Boater Sues C&RT for Section 8

[Tony Dunkley]

 

. . . . . . . . . Much as people here would like CRT staff and executives to think collectively as if they were all of one mind, it ain't gonna happen.

 

I don't see that there can be any doubt that senior C&RT staff and executives DO at least act, if not think, collectively.

 

The real problem is that the collective 'mind' is misguided, ill-intentioned, and irretrievably addled, but nonetheless firmly set on this PR crusade which is nothing more than a cynical attempt to help to create an illusion of being well run and efficient, whilst at the same time, diverting attention away from their lamentable performance as a navigation authority.

Edited August 22, 2016 by Tony Dunkley

[Hawkmoth]

Surely CRT must know that the only winners here are Shoosmiths.

Bob

[Alan de Enfield]

Surely CRT must know that the only winners here are Shoosmiths.

Bob

 

Not sure I agree - yes the financial winners may appear to be Shoosmiths, but C&RT need to be 'seen' by the Government, and 'Jo-Public' (who between them give them much of their income), as 'managing the waterways'.

 

Getting rid of 'non-compliant boaters' (even if not done legally, or not done of necessity) gives the 'right message'.

 

"We are in control"

Edited August 23, 2016 by Alan de Enfield

[NigelMoore]

Received Shoosmiths’ acknowledgement of receipt of the Reply this morning, but they tell me Leigh needs permission from the Court to file this, because nothing is mentioned in the last Order regarding it.

Have emailed the Court with apologies and requesting permission; will just have to see what they decide [and the Chief Master’s clerk is away until tomorrow].

I would have thought that a bit of professional courtesy would mean Shoosmiths/CaRT actively supported a litigant in person’s right to a Reply without insisting on such protocols – but apparently not.

[NigelMoore]

 

 

I doubt CRT has the ability to think . . . it ain't gonna happen.

 

What “ain’t gonna happen” is any senior employee going on record with anything not in conformity with the official corporate mind-set. I grant you, though, that it is questionable whether that constitutes an “ability to think”, either as individual executives or as corporate mouthpieces.

 

It is astonishing just how ingrained the “thinking” is, even in employees long since retired; they will still answer the call to perjure themselves in the cause of supporting their erstwhile employer in whatever they wish to be said.

 

But levity aside, there is definitely, in any such long entrenched organisation, an institutional way of thinking - and in this instance, it will be the business of the PR department to do the head scratching over past and future performances.

 

[Hawkmoth]

 

Not sure I agree - yes the financial winners may appear to be Shoosmiths, but C&RT need to be 'seen' by the Government, and 'Jo-Public' (who between them give them much of their income), as 'managing the waterways'.

 

Getting rid of 'non-compliant boaters' (even if not done legally, or not done of necessity) gives the 'right message'.

 

"We are in control"

And if they lose?

Bob

[BruceinSanity]

What “ain’t gonna happen” is any senior employee going on record with anything not in conformity with the official corporate mind-set. I grant you, though, that it is questionable whether that constitutes an “ability to think”, either as individual executives or as corporate mouthpieces.

It is astonishing just how ingrained the “thinking” is, even in employees long since retired; they will still answer the call to perjure themselves in the cause of supporting their erstwhile employer in whatever they wish to be said.

 

But levity aside, there is definitely, in any such long entrenched organisation, an institutional way of thinking - and in this instance, it will be the business of the PR department to do the head scratching over past and future performances.

 

They do seem set on proving Robert Conquest's dictum:

 

The behavior of any bureaucratic organization can best be understood by assuming that it is controlled by a secret cabal of its enemies.”

[Hawkmoth]

Very insightful Bruce.

Bob

[NigelMoore]

Well, looks as though CaRT will be trying yet again, next week, to cut his support out from under Leigh. Our own dear debbifiggi [Hi!] has been emailing some of my contributions on here to Jackie Lewis; Steven Holder and Shoosmiths et al, since at least last December. That is excellent of course; I always post with the understanding that they should have the benefit of keeping track of the debates and criticisms over the legalities of their actions and arguments.

However, it appears obvious that they feel there is something wrong with my discussing the case in this way, because they are exhibiting a couple of my posts in a second witness statement from Shoosmiths, doubtless intending to demonstrate my unsuitability to help Leigh out as he has asked. You would think that they would be glad to be kept appraised of their opposition’s thinking [i would love to be privy to similar correspondence from them], but evidently not; keeping me out of the court room takes precedence over everything else.

Having just been discussing all this with Leigh – who has been determined from the very outset to keep these issues in the public eye – he is happy enough to continue the transparency, and reveal that we discussed the possibility of my being precluded from assisting him in Court, before the last CMC back in March. Alternatives would be to ask Tony to step in, as his grasp of the relevant legislation is so thorough [though Tony will be as publicly transparent as I am], alternatively either Nick or Panda could be asked to fill in, both having had the relevant experience as discreet MacKenzie Friends with rights of audience granted. I wonder if that would make CaRT any happier?

