Best pay your CRT licence

[GoodGurl]

That's the reason C&RT will put up for seizing and removing the boat, and if it had been, or was being used (for navigation) without a Licence then they certainly should be taking action against those responsible, however belated it may be . . . there was mention of 4 years Licence fees owing, and you have to ask why it's taken that long for BW / C&RT to get round to it.

Assuming that the boat has been, or was being, used whilst unlicensed we must first ask why there have not been either prosecution(s) under the Bye Laws followed by civil action for debt recovery by C&RT if the boat has been used on the canals, or simply civil action for debt recovery if use was restricted to the Trent. Both or either of these two alternatives would have resulted in income for the Trust, but they have chosen not to exercise the appropriate powers they have under the legislation that was put in place for the purpose of countering Licence evasion, opting instead for a process which in addition to being unlawful, entails considerable initial expediture and outlay in order to recover exactly the same sum of money that would have come via an action for civil debt recovery, the 4 years of unpaid licence fees, plus costs.

The boat in question was seized and removed from a mooring on private land and out of the main navigable channel on a scheduled river and was therefore not on C&RT waters at the time of seizure. Assuming that a Section 8 notice had been served at least 28 days prior to the seizure, then the vessel, by virtue of its location at the time of seizure, had been removed from C&RT waters as required under the S8 Notice. The 1983 Act empowers C&RT to remove sunken,derelict, abandoned or unlicensed vessels from it's waters, it does not confer upon them the right to seize and remove vessels that are not on their waters, which in this instance is precisely what they have done.

**mod cap off**

yes i agree on the main points but, CRT didn't own the waterways 4 years ago, it was BW who obviously wasn't interested in what he was doing, maybe the sightings of him on the main channel were recent and CRT have checked back to see when it was last licensed and then took action against him.

[Tony Dunkley]

**mod cap off**

yes i agree on the main points but, CRT didn't own the waterways 4 years ago, it was BW who obviously wasn't interested in what he was doing, maybe the sightings of him on the main channel were recent and CRT have checked back to see when it was last licensed and then took action against him.

That may well be so, but it's completely irrelevant.

[GoodGurl]

That may well be so, but it's completely irrelevant.

**mod cap off**

because it makes your argument better or something else? the fact still remains he was caught bang to rights without a license and is now paying the price.

[MtB]

Its interesting watching that video. It seems rather like a verbal/aural version of some of the threads on here.

 

I wonder if any of those blokes in the video are posters on CWF...

 

 

MtB

[Tony Dunkley]

**mod cap off**

because it makes your argument better or something else? the fact still remains he was caught bang to rights without a license and is now paying the price.

Yes it appears that he was caught without a Licence, and now C&RT have compounded the wrongdoing with their enthusiasm for disregarding the law. If you believe that two wrongs make a right then you're entitled to take that view.

[Graham Davis]

That may well be so, but it's completely irrelevant.

 

Why is it?

Full facts only, not your impressions.

[GoodGurl]

Yes it appears that he was caught without a Licence, and now C&RT have compounded the wrongdoing with their enthusiasm for disregarding the law. If you believe that two wrongs make a right then you're entitled to take that view.

**mod cap off**

no 2 wrong's don't make it right but like i said he was caught bang to right's and deserves everything he get's because he has no case, if he had a case or indeed proof that they (CRT) were wrong surely it would have been on the video(that they had also edited)

[Tony Dunkley]

**mod cap off**

no 2 wrong's don't make it right but like i said he was caught bang to right's and deserves everything he get's because he has no case, if he had a case or indeed proof that they (CRT) were wrong surely it would have been on the video(that they had also edited)

The owner of that boat may well deserve everything he's getting, and I'm not speaking on his behalf or defending his actions in any way, but you now seem to be assuming that in the absence of any coherent and valid argument, or proof, from him to the contrary that C&RT's conduct is beyond reproach. Don't you think that you're overrating him a bit ?

[Jerra]

The owner of that boat may well deserve everything he's getting, and I'm not speaking on his behalf or defending his actions in any way, but you now seem to be assuming that in the absence of any coherent and valid argument, or proof, from him to the contrary that C&RT's conduct is beyond reproach. Don't you think that you're overrating him a bit ?

