Boater Sues C&RT for Section 8

[bassplayer]

 

You work from a presumption that as boaters, we should automatically side with a boater.

 

You work from a presumption that none of us wants to pay more than we absolutely need to for anything, and that as such if a boater manages to pay CRT less than we have to pay, we should admire this and congratulate him.

 

The problem is that this simply takes a narrow view of "good on him", and absolutely disregards the consequences. CRT need to bring in a certain amount of money to maintain the waterways. Every boater who finds a way not to pay is simply ensuring that the amount required is extracted from a smaller pool of boaters who do pay.

 

It simply isn't in the interests of the majority of boaters that a minority should find ways to not pay.

 

Looking at this case in particular, given the wide ranging claim and the use of long obsolete claims, we may safely presume that Mr Ravenscroft is representing himself. This does NOT bode well for him.

 

Here we have a man, who from readily available material is involved in numerous disputes which all appear to involve him attempting to invoke "freeman on the land" type nonsense about a constable's oath to avoid ever paying for things bringing a wide ranging claim that is simply going to scream "fruitcake" at a judge.

 

Nigel and I don't agree about many things, and we find ourselves on opposite sides on the central issue here. However, I believe that we are fully in agreement that there is actually a single issue to be decided here, namely whether the boat was in the main navigable channel, or in abstract "what does the term 'main navigable channel' mean". Once that is decided, all the rest simply flows. Either they were correct to seize the boat or they weren't.

 

The rest is simply hysterical posturing. If the judge decides that the boat wasn't in the main navigable channel, it isn't contempt of anything, it isn't any of the rest of it, because it flows from an honestly and reasonably held belief. The mere fact that what the main navigable channel is can be argued establishes that nicely.

If it wasn't for brave individuals who stand up against corporate bullying our civil liberties would eventually disappear. You have to ask why CRT are prepared to provoke this person knowing that we will all have to foot the legal bill. The guy has done us no harm...

[nicknorman]

 

Nigel and I don't agree about many things, and we find ourselves on opposite sides on the central issue here. However, I believe that we are fully in agreement that there is actually a single issue to be decided here, namely whether the boat was in the main navigable channel, or in abstract "what does the term 'main navigable channel' mean". Once that is decided, all the rest simply flows. Either they were correct to seize the boat or they weren't.

 

The rest is simply hysterical posturing. If the judge decides that the boat wasn't in the main navigable channel, it isn't contempt of anything, it isn't any of the rest of it, because it flows from an honestly and reasonably held belief. The mere fact that what the main navigable channel is can be argued establishes that nicely.

 

However we don't quite know what CRT's claim is. Perhaps it is along the lines of "when we removed the boat, it was not in the navigable channel but we have observed it being in the navigable channel unlicenced from time to time and the only way to prevent a recurrence is to remove the boat from the waterway". But I have no idea of the legality of that. If it is not legal then CRT are toothless to enforce licencing for those actually using the Trent for navigation since they can simply scuttle into the bank when enforcement turns up with a big crane.

 

Ed: scuttle as in spiders, not as in sinking!

Edited May 29, 2015 by nicknorman

[mayalld]

If it wasn't for brave individuals who stand up against corporate bullying our civil liberties would eventually disappear. You have to ask why CRT are prepared to provoke this person knowing that we will all have to foot the legal bill. The guy has done us no harm...

 

Expecting people to pay for a boat licence isn't "corporate bullying". Not paying for a licence isn't a "civil liberty" that need to be protected.

 

If it wasn't for the authorities pursuing those who fail to pay their dues, then ever more people would decide not to pay their dues, and an increasing burden would fall on the reduced number who decided to do the right thing.

 

The last thing that the waterways need is a system of licencing devised by the Greek Government.

[nicknorman]

The guy has done us no harm...

By that reckoning neither has any tax dodger or benefits fraud. Are you in favour of leaving them alone as well?

[churchward]

It's CRT who started it by removing a boat illegally!