 

As Leigh told me though, unless the Court orders otherwise, he intends to keep everything out in the open; if the Court decrees otherwise, then that is a different matter, and he [as would I if retained] would comply with any relevant directions. However the one driving force behind his taking this action in the first place, was to spread the word, acquaint people with the legislation, and help prevent others from suffering as he has done.

Best of all though, would be to get sufficient crowd funding to enable employment of the barrister who successfully represented boaters against the EA. I am minded to get in touch to sound him out on the idea, and if he was receptive, perhaps someone with the same abilities as cotswoldsman could take up the cause of raising the necessary. That last might be a sound idea, even if CaRT fail again, next week, to limit my public involvement. The cost to CaRT upon losing would naturally be exponentially higher than with my gratis assistance only, but as we have commented oft before: spending money on these pursuits is something they are more than happy to do.

Edited August 25, 2016 by NigelMoore

[Ssscrudddy]

Is that really a thing? CaRT take someone to court & then can somehow pick & choose who they (CaRT) allow to help Mr. Someone. How does that even work?

[Tony Brooks]

Is that really a thing? CaRT take someone to court & then can somehow pick & choose who they (CaRT) allow to help Mr. Someone. How does that even work?

 

Just remember the Establishment looks after its own and as Nigel has told us the courts tend to believe bodies like CaRT rather than the little man.

 

 

 

[NigelMoore]

Is that really a thing? CaRT take someone to court & then can somehow pick & choose who they (CaRT) allow to help Mr. Someone. How does that even work?

 

Just so that it is clear – CaRT cannot dictate who helps/represents their opponent. What they can do, in cases of litigants in person, is make representations as to why they believe the litigant’s proposed litigation friend ought not to be allowed to speak for them, or “conduct the litigation”, or assist in court beyond certain strict guidelines. That is all within the 'Rules'.

 

I am frankly confused over the conducting litigation aspect – nobody can prevent anyone helping out with advice on procedures, advice as to legislative interpretations, assembling evidence, drafting essential paperwork etc – so what else is there?

 

It is the being allowed ‘right of audience’ that is most exercising CaRT at the moment. Leigh has told the Court already that due to his dyslexia [not to mention his volatile emotional reactions under stress], he really needs someone to speak for him.

 

In itself, that is not something CaRT ostensibly find objectionable – it is me being that person that they find unacceptable.

 

Also: CaRT have not taken Leigh to Court, it is the other way around. A not unimportant element of Leigh's complaint - as evidenced in the videos of the original incident - is that he was NOT taken to Court and the issues decided in that arena; it was CaRT's unilateral assumption of the role of judge, jury and executioner that he objected to, as being contrary to all relevant law.

 

[NigelMoore]

We now also have a revised draft Costs Budget, which is sworn by Shoosmiths to be “a fair and accurate statement of incurred and estimated costs which it would be reasonable and proportionate for my client to incur in this litigation.” A little in excess of £90,000.

One item that really grates is the stated costs of discussing with me an alternative route to resolution of the case. Something like 3 emails worth from them, asking only what Leigh wanted and offering no counter suggestions, supposedly costing nearly £5,000 worth of time!

£10,000 is claimed as the cost of trying to have the Claim thrown out and if unsuccessful, having me thrown out as assistant. Alternatively – which they succeeded in – getting the Statement of Case thrown out.

It is to their credit, however, that they have included in the amended Bundle the Reply to Amended Defence, regardless of their position that this is not admissible without
express Court permission.

An interesting day ahead next week.

[Cheshire cat]

I am not at all sure that I should but I look forward to reading the next installment.

 

For me, the whole thing has got totally out of all proportion. Still, it won't be the first time or the last.

[Ssscrudddy]

Thanks Nigel

[NigelMoore]

The trouble is that 'taking it personally' is the first step along the road to losing the case.

 

I hope you do not mind my quoting this excellent aphorism of yours once again – this time for the benefit of CaRT. Under the circumstances so recently revealed, some such advice would seem apposite and timely.

[Tony Dunkley]

Well, looks as though CaRT will be trying yet again, next week, to cut his support out from under Leigh. Our own dear debbifiggi [Hi!] has been emailing some of my contributions on here to Jackie Lewis; Steven Holder and Shoosmiths et al, since at least last December. That is excellent of course; I always post with the understanding that they should have the benefit of keeping track of the debates and criticisms over the legalities of their actions and arguments.

 

However, it appears obvious that they feel there is something wrong with my discussing the case in this way, because they are exhibiting a couple of my posts in a second witness statement from Shoosmiths, doubtless intending to demonstrate my unsuitability to help Leigh out as he has asked. You would think that they would be glad to be kept appraised of their opposition’s thinking [i would love to be privy to similar correspondence from them], but evidently not; keeping me out of the court room takes precedence over everything else.

 

 

I see this as little more than another clear indication of just how desperate and fearful C&RT and their legal thugs have become.

