Jump to content

NBTA Press Release : The continuous cruising case CRT couldn't win


Alf Roberts

Featured Posts

I'm not about to sell up and go raise sheep on Orkney just yet but I'm somewhat uncertain about how things will go on the cut in the future. I'm alarmed and anxious about the levels of enforcement and changes to Terms and Conditions.

 

Given the problem I think I'd go after the really bad guys and try persuade the rest to play fair and also do a bit of general volunteering and canal care.

I think most of CRT budget should be spent on maintainance .

 

I don't think a few moochers cost that much . Section 8 must cost more than taking the license money and leaning on people to move about a bit and moor in out of the way places rather than lurking on the VMs

 

Nobody is going to go very far if the canal fails , we will all be sat on the mud together.

  • Greenie 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

And I am wondering where it says CRT lost the case?

 

Peter

 

They would not have 'lost' in the normally accepted sense, but they would have stopped the action prior to Judgment if it was looking good for the other side.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Probably. It depends on the information contained in the judgement and whether that might prejudice other cases.

...and that's another debatable subject. For example, given the choice of trusting your money to someone who has been found guilty of wrongdoing in the past, or someone who hasn't, who would we pick? I do believe in second and third chances by the way, but then it gets a bit difficult.

....I forgot to say the clue is in the word Trust...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Or maybe would prefer the comments the Judge made kept out of the public domain.

CaRT normally publishes court papers as part of its Freedom of Information publication scheme.

 

It did not do so in this case.

 

Last week, I made a request under the Freedom of Information Act which may result in CaRT making information regarding this case available to the public.

 

Bearing in mind that court cases are the only way of testing if the 'guidance' is a true reflection of the law, I believe it is incumbent upon the Trust to publish full details of the few defended CC cases that have taken place and any legal advice it has obtained regarding it's 'guidance'.

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Probably. It depends on the information contained in the judgement and whether that might prejudice other cases.

 

There wouldn't have been a Judgment . . . . the matter was 'settled' after C&RT made an offer to do so , so no Judgment would be need to be made.

Edited by Tony Dunkley
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

There wouldn't have been a Judgment . . . . the matter was 'settled' after C&RT made an offer to do so , so no Judgment would be need to be made.

I was making a general point, in response to a general question. I wasn't specifically talking about this case.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Very misleading press Release. The first sentence is not true.

Surely if the allegation that CRT are misleading the public in this action outcome, then so are the NBTA with the wording of this press Release. Pot? Kettle?

 

Please note I am not commenting on the action itself, but on the actions of CRT and NBTA.

OK, I accept that you may have a valid criticism of NBTA - I don't say I agree with you but your points merit consideration - but don't you rather think there is something worth investigating if you, a vociferous supporter of CRT, find something there to criticise?

Answer the letters courteously, explaining, and requesting permission to overstay?

 

The other possibility is he aggressively told CRT to shove it.

 

Neither way should have resulted in court action but one of these options did, and I wonder which one...

 

 

.

Interesting that you should, with no data whatsoever, jump to this conclusion, exactly as you did in the long thread on Tony Dunkley's case until proved wrong.

 

You don't learn by your mistakes then Mike?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

NBTA are the only voice that a section of the boating community can rely on I would think .

 

My interactions with the IWA have not been good in the past due to nobody telling them that judging a sausage by its skin was a flawed strategy.

 

Until some people wake up and realise we're all in the same "boat" due to being customers of a large provider of navigable waterways there will continue to be fragmented representation of boater interests .

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Probably. It depends on the information contained in the judgement and whether that might prejudice other cases.

But Dave, I thought you said you didn't think it was CRT who inserted the confidentiality clause. In fact, to the casual observer, you implied you had reason to believe it was Mr Wingfield.

 

Now you state it's because it could influence other cases.

 

Are you changing your mind or is this simple hypocrisy?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Until some people wake up and realise we're all in the same "boat" due to being customers of a large provider of navigable waterways there will continue to be fragmented representation of boater interests .

