Jump to content

CRT being sued in the High Court for misuse of Section 8 rule


Horace42

Featured Posts

What it comes down to is that going to court is an exceedingly dodgy way to decide anything, especially if you are trying to prove a point of law, or have some daft idea that justice matters to anyone apart from yourself. 

1 minute ago, Graham Davis said:

And allegedly he has tried to come back using various pseudonyms.

If so, he aint the only one! 

  • Greenie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Arthur Marshall said:

 A licence gives you the right to use the boat on the river, the registration just, presumably, allows it to be there. 

. . .

I've never understood what the purpose of "registration" is if you then can't use the boat . . .

A Pleasure Boat Licence for all CaRT waterways entails a registration, so obviates any need to separately register a boat for use on the rivers. It does not, as it does for canals, confer a right for a boat to be kept OR used on the rivers, such rights deriving from the PRN.

 

Registration for rivers is simply that: a statutory requirement that a certificate of registration is paid for, absent which an offence is committed, even though the right to keep and use a boat on the rivers derives from the PRN. The certificate is not permission (licence) to keep or use a boat on the rivers.

 

So I think you are creating a difficulty in your mind that does not exist – it is NOT that the registration “just . . . allows it to be there” but not used. You can lawfully keep AND use a boat on the rivers with just the registration requirement complied with. If you keep and use the boat only on the rivers, you will never need the licence.

5 hours ago, Alan de Enfield said:

I have a documents showing / listing all of the statutes, acts and commissions and history relating to the Public Right of Navigation on our Rivers, this lists every one back to the Magna Carta up to 'today' but unfortunately being a Pdf I can no longer post it on the forum.

 

Send the pdf to me Alan, and I can convert it to jpeg and return to you for posting up whichever bits you wish.

  • Greenie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, NigelMoore said:

If the County Court judge has not given permission to appeal, Tony can apply for permission from the High Court to do so (whether or not he does so is another matter). If granted, such an appeal could entail a suspension of the Costs Order pending determination. Bankruptcy does not prevent such an appeal. In fact, if CaRT were to seek “Security for costs”, it would be the perfect defence against such an order, he being manifestly able under those circumstances to “plead his own impecuniosity”, such that an order of that nature would be a denial of his access to justice.

 

The deciding factor in considering whether to grant permission will be only whether there is an identifiable potential error in law (or, more tenuously, in the facts).

For clarity, it was that 1) he is bankrupt, 2) he lost the first stage, thus the legal costs now somewhat escalate, 3) there seems to be no appetite for (for example) a boating organisation or other interested party to fundraise or provide help in the funds, renders the affordability of appealing somewhat out of reach. 

 

The point being, that the time for the finer arguments over the law have now passed. He now has to deal with the practicalities of how law works within the court system. Which tend to suck, unless you have a rock solid case (and even then, defending yourself without the legal assistance of a barrister is fraught with hazards). So while in theory he can appeal, simply from the weight of the facts surrounding this case and other aspects of Tony's case eg lack of wider support, ill health etc etc, practically the door is closing upon this.

 

I admire your meticulous approach to waterways law, of course it will always be an uphill battle against any public body or navigation authority, and sometimes its difficult to make your point properly to a judge. But I feel Tony's approach is quite different and lacks the finesse; which doesn't go down well with judges and other officialdom - some of whom are in a strong position to determine his future.

  • Greenie 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, NigelMoore said:

A Pleasure Boat Licence for all CaRT waterways entails a registration, so obviates any need to separately register a boat for use on the rivers. 

 

So I think you are creating a difficulty in your mind that does not exist – it is NOT that the registration “just . . . allows it to be there” but not used. You can lawfully keep AND use a boat on the rivers with just the registration requirement complied with. If you keep and use the boat only on the rivers, you will never need the licence.

 

Thanks for the clarification as always. I misunderstood the basic meaning of the PRN, I think. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, NigelMoore said:

Send the pdf to me Alan, and I can convert it to jpeg and return to you for posting up whichever bits you wish.

 

Anyone can do this for themselves by displaying their PDF document on screen and pressing the "Print Screen" key. 

 

This takes a screen grab and copies it to clipboard in JPG format.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Mike the Boilerman said:

 

Anyone can do this for themselves by displaying their PDF document on screen and pressing the "Print Screen" key. 

 

This takes a screen grab and copies it to clipboard in JPG format.

