Potential new legal development. Can CRT enforce cc'ing rules?

[rowland al]

11 minutes ago, Wanderer Vagabond said:

And how pray is any judge going to do anything to override market forces? This is the basic law of supply and demand, if something is in short supply the price goes up and if there is a glut the price falls. Are they going to make market shortages (like housing) illegal? They can only enforce legislation already in existence, they cannot make their own.The only solution to this particular problem lies with Government, judges are an irrelevance in the debate.

As I suggested earlier,  maybe the 3 judges could see the big picture and the threats from CRT were seen as the thin edge of the wedge. 

Not everyone is driven by supply and demand.

[Wanderer Vagabond]

26 minutes ago, magictime said:

Eh? That seems like a very narrow view of market forces. Judges override market forces all the time, don't they? They put drug dealers in prison, for instance, and intervene when women get sacked for getting pregnant.

They put drug dealers in prison, so we no longer have a drug problem do we? market forces mean that if you lock up enough drug dealers the price will rise, you will never overcome that particular market force by legislation. You might destroy the market by changing the social acceptability of drug use (much the same as smoking is becoming socially unacceptable) but that requires social persuasion. Despite all of the rhetoric, locking up drug dealers doesn't really achieve much since in the market place there will always be another one along in a minute whilst ever there is money to be made.

 

Please explain what market force is involved in getting a woman pregnant? You might as well say they intervene when black people get sacked for being black, nothing to do with market forces unless you want to propose that women are more expensive to employ than men (a proposal not held up very well by the current pay inequality). What they are intervening in is prejudicial behaviour which doesn't really come under the heading of market forces.

[Wanderer Vagabond]

37 minutes ago, rowland al said:

As I suggested earlier,  maybe the 3 judges could see the big picture and the threats from CRT were seen as the thin edge of the wedge. 

Not everyone is driven by supply and demand.

There is no 'big picture' here. It is not in the remit of judges to cure the housing problem, neither is it in the remit of CRT.

I'd be interested to know exactly how you overcome the principle of supply and demand, do you get everything you need at exactly the price you'd like to pay for it, like housing for instance?

[rowland al]

2 minutes ago, Wanderer Vagabond said:

There is no 'big picture' here. 

The big picture here is preventing marketing forces (or the greed culture) from treading on basic human rights. Money, status and the power they bring should not be abused or used for personal agendas, but sadly are. 

Do you really believe our government is not influenced by those with money, status and power? It would be great if you were right.

[Jerra]

3 minutes ago, rowland al said:

The big picture here is preventing marketing forces (or the greed culture) from treading on basic human rights. Money, status and the power they bring should not be abused or used for personal agendas, but sadly are. 

Do you really believe our government is not influenced by those with money, status and power? It would be great if you were right.

I thought the discussion was about the influences on CRT  not the government.    Can you please outline how you think the CR are being influenced by market forces.

[rowland al]

6 minutes ago, Jerra said:

I thought the discussion was about the influences on CRT  not the government.    Can you please outline how you think the CR are being influenced by market forces.

As I keep saying, it is only a view but it does seem as though CRT is run more like a pure business than a charity (where you would expect people's welfare and health to be regarded as a higher priority).

The problem CRT have got is that whether they like it or not, boats are homes to thousands of people. I'm sure there are certain pressures on CRT to focus on turning their waterways into nothing but a profit making leisure boater industry. However, that is speculation and I hope I am wrong as I like it's diversity.

 

[Sir Nibble]

So looking at the. "bigger" picture" and bearing in mind that both CaRT and the judge must work within the law, what would you have m'lud do?

(sorry for sliding on topic)

Edited March 10, 2017 by Sir Nibble

[Tuscan]

CRT are obviously influenced (and more importantly seek to influence) by government firstly the directors want to take over the EA's waters and the funding that goes with it secondly their original grant runs out in a few years and they need to secure another one. This is the sole reason there is such a focus on volunteers and increasing the many millions of visits.

[Allan(nb Albert)]

19 minutes ago, Tuscan said:

CRT are obviously influenced (and more importantly seek to influence) by government firstly the directors want to take over the EA's waters and the funding that goes with it secondly their original grant runs out in a few years and they need to secure another one. This is the sole reason there is such a focus on volunteers and increasing the many millions of visits.

Do you mean directors or trustees?

