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

[carlt]

Once again, disagree its spam and disagree its pathetic. Please can you point out in detail how it is spam; and how it breaks the site rules?

It is spam because it is advertising another website to the detriment of this one.

 

It is pathetic and patronising because it reads as an instruction to someone who has proven he has the wit and intelligence to make his own decisions.

 

It is petty because there really was no need for it.

 

I see know harm in someone posting that they are fed up with here so they are going over there but for you to post an instruction to someone else to stop posting here and just post there is another matter altogether.

[NigelMoore]

I did think it was a slightly odd comment to make in context, Paul, but I did not feel patronised, nor offended. I rather think I understood the intent.

 

The gaucheries to which I have responded here notwithstanding, having had some indication that my opinions will not be stamped on as undesirable here - for the present at least - I shall continue to post as before, and copy and paste the general information /updates/comments on both sites. I will only duplicate answers to particular questions, or responses to particular comments, if I feel they are of more general interest.

 

I am going to trust that if anything I post is considered to be modifiable, I will be contacted directly and politely to that effect.

[mayalld]

Once again, disagree its spam and disagree its pathetic. Please can you point out in detail how it is spam; and how it breaks the site rules?

 

Paul,

 

I have to say that I thought it to be out of order too.

 

As you are aware, I am unhappy with the way things are going here, and have a foot in each camp.

 

How than pans out, only time will tell.

 

It is one thing to come here and try to get people to bring content to TB. It is quite another to go on to suggest that they should also stop putting content on this forum.

 

The former is about growing TB, the latter is more about killing this forum.

[Paul C]

It is spam because it is advertising another website to the detriment of this one.

 

Interesting - I see you have misinterpreted the rules of this website, and in doing so broadened its applicability. Spam; and the rules which prevent it, relate to commercial advertising. Thunderboat is not a commercial website, therefore it is not, on its own, a rule-break or spam to mention it, or post a link to it. Let us imagine that your broadened interpretation was applied consistently across the forum, there's hundreds of links to other websites mentioned in the post (heck, some are even commercial ones - but they are linked informatively, ie in a way different to simply advertising them). It is unfeasible that in writing the rule the rule-writer implied that all links to all websites; or indeed all mention of other websites is now disallowed.

 

Also interesting is that you're keen to become a moderator and that many have cited one of the original issues is mis-applying the rules.

 

Paul,

 

I have to say that I thought it to be out of order too.

 

As you are aware, I am unhappy with the way things are going here, and have a foot in each camp.

 

How than pans out, only time will tell.

 

It is one thing to come here and try to get people to bring content to TB. It is quite another to go on to suggest that they should also stop putting content on this forum.

 

The former is about growing TB, the latter is more about killing this forum.

 

No worries, I see that Nigel has now responded and took it in the way it was intended. Indeed now that the issue which may have been responsible for the locking of the original couple of threads has been (amicably) resolved/discussed with Nigel and the relevant people, the concern I originally had did not materialise long term. Given this new information, I'm quite happy to retract the original suggestion (but shall leave the posts in place since they've been quoted and discussed now).

[carlt]

 

Interesting - I see you have misinterpreted the rules of this website, and in doing so broadened its applicability. Spam; and the rules which prevent it, relate to commercial advertising.

 

 

not all spam is commercial and I would put spam encouraging (or as in your case instructing) users not to post here but to post somewhere else in this, mischief making, category:

 

It is not permitted to engage in inter-site ‘flaming’ whereby disruptive content from elsewhere other than CWDF is discussed in relation to member activities on CWDF

 

 

But seeing as you now acknowledge that your attempted intervention was, as I pointed out, totally unnecessary, we might as well agree to differ as the discussion is now equally unnecessary.

[mayalld]

 

Interesting - I see you have misinterpreted the rules of this website, and in doing so broadened its applicability. Spam; and the rules which prevent it, relate to commercial advertising.

 

OK, at this point I need to say that you are wrong, and Carl is also wrong.

 

Neither of you are using the correct definition of Spam.

