CRT v Andy Wingfield Update

[pearlygeoff]

 

Elsewhere in this thread, you say "I am not 'just ranting'. I am doing something.", and go on to paint yourself as being the one who has gone to enormouse effort and expense to deal with the problem that you perceive to exist (and I am sure you will come back and tell me that it isn't that you perceive it to exist, it is absolute fact that it does).

 

Yet, as soon as anybody tries to engage with you in any way other than by reading every word of your website, and accepting it as unimpeachable fact, your attitude is that you will speak to them how you like and you aren't there to win friends.

 

Until you can get your head round the fact that no matter how sure you are that you are right, you don't have a god-given right for people to accept your pronouncements, whatever time and money you expend is wasted, because all people see is you ranting at anybody and everybody.

 

 

 

Why don't you just read the website rather than make unwarranted criticisms. We know you are a CRT apologist and seek to find legal arguments to support their dictatorship of the waterways.

 

I see a recent theory of yours is that there is no problem with CRT behaviour and that people only complain because they are 'unhappy'.

 

Thanks for your advice. I don't need it. You, and the rest of the resident self appointed arbitrators of all things canal related, need to try to restrain your petty critical faculty and realise there are serious issues of abuse, in many forms, and none of you seem capable of, or willing to, understand the significance, or cause, of those issues.

 

I had no intention of posting anything on this site again as, as is proven again, I don't see it as a useful site, dominated, as it is, by a few self important 'I'm in management (or was)' types who think they can 'make a contribution' when they don't know the basic facts, don't live on a boat so have no experience of what that entails, and have an attitude whereby they are inclined to side with the 'management' against the 'peasants', workers - or 'shirkers' My original post was to say they there are transcripts of witness evidence on my site. That's what's interesting but I seem to have stirred up the locals and prompted the usual petty admonishments.

 

For this site to be of any use there needs to be some 'fresh blood' to shout down the tiresome resident clique. I can't be bothered. Better things to do.

 

Anything else you want to get off your chest.

 

Back later.

[mayalld]

 

 

 

Why don't you just read the website rather than make unwarranted criticisms. We know you are a CRT apologist and seek to find legal arguments to support their dictatorship of the waterways.

 

I see a recent theory of yours is that there is no problem with CRT behaviour and that people only complain because they are 'unhappy'.

 

Thanks for your advice. I don't need it. You, and the rest of the resident self appointed arbitrators of all things canal related, need to try to restrain your petty critical faculty and realise there are serious issues of abuse, in many forms, and none of you seem capable of, or willing to, understand the significance, or cause, of those issues.

 

I had no intention of posting anything on this site again as, as is proven again, I don't see it as a useful site, dominated, as it is, by a few self important 'I'm in management (or was)' types who think they can 'make a contribution' when they don't know the basic facts, don't live on a boat so have no experience of what that entails, and have an attitude whereby they are inclined to side with the 'management' against the 'peasants', workers - or 'shirkers' My original post was to say they there are transcripts of witness evidence on my site. That's what's interesting but I seem to have stirred up the locals and prompted the usual petty admonishments.

 

For this site to be of any use there needs to be some 'fresh blood' to shout down the tiresome resident clique. I can't be bothered. Better things to do.

 

Anything else you want to get off your chest.

 

Back later.

 

Well, if you have better things to do, then please don't let me stop you!

 

However, if you account your continuing ramblings on your "conspiracy theory" website are "better things to do", I can only say that if the website makes you happier then it has some value. It hasn't a hope of achieving anything else.

 

I am not a CRT apologist, and I have made official complaints several times, all eventually resolved satisfactorily. Why do I get a good outcome and you don't. Tell me what the conspiracy theory is there!

 

Neither am I in the camp that says that CRT is entirely bad and everything they do is wrong.

 

I have offered no recent theory about why "people" in general complain about CRT.

 

And finally, yes I am a "management type" (actually, I'm an IT analyst with additional management responsibilities) who doesn't live on a boat. It is interesting that your prejudice against me on these grounds seems so acceptable to you, yet if I were to dismiss the view of somebody just because he lived on a boat and was in a manual occupation, you would be screaming blue murder. Standards are such a wonderful thing that you decided to have them double?

