Best pay your CRT licence

[Pen n Ink]

Just as a matter of interest since I can't see the answer on here anywhere...

 

Just what paperwork DO CRT need to have with them when they remove a boat under S.8? One assumes they don't have to cart around a copy of every piece of correspondence in the case, but is there, in legal terms, any requirement for them to actually have ANY paperwork at the point of removal?

 

I would venture to suggest, quite probably not.

[gaggle]

 

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

 

Been there as a policeman ?

[Graham Davis]

See my Post 95, in response to the other chap who can't see past the end of his nose.

 

Typical response!!

No facts, as usual, so attack the man.

[mayalld]

Just as a matter of interest since I can't see the answer on here anywhere...

 

Just what paperwork DO CRT need to have with them when they remove a boat under S.8? One assumes they don't have to cart around a copy of every piece of correspondence in the case, but is there, in legal terms, any requirement for them to actually have ANY paperwork at the point of removal?

 

I would venture to suggest, quite probably not.

 

I would agree with that view.

 

Whether it is actually sensible is another matter.

 

A document issued by CRT reciting the powers that they have and that notice has been served would be helpful.

[Jerra]

what I am saying is that what could be seen and heard from others present gives this the appearance of an illegal boat seizure

That is the whole point people are making there are no facts it is a totally one sided rant giving the appearance of an illegal seizure.

 

Without the facts it can't be judged as such from what is in the video unless you are being equally as biased as the video maker.

[mrsmelly]

 

 

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

 

Been there as a policeman ?

 

 

Yes.

 

Tim

[Graham Davis]

That is the whole point people are making there are no facts it is a totally one sided rant giving the appearance of an illegal seizure.

 

Without the facts it can't be judged as such from what is in the video unless you are being equally as biased as the video maker.

 

Exactly, and every time I ask Tony for these FACTS all I get is a pointless and meaningless cut'n'paste response.

One is left with the assumption that Tony has no facts but is using this to continue his tirade.

[Tony Dunkley]

 

Exactly, and every time I ask Tony for these FACTS all I get is a pointless and meaningless cut'n'paste response.

One is left with the assumption that Tony has no facts but is using this to continue his tirade.

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.

[NigelMoore]

 

the murky waters of EOG fees on rivers doesn't arise.

 

 

Just a small correction – the position respecting EOG fees on rivers has never been murky; the BW Informative on the subject is clear:

 

“Where BW is navigational authority but does not own the bed of the river, a boater needs a licence from BW to cruise the river. However, the boater does not need to pay BW a mooring fee as well because BW does not own the river bed.”

 

http://www.cutweb.org.uk/bw/eogmooring.pdf

[Jerra]

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.

Don't bother a cut and paste reply. You do not (why am I not surprised) seem to grasp that there are two sides to every story and the video only shows one and that in a very biased way.

 

With facts everybody on the forum may well support the boat owner but not without facts. The lack of any forthcoming facts certainly makes me feel that the facts probably don't support the stance the video is taking. Otherwise why aren't they being revealed?

[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

 

Oh F F S Tony.

You really are pitiful!!

Every time you cut'n'paste that reply you make yourself look an even bigger fool.

Either you have the facts or you don't, and I think we all know you have NO facts about this case but it suits your view of CaRT.

 

And to be honest your continual attitude is putting me off this Forum as you seem to think it is only here for you and no-one else is allowed to have their own opinions. You are becoming a little Dictator!!

[Tony Dunkley]

 

Oh F F S Tony.

You really are pitiful!!

Every time you cut'n'paste that reply you make yourself look an even bigger fool.

Either you have the facts or you don't, and I think we all know you have NO facts about this case but it suits your view of CaRT.

 

And to be honest your continual attitude is putting me off this Forum as you seem to think it is only here for you and no-one else is allowed to have their own opinions. You are becoming a little Dictator!!

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.

[John Williamson 1955]

No, that the copper must have been in possession of facts not in the video. Sure enough, he'd turned up for a reason at the request of someone but that doesn't mean he'd seen any paperwork at all or knew anything at all other than someone from official body wanted his help in getting a boat moved. The presence or aid of the police in a situation is absolutely no guide whatsoever as to the legality of the action.

If the copper had turned up at the request of someone involved, alleging a crime, the first step would be to check the grounds for the allegation. If the allegation was apparently justified, then the second step here would have been to order the boat returned to the owner's custodianship. The copper would have no choice but to do so. If the allegation had been refuted, then he has no duty or legal ability to stop the sequence of events. If the copper had arrived at the request of someone threatening assault or any other breach of the peace, he has a duty (Moral, if not legal) to find out what the problem is and get the people involved to try to peacefully resolve the problem. In either case, to act as he did,he would have had to be convinced before the cameraman arrived that no theft was being attempted.

