Interim Head of Boating announced

[NigelMoore]

On 18/03/2017 at 16:08, Allan(nb Albert) said:

I realise that it is not unknown for retired employees to take the witness stand but what if he does not show up?

Also, is there any likelihood of a similar witness statement being produced by Jon Horsfall or somebody more senior at this late date?

If he does not show up Leigh can ask for the evidence to be discounted, otherwise it allows the QC to refer to the exhibits and claims as uncontested. In a previous case I did just this for a witness that went on a conveniently timed holiday.

Leigh has only recently obtained the massive amount of exhibits to the Grimes’ statement, and neither of us has yet looked through it more than cursorily; from the little I’ve seen it largely consists of published fluff about how wonderful CaRT are, and how parlous their finances.

We fully expect and hope Mr Grimes will be appearing, so that he can be cross-examined. Presumably someone else could be proffered for the hot-seat, and Leigh would not object – just so long as there was someone to whom questions could be put as to the point of it all.

[Muddy Ditch Rich]

18 hours ago, Mike the Boilerman said:

 

Why should CRT do that? Surely once the CMing boater have been handed down their derisory £100 fine by the county court, surely their boat will still be there obstructing the towpath. S.8 seems far more effective.

Explain how a boat obstructs the towpath ?

[MtB]

8 minutes ago, Muddy Ditch Rich said:

Explain how a boat obstructs the towpath ?

You know perfectly well what I mean.

A boat obstructs the towpath by mooring against it and preventing any other boat from using that space.

I note that you can't explain how CRT using the byelaws to have trivial fines issued would keep the canal banks free from CMers. 

[Muddy Ditch Rich]

2 minutes ago, Mike the Boilerman said:

You know perfectly well what I mean.

A boat obstructs the towpath by mooring against it and preventing any other boat from using that space.

I note that you can't explain how CRT using the byelaws to have trivial fines issued would keep the canal banks free from CMers. 

I took you to mean the towpath because that's what you said. 

If you or CaRT think the fine is trivial the proper course of action is to seek to amend the legislation. The problem is trivial and the fine reflects that. There are no huge numbers of illegal long term moored boats. 

 

 

 

 

[MtB]

1 minute ago, Muddy Ditch Rich said:

I took you to mean the towpath because that's what you said. 

If you or CaRT think the fine is trivial the proper course of action is to seek to amend the legislation. The problem is trivial and the fine reflects that. There are no huge numbers of illegal long term moored boats. 

 

Are you, or are you not the person who used to post here as onionbargee?

 

[Iain_S]

On 19/03/2017 at 19:03, Muddy Ditch Rich said:

Wrong.

CaRT could use the method of prosecuting its bylaws, as the Scottish waterways have successfully done, without having to lie about its CCJ,' s being forever bans from a licence.

I asked a Scottish Canals director about bylaws. He couldn't say for sure, but thought the ones in use were " 1929 or something". I don't think SC use their bylaws (whatever their date!)

[NigelMoore]

1 hour ago, Iain_S said:

I asked a Scottish Canals director about bylaws. He couldn't say for sure, but thought the ones in use were " 1929 or something". I don't think SC use their bylaws (whatever their date!)

Your Scottish Director is sadly out of touch. All relevant byelaws prior to 1965 were abolished in that year, and the effective ones since then are those remaining as published.

BW Scotland apply a perverse interpretation of s.19 of the BTC Act to promote utilisation of that statute as though it meant the same as BW's s.8 of their 1983 Act. It leaves one wondering why BW went to the trouble and expense of promoting s.8 in the first place . . . 

[Iain_S]

On the boat, at the moment, so research limited!

If all bylaws were abolished in 1965, does that mean that the Scottish Canals have no bylaws, as the 1965 ones state they apply to England and Wales, and S16 of the British Transport Commision Act 1954, under which I think the 1965 ones were made, does not apply to Scotland . 

Probably best to leave this until I can speak to S.C.'s legal person  

[NigelMoore]

30 minutes ago, Iain_S said:

Probably best to leave this until I can speak to S.C.'s legal person  

 

Yes, best check, because as you say, the 1965 Byelaws apply only to England and Wales - so that the abolition of all previous applicable byelaws can only apply to them also. i have not looked into the position with Scotland; unless some other legislation refers, the original enabling Acts and byelaws made under them will continue to apply.

I would be interested to learn what 1929 [or thereabouts] legislation was referred to.

[Muddy Ditch Rich]

20 hours ago, Mike the Boilerman said:

 

Are you, or are you not the person who used to post here as onionbargee?

 

Please seek help for your personal issues, and leave me out of them.

Edited March 21, 2017 by Muddy Ditch Rich

[hounddog]

21 hours ago, Mike the Boilerman said:

 

Are you, or are you not the person who used to post here as onionbargee?

 

This is Mike the Boilerman speak for "I don't have an answer to your argument so I'll try an ad-hominum attack instead". As Muddy Ditch Rich says, probably an indication of deep underlying issues.

[MtB]

22 hours ago, hounddog said:

This is Mike the Boilerman speak for "I don't have an answer to your argument so I'll try an ad-hominum attack instead". As Muddy Ditch Rich says, probably an indication of deep underlying issues.

 

But onionbargee is exhibiting the same problem. He fails to address my point about fines and attacks me personally instead. 

[hounddog]

Muddy Ditch Rich answered your point, you quoted it. There's no insult i can see. 

incidentally the fines are by no means trivial as they could amount to £100 for each offence plus court costs.

