Should marina moorers need licences?

[Stilllearning]

31 minutes ago, Graham Davis said:

I can see the huge chip on his shoulder from here.

Looks like higgs, sounds like higgs.

[TheBiscuits]

1 minute ago, Stilllearning said:

Looks like higgs, sounds like higgs.

 

Nah, I was teasing @Higgs on this topic on another thread earlier and he wouldn't bite.

 

He's too busy now he's retired!  Maybe he's looking for a non-NAA marina. 

 

[Graham Davis]

5 minutes ago, Stilllearning said:

Looks like higgs, sounds like higgs.

I did wonder whether it was another sock puppet.

[Orwellian]

1 hour ago, jon.h said:

The CRT are a private company and not a public sector body (see https://beta.companieshouse.gov.uk/company/07807276) Many don't realise this, it may claim charitable status but it is a private company nonetheless and is not a not-for-profit in the real sense. Income reported in 2018/2019 was £210 million.

 

The trust is a privately owned interest group who bought the rights to the network from the government. Like all businesses they are subject to competition laws, where is their competition? They own a monopoly over "the market" and thus they are actually required to be broken up by all good measure of the law by the government.

 

I have caught them out a number of times when one of their staff mentions "...is illegal" and then they have to backtrack and admit that technically not "illegal".  Their rules are not enforceable by law, only those who have subscribed to enter into contract with them by law can be held accountable to the private contract they entered.

 

This has absolutely nothing to do with insurance. I am insured but I do not have a licence because I am not using the canals while my boat is not in use. Simple. Anyone saying a boat owner has to pay them money other than a private marina whose private domain is being used is just trying to pull the wool over their eyes.

 

If someone uses a marina, they have paid for the use of a private domain. The water that the canal system use falls free from the sky and is not owned by the network.

 

If a boat is not using a canal system no-one has the legal right to say they have to pay for it.

 

It is daylight robbery and doesn't make any legal sense for a private company to have a right to enforce anything on a customer of other private domains which are is beyond their reach.

 

Neither the water nor the private domain belong to them, the network of canals belongs to them. When you use it you should pay a licence and that's it!

 

As long as your vessel is insured and kept off their network in a private domain no-one can force you to pay them hundreds of pounds otherwise maybe we should start charging an air tax for vessels using the network of oxygen that flows around the boats too?

 

They are a private organisation and not a government body. I would like to see CRT try to sue someone moored up on a private marina when they are not using the network.

 

Like many organisations that used to be public bodies, they are legally in limbo and live only on the fear and claims that they are legally in the right...it is only a matter of time when someone with the slightest know how refuses to fall for the company line when it will become aparent.

 

The level of ignorance in this post is staggering.

[jon.h]

20 minutes ago, Orwellian said:

 

The level of ignorance in this post is staggering.

As I said to you by message, kindly educate me. I may not have the right terminology but I'm rarely wrong in concept although I would be happy to be shown the error of my judgement. 

 

Quite simply, am I the only ignorant individual who questions the legitimacy of statutory regulations being transferred to private bodies? 

 

Am I the only ignorant person who recognises that charity in its linguistic meaning is wholly different from what many modern day "registered charities" do?

 

Some of the biggest businesses in Britain are charities. Charity is an act of goodwill for the benefit of others without asking for any return.

 

Forgive my skeptical nature but when someone talks of taxing individuals hundreds if not thousands of pounds every year when they have already paid to keep their boats on private domains off the CRT system I find it very difficult to see the element of charity in it.

[Jerra]

7 minutes ago, jon.h said:

Am I the only ignorant person who recognises that charity in its linguistic meaning is wholly different from what many modern day "registered charities" do?

I suspect somebody will correct me on the correct terminology but CRT isn't a charity.   Well not a charity in the conventional sense, I think the correct term is something along the lines of  "Company with charitable status".

[Orwellian]

I suggest you spend some time researching charity law and the legal basis of the transfer of the statutory functions of British Waterways to the Canal & River Trust. On your point about boat licences in marinas you are correct in saying CRT cannot take action against boaters inside marinas for not having a licence. However if the marina has a NAA (or in most cases an earlier connection agreement) they can take action against the marina owner for breach of contract for permitting boats to moor in the marina if their boat isn't licenced.

[Orwellian]

4 minutes ago, Jerra said:

I suspect somebody will correct me on the correct terminology but CRT isn't a charity.   Well not a charity in the conventional sense, I think the correct term is something along the lines of  "Company with charitable status".

