Tadworth versus CRT.

[BMC problems]

 

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 )

 

You're willing to give CRT the benefit of the doubt because they haven't said anything but you're not prepared to give canon7578 the benefit of the doubt for things he hasn't said.

 

How does that work then?

[RLWP]

 

You're willing to give CRT the benefit of the doubt because they haven't said anything but you're not prepared to give canon7578 the benefit of the doubt for things he hasn't said.

 

How does that work then?

 

canon7578, and his previous account onionbargee, has been a member here for a very long time.

 

Richard

[onionbargee]

 

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

1. Do you know anything about any other cases where other boats have been relicenced post a similar court order, or are you speculating ?

 

2. What bearing does what I did or didn't do in 2013 have on my current licence ? We have already established the order has no legal bearing on any future licence application, and CRT have now admitted that.

Edited April 18, 2016 by canon7578

[Paul C]

1. Do you know anything about any other cases where other boats have been relicicenced post a similar court order, or are you speculating ?

 

2. What bearing does what I did or didn't do in 2013 have on my current licence ? We have already established the order has no legal bearing on any future licence application, and CRT have now admitted that.

 

As expected.......holding back information which is reasonable to ask.

[BMC problems]

 

canon7578, and his previous account onionbargee, has been a member here for a very long time.

 

Richard

 

Sorry, I haven't quite grasped what you mean.

[jenlyn]

canon7578, and his previous account onionbargee, has been a member here for a very long time.

 

Richard

So have you, and you've also had a few goes at putting up alternative accounts.

[Paul C]

 

canon7578, and his previous account onionbargee, has been a member here for a very long time.

 

Richard

 

(Admin hat on): we are well aware of this. canon7578/onionbargee please can you contact me via PM about this.

So have you, and you've also had a few goes at putting up alternative accounts.

 

So what?

[onionbargee]

 

As expected.......holding back information which is reasonable to ask.

You haven't asked for any specific or relevant information. If you ask me a reasonable question I will try to answer it.

[Paul C]

You haven't asked for any specific or relevant information. If you ask me a reasonable question I will try to answer it.

 

To be honest, its more of a question for CRT than you, but you might have insight into why they're acting like they do. For clarity the original question is:

 

"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?"

[onionbargee]

 

To be honest, its more of a question for CRT than you, but you might have insight into why they're acting like they do. For clarity the original question is:

 

"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?"

Have they done this ? do you know of these cases ? if you do can you let me know the details as it would be a good bit of evidence. I don't have any idea if they have or not. You are asking me why CRT are doing this but I can only speculate, which I am not going to do.

 

My previous username onionbargee is linked to an email account with a phone number I no longer have, which I don't know the password, so I can't retrieve it. Canon7578 is the first thing i read on the side of my printer as a quick way to get back on the forum to put this matter in the public domain. I gave up as a regular contributer on here a while ago, I got fed up with the bickering. If I do post on here in future it will only be about legal issues.

Edited April 18, 2016 by canon7578

[Tony Dunkley]

 

"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?"

 

Sure about that, are you ?

Some boat/owner names would be good to have, . . . if you do actually know of anybody whom C&RT have either encouraged to apply for, or willingly renewed Licences or river Registrations for in the aftermath of any kind of dispute.

 

Ps. I know you'll be having difficulties answering this, so here's a clue and a bit of help with the answer to the first part of you question, . . . . kindly provided by one of C&RT's superstars of enforcement, Peter Palmer, on 29 August 2014 : ~

 

"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."

Edited April 18, 2016 by Tony Dunkley

[Thorfast]

I gave up as a regular contributer on here a while ago, I got fed up with the bickering. If I do post on here in future it will only be about legal issues.

 

There are IMHO too many threads on here about legal issues about CaRT and the associated bickering about them ( Like this thread ) and it seems too many regular contributors have gone. Cant we have a 'Legal Issues' section on here so that I can ignore it.

[gazza]

 

There are IMHO too many threads on here about legal issues about CaRT and the associated bickering about them ( Like this thread ) and it seems too many regular contributors have gone. Cant we have a 'Legal Issues' section on here so that I can ignore it.

Well said

[gaggle]

 

There are IMHO too many threads on here about legal issues about CaRT and the associated bickering about them ( Like this thread ) and it seems too many regular contributors have gone. Cant we have a 'Legal Issues' section on here so that I can ignore it.