 

 

Horribly laborious though, especially with multiple pages. I do that a lot, but it is a right time-taking pain.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Mike the Boilerman said:

 

Anyone can do this for themselves by displaying their PDF document on screen and pressing the "Print Screen" key. 

 

This takes a screen grab and copies it to clipboard in JPG format.

 

 

Muppets find it difficult to do that.

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Mike the Boilerman said:

 

Anyone can do this for themselves by displaying their PDF document on screen and pressing the "Print Screen" key. 

 

This takes a screen grab and copies it to clipboard in JPG format.

 

 

37 pages of Acts etc since the Magna Carta - don't think so.

 

I was trying to send someone a 100+ page engine manual the other day so I think I'll forget screen shots except for very 'narrow' targeted sections.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, Alan de Enfield said:

37 pages of Acts etc since the Magna Carta - don't think so.

 

I was trying to send someone a 100+ page engine manual the other day so I think I'll forget screen shots except for very 'narrow' targeted sections.

 

Why on earth would you want to convert 37 pages of PDF to JPG?

 

JPG is a photography image format and by implication, one 'page'. PDF is the industry standard document format specifically designed for multi-page documents.

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, Mike the Boilerman said:

 

Why on earth would you want to convert 37 pages of PDF to JPG?

 

JPG is a photography image format and by implication, one 'page'. PDF is the industry standard document format specifically designed for multi-page documents.

 

 

 

I think because you can't post PDFs on here. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Arthur Marshall said:

I think because you can't post PDFs on here. 

You can post links to PDF files hosted elsewhere though.  Much of Alan's document library is available online, but that means he needs to remember where they came from!

Edited by TheBiscuits
Grammar
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Arthur Marshall said:

Thanks for the clarification as always. I misunderstood the basic meaning of the PRN, I think. 

The interesting distinction with the Thames legislation is that the registration requirement was, until the 2010 Order, ONLY for boats USING the Thames. You could KEEP your boat moored in the middle of the main navigable channel if you wished, and were only liable for registration if you cast off for an afternoon’s tootle.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Mike the Boilerman said:

 

Oh and I can see why not, given Alan wants to post 37 pages of images!!

 

 

The 37 page document is 390Kb - similar (if not smaller) to a single photo.

 

As I'm sure you are aware, a Pdf is not posted on the forum as "37 pages of images".

7 hours ago, TheBiscuits said:

You can post links to PDF files hosted elsewhere though.  Much of Alan's document library is available online, but that means he needs to remember where they came from!

And, that's the problem, I have found them / acquired them over many years and could probably only find a small number of them again.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Alan de Enfield said:

And, that's the problem, I have found them / acquired them over many years and could probably only find a small number of them again.

 

So why not take a screen shot of the relevant clauses and post those? We don't need all 37 pages of legislation. 

 

That would be far more help than quibbling about why PDFs may not be posted. 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Mike the Boilerman said:

 

So why not take a screen shot of the relevant clauses and post those? We don't need all 37 pages of legislation. 

 

That would be far more help than quibbling about why PDFs may not be posted. 

 

 

There are several pages of the actual legislation and discussions in Parliament and links to the original documents,(some in Latin) there are then commentary about each Act, how it affects navigation etc and then conclusions.

 

 

Every thing is linked.

 

I am not quibbling about the inability to post Pdf's (it is the owners bat and ball to do with as he wishes) it simply put some constraints on the assistance that can be given in response to questions.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As Tony can't answer his critics on here, I hope no-one minds if I post the following, which is his explanation of what has happened and why he thinks it important to battle on.  My personal opinion is that if he stuck to logic and argument, and cut out the intemperate and abusive language (and most of the adjectives), CRT and the courts would take him more seriously as opposed to think he's just ranting on. Once someone calls you a "despicable bastard" you tend to write them off as a anyone capable of serious discussion.  One of my problems with it all is that, having worked for HMRC for thirty years, I really can't see how a blatant VAT irregularity could have carried on for 20 years - unlike a lot of tax work, VAT has always been handled by experts in the department.  Anyway, over to Tony:

 

"...here's a brief summary of the action C&RT have taken to augment the boat registration and VAT accounting mess they inherited from their predecessors.  If anyone would like to quote or use all or any of the following for re-posting on CWDF, please feel free so to do :


Genuine boat Licences issued by C&RT should and do have VAT charged on top of the licence fee at the standard 20% rate. The Pleasure Boat [registration] Certificates, which C&RT dishonestly issue as 'Rivers Only Licences' are 0% rated for VAT, and are, under Sections 5(1) and 6(1)[c] of the 1971 BW Act, mandatory for the owners of boats kept and used only on 'river waterways' to hold, and mandatory for C&RT to issue. 

