Jump to content
Strawberry Orange Banana Lime Leaf Slate Sky Blueberry Grape Watermelon Chocolate Marble
Strawberry Orange Banana Lime Leaf Slate Sky Blueberry Grape Watermelon Chocolate Marble
Sign in to follow this  
gigoguy

Bridgewater permits and licenses

Featured Posts

33 minutes ago, Richard10002 said:

"Not sure what you mean by "can't"?

I would suggest that Peel, BWC, whoever, can choose who they enforce it with, and who they don't enforce it with. I could suggest that they are free to merely take the money from those who choose to pay, and not pursue anyone who chooses not to pay.

What do you think will happen if they enforce it with someone else, but not you?

 

They can choose who they try to enforce it with, and who they don't try to enforce it with. I suspect they won't enforce it (take non-payers to court) but will continue to try (issue invoices/claims). I would have thought Gigoguy is such a pain in their side that they would have taken court action by now, if only to make an example and to discourage others like myself who would refuse to pay without some proof they can.

Edited by Midnight
to try to avoid ambiguity
  • Greenie 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
45 minutes ago, gigoguy said:

You see that is EXACTLY! my point. You CAN cut them down if you have PERMISSION that means that if they are of a certain size in a certain area or are protected you CAN'T!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

you can only do what you have permission to do end of story. Anyone who cuts down a tree that they DON'T have permission to cut down will be in trouble.....or am I missing something here?

No permission needed fill your boots permission needed leave it alone till u=you get it. On YOUR land or anywhere else.

 

Parking fines are legal because a local authority went to court and got permission to charge them at some point. Or by Act of parliament......Peel have done neither.

This is a serious matter if they don't enforce it with me they can't enforce it with anyone. So fill your boots

You are missing something because your logic is flawed. You appear to be arguing that because a person does not have an unrestricted right to do as they please they must require explicit permission to do anything. Let's suppose you ask the question from the opposite point of view;-

You: Under English law do I need specific legal permission to do something?

Me: No

You: So I can do whatever I want then?

Me: Yes; providing that what you are doing is not in breach of the law.

You seem to be so emotionally wound up in the issue that you lack clarity of thinking. That doesn't bode well for your chances of success. Over on TB you are mostly conversing with like minded people and will get a sympathetic hearing. You may not like some of the responses you get on CWDF but they are probably going to be more objective in respect of the overall picture. Use it to help you rather than fight it.

JP

  • Greenie 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Captain Pegg said:

 

Me: Yes; providing that what you are doing is not in breach of the law.

 

But doesn't the legislation that is available state they cannot charge pleasure craft.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Captain Pegg said:

ou appear to be arguing that because a person does not have an unrestricted right to do as they please they must require explicit permission to do anything

Absolutely not and i have NEVER suggested anything of the sort. I made gave some examples of things people cannot do what they want with and trees were one of the examples. I said you can't cut any tree you want down just becasue it's on your land if it is protected you MUST get permission. Graham Davis decided to make a big thing of it. Yet every post has confirmed I AM RIGHT! you CANNOT do anything you want you can ONLY do something you have permission to do.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, gigoguy said:

You see that is EXACTLY! my point. You CAN cut them down if you have PERMISSION that means that if they are of a certain size in a certain area or are protected you CAN'T!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

you can only do what you have permission to do end of story. Anyone who cuts down a tree that they DON'T have permission to cut down will be in trouble.....or am I missing something here?

No permission needed fill your boots permission needed leave it alone till u=you get it. On YOUR land or anywhere else.

 

Parking fines are legal because a local authority went to court and got permission to charge them at some point. Or by Act of parliament......Peel have done neither.

This is a serious matter if they don't enforce it with me they can't enforce it with anyone. So fill your boots

OK, what is becoming apparent is that you are encumbered by a fundamental misunderstanding of how the law works in respect of permission to do things.

Without that understanding, you are doomed to argue until you disappear up your own behind.

To take the tree situation (for no reason but that it is on the table), you talk about a binary concept of permission or no permission. Because some cases require permission, you equate all cases where a tree can be felled as "having permission". That isn't accurate.

The default position is that its your tree, and you can do with it as you wish. That is a common law concept, and is NOT the same as having permission. The law defines certain trees as requiring permission, and such trees can then be organised into Permission and no permission.

