Tadworth versus CRT.

[onionbargee]

Not over yet.

 

By a long way.

[John V]

 

The dictionary definition of reprehensible is "deserving of condemnation" with synonyms of "repugnant, inexcusable, unpardonable, unforgivable, insufferable, indefensible, unjustifiable, unacceptable"

 

But maybe you are suggesting differently, ie that a private individual should be "deserving of condemnation" but should be 'forgiven'

 

I was suggesting that a private individual breaking the law is but an individual, liable to the failings of human nature.

 

A public organisation should have measures in place to ensure it does not break the law.

If it doesn't it's not fit for purpose, and the blame for that lies firmly with top management

 

The private individual who breaks the law can expect a penalty of some sort.

but it seems that when it's an organisation no one faces a penalty.

[kris88]

Have a greenie John

[magnetman]

 

Not over yet.

 

By a long way.

Are you going to 'go all the way' with this ?

 

 

Wouldn't it be better to let sleeping dogs lie ? (Even if they have been lying all along)

 

Edit to remove double post error

Edited June 4, 2016 by magnetman

[nicknorman]

However in this case CRT haven't broken the law, they have issued the licence. Albeit with some bureaucratic incompetence in the lead up, but that is not illegal. Unfortunately (otherwise most utility companies would be in jail!).

[magnetman]

 

I was suggesting that a private individual breaking the law is but an individual, liable to the failings of human nature.

 

A public organisation should have measures in place to ensure it does not break the law.

If it doesn't it's not fit for purpose, and the blame for that lies firmly with top management

 

The private individual who breaks the law can expect a penalty of some sort.

but it seems that when it's an organisation no one faces a penalty.

I do agree with your sentiment but your 'not fit for purpose' bit worries me to some extent.

 

If CRT demonstrate that they are not fit for the purpose of running the canal system then who is going to do it?

 

In my view they seem to be doing quite a good job of it given the challenges they face. I never had any trouble with BW to be fair since I bought my first canal and river cruising license in 1994.

 

I just don't think there is realistically a better option.

[HaulierP]

I do agree with your sentiment but your 'not fit for purpose' bit worries me to some extent.

 

If CRT demonstrate that they are not fit for the purpose of running the canal system then who is going to do it?

 

In my view they seem to be doing quite a good job of it given the challenges they face. I never had any trouble with BW to be fair since I bought my first canal and river cruising license in 1994.

 

I just don't think there is realistically a better option.

I don't think anyone is questioning the existence of CRT as a Governing Body,its the administrative behaviour of the organisation which is

the problem

[HaulierP]

Are you going to 'go all the way' with this ?

 

 

Wouldn't it be better to let sleeping dogs lie ? (Even if they have been lying all along)

 

Edit to remove double post error

Magnetman you seem to live your life in perpetual fear of what might happen to the majority of boaters

on account of the actions of a few boaters.What makes you think this is a realistic expectation.

I don't wish to make capital,its just twice on this thread you have raised this and I wonder why

[onionbargee]

However in this case CRT haven't broken the law, they have issued the licence. Albeit with some bureaucratic incompetence in the lead up, but that is not illegal. Unfortunately (otherwise most utility companies would be in jail!).

Whether it was malicious or incompetent they may have to compensate me for preventing me from licencing and using my boat. They refused to allow me to move TW except by road or onto the Thames, I had no practical option but to leave it at its mooring. In hindsight its right that i didnt take this option, as it was not true that i couldnt re-licence TW.

 

Quote

 

"Having gone through a lengthy process to get a court order for the removal of your craft from our waters, it is clearly not now appropriate that we issue you with another licence. I would suggest that the costs of getting a licence, BSC and Insurance approach £1500 and that you should use that money to arrange to take your craft to Debdale or other hard standing, by means other than the use of CRT waters.

That being said we wish to be reasonable and assist you in whatever way is appropriate. I would suggest that you arrange a tug to take your craft, on a date agreed by us, to P& S marine for craning out and from there transported to wherever you wish. As stated the date would have to be agreed in advance and if the craft remained on our waters after that specific date we, would be in our rights to enforce the court order and remove your craft.

I await your response.

 

---------------

Enforcement supervisor" [ 29/08/14]

[AMModels]

Magnetman you seem to live your life in perpetual fear of what might happen to the majority of boaters

on account of the actions of a few boaters.What makes you think this is a realistic expectation.

I don't wish to make capital,its just twice on this thread you have raised this and I wonder why

Isnt that the raison d'etre of Barge dwellers association or whatever theyre called?

[magnetman]

Magnetman you seem to live your life in perpetual fear of what might happen to the majority of boaters

on account of the actions of a few boaters.What makes you think this is a realistic expectation.

I don't wish to make capital,its just twice on this thread you have raised this and I wonder why

Live my life in perpetual fear? Wtf you on about? This is a discussion forum innit.

 

I do believe there may be some changes made at some point (probably legislation) the aim of which will be to make it illegal to behave in a certain way.

