Liveaboards being evicted in UK

[NigelMoore]

But that is BW not CRT.


Naïve. Besides, it was CaRT who repeated the exercise on the same stretch of water earlier this year, with the approval of the same area manager who had gone public the previous year, acknowledging that boats there needed to be treated differently. The action was not only taken in knowing contempt of a court ruling, with the approval of the top regional manager, it was criminal.


I thought this was still someone who should have had a residential mooring.


It doesn’t matter what you thought. The court ruled that there was nothing wrong with his movement pattern per se, only with his reasons for it. The absurdity of that was that no extent of cruising as you and CaRT would like, could have helped him out in using the waterway as he was entitled to, and CaRT’s style was cramped far more than you are happy with.


Phantom Moorings are people still trying to break the spirit of the rules, in my opinion.


If you were in power then, you would approve of courts sentencing people for breaching the spirit of the law rather than the letter. You are in the wrong country for that style of government. Besides, CaRT have since acknowledged that the TD home mooring never was a ‘phantom mooring’.

 

[NigelMoore]

It is inevitable that disputes will arise between users and CRT (or any other authority) where there are different interests and the law is open to interpretation. That is why there are courts to rule in disputes based on a consistent interpretation of the law. It is clear that CRT "wins" most cases - that is the courts uphold their interpretation. When this does not happen it sets a precedent and interpretation changes in future cases when the facts are the same. However, by their nature few disputes are identical in fact - they arise because they do not seem to "fit".

In most of the cases cited here there is not a dispute that is "new" - that is, it is very clear that the person is in the wrong, but chooses to ignore that fact (for whatever reason) or believes that the law is wrong and should not apply to them. The authority therefore has no option but to use the powers available to them, and as the record shows the court supports them in most cases. Where the court does not support the action one hopes that the authority behaves differently in future events where the facts are the same.

That is perfectly true. What we do not know however, is how many of the court actions were over differences of interpretation, as compared to straightforward licence evasion, or even over revoked licences for undisclosed reasons. Doubtless many were legitimate pursuits, but as CaRT have published only the relevant Order in the main, we don’t know.


What we do know, is that most of the cases were undefended – not necessarily because they were indefensible, but because CaRT as BW before them, instigate s.8 proceedings under the CPR Part 8 procedure, where the court is told that no defence is possible, and the boater does not necessarily realise that this can be challenged – I am not saying whether the cases were or were not defensible [impossible where we don’t know the facts], only that the opportunity to argue the toss was effectively prevented.


Regardless of the reason for the boat being unlicensed, the case presented to the court IS almost universally indefensible, simply because CaRT seek affirmation of the s.8 only on the irrefutable grounds that the boat is on their waterways without the relevant consent. Unless the boater understands that the Part 8 process can be challenged [if they do have an arguable case over the rationale for being refused a licence], then the court has no remit to look at the reason for the boat being unlicensed.


So the record of ‘wins’ does NOT establish that the courts have upheld CaRT’s interpretations at all, merely that the courts have agreed [correctly] that they may remove the boat because they are on the waterway without lawful authority.


This was made very clear by the judge in the latest concluded case of Geoff Mayers. Because he did not issue a pre-emptive challenge to the refusal to issue a licence, and filed no counter-claim, the very purpose of his appearance at court [he had incited it hoping to argue for the invalidity of BW/CaRT’s refusal to license him] was voided.


So the vast majority of those cases are rubber-stamp exercises. To date, only the Paul Davies case challenged the guidance on continuous cruising. CaRT got a surprise when Tony Dunkley challenged the Part 8 procedure – they only learnt of it at the initial court hearing, when the judge criticised them severely and countermanded the Part 8 process, granting time for Tony Dunkley to prepare and file a Defence.


Worst of all in that case – and enquiries as to how universal the practice is have met with a blank wall – only the Court Notice of proceedings was served, the information pack that is a compulsory accompaniment to the Notice was omitted. It is that information pack that explains what the Notice is about and what the options are for the Defendant. It was apparently only after having sought legal advice, that Tony realised what was going on and acted fast enough to circumvent the rubber-stamping exercise.


Seeking to establish a legal ‘win’ history when the defendant is allowed no defence does not make the authority’s approach credible. Moreover, however persuasive at its own level, County Court judgments do NOT create binding precedents anyway – for all that they are trumpeted by the authority as such.