 

To reply to another point claiming that a boat moored to the bank does not require a licence as it is not in the main navigation channel, in a reply to a FOI request that BW had answered regarding a similar situation not far from the marina in the video, involving a cruiser and a narrowboat on private moorings on the river bank, the main navigation channel of the Trent was shown to be from bank to bank, so if the boat in the video had been outside the marina at any point, it would have required a licence for the period spent outside the marina. I also see that Nigel Moore disputes this.

[Jerra]

And to be honest your continual attitude is putting me off this Forum as you seem to think it is only here for you and no-one else is allowed to have their own opinions. You are becoming a little Dictator!!

Don't take that attitude he isn't worth it. Look on it from the point of view he makes good harmless entertainment when he gets in "stuck record mode".

 

I am afraid I laughed out loud (genuinely) when I read #112.

[Loafer]

What's going to be most interesting here is the outcome. I have a sneaking suspicion that the gobhead, who owns the boat, might soon get it returned to him. Could this be another of CRT's mistakes?

 

I understand most of the facets of the 'case' (I think!). It is certainly going to be argued in court, about whether or not he needs to buy a licence in the first place.

 

I'm not sure there's anything else in contention here is there? If he's found not requiring a license for his mooring, then he's won and presumably gets his boat back.

 

Now that, I would find absolutely riveting!

[Tony Dunkley]

It has now been established that 'Three Wise Monkeys' was seized and towed away from a mooring on private land, outside of the main navigable channel on the Trent by contractors working on behalf of C&RT.

The seizure was not pursuant to the enforcement of a civil debt ( such as unpaid Licence fees, for instance) and no Court Bailiffs / Sheriffs were present.

This leaves the sole possible grounds for seizure and removal being enforcement of a Notice previously served under Section 8 of the 1983 BW Act.

This raises the question of why, initially, C&RT have served a Section 8 Notice on a boat which was not moored on their waters, and why they have then progressed to seizing and removing that same boat whilst it remained moored off their waters.

[Tony Dunkley]

Don't take that attitude he isn't worth it. Look on it from the point of view he makes good harmless entertainment when he gets in "stuck record mode".

 

I am afraid I laughed out loud (genuinely) when I read #112.

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.

[Loafer]

It has now been established that 'Three Wise Monkeys' was seized and towed away from a mooring on private land, outside of the main navigable channel on the Trent by contractors working on behalf of C&RT.

The seizure was not pursuant to the enforcement of a civil debt ( such as unpaid Licence fees, for instance) and no Court Bailiffs / Sheriffs were present.

This leaves the sole possible grounds for seizure and removal being enforcement of a Notice previously served under Section 8 of the 1983 BW Act.

This raises the question of why, initially, C&RT have served a Section 8 Notice on a boat which was not moored on their waters, and why they have then progressed to seizing and removing that same boat whilst it remained moored off their waters.

I'm following this with great interest, having learned more and more on this forum recently.

 

Can you direct me to where it has been 'established', as per your 1st line?

[Tony Dunkley]

I'm following this with great interest, having learned more and more on this forum recently.

 

Can you direct me to where it has been 'established', as per your 1st line?

The information I have has been passed on to me by a known and reliable source in regular contact with C&RT, including down to CEO level.

[Loafer]

The information I have has been passed on to me by a known and reliable source in regular contact with C&RT, including down to CEO level.

 

OK - does that mean it's private, or priveliged info and can't be shared here?

[Pen n Ink]

As far as I can see, nothing has been established at all to any greater degree of certainty than was expressed by the "gentlemen" in the video... And I'm afraid that TD saying that it is so doesn't completely convince me.

[John Williamson 1955]

I'm following this with great interest, having learned more and more on this forum recently.

 

Can you direct me to where it has been 'established', as per your 1st line?

The only place this has been established is in Mr. Dunkley's mind. In reality, he knows no more than you or I do. The only water near the scene of the video which is not in the main navigation channel of the river Trent is the water in the marina. Any movement of the boat out of the marina would take it into the main navigation channel, according to BW and now, CRT.

 

All else in his posts which he bases on his presumption that the boat was on private water, attached to a private mooring off the main channel for four years without ever being used to navigate on the waterway even for a moment, result in my opinion from his personal theories, affected by his somewhat negative experiences with CRT, which are a matter of public record. His repeated refusal to provide proof other than vague references to an un-named and unidentifiable source somewhere below Richard Parry in the chain of management confirm this in my eyes. At least he's now admitting that CRT may just possibly have had the right to issue a Section 8 notice for the vessel.

[Loafer]

I presume that most people here will be as interested in the final resolution as I am.

 

If anyone gets any 'proper' information, other than just saying that they 'know', could they please alert the forum?

[Tony Dunkley]

 

OK - does that mean it's private, or priveliged info and can't be shared here?

Yes

[Loafer]

Not much use mentioning it then, is there!!