E.A name and shame those not registering their boats

[Paul C]

 

The fine under the byelaw is £100. To that, of course, has to be added [as the article linked to also indicates] the court fees, licence arrears, and legal costs [not to mention the criminal record].

Is that £100 per day?

[NigelMoore]

Is that £100 per day?

 

No, not in my estimation. The penalty under the byelaw is for the offence, having nothing to do with the duration of the offence.

 

There will be an inevitable difference in treatment and consequence depending upon whether the boat is ‘permanently’ kept within the canal, or has just ‘visited’ briefly.

 

To take the instance of a boat kept on the canal: the terms of the 1995 Act provide that for any reason someone has not obtained the required relevant consent, 28 days should be given during which the opportunity is given to rectify the situation. Using that principle, the offender could pay up immediately, which - would not retrospectively absolve them of the offence [for which they could still be prosecuted and fined with costs], but - would bring a halt to the offence continuing.

 

On the same principle, supposing that they did NOT pay the arrears, I could see justification for charging with the offence yet again at the end of each month that that continued. So, as an example, if a boat needing a licence costing £500/annum was charged with not having paid, but did so following the charge, they could be fined the £100 plus court fees and legal costs.

 

If the boat owner did NOT pay, then when the matter came before the court – supposing it took say 3 months to do so – the result would be the £100 fine trebled, plus court fees and legal costs plus the £500 owing on the licence arrears back dated to the start of the offence.

 

To take the instance of a boat kept offline [whether on a different system, independent marina, or whatever]: if discovered sneaking a day trip every Sunday and returning offline after each of those trips, then a separate offence has been committed every week, such that the fines would amount to £400/month, plus the court fees, legal costs, plus a payment for whatever was determinable as the owed licence fees according to the published day licence schedules, or in the absence of any such, on a pro-rate basis.

 

A different regime applies to the Pleasure Boat Certificate under the terms of the 1971 Act. There, there IS both a fixed fine and a further fine for every day that the offence continues. So in that case, the result of a prosecution for an identical boat as in the previous example entering the court not having paid for the last 3 months, would be a £50 fixed fine, plus a total of £450 at the daily rate of fine, plus the court fees and legal costs, plus the relevant owed ‘licence’ fees - £300/annum if kept and/or used 'permanently' within the main navigable channel; or, if not, whatever the appropriate pro-rata rate was for the times spent on the river waterway.

Edited October 28, 2015 by NigelMoore

[Paul C]

 

No, not in my estimation. The penalty under the byelaw is for the offence, having nothing to do with the duration of the offence.

 

There will be an inevitable difference in treatment and consequence depending upon whether the boat is ‘permanently’ kept within the canal, or has just ‘visited’ briefly.

 

To take the instance of a boat kept on the canal: the terms of the 1995 Act provide that for any reason someone has not obtained the required relevant consent, 28 days should be given during which the opportunity is given to rectify the situation. Using that principle, the offender could pay up immediately, which - would not retrospectively absolve them of the offence [for which they could still be prosecuted and fined with costs], but - would bring a halt to the offence continuing.

 

On the same principle, supposing that they did NOT pay the arrears, I could see justification for charging with the offence yet again at the end of each month that that continued. So, as an example, if a boat needing a licence costing £500/annum was charged with not having paid, but did so following the charge, they could be fined the £100 plus court fees and legal costs.

 

If the boat owner did NOT pay, then when the matter came before the court – supposing it took say 3 months to do so – the result would be the £100 fine trebled, plus court fees and legal costs plus the £500 owing on the licence arrears back dated to the start of the offence.

 

To take the instance of a boat kept offline [whether on a different system, independent marina, or whatever]: if discovered sneaking a day trip every Sunday and returning offline after each of those trips, then a separate offence has been committed every week, such that the fines would amount to £400/month, plus the court fees, legal costs, plus a payment for whatever was determinable as the owed licence fees according to the published day licence schedules, or in the absence of any such, on a pro-rate basis.

 

A different regime applies to the Pleasure Boat Certificate under the terms of the 1971 Act. There, there IS both a fixed fine and a further fine for every day that the offence continues. So in that case, the result of a prosecution for an identical boat as in the previous example entering the court not having paid for the last 3 months, would be a £50 fixed fine, plus a total of £450 at the daily rate of fine, plus the court fees and legal costs, plus the relevant owed ‘licence’ fees - £300/annum if kept and/or used 'permanently' within the main navigable channel; or, if not, whatever the appropriate pro-rata rate was for the times spent on the river waterway.

