C&RT Seize Pensioners Boat 27th March

[Naughty Cal]

Your tone of conversation sounds very familiar. Almost exactly the same as a member who has been banned several times now.

[Vortex]

On 02/04/2018 at 18:00, Naughty Cal said:

Your tone of conversation sounds very familiar. Almost exactly the same as a member who has been banned several times now.

Who is that?

[Boater Sam]

Whos? I only express an opinion.

Am I required to explain what I say when several members have obviously understood very well?

[Naughty Cal]

I will let the moderators fathom that out for themselves. Won't take long though.

[Iain_S]

13 minutes ago, Alan de Enfield said:

Apology accepted.

However - the boater that this thread is about IS also a 'lawbreaker' in that where he was moored was subject to control of C&RT and thus under the 1995 Act he required Insurance, BSS and a Licence - none of which he held.

To be pedantic, he required a Pleasure Boat Certificate, under the 1971 Act, rather than a Licence, as he was moored on a river subject to that Act.

"Main Navigational Channel" argument left for another day 

[Vortex]

On 02/04/2018 at 18:07, Iain_S said:

To be pedantic, he required a Pleasure Boat Certificate, under the 1971 Act, rather than a Licence, as he was moored on a river subject to that Act.

"Main Navigational Channel" argument left for another day 

Why would you want to leave it for another day?  It seems central to this story.  If he didn't need a licence, why have CRT taken his boat?

[Graham Davis]

1 hour ago, Sir Nibble said:

Why is the blokes age relevant? Why is his ability and willingness to help others with his skills relevant? Surely the crux of the matter is the lack of BSC and would any of us really like the requirement to remain unenforced?

His age, ability or willingness are nothing to do with it, other than to try and stir-up sympathy. The fact that over what appears to be a long period he has ignored legislation, dispite notifications is all that matters.

[Paul C]

41 minutes ago, WotEver said:

The black economy. Also known as ‘in the hand’. Otherwise known as not informing HMRC of any earnings. 

Whilst it is another strand to explore, I dare say the nature of the work probably meant he was under the tax threshold, (including income tax, NI and VAT) and if he was 67 he would have been over retirement age so unable to claim JSA (thus, not unfairly receiving a benefit). 

[Alan de Enfield]

1 minute ago, Iain_S said:

To be pedantic, he required a Pleasure Boat Certificate, under the 1971 Act, rather than a Licence, as he was moored on a river subject to that Act.

"Main Navigational Channel" argument left for another day 

Indeed and I was beginning to think that that may be the argument that Vortex would pull out of the hat at the last minute.

Irrespective of the terminology it is illegal not to have either a 'licence' (if boat is used on both canals and rivers) or a PBC if used on the river only.

 

Subject to appeal but a court has already determined that the MNC is the full width of the River for licensing purposes, (but when C&RT want to dredge the MNC it is just two-boats widths).

 

 

[Vortex]

On 02/04/2018 at 18:11, Graham Davis said:

His age, ability or willingness are nothing to do with it, other than to try and stir-up sympathy. The fact that over what appears to be a long period he has ignored legislation, dispite notifications is all that matters.

Maybe you could tell me what legislation he broke. Alan has gone quiet. 

[Flyboy]

23 hours ago, tree monkey said:

As a minimum social services should have been there but then again I'm one of those hippy idealists that thinks that no one should be left like this

No, social services won't be interested until you are made homeless. In this case they may not be interested at all because the boater has deliberately made himself homeless by refusing to abide by CaRTs rules.

[Vortex]

On 02/04/2018 at 18:12, Alan de Enfield said:

Indeed and I was beginning to think that that may be the argument that Vortex would pull out of the hat at the last minute.

Irrespective of the terminology it is illegal not to have either a 'licence' (if boat is used on both canals and rivers) or a PBC if used on the river only.

 

Subject to appeal but a court has already determined that the MNC is the full width of the River for licensing purposes, (but when C&RT want to dredge the MNC it is just two-boats widths).

 

 

So, what is and what isn't the MNC is up for debate?

[rusty69]

Expecto patronum!

[Graham Davis]

4 minutes ago, Vortex said:

Maybe you could tell me what legislation he broke. Alan has gone quiet. 

