Best pay your CRT licence

[Graham Davis]

That's exactly what they've done, and in fact they decided it quite a long time ago. The latest amendments to the T & C's have come about as a result of them previously getting away with a lot of illegal stunts, and they now feel confident in pushing things a bit further.

 

Were you there when all this happened?

[Tony Dunkley]

 

Were you there when all this happened?

 

No . . . I was elsewhere, looking for all the missing paperwork.

Edited February 2, 2015 by Tony Dunkley

[NigelMoore]

Yes, but no account was taken by the boat owner or the boatyard owner of the fact that having riparian rights over the land over which a river flows gives you no rights over the water, such as navigation or mooring, without the consent of the controlling authority, which in this case was CRT. If the boat has been in the water at any time, there has to be a licence in existence for that time. Looking at the boatyard, and listening to what was said. any boat moored in the river needs a licence, and to permit mooring, the boatyard owner needs permission from CRT to allow it, which permission CRT will normally grant on receipt of a fee.

 

That needs correcting. It is common ground endorsed by the Appeal Court that riparian rights over the riverbed include a right of permanent mooring [although I would say that this was not quite right, seeing that a permanent right under common law is strictly not possible; all common law rights are susceptible to the impact of the impinging rights of others]. Only the riparian right to permanently moor against private land where the riverbed is in other ownership was rejected by the Appeal Court.

 

Also, where [as with the Trent] a public right of navigation exists, only countermanding legislation can amend that right; as Tony has pointed out, as a scheduled river in the relevant legislation, boat licences are only required if the boat enters the main navigable channel. The consent of the controlling authority to simply keep a boat on the water outside that channel is not required.

 

So if the boat was being s.8’d for failure to licence it, then yes - if moored outside of the main navigation channel of the Trent on private land then it did not need a licence for so long as it stayed put, and the removal would have been illegal.

 

It was presumably not a live-aboard, so there need not have been any court case endorsing the s.8; any boat within CaRT’s jurisdiction without a boat licence where required, may be removed without court action merely by following the stipulated procedures of the ’83 Act. The s.8 procedure would, however, be irrelevant in this case, considering that the boat had already been removed from a location where the licence was necessary.

 

If the boat was seized under a court enforcement order re: debt, then court bailiffs would have been doing the removal, not CaRT, and if legit, the bailiffs would have gone armed with the requisite paperwork. If the boat had been elsewhere before arrival at the boatyard, in circumstances where a licence had been required and not paid, then conceivably a legitimate court enforcement order could have been obtained for recovery of civil debt - as CaRT's legislation enables - and the boat's location at the time of seizure would become irrelevant. .

 

However [disturbingly] entertaining, the video fails to clarify the circumstances, so it will be interesting to discover them in time.

[Graham Davis]

 

No . . . I was elsewhere, looking for all the missing paperwork.

 

So you are as much working in the blind, with no evidence of the actual case, as the rest of us.

[Athy]

as far as I can make out, the owners of the boat were saying CRT had no right to take it, as it was moored on private land, and that the landowner's deed gave him ownership to midway in the canal, and this is possibly why they didn't feel the need to licence it.

 

is that correct?

 

 

This would not be an uncommon situation. Round here, those of us whose houses adjoin the river have riparian rights which allow us to moor alongside our property and which state that we own our river frontage to half way across the waterway. This being the Middle Levels, licenses don't come into it, so perhaps it's not strictly comparable.

[mayalld]

The video is fairly painful to watch.

 

In summary from what I have seen;

- Semi-aggressive bloke in the face of a police man over the fact his boat was in the process of being seized CRT (at this point, on a lowloader, which he and other marina member had blocked in with his car) due to not paying a licence. Aggravated by the police Sargent handling the situation badly and clumsily while CRT had no paperwork at all.

- It was claimed the apparent owner of the boat had keep the boat within a marina whos water was private and hence did not required CRT payment, and that CRTs only communication was to send recorded letters to his previous address which where returned to the sender undelivered.

 

##

 

At which point, while the owners handling could have been better, its hard to know which side to side with from the video alone.