 

Spam is an entirely content neutral measure. It is entirely unimportant as to whether the content is commercial. The only criterion is that a substantially identical message is posted multiple times (generally accepted as more than 20 times in 45 days, so some of Tomsk's posts to TB *ARE* spam).

 

The use of spam to denote anything that the accuser doesn't think belongs, and the arguments that certain content isn't spam are just hogwash.

 

So, Paul's post was wrong and undesirable, but it wasn't spam. Not because it wasn't commercial, but because it wasn't repeated ad nauseam.

[carlt]

 

 

 

So, Paul's post was wrong and undesirable, but it wasn't spam. Not because it wasn't commercial, but because it wasn't repeated ad nauseam.

 

Fair enough...But it was contrary to the rule that I quoted.

[mayalld]

 

Fair enough...But it was contrary to the rule that I quoted.

 

Indeed so!

 

I'm afraid that misuse of the term is something of a "thing" that irritates me.

[Paul C]

I mentioned the other forum, I didn't discuss its content (just its existance and its number of visitors) - so the "inter-site flaming" rule does not apply. Carlt made the assertion that its spam, however the rules don't mention this definition except for an unrelated guideline relating to chat/messaging. Then he mentioned that not all spam is commercial. In fact, the rules disallow commercial advertising except with agreement. I maintain that the mere mention of another non-commercial website is permissable under the current rules.

[carlt]

I maintain that the mere mention of another non-commercial website is permissable under the current rules.

 

I'm sure you do.

 

You are also, I am sure, aware of how inflammatory your instruction was.

 

Telling a forum user not to post here but to post somewhere else is going one step further than merely "mentioning" another website and is more than covered by the rule I highlighted, not the one you are repeatedly referring to.

[Paul C]

 

I'm sure you do.

 

You are also, I am sure, aware of how inflammatory your instruction was.

 

Telling a forum user not to post here but to post somewhere else is going one step further than merely "mentioning" another website and is more than covered by the rule I highlighted, not the one you are repeatedly referring to.

 

Oh no its not.

[carlt]

 

Oh no its not.

 

As I said...I am more than happy to agree to differ.

[Paul C]

The test is "disruptive content from elsewhere other than CWDF is discussed". Since I mentioned only the website and its number of visitors, this in itself is not "disruptive content". The word "disruptive" additionally qualifies it, over and above mere "content" (which I didn't discuss anyway - although one might interpret its numbers of visitors as "content" if one was incredibly picky). If you believe that merely mentioning the website is disruptive in itself, then 1) you are wrong and 2) you should also similarly make complaints about the several other number of times it has been mentioned. And if you believe that mentioning its number of visitors, or relative numbers of visitors, is also disruptive.......

[carlt]

The test is... [sNIP pointless irrelevance]

 

As I said...I am more than happy to agree to differ.

[tomsk]

 

OK, at this point I need to say that you are wrong, and Carl is also wrong.

 

Neither of you are using the correct definition of Spam.

 

Spam is an entirely content neutral measure. It is entirely unimportant as to whether the content is commercial. The only criterion is that a substantially identical message is posted multiple times (generally accepted as more than 20 times in 45 days, so some of Tomsk's posts to TB *ARE* spam).

 

The use of spam to denote anything that the accuser doesn't think belongs, and the arguments that certain content isn't spam are just hogwash.

 

So, Paul's post was wrong and undesirable, but it wasn't spam. Not because it wasn't commercial, but because it wasn't repeated ad nauseam.

 

 

Once again Dave, your opinion masquerading as fact is wholly incorrect.

[thebfg]

 

A point repeatedly make, but one that is ignored by many.

 

It is also interesting that the offence is 'repeated' every day the boat remains unlicensed, so what starts of as a 'nominal' charge of £100 soon 'racks up to £1000s

It does not define that each new day brings a new offence. so therefore its one offence regardless of time. if you left and returned to CaRT waters i suspect that would be viewed as a new offence.

 

 

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.

But anyways. to answer the implied question of why they use section 8 and not the other one. I'm not a waterways act expert in any way but do deal with railways, airport and port bylaws. just to apologise in advance i can not write my posts as articulate as others do.

