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

[Alan de Enfield]

Following significant review and on going discussion, I would like to re-open this thread.

 

Please respect this decision, and my apologies for the time taken to review this case and others.

 

 

 

Daniel

Site Owner

 

Presumably the 'original' thread that had been 'quietly and trouble free' running for 15 months (that this is based on, even tho there was the threat of banning if the subject was raised) can now be re-opened.

 

http://www.canalworld.net/forums/index.php?showtopic=76499

[Alan de Enfield]

I have 'reported' this asking for my original thread to be re-opened in order that the vast amount of useful legal information is not lost.

[DHutch]

Presumably the 'original' thread that had been 'quietly and trouble free' running for 15 months (that this is based on, even tho there was the threat of banning if the subject was raised) can now be re-opened.

 

http://www.canalworld.net/forums/index.php?showtopic=76499

I have 'reported' this asking for my original thread to be re-opened in order that the vast amount of useful legal information is not lost.

I do not want to side track this thread, however the original thread was closed after in it became far from quiet or trouble free, and this thread will remain closed having been replaced with this one. It is not hidden and remains on the site and visible for all to see.

 

Those who are not aware of it, can find it here; http://www.canalworld.net/forums/index.php?showtopic=76499

 

The final posts which causes the thread to close will remain hidden.

 

 

Thank you.

 

Daniel

[smileypete]

Well, some progress it seems, but it'd be nice to know which posts on the other topic violated FR&G and why...

[Jim Riley]

How can this thread continue without the main contributors of useful information? Cut and paste from Thunderboat?

[NigelMoore]

Well, some progress it seems, but it'd be nice to know which posts on the other topic violated FR&G and why...

 

The final posts were a couple of seemingly sozzled digs at Dan and moderators by posters not previously having contributed much at all, if anything, to the thread. Properly considered unacceptable as they were, they had nothing whatever to do with the topic itself. I personally feel that it is scarcely honest to suggest, if that is what is being suggested, that those were what caused the thread to close.

The real reason for closing the thread is claimed by Dan as being his feeling that it is not “appropriate for members to use the forum as a platform for campaigns against” . . . “waterways organisations such as CRT”.

Speaking for myself, I deny that I have ever campaigned against the organisation per se - as I explained to the High Court - as recorded in the latest judgment in this case. The Chief Master did not appear to accept Mr Stoner’s representation of my input as a campaign against them, so Dan’s characterisation runs directly counter to that of the High Court.

My contributions being viewed, however, as such, I will respect his wish to avoid my “Provocative and inflammatory posts”. Although he claims “There is not a ban on discussing issues relating to CRT enforcement”, it is beyond my poor powers of penetration to distinguish between my tolerable and intolerable posts in this regard.

[mayalld]

 

 

The final posts were a couple of seemingly sozzled digs at Dan and moderators by posters not previously having contributed much at all, if anything, to the thread. Properly considered unacceptable as they were, they had nothing whatever to do with the topic itself. I personally feel that it is scarcely honest to suggest, if that is what is being suggested, that those were what caused the thread to close.

The real reason for closing the thread is claimed by Dan as being his feeling that it is not “appropriate for members to use the forum as a platform for campaigns against” . . . “waterways organisations such as CRT”.

Speaking for myself, I deny that I have ever campaigned against the organisation per se - as I explained to the High Court - as recorded in the latest judgment in this case. The Chief Master did not appear to accept Mr Stoner’s representation of my input as a campaign against them, so Dan’s characterisation runs directly counter to that of the High Court.

My contributions being viewed, however, as such, I will respect his wish to avoid my “Provocative and inflammatory posts”. Although he claims “There is not a ban on discussing issues relating to CRT enforcement”, it is beyond my poor powers of penetration to distinguish between my tolerable and intolerable posts in this regard.

 

 

It would appear that, in many respects, the policy here as to what words mean is that advocated by Humpty Dumpty

[Raybo]

My contributions being viewed, however, as such, I will respect his wish to avoid my “Provocative and inflammatory posts”. Although he claims “There is not a ban on discussing issues relating to CRT enforcement”, it is beyond my poor powers of penetration to distinguish between my tolerable and intolerable posts in this regard.

 

Nigel,

Isn't it possible that the "Provocative and inflammatory posts" originated from other posters on the thread? My recollection of your posts is that they are detailed and considered, rather than inflammatory.