So please tell us what a 'charity in the conventional sense' is then.

[Stilllearning]

5 minutes ago, Orwellian said:

I suggest you spend some time researching charity law and the legal basis of the transfer of the statutory functions of British Waterways to the Canal & River Trust. On your point about boat licences in marinas you are correct in saying CRT cannot take action against boaters inside marinas for not having a licence. However if the marina has a NAA (or in most cases an earlier connection agreement) they can take action against the marina owner for breach of contract for permitting boats to moor in the marina if their boat isn't licenced.

Exactly this, it’s all about contract law. Nothing to do with charities or limited companies, just contracts freely entered into.

[Athy]

3 minutes ago, Orwellian said:

I suggest you spend some time researching charity law and the legal basis of the transfer of the statutory functions of British Waterways to the Canal & River Trust. On your point about boat licences in marinas you are correct in saying CRT cannot take action against boaters inside marinas for not having a licence. However if the marina has a NAA (or in most cases an earlier connection agreement) they can take action against the marina owner for breach of contract for permitting boats to moor in the marina if their boat isn't licenced.

This is a welcome step forward from your previous post in which you spoke crushingly to Jon without addressing any of his points.

For some reason, on my screen your previous post was no. 579 and this one quoted above is no. 577. I have no idea why; perhaps my level of ignorance regarding the workings of I.T. is staggering.

[Orwellian]

Perhaps it is but I am not qualified to judge.

[Stilllearning]

9 minutes ago, Athy said:

This is a welcome step forward from your previous post in which you spoke crushingly to Jon without addressing any of his points.

For some reason, on my screen your previous post was no. 579 and this one quoted above is no. 577. I have no idea why; perhaps my level of ignorance regarding the workings of I.T. is staggering.

Sometimes one has to call a spade a f****ng shovel, as my late mum loved to say.

[jon.h]

20 minutes ago, Orwellian said:

So please tell us what a 'charity in the conventional sense' is then.

Why do you have to be so rude in the way your write? It really is quite unfortunate. I don't know if sarcasm and slinging about horrible labels makes you somehow feel superior but in my book how someone conducts themselves with what knowledge they have is 9/10ths of its value.

 

I admit I am a newbie to boating and maybe I am rocking the boat a little but I do find it quite unfortunate that I can't question it from a legal standpoint without being labelled "ignorant". Also ironically after labelling me ignorant you also admitted that boat owners can't be prosecuted for keeping their boats in private marine's without a licence. It also makes me wonder what contracts the poor marina owners have signed and whether everyone has signed them and what legal requirement they had to do so in the first place. Ignorance around the rights of private individuals and small organisations is often common.

Edited August 20, 2020 by jon.h

[Jerra]

18 minutes ago, Orwellian said:

So please tell us what a 'charity in the conventional sense' is then.

Organisations which collect money and then spend it on "good works" be it providing clean water for people in underdeveloped countries, protecting donkeys, cancer research etc (just a few which I see regularly advertised on TV).

[Orwellian]

3 minutes ago, jon.h said:

Why do you have to be so rude in the way your write? It really is quite unfortunate. I don't know if sarcasm and slinging about horrible labels makes you somehow feel superior but in my book how someone conducts themselves with what knowledge they have is 9/10ths of its value.

I did say please. I disagree with your last comment. If a statement it is wrong it has little real value however politely expressed.

[Orwellian]

7 minutes ago, Jerra said:

Organisations which collect money and then spend it on "good works" be it providing clean water for people in underdeveloped countries, protecting donkeys, cancer research etc (just a few which I see regularly advertised on TV).

A very common misconception. Many organisations of the type you describe are also private companies. CRT is a registered charity as can be verified by the Charities Commission.

[GUMPY]

14 minutes ago, jon.h said:

I admit I am a newbie to boating and maybe I am rocking the boat a little

I wouldn't say you were rocking the boat, more like smashing your head against a brick wall.

Unless you are prepared to take cart to court you wont get anywhere,

And if you do take them to court you better have deep pockets and be prepared to lose all you have as it will cost.

 

[Jerra]

6 minutes ago, Orwellian said:

A very common misconception. Many organisations of the type you describe are also private companies. CRT is a registered charity as can be verified by the Charities Commission.

Where did I say they weren't private companies,    Some are some may even be companies with charitable status but I never mentioned the fact they were or weren't.

