section 8 canning dock ?

[wrigglefingers]

Slaps mod's hat on...

 

This is a difficult and divisive subject. Please stick to the known facts and discuss the matter, not exchange personal comments. In other words, deal with the subject, nothing else.

 

I don't want to close or edit the thread or take sanctions against members, as I think there are important and complex issues at hand, and good and illuminating discussion to be had, but if you do not desist from sniping at each other, I will be taking sanctions. Keep it civil.

 

Mod's hat off ... Back to catching up on plane trees in Birmingham ....

[Naughty Cal]

 

I have asked a personally reasonable and POLITE question, so I see no reason for your response, but then you do seem to purposely pick on the things I post for no justifiable reason.

If you have a problem with my responses then I suggest you use the Report button and let the Mods decide whether they are within the Forum guidelines or not.

 

 

Which I and others have said, but has been ignored to justify another rant against CaRT.

 

Yes. The same people seem to handily ignore the lack of paid for mooring, lack of suitable insurance and licencing and serving alcohol to the public without the relevant permissions and licensing.

 

Not sure why some are so upset by CRT allegedly acting unlawfully when the people in charge of this boat have so blatantly been acting unlawfully.

 

As you say any excuse to have a dig at CRT.

[matty40s]

Yes. The same people seem to handily ignore the lack of paid for mooring, lack of suitable insurance and licencing and serving alcohol to the public without the relevant permissions and licensing.

Not sure why some are so upset by CRT allegedly acting unlawfully when the people in charge of this boat have so blatantly been acting unlawfully.

As you say any excuse to have a dig at CRT.

I'm not upset at all, however, an individual carrying out acts which may or may not be legal is a completely different kettle of fish to a national charitable organisation which seems to think it can use and abuse waterways legislation however it wishes whether it is legal or not.

National organisations need to be seen to be acting properly, considerately, within their proscribed powers and legally, not carrying out management whims and using bullying tactics and abuse of legislation at every opportunity.

It is irrelevant that you and Tony don't see eye to eye, I have not picked Graham up for a long long time on something he has said, this is about something rather more concerning- an abuse of power and waste of charitable money in legal costs whilst a network falls apart and becomes overgrown.

Edited September 22, 2016 by matty40s

[Arthur Marshall]

Would have been so much simpler if he'd just paid for the services he was using though, wouldn't it?

[Wanderer Vagabond]

What I find curious in this discussion is the number of people coming out in support of someone who clearly does not pay his debts, nor apparently has any intention of paying his debts (judging by the lack of response to letters asking him to do so). I know CRT is held to be a charity but since they are also running a business, the gent concerned is moored in a berth that CRT could be letting to someone who was actually willing to pay for what they are getting rather than a freeloader. It seems to me that the gent concerned has bought a redundant and now pointless vessel and is reliant on the charity of others to keep it on the water.

 

Lightships now have no function other than for those who are so inclined to look at them as say,"Oh, that's an interesting boat". Turning them into 'Night-spots' or licensed premises is now old hat, the best place for them is a breakers yard, unless of course we want to keep every boat that was ever made as a historic boat and preserve everything. If someone has the money to do this then all very well, but when someone has got hold of a boat without any real plan of what they are going to do with it and how they are going to finance it then, I'm afraid that my sympathy becomes rather limited.

[Geo]

 

Not for the first time in this sport of debate there is conflation (not to mention confusion) about different types of law. Not all law is criminal but you will probably find a lot of textbooks on Contract Law. There are various types of court (and have been for a very long time) which oversee the various legals situations. Breaking a contract is not, in itself, a criminal act but the remedies open to a party to a contract are framed in law and the courts can be involved in resolving disputes about them.

Quite, civil law depends on whether they are used or not

[Geo]

What I find curious in this discussion is the number of people coming out in support of someone who clearly does not pay his debts, nor apparently has any intention of paying his debts (judging by the lack of response to letters asking him to do so). I know CRT is held to be a charity but since they are also running a business, the gent concerned is moored in a berth that CRT could be letting to someone who was actually willing to pay for what they are getting rather than a freeloader. It seems to me that the gent concerned has bought a redundant and now pointless vessel and is reliant on the charity of others to keep it on the water.

 

Lightships now have no function other than for those who are so inclined to look at them as say,"Oh, that's an interesting boat". Turning them into 'Night-spots' or licensed premises is now old hat, the best place for them is a breakers yard, unless of course we want to keep every boat that was ever made as a historic boat and preserve everything. If someone has the money to do this then all very well, but when someone has got hold of a boat without any real plan of what they are going to do with it and how they are going to finance it then, I'm afraid that my sympathy becomes rather limited.

