Minimum distance? The enforcement officers have it in black and white.

[Doodlebug]

No he wasn't he told him he would have difficulty coming to a judgement read Nigel's post

 

So you are saying that he was in the court room ready to proceed with the case when the Judge said he was going to have a hard time making a judgement. And Nick then offered to withdraw from the case knowing he was going to be liable for costs. - Very kind of him to let the Judge off the hook and offer to pay CRT's costs.

 

Or is there more to it - you make it sound like it was Nick being generous.

[cotswoldsman]

 

So you are saying that he was in the court room ready to proceed with the case when the Judge said he was going to have a hard time making a judgement. And Nick then offered to withdraw from the case knowing he was going to be liable for costs. - Very kind of him to let the Judge off the hook and offer to pay CRT's costs.

 

Or is there more to it - you make it sound like it was Nick being generous.

READ THE TRANSCRIPT

[Doodlebug]

READ THE TRANSCRIPT

 

No! The transcript doesn't say "nick was feeling really nice so offered to withdraw and pay costs'

 

It just says he withdrew and that the judge said it would be hard to make a judgement. - It doesn't tell anyone what people were thinking and as pointed out many times it is hard to draw hard conclusions.

 

So either Nick was feeling nice or the benefit of withdrawing from the courtroom outweighed the loss of continuing.

 

 

(Was so tempting to say 'What transcript?' )

[NigelMoore]

 

Feel free to post it up for everyone

 

The only judgment in the case concerned the discontinuance and related costs.

 

CaRT opposed the discontinuance [the cynical might suggest this was because they knew they would fail to succeed in that opposition anyway] and lost.

 

Certain costs were awarded against Nick Brown: initial costs were disallowed, certain were allowed under the standard rule, and later costs were subjected to the Legal Aid exemptions.

 

https://canalrivertrust.org.uk/media/library/6404.pdf

 

The transcript of proceedings can be read here: -

 

http://www.bargee-traveller.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2014/05/Brown-v-Canal_and_River_Trust_2014_EWHC_588_Admin_transcript.pdf

 

It cannot be said to be off-topic, when the topic’s heading is dealt with in the Review hearing very specifically.

[larkshall]

deleted

Edited July 6, 2015 by larkshall

[Dave Clinton]

I don't know the exact details of the case because it was a few years ago that I got irritated with him and I don't want to read through it all again. But he did take them to court and he did loose on most if not all of the objections he raised.

 

I do know that he was seeking to make the point that as a boater you can stay anywhere on the canal system for 14 days and as long as you physically move the boat, no matter how far, that counts as moving. I remember there being other stupid petty points being made and thats why I was glad CRT won.

 

It also cost CRT £100000 of our licence fee money.

 

No he didn't.

 

No they didn't

 

No it didn't

 

There. Clear enough?

 

Please stop muddying a serious discussion by talking crap about something you know nothing about and talking nonsense about someone you know nothing about.

[Doodlebug]

 

No he didn't.

 

No they didn't

 

No it didn't

 

There. Clear enough?

 

Please stop muddying a serious discussion by talking crap about something you know nothing about and talking nonsense about someone you know nothing about.

 

Ok so when you want to go to court to raise 5 concerns and the judge says they will only allow you to discuss your second point you think that doesn't consist of losing?

 

You can make it as complicated as you want. Did he achieve what he set out to do? No.

 

Thats all.

 

I still think we should return to the point I made when I made the topic - which is whether there are maps we have to follow. And I think that has been solved. All of this is rather pointless and off topic.

 

It happened. Move on.

[DeanS]

can we try not ruin the thread guys....the John, Doodle, and now Dave discussion is perhaps leading the thread into the darkness. Come back to the light....

[b0atman]

Keep canals distances in miles and furlongs.

Edited July 6, 2015 by b0atman

[Paul C]

One way to clarify things would be to ask him:

 

http://www.canalworld.net/forums/index.php?showuser=10379

[Doodlebug]

Did CRT not publish an intended set of maps of neighbourhoods towards the end of last year. Or was that a London thing?

[Dave Clinton]

 

Ok so when you want to go to court to raise 5 concerns and the judge says they will only allow you to discuss your second point you think that doesn't consist of losing?

 

 

and the reason?

 

Because he wasn't the focus of enforcement.

 

Thus your entire slagging of Nick Brown in the context of this thread is meaningless.

 

You owe him an apology.

[Doodlebug]

 

and the reason?

 

Because he wasn't the focus of enforcement.

 

Thus your entire slagging of Nick Brown in the context of this thread is meaningless.

 

You owe him an apology.

 

I've not slagged anyone off. This thread is turning childish. No wonder we can't argue our case. Its pathetic.

 

Feel free to start your own thread about Nick but my thread was about Maps.

[Paul C]

 

and the reason?

 

Because he wasn't the focus of enforcement.

 

Thus your entire slagging of Nick Brown in the context of this thread is meaningless.

 

You owe him an apology.

 

Wasn't Nick Brown's bringing the judicial review then withdrawing it part-way through the hearing, similarly meaningless too? If not, how has it helped? Because it looks like from CRT's point of view, that its somewhat reinforced the case that they were able to write guidance and it was above being challenged - possibly because its correct????? And they've simply extrapolated this another level and written more rules themselves, which they are assuming are also correct.

[Tuscan]

Well if you want to challenge it, I think you can insist on seeing ID. Some of the volunteers wear CRT sweat shirts, but many do not, and are not really identifiable as such, unless challenged.

 

Mark, Will NABO be taking up with CRT what the total remit of a "towpath ranger" is, and what a boater should do when they exceed their authority? It seems to be becoming an increasingly hot issue, but not one easily taken up by individuals, particularly if they are to be fobbed off by answers like the one it is claimed Peter Palmer gave.

