After you have done your 20 miles then what?

[mrsmelly]

1 hour ago, alan_fincher said:

This is forum humour at its very best!

Having met and spoken to Tony on more than one occasion I can state that he is a nice chap with a greater knowledge of boating and boats than the vast majority of posters on here especialy when it comes to serious stuff like tidal waterways and proper sized boats.

[Alan de Enfield]

15 minutes ago, mrsmelly said:

Having met and spoken to Tony on more than one occasion I can state that he is a nice chap with a greater knowledge of boating and boats than the vast majority of posters on here especialy when it comes to serious stuff like tidal waterways and proper sized boats.

Agreed

[alan_fincher]

2 hours ago, mrsmelly said:

Having met and spoken to Tony on more than one occasion I can state that he is a nice chap with a greater knowledge of boating and boats than the vast majority of posters on here especialy when it comes to serious stuff like tidal waterways and proper sized boats.

Yes, I am absolutely sure you are completely correct on all this, though I am not aware of meeting Tony since the early 1970s, so it has been a while, ad I would probably not recognise him now.

He is indeed far more knowledgeable and experienced than many of us will ever be.

My reference to forum gold humour was the great lengths Tony is going to to try and tell us that Phil Atterley is not himself.  I'm rather enjoying that, I must admit!

It would be a shame to lose him from CWDF, whatever name he is using, (even if it does break forum rules).

I would also hate Chris Pink to finally run out of aliases as well - (unlikely, I guess!) - it all adds to the varied mix of the forum.

[mrsmelly]

48 minutes ago, alan_fincher said:

Yes, I am absolutely sure you are completely correct on all this, though I am not aware of meeting Tony since the early 1970s, so it has been a while, ad I would probably not recognise him now.

He is indeed far more knowledgeable and experienced than many of us will ever be.

My reference to forum gold humour was the great lengths Tony is going to to try and tell us that Phil Atterley is not himself.  I'm rather enjoying that, I must admit!

It would be a shame to lose him from CWDF, whatever name he is using, (even if it does break forum rules).

I would also hate Chris Pink to finally run out of aliases as well - (unlikely, I guess!) - it all adds to the varied mix of the forum.

I dont think Chris was ever banned? Was Tony ever banned or has he just moved over to the dark side? I think Tony like most of us dont look the same as we did in the 70s 

[Muddy Ditch Rich]

6 hours ago, mayalld said:

I can show a case where they DID enforce a bylaw.

Please do.

As there is a FOI request reply by CaRT legal department stating they have no knowledge of such a thing.

[mayalld]

4 minutes ago, Muddy Ditch Rich said:

Please do.

As there is a FOI request reply by CaRT legal department stating they have no knowledge of such a thing.

With Pleasure!

http://www.lincolnshirelive.co.uk/skipper-fined-speeding-lake/story-11214694-detail/story.html

[WotEver]

3 minutes ago, mayalld said:

With Pleasure!

http://www.lincolnshirelive.co.uk/skipper-fined-speeding-lake/story-11214694-detail/story.html

Lol!! 

[PhilAtterley]

15 minutes ago, mayalld said:

With Pleasure!

http://www.lincolnshirelive.co.uk/skipper-fined-speeding-lake/story-11214694-detail/story.html

Completely irrelevant, and NOT what you claimed to have at all - the prosecution was brought by British Waterways, some 3 years before CRT came into existence.

Edited May 2, 2017 by PhilAtterley

[cuthound]

18 minutes ago, mayalld said:

With Pleasure!

http://www.lincolnshirelive.co.uk/skipper-fined-speeding-lake/story-11214694-detail/story.html

Whoever did that was very, very naughty 

[Dave Payne]

Just read it and first thought was a lady from up Lincoln way, same one?

[mrsmelly]

3 minutes ago, Dave Payne said:

Just read it and first thought was a lady from up Lincoln way, same one?

Errumm err ask Naughty Cal  but dont tell her I said so.

[PhilAtterley]

1 hour ago, mrsmelly said:

I dont think Chris was ever banned? Was Tony ever banned or has he just moved over to the dark side? I think Tony like most of us dont look the same as we did in the 70s 

Tony D was banned at around the time of the mass cull of faces that did not fit in 2016 :-

1 Breach of Site Rules

Warning issued by wrigglefingers

October 8, 2016

---

Penalty 

• Given 1 points

---

Note for member

The decision to placed you in mod queue and a review of your recent posts has been made by the moderating team and the decision is to suspend you until further notice.

[Alan de Enfield]

I have just renewed my licence (by telephone)

 

At the end of the Q&A's I was asked if I agreed to the T&Cs as available on the website.

 

I asked what would happen if I said 'no' and was told "in that case then we will not issue you a licence",

We know that that is illegal, but is it worth 'falling out about' as, if the worst happens it cannot be enforced anyway.

[mrsmelly]

1 minute ago, Alan de Enfield said:

I have just renewed my licence (by telephone)

 

At the end of the Q&A's I was asked if I agreed to the T&Cs as available on the website.

 

I asked what would happen if I said 'no' and was told "in that case then we will not issue you a licence",

We know that that is illegal, but is it worth 'falling out about' as, if the worst happens it cannot be enforced anyway.