Edited March 21, 2017 by hounddog

[Sir Nibble]

How many fines would need to be imposed before it became less economical than paying for a licence and mooring? What mechanism could there be to check that unlicenced boats have BSC and insurance? It's an interesting idea and I would like to know how it would work. As far as I can see the contentious S8s seem to arise where a boat has been refused a licence as being unable to satisfy the board. In what way would fines improve the outcome?

[Alan de Enfield]

Just now, Sir Nibble said:

How many fines would need to be imposed before it became less economical than paying for a licence and mooring? What mechanism could there be to check that unlicenced boats have BSC and insurance? It's an interesting idea and I would like to know how it would work. As far as I can see the contentious S8s seem to arise where a boat has been refused a licence as being unable to satisfy the board. In what way would fines improve the outcome?

Lets say £2500 for a mooring and £600 for a licence, total £3100 per annum

C&RT are obliged to give you 28 days to 'rectify' the omission so they can only 'fine' you £100 per month = annual total of £1200, or a saving of £1900 per annum.

 

I believe that for some offences, the offence is 'renewed' on a daily basis so it would be an ongoing cost of £100 per day - however - Nigel Moore is of the opinion that this does not apply to the BW bye-laws.

[mayalld]

Just now, Alan de Enfield said:

Lets say £2500 for a mooring and £600 for a licence, total £3100 per annum

C&RT are obliged to give you 28 days to 'rectify' the omission so they can only 'fine' you £100 per month = annual total of £1200, or a saving of £1900 per annum.

 

I believe that for some offences, the offence is 'renewed' on a daily basis so it would be an ongoing cost of £100 per day - however - Nigel Moore is of the opinion that this does not apply to the BW bye-laws.

If a bye-laws offence occurs, and does so continually with no interruption, then it is a single offence. The bye-laws contain no provision as to creating a new offence on a daily basis, and in the absence of such a provision one could argue that a new offence occurs every hour or every 10 minutes, or every mili-fortnight.

The only bye-law provision relating to offences occurring daily applies to where an offence continues AFTER conviction, and specifies a lesser penalty per day in such cases. As this is specifically post-conviction, the exception proves the rule.

[Muddy Ditch Rich]

If someone can't afford the licence fee in the first place its unlikely that £100 will be an insignificant fine.

 

[mayalld]

14 minutes ago, Muddy Ditch Rich said:

If someone can't afford the licence fee in the first place its unlikely that £100 will be an insignificant fine.

 

The problem is that you seem to imagine that everywhere should be some kind of socialist utopia, where people who can't afford something can just have it anyway.

You can argue about whether the fine is significant or not, but the fact remains that if CRT stops using s8 and simply uses bye-law powers to prosecute, the amount that people who don't buy a licence will be fined is less than the licence.

Failing to use s8 gives people an incentive to not pay

[Sir Nibble]

I don't think its a question of being unwilling or unable to pay that results in S8, I think its more when a licence is refused because the applicant fails to satisfy the board. Just an impression.

[Alan de Enfield]

33 minutes ago, Muddy Ditch Rich said:

If someone can't afford the licence fee in the first place its unlikely that £100 will be an insignificant fine.

 

If they cannot afford the licence then they shouldn't have a boat.

However :

In my (limited) experience Local Authorities will cover the cost of a mooring, licence, BSS and insurance for those really 'in need'. It is cheaper for them to do that than provide expensive housing or pay B&B / hotel costs.

[NigelMoore]

On 18/03/2017 at 16:08, Allan(nb Albert) said:

I realise that it is not unknown for retired employees to take the witness stand but what if he does not show up?

Also, is there any likelihood of a similar witness statement being produced by Jon Horsfall or somebody more senior at this late date?

Hot off the press - he will NOT be showing up.

Tom Deards has belatedly stepped in to do what he ought to have done in the first place, and will appear at court in support of everything that was put into the 'Grimes' statement for him, with its exhibits, filing a short Statement to that effect. Leigh has just sent the new Statement, but I have not read it yet.

[NigelMoore]

2 hours ago, mayalld said:

You can argue about whether the fine is significant or not, but the fact remains that if CRT stops using s8 and simply uses bye-law powers to prosecute, the amount that people who don't buy a licence will be fined is less than the licence.

Failing to use s8 gives people an incentive to not pay

I was sure that I had posted the results of recent enquiries to the EA respecting this situation. They routinely and successfully prosecute for the specific offence rather than use their equivalent of s.8. Anyone failing to comply with Court directions following conviction would face contempt proceedings and/or bailiff action – but none of that appears to have proved necessary. Boats ARE occasionally removed, mostly where owners are untraceable, but such actions are proportionately insignificant to the prosecution route.

Because the prosecution results in Orders to pay the licence - besides the fine, and besides the costs - the EA reap the reward of getting the boats’ licence fees and a continuing, chastened customer. Fines go to the Exchequer [or whatever it’s called]. This obviously works for the EA; I completely fail to understand why CaRT could not make it work also.

[matty40s]

28 minutes ago, NigelMoore said:

Hot off the press - he will NOT be showing up.

Tom Deards has belatedly stepped in to do what he ought to have done in the first place, and will appear at court in support of everything that was put into the 'Grimes' statement for him, with its exhibits, filing a short Statement to that effect. Leigh has just sent the new Statement, but I have not read it yet.

Bottled it is a phrase that comes to mind.

[NigelMoore]

50 minutes ago, matty40s said:

Bottled it is a phrase that comes to mind.

Unkind. Came to his senses perhaps.

[MtB]

I too was wondering if he was uneasy about giving the evidence he had been (possibly) instructed to give, so resigned instead.