CRT v Andy Wingfield Update

[gazza]

 

Helping behind the scenes was exactly what I was doing at first; I had no interest in coming to the fore at all. But when that was apparently ignored until the eve of the trial date, time had run out for discretion. I could have shrugged my shoulders at having tried yet failed to get dialogue going in time to be effective, or do as I did.

 

Were you referring to all the discussion beforehand, as in: before it became known that the second case was imminent? If so, my previous response applies; it made no difference to CaRTs approach [although it should have done].

 

If you mean the present post mortem discussion, then obviously that will not have retrospectively affected the outcome, and may even give CaRT pause for reflection on the wisdom of bringing another such case on identical facts.

 

I am all for having things in the open. Blow by blow dissection of events and arguments clarifies things for all; if that includes the CaRT legal and enforcement team, so much the better.

Hi Nigel, thanks for taking the time to reply to what I posted, rather than the Life of Brian he said Jehovah style of response I've had thus far.

 

As far as your input goes, yes, I did wonder if doing it behind the scene so to speak would be beneficial, as you yourself state that was your aim. Once time became of the essence I guess, as you say, discretion became a pointless irrelevance.

 

The main point of my question in my original post was is the combatative poke the bear stance any use whatsoever? It doesn't seem to have worked here, no matter how much dirty linen is aired, Andy has to find an EA mooring PDQ.

 

ultimately, will the same approach (and I am thinking more along the lines of Tony's hard line and militant stance rather than your more legalise approach) help? As far as I can tell from the hundreds of posts nothing has been done to change the outcome C&RTS pursues - that being the removal of a boat and boater from their waters by whatever means, fair or foul.

 

For the rest of you that fail to grasp the concept, these are QUESTIONS not opinion or judgement on my part, just like my previous posts....

[bassplayer]

Hi Nigel, thanks for taking the time to reply to what I posted, rather than the Life of Brian he said Jehovah style of response I've had thus far.

 

As far as your input goes, yes, I did wonder if doing it behind the scene so to speak would be beneficial, as you yourself state that was your aim. Once time became of the essence I guess, as you say, discretion became a pointless irrelevance.

 

The main point of my question in my original post was is the combatative poke the bear stance any use whatsoever? It doesn't seem to have worked here, no matter how much dirty linen is aired, Andy has to find an EA mooring PDQ.

 

ultimately, will the same approach (and I am thinking more along the lines of Tony's hard line and militant stance rather than your more legalise approach) help? As far as I can tell from the hundreds of posts nothing has been done to change the outcome C&RTS pursues - that being the removal of a boat and boater from their waters by whatever means, fair or foul.

 

For the rest of you that fail to grasp the concept, these are QUESTIONS not opinion or judgement on my part, just like my previous posts....

No, it's nonsense...isn't it?

[gazza]

 

Actually I don't think your pathetic attempts to derail the thread worth any effort.

Good for you, have a biscuit.

 

Meanwhile, back in the land that isn't make believe...

 

I've made no attempt to derail this thread, other than having to answer or correct those who can't read what is on their screens

[bassplayer]

Good for you, have a biscuit.

 

Meanwhile, back in the land that isn't make believe...

 

I've made no attempt to derail this thread, other than having to answer or correct those who can't read what is on their screens

Now accept you've been sussed and move on...nicely...

[gazza]

No, it's nonsense...isn't it?

Do you know, we agree!!

 

I suppose its the likely outcome when there are entrenched views, sadly in this case, it seems to be C&RT and Andy's legal team both seem to have stuck to their guns with Andy as the collateral damage.

 

What a bloody balls up.

Now accept you've been sussed and move on...nicely...

?????

[Alenafour]

I have been following this thread with interest from its outset, but haven't posted before.

 

I'm posting now for two reasons. Firstly to thank Nigel Moore for the lengths he has gone to, both in helping (or maybe not?) Andy's case and to make this board aware of what has transpired, warts and all. And for puttiung transcripts, etc on scribd.