 

I understand you would want clarity on where the boundary between tolerable and intolerable lies to avoid posting under a sword of damocles, but would be surprised if your own posts were too close to the line and would hope you could continue to post on CWDF.

[DHutch]

The final posts were a couple of seemingly sozzled digs at Dan and moderators by posters not previously having contributed much at all, if anything, to the thread. Properly considered unacceptable as they were, they had nothing whatever to do with the topic itself. I personally feel that it is scarcely honest to suggest, if that is what is being suggested, that those were what caused the thread to close.

The real reason for closing the thread is claimed by Dan as being his feeling that it is not “appropriate for members to use the forum as a platform for campaigns against” . . . “waterways organisations such as CRT”.

 

The thread was closed and as a team we have decided it should remain closed.

 

A second thread (this one) was already in existence, and we have reopened it.

 

 

This is all I am going to say on the topic, and I hope that we can move on from here and talk about the topic in hand, rather than the details of past site moderation.

 

 

 

 

Daniel

[dmr]

 

 

The final posts were a couple of seemingly sozzled digs at Dan and moderators by posters not previously having contributed much at all, if anything, to the thread. Properly considered unacceptable as they were, they had nothing whatever to do with the topic itself. I personally feel that it is scarcely honest to suggest, if that is what is being suggested, that those were what caused the thread to close.

The real reason for closing the thread is claimed by Dan as being his feeling that it is not “appropriate for members to use the forum as a platform for campaigns against” . . . “waterways organisations such as CRT”.

Speaking for myself, I deny that I have ever campaigned against the organisation per se - as I explained to the High Court - as recorded in the latest judgment in this case. The Chief Master did not appear to accept Mr Stoner’s representation of my input as a campaign against them, so Dan’s characterisation runs directly counter to that of the High Court.

My contributions being viewed, however, as such, I will respect his wish to avoid my “Provocative and inflammatory posts”. Although he claims “There is not a ban on discussing issues relating to CRT enforcement”, it is beyond my poor powers of penetration to distinguish between my tolerable and intolerable posts in this regard.

 

 

I feel there are differences between your postings and those of other "legal experts and CaRT haters" though I do struggle to put these into concise words.

You generally report things that have occurred and discuss the legality or otherwise of these. TD on the other hand is sometimes making the news rather than reporting it by deliberately provoking a battles with Cart and encouraging others to do the same.

 

On a more general note I believe you were minding your own business when the BW/CaRT property people came to get you. Most others are trying to find a way to moor for free and so to some extent poking a stick into a wasps nest and then getting upset when the wasps over react.

 

I believe that CaRT mostly do a decent job given the badly written laws they are given to run the waterways with.

I also suspect, with some knowledge, that the CaRT property department is still something that boaters should be seriously worried about.

 

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

[mayalld]

 

The thread was closed and as a team we have decided it should remain closed.

 

A second thread (this one) was already in existence, and we have reopened it.

 

 

This is all I am going to say on the topic, and I hope that we can move on from here and talk about the topic in hand, rather than the details of past site moderation.

 

 

 

 

Daniel

 

Unfortunately, for so long as the stance is "we have decided to do this, and we aren't going to discuss further", things will continue to go downhill.

[GoodGurl]

to be fair i don't see the point of this thread without the experts having an input

maybe dan wants TD to come back and realises he made a mistake banning him.

[Phil.]

to be fair i don't see the point of this thread without the experts having an input

maybe dan wants TD to come back and realises he made a mistake banning him.

I don't know TD other than via his posts, but IMO there is probably more chance of a Martian landing on top of the White House, than there is seeing TD pleading with Daniel for a return to this forum.

[Paul C]

I always thought the approach to rule-breaks, was to temporarily lock the thread concerned, remove the posts which broke the rules (notifying as necessary) then re-open the thread. In the rare cases where a thread has remained locked, at least in my time, its only been because the thread consisted mainly of posts which broke the rules (or were quotes or a follow on from those posts). If the thread had been running for 18 months then was locked, then its an extremely slow response to earlier posts; or a step change in moderation style or policy.

 

This one's looking like a change in moderation policy.

 

You are fully aware that the change resulting in its lock hasn't prevented further information being put into the public domain....just its location.

[WotEver]

But this way it's easy to hide again with a single button push...

[gazza]

But this way it's easy to hide again with a single button push...

https://youtu.be/Xu3FTEmN-eg

 

The Lyrics of a mighty fine tune.

