Enforcement or Harassment

[Tuscan]

It's better without the bile . What I find confusing is that regardless of whether one approves of Tony's cruising habits once CRT discovered that he had a home mooring why they did they not quietly drop the case. Surely their own in house legal and enforcement team must have realised they were on dodgy legal grounds.

 

Unless they were hoping for an undefended win which would give them grounds for suggesting that the requirement of 'bona fide' navigation applied to all boaters.

[Theo]

It's better without the bile . What I find confusing is that regardless of whether one approves of Tony's cruising habits once CRT discovered that he had a home mooring why they did they not quietly drop the case. Surely their own in house legal and enforcement team must have realised they were on dodgy legal grounds.

 

Unless they were hoping for an undefended win which would give them grounds for suggesting that the requirement of 'bona fide' navigation applied to all boaters.

Are we getting a little too "conspiracy theory" here. Might it be someone getting uptight and determined to get his own back on TD.

[John V]

Are we getting a little too "conspiracy theory" here. Might it be someone getting uptight and determined to get his own back on TD.

 

I suspect you are right, I have seen something in some ways similar (on going on a different waterway and different authority) Occasionally a person in a position of authority will try and wield it as their own

[NigelMoore]

Are we getting a little too "conspiracy theory" here. Might it be someone getting uptight and determined to get his own back on TD.

 

That scenario has undoubtedly been a characteristic of many instances of inappropriate action in the past and present. Where ‘conspiracy’ rears its ugly head, however, is not so much to do with any ‘organisational decision’ to target someone, as with the organisational ethos of backing such inappropriate decisions of an “uptight” employee, come what may.

 

That is still an institutional carry-over from the insufficiently accountable BW to the negligibly accountable CaRT. The in house legal team [even if not the largely ignorant enforcement team] most certainly realise what the pertinent legal grounds are, but their remit is to justify the conduct of the organisation, at the behest of their CEO. I doubt that qualifies as “conspiracy”, but the distinction is perhaps subtle.

[Alan Saunders]

I have now been through the whole topic and hidden no end of posts. I have done this as rapidly as I could so there are likely to have been mistakes. I hope that you will bear patiently with this. I have used just one criterion: Is the post relevant to the topic title? I have edited some posts to remove unpleasant personal attacks and most of the irrelevant posts will have disappeared.

 

I will keep an eye on this and remove any personal attacks as soon as I see them. I will also remove off topic stuff.

 

I do hope that I will not be called on to moderate with such a heavy hand again. The special quality of this forum is that it is moderated with a light hand and in the main the posts allow for this.

 

So there!

 

With love from

 

Nick

Thank you Nick! Particularly appropriate action for a thread titled "Enforcement or Harassment"!

[thunderbird]

It's better without the bile . What I find confusing is that regardless of whether one approves of Tony's cruising habits once CRT discovered that he had a home mooring why they did they not quietly drop the case. Surely their own in house legal and enforcement team must have realised they were on dodgy legal grounds.

 

Unless they were hoping for an undefended win which would give them grounds for suggesting that the requirement of 'bona fide' navigation applied to all boaters.

As I'd personally informed Simon Salem early on in all this mess that Tony Dunkley did have a home mooring, that I'd actually visited it I would have thought they'd have dropped the case - but hidden agendas here I'm sure. Get one and at the same time put the frighteners on us all. CaRT more usually it seems 'comes by' undefended cases, doesn't take a lot of checking to work out why.

[thunderbird]

Question for Tony (or Nigel, who's up to speed);

 

Richard Parry says "As I think you are very aware, the original enforcement action against you was commenced because you insisted on overstaying at the visitor mooring at Holme Lock rather than mooring at your declared home mooring at Barton in Fabis."

 

What does he mean by this?

Are we talking a 48 hour mooring or a so-called '14 day' visitor mooring.

 

I seem to remember you saying you hadn't overstayed? is this right? and, if so, should Richard Parry know this (ie is he being disingenuous?)

 

Sorry if I'm retreading paths that have already been trod.

To put the record straight Tony D wasn't moored on a visitor mooring, didn't overstay the 14 days but preferred to return to this venue rather than to his home mooring that CaRT initially did not believe he'd got - didn't believe me either, come to think of it!

