Tadworth versus CRT.

[MtB]

Well according to Narrowboat World its all sorted http://www.narrowboatworld.com/index.php/component/content/article/8843-victor-

 

 

Well that's excellent news.

 

Could you copy and paste the article here please? (Given they seem to have no problem with this.)

 

I'd rather not follow your link and give them the traffic.

[Jerra]

 

 

Well that's excellent news.

 

Could you copy and paste the article here please? (Given they seem to have no problem with this.)

 

I'd rather not follow your link and give them the traffic.

It is a long article but the relevant piece is:

 

Bully boys

Then is was the turn of the bully boys at Cart, who had taken offence at Richard Churchill, and had decided that he was not bringing his boat Tadworth back on to their waters, so refused him a licence. The fact that this was contrary to its own rules did not of course enter the equation. But once again they had picked a wrong one, who with the help of Nigel Moore, and Tony Dunkley, who had also faced the might of British Waterways and Cart, he fought back.

The outcome was that the bully boys had again met their match, who clearly showed they were acting beyond their authority, with the outcome of a court order requiring that Cart had to issue his boat with a licence, having misused its powers.

 

By the way how does it reduce traffic to the site if somebody goes and copies for you rather than you go and read it?

Edited April 17, 2016 by Jerra

[jenlyn]

It is a long article but the relevant piece is:

 

Bully boys

Then is was the turn of the bully boys at Cart, who had taken offence at Richard Churchill, and had decided that he was not bringing his boat Tadworth back on to their waters, so refused him a licence. The fact that this was contrary to its own rules did not of course enter the equation. But once again they had picked a wrong one, who with the help of Nigel Moore, and Tony Dunkley, who had also faced the might of British Waterways and Cart, he fought back.

The outcome was that the bully boys had again met their match, who clearly showed they were acting beyond their authority, with the outcome of a court order requiring that Cart had to issue his boat with a licence, having misused its powers.

 

By the way how does it reduce traffic to the site if somebody goes and copies for you rather than you go and read it?

Greenie for your last sentence in the post.

[onionbargee]

I dont really see what there is to judicially reveiw yet, the relevant bylaws are pretty straight forward to understand. When they stop breaking the law, I will get my licence back, its entirely in their hands. I have done nothing wrong. They have admitted the previous court order is irrelevant to my being granted a licence or not, something they insisted to the contrary for a long time. That was a deliberate lie to con me out of applying for a new licence in my own personal view.

 

Edit.

 

The NBW article above is not strictly correct, we are still fighting, and the licence is still unlawfully revoked.

Edited April 17, 2016 by canon7578

[MtB]

 

 

By the way how does it reduce traffic to the site if somebody goes and copies for you rather than you go and read it?

 

 

Dozens of readers here no longer have to follow the link, obviously.

[GUMPY]

 

Peter Palmer, after consultation with the legal team as to how he ought to respond to a straightforward challenge to Jackie Lewis on the point.

 

Confusion will inevitably have set in owing to overlapping topics. The post quoting CaRTs recognition that the Court Order refers to the need for a boat licence as the prior permission, was under BBC reports on CC -

 

http://www.canalworld.net/forums/index.php?showtopic=84052&page=7#entry1805115

 

Thank you Nigel didn't think I had seen it in this topic and hadn't read the other one.

[Athy]

As "charity" is such a warm, fluffy and positive word, it is startling to see CART, a charity, referred to as "bully boys".

 

Though, come to think of it, there is a Northern expression "as cold as charity".

[MtB]

As "charity" is such a warm, fluffy and positive word, it is startling to see CART, a charity, referred to as "bully boys".

 

Though, come to think of it, there is a Northern expression "as cold as charity".

 

 

 

But are they though?

 

I thought they were a "charitable trust". Not the same thing at all.

[Athy]

 

 

 

But are they though?

 

I thought they were a "charitable trust". Not the same thing at all.

A charitable trust is a trust which has been established for charitable purposes - i.e. to do or administer charitable work, i.e. be a charity. I don't think that the niceties of language make them different things.

Edited April 18, 2016 by Athy

[MtB]

A charitable trust is a trust which has been established for charitable purposes - i.e. to do or administer charitable work, i.e. be a charity. I don't think that the niceties of language make them different things.

 

 

Well I certainly do.

 

A charity to me, means an organisation collecting donations from the public for distribution to people in difficulty, e.g. Oxfam.

 

A charitable trust to me, means a business with laudible aims such that it attracts beneficial tax treatment from the government, e.g. a private skool, or a sports club.

 

CRT has been created and charged with looking after the nation's canal system. They are not there to hand out cash or assistance to people in distress or difficulty like a proper charity, hence a difference in the type of organisation they are.

 

This is probably a half-arsed explanation. I expect someone more edumacated than me will be along to explain it properly soon.

Edited April 18, 2016 by Mike the Boilerman

[Graham Davis]

Mike, there are lots of things registered as charities that does not fit your description, for example:

Talyllyn Railway

Ffestiniog Railway

Eton School

4x4 Response UK

4x4 Response Wales

[BWM]

Crt's argument about the safety of your craft seems bizarre. For one, how could they have fairly assessed the condition of Tadworth on private land, and in the water?

Two, insurance companies aren't known for their benevolence and on a vessel built in the thirties would require regular surveys.

As you say it would appear to be persecution, worrying that a 'charity' could go on to harass someone, even after a settled court case and a change in compliance. Good luck

[Athy]

 

 

 

A charity to me, means an organisation collecting donations from the public for distribution to people in difficulty, e.g. Oxfam.

 

A charitable trust to me, means a business with laudable aims such that it attracts beneficial tax treatment from the government, e.g. a private skool, or a sports club.