At the meeting with CRT today it was confirmed to me that the data logging is being done exclusively by CRT employees with the exception of the towpath mooring rangers who are monitoring visitor moorings and whose data is also logged into CRTs database.

[matty40s]

Did CRT not publish an intended set of maps of neighbourhoods towards the end of last year. Or was that a London thing?

No they didn't (you arent doing too well today are you)

They came up with a map, allowed a few groups of people to see it , unfortunately for them, one of those people released the link to a wider audience.

The link was soon removed......and the map disappeared for more tinkering, voodoo magic and splatterbombism.

[Doodlebug]

At the meeting with CRT today it was confirmed to me that the data logging is being done exclusively by CRT employees with the exception of the towpath mooring rangers who are monitoring visitor moorings and whose data is also logged into CRTs database.

 

That is very ambiguous. Who was the person I spoke to then. They had the CRT shirt, name badge but a paper clipboard and said he was a volunteer. Keeps him out of trouble he said.

 

Yet i'm not on a visitor mooring. And he said he does a whole stretch.

 

And if they are logging these details then that makes them no different to the official people.

No they didn't (you arent doing too well today are you)

They came up with a map, allowed a few groups of people to see it , unfortunately for them, one of those people released the link to a wider audience.

The link was soon removed......and the map disappeared for more tinkering, voodoo magic and splatterbombism.

 

Ahh yes I remember now - no wonder I cant find them. They seem to be the ones CRT are using. Anyone manage to save the maps?

 

(It was also anything to get the thread back on topic )

[alan_fincher]

At the meeting with CRT today it was confirmed to me that the data logging is being done exclusively by CRT employees with the exception of the towpath mooring rangers who are monitoring visitor moorings and whose data is also logged into CRTs database.

 

Well, open to question, I think.......

 

Large parts of Berkhamsted are definitely being monitored by volunteer rangers, but when I asked CRT for a view of how much of Berkhamsted they actually consider to be a formal "visitor mooring", Matthew Symonds came up with a map that only included a small part of it, (and not the most obvious part!).

 

So I would question whether the answer you have just been given is 100% accurate - rangers are monitoring an area that CRT have said are not currently formal VMs.

 

Also, certainly at other locations it is just volunteer gathered info that can cause the £25 charges to be raised, with no permanent CRT staff having needed to record the boat, so I would still say the reply attributed to Peter Palmer in an earlier post is at best misleading, even if not deliberately trying to mislead.

[Paul C]

No they didn't (you arent doing too well today are you)

They came up with a map, allowed a few groups of people to see it , unfortunately for them, one of those people released the link to a wider audience.

The link was soon removed......and the map disappeared for more tinkering, voodoo magic and splatterbombism.

 

.............Never to be seen again......except for Doodlebug's short glimpse. I wonder if it was such a wise move to prematurely release them?

[Dave Clinton]

 

Wasn't Nick Brown's bringing the judicial review then withdrawing it part-way through the hearing, similarly meaningless too? If not, how has it helped? Because it looks like from CRT's point of view, that its somewhat reinforced the case that they were able to write guidance and it was above being challenged - possibly because its correct????? And they've simply extrapolated this another level and written more rules themselves, which they are assuming are also correct.

it was unfortunate, and it could be argued Nick was ill advised to pursue the judicial review when it needed to be someone directly affected, but meaningless? no. I have read on this forum many times over the last few weeks that someone, sooner or later, needs to take CRT to judicial review so it seems a little off to start slagging off one of the few prepared to put himself on the line.

 

it also seems hypocritical of the OP to come and complain about CRT's behaviour and then start bad mouthing Nick for doing something other than moaning.

 

Nick's knowledge is wide and his support of many an extremely valuable thing for which he deserves thanks.

 

Hence my challenge of the OPs ill-informed comments. I notice he still hasn't apologised.

 

This is an ongoing situation. Tony Dunkley has shown that CRT can't just write the rules in defiance of the law, was his stance meaningless too?

[Paul C]

it was unfortunate, and it could be argued Nick was ill advised to pursue the judicial review when it needed to be someone directly affected, but meaningless? no. I have read on this forum many times over the last few weeks that someone, sooner or later, needs to take CRT to judicial review so it seems a little off to start slagging off one of the few prepared to put himself on the line.

 

 

 

I hope the boating organisations can put their differences aside and pool resources to financially support (a) boater(s) who want(s) to challenge either/or/both the issuing of 3 or 6 monthly instead of a year's licence; or who is a home moorer but is "deemed" a CCer and has their licence not renewed on the basis of their cruising pattern.. I don't think there's much mileage in bassplayer's harrassment claims.

[Nightwatch]

At the meeting with CRT today it was confirmed to me that the data logging is being done exclusively by CRT employees with the exception of the towpath mooring rangers who are monitoring visitor moorings and whose data is also logged into CRTs database.

is a 14 day mooring classed as visitor mooring. I was on 14 day moorings when I spoke to one of these guys as he was noting my boats details.

[alan_fincher]

is a 14 day mooring classed as visitor mooring. I was on 14 day moorings when I spoke to one of these guys as he was noting my boats details.

 

Out of interest, where was this please Martyn, (sorry if you have already said!), and were they definitely identified as a volunteer, rather than permanent CRT staff?

[LoneWolf]

 

I think joining NBOA is a good move, they seem to be challenging CRT. The organisation of some kind of war chest to fight CRT legally when the need/opportunity arises looks like a priority. Crowd source it.

 

+1

[peterboat]

READ THE TRANSCRIPT

I have read the transcript its fairly clear that before lunch the Judge gave them warning that the case was a waste of his time after lunch they withdrew so from my point of view it was withdraw or lose very hard work though to get there. But having said that I am a just a garage owner so what do I know

 

Peter