 

I did read all of your post...and it is just a very small percentage of the boating world who take the piss...on both sides that is. It's a shame we live in a world where the minority dictate what the majority should do!

So you say but since I don't know all the facts in the case I am not in a position to judge if CRT have acted illegally or not. We shall see if they did when this current action is come to a conclusion. If they have then then the plaintiff will deserve some recompense and CRT some kind if penalty. If the case doesn't go in the plaintiff's favour and CRT have not acted illegally then the case will have wasted CRT's money. We will all just have to wait for the judgement.

[Henhouse]

It would appear that Mr Ravenscroft has been using his time sans boat to get involved in another shouting match.

 

 

https://hoaxteadresearch.wordpress.com/2015/05/15/message-of-support-for-sophie-dix/

 

 

Quite what it is all about I do not know. But he does seem to be rather good at finding an argument.

[bassplayer]

 

Expecting people to pay for a boat licence isn't "corporate bullying". Not paying for a licence isn't a "civil liberty" that need to be protected.

 

If it wasn't for the authorities pursuing those who fail to pay their dues, then ever more people would decide not to pay their dues, and an increasing burden would fall on the reduced number who decided to do the right thing.

 

The last thing that the waterways need is a system of licencing devised by the Greek Government.

Targeting an individual like this is bullying in my eyes. CRT's tactics are all about sewing fear not winning judgements.

[Dave Clinton]

It would appear that Mr Ravenscroft has been using his time sans boat to get involved in another shouting match.

 

 

https://hoaxteadresearch.wordpress.com/2015/05/15/message-of-support-for-sophie-dix/

 

 

Quite what it is all about I do not know. But he does seem to be rather good at finding an argument.

 

This does seem to be one of the problems, the people going to court are probably the ones interested in establishing some control of CRT would least like to see there.

[bassplayer]

By that reckoning neither has any tax dodger or benefits fraud. Are you in favour of leaving them alone as well?

This comparison is pathetic...

[Sabcat]

 

However we don't quite know what CRT's claim is. Perhaps it is along the lines of "when we removed the boat, it was not in the navigable channel but we have observed it being in the navigable channel unlicenced from time to time and the only way to prevent a recurrence is to remove the boat from the waterway". But I have no idea of the legality of that. If it is not legal then CRT are toothless to enforce licencing for those actually using the Trent for navigation since they can simply scuttle into the bank when enforcement turns up with a big crane.

 

Ed: scuttle as in spiders, not as in sinking!

 

As I understand it S8 can only be used to remove a boat from CRT waters regardless of where they have seen it before that.

 

 

That aside this bloke does indeed seem to be a Freeman on the Land nutter and despite what people think, they do harm everyone else, or rather wish they could. You can't have a functioning society based on their ideas. The bins need emptying and someone has to pay for it.

 

That said, if he CRT have removed a boat illegally I want them to lose this case. It's not going to happen though if he's a ranting loon with no representation.

[Dave Clinton]

 

 

 

The problem is that this simply takes a narrow view of "good on him", and absolutely disregards the consequences. CRT need to bring in a certain amount of money to maintain the waterways. Every boater who finds a way not to pay is simply ensuring that the amount required is extracted from a smaller pool of boaters who do pay.

 

It simply isn't in the interests of the majority of boaters that a minority should find ways to not pay.

 

Nigel and I don't agree about many things, and we find ourselves on opposite sides on the central issue here. However, I believe that we are fully in agreement that there is actually a single issue to be decided here, namely whether the boat was in the main navigable channel, or in abstract "what does the term 'main navigable channel' mean". Once that is decided, all the rest simply flows. Either they were correct to seize the boat or they weren't.

 

The rest is simply hysterical posturing. If the judge decides that the boat wasn't in the main navigable channel, it isn't contempt of anything, it isn't any of the rest of it, because it flows from an honestly and reasonably held belief. The mere fact that what the main navigable channel is can be argued establishes that nicely.

