Tadworth versus CRT.

[Paul C]

Not really surprising on here, where anybody who questions crt's actions is labelled a criminal. Also having their posts inundated with spurious assumptions and accusations not founded on fact. By a certain group on here

 

Regards kris

 

My definition of criminal is if someone is found guilty of a criminal offence in a court of law. Of course, others are entitled to their opinion within the forum rules/guidelines

[Paul C]

http://www.canalworld.net/forums/index.php?showtopic=80156is one of the threads which didn't get many responses, at the time.

[Paul C]

As moderator: Thread locked, pending moderator review.

[Paul C]

As moderator: Thread re-opened, 7 posts have been hidden. I shall PM the members concerned in due course.

[Athy]

Oh good grief, another one? Has there been a New Year's Resolution to lock as many threads as possible for no obvious reason? The practice does seem to have escalated steeply this year, why should that be?

 

Apart from being too long and sometimes boring for the outsider, which is why I have only skimmed through the last few pages, what is wrong with this topic?

[Paul C]

Oh good grief, another one? Has there been a New Year's Resolution to lock as many threads as possible for no obvious reason? The practice does seem to have escalated steeply this year, why should that be?

 

Apart from being too long and sometimes boring for the outsider, which is why I have only skimmed through the last few pages, what is wrong with this topic?

 

Moderator decisions are not made public. The thread was locked to clean the thread up and immediately re-opened.

[PaulG]

Oh good grief, another one? Has there been a New Year's Resolution to lock as many threads as possible for no obvious reason? The practice does seem to have escalated steeply this year, why should that be?

 

Apart from being too long and sometimes boring for the outsider, which is why I have only skimmed through the last few pages, what is wrong with this topic?

It was only locked for six minutes.

At least give the mods some credit for speed...

Edited April 19, 2016 by PaulG

[Tony Dunkley]

 

They are questioning the 'availability' of the mooring that 'Tadworth' is at present on, and they say must remain on, and threatening immediate seizure in the event of it leaving the mooring [ that isn't available for it to use ].

 

 

I know.....which leads to the question, "what's special about canon7578"? They've let other boaters who were non-compliant CCers, who got caught, who got court orders against them, to have a licence (with a home mooring).

 

It leads to another question as well, . . . which Planet do these people normally occupy when they aren't in the Milton Keynes office churning out nonsensical garbage like that ?

Edited April 19, 2016 by Tony Dunkley

[Jerra]

Oh good grief, another one? Has there been a New Year's Resolution to lock as many threads as possible for no obvious reason? The practice does seem to have escalated steeply this year, why should that be?

 

Apart from being too long and sometimes boring for the outsider, which is why I have only skimmed through the last few pages, what is wrong with this topic?

I suspect it was because one poster was being deliberately provocative.

[onionbargee]

I would welcome Tony and Nigel to comment on if I am correct that the court order is now 'spent' and has no further part to play in this matter. I think CRT have confirmed this in a roundabout way. Prior consent has been obtained, and there are no other restrictions in the order, so it has now served its purpose. Unless if I don't renew my licence in future it is still in force and authorises CRT to immediatey seize TE at any time in the future ?

 

Is it a one shot order, or kept on file for ever ?

[BMC problems]

 

Moderator decisions are not made public. The thread was locked to clean the thread up and immediately re-opened.

 

Once again a conflict of interest.

 

You are both aggressively debating this thread and moderating it too.

 

I am surprised canon7568 is even bothering to air his experience here though, if anyone else is unfortunate enough to be in the same situation, they will be grateful to the small nuggets of information against the blatant bullying.

I would welcome Tony and Nigel to comment on if I am correct that the court order is now 'spent' and has no further part to play in this matter. I think CRT have confirmed this in a roundabout way. Prior consent has been obtained, and there are no other restrictions in the order, so it has now served its purpose. Unless if I don't renew my licence in future it is still in force and authorises CRT to immediatey seize TE at any time in the future ?

 

Is it a one shot order, or kept on file for ever ?

 

I think you need to seek the issuing judge's advice on this.

[jenlyn]

 

You are both aggressively debating this thread and moderating it too.

 

Yes, I noticed that as well, and almost sent a report in having seen the thread locked.

It did at the time look a little suspicious.

There is a lack of consistency with recent moderating in my view.

[MtB]

Can I suggest discussion of moderation is done elsewhere, to keep this thread on track?

[onionbargee]

I posted this on here, and elsewhere to get it into the public domain, nothing else. I realise this forum is full of pests that crayon over every thread, you have to ignore that and concentrate on the real content, which is I think important for the future of all boaters, in that if CRT get away with revoking licences illegally, and for no viable reason, anyone could be next.

[Athy]

It was only locked for six minutes.

At least give the mods some credit for speed...

Yes, that's a fair comment.

Can I suggest discussion of moderation is done elsewhere, to keep this thread on track?

Dunno. Can you? You may try.

[jenlyn]

Can I suggest discussion of moderation is done elsewhere, to keep this thread on track?

Of course Mike. Hopefully this will work both ways.

