License Terms and Conditions

[Guest]

He's probably more than aware of that. It's not Chris again is it?

I too did consider that but having then looked at other posts thought not.

[Graham Davis]

Don't think it is Chris, different "attitude".

[GreenDuck]

 

There is certainly some contradictory information being provided here. The whole thing doesn't stack up and this is possibly a complete wind up.

 

If its not, then CRT (or rather their legal representative) will have no problem in exposing some of the inconsistencies if it is presented in the same way I feel sure. The OP is on a hiding to nothing.

There is nothing contradictory at all you have just made assumptions that suit your own perspective as usual while sat on the Internet arguing for arguments sake as pointed out by another member. you are in fact the wind up merchant round here.

For example another assumption you could have made which would be the boat is now tied to my land after traveling over 100 miles and that CRT have failed yet again to record correct data creating yet again a problem that does not in fact exist other than the fact their data collection system is flawed.

I now sit in dispute and simply refuse to deal with them until it suits me that's not being a freeman it's called saying NO.

The majority of you are speculating and have not go one ounce of a clue what CRT will or won't do or have any real life experience of what they actually will do which quite frankly is nothing and I am just the man to make an example of them!

[Loafer]

Good luck with that. Wake me when summat happens!

[GreenDuck]

 

Is that on the off-side?

Do you have a Mooring Agreement with CaRT?

Are you paying an End of Garden fee to CaRT?

Why do you think this will make any difference to any Sect 8 action that CaRT might take against you?

CRT have tried to impose an L3 on my moorings a couple of years back after one phone call with my lawyer they backed off as soon as the name and address of the persons was requested of whom owned the land under my boats so I could bill them for running a business from mine.

 

The case was won on the grounds that the Council didn't contest it.

 

Either they screwed up or they decided not to waste more money winning than the charge.

 

The whole lot is just a web of pseudo legalese mumbo jumbo spun by people who desperately want to invent a way of exempting themselves from complying with the law.

 

Some Councils and Public Bodies routinely don't bother to contest things, because the few that they lose as a result are small change.

 

 

I would agree.

 

Aggressively worded demands for a posters location and a challenge to repeat the same to his face are very much a threat, and in the past several people have been banned for just such activities.

Hahahaha, I made a request not a demand but frankly the bottom line is run your mouth suffer the consequences or stfu.

 

Does it continue to be chained to the digger whilst travelling 100 miles?

It has just recently been chained on arrival.

[Graham Davis]

CRT have tried to impose an L3 on my moorings a couple of years back after one phone call with my lawyer they backed off as soon as the name and address of the persons was requested of whom owned the land under my boats so I could bill them for running a business from mine.

 

You said earlier you owned the land, now you are telling us someone else owns it.

So which is correct?

More inconsistencies!!

[GreenDuck]

 

You said earlier you owned the land, now you are telling us someone else owns it.

So which is correct?

More inconsistencies!!

keep up Graham the land under the boat hence why the L3 is invented by CRT.

You just want to argue for arguments sake like MJG.

Edited February 29, 2016 by GreenDuck

[Graham Davis]

Yes L3 is a type of Mooring Licence granted legitimaly by CaRT, and their predecessors BWB.

Are you suggesting they are illegal?

You stated you owned the land your boat was moored against earlier, now you are saying someone else owns it, therefore an inconsistency in your "story"

And this seems to make no difference to the possibility of you having action against you under Sect 8.

[Guest]

keep up Graham the land under the boat hence why the L3 is invented by CRT.

You just want to argue for arguments sake like MJG.

We are discussing your posts. That may mean we don't actually agree with everything you have to say.

 

The thread has been temporarily locked once and is likely heading for being permanently locked.

[GreenDuck]

Yes L3 is a type of Mooring Licence granted legitimaly by CaRT, and their predecessors BWB.

Are you suggesting they are illegal?