Why cant you just not click on the thread , the threads regarding the legal cases gives boaters valuable information

[Paul C]

 

Sure about that, are you ?

Some boat/owner names would be good to have, . . . if you do actually know of anybody whom C&RT have either encouraged to apply for, or willingly renewed Licences or river Registrations for in the aftermath of any kind of dispute.

 

Isn't that the crux of the issue though? The court order prevents the boater going on the waters without their consent. You've consistently said in the past that the licence is the consent, so its equivalent to simply saying that you must license the boat then using it on CRT waters, just like 99.99% of boaters do every day with no issue. CRT have a lot of licence applications, and have an automated system for doing them.

 

I think its unfair to suggest "encouraged to apply for" specifically towards one, or a limited set, of boaters. You could say that CRT encourage ALL boaters to apply for a licence; or encourage all those who are interested in owning a boat to properly licence it. And at the same time you could say they don't specifically seek out anyone then try to persuade them to licence the boat. In other words, they are quite impersonal about it. Similarly "willingly" suggests a similar thing. Its an automated system, there is (so it seems) no mechanism to block those handful of boaters who have previously earned a court order from reapplying, there is no emotion attached to the (re-)licensing process.

 

Its definitely worth properly clarifying if the court order can simply be read as "you need a licence to have a boat on CRT waters" or "You can never licence a boat again unless we change our minds".

[Thorfast]

 

 

Its definitely worth properly clarifying if the court order can simply be read as "you need a licence to have a boat on CRT waters" or "You can never licence a boat again unless we change our minds".

 

But then we would have information in a more balanced form and perhaps that does not suit the OP.

As you have pointed out before....we do not have all the facts and from both sides of the argument.

[David Mack]

2. What bearing does what I did or didn't do in 2013 have on my current licence ? We have already established the order has no legal bearing on any future licence application, and CRT have now admitted that.

You have asserted that the 2013 order has no legal bearing on any future licence application, but you haven't provided here any details of what that order said, or what the circumstances leading up to it were, or what restrictions or pre-conditions it might or might not place on future licencing. Without that sort of background information, most of us here are unable to determine which players in this business are being reasonable and which are not.

[Tony Dunkley]

 

Its definitely worth properly clarifying if the court order can simply be read as "you need a licence to have a boat on CRT waters" or "You can never licence a boat again unless we change our minds".

 

It's been clarified, including being admitted to and agreed by BW/C&RT, . . , see Post #121 on the "BBC . . ." topic, where for some unknown reason, a good deal of material that should be in this thread has ended up.

All of the confusion that there is around this question is attributable to consistent lying by BW/C&RT in, until recently, successful attempts to fool boaters into thinking that they themselves, and their boats, had been exiled from the canals in perpetuity, and a return was something solely at the discretion, and in the gift of a few self-opinionated, and less than honest individuals in the C&RT hierarchy.

Edited April 18, 2016 by Tony Dunkley

[onionbargee]

 

Isn't that the crux of the issue though? The court order prevents the boater going on the waters without their consent. You've consistently said in the past that the licence is the consent, so its equivalent to simply saying that you must license the boat then using it on CRT waters, just like 99.99% of boaters do every day with no issue. CRT have a lot of licence applications, and have an automated system for doing them.

 

I think its unfair to suggest "encouraged to apply for" specifically towards one, or a limited set, of boaters. You could say that CRT encourage ALL boaters to apply for a licence; or encourage all those who are interested in owning a boat to properly licence it. And at the same time you could say they don't specifically seek out anyone then try to persuade them to licence the boat. In other words, they are quite impersonal about it. Similarly "willingly" suggests a similar thing. Its an automated system, there is (so it seems) no mechanism to block those handful of boaters who have previously earned a court order from reapplying, there is no emotion attached to the (re-)licensing process.

 

Its definitely worth properly clarifying if the court order can simply be read as "you need a licence to have a boat on CRT waters" or "You can never licence a boat again unless we change our minds".

