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

[bassplayer]

When was the Trent in flood for two months?

Read the OP's original first post (full press release)

[Naughty Cal]

Read the OP's original first post (full press release)

Sorry. Missed that bit.

 

Christmas 2012.

[Bod]

The settlement may be sealed, but are the Court proceedings open to public view?

 

Bod

[Dave_P]

Without knowing the reason for the confidentiality clause and who had it put there, this is a non-story.

 

What we have is the usual suspects using this as an example to push their own agenda.

 

The NBTA are one of those usual suspects. Their misleading press release is clearly designed to whip up anti CRT feeling. After the first sentence of the press release, how are we supposed to believe anything else they say?

[jenlyn]

Without knowing the reason for the confidentiality clause and who had it put there, this is a non-story.

What we have is the usual suspects using this as an example to push their own agenda.

The NBTA are one of those usual suspects. Their misleading press release is clearly designed to whip up anti CRT feeling. After the first sentence of the press release, how are we supposed to believe anything else they say?

I am obviously missing something, what's wrong with the first sentence?

[bassplayer]

Without knowing the reason for the confidentiality clause and who had it put there, this is a non-story.

What we have is the usual suspects using this as an example to push their own agenda.

The NBTA are one of those usual suspects. Their misleading press release is clearly designed to whip up anti CRT feeling. After the first sentence of the press release, how are we supposed to believe anything else they say?

CRT can always respond if they believe there is untruth there.

[kris88]

I imagine this is the same enforcement officer that instigated the case against tony dunkely. Not been very sucessful recently has he.

Regards kris

[mayalld]

CRT can always respond if they believe there is untruth there.

 

Actually, no they can't

[bassplayer]

Actually, no they can't

It would be more helpful if you explained why.

[mayalld]

It would be more helpful if you explained why.

 

Because the settlement with Mr Wingfield says that neither side can disclose the terms of the settlement.

 

Whilst those with an agenda to push (on either side of the debate) can make claims about why the case was settled as it was, they don't actually know (or if they do know, one party has breached the order)

[alan_fincher]

Without knowing the reason for the confidentiality clause and who had it put there, this is a non-story.

 

What we have is the usual suspects using this as an example to push their own agenda.

 

The NBTA are one of those usual suspects. Their misleading press release is clearly designed to whip up anti CRT feeling. After the first sentence of the press release, how are we supposed to believe anything else they say?

 

 

I am obviously missing something, what's wrong with the first sentence?

 

I tend to agree with Dave here......

 

The original sentence

 

RT settled with a boater and kept the outcome confidential in a continuous cruising case last year.

 

 

of course is not factually inaccurate, they have kept it confidential, but to me seems like the usual attempts by NBTA to paint CRT as the permanent bad guys.

 

Now I'm not disputing in this, and other cases, that CRT may well be the bad guys, but on face value all we have is the knowledge that what ever agreement was reached resulted in the courts making an order of non disclosure.

 

We are not told the reasons for that, and I think it is wrong to assume any. So on the face of it, despite the NBTA spin, this is a story about CRT complying with what a court has told them they must comply with. It sounds less dramatic if put that way though!

[patty-ann]

i attended quite a lot of court hearings to gain experience when there was a possibility that I might have needed to use the judicial system. I think in all the cases I became aware of, settlements between 2 parties happened outside main court hearing room and kept confidential. In fact the judges directed that details of settlements confidential.

I know that some settlements published as we read about them in the press. I guess if CRT requested then possible they have other similar cases in pipeline and don't want those they are taking to court know what they paid out. It could also encourage people to take on CRT instead of giving up.

Theres nothing like a success story to encourage like minded individuals to have a go.

But having said that if effective civilised 2 way communication with all facts goes between parties it could avoid cluttering up our judicial system

[mrsmelly]

NATIONAL BARGEE TRAVELLERS ASSOCIATION

 

PRESS RELEASE

 

22nd February 2015

 

THE CONTINUOUS CRUISING CASE CRT COULDN'T WIN

 

CRT settled with a boater and kept the outcome confidential in a

continuous cruising case last year. The case of CRT v Wingfield (3NG01237)

was heard by HHJ Pugsley in Chesterfield County Court on 3rd and 4th March

2014. The resulting court order included a confidentiality clause

preventing anyone from disclosing the terms of the settlement.

