After you have done your 20 miles then what?

[mrsmelly]

1 minute ago, Muddy Ditch Rich said:

Explain the mentality of clicking on a clearly described thread title , reading it, then posting multiple replies saying how you are not interested in it, or that its so boring to you personally it should not be discussed, eight pages later you are still reading it,  and replying to it ?

Anyone ?

You do have a point. However I and others genuinely wonder why you are being picked on by CART and why as a for instance I am not? We are both boaters and obviously both adhere to the very easy to adhere to very few rules that we both new about before buying boats so why are you being picked on?

[Iain_S]

9 hours ago, PhilAtterley said:

(snip) 

I see your point to a certain extent, however, the PBC falls within the scope of the term 'relevant consent' which in CRT speak translates into 'Licence' and therefore, according to CRT, falls under the umbrella of S.43 of the 1962 Act.

Even I wouldn't argue that! What service or facility is being provided? The "relevant consent" on a river to which the Public Right of Navigation applies is that Public Right.

Furthermore, it is vitally important to note that CRT have not in fact issued a PBC to Andy Wingfield, but instead something which they print as a 'Standard River only Licence', which, according to the Invoice that accompanied it, is a 12 Month Licence to which they have applied a 40% 'River only' Discount. A genuine PBC is limited in statute to costing no more than 60% of the Licence fee, it follows therefore that they are, in reality, issuing a product of their own warped imagination, something which the law does not recognize or require, and which, therefore, they have no power or authority to issue. It is simply a rather pathetic and transparent attempt to conjure a Registration Certificate, which they are compelled under statute to  issue, into what appears to be a mandatory Licence which boaters will accept at face value as something authorizing or permitting them to use the scheduled River Waterways, upon which, of course the PRN confers the unassailable right to navigate and use, irrespective and independent of any mythical powers that CRT would like boaters, and Courts/Judges, to believe they have.

What they have issued is a PBC, no matter what CaRT choose to call it. They have charged 60% of what would have been charged for a canal licence. I fully agree with your last sentence!!  

My Bold

[Graham Davis]

2 hours ago, Muddy Ditch Rich said:

Explain the mentality of clicking on a clearly described thread title , reading it, then posting multiple replies saying how you are not interested in it, or that its so boring to you personally it should not be discussed, eight pages later you are still reading it,  and replying to it ?

Anyone ?

How about it's a discussion forum and people can look at what they like and reply to what they like?

If you don't like it..........................................well I think you know the answer to that.

[Muddy Ditch Rich]

6 hours ago, mrsmelly said:

You do have a point. However I and others genuinely wonder why you are being picked on by CART and why as a for instance I am not? We are both boaters and obviously both adhere to the very easy to adhere to very few rules that we both new about before buying boats so why are you being picked on?

I am not being " picked on". 

Knowing about a set of rules doesn't make them valid. 

Do you want lawful rules or unlawful ones ?

[Murflynn]

6 hours ago, Muddy Ditch Rich said:

I am not being " picked on". 

Knowing about a set of rules doesn't make them valid. 

Do you want lawful rules or unlawful ones ?

maybe not, but you are paranoid.  

why don't you do some proper cruising - continuously?  ......... then your persecution problem will disappear. 

[MtB]

On 01/05/2017 at 02:10, Muddy Ditch Rich said:

I am not being " picked on". 

Knowing about a set of rules doesn't make them valid. 

Do you want lawful rules or unlawful ones ?

 

The flip side of the coin is do we want the organisation managing our canals wasting large volumes of our money defending claims by the one in a thousand boaters who make claim the rules are 'unlawful', when those rules have the general support of the other 999?

 

[PhilAtterley]

16 minutes ago, Mike the Boilerman said:

 

The flip side of the coin is do we want the organisation managing our canals wasting large volumes of our money defending claims by the one in a thousand boaters who make claim the rules are 'unlawful', when those rules have the general support of the other 999?

 

If CRT's figures of around 35,000 boats on their waters are correct, then one must conclude from your figures that throughout the whole country there are a mere 35 or so boatowners who are concerned that the Trust is contemptuous of Parliament and the laws it has made on our behalf. Do you think that is in the slightest bit credible ? 

Edited May 1, 2017 by PhilAtterley

[MtB]

On 01/05/2017 at 09:10, PhilAtterley said:

If CRT's figures of around 35,000 boats on their waters are correct, then one must conclude from your figures that throughout the whole country there are a mere 35 or so boatowners who are concerned that the Trust is contemptuous of Parliament and the laws it has made on our behalf. Do you think that is in the slightest bit credible ? 

 

Perhaps not, but I would say the boaters who support CRT outnumber those who oppose their methods of management by at least 100 to 1.

[PhilAtterley]

14 minutes ago, Mike the Boilerman said:

 

Perhaps not, but I would say the boaters who support CRT outnumber those who oppose their methods of management by at least 100 to 1.

