Jump to content

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


Dave_P
 Share

Featured Posts

5 minutes ago, rowland al said:

Oh dear, now you resort to just being sillly.   :)

I was (quite gently I thought) pointing out your poor use of English. Did you perhaps mean, There is no intelligence, when you have no argument to offer,in accusing people of conspiring.  Just asking;)

Edited by Wanderer Vagabond
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Wanderer Vagabond said:

I was (quite gently I thought) pointing out your poor use of English. Did you perhaps mean, There is no intelligence, when you have no argument to offer,in accusing people of conspiring.  Just asking;)

Oh dear, is that all you have left?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Wanderer Vagabond said:

I was (quite gently I thought) pointing out your poor use of English. Did you perhaps mean, There is no intelligence, when you have no argument to offer,in accusing people of conspiring.  Just asking;)

Sorry forgot to do one of these -

 

;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, Wanderer Vagabond said:

As a comment from someone who has brought no real point of value to the table, that is sweet:huh:

Well at least I read the text this thread is concerned with. All I see here is a personal attack.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, matty40s said:

Panda and Kanda think it's a momentous moment.....

 

It IS an important judgment; not by way of establishing some new precept imposing new burdens on CaRT, but rather because it firmly quashes an entirely new approach tried on by CaRT – to wit, that they should not have to counter HRA defences to their s.8 actions.

The judgment has nothing to do with CaRT bearing responsibilities as a housing authority, it ‘merely’ rebuts the suggestion that CaRT should be treated in the County Courts with the same lack of scrutiny into their decision making that housing authorities have enjoyed since certain landmark judgments relating to the exercise of their wholly different set of obligations.

It was a foolish and dishonourable line of argument; if the eviction measure is readily argued by CaRT as proportionate [as they always have and still do], then it places no FURTHER burden on CaRT’s pursuit of boat evictions, to argue the proportionality. They have always succeeded in persuading Courts that it is a proportionate and necessary function of their managerial obligations anyway.

Now, however, the CCJ’s will be far more sensitive to the surrounding issues; as the s.8 powers never were aimed as licence enforcement, let alone byelaw enforcement, let alone unilateral guidelines enforcement, then arguments for a properly proportionate legal recourse respecting management of the waterways, now stand a far better chance of success.

Mr Jones’ legal team is to be congratulated on this result.

Whether or not Mr Jones will succeed with his human rights argument when it gets heard back in the County Court is another matter altogether. It will very much depend upon the line taken; if he argues a re-housing obligation, then he ought to fail. He ought to succeed, on the other hand, if he takes the right approach - that to evict boats from the waterways under threat of seizure, for [effectively] failing to comply with additional non-statutory guidelines, is far greater punishment than the byelaws provide for failing to have a licence in the first place.

That is where the proportionality argument is brought most clearly into focus.

 


 


 

  • Greenie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nigel, as someone who's actually on top of these legal arguments, I wonder if you could help me to join the dots here?

On the one hand, the significance of this judgement seems to be that particular HRA defences against s. 8 actions, based on boaters' individual circumstances, now stand a better chance of getting a fair hearing in court rather than being disregarded (as CRT wanted).

But on the other hand, this argument that eviction under threat of seizure is simply disproportionate as a punishment for failure to follow non-statutory guidelines, would surely be equally available to ANY boater facing s. 8 action due to con-compliance (or any liveaboard boater, at least). So individual circumstances/needs wouldn't come into it, and any ruling would potentially (if upheld by a higher court?) mean CRT had to stop taking such action against ANY non-compliant (liveaboard) boater.

Edited by magictime
Edited for clarity
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, Arthur Marshall said:

If it turns out that everyone claiming to be a continuous cruiser can decide to moor wherever they like, for as long as they like, because they have decided that that is their home area and the Human Rights Act means they can't be moved on, I can see CRT giving up in despair. Obviously, poverty will mean that they won't be able to pay any licence fees... and every town mooring will be permanently occupied by those refusing to move and paying nothing - unless CRT can get an expensive court order against every single one of them.

However, squatting is, of course, now a criminal offence, and maybe CRT can use that legislation... the whole thing becomes ridiculous.  Just a waste of time and money.  Not that that will bother the non-movers - they won't need locks or other facilities anyway.

