Enforcement or Harassment

[Alf Roberts]

Those who say they have nothing to fear because they are playing by the rules, seem to ignore the fact that Tony was playing by the rules when CRT came after him.

Exactly this. The (usual faces) people on here supporting CRT in this manner repeat this ad-infinitum (see The Dog House's post above) with no regard for the lack of any logic.

[Naughty Cal]

 

I can't say I agree with you very often, but you are quite right this time around.

 

Tony has every right to be as much of an in-your-face curmudgeon as he wants to be, and that particularly applies when an organization with endless resources and the authority of a quasi-government organization tries to take his home. Tony's attitude and personality determine how many friends he has, they don't determine his rights.

 

No person should have to ask nicely to not have their rights infringed upon. As a matter of fact, it is those who are overtly confrontational with abusive authority that guarantee that the meeker amongst us do have their rights curtailed or trampled upon.

 

Those people who are saying that Tony is an obnoxious person are probably right. However, to say that his problems could have been avoided with an appropriate amount of arse kissing are missing the point. Tony showed CRT that they can't steamroll boaters just because of their unlimited resources and position of authority. His was a veritable David vs. Goliath scenario, and David won. In winning, it would seem that he has done a service to all those subject to CRT's whims. Anyone who thinks that a tyrant becomes more benevolent with victory hasn't paid much attention to history.

 

If CRT had succeeded in taking Tony's home in an illegal manner, they would have felt empowered to take anyone else's boat in the same manner. Those who say they have nothing to fear because they are playing by the rules, seem to ignore the fact that Tony was playing by the rules when CRT came after him.

You don't have to arse kiss anyone.

 

Treating someone with the respect that you would like them to show you is not arse kissing.

Exactly this. The (usual faces) people on here supporting CRT in this manner repeat this ad-infinitum (see The Dog House's post above) with no regard for the lack of any logic.

Is that not for the judge to decide?

[Alf Roberts]

And we read on here of people who engage with CRT (that is not arse kissing by the way) seem to get treated very fairly.

So, if an enforcement officer, known to be confrontational, confronts you with what you consider to be the unreasonable request to remove your home from his waterways, you'll simply smile and go and take up knitting?

 

I don't think so.

[NilesMI]

'In a narrow legal sense'

 

That the boat had no licence is not in dispute. So in that 'narrow legal sense' there was a justification for seeking an order.

 

There are conflicting accounts of how that situation arose.

 

Tony is vehement that his version is the only correct interpretation of events, but because he obtained a licence for the boat the conflicting acounts were not able to be heard in court.

[Guest]

Exactly this. The (usual faces) people on here supporting CRT in this manner repeat this ad-infinitum (see The Dog House's post above) with no regard for the lack of any logic.

Supporting CRT ??? You not only missed an earlier post but also my point by a country mile...

[Alf Roberts]

Is that not for the judge to decide?

The court process has decided.

Supporting CRT ??? You not only missed an earlier post but also my point by a country mile...

 

Your post "I boat within the rules" only has a point if you are implying Tony didn't.

 

Attitude apart (maybe) - there is no difference between you other than CRT would have simply removed your boat without giving you the opportunity of contesting it in court

There are conflicting accounts of how that situation arose.

No, there are not.

CRT removed his license.

[Phil.]

So, if an enforcement officer, known to be confrontational, confronts you with what you consider to be the unreasonable request to remove your home from his waterways, you'll simply smile and go and take up knitting?I don't think so.

Absolutely not. But being confrontational back will just reinforce the action that is occurring. If it is known that someone is 'out to get you' then you need to be a bit clever about how you deal with them, and making unsubstantiated complaints will not be enough. You need to be able to evidence the unreasonable behaviour.

Edited October 22, 2014 by Phil.

[Alf Roberts]

Absolutely not. But being confrontational back will just reinforce the action that is occurring. If it is know that someone is 'out to get you' then you need to be a bit clever about how you deal with them, and making unsubstantiated complaints will not be enough. You need to be able to evidence the unreasonable behaviour.

...or simply stand up for yourself.

 

I'm not saying he was clever, I'm simply saying it was understandable and justified.

[NigelMoore]

If you felt justified in your claims that CRT's accusations had no substance, why did you remove the cause for the case to be heard and have a judgement made in your favour?

 

Tony was not disputing the need to have a ‘licence’ for cruising the Trent, he had been attempting to renew his licence since June. CaRT were the only party in control of whether they co-operated with that wish or not.

 

It would not have worked out the way you suggest had he decided to give up trying to get the ‘licence’. As with Geoff Mayers, play that game and you lose – because CaRT will NOT present the arguments as to why they were justified in revoking/refusing the licence, they will just present the ‘bare bones’ case of your being without a licence.

