Jump to content

Bridgewater permits and licenses


gigoguy

Featured Posts

10 hours ago, mayalld said:

Do you have the exact wording of the ruling in Stourbridge v Wheeley?

The reason that I ask is that if it uses the word Amounts or Amounted, it would be particularly significant.

 

Looking back, I see that we covered the same ground more than 2 years ago. The case law most specifically addressing the issue that I cited back then was:

Attorney-General v. Great Eastern Railway Co. (1880) 5 App.Cas. 473, Lord Blackburn said, at p. 481: 'where there is an Act of Parliament creating a corporation for a particular purpose, and giving it powers for that particular purpose, what it does not expressly or impliedly authorise is to be taken to be prohibited; ...' [my emphasis]

This was cited with approval by the same House in the 1991 judgment in McCarthy & Stone v Richmond LBC, with all 5 Law Lords in unanimous agreement on the point.

http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKHL/1989/4.html

My use of “amounted to” arose from the “taken to be” wording. You were advancing the common-law distinction then also, in response to that, so I will not get repetitious over this.

The Stourbridge case needs to be read in full, to understand the context. The canal company wanted to rely on the common law right of a landowner to charge for the use of their property, although their enabling Acts only gave powers to charge tolls for passage through locks on the original section, whereas an upper section had no locks at all. Not even commercial boats had to pay tolls on their cargoes if they stayed on the lock-free sections, and some carriers did just that. For awhile they paid demanded tolls anyway, but when the prices were arbitrarily increased inordinately [in their opinion], they baulked, and refused to pay anything at all anymore. The court agreed that they did not need to. The full judgment is online –

http://www.commonlii.org/uk/cases/EngR/1831/276.pdf

A truly fresh angle though, originates from the Ministry of Transport back in 1970. It is, interesting that the Ministry was of the opinion that the Transport Act on charges could probably not be applied to registration/licensing anyway.

The fact is that registration of boats was a condition of use of the canals from the beginning, though no charge was usually provided for that as far as I know, and certainly there was no mandatory licensing scheme possible prior to 1968. The general discussion over the effect of s.43 of the 1962 Act arose in correspondence between the Transport Ministry and various other water authorities when BW proposed their compulsory registration scheme for the river waterways in the 1970 Bill.

The other authorities were incensed by the proposed fixed schedule of charges for BW’s pleasure boat certificates, claiming that this flew against the freedom to charge whatever they liked under the general powers/obligations of Part III of the 1962 Act. They accordingly wanted the Transport Ministry to remove the fixed price schedules from the Bill, lest it serve as some sort of inconvenient precedent.

Although he explained to the protestors why he agreed with BW’s cautious approach to the subject on other grounds, the Transport Minister of the time was unconvinced that the 1962 Act applied to boat certificates and licences anyway.

Without necessarily subscribing to that view, I post this for interest and possible debate:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, mayalld said:

A remarkable parody of a 70's union leader claiming that it isn't his members walking out that is inconveniencing people but the management who MADE them do it.

You may not have started your argument with Peel on the basis that nobody would pay. Like most others in your position, you started from the entirely selfish position that YOU shouldn't pay.

However, there isn't even a vaguely arguable position that says that you shouldn't pay whilst others do. The only argument that you can advance is that all charges are illegal.

Your post then veers off into the realms of utter fantasy.

Bridgewater boaters would probably pay voluntarily? On what basis do you assert that? You are regularly on the canal and you won't pay. If there was no compulsory charge, the canal would soon begin to attract others of the same ilk who fancied a free ride, and those who are prepared to pay would rapidly conclude that they didn't want to pay to be on a canal choked with freeloaders, and they would move to CRT waters.

You say that you want to return to the reciprocal agreement, but if you accept that agreement as valid, you actually accept that they CAN demand a charge, because if they can't demand a charge, the reciprocal agreement isn't needed.

We then go even further with a suggestion that somebody else would take over. Where do you imagine somebody else would get the money to run it?

Frankly, the canal system needs those who want the world to revolve around them like it needs a hole in the puddle.