 

The principle worth investigating here is whether CRT can act outside the navigable channel (and add in Allan Richards point above) - there are points of fact unknown here but that principle is not 'boaters' trying to find ways not to pay' - it's an enshrined right stretching back centuries about the rights of navigation and riparian rights.

 

If CRT can dart outside the navigable channel, seize a boat because they believe it has been navigating within the channel without a license smacks of corporate anarchy to me. This is the point of fact and law I would like to see challenged. Whether this person is best placed to do this is debatable but he has had his boat seized, he believes it unlawful, he has a right to challenge that and I think the boating community should at the very least be silent and observe if they feel he is not worthy of support. If CRT have acted in the way it is claimed they acted then they need to called to account. There is no other way to establish this other than the court process.

 

The fact that you are prepared to side with CRT and presume guilt because of the nature of this person's public behaviour says to me that you don't have any boater's interest at heart other than your own.

Edited May 29, 2015 by Dave Clinton

[Dave Clinton]

 

It's not going to happen though if he's a ranting loon with no representation.

 

hopefully some with more sense are in the wings

[nicknorman]

This comparison is pathetic...

 

Of course it is - because it doesn't suit your agenda, it must be, by definition.

[bassplayer]

 

Of course it is - because it doesn't suit your agenda, it must be, by definition.

What agenda would that be?

[Alan de Enfield]

 

 

 

That said, if he CRT have removed a boat illegally I want them to lose this case. It's not going to happen though if he's a ranting loon with no representation.

 

You would think that the 'National Baton Twirlers Association' would leap to his defence and utilise all of their legal expertise.

 

From their webpage :

 

The NBTA seeks to represent the interests of all live aboard boat dwellers – “Bargee Travellers” – in respect of

• pursuing the lifestyle
• upholding minority demographic rights
• lobbying at both central government and local government levels
• defending the legal rights of members
• assisting (as far as possible) with marine emergencies and
• engagement with the local community

[cotswoldsman]

Shame the guy did not have a nice shinny boat wears a stupid hat to go with his nice flannel trousers then I am sure he would receive a lot more support on here.

[Dave Clinton]

 

 

You would think that the 'National Baton Twirlers Association' would leap to his defence and utilise all of their legal expertise.

 

From their webpage :

 

The NBTA seeks to represent the interests of all live aboard boat dwellers – “Bargee Travellers” – in respect of

• pursuing the lifestyle
• upholding minority demographic rights
• lobbying at both central government and local government levels
• defending the legal rights of members
• assisting (as far as possible) with marine emergencies and
• engagement with the local community

 

 

1. Lived on his boat did he?

2. How do you know they are not supporting him?

[MartinC]

Sorry this is not the case in County Court the only person who can award costs is a Judge

 

The particular case which is the topic of this thread appears to be in the High Court where a "guarantee" of costs can be applied for. Any award of any costs in any level of civil court is in the hands of the presiding judge except where his/her hands are tied by Court Rules, particulary relevant to money claims in the so-called "small claims court".

[Maffi]

 

Maybe a better comparison would be the 'road' and the fields alongside the road.

 

DVLA responsible for licensing a vehicle for the road. but have no authority for the fields alongside - you can drive your car / tractor parallel to the road with no licence, MOT or insurance.

 

No sorry that is not the right comparison.

 

People do not moor boats in fields (with maybe one or two exceptions).

 

The better comparison would surely be laybys, verges and hard shoulder? All of which are not main 'navigation'.

[Alan de Enfield]

 

No sorry that is not the right comparison.

 

People do not moor boats in fields (with maybe one or two exceptions).

 

The better comparison would surely be laybys, verges and hard shoulder? All of which are not main 'navigation'.

 

Poor comparison as the verges, laybys and hard shoulders still come under the same rules as the 'highway', C&RT are only responsible for a distance of 7 metres (ish) either side of the 'white-line'.

[billS]

People do not moor boats in fields (with maybe one or two exceptions).

One of these exceptions being the boat near Marston Doles on the South Oxford summit...

