C&RT Seize Pensioners Boat 27th March

[rusty69]

1 hour ago, tree monkey said:

I suggest no one really knows how he got into this position and without those facts all judgemental posturing is pointless

Sorry TM.My Expecto patronum! charm seems to have lost its potency.We are being overun by dementors. I managed to get out. Don't leave it too long.

Run,get out whilst you can man,even if it means climbing a tree.

[Vortex]

On 02/04/2018 at 18:26, Graham Davis said:

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.

I have no idea what you are talking about?  Do you have anything on topic to add?

[WotEver]

20 minutes ago, Paul C said:

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). 

Quite probably. I was simply providing Athy with the definition of Alan’s ‘in the black’. 

[Paul C]

8 minutes ago, Vortex said:

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

He didn't "enter" (or "leave") the MNC, he was in it all the time, including during whilst moored and while the s.8 was actioned. CRT used the correct law here (its not to say there aren't alternates, but its been to court and been proven that s.8 removing a boat isn't disproportionate in circumstances similar to these).

[Graham Davis]

11 minutes ago, Vortex said:

I have no idea what you are talking about?  Do you have anything on topic to add?

Of course you don't.
Do you? I've seen nothing from you yet.

[Vortex]

On 02/04/2018 at 18:39, Paul C said:

He didn't "enter" (or "leave") the MNC, he was in it all the time, including during whilst moored and while the s.8 was actioned. CRT used the correct law here (its not to say there aren't alternates, but its been to court and been proven that s.8 removing a boat isn't disproportionate in circumstances similar to these).

I disagree that he was in the MNC when the S8 took place. I would also disagree with the court that S8 isn't disproportionate when there were options available to them that didn't involve making someone homeless.

[Naughty Cal]

3 minutes ago, Vortex said:

I disagree that he was in the MNC when the S8 took place. I would also disagree with the court that S8 isn't disproportionate when there were options available to them that didn't involve making someone homeless.

Yes you would.

But you would argue black was white if you thought you could try and score points against CRT.

Trouble is they are scoring more against you of late then you are scoring against them. At other people's expense. 

[Paul C]

8 minutes ago, Vortex said:

I disagree that he was in the MNC when the S8 took place. I would also disagree with the court that S8 isn't disproportionate when there were options available to them that didn't involve making someone homeless.

That's fine, you're entitled to your opinion. However I would sway towards a more fact-based approach, and note that similar arguments were made in the Ravenscroft vs CRT case, and (currently) CRT have a High Court judgement in their favour, while Ravenscroft has a lot of debt due to legal fees.

The law provides for the boater in this case to challenge the validity of the s.8 and the requirement for a licence, but there is a process. If you don't use that process, or ignore all written correspondence, then it puts you at a (massive) disadvantage. I notice you didn't address the "absurdity" issue (which is quite important, in fact it would probably be pivotal in your divergence from the recent court case). And even if (we don't know the full facts of this case so I shall delay judgement) the boater claims the moral victory here, CRT have seemingly (again we don't know the details of the steps CRT took....so can't judge) taken the relevant steps required by law, so describing their actions as "illegal" is not accurate.

Also he's either not technically homeless, or always was homeless anyway (depending on how you define "homeless"). He was living on a boat; now he is staying on another boat. And we don't know if the local authority offered accommodation, or if he accepted or declined their help etc either.

Edited April 2, 2018 by Paul C

[Vortex]

On 02/04/2018 at 18:52, Naughty Cal said:

Yes you would.

But you would argue black was white if you thought you could try and score points against CRT.

Trouble is they are scoring more against you of late then you are scoring against them. At other people's expense. 

Sorry luv, I don't think I am who you think I am.

[Naughty Cal]

You will have to try a lot better than that 

[Vortex]

On 02/04/2018 at 18:54, Paul C said:

That's fine, you're entitled to your opinion. However I would sway towards a more fact-based approach, and note that similar arguments were made in the Ravenscroft vs CRT case, and (currently) CRT have a High Court judgement in their favour, while Ravenscroft has a lot of debt due to legal fees.

