Telephone Call with CRT Enforcement

[Dave_P]

So what does everyone think will happen if this guy does get taken to court? The point he was making was that CRT are making up rules which aren't backed by law.

 

This is something we should all be worried about and it is also affecting those with a home mooring. Roll over and accept whatever CRT throw at us or take it to court? At least peole like Tony and this guy are doing something about it and putting their necks on the line.

Tony's case wasn't backed up by law. This case is, if you accept that 6 months is not reasonable.

[nicknorman]

The point he was making was that CRT are making up rules which aren't backed by law.

 

In this case CRT are entirely within the law. In other areas perhaps they have been "making up the rules" a bit but, faced with this sort of unreasonable behaviour, it's easy to see why they feel the need to do so. If there were no people on the canals like this guy, everyone would get on fine and CRT would not have seen the need for new Ts and Cs etc.

 

This guy and his ilk is our enemy, not CRT. Despite what you would like to think.

[billS]

Are there any similar cases where a live aboard camper van has broken down in a convenient carpark and and the owner has managed to take several months to repair the engine? Would any car park owner tolerate that?

[MtB]

Extending this chap's argument ad absurdum, if he got himself a butty he'd be free to stay put there for ever as he would have no engine to repair.

Are there any similar cases where a live aboard camper van has broken down in a convenient carpark and and the owner has managed to take several months to repair the engine? Would any car park owner tolerate that?

 

I think a more accurate analogy would be if it broke down on a layby on the A5. I doubt the Highways agency would accept a broken engine as an excuse for more than a day or two. The vehicle could be towed to a repair shop.

 

Equally, this boat could be towed to a boatyard within a day or two of the 'reasonable period' expiring.

[cotswoldsman]

 

No they're not, in this case. Its quite a clear case of enforcing rules which ARE written quite clearly in law. There is much common ground, the only area the two sides disagree on is the reasonableness of the extended stay.

Look the guy has been a bit of a plonker but what we do not know is what crt told him in previous phone calls and I am sure he has them recorded

[5thHorseman]

So what does everyone think will happen if this guy does get taken to court? The point he was making was that CRT are making up rules which aren't backed by law.

 

This is something we should all be worried about and it is also affecting those with a home mooring. Roll over and accept whatever CRT throw at us or take it to court? At least peole like Tony and this guy are doing something about it and putting their necks on the line.

 

All this "I have my rights, the law is on my side" etc is a load of tosh. CRT have an objective to get a grip (after a long time of laissez-faire under BW) and expect people to follow the rules. The rules will become more and more prescriptive the more people take the p***, which will be to everyone's detriment and I mean everyone not just CCers but those with moorings, those visiting etc as well, because "boaters" start to become the enemy. (They don't have all this agro with ramblers, cyclists, fishermen etc)

 

Understand this, boaters are not the only reason for the CRT, just look at the make up of the trust membership

 

If this is kept up the end result will be the withdrawal of CC licenses altogether because the problems caused by them outweight any benefit (to CRT).

 

If CRT start having to spend a disproportionate amount of money getting people to follow, what are after all simple, rules the easier course of action is to remove the problem altogether.

 

A series of court victories against CRT may in the end prove to be pyrrhic ones for all boaters.

[Athy]

_{The newspaper article states that the boat is moored on a pub's private mooring, on which the pub's landlady says that they can stay as long as they want. So how come CART are involved in the first place?}

[mayalld]

_{The newspaper article states that the boat is moored on a pub's private mooring, on which the pub's landlady says that they can stay as long as they want. So how come CART are involved in the first place?}

 

The newspaper article isn't that recent, and in any case if they were staying on the pub's private mooring an EoG fee would have become payable.

[Alan de Enfield]

_{The newspaper article states that the boat is moored on a pub's private mooring, on which the pub's landlady says that they can stay as long as they want. So how come CART are involved in the first place?}

 

Quite a few Pubs "manage" moorings on behalf of C&RT (on the Witham for example there are certainly 2 or 3) and whilst the pub may say "stay as long as you like whilst you use the pub" they are still C&RT moorings and subject to C&RTs terms.

 

(Someone we sold one of our boats to, ran a pub and managed such a mooring)

[Timleech]

_{The newspaper article states that the boat is moored on a pub's private mooring, on which the pub's landlady says that they can stay as long as they want. So how come CART are involved in the first place?}

 

It appears that he was later towed to his present mooring.

Maybe they took 'as long as they want' too literally?

 

Tim

[cotswoldsman]

 

The newspaper article isn't that recent, and in any case if they were staying on the pub's private mooring an EoG fee would have become payable.

The pub would be paying this anyway to keep the right to moor

[Hawthorn]

So what does everyone think will happen if this guy does get taken to court? The point he was making was that CRT are making up rules which aren't backed by law.

This is something we should all be worried about and it is also affecting those with a home mooring. Roll over and accept whatever CRT throw at us or take it to court? At least peole like Tony and this guy are doing something about it and putting their necks on the line.

Mm mm didn't 'this guy' argue that it was because he was trying to be a responsible partner/parent he was staying where he was? That hardly supports your argument (which I do understand is only your interpretation) that he was, 'putting his neck on the line' . He may be one or the other but he can't be both.

 

So far as the 'reasonable' argument goes, of course 6 months is not reasonable, but then it's not reasonable for CRT to take 6 months to sort out the concern either. If they allow a situation to continue for this length of time they have sent out a subliminal message that it is OK to take as long as it takes to get moving. Problem is no one can see in advance how long something will take to sort.