You on the other hand are with out any evidence condemning CRT. It looks like 6 of one and half a dozen of the other.

[Tony Dunkley]

 

Why is it?

Full facts only, not your impressions.

I'm a commercial barge / tug operator and marine engineer, I don't do 'impressions'.

[GoodGurl]

**mod cap off**

 

He has broke the rules and as i see it CRT are acting on the rules broken, right or wrong it has happened and i'm sure there will be a court case coming up soon.

 

The owner of that boat may well deserve everything he's getting, and I'm not speaking on his behalf or defending his actions in any way, but you now seem to be assuming that in the absence of any coherent and valid argument, or proof, from him to the contrary that C&RT's conduct is beyond reproach. Don't you think that you're overrating him a bit ?

 

You on the other hand are with out any evidence condemning CRT. It looks like 6 of one and half a dozen of the other.

indeed.

[bassplayer]

 

Most masons are married so women are heavily involved, and secondly there is an active female freemasonry separate from the male version.

 

George ex nb Alton retired

I'm sure you are right about that. How do you know anyway?

 

Edited to say I never realised there was a Freemason group for women

 

https://www.owf.org.uk

Edited February 5, 2015 by bassplayer

[BrumSaint]

 

The boat in question was seized and removed from a mooring on private land and out of the main navigable channel on a scheduled river and was therefore not on C&RT waters at the time of seizure. Assuming that a Section 8 notice had been served at least 28 days prior to the seizure, then the vessel, by virtue of its location at the time of seizure, had been removed from C&RT waters as required under the S8 Notice. The 1983 Act empowers C&RT to remove sunken,derelict, abandoned or unlicensed vessels from it's waters, it does not confer upon them the right to seize and remove vessels that are not on, or have been removed from, their waters, which in this instance is precisely what they have done.

Where is your evidence for the 'facts' I've highlighted? Please don't say it is evident from the video, it is not; the only evidence in the video is the owner and someone else saying it was on private property. Your assertion that C&RT have acted unlawfully is only true if the 'facts' you state above are correct. If you can supply the evidence to support your facts, I think you will find that more people would accept your view of C&RT's actions. If you can't then people will look at the fact that the boat was unlicenced and conclude that C&RT are right to try and obtain the money owed to them.

[Tony Dunkley]

**mod cap off**

he has broke the rules and as i see it CRT are acting on the rules broken, right or wrong it has happened and i'm sure there will be a court case coming up soon.

 

.

The only sort of case there's likely to be in connection with this is the suitcase that C&RT's 'in pocket' contractors will be using to carry away all the money they're making courtesy of C&RT's stupidity.

[GoodGurl]

The only sort of case there's likely to be in connection with this is the suitcase that C&RT's 'in pocket' contractors will be using to carry away all the money they're making courtesy of C&RT's stupidity.

**mod cap off**

if it was my boat i KNOW there would be a court case, if indeed he WAS in the right, if there is no court case then he is guilty as charged, would you let them STEAL your boat and do nothing about it if you were right? i certainly wouldn't nor would the majority of people on here.

Edited February 5, 2015 by GoodGurl

[jenlyn]

**mod cap off**

if it was my boat i KNOW there would be a court case, if indeed he WAS in the right, if there is no court case then he is guilty as charged, would you let them STEAL your boat and do nothing about it if you were right? i certainly wouldn't nor would the majority of people on here.

Not necessarily the best way of looking at it. There is no provision for legal aid anymore.

He may not have the money to fund a court case, or even a friendly lawyer to pro bono the case.

[GoodGurl]

Not necessarily the best way of looking at it. There is no provision for legal aid anymore.

He may not have the money to fund a court case, or even a friendly lawyer to pro bono the case.

**mod cap off**

but as i said, IF he was in the right and if it was me i would take out a loan, no need to worry about repayments because he would win the case, on the other hand if he's in the wrong like tony said there won't be a court case, which proves he was guilty.

[bassplayer]

...There is no provision for legal aid anymore.

 

I thought you still can for civil action but it's harder for criminal action. Maybe it's just harder to get it in practice.

