Should marina moorers need licences?

[jon.h]

1 minute ago, Orwellian said:

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

You sound like a politician repeating a word in the hope it will fit ?.

 

The "Strong and stable" of the canalworld.

 

You don't work for or are contracted by CRT are you? Maybe a board member?

 

 

 

[jon.h]

13 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.

Unfortunately in our society charities can do whatever they like. Many charities exist that don't even spend 5% of what they collect on the cause they claim to represent. Some give under 1%, I know this as I have ample experience working with 3rd sector organisations, it is quite horrific. To the best of my knowledge last I checked there is no legal requirement to spend x amount on the cause...just to spend something. 

 

The salaries many of the charity directors and board members are on are also ridiculous not to mention the industry being riddled with corruption and tit for tat handouts in the form of work being "contracted" . Plus they get the benefit of walking around acting selfless and self-righteous ?

 

Not saying all charities are like that but unfortunately there is a pattern especially in the largest "charities".

Edited August 20, 2020 by jon.h

[Jerra]

1 minute ago, Graham Davis said:

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

I don't see CRT as a full blown charity.   There record on preserving some parts of history isn't IMO good, provision for exercise is something of a band wagon they have jumped on to try to justify their existence.  To me CRT are first and foremost a navigation authority desperately trying to gain money by pushing their "charitable status".   For me a "conventional charity" is up front and says our purpose is to protect the lesser spotted inner mongolian newt and gets people to contribute because  they want to save the newt.

 

Good works to me is a clear single aim (not navigation authority, exercise park, wildlife, have, cycle race track fishing pond) such as the three I originally mentioned.   When you are as diverse in your work as CRT you are not aiming as a charity you are clearly a diversified business.   I suppose you might consider them as a collection of charities but I wouldn't.

[churchward]

12 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.

The Ravenglass & Eskdale Railway Trust is a registered charity.

 

http://apps.charitycommission.gov.uk/Showcharity/RegisterOfCharities/CharityWithoutPartB.aspx?RegisteredCharityNumber=1067272&SubsidiaryNumber=0

 

Similar to other Heritage railways and other concerns the organisation may be split into several parts some of which will operate outside of the charitable status.

[Jerra]

2 minutes ago, jon.h said:

Unfortunately in our society charities can do whatever they like. Many charities exist that don't even spend 5% of what they collect on the cause they claim to represent. Some are under 1%, I know this as I have ample experience working with 3rd sector organisations. 

The  they aren't charities they are businesses probably with on paper charitable status.

Just now, churchward said:

The Ravenglass & Eskdale Railway Trust is a registered charity.

 

http://apps.charitycommission.gov.uk/Showcharity/RegisterOfCharities/CharityWithoutPartB.aspx?RegisteredCharityNumber=1067272&SubsidiaryNumber=0

 

Similar to other Heritage railways and other concerns the organisation may be split into several parts some of which will operate outside of the charitable status.

They must be ashamed of it then as they don't publish their charitable number on the website.

[churchward]

1 minute ago, Jerra said:

I don't see CRT as a full blown charity.   There record on preserving some parts of history isn't IMO good, provision for exercise is something of a band wagon they have jumped on to try to justify their existence.  To me CRT are first and foremost a navigation authority desperately trying to gain money by pushing their "charitable status".   For me a "conventional charity" is up front and says our purpose is to protect the lesser spotted inner mongolian newt and gets people to contribute because  they want to save the newt.

 

Good works to me is a clear single aim (not navigation authority, exercise park, wildlife, have, cycle race track fishing pond) such as the three I originally mentioned.   When you are as diverse in your work as CRT you are not aiming as a charity you are clearly a diversified business.   I suppose you might consider them as a collection of charities but I wouldn't.

All charities in their registration have a mission statement.

 

CANAL & RIVER TRUST IS THE CHARITABLE OPERATOR AND GUARDIAN OF 2,000 MILES OF HISTORIC WATERWAYS ACROSS ENGLAND AND WALES. IN ADDITION TO CARING FOR THE WATERWAYS SO THAT THEY ARE AVAILABLE FOR THE PUBLIC TO ENJOY, THE TRUST MAINTAINS THE NATIONS' THIRD LARGEST COLLECTION OF LISTED HERITAGE STRUCTURES, AS WELL AS MUSEUMS, ARCHIVES, AND HUNDREDS OF IMPORTANT WILDLIFE SITES.

[churchward]

3 minutes ago, Jerra said:

 

They must be ashamed of it then as they don't publish their charitable number on the website.

I don't expect so it will jut be that the website is run by the operational arm of the organisation I expect.  They may keep the commercial side separate.

[jon.h]

3 minutes ago, Jerra said:

The  they aren't charities they are businesses probably with on paper charitable status.