 

I started from the position that threatening people with powers they don't have to possess their boats illegally HAS to stop. From the position that chasing innocent people off the canal with no authority to do so is not only criminally but morally wrong. that they do not have the police forces of greater Manchester and Cheshire as their private security companies and they CAN'T do what they want when they want and no one will stand up to them.

In July this year they threatened to remove my boat from the canal with no legal authority to do so. I hadn't been on the canal for for 4 months and I was only on my way back from Manchester. So I asked them to show what authority they had to even charge me in the first place. They didn't reply until I'd asked them 15 times and then  their solicitor threatened to ban me for life and set GMP on me.

Yeah I'm selfish!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

While I accept that logic or common sense has nothing to do with the law, it would seem that if something is owned by someone, they have the right to control who uses it. And if someone wants to use it, to charge them for the privilege.  After all, that's how most of us make a living.

So, whatever the original acts say, I think it highly unlikely that any court, should it actually ever come to that, which it almost certainly won't, would rule that Peel don't have the right to charge pleasure boats for the use of the canal (there are enough weasel and ambiguous words in any legal document to support a variety of interpretations - that is, after all, why lawyers are rich and the rest of us aren't.).  And the extension of that is that they can limit that use however they want and charge accordingly. 

It is also just about certain that no authority is going to go to court for a few quid, whatever they may say in a letter or notice.  The reason they don't reply until forced to is, again, because it costs more to answer a letter than to ignore it, and as they have no intention of pursuing the matter, why should they bother? It just wastes their time and increases their loss.

Whether the aggravation that comes one's way for refusing to accept that a change has been made, because one doesn't think it fair or even legal, is worth it is up to the individual.  Sometimes if it's a matter of principle, support can be gained and a desired outcome achieved. If it's just argument about a point of law, it may be well to bear in mind that laws are largely there to protect property, and the owners of property, and have little to do with what most of us may think of as justice.

 

  • Greenie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, gigoguy said:

Tree's, areas of outstanding natural beauty, listed buildings, forestry land, green belt...........need i go on? 

Trees, owned by the person on whose land they are growing.
AONB's, owned by the farmers, householders and land owners who live in those areas.
Listed buildings, owned by the people who own them.
Forestry land, owned by the Forestry Commission, NRW, NRS, and also farmers etc who grow trees on their land.
Green belt, owned by the farmers and land owners.

Or do you think they are owned by everyone?

I don't think you quite understand about these things!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, Graham Davis said:

Trees, owned by the person on whose land they are growing.
AONB's, owned by the farmers, householders and land owners who live in those areas.
Listed buildings, owned by the people who own them.
Forestry land, owned by the Forestry Commission, NRW, NRS, and also farmers etc who grow trees on their land.
Green belt, owned by the farmers and land owners.

Or do you think they are owned by everyone?

I don't think you quite understand about these things!

Reading is obviously not your strong point.

He said you can do what you want with what you own and I pointed out you can't. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thank you for your concern, but my reading ability is perfectly satisfactory. Still you will find any excuse to have a petty little dig and try to insult me. 

Perhaps instead of just writing a list of things you had provided a full and adequate explanation there wouldn't have been any confusion. 
And you are still wrong over some of those things, so it might help if you did some research before making (further) incorrect statements.

I eagerly await your next insult.:giggles::giggles:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Graham Davis said:

Thank you for your concern, but my reading ability is perfectly satisfactory. Still you will find any excuse to have a petty little dig and try to insult me. 

Perhaps instead of just writing a list of things you had provided a full and adequate explanation there wouldn't have been any confusion. 
And you are still wrong over some of those things, so it might help if you did some research before making (further) incorrect statements.

I eagerly await your next insult.:giggles::giggles:

Graham your pettiness is getting really irritating. You are adding nothing to this discussion other than rather silly snipes at the OP. Unlike Dave and Nigel I might add who unlike you are adding some interesting dimensions to the debate.

Edited by MJG
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, gigoguy said:

Tree's, areas of outstanding natural beauty, listed buildings, forestry land, green belt...........need i go on? 