 

 

Daniel

 

The first couple of minutes were enough to satisfy me beyond reasonable doubt that the owner of the boat appears to have swallowed hook line and sinker the "freeman on the land" rubbish about a constable's oath (basically, a load of gibberish about a constable swearing an oath to uphold the common law, and that statute law only applies to those who choose to accept it, so any constable upholding a statute against a freeman who declines to accept that statute is breaking his oath)

 

There are clearly questions as to the basis of the removal of the boat, but let us not forget that court orders for boats to be removed are for confirmation and aren't needed (CRT apply for an order for a liveaboard, but not otherwise).

 

Unsurprisingly the video steers clear of anything factual, because its purpose is to advance a claim of corruption, not to give facts.

 

It is interesting that it appears that the same police officer has encountered issues with the same person before relating to a car. How unlucky is he that the police are conspiring against him with both CRT and the DVLA....

[Tony Dunkley]

 

So you are as much working in the blind, with no evidence of the actual case, as the rest of us.

Speak for yourself . . . you may be confused and unable to follow what was happening, but not everyone has difficulty in grasping the significance of what can be seen and heard.

[Tony Dunkley]

 

There are clearly questions as to the basis of the removal of the boat, but let us not forget that court orders for boats to be removed are for confirmation and aren't needed (CRT apply for an order for a liveaboard, but not otherwise).

..

It's true that Section 8 of the 1983 Act empowers C&RT to remove a boat from their waters, but if the man in the video who owns the land where the boat was moored was telling the truth, then the boat wasn't in C&RT waters at the time of seizure.

There are a great many pointers to this being yet another inappropriate application of C&RT's powers, namely the costly use of the 1983 Act when a Bye Law prosecution followed by a Civil Claim for debt was the correct remedy.

Edited February 2, 2015 by Tony Dunkley

[mrsmelly]

The video is fairly painful to watch.

 

In summary from what I have seen;

- Semi-aggressive bloke in the face of a police man over the fact his boat was in the process of being seized CRT (at this point, on a lowloader, which he and other marina member had blocked in with his car) due to not paying a licence. Aggravated by the police Sargent handling the situation badly and clumsily while CRT had no paperwork at all.

- It was claimed the apparent owner of the boat had keep the boat within a marina whos water was private and hence did not required CRT payment, and that CRTs only communication was to send recorded letters to his previous address which where returned to the sender undelivered.

 

##

 

At which point, while the owners handling could have been better, its hard to know which side to side with from the video alone.

 

 

Daniel

 

Hi Dan

 

The Police sergeant dealt with the situation extremely well. You have no idea what his job involves, he was there only to ensure no breach of the peace occured.

He similarily probably has no clue about JCBs but would not try ro offer advice to someone who did know about them. His job was not to deal with any paperwork whatsoever at any time even if there were anomolies with the paperwork it was nothing to do with him whatsoever. Personaly I consider his restraint in the face of morons as exemplary. Personaly After the second shouting of Nazi at me I would have arrested the morons for conduct likely to cause a breach of the peace or at common law, end of.

 

Tim

[Guest]

 

Hi Dan

 

The Police sergeant dealt with the situation extremely well. You have no idea what his job involves, he was there only to ensure no breach of the peace occured.

He similarily probably has no clue about JCBs but would not try ro offer advice to someone who did know about them. His job was not to deal with any paperwork whatsoever at any time even if there were anomolies with the paperwork it was nothing to do with him whatsoever. Personaly I consider his restraint in the face of morons as exemplary. Personaly After the second shouting of Nazi at me I would have arrested the morons for conduct likely to cause a breach of the peace or at common law, end of.

 

Tim

 

I think he remained pretty cool under extreme provocation, no doubt not everybody would agree of course. I also did think he got a lot of stick when really the whole thing was really nothing to do with him other than to prevent a crime being committed, if there was any body in the wrong here it was the Trust and I don't really know why the copper got so much stick other than there were some angry folk shouting the odds at him when really as far as I can make out if anything it primarily should have been directed at the Trust if any one.

 

I have certainly seen people arrested for less.