 

Galvanize

 

The Chemical Brothers

 

Don't hold back

Cause you woke up in the mornin', with the mission to to move, so I make it harder

Don't hold back

If you think about it, so many people do, be cool man, look smarter.

Don't hold back

And you shouldn't even care, bout those losers in the air, and their crooked stares

Don't hold back

Cause there's a party over here, so you might as well be here, where the people care

Don't hold back

 

The world, is holdin' back

The time has come to

The world, is holdin' back

The time has come to

The world, is holdin' back

The time has come to

Galvanize!

 

C'mon, c'mon c'mon.

 

Don't hold back

If you think about it too much, you may stumble, trip up, fall on your face

Don't hold back

You think its time you get up, crunch time, like a sit up, come on keep pace

Don't hold back

Put apprehension on the back burner, let it sit, don't even get it lit

Don't hold back

Get involved with the jam, don't be a prick, hot chick, be a dick.

Don't hold back

 

The world, is holdin' back

The time has come to

The world, is holdin' back

The time has come to

The world, is holdin' back

The time has come to

Galvanize!

 

C'mon, c'mon c'mon.

 

World, the time has come to

Push the button

World, the time has come to

Push the button

World, the time has come to

Push the button

World, my finger, is on the button

My finger, is on the button

My finger, is on the button

Push the button

The time has come to

Galvanize

[Jim Riley]

https://youtu.be/Xu3FTEmN-eg

 

The Lyrics of a mighty fine tune.

 

Galvanize

 

The Chemical Brothers

 

Don't hold back

Cause you woke up in the mornin', with the mission to to move, so I make it harder

Don't hold back

If you think about it, so many people do, be cool man, look smarter.

Don't hold back

And you shouldn't even care, bout those losers in the air, and their crooked stares

Don't hold back

Cause there's a party over here, so you might as well be here, where the people care

Don't hold back

 

The world, is holdin' back

The time has come to

The world, is holdin' back

The time has come to

The world, is holdin' back

The time has come to

Galvanize!

 

C'mon, c'mon c'mon.

 

Don't hold back

If you think about it too much, you may stumble, trip up, fall on your face

Don't hold back

You think its time you get up, crunch time, like a sit up, come on keep pace

Don't hold back

Put apprehension on the back burner, let it sit, don't even get it lit

Don't hold back

Get involved with the jam, don't be a prick, hot chick, be a dick.

Don't hold back

 

The world, is holdin' back

The time has come to

The world, is holdin' back

The time has come to

The world, is holdin' back

The time has come to

Galvanize!

 

C'mon, c'mon c'mon.

 

World, the time has come to

Push the button

World, the time has come to

Push the button

World, the time has come to

Push the button

World, my finger, is on the button

My finger, is on the button

My finger, is on the button

Push the button

The time has come to

Galvanize

Oh dear, the galvanic isolator's broke! It got through!

[DHutch]

But this way it's easy to hide again with a single button push...

 

The Lyrics of a mighty fine tune.

 

Galvanize - The Chemical Brothers

 

Its a good tune.

 

Hiding a thread takes two button pushes, and this does not change if it has been hidden before.

 

##

 

This thread has gone off topic, which somewhat to be expect, however I am going to split the thread because of the many requests to have the thread re-opened that for it to then become a thread about moderator action seems backwards.

 

 

Daniel

[boathunter]

You've lost all sense of reality Daniel, you're still pronouncing "what shall be" in the face of all the interesting characters, knowlegable experts and those with any sense of self worth leaving in droves.

 

Your petty rules are insulting, your "do as you're told" attitude is, I'm afraid to say, the source of hilarity amongst anyone with their own brain.

 

Carry on though, the rules even before it all went tits up only served those with the greatest vocabulary and will power, enabling only them to circumvent your silly rules to be rude and insulting.

 

Your only hope is to abandon all your ridiculous rules, go away and don't look for a year. I won't hold my breath, I don't need to: Thunderboat is where all the characters are. Posters at the forefront of legal dispute, experts in all fields are signing up in droves. It's an equitable and pleasant place to communicate where one's peers keep order. Compare to this dull grey place with it's power mad owner and thought police style overseers? This place will shrivel and die and good job too. When the busiest site only allows a chosen section of the community it serves to participate it's on a hiding to nothing. I could wish you luck, but I wouldn't mean it.

