Ranworth Update

[FlyingFortress]

43 minutes ago, Chelsea14Ian said:

Do we know if this charge is illegal? Has anyone asked a Lawyer?

The problem with lawyers is that they will say what you want them to say provided that you pay them enough.

I say this from experience of employment law not I must add from civil law 🫣

[rightsaidfred]

5 minutes ago, Chelsea14Ian said:

What about Ranworth is there a legal  right to charge?

Under the definition of a staithe in the Broads Act it should be the same as all public moorings.

Fred

[JawsOrca]

On 10/04/2023 at 09:15, Chelsea14Ian said:

Do we know if this charge is illegal? Has anyone asked a Lawyer?

From my following of this. I think a lot of assumptions are being made that it's a public staithe which is protected by acts to remain free to moor on. However I believe I saw that the BA own the quay now (is that really the best use of public funds if so?) but there was a covenant to state charges can't be applied. But covenants are only challengeable by the local council (and when challenged are typically successfully enforced).  

On 10/04/2023 at 09:33, floydraser said:

Whatever the legal ins and outs it'll be very interesting to see what the BA do next over Griff.

I've always maintained that JP is a very clever bloke, and he is, but there are signs that BRAG has finally got him rattled and I can see chinks in his armour as it were. 

He's been smart but seems he may well have dug a hole here.  He's suggested that he believes that there is no need for a new bylaws (I wonder if that would need a new act of parliament which may raise some difficult questions for the BA) and has hinted that he (or they) believe the criminal act of "Leaving without paying" i.e Thieft act 1978 is applicable so I suspect he will try to use that (at what point who knows) so Griff may well end up with a Mr Packman well and truly wasting police time further and sending them to him, it would be for the police to decide further but as mentioned Griff has already admitted he has done this today. 

Dr Pikeman will need to act if more people refuse to pay, he has two options obviously, pursue or backdown, my bets on him pursuing (Later and necessarily with Griff)  and like I said before lets hope pursues someone who has lots of money as it certainly would answer lots of questions.  Obviously he must had seeked legal advice (Or ignored it and gone his own way). 

There's never any blanket need to volunteer any personal details, BA staff appear to have the right (under the byelaws) to demand your details when you are on the boat when they ask you. You don't have to walk up to them and talk to them unless you want to pay. 

Anyway.. Packman must go. 

[Chelsea14Ian]

I've said All along,that I think this change is wrong and unfair.Not sure a few refusing to pay the fee,will stop BA continuing asking for it.Perhaps if there was a joint effort by other groups  that disagree  with a charge.It may work.

[MauriceMynah]

It occurs to me that we may be missing a point here. As I understand it, of no charge has been made in the past then no charge may be made now. Ok, fine, but for how long does that apply?

Next year, historically, there was a charge, ie now. As historically there has been a charge, even if nobody paid it,then the president has been made and then said charge would be legal even though it isn't now.

There can be many words that might describe the good Doctor, but "idiot" certainly isn't one of them. He may not give two hoots who pays now, he is looking to the future.

What needs to happen, and pretty sharpish, is for the BA to be ordered to remove the sign, and that that order is made public.

[RegalSafari]

15 hours ago, scaniaman said:

As the site has been in effect common land for over 50 years could an application be made to designate ranworth Common Land, I seem to remember did something like this happen at Southwold Public moorings just a vague memory, but I am not sure on this really but it's a planning inspectorate matter.  

 

[rightsaidfred]

1 hour ago, MauriceMynah said:

It occurs to me that we may be missing a point here. As I understand it, of no charge has been made in the past then no charge may be made now. Ok, fine, but for how long does that apply?

Next year, historically, there was a charge, ie now. As historically there has been a charge, even if nobody paid it,then the president has been made and then said charge would be legal even though it isn't now.

There can be many words that might describe the good Doctor, but "idiot" certainly isn't one of them. He may not give two hoots who pays now, he is looking to the future.

What needs to happen, and pretty sharpish, is for the BA to be ordered to remove the sign, and that that order is made public.

Mr.William Mckenzie K.C. opined that the B.& F.R.D.C. could be considered as the owners BUT (and I quote): 

"It appears that charges or tolls can only be made where they have been customarily paid for a period of years, so as to show that the quays are not public quays. 