 

Remind me again - everyone else uses the terms "CRT Licence" and "Rivers only licence" - Pleasure Boat Certificate = (normal) CRT licence, right?

 

Also, what's the situation if CRT become unsatisfied with the boater CCing, then decline to issue another licence on that basis (but don't cancel the current one ie they wait until it expires) but state they'll be happy to issue one with a home mooring? Their licence application isn't going to come forwards until they obtain a home mooring, right?

 

(I know there's a bunch of other terms and precise wording I've missed out, and CC licence doesn't exist but its a licence on the basis of blah blah blah 1995 Act section 17 (3) © i or ii, etc etc)

[NigelMoore]

 

Remind me again - everyone else uses the terms "CRT Licence" and "Rivers only licence" - Pleasure Boat Certificate = (normal) CRT licence, right?

 

Wrong.

 

Pleasure Boat Certificate = Rivers only 'Licence' [it cannot properly be called a 'licence' because of the PRN].

 

Pleasure Boat Licence = CRT Licence, applicable to both rivers and canals.

 

Two very different "relevant consents".

[NigelMoore]

Also, what's the situation if CRT become unsatisfied with the boater CCing, then decline to issue another licence on that basis (but don't cancel the current one ie they wait until it expires) but state they'll be happy to issue one with a home mooring? Their licence application isn't going to come forwards until they obtain a home mooring, right?

 

If a court upheld the right of CaRT to decline the licence, then CaRT would be free to instigate the relevant prosecution, and/or perhaps, a civil claim for licence arrears [the latter a bit tricky under the circumstances I suspect].

 

Any Order confirming the right to decline the licence would have to entail the mandatory 28 days to put the situation right.

[Paul C]

 

If a court upheld the right of CaRT to decline the licence, then CaRT would be free to instigate the relevant prosecution, and/or perhaps, a civil claim for licence arrears [the latter a bit tricky under the circumstances I suspect].

 

Any Order confirming the right to decline the licence would have to entail the mandatory 28 days to put the situation right.

 

What's the relevant prosecution in this case?

[Burgiesburnin]

We have had naming and shaming debated on here before. I think that anyone that transgresses the normal rules and laws that society hold dear should be named and shamed as a normal part of any punishment or recourse that society has deemed appropriate.

I don't know about other towns local newspapers but the St Helens newspaper lists the names and details of people that have been found guilty. They also list the punishment. It's either fines, jail or whatever. Naming and shaming is just a part of the punishment.

Not only must justice be done but it also must be seen to be done.

I for one would rather pay 10 times the fine than be named and shamed. For me, the risk of being named and shamed would be a very big deterant.

[GreyLady]

We have had naming and shaming debated on here before. I think that anyone that transgresses the normal rules and laws that society hold dear should be named and shamed as a normal part of any punishment or recourse that society has deemed appropriate.

I don't know about other towns local newspapers but the St Helens newspaper lists the names and details of people that have been found guilty. They also list the punishment. It's either fines, jail or whatever. Naming and shaming is just a part of the punishment.

Not only must justice be done but it also must be seen to be done.

I for one would rather pay 10 times the fine than be named and shamed. For me, the risk of being named and shamed would be a very big deterant.

 

Maybe in law thats how it should be i am not sure, some forum members like to name and shame other boaters, the forum is not a judge and jury and no one should be have their boat name/reputation deminished online or on the canal system.

Edited October 28, 2015 by GreyLady

[Murflynn]

Naming & Shaming is just as pathetic as Licence Dodging.

why?

[NigelMoore]

 

What's the relevant prosecution in this case?

 

 

The relevant prosecution would be either breach of the 1971 Statute in the case of the Pleasure Boat Certificate, or breach of the byelaw in the case of the Pleasure Boat Licence.

[Paul C]

 

 

The relevant prosecution would be either breach of the 1971 Statute in the case of the Pleasure Boat Certificate, or breach of the byelaw in the case of the Pleasure Boat Licence.

 

....at £100/month.

[Burgiesburnin]

I can't actually recal a post that named and shamed a fellow boater for any reason.

There have been many posts that have complained about other boaters conduct but have stopped short of saying things like Nb Whatever was hogging a water point at such and such a place while his witch of a Mrs took 2 hours to shop or get her hair done.

I agree that the forum is not judge and jury and I'm not sure that I would be happy for this forum to allow such a post.

If push came to shove and I had to make a decision to name and shame in this instance then I would probably say...............

[mayalld]

I can't actually recal a post that named and shamed a fellow boater for any reason.