 

[magictime]

8 hours ago, Wanderer Vagabond said:

They put drug dealers in prison, so we no longer have a drug problem do we? market forces mean that if you lock up enough drug dealers the price will rise, you will never overcome that particular market force by legislation. You might destroy the market by changing the social acceptability of drug use (much the same as smoking is becoming socially unacceptable) but that requires social persuasion. Despite all of the rhetoric, locking up drug dealers doesn't really achieve much since in the market place there will always be another one along in a minute whilst ever there is money to be made.

All fair points; I certainly don't want to claim judges can eradicate the drugs market with a few whacks of their gavels. But it's still the case that a judge is intervening in that market when she locks up a dealer; 'overriding' the forces that provided him with that source of income. If prices rise in the way you suggest, again, that's an example of judges having intervened in and reshaped the market.

8 hours ago, Wanderer Vagabond said:

Please explain what market force is involved in getting a woman pregnant? You might as well say they intervene when black people get sacked for being black, nothing to do with market forces unless you want to propose that women are more expensive to employ than men (a proposal not held up very well by the current pay inequality). What they are intervening in is prejudicial behaviour which doesn't really come under the heading of market forces.

Firstly, if prejudice affects demand in the labour market (e.g. because employers regard members of some group as being less capable, more expensive to employ, or whatever), then yes, I'd say judicial action to correct the results of that prejudice does come under the heading of (overriding) market forces. 

On the specific point about pregnancy: if an employer looks at the labour market and decides that over the next 12 months, he can get more labour out of a non-pregnant employee than a pregnant one on the same wage, and so decides to sack his pregnant employee and hire a non-pregnant replacement, that has everything to do with 'market forces' and a judge taking action against that employer is very much in the business of overriding those forces.

I really don't see that I'm claiming anything controversial here. The law/judges intervening in markets is an everyday thing. If market forces decree that a garden shed in London is worth £500 a month as living accommodation and a judge decrees that nonetheless, it can't be rented out as such, he's overriding those forces. Any market you could name is shaped by the law/judges one way or another: the market in weapons, in food, in labour, in toys, etc. etc. When right-wingers complain that markets aren't 'free' enough, what are they complaining about if not the law's interference with the operation of market forces?

[Alan de Enfield]

8 hours ago, rowland al said:

As I keep saying, it is only a view but it does seem as though CRT is run more like a pure business than a charity (where you would expect people's welfare and health to be regarded as a higher priority).

 

That is obviously why you think as you do - you are working ynder a total misapprehension of the true situation.

C&RT is NOT a charity such as RSPCA, Save the Children etc, they are in fact a company (registered a Companies House) as a "company limited by guarantee and not having share capital" under the 2006 Companies Act.

They have 'charitable status (basically tax benefits) to maintain the 'Heritage of the waterways', they do not have 'charitable intentions' towards the users of the waterways.

 

The objectives of the company are outlined in the documents filed at companies house :

OBJECTS AND POWERS
2. Objects
The Trust’s objects are:
2.1 to preserve, protect, operate and manage Inland Waterways for public benefit:
2.1.1 for navigation; 
2.1.2 for walking on towpaths; and
2.1.3 for recreation or other leisure-time pursuits of the public in the interest of their health and social welfare;
2.2 to protect and conserve for public benefit sites, objects and buildings of archaeological, architectural, engineering or historic interest on, in the vicinity of, or otherwise associated with Inland Waterways;
2.3 to further for the public benefit the conservation protection and improvement of the natural environment and landscape of Inland Waterways;
2.4 to promote, facilitate, undertake and assist in, for public benefit, the restoration and improvement of Inland Waterways; 
2.5 to promote and facilitate for public benefit awareness, learning and education about Inland Waterways, their history, development, use, operation and cultural heritage by all appropriate means including the provision of museums;
2.6 to promote sustainable development in the vicinity of any Inland Waterway for the benefit of the public, in particular by:
2.6.1 the improvement of the conditions of life in socially and economically disadvantaged communities in such vicinity; and

2.6.2 the promotion of sustainable means of achieving economic growth and regeneration and the prudent use of natural resources; and
2.7 to further any purpose which is exclusively charitable under the law of England and Wales connected with Inland Waterways;
provided that in each case where the Trust undertakes work in relation to property which it does not own or hold in trust, any private benefit to the owner of the property is merely incidental.

Edited March 10, 2017 by Alan de Enfield

[Jerra]

8 hours ago, rowland al said:

As I keep saying, it is only a view but it does seem as though CRT is run more like a pure business than a charity (where you would expect people's welfare and health to be regarded as a higher priority).