 

The aim of this will be to stop a minority of boat users who are pushing the limits of the current legislation (for example what is a place anyway). Of course the outcome could easily be that it curtails the freedoms currently enjoyed by the majority of boat users who do not currently seek to push the limits of the existing legislation.

 

I am not a member of any clubs or organisations or even a 'Friend' of crt.

 

 

And I am probably wrong anyway

[magnetman]

The thing is these things do happen. It has already happened on the lower thames. I know the Thames is not CRT but the principle is similar imo.

 

There is a mooring just above teddington lock layby. Until about 10 years ago it was useable by visitors (about 5-10 spaces depending on length) so maybe 1,000 people used it per year or something. I often stopped there as one could avoid the overnight fee charged by the lock for being on the layby itself. Then boats started remaining on it all the time. As locals became involved eventually the local authority (who own the land) used legislation (a byelaw I think it was) to remove the boats and install signage to say nobody can moor there. Similar thing at the bend opposite Chertsey meads.

 

These are classic examples of what I think might happen on the cut. Its my opinion not fact and not some kind of irrational fear.

 

Typos

Edited June 5, 2016 by magnetman

[Tuscan]

Live my life in perpetual fear? Wtf you on about? This is a discussion forum innit.

I do believe there may be some changes made at some point (probably legislation) the aim of which will be to make it illegal to behave in a certain way.

The aim of this will be to stop a minority of boat users who are pushing the limits of the current legislation (for example what is a place anyway). Of course the outcome could easily be that it curtails the freedoms currently enjoyed by the majority of boat users who do not currently seek to push the limits of the existing legislation.

I am not a member of any clubs or organisations or even a 'Friend' of crt.

And I am probably wrong anyway

Some would say that is what is happening in Oxford with the Council's proposed introduction of PSPO (personal safety protection order) along the towpath area

[magnetman]

Some would say that is what is happening in Oxford with the Council's proposed introduction of PSPO (personal safety protection order) along the towpath area

Exactly. (it's a Public Space Protection Order)

[Tuscan]

Exactly. (it's a Public Space Protection Order)

Yep my mistake. I understand that the option of introducing PSPO has been raised in other areas where there is congestion. Not sure how true that is or practical its implementation.

[HaulierP]

Live my life in perpetual fear? Wtf you on about? This is a discussion forum innit.

 

I do believe there may be some changes made at some point (probably legislation) the aim of which will be to make it illegal to behave in a certain way.

 

The aim of this will be to stop a minority of boat users who are pushing the limits of the current legislation (for example what is a place anyway). Of course the outcome could easily be that it curtails the freedoms currently enjoyed by the majority of boat users who do not currently seek to push the limits of the existing legislation.

 

I am not a member of any clubs or organisations or even a 'Friend' of crt.

 

 

And I am probably wrong anyway

No need to be upset with me,I did explain why I was asking you the question.I don't believe there will

be any changes imminent,I don't see those people you speak of that push the limits.There may be one

or two piss takers,but can you ever legislate against that?I don't think you can

[HaulierP]

The thing is these things do happen. It has already happened on the lower thames. I know the Thames is not CRT but the principle is similar imo.

 

There is a mooring just above teddington lock layby. Until about 10 years ago it was useable by visitors (about 5-10 spaces depending on length) so maybe 1,000 people used it per year or something. I often stopped there as one could avoid the overnight fee charged by the lock for being on the layby itself. Then boats started remaining on it all the time. As locals became involved eventually the local authority (who own the land) used legislation (a byelaw I think it was) to remove the boats and install signage to say nobody can moor there. Similar thing at the bend opposite Chertsey meads.

 

These are classic examples of what I think might happen on the cut. Its my opinion not fact and not some kind of irrational fear.

 

Typos

"What might happen on the cut".A fair point you make but as you say it is the Thames you are talking about.

[HaulierP]

Isnt that the raison d'etre of Barge dwellers association or whatever theyre called?

What is ?

[magnetman]

Deleted as did not make sense after moderator edit

Edited June 5, 2016 by magnetman

[Theo]

Inflammatory post removed along with the response to it.

 

Theo

[kris88]

???

[magnetman]

I think it was heading for a "change the record" incident

[MtB]

I think it was heading for a "change the record" incident

 

 

I thought so too. The deleted post was intended to be inflammatory.

[John V]

I do agree with your sentiment but your 'not fit for purpose' bit worries me to some extent.

 

If CRT demonstrate that they are not fit for the purpose of running the canal system then who is going to do it?

 

In my view they seem to be doing quite a good job of it given the challenges they face. I never had any trouble with BW to be fair since I bought my first canal and river cruising license in 1994.

 

I just don't think there is realistically a better option.

 

Hmmmm ! I think I wasn't clear enough in my meaning.

I was really pointing at the management being not fit for purpose rather than the institution ........... sorry unclear phrasing

[magnetman]

Fair enough I took it the wrong way sorry about that.