That would suggest if the charges are removed as unlawful then they revert back to the status quo

Definition of a Staithe N & S Broads Act 1988 section VI

“staithe” means any land which is adjacent to a waterway and which the inhabitants of the locality are entitled to use as a landing place; 

Fred

[rightsaidfred]

3 hours ago, Chelsea14Ian said:

I've said All along,that I think this change is wrong and unfair.Not sure a few refusing to pay the fee,will stop BA continuing asking for it.Perhaps if there was a joint effort by other groups  that disagree  with a charge.It may work.

There are efforts by BRAG the Broads Society and NSBA being made apart from many individuals, as the BA monitor all platforms it is not good practise to advertise the specifics in public.

There is every opportunity for anyone to do their own research and react accordingly.

Fred

[rightsaidfred]

21 minutes ago, rightsaidfred said:

Mr.William Mckenzie K.C. opined that the B.& F.R.D.C. could be considered as the owners BUT (and I quote): 

"It appears that charges or tolls can only be made where they have been customarily paid for a period of years, so as to show that the quays are not public quays. 

That would suggest if the charges are removed as unlawful then they revert back to the status quo

Definition of a Staithe N & S Broads Act 1988 section VI

“staithe” means any land which is adjacent to a waterway and which the inhabitants of the locality are entitled to use as a landing place; 

Fred

Apologise, that should have read Section IV not VI for anyone looking it up

[floydraser]

6 hours ago, Chelsea14Ian said:

I've said All along,that I think this change is wrong and unfair.Not sure a few refusing to pay the fee,will stop BA continuing asking for it.Perhaps if there was a joint effort by other groups  that disagree  with a charge.It may work.

While it's great that we can comment freely on forums, I think it best that anything resembling a suggestion for action should be put to the BRAG fb page. 

[Wussername]

37 minutes ago, floydraser said:

While it's great that we can comment freely on forums, I think it best that anything resembling a suggestion for action should be put to the BRAG fb page. 

I agree completely. This forum allows you that ability to comment freely, some do not.

Action is not our concern or our objective.

[Meantime]

Word is spreading far and wide. Spotted at the car park for Salhouse Broad. 

[Vaughan]

12 hours ago, Wussername said:

12 hours ago, floydraser said:

While it's great that we can comment freely on forums, I think it best that anything resembling a suggestion for action should be put to the BRAG fb page. 

I agree completely. This forum allows you that ability to comment freely, some do not.

Action is not our concern or our objective.

That is a point of view and I am sure the admin already know my opinion on this!  If the membership prefers to consider the TOS above all else, so be it.  Let's just remember this, though:

We are not just talking about the threat of a proposed mooring charge any more.  It has now been put in place and it exists.  It is a "fait accompli".  So if you see it as unjust and illegal - which it seems all of us do - then the only way to stop it now will be for enough strong public protest to force it to be rescinded.

If not, we all know very well that by this time next year there will be a charge to moor all over the Broads.  And that will be the death knell of Broads cruising as we know it today.

I say well done Griff!  If only I could be there I would be making exactly the same protest, standing right beside him.  My father was a director of Blakes when they forced the re-opening of Black Horse Broad and when they took out the lease on Malthouse Broad to stop it being closed off.  He came from a generation who fought for their rights and we owe our present-day navigations to them, not to a Quango.

 

[Bytheriver]

On 30/03/2023 at 17:59, Matt said:

It doesn’t say what Parish…..

https://woodbastwickpc.norfolkparishes.gov.uk/

[AndyTBoater]

18 hours ago, rightsaidfred said:

Mr.William Mckenzie K.C. opined that the B.& F.R.D.C. could be considered as the owners BUT (and I quote): 

"It appears that charges or tolls can only be made where they have been customarily paid for a period of years, so as to show that the quays are not public quays. 

That would suggest if the charges are removed as unlawful then they revert back to the status quo

Definition of a Staithe N & S Broads Act 1988 section VI

“staithe” means any land which is adjacent to a waterway and which the inhabitants of the locality are entitled to use as a landing place; 

Fred

My BOLD and UNDERLINING

But we have been paying for a number of years. Its just that we have paid through tolls. Now we pay as we play. 

There is a long document here which gives history of Staithes, what they are and what they are not. 

OK - its commissioned by the BA and has many many words in it - some of which could be read by people who like to read these sorts of things.

Anyway. I have watched enough episodes of Crown Court to know that I know nothing of legal things. 

And unpopular as this will undoubtedly make me, I suspect neither do some others here that go on about legal rights and criminal acts and suchlike.  

