Jump to content

Canal and River Trust Sign


Laurie Booth

Featured Posts

18 hours ago, NigelMoore said:

The only legal option for byelaw enforcement is prosecution through the Magistrates Court. That is the route followed by the EA and other authorities using equivalent powers, and is always the cheapest option when compared with boat removals. The penalty is £100 minimum [not sure how far judge discretion can now be extended]. On top of that of course, would be awarded costs and the criminal record.

On rivers, the legislated recourse for unregistered boats - again via Magistrates Court - is conviction of the offence of failure to have a current registration, for which the penalty is £50 plus £5 per day following conviction until the boat complies.

The alternative route where [as is universal] the 'problem' is failure to be either licensed or registered, is simply to take out a small claims suit for the sums owed. That is the cheapest and easiest route to solving the problem of non-paying boat owners, with the enforcement of the decisions readily left to court bailiffs [or whatever they are called these days]; the outlay is minimal both in initial expenditure and in employee time.

The reason CaRT reject either of these routes in favour of s.8 [which they assured Parliament was inappropriate "even if they could"] is, aside from what I believe to be a taste for wielding power for its own sake, based on the idea that by presenting boaters with the prospect of such draconian consequences, the would be recalcitrants will be frightened into compliance. It cannot be denied that this has been effective, whatever the legality or otherwise of the tactic.

How would a live aboard boat be viewed in the eyes of Court / High Court Bailiffs?

Could it be removed and sold to satisfy the debt?

 

Bod

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Bod said:

How would a live aboard boat be viewed in the eyes of Court / High Court Bailiffs?

Could it be removed and sold to satisfy the debt?

Bricks and mortar homes can be put at risk and sold under Court Orders, so boats will not be different. You can be bankrupted for a £750 debt [which could involve sale of all your assets], and charging orders can be placed against your home for enforcement of, e.g. a CCJ of £1,000 or more.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Gordias said:

IMO this is what CaRT decided to do.  I wish they hadn't ... but  without defending their behavior, we have to allow that they may have believed the numbers favored use of a powerful deterrent over enforcing the byelaws.

It's been going on so long now it won't be easy for CaRT to change their strategy.

On the other hand, they might accept an alternative apporoach, assuming one is possible. 

This is what I meant earlier by suggesting a "political solution".  If enough boaters ask for changes in the right way (in general, a consistent message, and communicate politely and constructively to  CaRT, the government, and the press in parallel) it's not impossible that the legislation could be changed into something that works for all parties.  There are a lot of "players" of course (i.e. corrdination would be difficult, as would finding good compromises), and it would take a while (probably years), but IMO the alternatives are worse.

Trouble is, when you get the kind of slagging that, for instance, the NBTA get whenever they are mentioned, which is ill-informed bigotry at worst and condescending sarcasm at best, when really they are saying exactly the same as you, constructive dialogue is a long way away. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 2017-7-4 at 10:33, Mike the Boilerman said:

Is every boat taken to chester and such places 'bought back' then?

I thought very few were

You are correct. In their first 2 years, according to a CaRT FoI response, in their first 2 years, of the many [possibly around 200] boats seized, 9 boats only were retrieved by the owners [and only 3 of those subsequently licensed].

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, NigelMoore said:

You are correct. In their first 2 years, according to a CaRT FoI response, in their first 2 years, of the many [possibly around 200] boats seized, 9 boats only were retrieved by the owners [and only 3 of those subsequently licensed].

Do you know if the 3 licenses were issued to the original owners, or had the boats been sold on to new owners, who then obtained a license.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, Horace42 said:

Do you know if the 3 licenses were issued to the original owners, or had the boats been sold on to new owners, who then obtained a license.

I do not know. Their response to whether they would re-licence a once seized boat, was that the history did not mean that - "either the original boater or a new owner cannot apply for a licence from CRT and in fact three of the nine boats have been re-licensed by us.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, hounddog said:

Trouble is, when you get the kind of slagging that, for instance, the NBTA get whenever they are mentioned, which is ill-informed bigotry at worst and condescending sarcasm at best, when really they are saying exactly the same as you, constructive dialogue is a long way away. 

I can't comment on how non-NBTA members feel about the NBTA, but assuming there are genuine differences:

If the objective is:

  • Change CaRT's approach to enforcement
  • Change the laws reglating the canal system

it will take a lot of boaters working together towards a common, clearly articulated goal.