David Icke says lizards.

The UK Human Rights Act (HRA) is the embodiment of the European human rights convention in UK law as part of our membership of the EU. It is one of the acts that is on the list to be repealed as part of Brexit and is planned to be replaced with a British Bill of Rights and may or may not be the same.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, churchward said:

The UK Human Rights Act (HRA) is the embodiment of the European human rights convention in UK law as part of our membership of the EU. It is one of the acts that is on the list to be repealed as part of Brexit and is planned to be replaced with a British Bill of Rights and may or may not be the same.

Sorry, but this isn't right. It's as a member of the Council of Europe, not of the EU, that the UK is party to the European Convention on Human Rights, so this has nothing to do with Brexit. And we'd still be party to the ECHR even if we repealed the HRA (although its status in domestic law would change in ways I don't pretend to fully understand!)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, NigelMoore said:

 

It IS an important judgment; not by way of establishing some new precept imposing new burdens on CaRT, but rather because it firmly quashes an entirely new approach tried on by CaRT – to wit, that they should not have to counter HRA defences to their s.8 actions.

The judgment has nothing to do with CaRT bearing responsibilities as a housing authority, it ‘merely’ rebuts the suggestion that CaRT should be treated in the County Courts with the same lack of scrutiny into their decision making that housing authorities have enjoyed since certain landmark judgments relating to the exercise of their wholly different set of obligations.

It was a foolish and dishonourable line of argument; if the eviction measure is readily argued by CaRT as proportionate [as they always have and still do], then it places no FURTHER burden on CaRT’s pursuit of boat evictions, to argue the proportionality. They have always succeeded in persuading Courts that it is a proportionate and necessary function of their managerial obligations anyway.

Now, however, the CCJ’s will be far more sensitive to the surrounding issues; as the s.8 powers never were aimed as licence enforcement, let alone byelaw enforcement, let alone unilateral guidelines enforcement, then arguments for a properly proportionate legal recourse respecting management of the waterways, now stand a far better chance of success.

Mr Jones’ legal team is to be congratulated on this result.

Whether or not Mr Jones will succeed with his human rights argument when it gets heard back in the County Court is another matter altogether. It will very much depend upon the line taken; if he argues a re-housing obligation, then he ought to fail. He ought to succeed, on the other hand, if he takes the right approach - that to evict boats from the waterways under threat of seizure, for [effectively] failing to comply with additional non-statutory guidelines, is far greater punishment than the byelaws provide for failing to have a licence in the first place.

That is where the proportionality argument is brought most clearly into focus.

 


 


 

As you indicate, the judgement highlights that this is a very complex area and any eventual outcome will not necessarily indicate that either party was mendacious (implying that the law was clearly on one side rather than the other).

However, I suspect you may have over-interpreted the judgement: it seems to me that the judge took the view that, although there are probably many circumstances where HRA is not a probable consideration and, in the light of case law, could be summarily dismissed, it is not always so. As such, to succeed in the future on a summary dismissal of an HRA response to s8, it will be necessary to show that this case is no different from others which have already decided the matter. If a new line of argument is raised, the fact that elsewhere, summary dismissal is possible, it will not be proper for such a case. The appeal court did not deal with whether the HRA case was a runner but that, to date, CaRT cannot claim that there is sufficient precedent to say that there is no case to answer. There may be and there may not be.As elsewhere, over time, HRA cases are disallowed where it has already be decided with sufficient certainty that the case does not hold up. It is entirely possible that, consistent with the appeal judgement, in - say - 3 or 4 year's time, CaRT will have won or lost sufficient HRA and s8 cases that no new case will be heard on the matter. In the end this is about bringing some degree of efficiency into the judicial system so that court time is not bogged down in going over old ground time and again.

  • Greenie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, rowland al said:

Well at least I read the text this thread is concerned with. All I see here is a personal attack.

Having re-read all of my previous posts on the matter, I cannot see any 'personal attack' anywhere, perhaps you'd like to identify what you feel was a personal attack or recant your allegation. The closest I could find was an attempt to gently point out that you had not expressed yourself very well.