 

Mr Wingfield normally travelled between Loughborough and Newark, two

places 36 miles apart by water. On Christmas Eve 2012 he travelled to

Nottingham and got trapped in floods on the River Trent for two months.

This meant he was targeted by an enforcement officer, who terminated his

boat licence, even though Section 17(3)©(ii) of the British Waterways

Act 1995 allows stays of longer than 14 days when it is reasonable in the

circumstances.

 

Nick Brown, Legal Officer of the National Bargee Travellers Association

(NBTA) said We believe that CRT settled with Mr Wingfield because they

knew they could not win, given Mr Wingfield's cruising distance and the

fact his licence was terminated when he was trapped in floods. He added

It is significant that the case was heard in full before CRT decided to

settle. The Judge must have given a strong indication that CRT did not

have a good case for terminating Mr Wingfield's boat licence.

 

Mr Wingfield discussed his past cruises, the 2012-2013 floods and the

enforcement action on Facebook and other forums in early 2013. Boaters

advised him to contact the NBTA, who referred him to a solicitor.

 

A letter from Nottingham County Court to the NBTA on 18th June 2014 stated

The Order of 4th March does specifically say that settlement was reached

by the parties and that a copy of the settlement shall not be released to

anyone other than the solicitors for the parties. Normally CRT publishes

the court orders it obtains in Section 8 cases on its web site here

https://canalrivertrust.org.uk/publication-scheme/publication-scheme/court-action-to-remove-boats-from-our-waterways.

The case was transferred from Nottingham County Court to Chesterfield

County Court due to pressures on Court time.

 

I am not going to read the rest of the thread as it will just be a long moan from the CART knockers as per usual. Only one thing to say realy in that The Trent did not remain flooded for two months or indeed anything like close to that on those dates.

 

Tim

[Arthur Marshall]

Interestingly, there's a bit quoted from NBW in another thread here (Enforcement -consistency of) which says that his stay in Nottingham and tangle with the enforcement officer was to do with a broken ankle - nothing mentioned about floods. Unless he was very unlucky and got picked on twice in the same place, it seems that information in the Press release is a bit dodgy all round. There again, NBW is not always a paragon of accuracy either.

Edited to add that if he had broken his ankle, he shouldn't have been targeted either, obviously.

Edited February 23, 2015 by Arthur Marshall

[Jerra]

I am obviously missing something, what's wrong with the first sentence?

Well to me it is easy to see what is wrong with the first sentence. It clearly says CRT kept things confidential and that is speculation it could have been either side.

 

Making it sound as if it is proven that it was CRT is IMHO wrong as wrong as if somebody pro CRT made it seem the boater had asked for the confidentiality.

[Dave_P]

 

 

 

I tend to agree with Dave here......

 

The original sentence

 

 

of course is not factually inaccurate, they have kept it confidential, but to me seems like the usual attempts by NBTA to paint CRT as the permanent bad guys.

 

Now I'm not disputing in this, and other cases, that CRT may well be the bad guys, but on face value all we have is the knowledge that what ever agreement was reached resulted in the courts making an order of non disclosure.

 

We are not told the reasons for that, and I think it is wrong to assume any. So on the face of it, despite the NBTA spin, this is a story about CRT complying with what a court has told them they must comply with. It sounds less dramatic if put that way though!

Thanks Alan you answered for me. The same point has also been made by Martin. If NBTA want us to take them seriously then they need to start issuing press releases which aren't deliberately misleading. Until then I'll have a hard time trusting them any more than CRT. (And my trust levels for CRT are pretty low). Edited February 23, 2015 by Dave_P

[Guest]

 

I am not going to read the rest of the thread as it will just be a long moan from the CART knockers as per usual. Only one thing to say realy in that The Trent did not remain flooded for two months or indeed anything like close to that on those dates.

 

Tim

 

Yes, but let's not allow facts to get in the way of an anti CRT rant please Tim.

Edited February 23, 2015 by MJG

[jenlyn]

I tend to agree with Dave here......

 

The original sentence

 

 

 

of course is not factually inaccurate, they have kept it confidential, but to me seems like the usual attempts by NBTA to paint CRT as the permanent bad guys.

 

Now I'm not disputing in this, and other cases, that CRT may well be the bad guys, but on face value all we have is the knowledge that what ever agreement was reached resulted in the courts making an order of non disclosure.