[thunderbird]

That's a very interesting public admission of what the Law, as opposed to C&RT, actually requires. The 1995 BW Act, which is the piece of legislation that governs the issue and the refusal (revoking of) boat Licences on C&RT waters, applies the same criteria to both processes. Section 17(3) covers issuing while Section 17(4) deals with refusal. He seems, from what you say, to have omitted to mention the third requirement of the Law, which is either a 'home mooring' to be 'available' (not 'used', as C&RT would have you believe) or the 'continuous cruising' option. Again, this requirement is equally applicable to both the issuing and refusal processes, and, crucially, there is nothing within the Act which allows C&RT to refuse a Licence as a consequence of any previous failure, either alleged or proven, to comply with CC'ing requirements, Bye Laws or Licence T&C's . . . put simply, they can't refuse to issue a new Licence solely because they think you have previously been breaking the rules in some way.

Having been compelled as a consequence of this, to issue me with a new Licence, C&RT are now seeking to persuade the Court that in applying to renew my Licence I behaved unreasonably,thereby making their case against me, in their words, " worthless and academic" and that due to my unreasonable conduct, no Costs should be awarded against them.

Simon Salem only repeated today on the radio programme what he'd told me in the case of the camouflage boat. That CaRT could not refuse a licence when a boat had the necessary certification, i.e. insurance and where applicable BSS, this despite major complaints from boaters for a considerable period against the crew of this boat.

[thunderbird]

 

But apart from a couple-of-dozen on here, and one-or-two on Narrowboatworld, boaters will not be aware of this and therefore the bad publicity is very limited.

 

Its unlikely to get into the Towpath news or other boating press.

Strangely it was even a topic of conversation for boaters on the Llangollen Canal, and a good many other places too. News travels fast on the waterways it seems, the towpath outpacing even social media so you don't have to worry about publicity, good or bad, it pops up everywhere, though bad it seems travels fastest.

[thunderbird]

 

If true, that's disgusting.

I agree!

I have now been through the whole topic and hidden no end of posts. I have done this as rapidly as I could so there are likely to have been mistakes. I hope that you will bear patiently with this. I have used just one criterion: Is the post relevant to the topic title? I have edited some posts to remove unpleasant personal attacks and most of the irrelevant posts will have disappeared.

 

I will keep an eye on this and remove any personal attacks as soon as I see them. I will also remove off topic stuff.

 

I do hope that I will not be called on to moderate with such a heavy hand again. The special quality of this forum is that it is moderated with a light hand and in the main the posts allow for this.

 

So there!

 

With love from

 

Nick

Far more pleasant if all of the little birds in their nests agree to differ if necessary - pleasantly!

[thunderbird]

Are we getting a little too "conspiracy theory" here. Might it be someone getting uptight and determined to get his own back on TD.

Ahem. Tony Dunkley is but one of many!

[Tony Dunkley]

Ahem. Tony Dunkley is but one of many!

 

Not more Tony Dunkleys surely . . . there may be a few people somewhat unhappy about that.

[cotswoldsman]

Strangely it was even a topic of conversation for boaters on the Llangollen Canal, and a good many other places too. News travels fast on the waterways it seems, the towpath outpacing even social media so you don't have to worry about publicity, good or bad, it pops up everywhere, though bad it seems travels fastest.

It was certainly the topic of conversation last night in Rufford and what I would call ordinary boaters (not really sure what that is but know what I mean) were disgusted at what had happened and how CRT seemed to have wasted a lot of money. This then continued into a conversation about what bothers boaters and number one there was certainly CRT and that they seem very concerned about boaters and not canals Edited October 26, 2014 by cotswoldsman

[John V]

Lack of knowledge on the part of CRT staff involved in licensing/enforcement is by no means a new phenomena

30+ years ago I had a friend who kept a narrowboat on a tributary stream of an improved river navigation

the boat was outside the boundary of BW's authority, this did not prevent removal notices appearing.

Fortunately before using the stream a visit was made to Watford to the maps department and an official copy of that part of the map obtained.

This clearly showed the boundaries and a letter and accompanying photo copy of their copy with the reference number.sufficed

However this did not stop numerous repeat notices over the years and the (by then) standard reply letter.

 

 

eta missing word

Edited October 26, 2014 by John V

[GUMPY]

To put the record straight Tony D wasn't moored on a visitor mooring, didn't overstay the 14 days but preferred to return to this venue rather than to his home mooring that CaRT initially did not believe he'd got - didn't believe me either, come to think of it!

That is what I have heard, however I have also heard that the periods that he was not moored at this venue could be measured in hours rather than days, i.e. he was only away when servicing the boat, water diesel etc. Is this fact or fiction?

Another snippet is that TD was using this venue as his postal address again fact or fiction?

Edited October 26, 2014 by Loddon

[jenlyn]

Are we getting a little too "conspiracy theory" here. Might it be someone getting uptight and determined to get his own back on TD.

