Best pay your CRT licence

[Tony Dunkley]

Surely if the boat has been seized incorrectly, title can never pass to C&RT and perhaps the owner should serve notice on this company to that effect, also hint that in addition to pursuing C&RT he will also seek damages from them unless the boat is returned immediately. If nothing else the company will then be onto C&RT to establish if they have acted without legal authority, which is what is being suggested.

Yes, that's so, but unless the matter is put before a Court and successfully argued, then in all probability the process will continue as though C&RT had acted lawfully.

[Paul C]

So why did you think my post was muddled?

 

Come to think of it, what made you think I would propose they don't go to court if it's a live aboard boat? Re : Your quote from earlier "...they ALREADY DO go to court if its a liveaboard boat. Or are you proposing they stop doing so?"

 

...seems a bit odd to me...

 

Because it seems you have some kind of strong beliefs or issues surrounding the differences between CCers and those with a home mooring; and liveaboards vs leisure users of boats. Additionally you're quick to pre-judge when others come into conflict with CRT that CRT must be in the wrong, before the facts behind the case in hand are known, and place a higher and higher threshold of "proof" to prop up your pre-formed views for as long as possible before they often collapse.

 

I just get on with boating, I regularly meet other boaters and to be honest, if they're liveaboard/leisure, CCer, home mooring or whatever, has no bearing on how I view, treat or interact with them and often I'll not even know "what" they are unless it comes up in conversation. I dip in and out of the forum for general interest but don't share a great desire to get fully immersed in this subset of "boating politics", I just get on with "boating" and try to enjoy it as best I can. Thus, I can confidently say I have no "agenda".

[Graham Davis]

EDIT

C B A!

Edited February 7, 2015 by Graham Davis

[bassplayer]

Because it seems you have some kind of strong beliefs or issues surrounding the differences between CCers and those with a home mooring; and liveaboards vs leisure users of boats. Additionally you're quick to pre-judge when others come into conflict with CRT that CRT must be in the wrong, before the facts behind the case in hand are known, and place a higher and higher threshold of "proof" to prop up your pre-formed views for as long as possible before they often collapse.

 

 

My view (agenda) has always been that CRT should stop tinkering with rules just to suit a tiny minority of boaters who have got nothing better to do than whinge at CRT. I have praised those who work on the front line but, yes, I am cynical about the motives of those running CRT. That is based on much more than this video, it's based on talking to people in real life and travelling around the country on the system. It's also based on personal experience albeit back in the days it was BWB.

 

I think it is you who has muddled thinking and you who is jumping to conclusions. If you have a sensible counter argument then why not just say it rather than just make out someone is muddled or suggest they would consider doing something which is completely contrary to their agenda.

[Paul C]

Why would thinking you're inecent be deluded? I thought everyone was inecent until being found guilty in this country. Seems that's not always the case.

 

Ok fair enough, going back to your post:

 

Many people think they're innocent, find themselves in trouble, go to court and are found guilty (Won't complicate it with successful appeals etc). If they thought they were innocent, then they were deluded in that they were not.

 

Many more people think they're far from innocent, but think they have come up with some kind of loophole or cunning way to sidestep the law (which later fails); or simply know they've broken the law but believe that they'll not get caught. For this kind of scenario, the getting caught and going through the court process will be something of a surprise to them (after all their grand plan was to remain free) but there was never a delusion that what they were doing was not wrong in some way or other.

 

I think there's a lot of sense in the saying "if you can't do the time, don't do the crime".

[bassplayer]

Ok fair enough, going back to your post:

 

Many people think they're innocent, find themselves in trouble, go to court and are found guilty (Won't complicate it with successful appeals etc). If they thought they were innocent, then they were deluded in that they were not.

 

Many more people think they're far from innocent, but think they have come up with some kind of loophole or cunning way to sidestep the law (which later fails); or simply know they've broken the law but believe that they'll not get caught. For this kind of scenario, the getting caught and going through the court process will be something of a surprise to them (after all their grand plan was to remain free) but there was never a delusion that what they were doing was not wrong in some way or other.

 

I think there's a lot of sense in the saying "if you can't do the time, don't do the crime".

I don't agree with P takers either....most of us don't. I agree with most people here that there isn't enough information in the video to draw a sensible conclusion. I think the word deluded is a bit harsh though. The law is complicated for some to understand, and for others, they may simply not be aware of the rules. It doesn't make them deluded.