The fact that you don't agree that the acts give Peel the power doesn't make it so, and you are not entitled to say "well until you satisfy me that you have the power, you don't have the power"

And as to "if they don't enforce it with me they can't enforce it with anyone" utter tripe! The fact that they choose to not pursue you (presumably on the grounds that to pursue you would be expensive, for little gain, and that they have little prospect of recovering their costs. As soon as a juicier target comes in sight, they are at liberty to proceed.

If it were not the case, organisations would spend millions fighting worthless battles with the impecunious just to defend their rights at some future date.

I have no doubt that Peel will be looking at easier ways to deal with the minor thorn in their side that you represent.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Midnight said:

But doesn't the legislation that is available state they cannot charge pleasure craft.

The trouble is the legislation doesn't actually state anything. There is mention of pleasure craft but only by way of exemption. The 1962 by laws under which they demand an annual license from their own boaters doesn't say anything at all about pleasure boats. It only mentions working and house bots. So by omission exemption is implied. And the 2012 transfer order protects any exemptions that are explicit or implied.

As you quite rightly said earlier. They would make an example of me if they could and won't haven't or can't. I believe because they know if they lose it will cost them hundreds of thousands. Peel would gladly spend a grand pursuing me because they could get it back if they win.

I think the talk of trees and bridges has run it's course now. Next time I post will be with information.

Thank you to all that have shown interest and added something of use whether they agree with me or not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, mayalld said:

all cases where a tree

NOT TRUE you show me anwthere where I have suggested that ALL trees need permission to fell. I said you CAN'T do anything you want you CAN ONLY do what you have permission to do......even if you can get permission doesn't take away from the fact that you need it. Maybe you are the one who is having trouble understanding simple concepts

 

And fine if they don't pursue me maybe they'll pursue someone else but I very much doubt it. And if they do as I said I'm putting my money where my mouth is and will pay anyone's penalty if they fight and lose.

Why don't you make the same offer to Peel?

Anyway end of now. I'm not posting any more on this thread until i have news....either way.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, gigoguy said:

Next time I post will be with information.

Thank you to all that have shown interest and added something of use whether they agree with me or not.

QUOTE:

"Not sure what you mean by "can't"?

I would suggest that Peel, BWC, whoever, can choose who they enforce it with, and who they don't enforce it with. I could suggest that they are free to merely take the money from those who choose to pay, and not pursue anyone who chooses not to pay.

What do you think will happen if they enforce it with someone else, but not you?

UNQUOTE

You didnt answer my query..... I think your thoughts would be of interest. (Midnight said something, but it wasnt an answer, merely a comment).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, Richard10002 said:

QUOTE:

"Not sure what you mean by "can't"?

I would suggest that Peel, BWC, whoever, can choose who they enforce it with, and who they don't enforce it with. I could suggest that they are free to merely take the money from those who choose to pay, and not pursue anyone who chooses not to pay.

What do you think will happen if they enforce it with someone else, but not you?

UNQUOTE

You didnt answer my query..... I think your thoughts would be of interest. (Midnight said something, but it wasnt an answer, merely a comment).

If you came across a sign that demanded a payment from you but gave no legal authority to demand it. It just demanded money, not even a specified amount or a proper way to pay. Would you pay?

If you did would you expect everyone else to pay as well?

I'm not sure and I'm NOT making any claims but I thought that if something was enforceable then  it's enforceable for everyone. Some people can't speed while others can, some people can't steal while others can, some people can't murder (except armed forces and WITH PERMISSION/AUTHORITY) while others can.

If it's enforceable then enforce it if it isn't then don't claim it is. What's the pint it just makes them look stupid really doesn't it?

I thought my answer was clear. If they do try to enforce it with you or anyone else, I will pay for you to fight it. So in a round about way, whoever they enforce it with they will be fighting me.

Peel are an insidious, greedy, nasty bunch of crooks and thieves and anyone who pays them anything they don't have to are just fuelling their greed and lawlessness. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Midnight said:

BTW Arthur in another BW thread IIRC you asked if anyone had received such an invoice as you were planning a return trip yourself. Did you do so? Did you get charged? Did you pay? just asking out of interest not bothered if you cut down any trees or got stuck waiting for Barton swing bridge to open.