To play devils advocate in my opinion CaRT use section 8 because, If they used the other section then they would have to get a magistrate to prosecute, they would be unable to recover any costs in doing this, the penalty (however much it was) would go to the court and at the end the owner could pay the fine. Importantly the boat would still be on the waterway and the process would have to begin again, again at a total loss to CaRT or the owner could legitimately apply for a license.

However section 8 they can do it at no cost to them and have the added bonus that the boat is not on their waterway anymore.

Their must be a middle ground however I presume some would argue that the act doe not allow it. I would suggest somewhere like the dvla, you get a fine, have to pay the uncovered period and then have to licence it. I suppose CaRT dont want you to reapply afterwards however i cant find anything that can back that up legally.

It would appear in some cases that they use section 8 to get rid of people they don't want. maybe by forcing you to sell the boat to pay the fees. As soon as they have cancelled your licence. they have begun.

[NigelMoore]

To play devils advocate in my opinion CaRT use section 8 because, If they used the other section then they would have to get a magistrate to prosecute, they would be unable to recover any costs in doing this, the penalty (however much it was) would go to the court and at the end the owner could pay the fine. Importantly the boat would still be on the waterway and the process would have to begin again, again at a total loss to CaRT or the owner could legitimately apply for a license.

However section 8 they can do it at no cost to them and have the added bonus that the boat is not on their waterway anymore.

 

There is so much you are misapprehending here.

When having licence defaults prosecuted by magistrates, CaRT can not only recover their legal costs, but have the defaulter pay the licence arrears/owing for the coming year [something the s.8 process does NOT cover]. Properly viewed, recovery of owed licence fees and payment for the current period is the whole point of the enforcement procedure; applying the legal route granted meets the managerial imperatives precisely.

They do not get the fine, agreed – that goes to the Treasury - but then, they do not get the costs of s.8 removals either – that is simply reimbursement of outlay.

The point of all that I have posted previously is to demonstrate that contrary to what you have just said, the s.8 process as applied by CaRT IS exorbitantly costly; in the vast majority of cases that cost is irrecoverable, the end result being forfeiture of the owed sums and the loss of a customer from then on.

The boat being “not on their waterways anymore” is a LOSS to CaRT, not a bonus.

[thebfg]

 

 

There is so much you are misapprehending here.

When having licence defaults prosecuted by magistrates, CaRT can not only recover their legal costs, but have the defaulter pay the licence arrears/owing for the coming year [something the s.8 process does NOT cover]. Properly viewed, recovery of owed licence fees and payment for the current period is the whole point of the enforcement procedure; applying the legal route granted meets the managerial imperatives precisely.

They do not get the fine, agreed – that goes to the Treasury - but then, they do not get the costs of s.8 removals either – that is simply reimbursement of outlay.

The point of all that I have posted previously is to demonstrate that contrary to what you have just said, the s.8 process as applied by CaRT IS exorbitantly costly; in the vast majority of cases that cost is irrecoverable, the end result being forfeiture of the owed sums and the loss of a customer from then on.

The boat being “not on their waterways anymore” is a LOSS to CaRT, not a bonus.

 

Thank you like I pointed out where my experience lies and I fully respect your knowledge and the time and effort you put in and fully support all the people who take action. I believe you may of miss understood my intentions. I understand 99% of what is posted but I do like to play the devils advocate and I am able to look at the other side to try and understand their reasons whether I agree with them or not. This has got me in trouble a lot, on a side note I have won many debates when I have actually agreed with the other side.

 

I was unaware they do/could with a simple successful license evasion prosecution recoup unpaid licence fees.

 

However, they do not get the costs of s.8 removals either – that is simply reimbursement of outlay is a better wording of what I was trying to say.

 

The boat being “not on their waterways anymore” is a LOSS to CaRT, not a bonus.​ Please do not take my post in the wrong way, if they (plural or singular)want to get rid of someone then removing their boat completes that objective. For the avoidance of doubt I do not support them in anyway.

 

And I agree with the fact that legislation should be used correctly. its just been asked why they don't and mine could be one of many reasons. although there can not be many legitimate ones.