 

I think the point is that CRT have got themselves a reputation for ignoring the laws that govern them to the extent that people have/are taking them to Court. Now when individuals start taking organisations like CRT to Court it says to me CRT has got to be behaving badly. The Courts on the whole quickly deal with claims that have little or no chance of success thus those that are allowed to continue mean CRT has questions to answer. To me CRT while being a Charity/Business they should be acting in a manner that is transparent, open and very much within the laws that govern them, not attempting to make the Laws move their boundaries. Thus it is difficult to see CRT doing something of this nature, with the information stream being managed by CRT aimed at being to their advantage not to wonder or even believe that they are ...

Would have been so much simpler if he'd just paid for the services he was using though, wouldn't it?

 

Of course but we don't know and unfortunately may never know the whole story

[Geo]

From the Gloucester docks site

 

Leading Lights Visit Summary

Live Arrivals

 

Ship Name ETA Breaksea POB From

MTS Indus Fri 23 12:00 Sat 24 08:30 Liverpool

 

http://leadinglights.gloucesterharbourtrustees.org.uk/

 

It would appear but I could be wrong and have misinterpreted that she is going to Gloucester

Edited September 23, 2016 by Geo

[Jrtm]

I do have a problem with people not paying there bills that are due. But unless you have a court order you cant take peoples posetions to pay a det. If you didnt pay a paper and milk bill and your local shops started removing your cars off the drive to pay the bill we woukd all be up in arms. (I know its not the same as whats happened but we still wouldnt alow it)

I cant see what grounds crt would have to not alow this boat back to liverpool if someone bought it did everything to make it safe for a business even had another boat in liverpool docks i cant see what crt could refuse to alow the mooring on. Thats a bit like the council deciding they dowt want audi cars in a car park.

[dmr]

What I find curious in this discussion is the number of people coming out in support of someone who clearly does not pay his debts, nor apparently has any intention of paying his debts (judging by the lack of response to letters asking him to do so). I know CRT is held to be a charity but since they are also running a business, the gent concerned is moored in a berth that CRT could be letting to someone who was actually willing to pay for what they are getting rather than a freeloader. It seems to me that the gent concerned has bought a redundant and now pointless vessel and is reliant on the charity of others to keep it on the water.

 

Lightships now have no function other than for those who are so inclined to look at them as say,"Oh, that's an interesting boat". Turning them into 'Night-spots' or licensed premises is now old hat, the best place for them is a breakers yard, unless of course we want to keep every boat that was ever made as a historic boat and preserve everything. If someone has the money to do this then all very well, but when someone has got hold of a boat without any real plan of what they are going to do with it and how they are going to finance it then, I'm afraid that my sympathy becomes rather limited.

 

This is a rather depressing way to look at our maritime history and the history of the people of Liverpool. Its a good looking boat and a positive contribution to the waterfront and what is otherwise a rather empty dock. It will make our visits to Liverpool a little less interesting.

 

You could equally argue that the entire canal system no longer has any economic function (the old farts on it could be more cheaply housed in old peoples homes). Should we fill it in and turn it into a cycle way so that people who are economically active can get to work?

 

...............Dave

[RLWP]

You could equally argue that the entire canal system no longer has any economic function (the old farts on it could be more cheaply housed in old peoples homes). Should we fill it in and turn it into a cycle way so that people who are economically active can get to work?

 

...............Dave

 

How would you manage the drainage functions that the canals provide?

 

Richard

[dmr]

 

How would you manage the drainage functions that the canals provide?

 

Richard

 

All cyclists to have water carrying panniers.

 

.................Dave

[Graham Davis]

What I find curious in this discussion is the number of people coming out in support of someone who clearly does not pay his debts, nor apparently has any intention of paying his debts (judging by the lack of response to letters asking him to do so). I know CRT is held to be a charity but since they are also running a business, the gent concerned is moored in a berth that CRT could be letting to someone who was actually willing to pay for what they are getting rather than a freeloader. It seems to me that the gent concerned has bought a redundant and now pointless vessel and is reliant on the charity of others to keep it on the water.

 

Lightships now have no function other than for those who are so inclined to look at them as say,"Oh, that's an interesting boat". Turning them into 'Night-spots' or licensed premises is now old hat, the best place for them is a breakers yard, unless of course we want to keep every boat that was ever made as a historic boat and preserve everything. If someone has the money to do this then all very well, but when someone has got hold of a boat without any real plan of what they are going to do with it and how they are going to finance it then, I'm afraid that my sympathy becomes rather limited.

 

Quite!! (Greenie thing!!)