I decided I couldn't face the hassle.  I had planned a trip on the L&L which would have meant coming back onto the Bridgewater within the 28 day period and that, combined with doing the Wigan flight solo twice and a knackered knee, convinced me not to bother, so I just went up to Lymm for a couple of days and then legged it to the Montgomery! Never saw anyone remotely interested in how long I'd been on the canal.  I can understand anyone getting upset about it if their boat is their home and for work purposes they need to traverse the canal regularly, I suspect the rest of us will just either avoid it or work round it.  I've still not heard of anyone actually being charged apart from gigoguy on this thread.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Arthur Marshall said:

I decided I couldn't face the hassle.  I had planned a trip on the L&L which would have meant coming back onto the Bridgewater within the 28 day period and that, combined with doing the Wigan flight solo twice and a knackered knee, convinced me not to bother, so I just went up to Lymm for a couple of days and then legged it to the Montgomery! Never saw anyone remotely interested in how long I'd been on the canal.  I can understand anyone getting upset about it if their boat is their home and for work purposes they need to traverse the canal regularly, I suspect the rest of us will just either avoid it or work round it.  I've still not heard of anyone actually being charged apart from gigoguy on this thread.

I've asked for copies of receipts from people that have paid but haven't yet had any. The trouble is Arthur they pick on those less able to defend themselves. When they tried to possess my boat they waited till I was in hospital to try to do it. And even then they didn't send anything to prove they had authority to do so. I should have let them take it and book myself into the Manchester Hilton until they gave it back and they had to pay the bill. Of the only people I know that actually paid anything, one is dead, one is living in a container somewhere now and one has recently come out of hospital and doesn't have his boat anymore so can't find the receipt.

Anyone who knows the canal will know that up to 2014 Lymm village and all along the canal would be teaming with holiday boats, pleasure cruises and summer cruisers. This year it has been dead. Less than 9 boats on average in  the village where there would have been 30. No one at all at Trafford centre or Sale, hardly any in Manchester. Shops, businesses all along the canal closing. Even their own boaters moving off. They are advertising for boats to move into Preston Brook marina. There used to be a waiting list to get in there, now they can't pay people to move in.

They are killing the canal and everything along it. And the only reason seems to be that they want it closed. They want to fill it in and drive over it to build on land adjacent. The toll and scare mongering tactics are for that one reason only. And I suggest all boaters that care anything at all about the canal system should directly challenge them on ever aspect of this tottally illegal and unenforceable extortion

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

With reference to my previous comments regarding riparian rights of pleasure boat use [rather specific, hence not a general public right], the 1766 Act, s.XCIII provides:

And it is hereby provided and further enacted by the authority aforesaid, that it shall and may be lawful to and for the owners and occupiers of any lands adjoining to the said Canal, to use any pleasure boat and boats upon the said Canal, not passing through any lock without the consent of the said company of proprietors, their successors or or assigns, and without paying any rate or duty for the same; so as the same be not made use of for carrying any goods, wares, or merchandize; and so as the same shall and do not obstruct or prejudice the navigation of the said intended Cut or Canal, or the towing-paths on the sides thereof.”  [my bold]

 Unless – as is of course possible – that very specific freedom from pleasure boat charges for riparian owners/occupiers was rescinded in some later legislation, then that exemption applies still, under the most recent provisions re: charges. That does not help the question of charges for passage through the canal by non-riparian boat owners, but does address the question over whether pleasure boat use was contemplated in the earliest Acts, with the accompanying express freedom from charges for qualifying owner/occupiers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Midnight said:

But doesn't the legislation that is available state they cannot charge pleasure craft.

I don't know. I am not qualified to rule on such things.

I struggle with the idea that they are legally prevented from levying charges for pleasure craft unless it is some provision wrapped up with the fact there is a long standing reciprocal agreement with CRT through which CRT licence holders are deemed to have already paid for the ability to navigate the Bridgwater. 

That would be a different thing from Peel not being able to levy charges per se which logic tells me would be perverse.

There is an argument we should either get reasonable access through the reciprocal arrangement or have no arrangement and pay at point of use but not both. The current situation does not seem to be in keeping with that logic since the restrictions on use are dubious in their reasonableness.

JP

Edited by Captain Pegg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, gigoguy said:

If you came across a sign that demanded a payment from you but gave no legal authority to demand it. It just demanded money, not even a specified amount or a proper way to pay. Would you pay?