 

It was not in Tony’s power, in other words, to insist upon his case being heard [although it would have been if he had known to issue a counter-claim], whatever he did or did not do.

 

CaRT, on the other hand, could have taken the option of continuing to withhold the ‘licence’ for the same reasons they had already presented in argument [nothing had changed in that respect], or could even have granted the ‘licence’ yet still asked the court to make suitable declarations anyway, on an ‘each side bearing their own costs’ basis, so as not to have wasted the sums already otherwise thrown away.

[NilesMI]

CRT removed his license.

 

I thought they refused to renew his licence?

 

It is the reason(s) why they refused which are disputed.

 

I agree that if it was the case that CRT had refused a licence for a boat with a home mooring on the basis that it was not satisfied that it would be be used, bona fide for navigation, it would be a matter of great concern to all owners of CRT licenced boats and I would certainly support anyone in that position in fighting their case rather than removing their boat.

[Alf Roberts]

Then despite the fact that you don't like Tony's style (I also think it does him no favours) we must needs give him our support.

 

We don't have to be his friend to recognise that CRT have seriously overstepped the mark.

[NigelMoore]

Should this matter, and it's handling, be brought offically to the attention of the Chairman of the Trustees?

 

I can tell you exactly what the Chairman of the Trustees says in such circumstances:

 

“in light of the litigation now under way" – I - "consider the matters sub-judice. Any further correspondence should be with the solicitors acting on behalf of BW.”

 

Identical, in other words, with the Parry response to Tony I quoted earlier.

[Rich]

 

The difference between you and I (and others on here) is that we are a lot less likely to come close to losing our boats in a legal dispute with CRT, where as I think it's more understandable that you have and that you probably will again.

Why?

 

And you wonder why CRT "have got it in for you"

 

Seriously Tony. Have you ever stood back and taken at a look at how you treat people and how this may have an effect on how they are treating you?

Are you by any chance referring to the way Tony "treated" people on here who had him down as a piss-taker (an elegant word) who was getting all he deserved?

[Paul G2]

And we read on here of people who engage with CRT (that is not arse kissing by the way) seem to get treated very fairly.

 

You're absolutely right, in many respects CRT seems to do a good job. And the rank and file CRT employee is is just another working stiff that deserves to be treated with the same respect that all of us expect as we go about our jobs.

 

However, when an enforcement officer tells you that you have to move your boat when there is no legal justification for it, and a polite but firm, "You are wrong." doesn't work, then continuing a polite debate is rather pointless. If the enforcement officer, and the CRT legal team, are using the color of authority to try to get their way, even when they are wrong, then it is the authority that has dispensed with "niceness", regardless of how politely the tell you that they will confiscate your home for no good reason.

 

Those in authority, those with the resources and power of government behind them need to be held to a higher standard than those they govern. IMHO, when they overstep the bounds of their authority the gloves come off.

 

You don't have to arse kiss anyone.

 

Treating someone with the respect that you would like them to show you is not arse kissing.

 

 

Perhaps that was a bad choice of words. Being polite is not arse kissing, but telling an abusive authority where to stuff it is certainly not unwarranted belligerence either. As I said to TDH, all CRT employees deserve to be treated with respect, up to the point that they abuse their authority and, at that point, the gloves come off.

 

With all due respect, and not being judgmental because that would be a pot/kettle thing, Tony may have a shorter fuse than you, but you have a fuse too, just as he does. There are some people that can be nice regardless of what others might say, and then are those of us that only take so much before dishing it back out. I think in your heart you know that you are in the latter group - I know I sure am.

 

 

Edited for grammar.

Edited October 22, 2014 by Paul G2

[Rich]

 

I can stay within the rules yes, so no problem.

You mean as Tony did?

[Guest]

The court process has decided.Your post "I boat within the rules" only has a point if you are implying Tony didn't..

No it doesn't. I'm simply stating what my boating pattern is (though I concede I did once moor using the very last end bollard of a lock landing, very norty I know)

 

I therefore don't believe I have anything to fear yes, time will tell of course that CRT will or will not swoop down upon me without any reason what so ever and start proceedings to remove my boat but TBH I still seriously doubt that will ever happen.

 

If it ever does I won't exacerbate the situation by getting arsey or confrontational with them as in my experience doing that with lots of large public sector organisations (or their third sector equivalents) rarely improves the situation.

You mean as Tony did?

I,ve addressed both your last two points responding to other posts.

[Rich]

 

 

 

I don't however think Tony helped his case one jot, and it may have even been avoided all together.

 

Do you know what went on between Tony and Canal and River Trust prior to the commencement of action by Canal and River Trust? On here Tony seems to be defending himself against attacks from forum members. His guilt was decided, by some, right at the start.