You stated you owned the land your boat was moored against earlier, now you are saying someone else owns it, therefore an inconsistency in your "story"

And this seems to make no difference to the possibility of you having action against you under Sect 8.

No I did not say someone owns my land I said CRT make an L3 charge based on the idea they own the land under my moored or any moored boats but when challenged and actually asked to present a name and address for who owns the land under the boat they are unable to do so,

I can only assume most just bend over and pay do they were not ready when asked for a name and address.

Just to clarify for you Graham I own the several miles of land next to the canal.

[GreenDuck]

We are discussing your posts. That may mean we don't actually agree with everything you have to say.

 

The thread has been temporarily locked once and is likely heading for being permanently locked.

you are not discussing you are deliberately picking holes and trying to make me out to be a liar which is very different.

Rather pathetic but thankfully not representative of people I meet on the canal.

[valrene9600]

No I did not say someone owns my land I said CRT make an L3 charge based on the idea they own the land under my moored or any moored boats but when challenged and actually asked to present a name and address for who owns the land under the boat they are unable to do so,

I can only assume most just bend over and pay do they were not ready when asked for a name and address.

Just to clarify for you Graham I own the several miles of land next to the canal.

I have no reason to doubt you own land along the canal and crt were unable to supply details SO who do you say or think owns that land. Bearing in mind that when the canals were built canal company's purchased the land to dig the canal.

Edit. Land beneath boats.

Edited February 29, 2016 by valrene9600

[Guest]

you are not discussing you are deliberately picking holes and trying to make me out to be a liar which is very different.

Rather pathetic but thankfully not representative of people I meet on the canal.

I and others are highlighting holes and inconstencies in your posts. If you think we as mere forum members can so easily how do you think it's going to pan out if you get to court?

[DHutch]

As moderator:

 

Please all take a moment to review the site rules and guidelines here: http://www.canalworld.net/forums/index.php?app=forums&module=extras&section=boardrules

 

I believe there is merit in this debate/thread topic; and that the participants are theoretically capable of reasoned debate without descending into personal abuse or threatening posts. If in practice, the level of debate does not improve, I'll lock it again and may keep it locked. As always, action will be taken for breaches of site rules. No posts have been removed - they have all remained, so readers can reflect on the quality of debate and improve it.

Thanks Paul.

 

Daniel

[WotEver]

No I did not say someone owns my land I said CRT make an L3 charge based on the idea they own the land under my moored or any moored boats but when challenged and actually asked to present a name and address for who owns the land under the boat they are unable to do so,

They own the land. The reason they didn't respond to you is very unlikely to be because they didn't know or couldn't answer and far more likely to be because the question is irrelevant and they are continuing with their S8 proceedings in the absence of any 'real' evidence from you.

 

Tony

 

Edited for clarity

Edited February 29, 2016 by WotEver

[Graham Davis]

They own the land. The reason they didn't respond to you is very unlikely because they didn't know or couldn't answer and far more likely because the question is irrelevant and they are continuing with their S8 proceedings in the absence of any 'real' evidence from you.

 

Tony

 

Sounds totally plausible!

[Tony Dunkley]

The additional snippets of info that have emerged over the last few pages seem to suggest that Green Duck is either in dispute with C&RT as a boat with a 'home mooring' who isn't 'cruising' to their satisfaction whilst away from it, or C&RT have instigated some sort of dispute with regard to him mooring on/to his own land.

 

I haven't a clue as to what an L3 [Mooring?] Charge is, other than a bit more of C&RT's pretentious gobbledegook, can anyone enlighten me ?

[Loafer]

Well if you don't know, who does?

[Guest]

The additional snippets of info that have emerged over the last few pages seem to suggest that Green Duck is either in dispute with C&RT as a boat with a 'home mooring' who isn't 'cruising' to their satisfaction whilst away from it, or C&RT have instigated some sort of dispute with regard to him mooring on/to his own land.