 

Do make sure you reply to what was written all I did was define what is conventionally seen as a charity.

[OldGoat]

I shouldn't butt in, however

the issue of licences and who should pay them is governed by the NAA.

Simply in order to connect to the canal system the marina operator contracts with CRT that all boats within the marina are liable and pay the appropriate licence fee (with the threat that CRT will block the connection if they don't

Seemples

fertig

[jon.h]

14 minutes ago, Loddon said:

I wouldn't say you were rocking the boat, more like smashing your head against a brick wall.

Unless you are prepared to take cart to court you wont get anywhere,

And if you do take them to court you better have deep pockets and be prepared to lose all you have as it will cost.

 

I know, call me old fashioned but I'm a believer that if people are aware of the boundaries of their rights then they will not tolerate it for long.

 

Confusion exists in many privatised organisations that used to be government bodies to fuel the perception of legitimacy in the mind of Joe Boggs. In the past additional profits went into reducing premiums or at very least offsetting other public services but this is not the case with a private business.

 

I don't mind paying CRT some level of fee and I don't completely oppose the organisation as I will eventually be using the canal system and I understand that some costs are involved in maintaining the network, but when a "charitable organisation" is making a net of £41m a year and still trying to push beyond their territories into forcing private marinas to force their customers who are already paying for their mooring it difficult to justify their actions are in any way beneficial to the collective purpose for which they exist.

Edited August 20, 2020 by jon.h

[Graham Davis]

1 hour ago, jon.h said:

As I said to you by message, kindly educate me. I may not have the right terminology but I'm rarely wrong in concept although I would be happy to be shown the error of my judgement. 

 

Quite simply, am I the only ignorant individual who questions the legitimacy of statutory regulations being transferred to private bodies? 

 

Am I the only ignorant person who recognises that charity in its linguistic meaning is wholly different from what many modern day "registered charities" do?

 

Some of the biggest businesses in Britain are charities. Charity is an act of goodwill for the benefit of others without asking for any return.

 

Forgive my skeptical nature but when someone talks of taxing individuals hundreds if not thousands of pounds every year when they have already paid to keep their boats on private domains off the CRT system I find it very difficult to see the element of charity in it.

CBA

Edited August 20, 2020 by Graham Davis

[Graham Davis]

38 minutes ago, Jerra said:

Organisations which collect money and then spend it on "good works" be it providing clean water for people in underdeveloped countries, protecting donkeys, cancer research etc (just a few which I see regularly advertised on TV).

So the National Trust isn't a charity then?
Or 4x4 Response Wales?
Or numerous canal societies?
Or preserved railways?
 

[Jerra]

4 minutes ago, Graham Davis said:

So the National Trust isn't a charity then?
Or 4x4 Response Wales?
Or numerous canal societies?
Or preserved railways?
 

Are you suggesting they don't do good works?

 

EDIT to add I don't consider the "Laal Ratty" narrow gauge preserved railway up here a charity I consider it a business.

 

ANother EDIT to add having had a dig in their website they do not appear to be a charity.

Edited August 20, 2020 by Jerra

[Orwellian]

16 minutes ago, jon.h said:

I know, call me old fashioned but I'm a believer that if people are aware of the boundaries of their rights then they will not tolerate it for long.

 

Confusion exists in many privatised organisations that used to be government bodies to fuel the perception of legitimacy in the mind of Joe Boggs. In the past additional profits went into reducing premiums or at very least offsetting other public services but this is not the case with a private business.

 

I don't mind paying CRT some level of fee and I don't completely oppose the organisation as I will eventually be using the canal system and I understand that some costs are involved in maintaining the network, but when a "charitable organisation" is making a net of £41m a year and still trying to push beyond their territories into forcing private marinas to force their customers who are already paying for their mooring it difficult to justify their actions are in any way beneficial to the collective purpose for which they exist.

More ignorance I'm afraid. You really should do more research before posting about things you clearly know very little about.

[Graham Davis]

5 minutes ago, Jerra said:

Are you suggesting they don't do good works?

 

EDIT to add I don't consider the "Laal Ratty" narrow gauge preserved railway up here a charity I consider it a business.

 

ANother EDIT to add having had a dig in their website they do not appear to be a charity.

Define "good works"?
On the grounds that CaRT provides facilities for exercise and helps preserve history, are those not "good works"?