 

Goes to prove again that there are some members of this Forum who will find any excuse to criticise CaRT no matter what the background is.

[spadefoot]

 

Quite!! (Greenie thing!!)

 

Goes to prove again that there are some members of this Forum who will find any excuse to criticise CaRT no matter what the background is.

It proves absolutely nothing Graham. It is just his opinion.

CRT need to be criticised because it is important to make them answerable for their actions. This is important because whether we like it or not, the care & maintenance of our (the nations) canals are in their hands. I'd like them (the canals) to still be viable when my grandson is old enough to go boating in his own right.

There is nothing useful to be gained by slavishly respecting authority for it's own sake.

[Jerra]

There is nothing useful to be gained by slavishly respecting authority for it's own sake.

Equally there is nothing to be gained by opposing everything authority does and trying to undermine them at every opportunity as a fair number of forumites seem to do.

[PaulG]

From the Gloucester docks site

 

Leading Lights Visit Summary

Live Arrivals

 

Ship Name ETA Breaksea POB From

MTS Indus Fri 23 12:00 Sat 24 08:30 Liverpool

 

http://leadinglights.gloucesterharbourtrustees.org.uk/

 

It would appear but I could be wrong and have misinterpreted that she is going to Gloucester

Gloucester Harbour covers a surprisingly large area of the Severn Estuary, which includes the approaches to Sharpness Dock.

Edited to say that she is currently in the vicinity of Porlock, waiting for the tide.

It remains to be seen whether she locks up into Porlock, or proceeds directly to Sharpness...

Edited September 23, 2016 by PaulG

[Geo]

Gloucester Harbour covers a surprisingly large area of the Severn Estuary, which includes the approaches to Sharpness Dock.

Edited to say that she is currently in the vicinity of Porlock, waiting for the tide.

It remains to be seen whether she locks up into Porlock, or proceeds directly to Sharpness...

screenshot2.jpg

 

I was thinking of Gloucester Dock itself. Could not find POB on any listing to give a name. Not my area so don't know it.

[spadefoot]

Equally there is nothing to be gained by opposing everything authority does and trying to undermine them at every opportunity as a fair number of forumites seem to do.

There are a few people on this forum, who, it would seem, have very good reason for being a wee bit upset at the way this particular authority conducts itself. It would appear that there has been more than a few occasions when CRT has acted against the rules with regard to boat licencing etc. Interestingly, there are a very few, and nearly always the same very few, who, whilst not necessarily supporting CRT, do nothing much more than attack the detractors at every opportunity. Like snipers, but very bad shots with rusty rifles.

On a more general point, where would we be in this country if people had never questioned authority. Still suffering under feudalism.

Peasants' revolt, Tolpuddle, Peterloo, universal suffrage, Poll tax protests.

If authorities are allowed to go unchallenged, they WILL run roughshod over us.

Section 8s and CRT might be just a minor point in the grand scheme of things, but then so is that small rust spot on your boat. Leave it unchallenged at your cost.

[Jerra]

There are a few people on this forum, who, it would seem, have very good reason for being a wee bit upset at the way this particular authority conducts itself. It would appear that there has been more than a few occasions when CRT has acted against the rules with regard to boat licencing etc. Interestingly, there are a very few, and nearly always the same very few, who, whilst not necessarily supporting CRT, do nothing much more than attack the detractors at every opportunity. Like snipers, but very bad shots with rusty rifles.

On a more general point, where would we be in this country if people had never questioned authority. Still suffering under feudalism.

Peasants' revolt, Tolpuddle, Peterloo, universal suffrage, Poll tax protests.

If authorities are allowed to go unchallenged, they WILL run roughshod over us.

Section 8s and CRT might be just a minor point in the grand scheme of things, but then so is that small rust spot on your boat. Leave it unchallenged at your cost.

I can understand those who have had a problem with CRT over say licences being upset, however that does not mean that everything CRT do for ever more is either wrong or suspect.

 

There are some on the forum who have had no problem but treat everything CRT do as automatically wrong.

 

The problem CRT have which few seem to acknowledge is they are trying to run a system under 21st Century conditions with 20th Century laws (and many even older) the problems of the system today are different to what they were in the 90s. CRT aren't equipped with the correct powers for the modern system (I know some particularly those who have had problems will disagree). . They are left trying to bend the laws and regulations to fit modern conditions sometimes they get it right sometimes they get it wrong.

 

Some on the forum also seem to forget that CRT's brief is not purely about boating and so object to some of the things which are obviously (to me at least) intended to be humourous and aimed at the casual visitor. It isn't to me wrong to try to draw people attention to ducks on the towpath by saying ducks at play. However to some CRT did it so it is wrong.