This is the main commonality in all these recent cases. We have a public body with an almost monopoly control over the inland waterways and immense powers over people's lives.

 

Yet much of the opinion on here and in the larger associations is that they shouldn't be held to account.

 

Of course they must be held to account for each and every action. They must not only be seen to operate with the utmost impartiality and probity they should also bear in mind the legal absolute that in all such disputes between public body and an individual the individual is the one who is given the 'benefit of the doubt'.

Would it be easier if you mentioned which weeks you didn't make an FOIA request?

I have reported this personal abuse.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

NBTA are the only voice that a section of the boating community can rely on I would think .

 

My interactions with the IWA have not been good in the past due to nobody telling them that judging a sausage by its skin was a flawed strategy.

 

Until some people wake up and realise we're all in the same "boat" due to being customers of a large provider of navigable waterways there will continue to be fragmented representation of boater interests .

 

And this is the problem I think. I don't believe they can be relied upon to provide a voice to the a section of the boating community. (Though as I am not really part of that section my opinion will likely be seen by some as mater less).

 

However there is an issue of credibility and double standards in play here because as much as people like to criticise CRT for sometimes being 'economical with the truth' in their conduct and dealings with boaters the same people seem to conveniently over look the fact when NBTA appear to do the same when they do it in their dealings with CRT

I have reported this personal abuse.

 

For goodness sake - that is not 'abuse' - can I suggest we keep a sense of perspective?

Edited by MJG
Link to comment
Share on other sites

And this is the problem I think. I don't believe they can be relied upon to provide a voice to the a section of the boating community. (Though as I am not really part of that section my opinion will likely be seen by some as mater less).

 

However there is an issue of credibility and double standards in play here because as much as people like to criticise CRT for sometimes being 'economical with the truth' in their conduct and dealings with boaters the same people seem to conveniently over look the fact when NBTA appear to do the same.

It is interesting that, despite the absurdity of their name and being part of a minority group, they are rapidly gaining credibility and support from boaters of all types.

 

As for 'economical with the truth' some might agree with my post above that CRT have far more reason for absolute probity than a pressure group.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is interesting that, despite the absurdity of their name and being part of a minority group, they are rapidly gaining credibility and support from boaters of all types.

 

As for 'economical with the truth' some might agree with my post above that CRT have far more reason for absolute probity than a pressure group.

 

Are you saying it's OK for a pressure group to tell porkies but it's not for CRT to do so? I agree CRT shouldn't but I also believe neither should NBTA.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Are you saying it's OK for a pressure group to tell porkies but it's not for CRT to do so? I agree CRT shouldn't but I also believe neither should NBTA.

NBTA are a pressure group, I think it natural they would put a slant on any facts that support their agenda, that's what pressure groups do.

 

Where have they told the lies you are accusing them of?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

One can see that NBTA obviously puts its own slant on things and its plainly obvious that they don't like many aspects of CRT's operation, but we can read around these and make allowances for each of us to make our own minds up.

 

So, I thank NBTA for having the bravery of bringing this to the public's attention.

 

It will be interesting to see Richard Parry's views on this matter once it might have gained a bit more momentum - is this one bad egg within CRT or is the whole organisation corrupt to a greater or lesser degree?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Unless there are two people that have had a run in with CRT in Nottingham when they had a broken ankle, he posts on YBW and has been moaning that CRT forced him to take a permanent mooring. He has been very sparse with any other info.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

NBTA are a pressure group, I think it natural they would put a slant on any facts that support their agenda, that's what pressure groups do.

 

Where have they told the lies you are accusing them of?

 

I didn't actually say they were telling lies if you read my posts more carefully.

 

However on the basis of the information provided in the thread there appears to be, shall we call it a discrepancy in the information in the amount of time the Trent was in flood at what appears to be a crucial time in the process.

 

And as I said right the beginning their claim that CRT kept things confidential is not known to be correct, in fact it was factually inaccurate, because it was the courts decision to keep the details of the settlement confidential and whilst it may indeed have been at CRT's request, we don't know this to be fact.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.