"Where the court does not support the action one hopes that the authority behaves differently in future events where the facts are the same"?


As I have noted in my previous post, one hopes in vain. They s.8’d the boat I referred to there, only a few days after it had arrived on their waterway – and they did so without warning - despite the extensive publicity over the fact that this had been declared illegal by the High Court 2 years previously. It didn’t really matter to the owner, because he was only planning to be there long enough to complete his fit-out before moving on up the Thames, but it is an example of extreme and open disregard for the law on the part of the authority. They rely heavily on boater ignorance.


What should dismay supporters of the authority’s determination to pursue legitimate ‘targets’, is that when the authority shows the same contempt for law as those they pursue, those actions do considerable damage to their credibility and to their image. Especially now that they rely so heavily on general public support for the two thirds of maintenance budget NOT covered by income from boaters, they really need to get to grips with the fact that, unlike the BW status [where there was nil practical accountability], they at least need to account to the general public if funds are to be volunteered.

For those interested, such details as have been published can be read in the linked documents to CRT's list of cases here -

https://canalrivertrust.org.uk/publ...urt-action-to-remove-boats-from-our-waterways

 

[Croak]

But that is BW not CRT.


Naïve. Besides, it was CaRT who repeated the exercise on the same stretch of water earlier this year, with the approval of the same area manager who had gone public the previous year, acknowledging that boats there needed to be treated differently. The action was not only taken in knowing contempt of a court ruling, with the approval of the top regional manager, it was criminal.


I thought this was still someone who should have had a residential mooring.


It doesn’t matter what you thought. The court ruled that there was nothing wrong with his movement pattern per se, only with his reasons for it. The absurdity of that was that no extent of cruising as you and CaRT would like, could have helped him out in using the waterway as he was entitled to, and CaRT’s style was cramped far more than you are happy with.


Phantom Moorings are people still trying to break the spirit of the rules, in my opinion.


If you were in power then, you would approve of courts sentencing people for breaching the spirit of the law rather than the letter. You are in the wrong country for that style of government. Besides, CaRT have since acknowledged that the TD home mooring never was a ‘phantom mooring’.

Naive perhaps but maybe not as naive as those who signed the petition. I wonder how many would sign now after reading the whole thread.

As far as in power is concerned. I had some close dealings with a complicated court case and my logical mind and sense of justice has a job dealing in that sort of environment.

Is there a legal definition of a phantom mooring that CRT has acknowledged?

 

[Croak]

It doesn’t matter what you thought. The court ruled that there was nothing wrong with his movement pattern per se, only with his reasons for it. The absurdity of that was that no extent of cruising as you and CaRT would like, could have helped him out in using the waterway as he was entitled to, and CaRT’s style was cramped far more than you are happy with.

.

So I am correct, he should have had a residential mooring then, or change his intentions.

 

[NigelMoore]

Is there a legal definition of a phantom mooring that CRT has acknowledged?

No, because it is an invented term not a legal or statutory one. There cannot, therefore, be a legal definition.


However – the clear explanation of what they mean by the term is given by their Head of Legal [renamed as something else now], Jackie Lewis, in the July edition of the NABO newsletter. She says: “A ‘ghost mooring’ is a term used to describe a mooring that cannot legitimately be a ‘home mooring’ as required by section 17(3)(c)(i) but attempts are made to use it as such. In other words, it is a type of sham arrangement to avoid the need to obtain a genuine home mooring. Examples include a single mooring that is let to a number of boaters who couldn’t all possibly use the same mooring, or a fabricated mooring address that doesn’t exist in reality. A mooring that is nowhere near the area in which the boater is cruising so that it is never used would also constitute a ‘ghost’ mooring.”

 

[rotrax]

No, because it is an invented term not a legal or statutory one. There cannot, therefore, be a legal definition.


However – the clear explanation of what they mean by the term is given by their Head of Legal [renamed as something else now], Jackie Lewis, in the July edition of the NABO newsletter. She says: “A ‘ghost mooring’ is a term used to describe a mooring that cannot legitimately be a ‘home mooring’ as required by section 17(3)(c)(i) but attempts are made to use it as such. In other words, it is a type of sham arrangement to avoid the need to obtain a genuine home mooring. Examples include a single mooring that is let to a number of boaters who couldn’t all possibly use the same mooring, or a fabricated mooring address that doesn’t exist in reality. A mooring that is nowhere near the area in which the boater is cruising so that it is never used would also constitute a ‘ghost’ mooring.”