 

Of course it is itrun more like a business, it  isn't a pure charity it is a business with charitable status.

Not all charities regard human health and welfare as a high priority - all animal charities for a start, National Trust is more concerned about countryside, buildings and artefacts than people etc.

[rowland al]

28 minutes ago, Alan de Enfield said:

That is obviously why you think as you do - you are working ynder a total misapprehension of the true situation.

C&RT is NOT a charity such as RSPCA, Save the Children etc, they are in fact a company (registered a Companies House) as a "company limited by guarantee and not having share capital" under the 2006 Companies Act.

They have 'charitable status (basically tax benefits) to maintain the 'Heritage of the waterways', they do not have 'charitable intentions' towards the users of the waterways.

 

The objectives of the company are outlined in the documents filed at companies house :

OBJECTS AND POWERS
2. Objects
The Trust’s objects are:
2.1 to preserve, protect, operate and manage Inland Waterways for public benefit:
2.1.1 for navigation; 
2.1.2 for walking on towpaths; and
2.1.3 for recreation or other leisure-time pursuits of the public in the interest of their health and social welfare;
2.2 to protect and conserve for public benefit sites, objects and buildings of archaeological, architectural, engineering or historic interest on, in the vicinity of, or otherwise associated with Inland Waterways;
2.3 to further for the public benefit the conservation protection and improvement of the natural environment and landscape of Inland Waterways;
2.4 to promote, facilitate, undertake and assist in, for public benefit, the restoration and improvement of Inland Waterways; 
2.5 to promote and facilitate for public benefit awareness, learning and education about Inland Waterways, their history, development, use, operation and cultural heritage by all appropriate means including the provision of museums;
2.6 to promote sustainable development in the vicinity of any Inland Waterway for the benefit of the public, in particular by:
2.6.1 the improvement of the conditions of life in socially and economically disadvantaged communities in such vicinity; and

2.6.2 the promotion of sustainable means of achieving economic growth and regeneration and the prudent use of natural resources; and
2.7 to further any purpose which is exclusively charitable under the law of England and Wales connected with Inland Waterways;
provided that in each case where the Trust undertakes work in relation to property which it does not own or hold in trust, any private benefit to the owner of the property is merely incidental.

Don't you mean they are misrepresenting the use of the word 'charity' for tax benefits? 

[Arthur Marshall]

7 minutes ago, rowland al said:

Don't you mean they are misrepresenting the use of the word 'charity' for tax benefits? 

No. No more than public schools are. It's not misrepresentation if it's perfectly legal and also a perfecly normal business definition. You are in fact misrepresenting it by pretending that a "charity" must be "charitable" - it's just a legal definition.  This argument has been done to death a dozen times on here, perhaps you should look at some old threads.

CRT's remit (whether you like it or not) is to maintain the system for the benefit of all users, not just for a small minority who happen to live on a boat. Or for the even smaller minority who live on a boat and don't want to treat it like a boat but like a bungalow.

[rowland al]

1 hour ago, Sir Nibble said:

So looking at the. "bigger" picture" and bearing in mind that both CaRT and the judge must work within the law, what would you have m'lud do?

(sorry for sliding on topic)

You mean, what do I think would be the best solution?

I believe we should accept that a small percentage of people want to live on the water and embrace it as part of our culture. Maybe provide more marinas or moorings in marinas for this purpose.

The law (1995 act) is fine as regards those who want to remain on the cut or river but it is up to those liveaboards to not abuse the law and for CRT not to misrepresent the law.

[Chewbacka]

5 minutes ago, rowland al said:

Don't you mean they are misrepresenting the use of the word 'charity' for tax benefits? 

Not at all.  Charity in the legal sense doesn't mean helping disadvantaged people, it does mean that your charity must have only charitable purposes which must be for the public benefit.  These purposes must be laid out in the charity objectives has Alan has quoted above for CRT.  It does not include providing low cost housing as they do not consider themselves to be a housing providing charity.  I think CRT have made clear that people that moor for too long in the wrong place will overall damage their ability to fulfil their objectives of maintaining a working waterway and encouraging leisure use such as walking and fishing as well as boating.  One could therefore argue that if they ignore obstructed moorings in popular locations, piles of stuff spilling across the towpath then they would be failing in their charitable purpose and as such are required to take action.

[rowland al]

1 minute ago, Arthur Marshall said:

You are in fact misrepresenting it by pretending that a "charity" must be "charitable" - it's just a legal definition.  