 

I wonder if CRT are pursuing that one?

[Dave_P]

Unfortunately, the Fraenkel Report was never digitised. As such you have to visit the National Archives at Kew to get hold of a copy.

 

The main navigable channel width for the Trent is as follows -

 

Shardlow/Meadow Lane Lock 6.7m

Meadow Lane Lock/Cromwell 11.44m

Cromwell/Gainsborough 14.12m

They have a copy at my uni library

[Maffi]

 

 

You would think that the 'National Baton Twirlers Association' would leap to his defence and utilise all of their legal expertise.

 

From their webpage :

 

The NBTA seeks to represent the interests of all live aboard boat dwellers – “Bargee Travellers” – in respect of

• pursuing the lifestyle
• upholding minority demographic rights
• lobbying at both central government and local government levels
• defending the legal rights of members
• assisting (as far as possible) with marine emergencies and
• engagement with the local community

 

 

In fact the NBTA web page actually says Representing the interests of all itinerant live-aboard boat dwellers so one could be forgiven for thinking they would be involved. However it picks and chooses it has to because its funding is very limited.

 

Poor comparison as the verges, laybys and hard shoulders still come under the same rules as the 'highway', C&RT are only responsible for a distance of 7 metres (ish) either side of the 'white-line'.

But they are not main routes. CRT are responsible for navigation. Speak to Nick at the NBTA mooring is a part of navigation

Edited May 29, 2015 by Maffi

[mayalld]

 

The principle worth investigating here is whether CRT can act outside the navigable channel (and add in Allan Richards point above) - there are points of fact unknown here but that principle is not 'boaters' trying to find ways not to pay' - it's an enshrined right stretching back centuries about the rights of navigation and riparian rights.

 

If CRT can dart outside the navigable channel, seize a boat because they believe it has been navigating within the channel without a license smacks of corporate anarchy to me. This is the point of fact and law I would like to see challenged. Whether this person is best placed to do this is debatable but he has had his boat seized, he believes it unlawful, he has a right to challenge that and I think the boating community should at the very least be silent and observe if they feel he is not worthy of support. If CRT have acted in the way it is claimed they acted then they need to called to account. There is no other way to establish this other than the court process.

 

The fact that you are prepared to side with CRT and presume guilt because of the nature of this person's public behaviour says to me that you don't have any boater's interest at heart other than your own.

 

I don't presume guilt (and this isn't about guilt or innocence).

 

Rather, in the first instance, I reject as blatant prejudice any assumption that Mr Ravenscroft should be right because he is the boater.

 

Anybody whose opinions are preconcieved on that basis clearly lacks the capacity to form opinions.

 

My views as to who is right are based on the law and on equity.

 

Notwithstanding your asserion that the boat was seized "outside the navigable channel", this "fact" is anything but a fact. You assert it based upon a presumed definition of "main navigable channel" that is open to dispute.

 

So, the point in dispute is not "is a licence required outside the main navigable channel" (it isn't), but "what are the bounds of the main navigable channel"

 

There are two arguable definitions;

 

1) The main Navigable channel is the area of deep water in the centre of the river, having a dredged depth sufficient for the traffic of the river, with areas closer to the bank being excluded.

2) The main Navigable channel extends bank to bank along the course through which the majority of the flow is carried.

 

I would suggest that the first definition (which Mr Ravenscroft clearly uses) is actually "the Fairway of the Main Navigable Channel", and that option 2 is the correct view, with a river having

• One Main Navigable Channel
  • Fairway of Main Navigable Channel
• Zero or more Secondary navigable Channels
• Zero or more Navigable Backwaters
• Zero or more unnavigable backwaters

[BrumSaint]

Sorry this is not the case in County Court the only person who can award costs is a Judge

John we seem to be at cross purposes. I'm not saying that Shoosmiths will determine the costs, but that they should ask the judge to order that this boater put up a bond (or whatever the legal term is) in order that they can be assured their costs can be covered (if they win & depending on what the judge decides to award).