Try reading the thread!

[mrsmelly]

3 minutes ago, Vortex said:

So, what is and what isn't the MNC is up for debate?

Only by you 

[Vortex]

On 02/04/2018 at 18:19, mrsmelly said:

Only by you 

And, I would imagine, the bloke that just got his house stolen.

On 02/04/2018 at 18:18, Graham Davis said:

Try reading the thread!

What thread?

[Naughty Cal]

2 minutes ago, mrsmelly said:

Only by you 

Yes and I suspect he will hold onto that thread of hope.

No doubt we will be on the subject of theft next.

ETA: my crystal ball is working very well. Crossed threads and theft was the subject.

Edited April 2, 2018 by Naughty Cal

[Vortex]

On 02/04/2018 at 18:21, Naughty Cal said:

Yes and I suspect he will hold onto that thread of hope.

No doubt we will be on the subject of theft next.

Spot on

[Naughty Cal]

3 minutes ago, mrsmelly said:

Only by you 

Sad isn't it really.

[Paul C]

3 minutes ago, Vortex said:

Why would you want to leave it for another day?  It seems central to this story.  If he didn't need a licence, why have CRT taken his boat?

Its not central to the story. Even if he claimed his mooring was "outside of the MNC" there is clear evidence that he entered it; also the argument that it would create an "absurdity" in law is pretty strong here - in other words, if it were true that you didn't need a licence and could avoid a s.8 simply by being to one side or the other of the MNC, then everyone would do it and it would quickly slide into an unenforceable mess.

We all know there is an ongoing court case but as things stand today, CRT "are winning" regarding the most recent court action which relates to this. 

[Graham Davis]

1 minute ago, Vortex said:

And, I would imagine, the bloke that just got his house stolen.

What thread?

No-one has had a house stolen, so do not exagerate. And no-one has had their boat stolen either, but somehow I expect you will come back with some sarcastic and unhelpful comment, as usual.
And if you can't work out which thread then I cannot understand why you are here.

I now await the usual stupid comments over on Thunderboat.

[Naughty Cal]

3 minutes ago, Paul C said:

Its not central to the story. Even if he claimed his mooring was "outside of the MNC" there is clear evidence that he entered it; also the argument that it would create an "absurdity" in law is pretty strong here - in other words, if it were true that you didn't need a licence and could avoid a s.8 simply by being to one side or the other of the MNC, then everyone would do it and it would quickly slide into an unenforceable mess.

We all know there is an ongoing court case but as things stand today, CRT "are winning" regarding the most recent court action which relates to this. 

Which upsets "Vortex" greatly. Much the same as the theft issue.

[tree monkey]

13 minutes ago, Flyboy said:

No, social services won't be interested until you are made homeless. In this case they may not be interested at all because the boater has deliberately made himself homeless by refusing to abide by CaRTs rules.

Doesn't make it right though

[mrsmelly]

2 minutes ago, Paul C said:

Its not central to the story. Even if he claimed his mooring was "outside of the MNC" there is clear evidence that he entered it; also the argument that it would create an "absurdity" in law is pretty strong here - in other words, if it were true that you didn't need a licence and could avoid a s.8 simply by being to one side or the other of the MNC, then everyone would do it and it would quickly slide into an unenforceable mess.

We all know there is an ongoing court case but as things stand today, CRT "are winning" regarding the most recent court action which relates to this. 

99.9999999 per cent of boaters as with all walks of life comply with the easy legislation. We insure, Bss, licence and when required have a mooring. now and then someone tries to see how far they can push the legislation because they are piss takers, these are the ones that lose their boats.

[Vortex]

On 02/04/2018 at 18:23, Paul C said:

Its not central to the story. Even if he claimed his mooring was "outside of the MNC" there is clear evidence that he entered it; also the argument that it would create an "absurdity" in law is pretty strong here - in other words, if it were true that you didn't need a licence and could avoid a s.8 simply by being to one side or the other of the MNC, then everyone would do it and it would quickly slide into an unenforceable mess.

We all know there is an ongoing court case but as things stand today, CRT "are winning" regarding the most recent court action which relates to this. 

Then maybe CRT should use the correct law to chase him if he entered the MNC whilst un-registered, instead of s8.