 

We are not told the reasons for that, and I think it is wrong to assume any. So on the face of it, despite the NBTA spin, this is a story about CRT complying with what a court has told them they must comply with. It sounds less dramatic if put that way though!

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 :-)

[bassplayer]

Because the settlement with Mr Wingfield says that neither side can disclose the terms of the settlement.

 

Whilst those with an agenda to push (on either side of the debate) can make claims about why the case was settled as it was, they don't actually know (or if they do know, one party has breached the order)

Maybe I'm being a bit naive (again) but I don't really understand the morality behind non-disclosure. Whether one party or both parties are behind the agreement, is it ever right to hide the truth from people?

[Henhouse]

NBTA: National Bargee TRAVELLERS Association.

 

 

Surely there is a clue in the name. Perhaps if they did what it "says on the tin" there would be nothing to talk about.

 

 

 

NBTA: National Baton Twirlers Association.

 

 

It would appear this group do far more moving !!

[cotswoldsman]

Interestingly, there's a bit quoted from NBW in another thread here (Enforcement -consistency of) which says that his stay in Nottingham and tangle with the enforcement officer was to do with a broken ankle - nothing mentioned about floods. Unless he was very unlucky and got picked on twice in the same place, it seems that information in the Press release is a bit dodgy all round. There again, NBW is not always a paragon of accuracy either.

Edited to add that if he had broken his ankle, he shouldn't have been targeted either, obviously.

Do the dates of both incidents coincide?

[Alan de Enfield]

Do the dates of both incidents coincide?

 

One event 2012 and the other (reported) Jan 2015

 

From NBW Jan 2015

 

Pity continuous cruiser boater Andy Wingfield who was unlucky enough to break his ankle whilst moored on the Nottingham Canal in the city, then had the bad luck to get collared by that enforcement officer.

"Move on!" were his instructions. "I have a broken ankle, I'm on my own and can't climb the ladders in the locks", told Andy. "Move on!" repeated he. And though Andy was getting used to people offering to shop for him and holding doors whilst he hobbled about, the enforcement officer would have none of it, and wanted him gone off his patch, never mind that he was unable to climb ladders or push gates, which Andy rightly claims are hard enough without being crippled.

Edited February 23, 2015 by Alan de Enfield

[Tony Dunkley]

 

 

 

I tend to agree with Dave here......

 

The original sentence

 

 

of course is not factually inaccurate, they have kept it confidential, but to me seems like the usual attempts by NBTA to paint CRT as the permanent bad guys.

 

Now I'm not disputing in this, and other cases, that CRT may well be the bad guys, but on face value all we have is the knowledge that what ever agreement was reached resulted in the courts making an order of non disclosure.

 

We are not told the reasons for that, and I think it is wrong to assume any. So on the face of it, despite the NBTA spin, this is a story about CRT complying with what a court has told them they must comply with. It sounds less dramatic if put that way though!

 

That is, undoubtedly, how C&RT would wish it to be seen, however, this carries all the signs of being the same tactics that were tried on me, used in this instance to prevent the Defendant from publicising C&RT's backing down prior to a Judgment which they expected to go against them. There is an explanation of what C&RT could have done to try and ensure the future silence of the Defendant in my post #42.

[Dave_P]

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 :-)

I don't think anyone is disputing that. The dispute is over the reason for the clause.

 

One event 2012 and the other (reported) Jan 2015

 

From NBW Jan 2015

 

Pity continuous cruiser boater Andy Wingfield who was unlucky enough to break his ankle whilst moored on the Nottingham Canal in the city, then had the bad luck to get collared by that enforcement officer.

"Move on!" were his instructions. "I have a broken ankle, I'm on my own and can't climb the ladders in the locks", told Andy. "Move on!" repeated he. And though Andy was getting used to people offering to shop for him and holding doors whilst he hobbled about, the enforcement officer would have none of it, and wanted him gone off his patch, never mind that he was unable to climb ladders or push gates, which Andy rightly claims are hard enough without being crippled.

So we still don't know when he broke his ankle.

[bassplayer]

I don't think anyone is disputing that. The dispute is over the reason for the clause.

...and I'm disputing whether there is ever a moral justification for a non-disclosure agreement...