 

I haven't a clue as to what an L3 [Mooring?] Charge is, other than a bit more of C&RT's pretentious gobbledegook, can anyone enlighten me ?

http://www.canalworld.net/forums/index.php?showtopic=31265

[Graham Davis]

The additional snippets of info that have emerged over the last few pages seem to suggest that Green Duck is either in dispute with C&RT as a boat with a 'home mooring' who isn't 'cruising' to their satisfaction whilst away from it, or C&RT have instigated some sort of dispute with regard to him mooring on/to his own land.

 

I haven't a clue as to what an L3 [Mooring?] Charge is, other than a bit more of C&RT's pretentious gobbledegook, can anyone enlighten me ?

 

Tony,

Martin's link explains the L thing.

I have a funny feeling we are hearing only one small part of the story from Mr Duck, and will never get the full truth.

[Guest]

Tony,

Martin's link explains the L thing.

I have a funny feeling we are hearing only one small part of the story from Mr Duck, and will never get the full truth.

I have no idea though TBH if that is something the trust use as I can't seem to find a reference to it on CRT's web site.

 

Just that link. On the phone and searching their site is s PITA.

[magictime]

GreenDuck, I haven't read this whole thread, but I must just reiterate what others have been saying: if you're going to take on CRT, please do it on the basis that you've been boating compliantly (by cruising 100 miles+), not on the basis of this argument about 'the consent of the governed'.

 

However persuasive you personally find this argument, however weighty and significant you find this ruling over a Penalty Charge Notice, you cannot realistically expect any court, in dealing with a dispute between yourself and CRT, to rule that - as asserted in Exhibit B - unless 63.5 million people sign a document constituting the 'consent of the governed' every few years, "All forms of Tax, VAT, Duty, Council tax etc is illegal and constitutes fraud and malfeasance in a public office" and "The enforcement of these Act’s/Statutes, by the Police, the local authority, the Judiciary, and government licensed Bailiffs is also illegal and constitutes malfeasance". You just are not going to be able to get the world turned upside down in that way.

Edited February 29, 2016 by magictime

[Ange]

GreenDuck, I haven't read this whole thread, but I must just reiterate what others have been saying: if you're going to take on CRT, please do it on the basis that you've been boating compliantly (by cruising 100 miles+), not on the basis of this argument about 'the consent of the governed'.

 

However persuasive you personally find this argument, however weighty and significant you find this ruling over a Penalty Charge Notice, you cannot realistically expect any court, in dealing with a dispute between yourself and CRT, to rule that - as asserted in Exhibit B - unless 63.5 million people sign a document constituting the 'consent of the governed' every few years, "All forms of Tax, VAT, Duty, Council tax etc is illegal and constitutes fraud and malfeasance in a public office" and "The enforcement of these Act’s/Statutes, by the Police, the local authority, the Judiciary, and government licensed Bailiffs is also illegal and constitutes malfeasance". You just are not going to be able to get the world turned upside down in that way.

Greenie. The voice of reason backed by good intentions is so much more powerful than posts that make the same point but convey belligerence and ridicule and are therefore only likely to produce an angry rebuttal.

[Guest]

Greenie. The voice of reason backed by good intentions is so much more powerful than posts that make the same point but convey belligerence and ridicule and are therefore only likely to produce an angry rebuttal.

Oh dear......

 

Rather school maamish in tone if I might be allowed to say so without being moderated. You could have conveyed your point without a rather snide dig at other members surely? The thread had been brought back into line so why the need to say anything along those lines?

 

The thread I think started to go down hill after this early comment in response to MTB. BTW.

 

that is a different thread now jog on with your childish snide little digs.

Edited March 1, 2016 by MJG

[Alan de Enfield]

 

Tony,

Martin's link explains the L thing.

I have a funny feeling we are hearing only one small part of the story from Mr Duck, and will never get the full truth.

 

You mean 'Ducking & Diving'

 

(Isn't that what they do ?)