 

I think it is also quite possible that there are some out there with a grudge who are trying to expose the system. Maybe it's worth finding out what the grudge is before assuming they are just taking the P.

[Paul C]

You're right that "deluded" is a bit harsh, but literally, that's what someone is if they thought they were innocent but were not. "Misunderstanding" might be a better way of putting it. Or, "mistaken".

[bassplayer]

You're right that "deluded" is a bit harsh, but literally, that's what someone is if they thought they were innocent but were not. "Misunderstanding" might be a better way of putting it. Or, "mistaken".

Maybe my understanding is wrong but I thought deluded meant a person was 'stupid' for being deceived or mislead. There are lots of reasons why someone may get it wrong but it's not always because they are stupid.

 

It would be interesting to hear of the outcome after the events in the video. I've said before that a public forum is quite a good place to keep a diary of events and there are probably a lot of people on here who can help a genuine victim. A problem shared is a problem halved...sometimes!

[Paul C]

No I think deluded simply means "believing things that are not real or true", with no stupidity implied.

[bassplayer]

No I think deluded simply means "believing things that are not real or true", with no stupidity implied.

Ah, but even that is subjective until we eventually find the truth. Anyway, it's funny how language is interpreted differently by different people (as are rules). I think that's why meeting people face to face has benefits, body language conveys a lot of information (and a chat over a pint is always nice!).

[Jerra]

My dictionary tell me deluded means: Deceived or mislead (certainly no mention of stupidity.)

[bassplayer]

My dictionary tell me deluded means: Deceived or mislead (certainly no mention of stupidity.)

Yes, I looked it up too. The word is used to convey stupidly and even madness (self delusion). Getting back on topic, is anyone suggesting the owner of the boat in the video may have been given bad advice then?

[costalot]

You might assume he hadn't taken any bad legal advice because the alleged owner can be heard stating he doesn't do solicitors. If the advice he received was to get a satisfactory outcome by using the muppet who was mouthing off to the police sergeant in the YouTube clip, then IMHO he was given very bad advice.

 

The only way he will now get his boat back is to go to court and prove CRT was wrong.

[Sir Nibble]

My view (agenda) has always been that CRT should stop tinkering with rules just to suit a tiny minority of boaters who have got nothing better to do than whinge at CRT. I have praised those who work on the front line but, yes, I am cynical about the motives of those running CRT. That is based on much more than this video, it's based on talking to people in real life and travelling around the country on the system. It's also based on personal experience albeit back in the days it was BWB.

 

I think it is you who has muddled thinking and you who is jumping to conclusions. If you have a sensible counter argument then why not just say it rather than just make out someone is muddled or suggest they would consider doing something which is completely contrary to their agenda.

Out of interest, could you quantify that tiny minority? I don't care if the source is quoted in numbers or percentage but I would like to know how tiny this minority is.

 

Ok fair enough, going back to your post:

 

Many people think they're innocent, find themselves in trouble, go to court and are found guilty (Won't complicate it with successful appeals etc). If they thought they were innocent, then they were deluded in that they were not.

 

Many more people think they're far from innocent, but think they have come up with some kind of loophole or cunning way to sidestep the law (which later fails); or simply know they've broken the law but believe that they'll not get caught. For this kind of scenario, the getting caught and going through the court process will be something of a surprise to them (after all their grand plan was to remain free) but there was never a delusion that what they were doing was not wrong in some way or other.

 

I think there's a lot of sense in the saying "if you can't do the time, don't do the crime".

I think the "Freeman on the land" stuff stands for itself. The man is deluded.

[bassplayer]

Out of interest, could you quantify that tiny minority? I don't care if the source is quoted in numbers or percentage but I would like to know how tiny this minority is.

 

I think the "Freeman on the land" stuff stands for itself. The man is deluded.

It only takes one individual to mess things up for everyone else so percentages are irrelevant.

 

Changes have to be initiated, they don't happen by accident. I'm pretty sure the vast majority of boaters just want to be left in peace and are happy to let things be...but then again I could be wrong.

 

Certainly most I speak to are getting fed up with the tinkering, It also appears CRT are trying to bypass boater's representation so it seems it's not just boaters who are influencing the changes.

[Sir Nibble]

It only takes one individual to mess things up for everyone else so percentages are irrelevant.

 

Changes have to be initiated, they don't happen by accident. I'm pretty sure the vast majority of boaters just want to be left in peace and are happy to let things be...but then again I could be wrong.

