Enforcement in marinas.

djm said:
Thank goodness that TT_WO, whoever he is, and despite his being put down at every opportunity by some who appear to think they must dictate what is said on this forum, is prepared to stand up against the arrogant tyranny of the Environment Agency that continues to ignore the wishes of Parliament and make up the law as it goes along. It took the EA over five years and not a small fortune to try to get approval for the legislation they sought. They failed; the minister rejected it. The legislative vehicle they used, a Transport and Works Act Order was inappropriate and didn't provide the power to change the Thames Conservancy Act definition of the River Thames. So they settled for deceit and then spent many more thousands of pounds and the next two years searching desperately for one friendly QC who would provide an opinion that suited them. Not a judge - in open court. They have fought shy of that and will probably continue to do so for as long as they can bully people into submission. And so the EA deceit goes on. Can you really trust them with anything?
Click to expand...

Spect Canute felt much the same way.
Probably convinced himself that he was right. ....Everyone else just started walking back up the beach. :)
 
oldgit said:
Spect Canute felt much the same way.
Probably convinced himself that he was right. ....Everyone else just started walking back up the beach. :)
Click to expand...

Stuart Taylor, on behalf of the chief executive of the EA, wrote by way of justification/explanation;

“Section 4 of the 1932 Act defines the river Thames and includes “locks cuts and works”
covering the majority of Thames marinas.

So how would you explain the phrase “majority of Thames marinas” in this context, which ones do you think are not included and why?
Surely it is wrong to state all marinas when you have previously stated that there is a minority that are not included.

Are you sure you have not buried your head in the sand whilst walking up the beach?
 
TT_WO said:
Stuart Taylor, on behalf of the chief executive of the EA, wrote by way of justification/explanation;
“Section 4 of the 1932 Act defines the river Thames and includes “locks cuts and works”
covering the majority of Thames marinas.
So how would you explain the phrase “majority of Thames marinas” in this context, which ones do you think are not included and why?
Surely it is wrong to state all marinas when you have previously stated that there is a minority that are not included.
Click to expand...

Those marinas on the main river - e.g. Bourne End - would not be included in a "locks. cuts and works" identification so I see no problem with Taylor's statement. You seem to be promoting some sort of conspiracy theory whereas I am quite prepared to consider "cock ups".
 
Flynnbarr said:
No one can ever have a day in court if the EA fight shy of it/don't want a test case.
How do you suggest someone achieves this?
As stated on here by some the reason is the EA have no money,IMHO I have never heard of anyone or anyone organisation that would shy away from said actions if they are confident of their position.
Surely a forum is exactly the place to discuss such matters or is it as when the the CRT or EA question came up nobody wanted to rock the boat so to speak?!
If it gets people posting surely that's a good thing?over on the east coast forum some wish to know why The Thames forum is so high on the forum list as they are far more active over there.
Click to expand...

1 - There are no details to back up this statement so really we can't give it anymore credit that it being just no more than a rumor.
2 - Don't pay and then write to the EA saying you are not going to pay and tell them where his boat it.
3 - Boatone has said nobody has all the case are undefended as far as he knows. Perhaps an FOI request would serve his purposes and move the debate forward?
4 - I agree but he keeps bringing it up over and over again and the debate does not move on. At least stick he could stick his comments on the same thread so it can be read from start to finish rather than lots of threads everywhere.
 
boatone said:
Those marinas on the main river - e.g. Bourne End - would not be included in a "locks. cuts and works" identification so I see no problem with Taylor's statement. You seem to be promoting some sort of conspiracy theory whereas I am quite prepared to consider "cock ups".
Click to expand...

ST's explanation sentence.

“Section 4 of the 1932 Act defines the river Thames and includes “locks cuts and works”
covering the majority of Thames marinas.

“Section 4 of the 1932 Act defines the river Thames” this part of the sentence encompasses a marina like Bourne End which is within the geographical description of the Thames provided by section 4 of the 1932 act.

“and includes locks cuts and works” this part of the sentence is supposed to encompass a marina like Penton Hook because they have decided that works can mean a marina which is not within the geographical location of the Thames (adjacent water).