Do you really believe this? Then why is the word 'charity' used in these instances? I'm sure other words could be found rather than mix up tax avoidance up with genuine charities.

[Alan de Enfield]

10 minutes ago, rowland al said:

Don't you mean they are misrepresenting the use of the word 'charity' for tax benefits? 

No - not at all.

 I mean that some people do not research C&RTs legal status and the registered aims, responsibilities and objectives (all of which have to be filed at Companies House under the 'Articles of Association')

Just as the RSPCA has 'charitable aims' towards animals and would have no involvement in 'Save the Children', or 'Re-Home the Homeless', or 'Feed The Poor', C&RT has declared aims to the maintenance of the structures & heritage of the Waterways. They have no responsibility to become a 'housing authority' or any similar responsibilities that some consider to be the remit of a 'Charity'.

....to further any purpose which is exclusively charitable under the law of England and Wales connected with Inland Waterways

Shows that the 'charitable work' is that exclusively covered by Inland Wateways law.

[MtB]

5 minutes ago, rowland al said:

You mean, what do I think would be the best solution?

I believe we should accept that a small percentage of people want to live on the water and embrace it as part of our culture. Maybe provide more marinas or moorings in marinas for this purpose.

 

Suggest that to the NBTA and they'll tell you to shove it up your stern tube

 

6 minutes ago, rowland al said:

The law (1995 act) is fine as regards those who want to remain on the cut or river but it is up to those liveaboards to not abuse the law and for CRT not to misrepresent the law.

 

Agree with you on both counts there.

Oh look, there's a pig flying past behind you...

[Alan de Enfield]

6 minutes ago, rowland al said:

You mean, what do I think would be the best solution?

I believe we should accept that a small percentage of people want to live on the water and embrace it as part of our culture. Maybe provide more marinas or moorings in marinas for this purpose.

The law (1995 act) is fine as regards those who want to remain on the cut or river but it is up to those liveaboards to not abuse the law and for CRT not to misrepresent the law.

That is part of the problem - the NBTA / KANDA / CMers/Bridge Hoppers do not want (claim they cannot afford) moorings they want to be 'free spirits' and 'green' travellers.

It may be interesting for you to watch some of the videos produced by the boaters in this area - one in particular makes the point.

"I cannot move far because I took the engine out of my boat and replaced it with pedal power to 'save the planet'."

[rowland al]

5 minutes ago, Alan de Enfield said:

That is part of the problem - the NBTA / KANDA / CMers/Bridge Hoppers do not want (claim they cannot afford) moorings they want to be 'free spirits' and 'green' travellers.

It may be interesting for you to watch some of the videos produced by the boaters in this area - one in particular makes the point.

"I cannot move far because I took the engine out of my boat and replaced it with pedal power to 'save the planet'."

Yes, and I expect there are many jealous of them yet would never actually commit to such a lifestyle because they prefer to stay in the rat race.

[Jerra]

20 minutes ago, rowland al said:

Do you really believe this? Then why is the word 'charity' used in these instances? I'm sure other words could be found rather than mix up tax avoidance up with genuine charities.

It isn't tax avoidance it is a "perk" given by the government to help institutions with charitable aims.  Just like giving the "charity" the ability to claim back income tax you paid on the donation you make.

[MtB]

5 minutes ago, rowland al said:

Yes, and I expect there are many jealous of them yet would never actually commit to such a lifestyle because they prefer to stay in the rat race.

 

No, I keep the engine in my boat because I prefer to be able to move about.

Nothing to do with racing rats.

[Alan de Enfield]

3 minutes ago, rowland al said:

Yes, and I expect there are many jealous of them yet would never actually commit to such a lifestyle because they prefer to stay in the rat race.

But it was your suggestion that the provision of more 'residential moorings' / Marinas would solve the problem and allow the non-moving travellers to legally, and without harassment, stay near to the schools / work that they so desperately seem to want.

[rowland al]

6 minutes ago, Jerra said:

It isn't tax avoidance it is a "perk" given by the government to help institutions with charitable aims.  Just like giving the "charity" the ability to claim back income tax you paid on the donation you make.

Why not call it 'perk' status then? What are CRT's charitable aims?

6 minutes ago, Alan de Enfield said:

But it was your suggestion that the provision of more 'residential moorings' / Marinas would solve the problem and allow the non-moving travellers to legally, and without harassment, stay near to the schools / work that they so desperately seem to want.

Some want this, some don't. If everyone (including CRT) stuck to the spirit of the law we'd be fine IMHO.