[ROBDEN]

At first when reading this thread, I thought that CaR(n)T may be reading this and starting to get a tad concerned

about the way people are thinking.

 

But not now though, with this constant in fighting....they're probably enjoying it.

 

Rob....

[gaggle]

Mayalid , he knows how to derail a thread , one of his tactics.

[MtB]

Mayalid , he knows how to derail a thread , one of his tactics.

 

 

I agree, Geoff has certainly derailed this one!

[ROBDEN]

 

 

I agree, Geoff has certainly derailed this one!

To what purpose?

[Midnight]

 

 

I agree, Geoff has certainly derailed this one!

 

You couldn't expect anything else there. He once posted a vague rant on another forum and when asked for more details and even though I had some sympathy to his cause he just called us all bigots. It's difficult to take him seriously whilst he is so aggressive to anyone who tries to understand or offer support.

 

PS Geoff - please don't bother abusing me again I can work it out for myself what you'll be saying - most of it has already been covered in your earlier responses.

[NigelMoore]

 

 

Geoff has certainly derailed this one!

 

Well Geoff has highlighted that transcripts of cross-examinations from his own case are published on his website, which is on point I would have thought. This excerpt is rather classic: -

 

THE JUDGE: The locks are a standard either 14 feet or seven feet—

A. Yeah, I’d say—

Q. —and the Trent and Mersey locks are mostly 14 feet, are they not?

A. Yeah.

Q. The canal would be, generally speaking, between 20 and 30 feet wide.

A. Yeah.

Q. Sometimes a bit wider, sometimes a bit narrower, but generally 20 to 30 feet wide, enough for two seven-foot narrow boats to pass one another if required.

A. (inaudible), yeah.

Q. The traditional canal narrow boat was just under seven feet, is that right?

A. I don’t know.

Q. You do not know?

A. I don’t know the general width of a boat.

Q. Well, the locks are seven feet, are they not, or 14? Llangollen branch are seven foot.

A. Right.

Q. The Shropshire Union are 14, are they not? You tell me.

A. I don’t know. I don’t know the widths of…

Q. As it happens, I do, but I am not allowed to give evidence. You really ought to know. How long have you been working for the canals?

A. Four years.

[pearlygeoff]

 

Well, if you have better things to do, then please don't let me stop you!

 

However, if you account your continuing ramblings on your "conspiracy theory" website are "better things to do", I can only say that if the website makes you happier then it has some value. It hasn't a hope of achieving anything else.

 

I am not a CRT apologist, and I have made official complaints several times, all eventually resolved satisfactorily. Why do I get a good outcome and you don't. Tell me what the conspiracy theory is there!

 

Neither am I in the camp that says that CRT is entirely bad and everything they do is wrong.

 

I have offered no recent theory about why "people" in general complain about CRT.

 

And finally, yes I am a "management type" (actually, I'm an IT analyst with additional management responsibilities) who doesn't live on a boat. It is interesting that your prejudice against me on these grounds seems so acceptable to you, yet if I were to dismiss the view of somebody just because he lived on a boat and was in a manual occupation, you would be screaming blue murder. Standards are such a wonderful thing that you decided to have them double?

 

What conspiracy is that? Because you don't know the facts doesn't make 'the facts' a conspiracy. Have you read the website? You would learn something if you were sufficiently open minded.

 

As for prejudice, I didn't express a 'prejudice' I stated that some people on here seem to have an attitude of superiority which seems to relate to some sense of importance apparently, stemming from their occupation or previous occupation. You seem to think people come on here for your help and advice. They don't. I'm telling you things you don't know and should be aware of. In this instance transcripts of witness evidence. I should have known better I know, but I took the chance for the 'public good'.

 

You think you're very clever but you are missing the point and rambling in your usual tedious manner. I have exposed some very serious 'wrongs', as was my intention, but, it seems, only a few people are bright enough to understand their seriousness. Those are the ones I'm addressing. The rest of you can continue your incessant, compulsive, inaccurate 'bonding' ritual born of your ludicrous dislike of people 'who don't have a home mooring' and are, therefore (?), 'taking the piss.