[Athy]

You've lost all sense of reality Daniel, you're still pronouncing "what shall be" in the face of all the interesting characters, knowlegable experts and those with any sense of self worth leaving in droves.

 

Your petty rules are insulting, your "do as you're told" attitude is, I'm afraid to say, the source of hilarity amongst anyone with their own brain.

 

Carry on though, the rules even before it all went tits up only served those with the greatest vocabulary and will power, enabling only them to circumvent your silly rules to be rude and insulting.

 

Your only hope is to abandon all your ridiculous rules, go away and don't look for a year. I won't hold my breath, I don't need to: Thunderboat is where all the characters are. Posters at the forefront of legal dispute, experts in all fields are signing up in droves. It's an equitable and pleasant place to communicate where one's peers keep order. Compare to this dull grey place with it's power mad owner and thought police style overseers? This place will shrivel and die and good job too. When the busiest site only allows a chosen section of the community it serves to participate it's on a hiding to nothing. I could wish you luck, but I wouldn't mean it.

...and, after that commercial break, we return to the programme.

[GoodGurl]

...and, after that commercial break, we return to the programme.

watch with mother?

[mayalld]

You've lost all sense of reality Daniel, you're still pronouncing "what shall be" in the face of all the interesting characters, knowlegable experts and those with any sense of self worth leaving in droves.

 

Your petty rules are insulting, your "do as you're told" attitude is, I'm afraid to say, the source of hilarity amongst anyone with their own brain.

 

Carry on though, the rules even before it all went tits up only served those with the greatest vocabulary and will power, enabling only them to circumvent your silly rules to be rude and insulting.

 

Your only hope is to abandon all your ridiculous rules, go away and don't look for a year. I won't hold my breath, I don't need to: Thunderboat is where all the characters are. Posters at the forefront of legal dispute, experts in all fields are signing up in droves. It's an equitable and pleasant place to communicate where one's peers keep order. Compare to this dull grey place with it's power mad owner and thought police style overseers? This place will shrivel and die and good job too. When the busiest site only allows a chosen section of the community it serves to participate it's on a hiding to nothing. I could wish you luck, but I wouldn't mean it.

 

I wish that I could post a spirited rebuttal of this post, but sadly I can't.

 

Whilst there have been some encouraging signs over the past day or so, I fear that it is too little and too late.

 

We have various promises of "jam tomorrow", with bans reviewed and the like, but the expected timescales don't seem to recognise that urgent action is needed. If it takes a month to review the bans and some are lifted, then to what end? Who will be left for the prodigals to talk to?

 

However, worse than the delay in reviewing past mistakes is the evidence that the same mistakes continue to be made.

 

There is an absolute, if unsustainable, belief from "above" that the current strategy is correct.

 

That means that those who dare say that "the management" are wrong in their approach are still being banned from posting, on the grounds that their behaviour is "disruptive".

 

Where can it lead?

 

Perhaps there are some who imagine that they will be happier when the forum shrinks to a tiny number of users who never disrupt, never argue the point, and all agree with each other. Perhaps they won't notice that the "characters" who added life to the forum have followed the trolls out of the door. Perhaps they will congratulate themselves that nobody has any strong opinions any more, and it is a peaceful place, because it is no longer the go to place for people to discuss canals.

 

I notice, increasingly that those whose contributions I value (which includes a good number of people that are WRONG on every conceivable subject) have departed, either because they have been banned, or because they just can't be bothered here any more.

 

Will CWDF capture my attention if Nigel, Tony, Carl, Nick and the like who one can debate with have gone? I rather doubt it, and I will probably gravitate to places where one can debate.

 

Now, I don't do flounces, or threatened flounces. I hold no high opinion of my own value to a forum. So, those who don't want me to go can say nowt, I'm not fishing! Those who want to see the back of me, I can offer little to. I'm not about to leave, although I will be posting elsewhere, so I may post less. Of course, I know nothing of my future, as it is apparent that others are still being banned for daring to question whether enough is being done to turn the forum round, and this could of course be my last post before the banhammer strikes.

 

If it does, then so be it. It will be sad, but slightly less so than I once thought.

 

So, eyeing the prospect that I could become persona non grata, and on the off chance that I don't get to say so again, it was fun for quite a while, it's been great debating with many of you, and I look forward to doing so in the future in the best canals discussion forum on the net (identity still very much open to debate, but I do hope it is here)

 

I could rattle on further, but I do not think that the management will read my words. Perhaps they should refer to the words of Oliver Cromwell on 20th April 1653

[dogless]

I wish that I could post a spirited rebuttal of this post, but sadly I can't.