They must be ashamed of it then as they don't publish their charitable number on the website.

No they are registered charities and labelled as charities but that is ultimately all a legal qualifier that is required to define a charity. 

 

The old meaning of charity is long gone and in my experience usually exists only prior to registration as community-based activities and initiatives. In such groups there are many good people doing good deeds but registration involves taxes and money and efficiency and that tends to in some cases corrupt their goals. 

 

To the best of my knowledge there isn't even a requirement for wages of directors and board members to be capped.

 

Anyhoo, it's a long road. 

[Captain Pegg]

31 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.

I don’t think you fully understand the nature of CRT’s constitution. A misconception in your original mail is that CRT is a ‘not for profit’ organisation. Although it’s an often used term such companies are in fact ‘not for dividend’. Ideally they will make a profit, but whereas with a publicly listed company that profit will benefit shareholders, in CRT’s case it benefits the Government for they hold the private share(s) in CRT. So any profit does benefit other public services or reduces the public subsidy to CRT.

 

Mooring income is one source of potential income and therefore profit for CRT hence any private marina is a threat to their financial performance. It is however recognised that it’s mutually beneficial to have private marinas hence there are agreements in place whereby CRT reduce their own mooring spaces to create a larger market for private marinas which otherwise would struggle to make the business case to invest in the first place. The direct financial disbenefit to CRT is offset through the terms of the NAA that requires boats in marinas to be licensed and the marina to pay a charge to CRT for the connection through which, unless the site of your marina was previously a natural lake, CRT does provide the marina with water in return.

 

It’s all above board and legal.

 

JP

[Captain Pegg]

32 minutes ago, jon.h said:

No they are registered charities and labelled as charities but that is ultimately all a legal qualifier that is required to define a charity. 

 

The old meaning of charity is long gone and in my experience usually exists only prior to registration as community-based activities and initiatives. In such groups there are many good people doing good deeds but registration involves taxes and money and efficiency and that tends to in some cases corrupt their goals. 

 

To the best of my knowledge there isn't even a requirement for wages of directors and board members to be capped.

 

Anyhoo, it's a long road. 

The business of what constitutes a charity is also a bit of a red herring.

 

The principal purpose of the creation of CRT was to shift the subsidy for inland waterways away from the general taxpayer toward the user or other directly interested party.
 

Giving CRT charitable status is a means of making donating more lucrative for the contributor as part of that overall process. From Government perspective they want it all at arm’s length, “if you don’t bother me for funding then I don’t need to bother you for tax”. The only person that’s ever going to benefit is the Chancellor.

 

JP

Edited August 20, 2020 by Captain Pegg

[churchward]

3 minutes ago, Captain Pegg said:

The business of what constitutes a charity is also a bit of a red herring.

 

The principal purpose of the creation of CRT was to shift the subsidy for inland waterways away from the general taxpayer toward the user or other directly interested party.
 

Giving CRT charitable status is a means of making donating more lucrative for the contributor as part of that overall process. From Government perspective they want it all at arm’s length, “if you don’t bother me for funding then I don’t need to bother you for tax”. The only person that’s ever going to benefit is the Chancellor.

 

JP

Arms length indeed but the government so far do contribute via a grant to CRT.  The charitable status and its charter do more than isolate the government from expense.  

 

It means that CRT have no need of shareholders who wish a cut of the proceeds.  CRT cannot sell off (or close) bits of the network or some commercial operation take-over CRT.  CRT just hold the assets in trust for the nation and can be brought back under direct government control if it wishes too.  The benefit to all is that the status of the Network is preserved.

[Mike Todd]

3 hours ago, Orwellian said:

 

The level of ignorance in this post is staggering.

Not so much staggering (although it is) as repetitive and still no guts for the fight yet visible.

[Machpoint005]

1 hour ago, jon.h said:

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".

 

There are no stupid questions, just questions. If you don't know the answer to a question, you are ignorant in at least one respect, otherwise why ask? You don't have to take every adjective as a personal affront. 

 

A little basic research isn't usually a bad idea, though.

 

 

 

52 minutes ago, jon.h said:

To the best of my knowledge there isn't even a requirement for wages of directors and board members to be capped.

 

Directors' emoluments are not usually described as "wages" (pay per hour, or for a given measurable quantity of work). They may get a salary, a bonus, a dividend, all of the above, or none of the above. 

 

[Captain Pegg]

1 hour ago, churchward said:

Arms length indeed but the government so far do contribute via a grant to CRT.  The charitable status and its charter do more than isolate the government from expense.  

 

It means that CRT have no need of shareholders who wish a cut of the proceeds.  CRT cannot sell off (or close) bits of the network or some commercial operation take-over CRT.  CRT just hold the assets in trust for the nation and can be brought back under direct government control if it wishes too.  The benefit to all is that the status of the Network is preserved.