 

I'll leave you to yourselves.

 

I posted a useful bit of information. The rest of you 'derailed' the thread because of your predilection for trying to be 'smart' instead of dealing with facts that are unpalatable to you and your simplistic prejudices.

[mayalld]

 

What conspiracy is that? Because you don't know the facts doesn't make 'the facts' a conspiracy. Have you read the website? You would learn something if you were sufficiently open minded.

 

As for prejudice, I didn't express a 'prejudice' I stated that some people on here seem to have an attitude of superiority which seems to relate to some sense of importance apparently, stemming from their occupation or previous occupation. You seem to think people come on here for your help and advice. They don't. I'm telling you things you don't know and should be aware of. In this instance transcripts of witness evidence. I should have known better I know, but I took the chance for the 'public good'.

 

You think you're very clever but you are missing the point and rambling in your usual tedious manner. I have exposed some very serious 'wrongs', as was my intention, but, it seems, only a few people are bright enough to understand their seriousness. Those are the ones I'm addressing. The rest of you can continue your incessant, compulsive, inaccurate 'bonding' ritual born of your ludicrous dislike of people 'who don't have a home mooring' and are, therefore (?), 'taking the piss.

 

I'll leave you to yourselves.

 

I posted a useful bit of information. The rest of you 'derailed' the thread because of your predilection for trying to be 'smart' instead of dealing with facts that are unpalatable to you and your simplistic prejudices.

 

This is utterly priceless!

 

You accuse others of rambling.

 

Your website might just manage to put a point over about irregularities, if only it didn't indulge your hyperbole and rambling rants about the whole thing.

 

Perhaps if it were 90% less content, and made pertinent points succinctly, and without emotive inaccurate language, it would have a chance. The minute you start to describe the removal of your boat as theft, you lose the argument, because whatever else it was, it was not theft.

 

Oh, and as you clearly lack access to a dictionary, please allow me to assist you;

 

"I didn't express a 'prejudice' I stated that some people on here seem to have an attitude of superiority which seems to relate to some sense of importance apparently, stemming from their occupation or previous occupation."

 

That is exactly what prejudice is Geoff!

 

You lost your case because you were wrong. You tried to be too clever by half to force them into court, and in doing so you made a serious error that destroyed your case completely. That isn't evidence of corruption. It is proof that if you try to engage in activities you lack the skills for, you may well come off worst.

[gaggle]

 

 

I agree, Geoff has certainly derailed this one!

Yes very clever , but like mayalid you are another who will derail a thread for no other reason than you don't agree with what is being said ,faced with truth fxxx it I will try derail or take off topic ,tactics I suspect you both use.

[LoneWolf]

 

What conspiracy is that? Because you don't know the facts doesn't make 'the facts' a conspiracy. Have you read the website? You would learn something if you were sufficiently open minded.

 

As for prejudice, I didn't express a 'prejudice' I stated that some people on here seem to have an attitude of superiority which seems to relate to some sense of importance apparently, stemming from their occupation or previous occupation. You seem to think people come on here for your help and advice. They don't. I'm telling you things you don't know and should be aware of. In this instance transcripts of witness evidence. I should have known better I know, but I took the chance for the 'public good'.

 

You think you're very clever but you are missing the point and rambling in your usual tedious manner. I have exposed some very serious 'wrongs', as was my intention, but, it seems, only a few people are bright enough to understand their seriousness. Those are the ones I'm addressing. The rest of you can continue your incessant, compulsive, inaccurate 'bonding' ritual born of your ludicrous dislike of people 'who don't have a home mooring' and are, therefore (?), 'taking the piss.

 

I'll leave you to yourselves.

 

I posted a useful bit of information. The rest of you 'derailed' the thread because of your predilection for trying to be 'smart' instead of dealing with facts that are unpalatable to you and your simplistic prejudices.