I think that's all there is at Llangollen, though it specifies the amount and you get a ticket.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, NigelMoore said:

With reference to my previous comments regarding riparian rights of pleasure boat use [rather specific, hence not a general public right], the 1766 Act, s.XCIII provides:

And it is hereby provided and further enacted by the authority aforesaid, that it shall and may be lawful to and for the owners and occupiers of any lands adjoining to the said Canal, to use any pleasure boat and boats upon the said Canal, not passing through any lock without the consent of the said company of proprietors, their successors or or assigns, and without paying any rate or duty for the same; so as the same be not made use of for carrying any goods, wares, or merchandize; and so as the same shall and do not obstruct or prejudice the navigation of the said intended Cut or Canal, or the towing-paths on the sides thereof.”  [my bold]

 Unless – as is of course possible – that very specific freedom from pleasure boat charges for riparian owners/occupiers was rescinded in some later legislation, then that exemption applies still, under the most recent provisions re: charges. That does not help the question of charges for passage through the canal by non-riparian boat owners, but does address the question over whether pleasure boat use was contemplated in the earliest Acts, with the accompanying express freedom from charges for qualifying owner/occupiers.

Thanks again Nigel. As you say no real proof that non riparian boats had freedom but certainly a mention of pleasure craft exemption. 

With you earlier post in mind regarding anything that is not specified is exempt (word to the effect) Given specific exemption for riparian craft, and exemptions from charge in tolls No2 and no mention in 62 act.......could it all be construed to point to a general exemption for pleasure craft?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Arthur Marshall said:

I think that's all there is at Llangollen, though it specifies the amount and you get a ticket.

I posted the sign on the bridgewater. All it does is threaten you and you don't get a ticket........you do get a threat to remove your boat and you do get your boat taken away if you're not around to protect it....and even if you are they reckon they can put you on the towpath and take it anyway.......I don't think that happens at Llan does it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Alan de Enfield said:

Discounting the trees so affected (a very small minority) the owners / landowners of the remaining millions of trees can just 'do what they like', and they require no permissions.

 

2 hours ago, Captain Pegg said:

Unfortunately I can't take a photo of a tree that isn't there.

However I have cut down two trees in my garden since I moved in 13 years ago. No permission needed because no legal constraints were in place. I have two other trees remaining and both branch out over the public highway. That obliges me to maintain them in a way that does not obstruct the highway because there is specific legislation that does not allow me to cause an obstruction on the highway. Other than that I can do what I like with them.

As others have said the law works the opposite way round from how you suppose.

JP

 

2 hours ago, gigoguy said:

You see that is EXACTLY! my point. You CAN cut them down if you have PERMISSION that means that if they are of a certain size in a certain area or are protected you CAN'T!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

you can only do what you have permission to do end of story. Anyone who cuts down a tree that they DON'T have permission to cut down will be in trouble.....or am I missing something here?

No permission needed fill your boots permission needed leave it alone till u=you get it. On YOUR land or anywhere else.

 

Parking fines are legal because a local authority went to court and got permission to charge them at some point. Or by Act of parliament......Peel have done neither.

This is a serious matter if they don't enforce it with me they can't enforce it with anyone. So fill your boots

I suggest you read the 2 replies quoted here and those from TreeMonkey again!
You can cut down a tree WITHOUT permission if all the criteria are met and you don't have to go to anybody for them to check first.
How many more times does this need to be said?

Parking fines are irrelevant to this discussion. 
And just because Peel don't enforce something against you does not mean they can't do it in the future against someone else. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, gigoguy said:

Absolutely not and i have NEVER suggested anything of the sort. I made gave some examples of things people cannot do what they want with and trees were one of the examples. I said you can't cut any tree you want down just becasue it's on your land if it is protected you MUST get permission. Graham Davis decided to make a big thing of it. Yet every post has confirmed I AM RIGHT! you CANNOT do anything you want you can ONLY do something you have permission to do.

Wrong again!
And as I have said countless times now, from my experiences presenting cases, if you as the defendant make a statement that is factually incorrect then the other side will take you apart, slowly, thoroughly and probably expensively! I am using the tree example as an example of the incorrect statements you are making, but still you argue even when other experts on here tell you you are wrong. And the trees are not the only example of that.