So-it appears that some nefarious activities ARE taking place to circumvent the intent of the law.

If so, do you think boaters who do this are in the right?

 

[NigelMoore]

So-it appears that some nefarious activities ARE taking place to circumvent the intent of the law.

If so, do you think boaters who do this are in the right?

Why such silly loaded questions?


The “intent of the law” speaking generally, is simply stated, as in the preamble to the latest Act – “it is expedient that further provisions should be made for the regulation and management by the Board of the inland waterways owned or managed by them . . .”

Speaking more particularly, in respect of the home mooring requirement, the “intent of the law” was very straightforward, as explicated by BW’s Mr Drabble QC to the 1993 Select Committee: -


“The Board’s case in respect of the requirement that there be a base is simple and essentially one of equity. The Board estimates that there are something like 1,300 boats presently on the waterways which do not have a mooring to which they can return at the end of a period of navigation. The result is in the perception of the Board . . . a genuine problem of such boats using facilities such as visitor moorings, sanitary stations, and water points and matters of that sort, effectively permanently because they have not made arrangements for somewhere they have a right to tie up when not being used for navigation purposes. That is creating operational difficulties for the Board, hence there is what we regard as an essentially equitable requirement that people do make provision for somewhere to stay when the boat is not being used, unless they genuinely fall within the provisions [s.17(3)( c )(ii)] which the Bill provides for.” [my emphasis]


So the intent was to avoid obstruction of the essential public facilities that BW provided for ALL boaters to use in their turn.


Do I believe that to be a laudable objective? Yes. Do I believe that s.17 achieves that objective? Impossible – whether home moorer or continuous cruiser, inconsiderate people of either ‘class’ of boater will abuse the system and create such “operational difficulties” for both CaRT and all other considerate boaters. It was only the following s.18 that took care of powers to remedy the stated mischief.


For such as those, the answer is not in finagling the law respecting either HM’ers or CC’ers, it is to address the situation directly and immediately by hauling the offending boats off from where they interfere with the use of the facilities by others. If deemed appropriate, they could then take action in court to have them fined for the relevant breach of byelaw &/or statute. But first and foremost, the problem for other boaters can only be rectified if the offending boat is taken away ASAP.


In short – boaters offending the intent of the law as expressed above are in the wrong, and should be dealt with appropriately & swiftly.


As to the definitions of Jackie Lewis, some of it makes sense and some does not, but it is not germane to what I perceive as the thrust of your question.

 

[rotrax]

Why such silly loaded questions?


The “intent of the law” speaking generally, is simply stated, as in the preamble to the latest Act – “it is expedient that further provisions should be made for the regulation and management by the Board of the inland waterways owned or managed by them . . .”

Speaking more particularly, in respect of the home mooring requirement, the “intent of the law” was very straightforward, as explicated by BW’s Mr Drabble QC to the 1993 Select Committee: -


“The Board’s case in respect of the requirement that there be a base is simple and essentially one of equity. The Board estimates that there are something like 1,300 boats presently on the waterways which do not have a mooring to which they can return at the end of a period of navigation. The result is in the perception of the Board . . . a genuine problem of such boats using facilities such as visitor moorings, sanitary stations, and water points and matters of that sort, effectively permanently because they have not made arrangements for somewhere they have a right to tie up when not being used for navigation purposes. That is creating operational difficulties for the Board, hence there is what we regard as an essentially equitable requirement that people do make provision for somewhere to stay when the boat is not being used, unless they genuinely fall within the provisions [s.17(3)( c )(ii)] which the Bill provides for.” [my emphasis]


So the intent was to avoid obstruction of the essential public facilities that BW provided for ALL boaters to use in their turn.


Do I believe that to be a laudable objective? Yes. Do I believe that s.17 achieves that objective? Impossible – whether home moorer or continuous cruiser, inconsiderate people of either ‘class’ of boater will abuse the system and create such “operational difficulties” for both CaRT and all other considerate boaters. It was only the following s.18 that took care of powers to remedy the stated mischief.


For such as those, the answer is not in finagling the law respecting either HM’ers or CC’ers, it is to address the situation directly and immediately by hauling the offending boats off from where they interfere with the use of the facilities by others. If deemed appropriate, they could then take action in court to have them fined for the relevant breach of byelaw &/or statute. But first and foremost, the problem for other boaters can only be rectified if the offending boat is taken away ASAP.