C&RT, however, have dug themselves into something of a hole by continuing dishonestly to describe the Pleasure Boat [registration] Certificate as a Rivers Only Licence because by so doing since they (C&RT) came into existence in 2012 they have left themselves obliged under the VAT regulations to continue to collect the current standard rate of VAT on a registration certificate for which the fee is 0% VAT rated. Were they now to discontinue charging VAT at 20% on their phony 'Rivers Only Licences' they would be landing themselves with the massive problem of having to clear up the accounting nightmare created by a total of over 20 years of knowing deception and fraudulent VAT collection, first by BWB and latterly by themselves, and then explaining away the whole mess to HMRC !       

A fringe benefit for C&RT, and their predecessors BWB, from charging standard rate [Licence] VAT on 0% VAT rated Pleasure Boat (registration) Certificates has been that it has helped to lend credence to their lies about the Pleasure Boat Certificate really being a 'Licence', . . lies which they have chosen to perpetuate in order to foster the illusion that they have statutory powers to 'licence' the use of 'river waterways' in the same way they 'licence' the use of the man made canals under their control and upon which the statutory PRN was extinguished under the 1968 Transport Act.

Over the last 20(+) years these illusory river 'licensing' powers have been, and are still, routinely bowled up to the Courts to justify the habitual exercising of the disproportionately draconian Section 8 removal powers in respect of non-sunk, non-stranded, and non-abandoned boats on the river waterways where the 'lawful authority' to keep and use a vessel on the waterway is and always has been derived from the common law public right of navigation, and is not a power in the gift of the C&RT to grant or refuse by way of any form of 'Licence'.

The lawful authority to keep and use a pleasure boat on the river waterways listed in Schedule 1 to the 1971 BW Act [as amended] is the common law Public Right of Navigation (the PRN), and, much as C&RT would wish everyone to believe otherwise, not some phony so-called 'Rivers Only Licence', conspicuous only by it's complete absence from any part, section, or chapter of any the related waterway legislation by which C&RT is governed, . . but routinely issued nonetheless by this malevolent and megalomania ridden navigation authority with a taste for stealing people's boats from them under the guise of action supposedly intended to "manage, conserve and keep the waterways safe", . . the weasel words with which the despicable bastards at C&RT generally round off the written evidence placed before the Courts for the purpose of obtaining Injunction Orders. "

  • Greenie 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

45 minutes ago, CV32 said:

You could try this or other bits of clever code on the web >> https://smallpdf.com/pdf-to-jpg

Thanks - just tried it but at £81 per year to register I'll give it a miss.

 

If anyone wants the information I offer they can send me their email and I'll send it as the Pdf

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 months later...
22 hours ago, Paul C said:

I believe CRT are coming on Monday to enforce the S.8 against Tony.

And I understand we are leaving the EU on the 31st October.

What an organisation states it is definitely going to do is not necessarily what will happen.  If you see what I mean.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

31 minutes ago, Arthur Marshall said:

And I understand we are leaving the EU on the 31st October.

What an organisation states it is definitely going to do is not necessarily what will happen.  If you see what I mean.

After listening to lots of politicians, managers and other leaders I have given much thought to the reasons why people say things, these include:

because its true.

because they would like it to be true and they are optimists (ie its an aspiration).

because they hope that by saying it it will help to make it come true.

because its what they think people want to hear

to get attention.

to appear to be important/in control of things.

because somebody else has told them to say it. (spokespersons)

to deliberate mislead those who are listening.

because they speak rubbish without any thought or facts

general corporate insanity (closely related to the one above but not identical)

 

I am still working on this list.

 

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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, dmr said:

After listening to lots of politicians, managers and other leaders I have given much thought to the reasons why people say things, these include:

because its true.

because they would like it to be true and they are optimists (ie its an aspiration).

because they hope that by saying it it will help to make it come true.

because its what they think people want to hear

to get attention.

to appear to be important/in control of things.

because somebody else has told them to say it. (spokespersons)

to deliberate mislead those who are listening.

because they speak rubbish without any thought or facts

general corporate insanity (closely related to the one above but not identical)

 

I am still working on this list.

 

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

Because they are tory. 

Morning Dave, saw you sneaking through summit pass, hatches battened down against the wolves. 

Edited by Jim Riley
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.