 

Certainly most I speak to are getting fed up with the tinkering, It also appears CRT are trying to bypass boater's representation so it seems it's not just boaters who are influencing the changes.

So you made it up, sorry there was me thinking you were being serious. Could we have a smiley of some kind perhaps to show when a statement is correct and verifiable and when it's just a preconception based on prejudice and wishful thinking?

[bassplayer]

So you made it up, sorry there was me thinking you were being serious. Could we have a smiley of some kind perhaps to show when a statement is correct and verifiable and when it's just a preconception based on prejudice and wishful thinking?

Why do you want a percentage? Or are you saying nobody or everyone is influencing CRT to tinker with the rules? Other than nit pick, what's your view?

[jenlyn]

So you made it up, sorry there was me thinking you were being serious. Could we have a smiley of some kind perhaps to show when a statement is correct and verifiable and when it's just a preconception based on prejudice and wishful thinking?

He gave quite a sensible answer, and factual as well. He pretty much sums up what's going on. Although it obviously does not fit in with your view, his at least has substance, whereas your reply just comes across as "I want to be stubborn".

[Gordias]

He gave quite a sensible answer, and factual as well. He pretty much sums up what's going on. Although it obviously does not fit in with your view, his at least has substance, whereas your reply just comes across as "I want to be stubborn".

 

This seems to have started from Bassplayer claiming that CaRT formulates important rules to satisfy a small minority of boaters.

 

I suppose it's possible, but where's the evidence? Who are these powerful boaters, and (equally important) how are they able to control CaRT?

 

A conspiracy can't be established by finding people who agree with CaRT's actions and suggesting they were the cause of those actions.

Edited February 9, 2015 by Gordias

[bassplayer]

 

This seems to have started from Bassplayer claiming that CaRT formulates important rules to satisfy a small minority of boaters.

 

I suppose it's possible, but where's the evidence? Who are these powerful boaters, and (equally important) how are they able to control CaRT?

 

A conspiracy can't be established by finding people who agree with CaRT's actions and suggesting they were the cause of those actions.

I also suggested it wasn't just boaters. I agree there is some speculation on my part but they are honest views, I am very happy to modify my views if someone comes up with a sensible alternative.

[Gordias]

I also suggested it wasn't just boaters. I agree there is some speculation on my part but they are honest views, I am very happy to modify my views if someone comes up with a sensible alternative.

 

CaRT are supposed to listen to the collective interests of waterways users and other interested parties, so at some point there should be a relationship between what people think and what CaRT does. But if you want to show there's a small group with unreasonable power over CaRT you have to identify them and the methods they use to exercise this power.

Edited February 9, 2015 by Gordias

[jenlyn]

......

Edited February 9, 2015 by jenlyn
against site guidelines

[mayalld]

 

CaRT are supposed to listen to the collective interests of waterways users and other interested parties, so at some point there should be a relationship between what people think and what CaRT does. But if you want to show there's a small group with unreasonable power over CaRT you have to identify them and the methods they use to exercise this power.

 

No doubt there will be a conspiracy theory about some shadowy organisation pulling the strings.

[Alf Roberts]

I wouldn't call the IWA and APCO 'shadowy' but perhaps you have deeper knowledge of a provisional wing?

Edited February 9, 2015 by Alf Roberts

[Paul C]

 

This seems to have started from Bassplayer claiming that CaRT formulates important rules to satisfy a small minority of boaters.

 

I suppose it's possible, but where's the evidence? Who are these powerful boaters, and (equally important) how are they able to control CaRT?

 

A conspiracy can't be established by finding people who agree with CaRT's actions and suggesting they were the cause of those actions.

 

 

I also suggested it wasn't just boaters. I agree there is some speculation on my part but they are honest views, I am very happy to modify my views if someone comes up with a sensible alternative.

 

To be honest, EVERY user group or boating association which interacts with CRT is a minority, because there is to user group which can claim a majority. Even if you include their engagement with boaters directly, they aren't engaging with a majority. And I dare say if you even grouped all the groups together, it still falls short.

 

Of course CRT formulates important rules - would you want them to do nothing and stay moribund until some kind of representation quorum is achieved?

 

The question is, do the actions of a few lead to rule changes which affect many - inevitibly yes, Are the rule changes for the better or worse? And if so, should we hold to account CRT themselves, or those few whose actions resulted in the rule changes?