There are not-for-dividend companies to which all the above in the second paragraph applies that are not registered charities.

 

I didn’t intend to convey the idea that the Government was totally washing it’s hands in one fell swoop. Even they recognise that would result in an own goal. The intent was to shift the balance of funding over time.

 

JP

Edited August 20, 2020 by Captain Pegg

[Mike Todd]

1 hour 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 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.

You may well be the victim of the fact that this argument, or some minor variant, has been aired here many, many times in the past. Sadly, like proposals for perpetual motion machines, they all fail on a simple test, possibly having used one of the following errors:

 

1. Not knowing that the relationship between CaRT and a marina is subject to contract law (statute is not the only form of law) - other forms are available as well

2. Not understanding that contract law is often as enforceable as any other form and provides its own remedies

3. Missing the point that canals and rivers have somewhat different legal bases, the latter having pre-dated any of the canals

4. Not understanding that a Registered Charity is a legally defined and regulated entity whose purposes fit within the envelope set by Charity Law. 

5. Not recognising that many things have different meanings between their popular and legal definitions - generally the latter are more circumscribed

6. Making the mistake of confusing profit making and profit distributing bodies (not to mention that the term profit needs qualification anyway - eg before depreciation, after tax and so on)

etc

 

It would be useful if, on matters like this, there could be a pinned page that anyone posting afresh on the subject has to read and accept before their (moderated) post appears. Would save a lot of false trails as well as much angst!

 

Since the transfer of the network to CaRT, as well as the establishment of CaRT, took place under parliamentary approval it is, by definition, legal save for the possibility of a court ruling that it was counter to superior legislation, the most popular being HRA.

[Orwellian]

1 hour ago, jon.h said:

You sound like a politician repeating a word in the hope it will fit ?.

 

The "Strong and stable" of the canalworld.

 

You don't work for or are contracted by CRT are you? Maybe a board member?

 

 

 

Now you're just being ridiculous. I haven't taken anyone's side but simply pointed out that you are talking at length about a topic which you know very little about.

[Mike Todd]

1 hour ago, jon.h said:

Unfortunately in our society charities can do whatever they like. Many charities exist that don't even spend 5% of what they collect on the cause they claim to represent. Some give under 1%, I know this as I have ample experience working with 3rd sector organisations, it is quite horrific. To the best of my knowledge last I checked there is no legal requirement to spend x amount on the cause...just to spend something. 

 

The salaries many of the charity directors and board members are on are also ridiculous not to mention the industry being riddled with corruption and tit for tat handouts in the form of work being "contracted" . Plus they get the benefit of walking around acting selfless and self-righteous ?

 

Not saying all charities are like that but unfortunately there is a pattern especially in the largest "charities".

Not all third sector bodies are registered charities - and in any case 'third sector' is a nebulous non-legal concept as far as I know.

 

Registered charities cannot 'do whatever they like' - they must conform to charity law and the sometimes strong hand of the Charity Commission. Admin overheads have been subjected to scrutiny before now.

[Mike Todd]

1 hour ago, jon.h said:

To the best of my knowledge there isn't even a requirement for wages of directors and board members to be capped.

In general, registered charities are governed by Trustees who, in most cases, cannot be paid other than expenses. They have, amongst other things, a responsibility to see that staff remuneration is reasonable in the circumstances.

[matty40s]

2 hours ago, jon.h said:

It also makes me wonder what contracts the poor marina owners have signed ...

There are no poor marina owners.

[Arthur Marshall]

If it is true that this guy is new to boating, and is going round this old warhorse again, then he's in for a stack of shocks as he goes along as he's obviously done no research whatsoever into what he's just started doing. Which is why this discussion should be curtailed as he obviously has no interest in answers, just a bit of fun stirring.

He'll be saying the CRT logging system isn't fit for purpose next, and then that EOG mooring fees are illegal...

[mrsmelly]

6 hours ago, Alan de Enfield said:

OK, I'm ready ................................

 

 

 

 

I want a pint of whatever Jon. h is on. 

[OldGoat]

8 minutes ago, mrsmelly said:

I want a pint of whatever Jon. h is on. 

Hahaha - made I larf, nearly wet something or other.

 

BTW - I've been watching far too many YouTubes recently where there are a Legion of folks doing their best to waste the Police's  or TV scrotes time - just for the hell of it.

Same here with the OP - Get a Life Sonny.

The rules are what they are

Nothing's perfect - there are loadsa' lawyers getting fat trying to change that statement,

take a deep breath and enjoy what's there -

'cos there's a load of ordure about to hit everybody this winter and beyond...

 

(I've got a large whisky mac in my hand to prove it).