You want to come into my garden and climb my tree, you'll pay for the privilege. You want to have a look round the listed building someone lives in, buy a ticket. You want free access to forestry land? Watch out for the barbed wire. A lot of green belt is farmland - try letting your dog play with the sheep. You want to build on it? It'll cost you. 

You want access to any of these things for your own use, profit or convenience you generally have to pay. That's my point. Whether it's morally (or even legally)  right is another matter and your view  largely depends on 1) your politics, 2) how many years you've studied law and 3) whether you own the item in question or not! 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

28 minutes ago, Arthur Marshall said:

You want to come into my garden and climb my tree, you'll pay for the privilege. You want to have a look round the listed building someone lives in, buy a ticket. You want free access to forestry land? Watch out for the barbed wire. A lot of green belt is farmland - try letting your dog play with the sheep. You want to build on it? It'll cost you. 

You want access to any of these things for your own use, profit or convenience you generally have to pay. That's my point. Whether it's morally (or even legally)  right is another matter and your view  largely depends on 1) your politics, 2) how many years you've studied law and 3) whether you own the item in question or not! 

The point I am making is that just because a 'thing' is owned does not give the owner the power to do what they want with it. I pointed out to Peel that with ownership of a canal of such historic significance comes duty and responsibility NOT a commodity they can do what they want with. Peel can't grasp the concept of responsibility and duty is everyone else's business not theirs.

You might have a tree in your garden but you CAN'T just chop it down. You might own a listed building and you MIGHT be able to charge for entry if it is not protected under some right of access legislation, but you CAN'T knock it down and build a Tesco on it. Peel would gladly fill in the canal as it's just a ditch filed with water in the way of their development plans. But it's not in your area and you don't use it so let them, what differences does it make to you?

We and by that I mean we ALL including Peel Holdings can ONLY do what we are allowed to do. Peel Holdings are NOT allowed to charge for a return passage within 28 days. It looks like they have no legal authority to demand a license from their own boaters. They CAN'T chase perfectly legal boats off the canal and they CAN'T impound any boat unless it is causing an obstruction or has been 'left' however you interpret that for more than 2 months and one week.

myalld said it's my fault if it closed down. I say it's theirs for breaking the law in the first place.

I don't need to highlight Graham's lack of intelligence, he does a good enough job of that himself.

 

 

  • Greenie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, gigoguy said:

We and by that I mean we ALL including Peel Holdings can ONLY do what we are allowed to do

You keep repeating this, so I will repeat again the answer I gave a few pages ago :

We can do anything that we want unless it is against the law to do so.

Also You may wish to choose your examples more carefully and do a little more research on felling trees :

Felling Licences are administered by the Forestry Commission. You do not need a licence to fell trees in gardens. However, for trees outside gardens, you may need to apply to the Forestry Commission for a felling licence, whether or not they are covered by a TPO. You can find out more about felling licences at Felling Licences quick guide (England) or in the Forestry Commission’s booklet Tree Felling – getting permission.

 

You also do not need to have a felling licence to fell less than 5 cubic metres of wood per quarter, or for trees that are dangerous or are a nuisance.

 

Do a google search for 'felling licence exemptions'

Link to comment
Share on other sites

27 minutes ago, gigoguy said:

The point I am making is that just because a 'thing' is owned does not give the owner the power to do what they want with it. I pointed out to Peel that with ownership of a canal of such historic significance comes duty and responsibility NOT a commodity they can do what they want with. Peel can't grasp the concept of responsibility and duty is everyone else's business not theirs.

You might have a tree in your garden but you CAN'T just chop it down. You might own a listed building and you MIGHT be able to charge for entry if it is not protected under some right of access legislation, but you CAN'T knock it down and build a Tesco on it. Peel would gladly fill in the canal as it's just a ditch filed with water in the way of their development plans. But it's not in your area and you don't use it so let them, what differences does it make to you?

We and by that I mean we ALL including Peel Holdings can ONLY do what we are allowed to do. Peel Holdings are NOT allowed to charge for a return passage within 28 days. It looks like they have no legal authority to demand a license from their own boaters. They CAN'T chase perfectly legal boats off the canal and they CAN'T impound any boat unless it is causing an obstruction or has been 'left' however you interpret that for more than 2 months and one week.

myalld said it's my fault if it closed down. I say it's theirs for breaking the law in the first place.