You have shifted the question from the legality of CRT's contempt of statute to approval, or otherwise, of management methods. What precisely is it we are talking about here ? - approval of lying, fraud and criminality by a speculative and infinitely variable number of boaters, or just plain old-fashioned bad management ?

[MtB]

On 01/05/2017 at 10:02, PhilAtterley said:

You have shifted the question from the legality of CRT's contempt of statute to approval, or otherwise, of management methods. What precisely is it we are talking about here ? - approval of lying, fraud and criminality by a speculative and infinitely variable number of boaters, or just plain old-fashioned bad management ?

 

I'm going boating while you work yourself into a lather in your paranoia!

 CRT have their faults but bearing down on p!ss-takers isn't one of them. 

[Graham Davis]

2 hours ago, PhilAtterley said:

You have shifted the question from the legality of CRT's contempt of statute to approval, or otherwise, of management methods. What precisely is it we are talking about here ? - approval of lying, fraud and criminality by a speculative and infinitely variable number of boaters, or just plain old-fashioned bad management ?

I think perhaps you need to look up the legal definition of fraud and criminality before making wild accusations.

[Muddy Ditch Rich]

Paranoia is an unfounded feeling of threat.

6 hours ago, Mike the Boilerman said:

 

The flip side of the coin is do we want the organisation managing our canals wasting large volumes of our money defending claims by the one in a thousand boaters who make claim the rules are 'unlawful', when those rules have the general support of the other 999?

 

You have invented the idea that there are claims that are wasting money, and the one in a thousand figure.

Then you claim we are paranoid.

Oh the irony.

[Muddy Ditch Rich]

6 hours ago, Murflynn said:

maybe not, but you are paranoid.  

why don't you do some proper cruising - continuously?  ......... then your persecution problem will disappear. 

You have imagined that you know if I have a mooring or constantly cruise, and that you know somehow know that I don't do "proper cruising"

Then you claim I am paranoid.

The irony.

[Murflynn]

brilliant ain't it.

may I sincerely wish you - Happy Cruising............................    it's a great cure for being a reet saddo/glove-puppet.

[PhilAtterley]

5 hours ago, Graham Davis said:

I think perhaps you need to look up the legal definition of fraud and criminality before making wild accusations.

I think , definitely, that you should assemble your facts carefully and ensure that you are sufficiently well informed before making wild accusations about wild accusations !

[Graham Davis]

15 minutes ago, PhilAtterley said:

I think , definitely, that you should assemble your facts carefully and ensure that you are sufficiently well informed before making wild accusations about wild accusations !

Really? I've made no wild accusations, unlike you now and in the past.

Try looking up the legal definition of Fraud to start with.

[Northernboater]

PhilAtterley sounds like his good friend Tony Dunkley, couldn't possibly be the same person could it????

[PhilAtterley]

1 hour ago, Northernboater said:

PhilAtterley sounds like his good friend Tony Dunkley, couldn't possibly be the same person could it????

I will take that as a compliment - thank you very much. I hope I can continue to live up to it !

[Murflynn]

the question is : does junkers dunkers enjoy collecting stamps?

[Muddy Ditch Rich]

1 hour ago, Murflynn said:

the question is : does junkers dunkers enjoy collecting stamps?

Well done sparky.

[Jim Riley]

PhilAtterley gets you everywhere.

 

[mayalld]

On ‎21‎/‎04‎/‎2017 at 19:25, Muddy Ditch Rich said:

Makes no difference as I said CaRT do not and have never enforced any bylaws.

My speculation is that they wish to only promote the false idea of a licence terms and conditions contract, and quietly forget about the bylaws, cancellation of a contract requires no evidence or prosecution by a court, a lie told often enough becomes reality. 

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

[alan_fincher]

On 30/04/2017 at 09:58, PhilAtterley said:

Having just done a laptop repair and swap with TD, I am in Nottingham with him at the moment and have passed on your query to him.

This is forum humour at its very best!

[alan_fincher]

On 01/05/2017 at 09:34, Mike the Boilerman said:

Perhaps not, but I would say the boaters who support CRT outnumber those who oppose their methods of management by at least 100 to 1.

I disagree with that very strongly Mike.

Not my experience at all, and I think there are a growing number of what I think most of us would call "fully compliant" boat owners, both with home moorings, and without, who are becoming increasingly dismayed by much of what CRT choose to do. (And that's not based on circular arguments on CWDF - it's  based on real experience elsewhere).

IMO the situation should not be that CRT can choose to do anything they like, if they can argue that it is supported by the majority of licence holders.  They should only do what the law allows, however unhappy that may make some boat owners, and if CRT don't have the powers to do something, then until they acquire those powers they should not do it.

[Dave_P]

Mod alert:

Can we all try to be friendly and avoid personal attacks?  This thread has rumbled on reasonably well for a while now.  I'd sooner not have to prune posts or close the thread.  

Remember, play the ball not the man.