Edited November 1, 2016 by thebfg

[NigelMoore]

I am always delighted to find those playing devil’s advocate bfg; I trust that you will also understand that in using sometimes astringent vocabulary, I am addressing only the argument, without necessarily ascribing its genesis to such as yourself.

So do please keep coming up with arguments – and I will treat them on their own merits without necessarily believing that you personally hold to the purely postulated view.

I understand your point regarding removal of people they don’t want being a likely objective in some cases [i know all too well that this is sometimes true], in which case yes, successful s.8 actions achieve that disreputable ambition [and I accept that you do not support such objectives].

[mayalld]

 

 

Once again Dave, your opinion masquerading as fact is wholly incorrect.

 

Nope, it is wholly correct.

 

The term "Spam" was brought to the internet by Joel Furr in the early 90's, and subsequently quantified by Seth Briedbart.

 

http://wiki.killfile.org/projects/usenet/faqs/spam/

 

The beauty of the definition is that it is entirely content-agnostic. It requires no value judgement as to whether the content posted is "bad" or "good". The sole arbiter is how often the same thing is posted.

 

It means that certain content can be disallowed without any discussion of whether it has merit or not, simply because it is hopelessly repetitive.

 

That means that if somebody posts on a daily basis with a one word insult, then it IS spam (no matter how accurate the insult may be).

The test is "disruptive content from elsewhere other than CWDF is discussed". Since I mentioned only the website and its number of visitors, this in itself is not "disruptive content". The word "disruptive" additionally qualifies it, over and above mere "content" (which I didn't discuss anyway - although one might interpret its numbers of visitors as "content" if one was incredibly picky). If you believe that merely mentioning the website is disruptive in itself, then 1) you are wrong and 2) you should also similarly make complaints about the several other number of times it has been mentioned. And if you believe that mentioning its number of visitors, or relative numbers of visitors, is also disruptive.......

 

Paul,

 

I wouldn't suggest that mere mention of Thunderboat is disruptive. Neither is seeking to attract people to it (people can be a member of both).

 

However, as soon as you go beyond that and start to advocate people withdrawing from participation here, that cannot be done other than with disruptive intent.

[Barry]

 

Paul,

 

I wouldn't suggest that mere mention of Thunderboat is disruptive. Neither is seeking to attract people to it (people can be a member of both).

 

However, as soon as you go beyond that and start to advocate people withdrawing from participation here, that cannot be done other than with disruptive intent.

 

And THAT is the nub of the matter

 

No matter how nicely worded, directly encouraging people to leave this forum IS disruptive

[Paul C]

Fine, I admit its open to misinterpretation but all I meant was, if Nigel is too busy to post and reply to posts on 2 forums, do it on one instead of not doing it at all. Then, everyone still benefits because everyone can still read the info. I'm not too bothered if people misinterpret things, especially if they're poorly written (I admit to that), I'll try and clarify as/when needs be. But I do think sometimes people like to overanalyse each written word and attach their own meaning upon it.

Edited November 2, 2016 by Paul C

[mayalld]

Fine, I admit its open to misinterpretation but all I meant was, if Nigel is too busy to post and reply to posts on 2 forums, do it on one instead of not doing it at all.

 

But there was no hint that Nigel was too busy to post to 2 forums.

 

Sorry Paul, but it was a blatant attempt to cause damage to this forum and crossed a line.

[Arthur Marshall]

No doubt with two separate debates going on on different forums, it's likely that the result is a greater depth of info, no less and with some contributors on both forums, or possibly fora, it just means that everyone benefits. This forum is more to my taste than TB, but that's all it is. I'm just glad Nigel, for one, is still reading both.

[thebfg]

 

I am always delighted to find those playing devil’s advocate bfg; I trust that you will also understand that in using sometimes astringent vocabulary, I am addressing only the argument, without necessarily ascribing its genesis to such as yourself.

So do please keep coming up with arguments – and I will treat them on their own merits without necessarily believing that you personally hold to the purely postulated view.

I understand your point regarding removal of people they don’t want being a likely objective in some cases [i know all too well that this is sometimes true], in which case yes, successful s.8 actions achieve that disreputable ambition [and I accept that you do not support such objectives].

 

Maybe I misunderstood yours.