It has been clarified, by CRT themselves in this case, by a previous court case BW v Ward, and the huge clue that the court order does not say " you cannot licence your boat ever again ", and the legislation which gives no authority to CRT to decide who it is "appropriate" to grant licences to, either the licence application meets the three conditions in the 1995 canal act or it doesn't. Licencing is a part of CRT that is governed by law, so everyone has a fair chance to obtain a licence whoever they are. Quite nice and fair that isn't it ? Otherwise you could get the situation where the local enforcement officer tears up your licence because he simply doesn't like you.

[NigelMoore]

 

Its definitely worth properly clarifying if the court order can simply be read as "you need a licence to have a boat on CRT waters" or "You can never licence a boat again unless we change our minds".

 

But that is precisely what has been clarified in the email from Peter Palmer responding on behalf of CaRT’s Legal Director. As a man guilty of violating a court undertaking before now, based on his unilateral decision to interpret it for himself [albeit with executive and legal support], he is hopefully now more sensitive to the issues than most, and the email was refreshingly frank and honest in that admission – all the more praiseworthy in that it tends to show his earlier stance in a less admirable light.

 

 

cross-posted with several others I see, but never mind.

 

 

edit to add: To answer an earlier query, there is some point to the injunctions. Although effectively saying no more than the relevant Byelaw demands anyway [ignoring for the moment the inapplicability to PRN’s], encasing the already existing requirement within the terms of a Court Order to comply with the relevant law adds the Contempt of Court sanction to what would otherwise be merely punishable by a fine.

 

As the Orders state in large capitals at the beginning of all of them, non-compliance means that you can [and likely would] be sent to prison.

 

Edited April 18, 2016 by NigelMoore

[RLWP]

So have you, and you've also had a few goes at putting up alternative accounts.

 

I have indeed - all in the Virtual Pub

 

Richard

[Tony Dunkley]

 

Isn't that the crux of the issue though? The court order prevents the boater going on the waters without their consent. You've consistently said in the past that the licence is the consent, so its equivalent to simply saying that you must license the boat then using it on CRT waters, just like 99.99% of boaters do every day with no issue. CRT have a lot of licence applications, and have an automated system for doing them.

 

 

It's almost as simple as that, but the effect of the standard form of words Orders/Injunctions is to simply add 'Contempt of Court' to the minor criminal offence, punishable on summary conviction by a fine, that anyone keeping or using a boat on the canals without a Licence is committing anyway.

It suits C&RT's purposes to misrepresent these Orders as meaning much more, and up to now they've been getting away with it, . . . as so many contributors to this topic are falling over themselves to demonstrate.

 

All these Orders, resulting from Section 8 actions, are expensive, but ineffective and futile, . . . see Post #140 in the "BBC . . " topic.

Edited April 18, 2016 by Tony Dunkley

[David Mack]

To answer an earlier query, there is some point to the injunctions. Although effectively saying no more than the relevant Byelaw demands anyway [ignoring for the moment the inapplicability to PRNs], encasing the already existing requirement within the terms of a Court Order to comply with the relevant law adds the Contempt of Court sanction to what would otherwise be merely punishable by a fine.

 

As the Orders state in large capitals at the beginning of all of them, non-compliance means that you can [and likely would] be sent to prison.

 

So where can I see a copy of such an Order? The OP in this thread seems remarkably reluctant to show us the actual content of the order against him.

[Paul C]

1. Do you know anything about any other cases where other boats have been relicenced post a similar court order

 

 

 

 

 

Have they done this ? do you know of these cases ? if you do can you let me know the details as it would be a good bit of evidence. I don't have any idea if they have or not.

 

 

It has been clarified, by CRT themselves in this case, by a previous court case BW v Ward

 

 

I'm glad we got there in the end, although it does seem your answers are somewhat inconsistent - at first suggesting you don't know the answer, then later in the day quoting the case of BW vs Ward.

 

Which leads to the original question I asked a while ago - given that the court order doesn't bar you from re-applying, why you? What's the actual issue here? We've so far heard "its not safe" and "the mooring isn't satisfactory". Are either or both of these the line CRT are using to cancel the licence? Is there anything unsafe about the boat (given that BSS is, notwithstanding a licence requirement, actually pretty meaningless when it comes down to assessing safety on a day other than the BSS examination date)? Is there anything unusual about the mooring, or the operator of the mooring, or the size of the mooring vs the number of boats moored there, etc etc

[Dave Payne]

round and round and round and round and round.....