 

https://www.gov.uk/legal-aid/overview

[Tony Dunkley]

Where is your evidence for the 'facts' I've highlighted? Please don't say it is evident from the video, it is not; the only evidence in the video is the owner and someone else saying it was on private property. Your assertion that C&RT have acted unlawfully is only true if the 'facts' you state above are correct. If you can supply the evidence to support your facts, I think you will find that more people would accept your view of C&RT's actions. If you can't then people will look at the fact that the boat was unlicenced and conclude that C&RT are right to try and obtain the money owed to them.

In fact they're not doing that, which is one of the reasons for my criticism. The Section 8 process doesn't recover unpaid debt, like the 4 years licence fees, for instance, it just puts money into the pockets of contractors and hauliers.

I've added to the Post you quoted from . . . . . here it is again : -

That's the reason C&RT will put up for seizing and removing the boat, and if it had been, or was being used (for navigation) without a Licence then they certainly should be taking action against those responsible, however belated it may be . . . there was mention of 4 years Licence fees owing, and you have to ask why it's taken that long for BW / C&RT to get round to it.

Assuming that the boat has been, or was being, used whilst unlicensed we must first ask why there have not been either prosecution(s) under the Bye Laws followed by civil action for debt recovery by C&RT if the boat has been used on the canals, or simply civil action for debt recovery if use was restricted to the Trent. Both or either of these two alternatives would have resulted in income for the Trust, but they have chosen not to exercise the appropriate powers they have under the legislation that was put in place for the purpose of countering Licence evasion, opting instead for a process which in addition to being, in this instance, unlawful, entails considerable initial expediture and outlay by C&RT and does not result in the recovery of the money owed for unpaid licence fees that would have come via an action for civil debt recovery, the 4 years of unpaid licence fees, plus costs.

The boat in question was seized and removed from a mooring on private land and out of the main navigable channel on a scheduled river and was therefore not on C&RT waters at the time of seizure. Assuming that a Section 8 notice had been served at least 28 days prior to the seizure, then the vessel, by virtue of its location at the time of seizure, had been removed from C&RT waters as required under the S8 Notice. The 1983 Act empowers C&RT to remove sunken,derelict, abandoned or unlicensed vessels from it's waters, it does not confer upon them the right to seize and remove vessels that are not on, or have been removed from, their waters, which in this instance is precisely what they have done.

Edited February 5, 2015 by Tony Dunkley

[Graham Davis]

The only sort of case there's likely to be in connection with this is the suitcase that C&RT's 'in pocket' contractors will be using to carry away all the money they're making courtesy of C&RT's stupidity.

 

Reported.

Do you have any idea of how close you are getting to Defamation with some of your comments?

Are you purposely trying to get Dan, as owner of this Forum into legal trouble?

You really need to moderate some of your comments!!

[MtB]

Not necessarily the best way of looking at it. There is no provision for legal aid anymore.

He may not have the money to fund a court case, or even a friendly lawyer to pro bono the case.

 

 

I bet the NBTA could come up with one.

 

I'm vaguely surprised they are not all over this. The fact that they are holding off suggests they think the film makers don't have even the weakest of cases.

[Tony Dunkley]

 

Reported.

Do you have any idea of how close you are getting to Defamation with some of your comments?

Are you purposely trying to get Dan, as owner of this Forum into legal trouble?

You really need to moderate some of your comments!!

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.

[GoodGurl]

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.

**mod cap off**

what was happening is easy to see, CRT were removing a boat that wasn't licensed and owed back money, owner spouting off that his boat was being stolen after not paying his way,

[MtB]

**mod cap off**

what was happening is easy to see, CRT were removing a boat that wasn't licensed and owed back money, owner spouting off that his boat was being stolen after not paying his way,

 

Indeed. Some on here certainly do seem confused and unable to follow what was happening, but not everyone has difficulty in grasping the significance of what can be seen and heard.

[Sabcat]

**mod cap off**

what was happening is easy to see, CRT were removing a boat that wasn't licensed and owed back money, owner spouting off that his boat was being stolen after not paying his way,

 

To what end though? If, as seems the case, they removed a boat from what was not their waters - all that S8 lets them do - and does little to nothing to remedy the problem of the unpaid licence fees, assuming any are actually due.

 

Your previous comments about getting a loan are great, if you can, some can't for various reasons, but bugger them eh? Guilty by reasons of poverty.