Jump to content

CRT v Andy Wingfield Update

cotswoldsman

By cotswoldsman
in General Boating

 Share

Featured Posts

Bod Experienced

BodDonate to Canal World

Posted
Posted

No, what you find difficult to understand or more likely refuse to accept is that the guilty party in this case has been judged to be Mr Wingfield.

 

Had Mr Wingfield complied with cruising/mooring rules CRT's expenditure would have been a big fat £ZERO. Yes, that's right ZERO pounds.

 

If you feel aggrieved about monies wasted than you should blame first & foremost the guilty person, not CRT.

 

Before you go any further with your ideas as to who was responsible for spending the money, I very strongly suggest, you research the back ground to this case.

In a nutshell, Mr wingfield was moored in an area that is not and was not ever under C&RT control.

 

 

Bod

Link to comment
Share on other sites
dmr Veteran II

dmr

Posted
Posted

Whenever a case goes to court it means that either a boater has behaved badly, CaRT has behaved badly, or both have behaved badly or at the very least failed to communicate in a decent way.

It also means that money that should have been spent on the cut has been used to make solicitors even wealthier.

What on earth is there to rejoice about?

 

.....................Dave

  • Greenie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Tony Dunkley Influencer

Tony Dunkley

Posted
Posted (edited)

No, what you find difficult to understand or more likely refuse to accept is that the guilty party in this case has been judged to be Mr Wingfield.

 

Had Mr Wingfield complied with cruising/mooring rules CRT's expenditure would have been a big fat £ZERO. Yes, that's right ZERO pounds.

 

If you feel aggrieved about monies wasted than you should blame first & foremost the guilty person, not CRT.

 

You're still not making it clear what heinous crime you think Andy Wingfield committed to justify C&RT forking out in excess of £38,000 in legal costs in 2014 and an as yet undisclosed sum this year, estimated to be at least around half that figure, so in total, say, £60,000, or more, just for the satisfaction of obtaining an Injunction that temporarily excludes AW's boat, but not AW, from C&RT waters.

Taking legal action against inanimate objects, such as boats, is, to say the least, a somewhat strange and rather pointless thing to do, but it would seem that both you, and some equally irrational people at C&RT, have derived considerable satisfaction and pleasure from it.

Edited by Tony Dunkley
  • Greenie 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
PaulG Experienced

PaulG

Posted
Posted

No, what you find difficult to understand or more likely refuse to accept is that the guilty party in this case has been judged to be Mr Wingfield.

 

Had Mr Wingfield complied with cruising/mooring rules CRT's expenditure would have been a big fat £ZERO. Yes, that's right ZERO pounds.

 

If you feel aggrieved about monies wasted than you should blame first & foremost the guilty person, not CRT.

You're Richard Parry aren't you?

Come on - admit it!

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Tollerton Gongoozler

Tollerton

Posted
Posted

 

You're still not making it clear what heinous crime you think Andy Wingfield committed to justify C&RT forking out in excess of £38,000 in legal costs in 2014 and an as yet undisclosed sum this year, estimated to be at least around half that figure, so in total, say, £60,000, or more, just for the satisfaction of obtaining an Injunction that temporarily excludes AW's boat, but not AW, from C&RT waters.

Taking legal action against inanimate objects, such as boats, is, to say the least, a somewhat strange and rather pointless thing to do, but it would seem that both you, and some equally irrational people at C&RT, have derived considerable satisfaction and pleasure from it.

Very easy to criticise CRT from inside the Internet's Ivory Towers lumping people at CRT as irrational.

 

Interested to know what would you do different if you were running CRT.

 

Are you in favour of scrapping mooring and cruising rules, thereby allowing boaters to cruise whenever and moor for as long as they like anywhere they want to etc.

In effect a 'free for all' ?

 

If not, how would you decide where rules were enforced, what criteria, and likewise under what circumstances they wouldn't apply.

What do you consider to be irrational enforcement ?

 

Over to you

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bod Experienced

BodDonate to Canal World

Posted
Posted

Very easy to criticise CRT from inside the Internet's Ivory Towers lumping people at CRT as irrational.

 

Interested to know what would you do different if you were running CRT.

 

Are you in favour of scrapping mooring and cruising rules, thereby allowing boaters to cruise whenever and moor for as long as they like anywhere they want to etc.

In effect a 'free for all' ?

 

If not, how would you decide where rules were enforced, what criteria, and likewise under what circumstances they wouldn't apply.

What do you consider to be irrational enforcement ?

 

Over to you

 

"Irrational enforcement."

If you have the time to listen, Tony Dunkley can tell you exactly what that is, from personal experience, and he won't mince his words!

 

Bod

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Tony Dunkley Influencer

Tony Dunkley

Posted
Posted (edited)

Very easy to criticise CRT from inside the Internet's Ivory Towers lumping people at CRT as irrational.

 

Interested to know what would you do different if you were running CRT.

 

Are you in favour of scrapping mooring and cruising rules, thereby allowing boaters to cruise whenever and moor for as long as they like anywhere they want to etc.

In effect a 'free for all' ?

 

If not, how would you decide where rules were enforced, what criteria, and likewise under what circumstances they wouldn't apply.

What do you consider to be irrational enforcement ?

 

Over to you

 

Before progressing to anything else we should first establish why you think that in blowing £60,000 to temporarily remove a source of licence and mooring income from their waters, C&RT have achieved something praiseworthy and beneficial.

I will, however, correct one of the misconceptions evident in your post of earlier today where you stated ~ " the guilty party in this case has been judged to be Mr Wingfield."

In fact, Andy Wingfield hasn't been judged to be "guilty" of anything. The truth is that C&RT, employing their usual devious tactics, successfully applied to the Court for a Declaration that they were entitled to remove AW's boat from their waters on the grounds that it was not licensed. Needless to say, they omitted to mention that the sole reason for the boat being unlicensed was that they had failed to issue a Licence despite having earlier taken the full 12 months payment for it. C&RT's rationale for this was that, despite him having a 'home' mooring, they wanted to wait until they were satisfied that he was 'cruising' in compliance with CC'ing Guidelines before issuing the Licence.

Is that irrational enough for you? If not there's plenty more that I can add, . . . for you to rejoice over.

Edited by Tony Dunkley
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Tony Dunkley Influencer

Tony Dunkley

Posted
Posted

I'm left wondering how much money is being spent now on influencing people through social media?

 

If that is what's happening, and they're paying this goon what he's worth, then it won't be making much of a hole in the finances.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Tony Dunkley Influencer

Tony Dunkley

Posted
Posted (edited)

Try playing anagrams with tollerton.

 

The troll has been noted !

 

I'm inclined to the view that he's unintentionally being rather useful, in that he's provided an opportunity to air a few more details of C&RT's appalling conduct.

Edited by Tony Dunkley
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share
Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.