 

Geoff, I think your posts on hear & your website (a lot of which i've read) are read & appreciated more than the responses by the thread derails make it appear. A lot of people on CWDF just cant be bothered to engage with those who get their canallife view from this webiste & a month in the summer

What BW/CRT did to you & your boat is dreadful and i agree it should be a cause for concern for all boaters

Is there any avenue of legal redress open to you? If there is & i can be of assistance please feel free to PM me

All the best

[jenlyn]

Yes very clever , but like mayalid you are another who will derail a thread for no other reason than you don't agree with what is being said ,faced with truth fxxx it I will try derail or take off topic ,tactics I suspect you both use.

Greenie. Totally agree with you.

[mayalld]

Yes very clever , but like mayalid you are another who will derail a thread for no other reason than you don't agree with what is being said ,faced with truth fxxx it I will try derail or take off topic ,tactics I suspect you both use.

 

I'm not trying to derail anything. My posts are actually relevant to the subject of people who feel that they have been wronged by CRT and can't get people to see it. Yours appear to be about me, and nothing to do with the thread subject.

 

Remind me who is derailing the thread.

 

If I were truly the CRT lackey that Geoff seems to think I am, then I wouldn't engage with Geoff, because as things stand, he hasn't a hope in hell of being heard. He isn't putting his case over effectively.

 

Rather, despite his belicose and dismissive attitude, I am trying to say to him that he needs to distinguish opinion and facts, and then filter to the pertinent facts. His big problem is that he has so much that he is angry about and feels that he needs to say, that he isn't managing to distill it into something that will convince the reader.

[ROBDEN]

I say again. "At first when reading this thread, I thought that CaR(n)T may be reading this and starting to get a tad concerned

about the way people are thinking.

But not now though, with this constant in fighting....they're probably enjoying it."

Can we please get back on track?

Rob....

[Dave Clinton]

 

 

 

Perhaps if it were 90% less content, and made pertinent points succinctly, and without emotive inaccurate language, it would have a chance. The minute you start to describe the removal of your boat as theft, you lose the argument, because whatever else it was, it was not theft.

 

 

 

If it happened to you, you would certainly describe it thus.

 

How else can you describe the removal of an old wooden boat from Cheshire to Gloucestershire against the express wishes of the court where it was allowed to sink in 18' of water?

 

Certainly seems to fit the Theft Act 1968 to me - 'intention to permanently deprive' (are you familiar with this Act?)

 

If you would prefer 'contempt of court' then ask Geoff respectfully to change it.

 

 

 

Either way it's an illegal act by CRT and the destruction of his home, Geoff is perfectly entitled to get exercised by it. That he doesn't have your superior powers of articulation is no reason for your bullying derision.

Edited September 4, 2015 by Dave Clinton

[Tony Dunkley]

Geoff, your efforts with regard to BW and C&RT, despite resulting in a bad outcome and considerable personal loss for you, did produce something that has already been of great help and value to others, myself included.

The Judgment, and HHJ Halbert's remarks and comments within it, have gone quite some way to spiking some of C&RT's guns and there is undoubtedly more good yet to come from it.

A great many folk should be thanking you for what you've done to date, and I'll begin that right now. Thanks Geoff your efforts haven't been in vain, I only wish things had turned out better for you personally.

To borrow one of Churchill's maxims . . . " Keep buggering on" . . . . you never can tell what might be just round the corner, so don't let the ill-intentioned few grind you down, either those at C&RT and Shoosmiths, or those who enjoy lobbing their virtual bricks on internet forums.

[jenlyn]

Geoff, your efforts with regard to BW and C&RT, despite resulting in a bad outcome and considerable personal loss for you, did produce something that has already been of great help and value to others, myself included.

The Judgment, and HHJ Halbert's remarks and comments within it, have gone quite some way to spiking some of C&RT's guns and there is undoubtedly more good yet to come from it.

A great many folk should be thanking you for what you've done to date, and I'll begin that right now. Thanks Geoff your efforts haven't been in vain, I only wish things had turned out better for you personally.

To borrow one of Churchill's maxims . . . " Keep buggering on" . . . . you never can tell what might be just round the corner, so don't let the ill-intentioned few grind you down, either those at C&RT and Shoosmiths, or those who enjoy lobbing their virtual bricks on internet forums.

Probably Lego bricks at that!