In short – boaters offending the intent of the law as expressed above are in the wrong, and should be dealt with appropriately & swiftly.


As to the definitions of Jackie Lewis, some of it makes sense and some does not, but it is not germane to what I perceive as the thrust of your question.

Thank you.

 

[dgadee]

Of course, another solution would be to provide more mooring facilities and icrease the general income for the canal system.

 

[rotrax]

Of course, another solution would be to provide more mooring facilities and icrease the general income for the canal system.

This has been covered already.

It is not in the gift of CRT-or BW before them-to allow residential moorings.

This comes in the remit of local authorities.

With all the nimbyism that goes with our planning system.

The Canal and Inland Waterway system in our country is not suitable for residential use by increasing numbers of boaters.

My view-simplistic as it may be-has been formed after 44 years of continuous use of the inland waterways.

There were always a few liveaboards back in the early seventies, usually on old working boats or on a Butty-the narrowboat that was the main cargo carrier of a working pair as it had no engine. On the Thames old wooden cruisers were often used. They were so few-as were boats and people using the system for leisure compared to today-that they were not a problem.

Slowly things changed. First Mate and I attended a rally in 1982-the day Charles and Diana were married-to get the BW to pull their finger out and repair the Blisworth Tunnel. It had been closed for some considerable time and effectively cut the system into North and South bits.

That was the first time we came across lots of liveaboards. Some were enthusiastic to the point of obsession and were walking talking encyclopedia's of the canal history. Most of these lived on old working boats or a pair of old working boats. Most were charming, moved around, kept tidy craft and were as far as I know, paying their way.

At this time the first new age traveller types appeared, crappy boats, out of control dogs and a bad attitude. Often moored permanently at prime locations where, to be frank, they did no good whatsoever to the genuine leisure user. Very often no "Plates "displayed which meant they were not registered.

This is where-in my view-it started going wrong.

BW needed to sort the situation then and there, but the organisation was not geared up for it and they could not/did not. It was easy to abuse the system and many did.

The Inland Waterways were seen as a cheap lifestyle choice for some young people. The police were not in your face as they would be on the street, so those who fancied a little recreational use of illegal substances were not troubled too much by an official presence on the towpath.

I know full well that not all who chose this lifestyle were drug users, but from personal observation many were.

In the last 15 years many have purchased boats as a cheaper option than renting or purchasing property. For many reasons some hog the prime spots near towns, villages, shops and pubs. Sensible thing to do. In the seventies you would often find an old working boat or pair in the same situation. There were so few other users-that is what we liked about it-that it was a pleasure to see them and mooring a litte distance down the cut was no problem.

Different today. Canal Boating has had a huge upsurge in popularity. The BW and now CRT have had to designate mooring places as short stay-usually 48 hours, 7 days or 14 days maximum. They have had-to try to combat liveaboards or owners who want to cheat the system-put a regulation in place where a permanent place for long term mooring must be stated on the licence application form.

It seems that those who tell porkies and cheat are being targeted for the evasion. It may be possible to use legal argument to support the position of these boaters.

That cuts no water with me. We are ALL aware of the intent of the licence condition, however badly it comes out in legalese.

Nigel Moore has experience of challenging the authorities-in a totally different situation-and won his case in spades. Well done Nigel. You obviously know how to use the British Legal System.

You do, however, appear to champion the cause of non compliers. This is your right, of course. As it is mine to take the alternative view.

 

[yesod]

Nigel Moore has experience of challenging the authorities-in a totally different situation-and won his case in spades. Well done Nigel. You obviously know how to use the British Legal System.

You do, however, appear to champion the cause of non compliers. This is your right, of course. As it is mine to take the alternative view.

he reminds me of noah and mv picton...

 

[dgadee]

This has been covered already.

It is not in the gift of CRT-or BW before them-to allow residential moorings.

This comes in the remit of local authorities.

With all the nimbyism that goes with our planning system.

The Canal and Inland Waterway system in our country is not suitable for residential use by increasing numbers of boaters.

My view-simplistic as it may be-has been formed after 44 years of continuous use of the inland waterways.

There were always a few liveaboards back in the early seventies, usually on old working boats or on a Butty-the narrowboat that was the main cargo carrier of a working pair as it had no engine. On the Thames old wooden cruisers were often used. They were so few-as were boats and people using the system for leisure compared to today-that they were not a problem.