Mind you the completion of the sentence “within the said portions of rivers” would give a lie to that because PH did not exist until 30 years later, so probably best to leave that out as, Stuart did!

That just leaves the question why use the word majority when you are trying to claim all marinas are encompassed by that sentence.
 
TT_WO said:
That just leaves the question why use the word majority when you are trying to claim all marinas are encompassed by that sentence.
Click to expand...

Where did this quote come from it sounds like a simple slip of the tongue or was it part of a legal definition? You can have a 100% majority surely :)
 
CJL said:
4 - I agree but he keeps bringing it up over and over again and the debate does not move on. At least stick he could stick his comments on the same thread so it can be read from start to finish rather than lots of threads everywhere.
Click to expand...

It seems the debate has moved on. I am surprised that the following letter has not already been posted here, it has been in the public domain for 6 or more days and there has been many posts on the canal forum.



Dear TNUF member

As you are aware, when the Environment Agency (Inland Waterways) Order 2010 came into effect in April 2011, any boats kept on the non-tidal River Thames needed to be registered, not just those that were ‘used’ as required by previous legislation.

The new legislation (the ‘IWO’) uses the definition of the non-tidal River Thames in the Thames Conservancy Act 1932 to set the limits of where its requirements can be applied. Our interpretation of this definition is that it includes marinas that are not within the main river channel but are connected to it – for example, former gravel pits connected by a navigable channel through which boats can enter and leave. In our opinion therefore, any boats kept on the water in these marinas should, under the new legislation, be registered. We have also had Queen’s Counsel opinion that supports our interpretation.

In September last year we carried out boat registration checks in two marinas and initiated enforcement proceedings against the owners of unregistered boats being kept on the water within them. The owners of 23 of these boats do not agree that marinas connected to the Thames should be considered part of it, and chose to collectively challenge our interpretation by pleading not guilty to the prosecution cases we eventually brought against them, and engaging a barrister to represent them in court.

A District Judge heard the arguments from both sides on this point of law at Reading Magistrates Court earlier, Monday 2 November. Disappointingly, the judge found in favour of the boat owners, not us.

Clearly, the judge’s decision was not the one we were hoping for. We have not yet received the judge’s full reasoned ruling. When we do we will then have 21 days to seek an appeal to the High Court for a binding decision. We are considering this. Until we have decided whether or not to seek an appeal, we do not intend to make any further comment on this issue.

Regards,

Andrew

Andrew Graham
Waterway Manager
West Thames
Red Kite House, Wallingford
 
TT_WO said:
It seems the debate has moved on. I am surprised that the following letter has not already been posted here, it has been in the public domain for 6 or more days and there has been many posts on the canal forum]

Egg on face of those who did not see that TT_WO had a point ?
Click to expand...
 
534l4rk said:
TT_WO said:
It seems the debate has moved on. I am surprised that the following letter has not already been posted here, it has been in the public domain for 6 or more days and there has been many posts on the canal forum]

Egg on face of those who did not see that TT_WO had a point ?
Click to expand...

I don't know about egg on face more like outrage that some local judge has done this, how much knowledge of the Thames and the wider implications do they have. Doesn't matter what the exact legal wording or case is, the message sent out is that if your boat is not in use you don't need to pay! Shame on those that brought this case, I pay my council tax and don't use maybe 90% of their services but I still pay my share.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Chris_d said:
534l4rk said:
I don't know about egg on face more like outrage that some local judge has done this, how much knowledge of the Thames and the wider implications does he have. Doesn't matter what the exact legal wording or case is, the message sent out is that if your boat is not in use you don't need to pay! Shame on those that brought this case, I pay my council tax and don't use maybe 90% of their services but I still pay my share.
Click to expand...

SHE, a very experienced judge, was entirely properly only concerned with the LAW, something the EA has chosen to disregard. The rest is politics.
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Other threads that may be of interest

T
Notices to Mariners - Week 51
Replies
4
Views
701
Shaz77
S

Share this page

Top