Sometimes you have to see to believe. Once you have seen, you try to convince yourself you didn't see it. Eventually, the sheer reality bites, and you realise there is a problem.

Often, I pick up a book with a fantastic cover, but then I am disappointed by its content's. The problem with this particular book, is that you can't return it.

[Alan de Enfield]

. The problem with this particular book, is that you can't return it.

 

If you are so minded - you can !

 

There is an awful lot of salt-water out there, and even some non C&RT fresh water.

[jenlyn]

If you are so minded - you can !

 

There is an awful lot of salt-water out there, and even some non C&RT fresh water.

Not an option for some.

[Alan de Enfield]

Not an option for some.

 

There cannot be many circumstances where it is not an option - maybe not a convenient option, but it is still an option.

 

Liveaboards may need to change the kids school, Doctor or place of work, or get used to CCing on the 'lumpy stuff'

Non-Liveaboards may need to get used to travelling further to get to their boat.

Marina dwellers can live in a salt-water marina

CMers can anchor up in a nice bay with impunity

 

No BSS requirements, No licence requirements, no moving every 14 days, no C&RT

[Tony Dunkley]

Lack of knowledge on the part of CRT staff involved in licensing/enforcement is by no means a new phenomena

30+ years ago I had a friend who kept a narrowboat on a tributary stream of an improved river navigation

the boat was outside the boundary of BW's authority, this did not prevent removal notices appearing.

Fortunately before using the stream a visit was made to Watford to the maps department and an official copy of that part of the map obtained.

This clearly showed the boundaries and a letter and accompanying photo copy of their copy with the reference number.sufficed

However this did not stop numerous repeat notices over the years and the (by then) standard reply letter.

 

 

eta missing word

 

Agreed, but what has happened in regards to the boat I live on and me over the last few months is something very different. It began in 2010 with a thoroughly unpleasant, incompetent and above all dishonest Enforcement Orifice, new to the job and overkeen to prove his worth by wallpapering as many boats as he could with Patrol Notices irrespective of whether or not it was justifiable. All this, of course, was still in the times of BWB but with the arrival of Parry and the Trustees things took on a completely different slant. Looking for suitable people to make an examples of in order to demonstrate to the rest of the boating public that they can re-interpret the Law in any way they see fit, frighten boaters with threats of Court action and then 'steal' their boats, they find Stuart Garner scribbling away in his book of waterborne parking tickets, and able to provide just what they're looking for.

[jenlyn]

There cannot be many circumstances where it is not an option - maybe not a convenient option, but it is still an option.

 

Liveaboards may need to change the kids school, Doctor or place of work, or get used to CCing on the 'lumpy stuff'

Non-Liveaboards may need to get used to travelling further to get to their boat.

Marina dwellers can live in a salt-water marina

CMers can anchor up in a nice bay with impunity

 

No BSS requirements, No licence requirements, no moving every 14 days, no C&RT

We all have wistful thoughts don't we....

[Timleech]

As I'd personally informed Simon Salem early on in all this mess that Tony Dunkley did have a home mooring, that I'd actually visited it I would have thought they'd have dropped the case - but hidden agendas here I'm sure. Get one and at the same time put the frighteners on us all. CaRT more usually it seems 'comes by' undefended cases, doesn't take a lot of checking to work out why.

Do you hold some sort of position where you would expect him (Salem) to take notice? Just curious, as you are anonymous on here.

 

Tim

[Tony Dunkley]

That is what I have heard, however I have also heard that the periods that he was not moored at this venue could be measured in hours rather than days, i.e. he was only away when servicing the boat, water diesel etc. Is this fact or fiction?

Another snippet is that TD was using this venue as his postal address again fact or fiction?

Apart from the reasons you give there for being away from the Holme Lock area ( there were other reasons) that is all true. I'm still, in fact, using it as a postal address, and just to clarify things a bit more, for not an inconsiderable part of the time I regularly moored around the area I was paying BW for a Long Term Mooring which, incidentally, they were dishonestly charging me(and others) for because they don't own the land where the LT mooring is.

[GUMPY]

So in summary you were shuffling around one small area for a considerable period of time on CaRT controlled waters.

Only mitigated by the fact that you had a home mooring elsewhere and the land you tied up to was EA not CaRT owned.

 

You wonder why CaRT picked on you?

[cotswoldsman]

So in summary you were shuffling around one small area for a considerable period of time on CaRT controlled waters.

Only mitigated by the fact that you had a home mooring elsewhere and the land you tied up to was EA not CaRT owned.

 

You wonder why CaRT picked on you?

Sorry are you saying it is ok for CRT to pick on boaters?