Slowly things changed. First Mate and I attended a rally in 1982-the day Charles and Diana were married-to get the BW to pull their finger out and repair the Blisworth Tunnel. It had been closed for some considerable time and effectively cut the system into North and South bits.

That was the first time we came across lots of liveaboards. Some were enthusiastic to the point of obsession and were walking talking encyclopedia's of the canal history. Most of these lived on old working boats or a pair of old working boats. Most were charming, moved around, kept tidy craft and were as far as I know, paying their way.

At this time the first new age traveller types appeared, crappy boats, out of control dogs and a bad attitude. Often moored permanently at prime locations where, to be frank, they did no good whatsoever to the genuine leisure user. Very often no "Plates "displayed which meant they were not registered.

This is where-in my view-it started going wrong.

BW needed to sort the situation then and there, but the organisation was not geared up for it and they could not/did not. It was easy to abuse the system and many did.

The Inland Waterways were seen as a cheap lifestyle choice for some young people. The police were not in your face as they would be on the street, so those who fancied a little recreational use of illegal substances were not troubled too much by an official presence on the towpath.

I know full well that not all who chose this lifestyle were not drug users, but from personal observation many were.

In the last 15 years many have purchased boats as a cheaper option than renting or purchasing property. For many reasons some hog the prime spots near towns, villages, shops and pubs. Sensible thing to do. In the seventies you would often find an old working boat or pair in the same situation. There were so few other users-that is what we liked about it-that it was a pleasure to see them and mooring a litte distance down the cut was no problem.

Different today. Canal Boating has had a huge upsurge in popularity. The BW and now CRT have had to designate mooring places as short stay-usually 48 hours, 7 days or 14 days maximum. They have had-to try to combat liveaboards or owners who want to cheat the system-put a regulation in place where a permanent place for long term mooring must be stated on the licence application form.

It seems that those who tell porkies and cheat are being targeted for the evasion. It may be possible to use legal argument to support the position of these boaters.

That cuts no water with me. We are ALL aware of the intent of the licence condition, however badly it comes out in legalese.

Nigel Moore has experience of challenging the authorities-in a totally different situation-and won his case in spades. Well done Nigel. You obviously know how to use the British Legal System.

You do, however, appear to champion the cause of non compliers. This is your right, of course. As it is mine to take the alternative view.

You really want to keep the system to the holiday makers. I don't think I have indicated that I, "champion the cause of non compliers" but then you reduce every argument into something which suits your simplistic perspective (I don't think I am being abusive here, since you consistently refer to the need to keep things "simple").

The report I pointed to earlier is, broadly, the position I would hold to. I also suggested that law based upon the European Convention of Human Rights is slightly more important than canal bye laws.

 

[rotrax]

You really want to keep the system to the holiday makers. I don't think I have indicated that I, "champion the cause of non compliers" but then you reduce every argument into something which suits your simplistic perspective (I don't think I am being abusive here, since you consistently refer to the need to keep things "simple").

The report I pointed to earlier is, broadly, the position I would hold to. I also suggested that law based upon the European Convention of Human Rights is slightly more important than canal bye laws.

You are correct-I am a simple chap who likes the KISS principle-Keep It Simple Stupid- which has served me well in my lifetime.

I have never said, nor do I believe that the Inland Waterways system should be purely for holidaymakers. I am struggling how you came to this conclusion.

It is not difficult to be a continuous cruiser within the meaning of the regulation.

It is not difficult to be a liveaboard in a Marina that allows-or turns a blind eye to-permanent residence.

If there are issues with health, the requirement to be near a benifits office, school for the kids or a permanent place of work the liveaboard lifestyle will not work as a continuous cruiser.

Of course, making alternative arrangements to fit in with this CHOSEN lifestyle will cost more-much more.

Perhaps this is the crux of the matter-it is not so easy to get away with it now the matter is being addressed................................

As to the European Human Rights legislation, of course it is important to stop abuses of human rights.

I am not convinced that there are abuses. There may be legal argument about which law should apply, but the bottom line is that the affected people signed up to abide by regulation when granted the licence. Failure to comply has the possibility, if the non complience is ongoing, of sanction.

Where is the abuse?

I could fall foul of my local council regulations, start an expensive, costly and time consuming legal battle that I eventually lose.