The law provides for the boater in this case to challenge the validity of the s.8 and the requirement for a licence, but there is a process. If you don't use that process, or ignore all written correspondence, then it puts you at a (massive) disadvantage. I notice you didn't address the "absurdity" issue (which is quite important, in fact it would probably be pivotal in your divergence from the recent court case). And even if (we don't know the full facts of this case so I shall delay judgement) the boater claims the moral victory here, CRT have seemingly (again we don't know the details of the steps CRT took....so can't judge) taken the relevant steps required by law, so describing their actions as "illegal" is not accurate.

Do you think that taking someone's home from them, even if it is legal to do so, is the correct response when there are other options available?

On 02/04/2018 at 18:57, Naughty Cal said:

You will have to try a lot better than that 

Are you going to let me in on who I am?

[Paul C]

3 minutes ago, Vortex said:

Do you think that taking someone's home from them, even if it is legal to do so, is the correct response when there are other options available?

 

I don't have an opinion on it; all I can do is go by facts. As previously stated, a very similar case went to court recently, where it was decided that s.8 was proportionate.

[Naughty Cal]

Nope. 

I know. Several others know. 

You can't hide it much longer 

[Vortex]

On 02/04/2018 at 19:03, Paul C said:

I don't have an opinion on it; all I can do is go by facts.

Maybe you could have a think about it and get back to me.  

On 02/04/2018 at 19:03, Naughty Cal said:

Nope. 

I know. Several others know. 

You can't hide it much longer 

Well, whoever it is, you are wrong.  You can't be very confident if you won't accuse me publicly.

[Naughty Cal]

I'm very confident.

[Vortex]

On 02/04/2018 at 19:12, Naughty Cal said:

I'm very confident.

Then tell me who I am or shut up about it.

[Naughty Cal]

No need. 

 

 

[rusty69]

Just now, Vortex said:

Then tell me who I am or shut up about it.

Are you Rumpelstiltskin?

[Paul C]

1 minute ago, Vortex said:

Maybe you could have a think about it and get back to me.  

I could, but I doubt my opinion will change. Lots of good things happen in the world; out of the millions of brilliant things which happen, the vast majority happen to other people, in other places, sometimes far away. I don't let it get to me (some good things still happen to me, don't worry about my wellbeing). Conversely, bad things happen to other people (and sometimes even me). For example (probably an extreme example) the events which occurred at Abu Ghraib weren't great. But I've not let it get to me either. Now, I could form an opinion, and indeed I believe others have; what's more they are able to actively help this guy out by donating to a fund. I believe £1600 has been raised. I make no judgement on those who feel sufficiently passionate to donate to this fund. 

But currently......I've not changed my mind. I suspect you'll no longer be able to post on this forum, before I do change my mind.

[Vortex]

On 02/04/2018 at 19:14, Paul C said:

I could, but I doubt my opinion will change. 

But currently......I've not changed my mind. I suspect you'll no longer be able to post on this forum, before I do change my mind.

I thought you didn't have an opinion?

Why will I no longer be able to post here?

[Iain_S]

25 minutes ago, Vortex said:

I disagree that he was in the MNC when the S8 took place. I would also disagree with the court that S8 isn't disproportionate when there were options available to them that didn't involve making someone homeless.

Going by the photograph of the boat moored, posted earlier in this thread, it is under a bridge. The bridge is across the river, not across a valley. In these circumstances, I do not think that it is tenable to hold the position that the boat was not moored in the main navigational channel, which in that place would extend between the bridge abutments.

While I agree S8 is possibly disproportionate, 1) we don't know the full story 2) it is applicable

 

[tree monkey]

4 minutes ago, rusty69 said:

Are you Rumpelstiltskin?

No I am Rumpelstiltskin

[Naughty Cal]

1 minute ago, tree monkey said:

No I am Rumpelstiltskin

I thought you were Brian?

[Iain_S]

11 minutes ago, Vortex said:

Then tell me who I am or shut up about it.

You are Chalky White, and I claim my £5.

[rusty69]

3 minutes ago, tree monkey said:

No I am Rumpelstiltskin

Can you spin me some gold then, it will make a change from some of the Cr@p being spun in this thread