Edited April 19, 2016 by jenlyn

[alan_fincher]

 

Sounds like the accounts may have been merged

 

Richard

Especially as the account now in use has over 2,900 posts.....

[NigelMoore]

I would welcome Tony and Nigel to comment on if I am correct that the court order is now 'spent' and has no further part to play in this matter. I think CRT have confirmed this in a roundabout way. Prior consent has been obtained, and there are no other restrictions in the order, so it has now served its purpose. Unless if I don't renew my licence in future it is still in force and authorises CRT to immediatey seize TE at any time in the future ?

 

Some of my views on these Court Orders would have to be classed as provisional; I am fairly certain that they are correct, but would go no further at the present time.

 

Respecting the immediate question: no, I do not think they are ever ‘spent’, in that, insofar as they are legally sustainable, they merely add the Contempt of Court penalty to what is already a ‘standing’ lawful requirement – you are ALWAYS bound to obtain CaRT’s prior consent via boat licence in order to “cause or permit to be brought, kept, let for hire or used on any canal . . .” It is a criminal offence already, not to obtain that prior consent; if that requirement never goes away, why should the Court Order tied to that requirement go away?

 

How far the Orders can be considered legitimate as a whole when they are so plainly ultra vires the Court’s powers in certain elements [i.e. insofar as they purport to require consent to enter PRN’s], remains questionable in my opinion. I am positive that no Court has ever been asked to consider the ramifications of the Orders as drafted.

 

That aside, it would be purest folly to act in any way against the terms of any such Order so far as the canals are concerned, and advisable to seek Court opinion on their applicability to rivers before venturing onto those. It must be remembered that the Orders do not content themselves with mere descriptive wording such as “all inland waterways” as defined in the 1995 Act – they have attached the comprehensive list of all rivers and canals, plus annotated maps as reinforcement.

 

As to whether the Orders comprise perpetual authority to seize an offending boat without further ado, that is another question entirely. The latest version declares that CaRT are entitled to remove the boat [if not removed by the owner before a specified date] “pursuant to its statutory powers under section 8 of the British Waterways Act 1983 and section 13 of the British Waterways Act 1971.”

 

The point of seeking the Order is to confirm that exercising the statutory powers even when the boat is a live-aboard, is a valid action despite the Human Rights Act [they don’t bother if the boat is not a live aboard].

 

So my view would be that CaRT are NOT entitled under the terms of these Orders to seize and remove the relevant boat outwith the statutory powers and procedures as simply confirmed by them.

 

[GUMPY]

Ok this is my take on it

Onionbargee using his old email address is blocked on CRT licensing system.

Email addresses are a common identifier and are often used to allow/prevent access to a system.

His latest licence application was done using his new email address so went through

CRT are pissed off with this so cancel his licence once they realise its the same applicant.

CRTs actions are Legally acceptable maybe, morally acceptable definitely.

 

on reading this my wife has said that if that is what happened onionbargee could have commited fraud if it can be proved that the change of email was done in order to circumvent the licence system block.

[onionbargee]

Ok this is my take on it

Onionbargee using his old email address is blocked on CRT licensing system.

Email addresses are a common identifier and are often used to allow/prevent access to a system.

His latest licence application was done using his new email address so went through

CRT are pissed off with this so cancel his licence once they realise its the same applicant.

CRTs actions are Legally acceptable maybe, morally acceptable definitely.

 

on reading this my wife has said that if that is what happened onionbargee could have commited fraud if it can be proved that the change of email was done in order to circumvent the licence system block.

Bizzare. Edited April 19, 2016 by canon7578(was onionbargee)

[kris88]

I posted this on here, and elsewhere to get it into the public domain, nothing else. I realise this forum is full of pests that crayon over every thread, you have to ignore that and concentrate on the real content, which is I think important for the future of all boaters, in that if CRT get away with revoking licences illegally, and for no viable reason, anyone could be next.

Thank you for posting this thread it is very important that when Crt are acting dubiously it is brought to the attention of other boaters. If it comes to judicial review and you decide to crowd fund it, ill be one of the people signing up to support you.

 

Regards kris

[StephenA]

Bizzare.

 

Is it?

 

If the only reason a different email address was used was to avoid detection it could be seen that you obtained a licence through deception... which I suspect may be seen as a valid reason to withdraw the licence...

[GUMPY]

Bizzare.

So are you saying that CRT didnt have Tadworth and you registered on their system under your old email address?

Obviously you would have used the new one for the latest application.

[onionbargee]

So are you saying that CRT didnt have Tadworth and you registered on their system under your old email address?

Obviously you would have used the new one for the latest application.

Post something serious or don't bother.

[Delta9]

 

Is it?

 

If the only reason a different email address was used was to avoid detection it could be seen that you obtained a licence through deception... which I suspect may be seen as a valid reason to withdraw the licence...

In what way has he obtained the licence through deception? He was not banned from having a licence, that is not possible.. His boat is insured, has a safety certificate and he has a mooring on which he can keep the boat when not in use. He is allowed to buy a licence, he has no need to deceive CRT to do so.

Edited April 19, 2016 by Delta9