topic.

 

First there are a number of forum members whose behaviour I would have been ashamed of it if had come from my girls when they were 7 or 8. For God's sake grow up, stop the sniping, name calling and silly signatures. You are making the forum look less of a discussion forum more a child's playground and making yourselves look infantile.

 

Second why do so many boaters seem hell bent on stopping CRT doing anything which may make the running of the system easier and as a result long term mean more effort can be put into making it better.

 

Sorry rant over.

[Alf Roberts]

 

Second why do so many boaters seem hell bent on stopping CRT doing anything which may make the running of the system easier and as a result long term mean more effort can be put into making it better.

 

Sorry rant over.

Because....if 'making it better ' meant getting rid of you, you would soon be trying to find out your rights.

 

I take it you believe that educating people is wrong?

 

Oh look another one who attacks the man when he doesn't have a relevant point of view. I see Jenlyn has joined you as well.

 

Actually I have no particular view of them other than a name that is inaccurate. In fact I think this is the first time I have actually bothered to join in a discussion about them. Their "members" are not "Bargees" they are "BOATERS". I doubt very many of them own a BARGE, but they do own a BOAT.

 

Perhaps you also need to read the Rules of this Forum, especially in reference to personal insults and attacks.

So now you've done bargee* do you want to start on national and traveller or jump straight to association?

 

* bargee (n) person in charge of a barge**

** barge (n) flat bottomed boat

 

So your previous post not only appears like puerile name calling it's also wrong.

 

Although perhaps your point is springer owners should be excluded.

[cotswoldsman]

 

Second why do so many boaters seem hell bent on stopping CRT doing anything which may make the running of the system easier and as a result long term mean more effort can be put into making it better.

 

Sorry rant over.

Now that is an interesting comment and one I have just given some thought to. I am struggling to think of anything CRT have done or preposed that will make boating better either in the short term or long term but I am sure I must have missed something, can you help me please?

[Jerra]

Because....if 'making it better ' meant getting rid of you, you would soon be trying to find out your rights.

 

I take it you believe that educating people is wrong?

An example somebody mentioned the "rule" only run generators 8 until 8. So what follows. "Where is that in law?" "Its one of the terms and conditions". Ah but they can't enforce it as it isn't one of the 3 things they can refuse a license for.

 

Come on that's not getting rid of anybody its common courtesy and sense - there needs to be no argument.

 

Educating people obviously isn't wrong however to take and example away from canals if you are educating people on say how to get 3 hours parking for the price of 2 that is wrong.

 

I am not talking particularly about this thread but many on the forum are obviously trying to find legal ways of "sailing" (no pun intended) as close to the law as possible and finding as many ways and reasons why the organisation running the canals shouldn't run it as efficiently as possible.

 

Just my opinion of course.

[Timleech]

Because....if 'making it better ' meant getting rid of you, you would soon be trying to find out your rights.

 

I take it you believe that educating people is wrong?

 

So now you've done bargee* do you want to start on national and traveller or jump straight to association?

 

* bargee (n) person in charge of a barge**

** barge (n) flat bottomed boat

 

So your previous post not only appears like puerile name calling it's also wrong.

 

Although perhaps your point is springer owners should be excluded.

 

TBH I too have trouble taking seriously an organisation which has chosen such an inappropriate name for itself.

 

Tim

[Jerra]

Now that is an interesting comment and one I have just given some thought to. I am struggling to think of anything CRT have done or preposed that will make boating better either in the short term or long term but I am sure I must have missed something, can you help me please?

Again just my opinion but if they weren't having to spend money on enforcement and court case they could get on and make the system better. 3 weeks ago we passed a boat and to quote my mate "if they throw everything on to the bank to join the other stuff there they still couldn't move for a couple of hours."

 

The boat obviously hadn't been there for less than 14 days and couldn't possibly move without leaving a huge pile of things on the bank. The cruiser stern was absolutely full you would need to enter the boat at the front. They are what in forum terms are "piss takers" and yet many seem to be working towards allowing boats to do this willy nilly and find every reason under the sun as to why CRT can't stop them.

 

I am sure John you will correct me if I am wrong but as I understand it the license for no home mooring came in because many (like you) wanted to travel large parts of the system and a home mooring was superfluous.

 

If that is correct them the spirit (not the letter) of the law was intended to allow reasonably long journeys however slowly. The main thrust of the discussions I see is round how short a distance you need to move to be a CCer. If there wasn't the whole trying to define a line at the minimum and it was accepted that the "spirit" of the law was what you followed, time and money would be saved on all these enforcement/legal actions which IMO has to be to the benefit of the canal system as a whole.

 

Of course if the no home mooring was brought in because people who wanted to "bridge hop" (to use another forum phrase) lobbied for it then fair enough.

[cotswoldsman]

Again just my opinion but if they weren't having to spend money on enforcement and court case they could get on and make the system better. 3 weeks ago we passed a boat and to quote my mate "if they throw everything on to the bank to join the other stuff there they still couldn't move for a couple of hours."

 

The boat obviously hadn't been there for less than 14 days and couldn't possibly move without leaving a huge pile of things on the bank. The cruiser stern was absolutely full you would need to enter the boat at the front. They are what in forum terms are "piss takers" and yet many seem to be working towards allowing boats to do this willy nilly and find every reason under the sun as to why CRT can't stop them.

 

I am sure John you will correct me if I am wrong but as I understand it the license for no home mooring came in because many (like you) wanted to travel large parts of the system and a home mooring was superfluous.

 

If that is correct them the spirit (not the letter) of the law was intended to allow reasonably long journeys however slowly. The main thrust of the discussions I see is round how short a distance you need to move to be a CCer. If there wasn't the whole trying to define a line at the minimum and it was accepted that the "spirit" of the law was what you followed, time and money would be saved on all these enforcement/legal actions which IMO has to be to the benefit of the canal system as a whole.

 

Of course if the no home mooring was brought in because people who wanted to "bridge hop" (to use another forum phrase) lobbied for it then fair enough.

I think you have to be careful not to get obsessed about the cost of enforcement it is a necessary thing whatever same as police. If CRT spent as much time obsessed about the 33,000 boats that do conform to all the guidelines as they do on the maybe 1,000 who don't (and maybe that goes for some on here) I think we would have a far better boating experience.

It will be interesting to see if Richard Parry gets quite such a good reception from boaters as he starts his second year of meetings and from what I am hearing I doubt it.

[Alf Roberts]

 

TBH I too have trouble taking seriously an organisation which has chosen such an inappropriate name for itself.

 

Tim

yes, me too but I don't think name calling furthers the debate.

 

Continuous cruiser also contains absurdity

Edited October 5, 2014 by Alf Roberts

[Alan de Enfield]

Bargee always makes me think of this

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CdNj4_iDpzg