I don't need to highlight Graham's lack of intelligence, he does a good enough job of that himself.

 

 

Some advice from a Council in the area:
https://www.tameside.gov.uk/Planning/Trees-Frequently-Asked-Questions#1

And if Martin doesn't like me pointing out your errors I suggest he adds me to the Ignore list available here. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, Graham Davis said:

Some advice from a Council in the area:
https://www.tameside.gov.uk/Planning/Trees-Frequently-Asked-Questions#1

And if Martin doesn't like me pointing out your errors I suggest he adds me to the Ignore list available here. 

Again you seem to be having difficulty reading the item you posted.

It asks CAN I cut down a tree and DO I need permission and it gives EXPLICIT information that under certain circumstances you DO need permission.

So your point is what exactly?

Edited by gigoguy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Graham Davis said:

Some advice from a Council in the area:
https://www.tameside.gov.uk/Planning/Trees-Frequently-Asked-Questions#1

And if Martin doesn't like me pointing out your errors I suggest he adds me to the Ignore list available here. 

It's not a question of 'not liking' anything, its a question of pointing out who is adding something to the discussion or not. 

(And the 'ignore function' is pretty useless anyway because as soon as somebody quotes something you can see it anyway).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, haggis said:

Yes. Protected trees. If a tree has not got a tree preservation order (TPO)  it is not protected 

Haggis

it is if it is in a protection area, in a landlords garden etc etc etc. Read Grahams post it tells you ALL you need to know

Link to comment
Share on other sites

30 minutes ago, MJG said:

It's not a question of 'not liking' anything, its a question of pointing out who is adding something to the discussion or not. 

(And the 'ignore function' is pretty useless anyway because as soon as somebody quotes something you can see it anyway).

 

You are adding nothing to the debate either Martin, with your pointless interjections.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, gigoguy said:

The point I am making is that just because a 'thing' is owned does not give the owner the power to do what they want with it. I pointed out to Peel that with ownership of a canal of such historic significance comes duty and responsibility NOT a commodity they can do what they want with.

To an extent of course you are right.  Even though you own something, there are limits to what you can do to it, some legal, some physical. Peel probably don't have the right to fill in the canal, though they probably do have the right just not to bother to do any maintenance so it falls to bits if it becomes too much of a hassle, possibly loss-making and too many people whinge at them about it or refuse to pay what the owner thinks they should. But you're wrong that ownership implies either duty of care or responsibility - if it did, health and safety laws wouldn't be necessary, nor the various factories Acts, building regs etc.

A business's responsibility is purely to it's shareholders - anything else has to be prised out of it, and anything that impinges on its profits is going to be avoided as far as possible, which, again, is why you don't get answers to your letters and why they won't bother taking you to court unless you run up such a huge bill that it becomes worth it. And then the judges will almost certainly rule in their favour because they own the relevant property, and that's what the law is there to protect.  And, of course, because they will be able to afford the best lawyers and you can't.

Don't get me wrong - I think the return penalty in iniquitous and the conditions excessive and it's put me off using the BW as I would like to.  But it might be worth trying to persuade them that it should, as someone has suggested, be no return within 7 days rather than 28 rather than that they are acting illegally in charging anyone anything. You don't win battles by not leaving your opponent an escape route.

  • Greenie 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, gigoguy said:

The point I am making is that just because a 'thing' is owned does not give the owner the power to do what they want with it. I pointed out to Peel that with ownership of a canal of such historic significance comes duty and responsibility NOT a commodity they can do what they want with. Peel can't grasp the concept of responsibility and duty is everyone else's business not theirs.

You might have a tree in your garden but you CAN'T just chop it down. You might own a listed building and you MIGHT be able to charge for entry if it is not protected under some right of access legislation, but you CAN'T knock it down and build a Tesco on it. Peel would gladly fill in the canal as it's just a ditch filed with water in the way of their development plans. But it's not in your area and you don't use it so let them, what differences does it make to you?