 

There is nothing that galvanises action quite so quickly as the thought of a financial hit. Perhaps all overstaying should incur an overstaying charge, payable 1 month before the boat is due to be re licensed, but with the charge cancelled if the boat is back cruising and spotted within 28 days of the concern first being noted?

[andywatson]

 

If you listen to the very start of the conversation it is clear that Stuart Garner called the boater, not the other way around.

 

In which case it is all very odd that the convo was recorded and posted on the internent. Either the boater was waiting for the call with recording equipment set up and ready, OR, someone in CRT must have recorded it and published it.

The conversation on youtube was posted by Katrina Slomczynski who is Mr Baxter's partner so presumably they are both complicit in this.

 

If publishing a secretly recorded conversation without the permission of all parties concerned is an offence, then Cart have been handed an opportunity on a plate.

 

The thread on NUG facebook has now been removed.

Edited April 14, 2015 by andywatson

[bassplayer]

 

All this "I have my rights, the law is on my side" etc is a load of tosh...

 

If this is kept up the end result will be the withdrawal of CC licenses altogether because the problems caused by them outweight any benefit (to CRT).

 

 

Maybe we are forgetting why we have rights and laws in the first place.

 

My personal view is that those running CRT have a breif to reverse the 1995 law so that everyone has to have a home mooring. CRT will get it's way unless this creep of draconian T&C's is halted.

 

Once everyone has to keep their boat in a home mooring, what will be the next step? I suppose it won't matter by then as the infrastructure will be in such bad shape we won't be able to go far anyway.

[cotswoldsman]

The conversation on youtube was posted by Katrina Slomczywi who is Mr Baxter's partner so presumably they are both complicit in this.

 

I'd say that if publishing a secretly recorded conversation without the permission of all parties concerned, that Cart have been handed an opportunity on a plate.

 

The thread on NUG facebook has now been removed.

Of course you could also read the thread where this has been mentioned a few times and seems to be in doubt

[Alan de Enfield]

Maybe we are forgetting why we have rights and laws in the first place.

 

 

 

It appears that you are proposing that if any law is "inconvenient" to our personal circumstances we can just ignore it.

[lexicon]

I have an unusual view point on this issue.

I think the guy is taking the piss and that's based on his attitude with crt.

Having found myself in a similar position I know that it can be months to get engine repairs due to issues that come up. But this guy implies he can't afford to lift the engine. Surely this is the cheapest part of any engine repair. In my experience m.

And taking a confrontation line with crt never helps. Ive been on the same towpath for over 2 months now and have had no isues with crt as they seem to respect my honest approach. Plus showing a empty engine bay may have helped lol.

[5thHorseman]

Maybe we are forgetting why we have rights and laws in the first place.

 

 

 

also maybe we are forgetting we have responsibilities and obligations in the first place

[andywatson]

Of course you could also read the thread where this has been mentioned a few times and seems to be in doubt

In which case she should complain to youtube that someone has imitated her and request removal.

 

Mr Baxter has had plenty of opportunity to deny that he or his partner posted the recording both on youtube and facebook but has not done so.

Mr Baxter has a track record of enjoying a bit of publicity.

 

If it looks like a dog , it smells like a dog and it barks...

It's probably a dog.

Edited April 14, 2015 by andywatson

[bassplayer]

It appears that you are proposing that if any law is "inconvenient" to our personal circumstances we can just ignore it.

There is no evidence this chap is ignoring the law...yet! Maybe a court will decide.

 

As I said, his attitude may just be a result of bad luck and unnecessary harassment from CRT. BTW, your approach of paraphrasing what I said is pathetic. I abide by the law and (even) CRT rules but I also admire people who challenge bullying from those who run big corporations.

 

The answer is usually in the middle, but without those who fight the extremes the middle creeps to a place few of us want! I suppose it doesn't matter to you if you are financially secure, after all why worry about others if you're Ok?

[5thHorseman]

Maybe we are forgetting why we have rights and laws in the first place.

 

My personal view is that those running CRT have a breif to reverse the 1995 law so that everyone has to have a home mooring. CRT will get it's way unless this creep of draconian T&C's is halted.

 

Once everyone has to keep their boat in a home mooring, what will be the next step? I suppose it won't matter by then as the infrastructure will be in such bad shape we won't be able to go far anyway.

 

Can you see no connection between the mickey taking which has gone on and the "draconian" (your word not mine) new set of T&Cs

Push gets shove

[MtB]

I don't see where the new T&Cs come into it. They are for boaters with a home mooring. This chap is a CMer.

[Alan de Enfield]

There is no evidence this chap is ignoring the law...yet! Maybe a court will decide.

 

 

 

Only in your eyes - I think it safe to say virtually every other poster in this thread seems to disagree with you.

[captain birdseye]

It appears that he was later towed to his present mooring.

Maybe they took 'as long as they want' too literally?

 

Tim

The pub shut down not long after the baby was born early last year and said landlady left. I suspect the boat left the pub mooring when a new landlord moved in and wanted the mooring for beer drinking visitors

I might Add that I was moored in Atherstone that winter as I couldn't get my boat home due to stoppages, in a boatyard just below the aforementioned pub.

Edited April 14, 2015 by captain birdseye

[bassplayer]

 

Only in your eyes - I think it safe to say virtually every other poster in this thread seems to disagree with you.

Well I'm not surprised seeing as most posters on this forum will have a home mooring (if this forum has the same demographics as the real world).