 

Secondly, I gather that Andy will now need to move his boat, that time is pressing and that he may need help either in crewing or running errands to get his move made smoothly. I would be happy to volunteer my time, my dubious boating abilities and the use of a car, if this would help Andy in any way.

 

Just on a slight side issue, every time I go for something on Scribd, i get asked to subscribe at £10 a month. Is this right? is it the only way to fully view documents on Scribd?

[bassplayer]

Do you know, we agree!!

 

I suppose its the likely outcome when there are entrenched views, sadly in this case, it seems to be C&RT and Andy's legal team both seem to have stuck to their guns with Andy as the collateral damage.

 

What a bloody balls up.

 

?????

Now you are struggling...

[Tony Dunkley]

 

Just to elaborate re. the Licence for which Andy had paid for in full up to April next year.

Although payment in full was taken from Andy's bank account by means of Standing Order, the Licence was never issued. C&RT's stated rationale for this was that, prior to issuing a Licence, they wanted to be satisfied that he was complying with the 'confidential' settlement agreed as the means by which last years proceedings were halted.

The only possible inferences from this are that either the 'confidential' Agreement empowered C&RT to accept full payment of Licence fees whilst remaining under no obligation to issue a Licence, or, that C&RT dishonoured the Agreement themselves, within days of making it.

In the words of Mr Garner: -

“the boat licence was revoked with effect from 17 November 2014. Accordingly, the sum of £56.35 was refunded to the Defendant’s customer account as the result of an overpayment at the point of revocation. The customer has continued to make BACS payments to CRT following the revocation of his licence. These payments remain in the Defendant’s customer accountunallocated.”

 

The above quotation from Garner is as misleading as most of everything else he either says or includes in his Witness Statement fantasies.

I've checked in my notes, and what Garner is referring to here is not payment of Licence fees as the wording infers.

Andy was paying C&RT for his mooring by the month. His " never issued" Licence was paid for in full by Standing Order at the start of the Licence period

Edited October 14, 2015 by Tony Dunkley

[bassplayer]

In the words of Mr Garner: -

the boat licence was revoked with effect from 17 November 2014. Accordingly, the sum of £56.35 was refunded to the Defendants customer account as the result of an overpayment at the point of revocation. The customer has continued to make BACS payments to CRT following the revocation of his licence. These payments remain in the Defendants customer accountunallocated.

 

The above quotation from Garner is as misleading as most of everything he either says or includes in his Witness Statement fantasies.

I've checked in my notes, and what Garner is referring to here is not payment of Licence fees as the wording infers.

Andy was paying C&RT for his mooring by the month. His " never issued" Licence was paid for in full by Standing Order at the start of the Licence period

Is Andy Ok about all this public info? Sorry, I know I asked this already..

[gazza]

Now you are struggling...

That's no bloody surprise when your posts are twisted or taken out of context is it?

 

I mentioned way back when that folks have intimated that C&RT monitor this forum, if true, surely this gives them the inside track (so to speak) on the general thrust of how they should handle a particular case?

All the more so when its discussed to the tune of 20+ pages?

Edited October 14, 2015 by gazza

[Tony Dunkley]

Is Andy Ok about all this public info? Sorry, I know I asked this already..

 

Yes, he is. We wouldn't be putting on here if he wasn't.

Edited October 14, 2015 by Tony Dunkley

[bassplayer]

Forget which 'organisation' you belong to. In the end it's about doing what's right. We can all be ##'s at times but please...please...do the right thing in your heart. We all have to live with that...

Edited October 16, 2015 by DHutch
Vulger terminology removed.

[NigelMoore]

Is Andy Ok about all this public info? Sorry, I know I asked this already..

 

I see Tony has pre-empted me, but yes, he rang me only a few hours ago, and is appreciative of all the support from those of you who have expressed that. He is chary of any discussion as to where exactly he intends to go of course, and I totally relate to that.