[NigelMoore]

 

Is there any avenue of legal redress open to you?

 

I had a look through Geoff’s material while I was in the middle of preparing Leigh’s case, so was not able to spend the time it merits, but have said I will pay closer attention once that case is settled. Apart from anything else, the outcome may well be of assistance to Geoff.

 

Whether or no – my opinion is that his best chance is an action for Contempt of Court. As I alluded to earlier in this thread, Geoff’s judge had told CaRT he would hold them to the undertaking he considered them to have given, which was not unlike the judge’s proposals for the Wingfield settlement. A little creative misinterpretation was subsequently applied to the situation; I believe that it is capable of remedy to that extent.

 

Meanwhile, putting material into the public domain is one of the most effective things people can do. Those with a desire to search out the facts will be willing to persevere through stylistic hurdles and emotive outbursts.

 

Remember too, that at least two pertinent characteristics must apply to those bringing or defending lawsuits against powerful corporations: one is the skill-set that mayalld correctly refers to [you have to know the rules of the game and how to apply them]; the other is an element of assertive aggression capable of sustained deployment [you have to have the ‘stomach’ for the fight].

 

Those with the necessary latter characteristic can sometimes, through sheer frustration, find that expression of it becomes at times understandably unfocused.

[costalot]

My assumption is that CRT commenced this process with the objective of having a compliant boater. After a long and expensive saga they achieved their original objective. It might be reasonably argued that from a financial perspective this was a Pyrrhic victory.

[pearlygeoff]

 

This is utterly priceless!

 

You accuse others of rambling.

 

Your website might just manage to put a point over about irregularities, if only it didn't indulge your hyperbole and rambling rants about the whole thing.

 

Perhaps if it were 90% less content, and made pertinent points succinctly, and without emotive inaccurate language, it would have a chance. The minute you start to describe the removal of your boat as theft, you lose the argument, because whatever else it was, it was not theft.

 

Oh, and as you clearly lack access to a dictionary, please allow me to assist you;

 

"I didn't express a 'prejudice' I stated that some people on here seem to have an attitude of superiority which seems to relate to some sense of importance apparently, stemming from their occupation or previous occupation."

 

That is exactly what prejudice is Geoff!

 

You lost your case because you were wrong. You tried to be too clever by half to force them into court, and in doing so you made a serious error that destroyed your case completely. That isn't evidence of corruption. It is proof that if you try to engage in activities you lack the skills for, you may well come off worst.

 

You really are a hopeless case. You accused me of 'prejudice'. That's what I was referring to. Think before you 'rant' in response.

 

The taking of my boat was theft. And it was knowingly, and wilfully, sunk and destroyed.

 

I didn't, actually, 'lose' the case. There was an undertaking to the court, forced on CRT against their will. They breached that undertaking which has the same force as a court order. They took advantage of the predicament of my mother's hospitalisation to steal my boat.

 

There was much 'dubious practice'. I was misled by my representatives. I was, largely, excluded from my own case. It was a farce.

 

CRT are guilty of several abuses of process.

 

My intention was to expose what they do to someone who challenges them, which I have done. My website is useful, damning and interesting to people who don't have a fixed agenda, such as yourself.

 

Of course I took a risk. I could only go to court if I had legal aid. I then had to have a solicitor, and barrister, who would go along with my attempt to turn a defence into an attack. I wanted to challenge their unlawful behaviour in court.

 

I had the opportunity to 'make a deal' after the first hearing in 2010. I refused as I wanted a trial to present the facts of their unlawful abuse. I told my representatives I wasn't interested in 'getting off' I wanted a prosecutory 'defence'. Pushing my luck, I know but worth a try.

 

You are not more articulate than me nor in a position to scoff. You, and pretty much anyone else, wouldn't mount such a challenge.

 

You are a CRT apologist. Your favourite bit of law is the 1962 Act, Section 43, which, essentially, says that BW/CRT can do anything they like. I.e. they can act as a dictator with regard to every aspect of the waterways, including rules and regulations and imposing penalties.

 

You think that is a 'good thing'..

 

You are lacking in 'moral conscience' as well as intellectual insight and though some may think you're 'clever' you can't fool everyone.