I have to sell my house to pay the legal bill. If I dont pay, the law will be invoked and I would lose the house at further expense.

Is that an abuse of my human rights?

Sounds the same as what is happening between CRT and non compliers.

Put simply, of course.........................

 

[NigelMoore]

You do, however, appear to champion the cause of non compliers.

You have misapprehended my stance. [edit to say, perhaps I also have mistaken your target here!?] It is the inevitable result of simplistic characterisations and pigeon-holing. Attitudes are not so readily to be sorted into polarised positions.


I have no time for those who do not comply with either the law or with a [should-be] common code of courtesy and respect for others. Neither do I have any time for those in authority who take the lazy way out in inappropriate abuse of the legal system, on the justification that they are complying with the wishes of a selective group of boaters who bay for the blood of others.


Both rulers and ruled are to be held to the rules in this country, since Alfred first compiled the foundations of our constitution. I have come to realise that the Human Rights Act was more in accord with that early compilation [combining strict Mosaic code with NT principles of mercy as amalgamated with the existing laws of Wessex, Mercia and Kent], than may have been expected of a modern government.


For all the appalling and ludicrous abuse of that 1998 legislation, it remains true to our earliest traditions of governance, and failure to recognise the true import and application of it, is what has led to such small protests as this topic has drawn attention to

 

[NigelMoore]

As to the European Human Rights legislation, of course it is important to stop abuses of human rights.

I am not convinced that there are abuses.
QUOTE]


The judgment of Mr Justice Hildyard on the Human Rights aspect was: “Accordingly I have concluded that there has been an infringement of Mr Moore’s human rights . . .” [my emphasis]


What made that finding if nil value to me, other than a public rap on BW’s knuckles, was that it was a finding in respect of the procedural aspect only, and that since I had taken the opportunity myself, to achieve the judicial scrutiny of BW’s actions that their procedures had sought to preclude, “the result has not been disproportionate”.


Nonetheless, for all that this bypassed such considerations as I have since learned and posted, this and his previous finding on the breach of Legitimate Expectations stands as court recognition that there are occasions when the authority has abused their ‘clients’ in the way they go about things [and that they have taken the action for no identifiable reason other than affirmation of authority] – and it is criticism of their lack of respect for those procedures that lies at the heart of this topic.


If there had at any time been any public expression of regret for such failures, accompanied by assurances that more care would be taken in future, then this could have been taken as an uncharacteristic aberration, and we might have less reason to continue criticising – but none have ever been forthcoming. As a consequence, it can only be presumed that they were and are unrepentant, and history relates that abuse of court processes does indeed continue – with the supportive plaudits of that sector of the boating public that prefers to see that ‘justice’ is ‘seen to be done’, regardless of whether it is in fact done.


To repeat myself : this is not to say they can never/should never pursue genuine offenders, but that the targets chosen should be judiciously and strategically determined; the choice of avenue to remedy the wrong must be made carefully and appropriately, and the legal process adhered to scrupulously.

 

[NigelMoore]

I also suggested that law based upon the European Convention of Human Rights is slightly more important than canal bye laws.

At the risk of being pedantic, the EU Protocols on Human Rights – and the British Human Rights Act of 1998 ratifying those principles – do not supercede any domestic law, it is only that in construing domestic law in circumstances where that authorises interference with Convention rights, that construction must be placed upon the domestic law that best accords with the protections, and that if it cannot be rationalised appropriately, then a Declaration of Incompatibility should be made.


Beyond that, is the effect that it is supposed to have [as I posted before], in the choice of law to apply, so that if less onerous laws and sanctions are applicable to the circumstances, those should be applied in preference to the more draconian ones.


There is nothing in the sanctions laid down for the Byelaws that could possibly interfere with the Convention rights of anyone anyway – it is the deliberate choice to bypass the applicable byelaws and go straight to the law that does interfere with Convention rights, that falls foul of the HRA.


By the way – what is it that I am doing wrong that makes some of ‘quotes’ appear properly, but at other times not?

 

[JumbleDuck]

By the way – what is it that I am doing wrong that makes some of ‘quotes’ appear properly, but at other times not?

Probably cutting off the first square bracket in the final [/quote] when editing out text. It's easily done, like this

By the way – what is it that I am doing wrong that makes some of ‘quotes’ appear properly, but at other times not?/QUOTE]

 

[NigelMoore]

Many thanks! Will watch out for that.