Since you wish to introduce these people from 'behind the scenes' who control CRT and Government, I would suggest that you should not be shy and name names. I will quite happily name the people who, in my view, hold power above their station, Rupert Murdoch being a particular pet hate of mine and of course the extremely wealthy editor of the Daily Mail, Paul Dacre. Both of these people have an unjustified hold over British politicians, Christians tend to ask the question 'What would Jesus do?' whereas politicians tend to ask 'What will Rupert Murdoch/Paul Dacre say?' and live in fear of it. Neither of these 'players' however have the slightest interest in Canals, Canal-boating, CRT or liveaboards so come on, give us your evidence, name the 'background' people that you claim are 'in control'? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It seems to me that it would be unlawful for this chap to stay on CART waters without a license, and unlawful for a license to be issued if he doesn't satisfy the statutory requirements Clearly he can't "satisfy the board" so probably the only concession that could be made is for the judge to require CART to offer a mooring, which they may well have already done.

Experts care to tell me why I'm wrong?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, magictime said:

Sorry, but this isn't right. It's as a member of the Council of Europe, not of the EU, that the UK is party to the European Convention on Human Rights, so this has nothing to do with Brexit. And we'd still be party to the ECHR even if we repealed the HRA (although its status in domestic law would change in ways I don't pretend to fully understand!)

Please yourself but it is a fact that the HRA (1998) is on the list as part of the repeal reform list as part of the Brexit reforms.

It is proposed that the HRA will be withdrawn and a British Bill of Rights put in place.

 

See here

https://www.parliament.uk/documents/commons/lib/research/key_issues/Key-Issues-From-the-Human-Rights-Act-to-a-Bill-of-Rights.pdf

and here

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/scrap-human-rights-act-british-bill-of-rights-theresa-may-justice-secretary-liz-truss-a7204256.html

It is true of course that the Conservatives have wanted to do this for some time and I think it was in their pre-election manifesto so could have happened with or without Brexit. To fully uncouple from the ECHR we would have to pull out of it as a signatory but as the HRA is the UKs installation of the convention if repealed we would effectively be outside of its influence.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 hours ago, rowland al said:

Well rather than accuse me of being 'bland' maybe you could offer up an 'intelligent' response.

I am sure that we all could make an intelligent response if you actually made a reasonable argument we could respond to. So far you have totally failed to say anything other than bland and pointless snipes.

Do you actually understand what a DISCUSSION is? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Wanderer Vagabond said:

Having re-read all of my previous posts on the matter, I cannot see any 'personal attack' anywhere, perhaps you'd like to identify what you feel was a personal attack or recant your allegation. The closest I could find was an attempt to gently point out that you had not expressed yourself very well.

Since you wish to introduce these people from 'behind the scenes' who control CRT and Government, I would suggest that you should not be shy and name names. I will quite happily name the people who, in my view, hold power above their station, Rupert Murdoch being a particular pet hate of mine and of course the extremely wealthy editor of the Daily Mail, Paul Dacre. Both of these people have an unjustified hold over British politicians, Christians tend to ask the question 'What would Jesus do?' whereas politicians tend to ask 'What will Rupert Murdoch/Paul Dacre say?' and live in fear of it. Neither of these 'players' however have the slightest interest in Canals, Canal-boating, CRT or liveaboards so come on, give us your evidence, name the 'background' people that you claim are 'in control'? 

My point about personal attacks was not entirely directed at you.

Let's see. So I give a personal 'view' and get accused of the following without any intelligent counter argument.

- Being a conspirisist.
- Not being intelligent
- Not having an argument to offer
- Being bland
- Being poor at English
- Bringing no real point to the table
- Being someone called Jenlyn
- Making snipes


Nice people here eh?

You could have just said that you don't believe CRT and the government are influenced by outside forces and explained why. Maybe we do live in a true democratic system which is not corrupted in any way. The responses I'm seeing from a few here seems to add to my argument as are the attempts to throttle down my login.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, rowland al said:

My point about personal attacks was not entirely directed at you.

Let's see. So I give a personal 'view' and get accused of the following without any intelligent counter argument.

- Being a conspirisist.
- Not being intelligent
- Not having an argument to offer
- Being bland
- Being poor at English
- Bringing no real point to the table
- Being someone called Jenlyn
- Making snipes


Nice people here eh?

You could have just said that you don't believe CRT and the government are influenced by outside forces and explained why. Maybe we do live in a true democratic system which is not corrupted in any way. The responses I'm seeing from a few here seems to add to my argument as are the attempts to throttle down my login.