I for one dont believe that even the BA would have been stupid enough to have imposed charges without spending some considerable amount of (our) money on checking the legality of this out first. But I am but a simple boat owner - and what do I know.

Andy T Iconoclast

 

[Chelsea14Ian]

My feelings also.

[SteveO]

23 hours ago, JawsOrca said:

........

Dr Pikeman will need to act if more people refuse to pay, he has two options obviously, pursue or backdown, my bets on him pursuing (Later and necessarily with Griff)  and like I said before lets hope pursues someone who has lots of money as it certainly would answer lots of questions.  Obviously he must had seeked legal advice (Or ignored it and gone his own way). 

Anyway.. Packman must go. 

And I expect that the pursuing will involve him spending plenty of our toll money on legal and court fees.

[rightsaidfred]

1 hour ago, AndyTBoater said:

My BOLD and UNDERLINING

But we have been paying for a number of years. Its just that we have paid through tolls. Now we pay as we play. 

There is a long document here which gives history of Staithes, what they are and what they are not. 

OK - its commissioned by the BA and has many many words in it - some of which could be read by people who like to read these sorts of things.

Anyway. I have watched enough episodes of Crown Court to know that I know nothing of legal things. 

And unpopular as this will undoubtedly make me, I suspect neither do some others here that go on about legal rights and criminal acts and suchlike.  

I for one dont believe that even the BA would have been stupid enough to have imposed charges without spending some considerable amount of (our) money on checking the legality of this out first. But I am but a simple boat owner - and what do I know.

Andy T Iconoclast

 

If you are happy to pay twice through tolls and a fee thats your right.

As for the rest BRAG has 983 members and growing from all walks of life including ex BA staff, NSBA has access to the RYA legal team and the Broads Society their own access, add to that the number of MPs now involved and I think you will have to accept there is more than just hot air being spoken.

Fred

 

[rightsaidfred]

28 minutes ago, SteveO said:

And I expect that the pursuing will involve him spending plenty of our toll money on legal and court fees.

You have obviously missed the fact that no laws are being broken so no prosecutions apply.

Fred

[grendel]

I would suggest a look at the broads act section 17 subsection 8B where it states what navigation money can be spent on (maintaining the navigation and moorings)

Quote

navigation expenditure” means—

(a)

the expenditure which the Authority incurs inrespect of its functions under Part II of this Act and under the 2009 Act ;

(b)

expenditure incurred in respect of the provision of moorings; and

(c)

expenditure incurred in relation to adjacent waters under section 10(2A) of this Act,

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1988/4/section/17

also note what navigation income says below that.

[SteveO]

59 minutes ago, rightsaidfred said:

You have obviously missed the fact that no laws are being broken so no prosecutions apply.

Fred

And exactly why do you think that would that stop him from wasting our money on pursuing defaulters, as he would undoubtedly see them?

 

[rightsaidfred]

1 hour ago, SteveO said:

And exactly why do you think that would that stop him from wasting our money on pursuing defaulters, as he would undoubtedly see them?

 

So what is your suggestion?

Do we sit behind our keyboards, moan about tolls, lack of moorings and dredging, NP branding and waste of money on futile projects add infinitum then stump up £10-£15 for something we have already paid for and say to JP tear up the rule book and do what you like.

Or do we grow a backbone and say enough is enough.

Fred

[SteveO]

30 minutes ago, rightsaidfred said:

So what is your suggestion?

Do we sit behind our keyboards, moan about tolls, lack of moorings and dredging, NP branding and waste of money on futile projects add infinitum then stump up £10-£15 for something we have already paid for and say to JP tear up the rule book and do what you like.

Or do we grow a backbone and say enough is enough.

Fred

I'm not saying don't protest, just don't expect a zealot like Dr P to sit on his hands if you withold payments, or his willingness to use the navigation budget to pursue those who won't pay . I have already written to my MP and Packman to express my disgust at the new charges but as far as the latter is concerned, it is like water off a duck's back. I don't expect much support from the government either because Packman is doing their work for them in promoting the "green" (washing) agenda. For my part, I will be avoiding mooring at Ranworth until and unless this ridiculous charge is rescinded. In any case, this is quite likely to be my last season on the Broads because, frankly,  I don't like the way the place is going.

[Vaughan]

20 minutes ago, SteveO said:

In any case, this is quite likely to be my last season on the Broads because, frankly,  I don't like the way the place is going.

And there is no doubt that you are not alone in that.

[marshman]

Are the Thames and the Gt Ouse just as expensive? Or more so?