[Tony Dunkley]

 

I can't say I agree with you very often, but you are quite right this time around.

 

Tony has every right to be as much of an in-your-face curmudgeon as he wants to be, and that particularly applies when an organization with endless resources and the authority of a quasi-government organization tries to take his home. Tony's attitude and personality determine how many friends he has, they don't determine his rights.

 

No person should have to ask nicely to not have their rights infringed upon. As a matter of fact, it is those who are overtly confrontational with abusive authority that guarantee that the meeker amongst us do have their rights curtailed or trampled upon.

 

Those people who are saying that Tony is an obnoxious person are probably right. However, to say that his problems could have been avoided with an appropriate amount of arse kissing are missing the point. Tony showed CRT that they can't steamroll boaters just because of their unlimited resources and position of authority. His was a veritable David vs. Goliath scenario, and David won. In winning, it would seem that he has done a service to all those subject to CRT's whims. Anyone who thinks that a tyrant becomes more benevolent with victory hasn't paid much attention to history.

 

If CRT had succeeded in taking Tony's home in an illegal manner, they would have felt empowered to take anyone else's boat in the same manner. Those who say they have nothing to fear because they are playing by the rules, seem to ignore the fact that Tony was playing by the rules when CRT came after him.

I'm assuming that 'do' is a typo, nonetheless thanks for posting that, it's nice to know that there are those following this who can identify and address the real issues in respect of others who may in the future find themselves threatened by C&RT for merely doing what they've paid a licence fee for the right to do.

 

PS. I am just a bit curious as to why you think those on this Forum who say I'm 'obnoxious' are 'probably right', given that none of them either know or have even met me.

[NigelMoore]

 

It seems to me that Tony has put forward his side of the story, emphasising those facets that are supportive of his claim that he was victimised. CRT have (as they must) remained silent and have not argued the case.

 

As such, it is clear that we have only one side of the story.

 

But CaRT have argued their case in these public proceedings, as I linked to in a previous thread.

 

Nine pages of Stuart Garner’s presentation of CaRT’s side to the case, coupled with the pages of letters and emails and patrol records etc, setting out their side of the story, and as supplied by them to the court.

 

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

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

 

As such, it is clear that we have both sides of the story - quite as much, anyway, as was presented to the court.

[carlt]

In most fields of work, one can infer that if one employee has 20 complaints and another has 10, the employee with 20 will have more valid complaints against them. There will be a strong correlation.

 

For people in enforcement roles, that breaks down.

I disagree.

 

Having worked for some years where a large part of my job was enforcement I only once had a complaint against me from somebody I was obliged to take action against whereas some of my colleagues were constantly receiving complaints.

 

The difference was they instigated formal enforcement proceedings with enthusiasm and relish whereas for me it was always a last resort when all other avenues were exhausted.

[NilesMI]

 

It was not in Tony’s power, in other words, to insist upon his case being heard [although it would have been if he had known to issue a counter-claim], whatever he did or did not do.

 

Yes, I understand that. We have discussed it before.

 

But Tony didn't seek to have his case heard.

 

It's a cop out to say that he didn't know the procedure. Most of us wouldn't and perhaps he didn't but he'd had notice of intent. He could (and should?) have sought legal advice at that point rather than just waiting for CRT to apply for their own order against his boat. It is part of the reason why I suggest that the difficulties he's had are to a large degree, self-inflicted. He clearly thinks he knows better than everyone else, so asking a lawyer for advice would be demeaning.

 

Perhaps that is the most useful lesson to come out of this wrangle.

[Paul G2]

I'm assuming that 'do' is a typo, nonetheless thanks for posting that, it's nice to know that there are those following this who can identify and address the real issues in respect of others who may in the future find themselves threatened by C&RT for merely doing what they've paid a licence fee for the right to do.

 

PS. I am just a bit curious as to why you think those on this Forum who say I'm 'obnoxious' are 'probably right', given that none of them either know or have even met me.

 

You're right, that was a typo and I corrected it. Thank you!

 

As to the "obnoxious" bit, as one curmudgeon to another - bwahahahaha - did you type that with a straight face?

[NilesMI]

he case have be

Then despite the fact that you don't like Tony's style (I also think it does him no favours) we must needs give him our support.

We don't have to be his friend to recognise that CRT have seriously overstepped the mark.

 

Whatever his 'style', I'd support his case if I thought he'd been denied a licence unfairly. Absolutely.

 

The problem I have is that the facts of his case have become so obfuscated, not least by his representation of them, that I don't know what to think.

[Tony Dunkley]

 

You're right, that was a typo and I corrected it. Thank you!

 

As to the "obnoxious" bit, as one curmudgeon to another - bwahahahaha - did you type that with a straight face?

 

No

[Paul G2]

 

No