 

They achieved a sort of minor victory back in March when they succeeded in having the Statement of Case sidelined pro tem, and now, possibly in light of just how weak their Defence is, they are indulging in fairly blatant time-wasting by going back over much the same ground again with old information upon which they chose to remain silent at the time.

 

If they had anything resembling sound and effective arguments to put to the Court, then they wouldn't be resorting to this sort of piffling nonsense. Let's hope that the Master takes a similar view next week, . . . . I think there's a very real prospect that he will.

[NigelMoore]

Haven’t gone through the costs budgets in detail – not my thing at all - but the latest version is £20 thousand pounds more than the last one. Curious to know how they effectively spent £20k over the last quarter of doing nothing other than to read and copy postings on CWDF.

What I find puzzling [the import will be made clear to me next week I daresay] is their choice of posts to exhibit.

From last December: - http://www.canalworld.net/forums/index.php?showtopic=76499&page=20#entry1712925

And from last May: - http://www.canalworld.net/forums/index.php?showtopic=76499&page=23#entry1825130

Does anyone have any ideas on why these in particular are so objectionable?

 

The only thing I can think of, is that they might be wanting to emphasise these in arguing that the case is being pursued, not by way of addressing Leigh's particular grievances, but as a personal crusade of mine on behalf of the general boating public? Leigh would be highly insulted if so; as he has told the Court before - he may be largely illiterate and dyslexic, but that has nothing to do with his intelligence, understanding of the law, and clear objectives in fighting where others would be afraid to, exposing corruption and illegality in the conduct of official bodies like CaRT.

 

Up until now, Leigh has been a zealous supporting player in other people's fights for justice in cases of perceived corruption; this time around he has a powerful case of his own, and he fully intends to pursue it in the fullest blaze of publicity he can manage. CaRT as an organisation will in the end be a far better custodian of the nation's waterways if all this exposure results in a cleansing of the legal and enforcement departments, along with their inappropriate and destructive attitudes and policies.

 

I believe that there are sufficient numbers of genuinely caring and interested CaRT employees out there, who would welcome a more constructive approach to management being approved from a better class of executive officer. It is for that reason that I have been giving Leigh the background support he needs in what has been an unfamiliar field for him; I certainly do not need to use him, in order to pursue goals of my own.

 

I do have [or perhaps more accurately would like to have] a life of my own after all.

[Alan de Enfield]

Well Said, Well Done - have a greeny

[Tony Dunkley]

What I find puzzling [the import will be made clear to me next week I daresay] is their choice of posts to exhibit.

 

From last December: - http://www.canalworld.net/forums/index.php?showtopic=76499&page=20#entry1712925

 

And from last May: - http://www.canalworld.net/forums/index.php?showtopic=76499&page=23#entry1825130

 

Does anyone have any ideas on why these in particular are so objectionable?

 

 

Far too factual, truthful and revealing for either C&RT's 'in house' or 'in pocket' lawyers to be comfortable with, . . . to raise this at a Directions Hearing, particularly as, effectively, the same gripe was disposed of in March, is one of the best examples of clutching at straws I've ever seen.

 

The MNC and PRN arguments won't be aired in Court in Nottingham until 17 October, which is when the Directions hearing for C&RT's Claim against me has now been listed for, and I'm sure they will try anything they can, however futile it ultimately proves to be, to bring about the longest possible delay before they're heard in London either.

Edited August 26, 2016 by Tony Dunkley

[Hawkmoth]

 

 

Best of all though, would be to get sufficient crowd funding to enable employment of the barrister who successfully represented boaters against the EA. I am minded to get in touch to sound him out on the idea, and if he was receptive, perhaps someone with the same abilities as cotswoldsman could take up the cause of raising the necessary. That last might be a sound idea, even if CaRT fail again, next week, to limit my public involvement. The cost to CaRT upon losing would naturally be exponentially higher than with my gratis assistance only, but as we have commented oft before: spending money on these pursuits is something they are more than happy to do.

 

Count me in,

Bob

Edited August 26, 2016 by Hawkmoth

[Naughty Cal]

Count me in,

Bob

That post was posted by Hawkmoth when I last looked a minute ago!

Edited August 26, 2016 by Naughty Cal

[Hawkmoth]

That post was posted by Hawkmoth when I last looked a minute ago!

Don't understand this post. Yes I posted a comment on Nigel Moore's previous post about crowd funding.

?

Bob

[Naughty Cal]

Don't understand this post. Yes I posted a comment on Nigel Moore's previous post about crowd funding.

?

Bob

I looked at the post, it initially said that the post you have now quoted was written by Hawkmoth, i.e no quote just the text written by Hawkmoth.

 

A minute later I flicked back and it is now a quoted post of Nigel's in your post with some different text beneath.

[Hawkmoth]

I looked at the post, it initially said that the post you have now quoted was written by Hawkmoth, i.e no quote just the text written by Hawkmoth.

 

A minute later I flicked back and it is now a quoted post of Nigel's in your post with some different text beneath.

Sorry, I had case of fingers faster than brain (again) now sorted I hope,

Bob