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

[jenlyn]

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.

Obviously nbta put a slant on things, but telling porkies?

I don't think so Martin, not really.

 

As I have stated recently, some of us are privy to information, but sadly our hands are tied.

I'm not suggesting you have to believe me, that is of course your choice, but i will ask you not to be too naive and quite so quick to judge.

[Alf Roberts]

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?

 

Personally I think it's one particularly bad egg.

 

Unfortunately (for CRT) he has the personal backing of the Chief Executive which kind of makes it a systemic problem.

 

I think it would have been wiser for Parry to distance himself from this person and instigate an open investigation but it seems he has chosen to put the reputation of the organisation behind the individual.

Edited February 23, 2015 by Alf Roberts

[Guest]

Obviously nbta put a slant on things, but telling porkies?

I don't think so Martin, not really.

 

As I have stated recently, some of us are privy to information, but sadly our hands are tied.

I'm not suggesting you have to believe me, that is of course your choice, but i will ask you not to be too naive and quite so quick to judge.

 

and to you, too. That was a a question to Alf.

[Alf Roberts]

 

 

 

removed

Edited February 23, 2015 by Alf Roberts

[Guest]

Obviously nbta put a slant on things, but telling porkies?

I don't think so Martin, not really.

 

As I have stated recently, some of us are privy to information, but sadly our hands are tied.

I'm not suggesting you have to believe me, that is of course your choice, but i will ask you not to be too naive and quite so quick to judge.

 

Well of course there are issues there about parties being privy to something that is supposed to be confidential on the basis of a court decision which in itself is interesting.

Edited February 23, 2015 by MJG

[Alf Roberts]

 

 

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.

Even giving CRT an unfeasibly amount of benefit of the doubt; if Mr Wingfield insisted on confidentiality as part of the agreement CRT should have refused.

Edited February 23, 2015 by Alf Roberts

[Guest]

Even giving CRT an unfeasibly amount of benefit of the doubt; if Mr Wingfield insisted on confidentiality as part of the agreement CRT should have refused.

 

Indeed, and vice versa surely?

 

The point is though we don't 'know' but NBTA are telling us that is how it was. Perhaps I am taking more convincing than you but that is how I am, I prefer facts and not supposition. I would also not appear to be alone in that.

[Paul C]

Personally I think it's one particularly bad egg.

 

Unfortunately (for CRT) he has the personal backing of the Chief Executive which kind of makes it a systemic problem.

 

I think it would have been wiser for Parry to distance himself from this person and instigate an open investigation but it seems he has chosen to put the reputation of the organisation behind the individual.

 

If the Chief Exec is personally backing him, in my book that makes 2 bad eggs. It might be that the chief exec resorted to a default "I support the actions of my staff" position - which is understandable - initially; but could be at the same time conducting an internal investigation which results in gross misconduct --> termination of employment. These things can take time.

[jenlyn]

Indeed, and vice versa surely?

 

The point is though we don't 'know' but NBTA are telling us that is how it was. Perhaps I am taking more convincing than you but that is how I am, I prefer facts and not supposition. I would also not appear to be alone in that.

"Perhaps, however it is not what the release actually says. It says CRT kept the terms confidential when actually they were instructed to".

 

Is that your supposition?

[madcat]

NBTA are not telling lies they are stating their view of the facts .

 

The issue of boat dwellers is a part of the whole that is the housing crisis. It's a great pity that an advanced Western country cannot get its act together and ensure that the greater majority of its citizens are decently housed .

London is a particular area of concern with the stocks of affordable housing shrinking year on year. It's not acceptable but who do we vote in who have the guts to tackle it.

 

NBTA have my support in keeping the cause of boat dwellers in the public domain and also for participating in the campaigns in support of all persons who need an affordable place to live.

 

Not a lot to ask really is it, a suitable place to live . We are all different and one size doesn't fit all . Diversity Rocks as far as I'm concerned.

[Guest]

"Perhaps, however it is not what the release actually says. It says CRT kept the terms confidential when actually they were instructed to".

 

Is that your supposition?

 

Well both parties are subject to a confidentiality clause - which means they have to keep the details confidential, unless you can show me it means something different.

[Allan(nb Albert)]

I see the judge in this case is a keen walker and fisherman so guess he might know the canals I wonder if he has ever been a member of any waterways association

HHJ Pugsley did say at the hearing that he had been a member of IWA.

[peterboat]

 

Well both parties are subject to a confidentiality clause - which means they have to keep the details confidential, unless you can show me it means something different.

Again Martin I agree with you as a company we have been involved with one of these confidentiality clauses we were taken to court but in the wash we were found to be innocent so to protect us the judge made this clause as in this case we never got to court the briefs sorted it out before hand. On the face of it we looked the bad guys but in reality we were scott free but could not crow about it also the accuser had to move all stuff on tinternet and from forums ( we had had that done already the forums bit) so once again I say we dont know what happened

 

Peter

[Graham Davis]

 

Well both parties are subject to a confidentiality clause - which means they have to keep the details confidential, unless you can show me it means something different.

 

Exactlty!

 

Lots of people are suggesting that it was CaRT that asked for the Clause, but perhaps there is another story, and it was the "accused" who asked for it because he didn't want his acquaintances to know that he had sold out to CaRT and accepted a nice big settlement?

 

Will we ever know the truth? I doubt it.