 

Whilst there have been some encouraging signs over the past day or so, I fear that it is too little and too late.

 

We have various promises of "jam tomorrow", with bans reviewed and the like, but the expected timescales don't seem to recognise that urgent action is needed. If it takes a month to review the bans and some are lifted, then to what end? Who will be left for the prodigals to talk to?

 

However, worse than the delay in reviewing past mistakes is the evidence that the same mistakes continue to be made.

 

There is an absolute, if unsustainable, belief from "above" that the current strategy is correct.

 

That means that those who dare say that "the management" are wrong in their approach are still being banned from posting, on the grounds that their behaviour is "disruptive".

 

Where can it lead?

 

Perhaps there are some who imagine that they will be happier when the forum shrinks to a tiny number of users who never disrupt, never argue the point, and all agree with each other. Perhaps they won't notice that the "characters" who added life to the forum have followed the trolls out of the door. Perhaps they will congratulate themselves that nobody has any strong opinions any more, and it is a peaceful place, because it is no longer the go to place for people to discuss canals.

 

I notice, increasingly that those whose contributions I value (which includes a good number of people that are WRONG on every conceivable subject) have departed, either because they have been banned, or because they just can't be bothered here any more.

 

Will CWDF capture my attention if Nigel, Tony, Carl, Nick and the like who one can debate with have gone? I rather doubt it, and I will probably gravitate to places where one can debate.

à

Now, I don't do flounces, or threatened flounces. I hold no high opinion of my own value to a forum. So, those who don't want me to go can say nowt, I'm not fishing! Those who want to see the back of me, I can offer little to. I'm not about to leave, although I will be posting elsewhere, so I may post less. Of course, I know nothing of my future, as it is apparent that others are still being banned for daring to question whether enough is being done to turn the forum round, and this could of course be my last post before the banhammer strikes.

 

If it does, then so be it. It will be sad, but slightly less so than I once thought.

 

So, eyeing the prospect that I could become persona non grata, and on the off chance that I don't get to say so again, it was fun for quite a while, it's been great debating with many of you, and I look forward to doing so in the future in the best canals discussion forum on the net (identity still very much open to debate, but I do hope it is here)

 

I could rattle on further, but I do not think that the management will read my words. Perhaps they should refer to the words of Oliver Cromwell on 20th April 1653

Excellent post.

 

Rog

[Cheshire cat]

As usual. I thought perhaps Dave had already been banned but apparently he was just too busy to post.

[Geo]

 

I believe that CaRT mostly do a decent job given the badly written laws they are given to run the waterways with.

I also suspect, with some knowledge, that the CaRT property department is still something that boaters should be seriously worried about.

 

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

 

Parliament took a long time and gave careful consideration to the powers that it gave BW, now CRT, and Parliament gave them powers that Parliament considered correct. If one studies the applicable laws and bylaws everything is available to CRT that they should need if they run the waterways the way Parliament wants them run without, in my opinion, the need for CRT to attempt to write their own laws attempting to overrule the Statutes and the Bylaws. I believe Parliament refused to grant some powers to CRT/BW because it did not believe either they were need or that it was reasonable for CRT to have that power or that there were already laws in existence that dealt with something.

 

The use of section 8 for example to recover debt was not I believe what it was written for and there is plenty of law that available for the recovery of debt. Nor was it written to deal with unlicensed boats.

 

Just taking licences as an example, the Bylaws state:

 

Licensing

 

Licensing of pleasure boats and commercial vessels

 

3. (1) No person shall knowingly cause or permit to be brought, kept, let for hire or used on any canal (not being a river waterway) any pleasure boat unless there is then in force in relation to the pleasure boat a pleasure boat licence.

 

(2) No person shall knowingly cause or permit to be brought, kept, let for hire or used on any canal (not being a commercial waterway) any commercial vessel unless there is then in force in relation to the commercial vessel a commercial vessel licence.

 

This is subject to a fine on summary conviction A lot cheaper and simpler than section 8 for CRT and can cost a boat owner a lot more in the end including a criminal record.

 

The Bylaws can be read here http://www.britishwaterways.co.uk/media/documents/foi/legal/BW_General_Canal_Bye-laws.pdf

 

The various statutes are available online.