Without presenting evidence of any sort to support your personal view, why should your personal view be held in any higher regard than someone who believes Lizards and the Bilderbergers run the planet. You are the one making the proposition, the onus is upon you to supply the evidence, not on others to 'disprove' something that you haven't proven in the first instance. I made the suggestion that you should name these people which you seem to have chosen not to do,Why?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Wanderer Vagabond said:

Without presenting evidence of any sort to support your personal view, why should your personal view be held in any higher regard than someone who believes Lizards and the Bilderbergers run the planet. You are the one making the proposition, the onus is upon you to supply the evidence, not on others to 'disprove' something that you haven't proven in the first instance. I made the suggestion that you should name these people which you seem to have chosen not to do,Why?

Where did I say my view should he held 'in any higher regard', it was a just a view. You don't appear to be able to offer a counter argument so I guess we are in the same boat.

The big difference here is that I don't believe I have been rude or take the mick unlike a few here. 

I will also add that my 'view' is as valid as anybody else's. Nobody deserves personal attacks just because their views differ.

So, do you believe that CRT and our government are not influenced by external forces? Geuine question.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, rowland al said:

Where did I say my view should he held 'in any higher regard', it was a just a view. You don't appear to be able to offer a counter argument so I guess we are in the same boat.

The big difference here is that I don't believe I have been rude or take the mick unlike a few here. 

I will also add that my 'view' is as valid as anybody else's. Nobody deserves personal attacks just because their views differ.

So, do you believe that CRT and our government are not influenced by external forces? Geuine question.

Specify who or what these external forces are and I might offer an opinion. Both Government and CRT are influenced by market forces which could be regarded as external but if the suggestion that these 'external forces' are people then we need to know who they are.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, rowland al said:

You don't appear to be able to offer a counter argument so I guess we are in the same boat.

 

So, do you believe that CRT and our government are not influenced by external forces? Geuine question.

It is difficult, no sorry impossible to offer a counter argument when no argument has been put forward.  All I have seen so far is an assertion with no evidence to back it up.

Some suggestion as to who is controlling CRT and how would give the basis for an argument to develop.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Wanderer Vagabond said:

Specify who or what these external forces are and I might offer an opinion. Both Government and CRT are influenced by market forces which could be regarded as external but if the suggestion that these 'external forces' are people then we need to know who they are.

Thank you. That was all I was suggesting really that these 'marketing forces' have had too much control over our government and other organisations like CRT. It's good to know that there are still some judges who can see this and will consider human suffering over 'marketing forces'.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, rowland al said:

Thank you. That was all I was suggesting really that these 'marketing forces' have had too much control over our government and other organisations like CRT. It's good to know that there are still some judges who can see this and will consider human suffering over 'marketing forces'.

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, churchward said:

Please yourself but it is a fact that the HRA (1998) is on the list as part of the repeal reform list as part of the Brexit reforms.

It is proposed that the HRA will be withdrawn and a British Bill of Rights put in place.

 

See here

https://www.parliament.uk/documents/commons/lib/research/key_issues/Key-Issues-From-the-Human-Rights-Act-to-a-Bill-of-Rights.pdf

and here

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/scrap-human-rights-act-british-bill-of-rights-theresa-may-justice-secretary-liz-truss-a7204256.html

It is true of course that the Conservatives have wanted to do this for some time and I think it was in their pre-election manifesto so could have happened with or without Brexit. To fully uncouple from the ECHR we would have to pull out of it as a signatory but as the HRA is the UKs installation of the convention if repealed we would effectively be outside of its influence.

I'm not quite sure what (if anything) we're arguing about here. Yes, the Tories have been wanting to repeal the HRA and replace it with a British Bill of Rights for some time. Yes, this could have happened with or without Brexit. So it seems a bit odd to describe it as being 'part of the Brexit reforms'. I'm not sure we'd be 'outside the influence' of the ECHR if we repealed the HRA either - as I understand it, people would still be able to take human rights cases to the European court and the Government would still be bound by its rulings; it's just that they couldn't go to our domestic courts with ECHR-based cases. Or something.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 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.

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.

  • Greenie 1
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
 Share

  • 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.