[Graham Davis]

Speak for yourself . . . you may be confused and unable to follow what was happening, but not everyone has difficulty in grasping the significance of what can be seen and heard.

 

Wrong Tony.

All we are hearing is the exceedingly biased side of the "argument" from the (supposed) boat owner. We have NO facts about the preceding events, no facts about how long this has been going on for, no facts about where the boat was moored and no facts of any defense that has been given.

 

Instead of making rude personal comments perhaps you would like to provide those FACTS? Admit it, you can't, as you were not there and know none of them? Instead you are using this case to add to your continual tirade against CaRT.

[Tony Dunkley]

 

Wrong Tony.

All we are hearing is the exceedingly biased side of the "argument" from the (supposed) boat owner. We have NO facts about the preceding events, no facts about how long this has been going on for, no facts about where the boat was moored and no facts of any defense that has been given.

 

Instead of making rude personal comments perhaps you would like to provide those FACTS? Admit it, you can't, as you were not there and know none of them? Instead you are using this case to add to your continual tirade against CaRT.

Speak for yourself . . . you may be confused and unable to follow what was happening, but not everyone has difficulty in grasping the significance of what can be seen and heard.

[davey b]

I've just wasted 6 minutes of my life with that video... I'll admit I made a cup of tea so didn't endure those, erm, people for the whole 6 mins I lasted but I'll never get them back (I notice it was considerably longer, so I may be better off than some with the amount I have left).

 

I'm glad that was considered a good use of the Sergeant and PCs' time. There is simply no dealing with these people. Before anyone remonstrates regarding the lawful actions whether due process was followed... I simply do not care. Either pay or don't play.

[Graham Davis]

Speak for yourself . . . you may be confused and unable to follow what was happening, but not everyone has difficulty in grasping the significance of what can be seen and heard.

 

And I shall ask again Tony

WHAT ARE THE FACTS IN THIS CASE?

With facts this is just another meaning less rant

[Tony Dunkley]

 

And I shall ask again Tony

WHAT ARE THE FACTS IN THIS CASE?

With facts this is just another meaning less rant

Speak for yourself . . . you may be confused and unable to follow what was happening, but not everyone has difficulty in grasping the significance of what can be seen and heard.

[Graham Davis]

Well done Tony, all you can do is cut'n'paste the same answer to a perfectly correct question!!

 

You have no facts about this case, but it suits you to use it as another excuse to continue your tirade.

 

Pitiful!!

 

No confusion here.

Edited February 2, 2015 by Graham Davis

[Tony Dunkley]

Well done Tony, all you can do is cut'n'paste the same answer to a perfectly correct question!!

 

You have no facts about this case, but it suits you to use it as another excuse to continue your tirade.

 

Pitiful!!

 

No confusion here.

Speak for yourself . . . you may be confused and unable to follow what was happening, but not everyone has difficulty in grasping the significance of what can be seen and heard.

[DHutch]

Hi Dan

 

The Police sergeant dealt with the situation extremely well. You have no idea what his job involves, he was there only to ensure no breach of the peace occured.

He similarily probably has no clue about JCBs but would not try ro offer advice to someone who did know about them. His job was not to deal with any paperwork whatsoever at any time even if there were anomolies with the paperwork it was nothing to do with him whatsoever. Personaly I consider his restraint in the face of morons as exemplary. Personaly After the second shouting of Nazi at me I would have arrested the morons for conduct likely to cause a breach of the peace or at common law, end of.

 

Tim

Granted I am sure it would have been very temping to tell them to shut the' up and put them in the back of the cars, and I think it was the right thing for him to do to not do that. Equally the Nazi comments where ridiculous and out of order, as was the rudeness and the loudness. However, there where a large number of times where he could have chosen his words better or just said nothing. I guess its a lot easier to say that when your not there, and have the ability to pause the video and come back half an hour later, which I did twice.

 

That said, while I do not know what was said between the sergeant and the presume CRT representative, but I still find it slightly staggering that that they where expecting and then allowed to get away with taking the boat by force without any documentation or even seemingly and personal identity. It also seems odd that they removed the canopys in a damaging fashion, assuming that is the case, and that they could have been removed in an alternative way.