 

 

This is probably a half-arsed explanation.

No, it's fully arsed it is well reasoned. I am not enough of an expert to say that you're mistaken, but to me a charity is a body which does something good (whether saving African lives or Welsh railways) and doesn't make a profit out of so doing. If a charitable trust is a "business", surely it must be seen to be a non-profit-making one.

[Mike Todd]

No, it's fully arsed it is well reasoned. I am not enough of an expert to say that you're mistaken, but to me a charity is a body which does something good (whether saving African lives or Welsh railways) and doesn't make a profit out of so doing. If a charitable trust is a "business", surely it must be seen to be a non-profit-making one.

Sometimes there is confusion between non-profit making (ie loss making!) and non-profit distributing. Many organisations registered with the Charity Commission (CC) have commercial arms (often separate for VAT reasons) but any profits go back to the main organisation to assist in its approved aims.

 

To be registered does imply that at some point the CC were convinced that the aims of the charity were for the public benefit. The difficulty lies in the fact that, although there are tests to be applied to this consideration, most of us will disagree about what is a public benefit!

 

see https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/277353/cc4text.pdf

[Paul C]

I see the distinction between whether CRT is a charity or not as a distraction/irrelevence. For example, if it is a charity, do we lower our expectations on its professionalism, or apply a different set of standards on the quality of how it does things? Or if its not a charity, does that mean a business can do nasty things where a charity can't? And there's been an accusation they're acting illegally, is a business allowed to act illegally so long as it doesn't get caught/improves profit enough etc?

 

Its totally irrelevant! CRT, indeed any organisation, should be acting within the law or face the consequences of not doing so. JUST AS boaters also should be acting within the law or face the consequences.

 

Too many rumours and half-truths on this thread, not enough solid information. And of course, we only have one side of the argument too.

[Jerra]

 

 

Dozens of readers here no longer have to follow the link, obviously.

Well don't encourage others to follow the link by asking them to post things for you. It rather defeats the object of not visiting.

[Athy]

Or if its not a charity, does that mean a business can do nasty things where a charity can't?

Yes, I think that many people would agree with that view. Charity = hoorah!, big business = booo!

 

Too many rumours and half-truths on this thread, not enough solid information. And of course, we only have one side of the argument too.

Yes, I totally agree: much earlier in the thread I suggested that someone from CART should come on here and tell us their side, but they haven't bitten yet.

[Jerra]

Yes, I totally agree: much earlier in the thread I suggested that someone from CART should come on here and tell us their side, but they haven't bitten yet.

You surely don't expect them to do you? I certainly wouldn't in their position! Post on a forum where a large proportion of the posters will say you are doing wrong whatever you do, I doubt the sense doing of that.

[Athy]

You surely don't expect them to do you? I certainly wouldn't in their position! Post on a forum where a large proportion of the posters will say you are doing wrong whatever you do, I doubt the sense doing of that.

Then their aim should be to convince those posters that they are NOT doing wrong. We have had senior CARTers as members here in the past (I remember Sally Ash, who held an executive position in the organisation, contributing to some threads for example), so why not?

[MtB]

I still see a distinction between a charity relying on voluntary donations, and one that sells a product or service.

[Jerra]

I still see a distinction between a charity relying on voluntary donations, and one that sells a product or service.

So do I.

[Paul C]

Yes, I think that many people would agree with that view. Charity = hoorah!, big business = booo!

Yes, I totally agree: much earlier in the thread I suggested that someone from CART should come on here and tell us their side, but they haven't bitten yet.

 

I don't think its a case of "haven't bitten yet". CRT have obligations under law, one of which is Data Protection Act, and simply don't discuss the details of ongoing cases with the public at large. canon7578 has decided to make his story public, but obviously its his side only. I'm well aware that there's another side to it and that (IMHO) vital information has been withheld. We're being drip fed the bits to try and gather sympathy but the cracks are appearing.

 

For example, two simple questions:

 

1. Why are CRT so keen this boat is NOT relicensed by canon7578, where in other cases where a court order has been obtained, they have put up no barriers and happily relicensed the boat?

2. Following from 1, what were the circumstances which led to the original court order - I know in theory a line should have been drawn on the sand, but I feel it has a bearing on the answer to 1

[Athy]

 

I don't think its a case of "haven't bitten yet". CRT have obligations under law, one of which is Data Protection Act,

Possibly - though do they not also have obligations under the Freedom of Information Act?

[Paul C]

Possibly - though do they not also have obligations under the Freedom of Information Act?

 

Yes, but they don't clash with revealing personal information or the details of ongoing enforcement action which might result in a court hearing, and thus endanger a fair trial. Also they are limited in their obligations under FOI only to those aspects which they perform as a regulatory body.

[Thorfast]

 

canon7578 has decided to make his story public, but obviously its his side only. I'm well aware that there's another side to it and that (IMHO) vital information has been withheld. We're being drip fed the bits to try and gather sympathy but the cracks are appearing.

 

For example, two simple questions:

 

1. Why are CRT so keen this boat is NOT relicensed by canon7578, where in other cases where a court order has been obtained, they have put up no barriers and happily relicensed the boat?

2. Following from 1, what were the circumstances which led to the original court order - I know in theory a line should have been drawn on the sand, but I feel it has a bearing on the answer to 1

 

I completely agree

 

There are a few topics on here that seem to follow this pattern.

 

'Look what CaRT have done now................blah blah blah............. ( by the way, I've only given readers the information that backs me up and have omitted everything else that makes me look like an argumentative, awkward individual, who hate CaRT and what they are trying to do )