There have been many posts that have complained about other boaters conduct but have stopped short of saying things like Nb Whatever was hogging a water point at such and such a place while his witch of a Mrs took 2 hours to shop or get her hair done.

I agree that the forum is not judge and jury and I'm not sure that I would be happy for this forum to allow such a post.

If push came to shove and I had to make a decision to name and shame in this instance then I would probably say...............

 

I could have sworn that I did just that yesterday.

 

So, either I didn't, or an admin has removed it and not mentioned it (and if either an admin or the person named objects, I'll take it down myself)

 

Anyway, here's a name and shame;

 

http://www.lincolnshireecho.co.uk/Skipper-fined-speeding-lake/story-11214694-detail/story.html

[NigelMoore]

 

....at £100/month.

 

Potentially, for breach of the byelaw.

 

A definite £150/month approximately, for breach of the 1971 Statute.

 

I could have sworn that I did just that yesterday.

 

You did.

[GreyLady]

why?

You do the crime you serve the time or pay the fine, after that people have paid the penalty for a wrong doing, they should be able to go home to their home address without having it being brought into a crime they have served/had their punishment for.

 

simples

[Paul C]

 

I could have sworn that I did just that yesterday.

 

So, either I didn't, or an admin has removed it and not mentioned it (and if either an admin or the person named objects, I'll take it down myself)

 

Anyway, here's a name and shame;

 

http://www.lincolnshireecho.co.uk/Skipper-fined-speeding-lake/story-11214694-detail/story.html

 

You did, and it was removed yesterday by a moderator. 2 other posts were removed too (which related). I don't know why they didn't PM you though.

You do the crime you serve the time or pay the fine, after that people have paid the penalty for a wrong doing, they should be able to go home to their home address without having it being brought into a crime they have served/had their punishment for.

 

simples

 

What about the transparency of justice issue?

[GreyLady]

 

What about the transparency of justice issue?

Crime Details / Persons Name / Verdict in Court, thats fair enough but its not fare to give out their home addresses where other family members may be living.

[mayalld]

 

You did, and it was removed yesterday by a moderator. 2 other posts were removed too (which related). I don't know why they didn't PM you though.

 

Happy to take it down if it causes offence to the individual named.

 

However, given;

 

• the participation of that individual in this discussion
• that the incident is already well known here
• that the individual hasn't previously tried to hide the story

I was of the view that the post was not problematic, and would be taken in good part. If that isn't the case, then I apologise to the person concerned.

[Graham Davis]

Crime Details / Persons Name / Verdict in Court, thats fair enough but its not fare to give out their home addresses where other family members may be living.

 

The Court publish all those details, as they are required to do so.

So why shouldn't the Court list be published by a third party?

[GreyLady]

The Court publish all those details, as they are required to do so.

So why shouldn't the Court list be published by a third party?

Because it gives away the home address where innocent family members of the accused may live, tarnishing their reputation and their home.

 

They should keep addresses out if it.

Edited October 28, 2015 by GreyLady

[gaggle]

 

The Court publish all those details, as they are required to do so.

So why shouldn't the Court list be published by a third party?

 

So it got took down off here yesterday , ask the mods not grey lady , some on here take pleasure from seeing the misfortune of others so any unfortunate events they encounter themselves is kinda karma biting them on the arse , myself I have not clicked the link , what is the point as any wrong done has been dealt with.

[Graham Davis]

I don't have a clue what you are on about Gaggle? What link?

 

I was simply pointing out that a Court is required to publish the results of all Hearings, including names and address. I was not referring to any specific case or posting on here.

[cuthound]

Because it gives away the home address where innocent family members of the accused may live, tarnishing their reputation and their home.

They should keep addresses out if it.

I think they publish the address to avoid the wrong person potentially being targetted

 

If they just names John Smith of Birmingham, then how would you know which of the many John Smith's it was?

[ditchcrawler]

Because it gives away the home address where innocent family members of the accused may live, tarnishing their reputation and their home.

 

They should keep addresses out if it.

So if some chap called Brian Holt gets done for interfering with kids its OK if people think its me as we share the same name, but not the same address.?

[Phil Ambrose]

 

I could have sworn that I did just that yesterday.

 

So, either I didn't, or an admin has removed it and not mentioned it (and if either an admin or the person named objects, I'll take it down myself)

 

Anyway, here's a name and shame;

 

http://www.lincolnshireecho.co.uk/Skipper-fined-speeding-lake/story-11214694-detail/story.html

I did warn you about the norty step yesterday you're lucky the Coat Faerie is busy.

Phil