[NilesMI]

 

Just on a slight side issue, every time I go for something on Scribd, i get asked to subscribe at £10 a month. Is this right? is it the only way to fully view documents on Scribd?

 

You should be able to sign up for a free account on scribd. The free account won't give you access to all the books and similar content but you will be able to some other things such as download, as opposed to just view, the shared documents, such as the ones which Nigel has uploaded.

 

Of course scribd want you to sign up for an account to access the paid for content, but if you don't want to, just search for the free, basic account.

[NigelMoore]

I mentioned way back when that folks have intimated that C&RT monitor this forum, if true, surely this gives them the inside track (so to speak) on the general thrust of how they should handle a particular case?

 

I should sincerely hope so.

 

Sadly, such hopes have proved thus far ephemeral.

[gazza]

Forget which 'organisation' you belong to. In the end it's about doing what's right. We can all be cnut's at times but please...please...do the right thing in your heart. We all have to live with that...

You've lost me a bit their.

 

I am a former member of TBEC WTRA, NMCC, SRMCC, SETRA, SCEC, the AMCA but don't tell the ACU.... the AA, Green Flag all of which has no bearing on this

 

Current affiliations are MNCC GOBA, FOTRN and I suppose, the EA to some degree lapsed full member if the ANRC who are fast becoming an irrelevance on our river...

 

None of the above stops me from having a right to join in this discussion as far as I can tell?

 

PS, that's nearly a derailment

[bassplayer]

You've lost me a bit their.

 

I am a former member of TBEC WTRA, NMCC, SRMCC, SETRA, SCEC, the AMCA but don't tell the ACU.... the AA, Green Flag all of which has no bearing on this

 

Current affiliations are MNCC GOBA, FOTRN and I suppose, the EA to some degree lapsed full member if the ANRC who are fast becoming an irrelevance on our river...

 

None of the above stops me from having a right to join in this discussion as far as I can tell?

 

PS, that's nearly a derailment

I never said you don't have a right to this discussion.

[gazza]

 

I should sincerely hope so.

 

Sadly, such hopes have proved thus far ephemeral.

So, having been round the block a few times, with the odd stop for a couple of posters to fling some mud, its pretty much SNAFU then?

I never said you don't have a right to this discussion.

Bugger it, on second thoughts, levity probably has no place in this thread

[jenlyn]

So, having been round the block a few times, with the odd stop for a couple of posters to fling some mud, its pretty much SNAFU then?

 

Bugger it, on second thoughts, levity probably has no place in this thread

Intentionally on your part or not, the thread is derailing.

[bassplayer]

Well I'm not flinging any mud. Let's just pick an organisation at random. There are good masons and bad masons. Personally I'd rather pick a good mason to build my house...

...damn...just realised they don't build boats.

[gazza]

Intentionally on your part or not, the thread is derailing.

Is there a set of guidelines on this specific subject I've missed? Care to post them?

[NigelMoore]

So, having been round the block a few times, with the odd stop for a couple of posters to fling some mud, its pretty much SNAFU then?

 

Not in my opinion.

 

The more exposure to what goes on; the more exposure to relevant legislation, the more understanding of what can be done and argued - the more equipped all sides in this melee are, to come to a rationale consensus.

 

Human nature gets in the way of course. Nonetheless, I remain optimistic that education results in a closer approximation to harmony.

 

Failing harmonious acceptance, arming for battle should be equitably balanced with all sides having access to the armoury.

[gazza]

Well I'm not flinging any mud. Let's just pick an organisation at random. There are good masons and bad masons. Personally I'd rather pick a good mason to build my house...

...damn...just realised they don't build boats.

Bloody hell! Don't bring the masons into it, a society with secrets rather than a secret society so they would have us believe.

 

I'd rather a competent builder build my house than a mason

[bassplayer]

 

Failing harmonious acceptance, arming for battle should be equitably balanced with all sides having access to the armoury.

I agree. What's your armour?

[NigelMoore]

I agree. What's your armour?

 

Knowledge of course.