Getting enough people together almost certainly means that the most active existing groups will have to moderate their positions.  There's a political principle that works most of the time, and is often discussed during elections for the US President:

  • In order to win nominiation, candidates try to gain support from their more extreme members while trying to keep their moderates on board (because they are isolated
  • Once they're nominated, they have to let go of the more extreme members of their own party and move bacjk towards the center so they can attract as many moderate "swing voters" as possible

Of course national politics doesn't matter much here - the point is that whatever the ideal "middle ground" is for changing CaRT's behavior, it almost certainly must exclude or mitigate some key objectives of some existing groups.  On the other hand it's the nature of a political compromise that nobody gets exactly what they want, but most people benefit to some extent.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Gordias said:

I can't comment on how non-NBTA members feel about the NBTA

I am not a member but I find them quite pleasant to watch :

Welcome to NBTA England

NBTA is a non-profit making organisation formed for the advancement of Baton Twirling and its associated activities. The aims of the NBTA are to provide all twirlers and their associates, teachers, judges, parents and corps directors with an active programme of events and to promote the common interest of said events at all levels within a competition structure. The National Baton Twirling Association is framed and held together by two great principles: FAIRNESS AND DEMOCRACY.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Bod said:

Should I be discovered breaking a Byelaw, how should enforcement procced?

Who would put me before the magistrate?

CaRT [in the immediate context] lay the information before the Magistrates Court. Something the EA have done successfully in around 260 cases since their 2010 Order. Costs are minimal compared with boat removals, and has the additional value of enforcing registration, where boat removals deny further income to the authority.

It may also be pertinent to note that some dozens more cases were brought unsuccessfully, for various reasons including poor administration and record keeping, which highlights that the authority does not always get it right, and that proceeding down this legal route provides the opportunity for successful boater defences where appropriate.

It must also be borne in mind that we are dealing with criminal offences, and failure to press charges by expensive boat removals effectively penalises while denying the right of defence. There are circumstances [mainly where the owner is unknown] where removal is the most appropriate course, but as the EA record demonstrates, these are minimal statistically.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Gordias said:

Getting enough people together almost certainly means that the most active existing groups will have to moderate their positions.

I thought that was described as 'negotiation'. If there was some form of negotiation or even a willingness to engage in it I am sure the positions would change. People tend to get more radical if everything they say is discounted. I have seen this work with CRT in a local context. In fact the dialogues between CRT and London Boaters seem to be achieving workable systems (on both sides). 

 

3 hours ago, Gordias said:

...and condescending sarcasm at best

You'll see what I mean then?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, hounddog said:

I thought that was described as 'negotiation'. If there was some form of negotiation or even a willingness to engage in it I am sure the positions would change. People tend to get more radical if everything they say is discounted. I have seen this work with CRT in a local context. In fact the dialogues between CRT and London Boaters seem to be achieving workable systems (on both sides).

I don't have anything to say about NBTA because I don't know enough about them. 

I can't figure out how to quote the second part of your post, but it's immediately above this so hopefully readers will check there:

  1. Quotes are intended to contain what people actually said, not your opinions. Please don't do that again
  2. There is nothing sarcastic in my post.   That's obviously true on a casual reading.

I made those comments about the nature of and some of the consequences of achieving a broad consensus because I believe that's the way any attempt to change the legislation would have to be done.  It doesn't mean other positions held by smaller groups have to be given up of course - just that you can't expect that something the majority will agree with and participate in will conform with all of the objectives of existing minority groups.  It's a bit like the difference between a rebellion and a revolution (depends on who wins): in this case: if the majority agrees 100% there is no minority.

OTOH, in practice minority activist groups can usually veto any compromise position that's acceptable to a broad majority.  Are you suggesting that NBTA would oppose anything that didn't include all of their non-majority objectives?

  • Greenie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, Gordias said:

 

  1. Quotes are intended to contain what people actually said, not your opinions. Please don't do that again
  2.  

Don't patronise me. 

Conversation over.

Edited by hounddog
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Mike the Boilerman said:

Hanging and flogging is often advocated for minor offences, but this seems a bit pointless unless done the other way around.

 

They hang the man and flog the woman
Who steals the goose from off the common
Yet leave the greater criminal loose
Who steals the common from under the goose...

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, Gordias said:

I don't have anything to say about NBTA because I don't know enough about them. 

. . .

I made those comments about the nature of and some of the consequences of achieving a broad consensus because I believe that's the way any attempt to change the legislation would have to be done. 

It is apposite I believe to note that the NBTA have done more than any other boating organisation to both actively engage with CaRT in seeking to establish agreed guidelines over managerial practice, and to actively engage with, for example, the Middle Level Commissioners over proposed new legislation seeking to introduce pleasure boat registrations over the hitherto free navigations for which they are responsible. They spent some 3 hours earlier this week, discussing concerns over the Bill with the MLC's top brass, in would-be constructive debate.

Personally, I do not believe that any change in BW's legislation is necessary [and it is not going to happen], only a change in how and to what purpose it is applied. The same approach you advocate applies of course, to that more difficult goal.

  • Greenie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The problem with the NBTA is that they have a far left political agenda as well, the demonstration outside CaRT HQ was hijacked by the Socialist Worker, and Momentum, something which the people who attended never agreed to support. It was obvious that the NBTA has organised this stitch up on people attending, and made sure a giant Momentum banner was at the forefront of the media coverage. 

 

Either remain politically neutral or be honest about your agenda before you ask people to protest with you.

 

Edited by Muddy Ditch Rich
  • 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
  • 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.