[Arthur Marshall]

It appears that he's now got a home mooring (see post #99), which would imply that, in the eyes of CRT enforcement, he wasn't complying with the CC rules. Presumably he agreed to this and this was in the settlement, which would also indicate that he accepted that he didn't actually have an arguable case. In which case you could argue that CRT was right to take him to court in the first place.

Edited February 23, 2015 by Arthur Marshall

[BrumSaint]

CRT lost a case, obviously not because they were right, so man up, accept it and correct the problem that led to it.

Nothing simpler really :-)

Did they lose the case? How do you know?

 

All we know is a settlement was reached. We do not know what was in the settlement or who asked for the settlement, but here is one scenario:-

 

Boater accepts he was in the wrong and in order to keep boat licence agrees to pay C&RT costs, but asked for confidentiality agreement because he doesn't want to lose face with his mates.

[mayalld]

Put the claws away, take a look at the pinned forum rules, and keep on topic please.

 

Over the course of a little over 4 years, one individual has made almost 100 FOIA requests of CRT/BW via whatdotheyknow.com

 

It is not unreasonable to draw attention to this habitual use of FOIA requests, and to pass comment when he announces yet another.

[PaulG]

It appears that he's now got a home mooring (see post #99), which would imply that, in the eyes of CRT enforcement, he wasn't complying with the CC rules. Presumably he agreed to this and this was in the settlement, which would also indicate that he accepted that he didn't actually have an arguable case. In which case you could argue that CRT was right to take him to court in the first place.

Technically the NBTA press release may be correct - CRT did not "win". But neither did Mr. Wingfield "win", as the case was "settled"; there was no judgement.

If CRT's purpose in bringing the court case was to persuade Mr. Wingfield to obtain a home mooring, then, if the information from AM above is correct, then CRT will consider that they "won".

And it occurs to me that perhaps the Judge included the confidentiality clause because the terms of the settlement might have relevance to other cases that have yet to be heard?

It seems to me that the confidentiality clause must have been applied for a better reason than merely to save either party's blushes...

[Tony Dunkley]

Did they lose the case? How do you know?

 

All we know is a settlement was reached. We do not know what was in the settlement or who asked for the settlement, but here is one scenario:-

 

Boater accepts he was in the wrong and in order to keep boat licence agrees to pay C&RT costs, but asked for confidentiality agreement because he doesn't want to lose face with his mates.

 

You're lost in Fantasy land, . . . . If anything like that had happened then C&RT would never agree to keep quiet about it.

[mayalld]

I have reported this personal abuse.

 

How tiresome of you.

 

How on earth is drawing attention to the fact that somebody has sent in ANOTHER FOIA request in the hope that it will reveal something that even NBTA know it will not "personal abuse"

 

There does seem to be a culture amongst CRT knockers of giving out more than their share of personal abuse, then when no personal abuse comes their way in return to run off crying anyway.

 

If Mr Richards wishes to take issue with what I said, I am sure he can say so. If not, it probably isn't your business.

[NigelMoore]

 

Well both parties are subject to a confidentiality clause - which means they have to keep the details confidential, unless you can show me it means something different.

 

On the face of what has been disclosed in the Press Release, it is only the content of the out-of-court settlement sealed under what is probably something like a ‘Tomlin Order’, that is to remain confidential.

 

The facts and arguments and court proceedings up to that point will remain in the public domain – unless those are specifically included in the Order.

 

The terms of the settlement will be of no concern to anyone other than the parties anyway; the points of public interest will be in the material leading up to that, which the public can have access to without fear of any contempt of court issues.

 

If not precluded under the terms of the Order, I would encourage either of the parties concerned with the relevant information [and with standing – and finance – to obtain the court transcripts] to make these public. That would be instructive and educational.

[BrumSaint]

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?

If they were brave bringing this to public attention why did it take them 8 months to pluck up the courage to do so?

 

In their press release they state they were aware of this on the 18th June 2014, yet they didn't issue a press release until the 22nd February 2015. I've questioned (post 49) why they've kept this quiet for 8 months and only chosen now to release it. Unfortunately no one, especially the OP (who has been on the site since I posted) has chosen to answer this. A reason for the delayed press release might go some way to understanding NBTA's motivation (other than just bashing C&RT).

[cotswoldsman]

Did they lose the case? How do you know?

 

All we know is a settlement was reached. We do not know what was in the settlement or who asked for the settlement, but here is one scenario:-

 

Boater accepts he was in the wrong and in order to keep boat licence agrees to pay C&RT costs, but asked for confidentiality agreement because he doesn't want to lose face with his mates.

You don't think the home mooring was part of the settlement then? As in CRT gave him a home mooring Edited February 23, 2015 by cotswoldsman

[BrumSaint]

 

You're lost in Fantasy land, . . . . If anything like that had happened then C&RT would never agree to keep quiet about it.

I can assure you I'm not lost (in fantasy land or anywhere else). I just put forward an alternative view (I didn't say I agreed or disagreed with it) as to why there might be a confidentiality clause. I assume you accept there might be more than one reason for a confidentiality clause or is it a case that whatever C&RT do they are automatically in the wrong in your eyes?

[Jerra]

Put the claws away, take a look at the pinned forum rules, and keep on topic please.

If a Mod had posted that people would be moaning about oppressive moderating.