The trouble then though would be you would be unlicensed and you would be in the wrong and can you afford the court fees? Not saying at all that I am agreeing with it but what part of the T and C is onerous? Weird innit.

[Alan de Enfield]

3 minutes ago, mrsmelly said:

The trouble then though would be you would be unlicensed and you would be in the wrong and can you afford the court fees? Not saying at all that I am agreeing with it but what part of the T and C is onerous? Weird innit.

How about a boat with a home mooring must comply with the 'CC' rules when away from its mooring and be in a 'new place' (and bona fide navigate) every 14 days.

That is not required by the 1995 Act.

 

How about C&RT can give your personal details to 3rd parties if they so wish ?

How about C&RT can board your boat without notice (in contravention of the Bye-Laws)

 

An so on and so on.

[Muddy Ditch Rich]

3 minutes ago, mrsmelly said:

The trouble then though would be you would be unlicensed and you would be in the wrong and can you afford the court fees? Not saying at all that I am agreeing with it but what part of the T and C is onerous? Weird innit.

Lots of issues are fought for on principle aren't they , before they turn into major problems ?

In principle if further terms were added to the already unlawful ones you would have to explain to a court why you kept agreeing to it year after year in full knowledge that it was unlawful but have now changed your mind ? Do you think that by ignoring it it will go away, or the contract terms will never change ? The fact that CaRT is lying to you and illegally demanding agreement to this contract makes it obvious that they are not to be trusted.

Every time someone agrees to it without dispute it gives CaRT the green light to pursue a false idea that the licence is a contract, something they are determined to push ahead with. Remember that a contractual licence can be cancelled at any time without notice, for any reason. If you don't fight for your statutory rights now it will be very difficult and expensive to defend yourself in court to get your licence back. The section 8 process has been engineered by Shoosmiths to attempt to exclude you from even speaking in court.

[Jerra]

25 minutes ago, Alan de Enfield said:

How about a boat with a home mooring must comply with the 'CC' rules when away from its mooring and be in a 'new place' (and bona fide navigate) every 14 days.

IIRC it has been said that every return to the home mooring sets the clock again so hardly onerous.

That is not required by the 1995 Act.

 

How about C&RT can give your personal details to 3rd parties if they so wish ?

If you assume they will be doing that willy nilly then obviously a problem.  Is there any evidence they do?  If the third parties are for example people who you have bashed into and not stopped to give details incase of damage is that a serious problem?

How about C&RT can board your boat without notice (in contravention of the Bye-Laws)

Again is there any evidence they are doing so willy nilly or are they using the "permission" for such things as accessing your deck to reach another boat breasted up to you, or perhaps to reach something drifting in the water out of reach.  If there is evidence the "permission" is being misused then a problem, if it is just to have the "permission" for urgent things then surely not a problem.

 

 

[Alan de Enfield]

32 minutes ago, Jerra said:

if it is just to have the "permission" for urgent things then surely not a problem.

Just picking up on this issue - It is actually the 1995 Act that covers this (not the byelaws)

 

They have the power to access in an emergency as follows :

Entry on to land in cases of emergency

(1)Where the Board have reasonable cause to believe that—

(a)the carrying out of relevant operations is necessary; and

(b)the relevant operations are required to be carried out without delay—

(i)in the case of any relevant operations consisting of any inspection, survey or investigation, for the purpose of confirming that there exists an immediate danger to persons or property and, if so, establishing the nature of the repair, maintenance, alteration, protection or demolition required to remove the danger;

(ii)in the case of any other relevant operations, for the purpose of removing or facilitating the removal of any immediate danger to persons or property.

 

The 1995 Act then goes on to explain in non-emergency cases BW / C&RT must post a notice giving 28 days notice of their intent, the owner can either :

 

(a)A person served with a notice of entry may, within 28 days from the date on which the notice is served on him, serve on the Board a counter-notice (in this Part called “a counter-notice”) stating that—

(i)he consents unconditionally to the entry by the Board on the land described in the notice and to the carrying out of the relevant operations specified in the notice, in the manner so specified (“the proposals of the notice of entry”); or

(ii)he objects to the proposals of the notice of entry on any one or more of the grounds mentioned in subsection (6) below, which shall be specified in the counter-notice.

 

C&RT have taken it upon them selves to modify this Act to now read :

 

7.7 You agree that:
(i) we can board the Boat, and/or enter any land you own or occupy which is adjacent to the Boat, in order to affix or place on the Boat, correspondence, contractual or statutory notices or court papers; and
(ii)  we can come on board the Boat to inspect it where we need to check you meet these Conditions and we can cross the Boat for the purpose of accessing any adjacent boat that cannot reasonably be accessed from the bank.  We will give you reasonable notice if we consider it is practical to do so.
 

You may consider this to be an insignificant 'amendment' (unlawful as it is) but irrespective  of how they currently apply it - they can apply the revised-rule however they wish in the future.

[Muddy Ditch Rich]

Personally I see a charitable trust deliberately misrepresenting the law as quite serious . You would expect the trustees at least to act, I have written to the chairman of the trustees Alan Leighton, he is not interested. 

[Murflynn]

3 hours ago, mrsmelly said:

Errumm err ask Naughty Cal  but dont tell her I said so.

nothing to do with her - she was called Phylis at the time.