 

Those who automatically (or for good reason) have a down on CRT also are continually trying to persuade everyone else that CRT are always wrong and harrying every boater. A casual reader who hasn't spent enough time on the forum will IMO get the wrong impression and be put off. Yes some have a problem with CRT and justifiably but the majority of poster and boaters I have talked to find CRT perfectly reasonable to deal with and manage to baot with no worries or concerns.

[Paul C]

Personally, I'd need more (solid) facts to decide if CRT are being needlessly harsh or acting illegally. I can see the point of their taking action (of some kind) but I'm not convinced it needed to be moved quite so far away. Putting emotions and opinions to one side:

 

 

Were CRT needlessly harsh in giving the owner(s) a year and a half to sort out their mooring fees?

What licence/BSS/trade licence/survey/insurance/other admin did the boat NEED to trade in the way it did in Canning Dock, and how much of this did the owners have up to date?

(Why) Was it necessary to remove the boat from Canning Dock?

What underlying legal actions/negotiations took place which have not been already reported?

What other arrangements for proper oversight of the management of the business occurred, or was it simply allowed to fail?

Is there a viable future for the vessel, possibly under new management?

[Mike Todd]

Personally, I'd need more (solid) facts to decide if CRT are being needlessly harsh or acting illegally. I can see the point of their taking action (of some kind) but I'm not convinced it needed to be moved quite so far away. Putting emotions and opinions to one side:

 

 

Were CRT needlessly harsh in giving the owner(s) a year and a half to sort out their mooring fees?

What licence/BSS/trade licence/survey/insurance/other admin did the boat NEED to trade in the way it did in Canning Dock, and how much of this did the owners have up to date?

(Why) Was it necessary to remove the boat from Canning Dock?

What underlying legal actions/negotiations took place which have not been already reported?

What other arrangements for proper oversight of the management of the business occurred, or was it simply allowed to fail?

Is there a viable future for the vessel, possibly under new management?

Where it is taken may in part depend on someone being willing to accept it - CaRT may not have too many suitable locations themselves and in every other case the owners have the right to decide what they accept (?)

[RLWP]

Where it is taken may in part depend on someone being willing to accept it - CaRT may not have too many suitable locations themselves and in every other case the owners have the right to decide what they accept (?)

 

More to the point, they already have a location to take it to

 

Richard

[spadefoot]

I can understand those who have had a problem with CRT over say licences being upset, however that does not mean that everything CRT do for ever more is either wrong or suspect.

 

There are some on the forum who have had no problem but treat everything CRT do as automatically wrong.

 

The problem CRT have which few seem to acknowledge is they are trying to run a system under 21st Century conditions with 20th Century laws (and many even older) the problems of the system today are different to what they were in the 90s. CRT aren't equipped with the correct powers for the modern system (I know some particularly those who have had problems will disagree). . They are left trying to bend the laws and regulations to fit modern conditions sometimes they get it right sometimes they get it wrong.

 

Some on the forum also seem to forget that CRT's brief is not purely about boating and so object to some of the things which are obviously (to me at least) intended to be humourous and aimed at the casual visitor. It isn't to me wrong to try to draw people attention to ducks on the towpath by saying ducks at play. However to some CRT did it so it is wrong.

 

Those who automatically (or for good reason) have a down on CRT also are continually trying to persuade everyone else that CRT are always wrong and harrying every boater. A casual reader who hasn't spent enough time on the forum will IMO get the wrong impression and be put off. Yes some have a problem with CRT and justifiably but the majority of poster and boaters I have talked to find CRT perfectly reasonable to deal with and manage to baot with no worries or concerns.

I think you are reading things wrong.

Are there really people on here who treat everything CRT does as wrong? I don't see it.

CRT are creating their own problems by trying to bend laws to suit their own agenda. The problems with the system today are the same as they've been for decades, lack of decent maintenance. There are problems in a few areas due to localised overcrowding. Not CRTs fault, more fool them for trying to deal with the governments lack of action in dealing with an obvious & very real housing crisis. Instead of trying to twist rules, maybe they should be lobbying government to sort out it's own mess.

Maybe one of CRTs silly signs should say "be more maintenance & less marketing".

I have not personally had any bad dealings with CRT, and as soon as the water levels return to something near normal, or at least enough so my boat floats, I'll be off cruising again (in a bona fide way obviously).

[RLWP]

CRT are creating their own problems by trying to bend laws to suit their own agenda.

 

And how do you know this?

 

Richard

[Jerra]

maybe they should be lobbying government to sort out it's own mess.

You know they aren't because........