If you want your case against Peel to be successful then you have to remove the emotive language and personal insults from ALL your dealings with them and others, ensure that every fact you want to use is 100% correct and is not just your unfounded opinion. Calling their employees parking wardens or binmen does nothing but set your "case" back every time you say it.  

I wish you well with this, but if you continue in the vein that you are doing I see no hope of your winning anything, and potentially making life difficult for not only yourself but many others too.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, gigoguy said:

If you came across a sign that demanded a payment from you but gave no legal authority to demand it. It just demanded money, not even a specified amount or a proper way to pay. Would you pay?

If you did would you expect everyone else to pay as well?

I'm not sure and I'm NOT making any claims but I thought that if something was enforceable then  it's enforceable for everyone. Some people can't speed while others can, some people can't steal while others can, some people can't murder (except armed forces and WITH PERMISSION/AUTHORITY) while others can.

If it's enforceable then enforce it if it isn't then don't claim it is. What's the pint it just makes them look stupid really doesn't it?

I thought my answer was clear. If they do try to enforce it with you or anyone else, I will pay for you to fight it. So in a round about way, whoever they enforce it with they will be fighting me.

Peel are an insidious, greedy, nasty bunch of crooks and thieves and anyone who pays them anything they don't have to are just fuelling their greed and lawlessness. 

"What do you think will happen if they enforce it with someone else, but not you?"

You still havent answered the question, but reading between the lines, I would suggest that nothing will happen, and that you agree.

Some people do speed, and dont get prosecuted. Some people steal, and dont get prosecuted. Some are known to have been speeding, and some are known to have been stealing, but they dont get prosecuted.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Richard10002 said:

"What do you think will happen if they enforce it with someone else, but not you?"

You still havent answered the question, but reading between the lines, I would suggest that nothing will happen, and that you agree.

Some people do speed, and dont get prosecuted. Some people steal, and dont get prosecuted. Some are known to have been speeding, and some are known to have been stealing, but they dont get prosecuted.

 

So basically we think if boaters are prepared to ignore the charge Peel won't pursue them. Anyone disagree?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Graham Davis said:


If you want your case against Peel to be successful then you have to remove the emotive language and personal insults from ALL your dealings with them and others, ensure that every fact you want to use is 100% correct and is not just your unfounded opinion.

I wish you well with this, but if you continue in the vein that you are doing I see no hope of your winning anything, and potentially making life difficult for not only yourself but many others too.

 

I think the nub of all of this is that he doesn't have "a case against Peel". He wants them to enforce their case against him, and he wants others to not pay, and flaunt their non payment to Peel, such that Peel enforce their case against them.

He says he has offered to pay the costs of anybody who has to defend their case against Peel, but he then said in an early post that this would amount to about twenty quid, rather than the thousands that defending a case against Peel might cost.

If he truly wanted to take some action and make something happen, I'd guess that the approach should be by way of applying for an injunction preventing Peel from charging for things he doesn't believe they should be charging for.... I'd also guess that he wont be doing that......

 

  • Greenie 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Midnight said:

So basically we think if boaters are prepared to ignore the charge Peel won't pursue them. Anyone disagree?

I disagree... you can't impose agreement on a whole load of people in such a way.

I dont know whether Peel will, or wont, pursue them. I dont think anybody knows. It seems that nobody reading this is prepared to say that they haven't paid, and Peel have, or have not, pursued them, (other than gigoguy). A poll of one doesnt really prove a rule.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Richard10002 said:

 

I don't know whether Peel will, or wont, pursue them. I don't think anybody knows. It seems that nobody reading this is prepared to say that they haven't paid, and Peel have, or have not, pursued them, (other than gigoguy). A poll of one doesn't really prove a rule.

Let's face it, probably a large majority of CWDFers have never been there - which makes it remarkable that a thread about a lesser-known canal has generated such interest that it now stretches to 400 posts, quite an achievement.

Edited by Athy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Richard10002 said:

I disagree... you can't impose agreement on a whole load of people in such a way.

I dont know whether Peel will, or wont, pursue them. I dont think anybody knows. It seems that nobody reading this is prepared to say that they haven't paid, and Peel have, or have not, pursued them, (other than gigoguy). A poll of one doesnt really prove a rule.

Sorry you misunderstand - my fault for the ambiguity. To put it another way does anyone think Peel will pursue someone who defaults on the charge?

Share this post


Link to post
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
Sign in to follow this  

  • 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.