We and by that I mean we ALL including Peel Holdings can ONLY do what we are allowed to do. Peel Holdings are NOT allowed to charge for a return passage within 28 days. It looks like they have no legal authority to demand a license from their own boaters. They CAN'T chase perfectly legal boats off the canal and they CAN'T impound any boat unless it is causing an obstruction or has been 'left' however you interpret that for more than 2 months and one week.

myalld said it's my fault if it closed down. I say it's theirs for breaking the law in the first place.

I don't need to highlight Graham's lack of intelligence, he does a good enough job of that himself.

 

 

You CLAIM that they can't charge, and have posted a lot of bluster about what dreadful people they are (and I suspect that they probably are), and some rather less that incisive analysis of the legal basis for your assertion.

I have posted to rebut your legal assertions, and as such there is an arguable basis for charging, and in the absence of a court ruling to the contrary they can actually charge.

I love the fact that you post certain things with such certainty that are actually wrong (such as Barton Aqueduct no longer being in use).

I have to say that the last time I actually saw Arthur in person, I believe that he was heading for the Bridgewater.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Arthur Marshall said:

I think the return penalty in iniquitous and the conditions excessive and it's put me off using the BW as I would like to.

You Arthur and hundreds of others. I have tried to negotiate with them. as have CaRT, IWA, NABO, RBOA and every other boating organisation I know of. People have been asked to write to their MP's and national and local newspaper campaigns have been run. Even chamber of commerce and local business groups have appealed to them.

Their answer.........'The situation suits us' That's it It suits them and F the rest of you.

Myalld the tank is almost never used . And again graham totally misread the point I had made. The point was that a boat can get from one end of the canal to the other in a day if they push on. It is only 40 miles long and there are no locks or lift/swing bridges. I omitted to specify 'to operate'.

So as we are now in a court of law and not a forum for sensible debate. I shall make my argument clear.

The Bridgewater canal is 65,983 m long and runs from Preston Brook in the south to Leigh in the north and branches to Manchester city centre and Runcorn. The canal can be passed from one end to the other in less than 14 hours. Along the journey there are no locks or swing/lift bridges 'to operate' making the journey free from time consuming obstructions.

Does that make it a little clearer?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, gigoguy said:

You Arthur and hundreds of others. I have tried to negotiate with them. as have CaRT, IWA, NABO, RBOA and every other boating organisation I know of. People have been asked to write to their MP's and national and local newspaper campaigns have been run. Even chamber of commerce and local business groups have appealed to them.

Their answer.........'The situation suits us' That's it It suits them and F the rest of you.

Myalld the tank is almost never used . And again graham totally misread the point I had made. The point was that a boat can get from one end of the canal to the other in a day if they push on. It is only 40 miles long and there are no locks or lift/swing bridges. I omitted to specify 'to operate'.

So as we are now in a court of law and not a forum for sensible debate. I shall make my argument clear.

The Bridgewater canal is 65,983 m long and runs from Preston Brook in the south to Leigh in the north and branches to Manchester city centre and Runcorn. The canal can be passed from one end to the other in less than 14 hours. Along the journey there are no locks or swing/lift bridges 'to operate' making the journey free from time consuming obstructions.

Does that make it a little clearer?

I think SOME people are just trying to help where they feel you have facts wrong. Once you present a fact that can be proved wrong then that is a basis to read doubt into the rest of your argument. If you say the "The Tank never moves" and they put forward a record that shows its opened 4 times every week people will just doubt everything else you say.

  • Greenie 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, gigoguy said:

 

3 minutes ago, ditchcrawler said:

I think SOME people are just trying to help where they feel you have facts wrong. Once you present a fact that can be proved wrong then that is a basis to read doubt into the rest of your argument. If you say the "The Tank never moves" and they put forward a record that shows its opened 4 times every week people will just doubt everything else you say.

 

Further, I think the OP takes people pointing out factual errors in his posts as personal criticism, which it isn't by and large. In order to build a case which has the support of consensus, the foundations need to be true and correct. Currently they are not, hence all the quibbling. 

  • 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.