 

As said, the lack of facts or any comments from the alternate side allow with the ridiculousness of the video make it very pass any meaning full comments.

 

 

Daniel

[OldGoat]

For me, the only thing that comes out of this sorry affair, is that the police sergeant behave impeccably throughout (at least the parts that I watched).

IMHO he was there solely to avoid or deal with any Breach of the Peace.

 

So loads of greenies for him - in this case.

 

Do you wonder why occasionally the police "lose their rag" ????

[mrsmelly]

For me, the only thing that comes out of this sorry affair, is that the police sergeant behave impeccably throughout (at least the parts that I watched).

IMHO he was there solely to avoid or deal with any Breach of the Peace.

 

So loads of greenies for him - in this case.

 

Do you wonder why occasionally the police "lose their rag" ????

 

Greenie. Quite right. The bloke is human like everyone else and how many people have to deal daily with crap like that? Most peoples jobs never come under scrutiny like such as members of Police, Fire NHS etc etc do. Most people can discuss in their centraly heated office over a coffee the whys and wherefors of their jobs, This bobby had to respond instantly as often is the case in that job whilst being antagonised by morons.

Belive me I know, been there got the T shirt.

 

Tim

[bigcol]

Yep it's nice to know that all that training to be a police officer wasn't wasted.

And that now his a sergeant, earning a sergeants salary,

he can deal, with morons, who for what ever reason is loosing his boat.

And there with a van load of colleagues to stop a breach of the peace because the guy loosing his boat wants to see some paperwork,

At least it ended up peaceably.

Col

Edited February 2, 2015 by bigcol

[Arthur Marshall]

That said, while I do not know what was said between the sergeant and the presume CRT representative, but I still find it slightly staggering that that they where expecting and then allowed to get away with taking the boat by force without any documentation or even seemingly and personal identity. It also seems odd that they removed the canopys in a damaging fashion, assuming that is the case, and that they could have been removed in an alternative way.

 

As said, the lack of facts or any comments from the alternate side allow with the ridiculousness of the video make it very pass any meaning full comments.

 

 

Daniel

There's no real indication that they damaged the canopies - no reason to believe the shouting person rather than anyone else. Nor is there any indication that documentation hadn't been shown - presumably it would have been to the boatyard owner, if the boat had been towed there to be taken out of the water that would have been arranged in advance. As is pointed out several times, shouting man offered no proof he was in fact the owner, which you'd have thought he'd have brought with him. I think there was a mention somewhere (by him) of him owing someone (presumably CaRT) £9000, so he was obviously aware that he was in trouble and must have been for some time without doing anything about it. It takes a while to build up that kind of debt so if he reckoned he didn't actually need a licence he must have had some time to start sorting it out. Seems he didn't bother insuring his car either, which may indicate his general approach to the legalities of these things. But as you say, we only know half the story, but there are still lines to be read through.

[Guest]

Yep it's nice to know that all that training to be a police officer wasn't wasted.

And that now his a sergeant, earning a sergeants salary,

he can deal, with morons, who for what ever reason is loosing his boat.

And there with a van load of colleagues to stop a breach of the peace because the guy loosing his boat wants to see some paperwork,

At least it ended up peaceably.

Col

Now that is a rant.......we do however await your obvious experience in de escalation techniques, as you clearly are in a position to advise and regale the forum with how you would have dealt with it...

 

So.........here is your chance...

Edited February 2, 2015 by The Dog House

[Loafer]

Now that is a rant.......we do however await your obvious experience in de escalation techniques, as you clearly are in a position to advise and regale the forum with how you would have dealt with it...

 

So.........here is your chance...

 

Well at least he spelt 'sergeant' correctly. He just needs to work on 'losing' now!

 

Sorry Bigcol. Banter!

[Guest]

Well at least he spelt 'sergeant' correctly. He just needs to work on 'losing' now!

 

Sorry Bigcol. Banter!

I have no interest in his or anybody's spelling.

 

I am however interested in an answer to my question....