 

My website is intended to be reasonably interesting to read, not just a mere statement of facts. Whether it is depends on the reader. It's how I choose to do it. The tone reflects my contempt for CRT and its apologists and collaborators.

[Arthur Marshall]

At the risk of being accused of being dull (and possibly ontopic), can I ask Nigel for a summary of the useful points that he has learnt from his study of the Wingfield case that may be important for all of us in the future?

[NigelMoore]

My assumption is that CRT commenced this process with the objective of having a compliant boater. After a long and expensive saga they achieved their original objective.

 

Sadly, I do not believe that that is the objective of most s.8 actions at all – if it was, they would take the boater to court under the appropriate legislation to ensure compliance, not for the purpose of eviction, making an example of them 'pour encourager les autres'.

 

Their original objective in recent such cases, as stated clearly in the Wingfield hearing and others, has largely been to obtain judicial pronouncements on the meaning of 17(3)( c )(ii); i.e. to get judgments on exactly what DOES constitute compliance [hopefully, from their perspective, judgments upholding their own interpretation of that].

 

In the Wingfield case they failed to trap the judge into making any pronouncements at all in that respect – he clarified that all such cases should be approached with a clear understanding of what they really wanted to achieve from the standpoint of managing the canals, with appropriate thought given to individual circumstances.

 

In the Mayers case, they got the reverse of what they wanted in that respect – they got some very clear guidelines challenging their application of the clause. The only object they achieved there, was to be rid of a boater altogether, despite his post-case compliance.

[NigelMoore]

At the risk of being accused of being dull (and possibly ontopic), can I ask Nigel for a summary of the useful points that he has learnt from his study of the Wingfield case that may be important for all of us in the future?

 

In time, Arthur [you almost had me googling for whatever variant of pregnancy problems related to dullness!]

 

I have noted some points along the way of course, but for now I would prefer that others had a chance to read through the entirety of the transcripts, and make their own observations. I think John is sending copies out to all subscribers tomorrow.

[bassplayer]

You really are a hopeless case. You accused me of 'prejudice'. That's what I was referring to. Think before you 'rant' in response.

 

The taking of my boat was theft. And it was knowingly, and wilfully, sunk and destroyed.

 

I didn't, actually, 'lose' the case. There was an undertaking to the court, forced on CRT against their will. They breached that undertaking which has the same force as a court order. They took advantage of the predicament of my mother's hospitalisation to steal my boat.

 

There was much 'dubious practice'. I was misled by my representatives. I was, largely, excluded from my own case. It was a farce.

 

CRT are guilty of several abuses of process.

 

My intention was to expose what they do to someone who challenges them, which I have done. My website is useful, damning and interesting to people who don't have a fixed agenda, such as yourself.

 

Of course I took a risk. I could only go to court if I had legal aid. I then had to have a solicitor, and barrister, who would go along with my attempt to turn a defence into an attack. I wanted to challenge their unlawful behaviour in court.

 

I had the opportunity to 'make a deal' after the first hearing in 2010. I refused as I wanted a trial to present the facts of their unlawful abuse. I told my representatives I wasn't interested in 'getting off' I wanted a prosecutory 'defence'. Pushing my luck, I know but worth a try.

 

You are not more articulate than me nor in a position to scoff. You, and pretty much anyone else, wouldn't mount such a challenge.

 

You are a CRT apologist. Your favourite bit of law is the 1962 Act, Section 43, which, essentially, says that BW/CRT can do anything they like. I.e. they can act as a dictator with regard to every aspect of the waterways, including rules and regulations and imposing penalties.

 

You think that is a 'good thing'..

 

You are lacking in 'moral conscience' as well as intellectual insight and though some may think you're 'clever' you can't fool everyone.

 

My website is intended to be reasonably interesting to read, not just a mere statement of facts. Whether it is depends on the reader. It's how I choose to do it. The tone reflects my contempt for CRT and its apologists and collaborators.

 

I'm interested in what you have to say and I'm sure many others are. Don't let yourself get caught up in a flame war with the few on here who seem to have some kind of agenda to keep you quiet.