|
Post by naughtyfox on Sept 4, 2020 17:44:23 GMT
I'd describe the blue I have as 'middling' - neither light nor dark. The only dismal thing about Thunderboat is when I see 'certain persons' have quoted me and I know there's some sarky comment awaiting me.
|
|
|
Post by Telemachus on Sept 4, 2020 17:47:32 GMT
I'd describe the blue I have as 'middling' - neither light nor dark. The only dismal thing about Thunderboat is when I see 'certain persons' have quoted me and I know there's some sarky comment awaiting me. If you change to the light theme, most of it becomes invisible!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 4, 2020 17:50:20 GMT
In foxy's case I guess there may be rather a lot .
Rog
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 4, 2020 17:59:56 GMT
Telemachus , it was here on the 2nd September. Must say I did read it but had forgotten it when I agreed with you earlier. Having no means of taking the internal photographs of my boat, I invited Mr Garner to come and take as many of these urgently required photo's as he wanted of my partially removed knackered engine and it's disconnected fuel system, my non-existent LPG system and appliances, and my non-existent batteries and electrical system. In the event he chose not to visit me and my boat in person, and instead sent along an extremely pleasant young lady to obtain the photo's in his place. That was a week ago, on Wednesday 26 August, and despite the apparent urgency in the need for the photo's as proof that my boat meets the Trust's own published BSS Exemption criteria, the final decision on this purely technical matter awaits the return from holiday of the delightful Ms Barry, . . So actually it looks like TD is not that stubborn after all and has recognised that it is necessary to either prove exemption or just get a BS ticket. Which is what I predicted ages ago!! Another prediction: this will not be accepted as proof... Magnetman is revealed as Nostradamus! Wasn't there some beef about how the exemption didn't apply because there was a stove installed or something? None of this will make any difference to the final outcome.
|
|
|
Post by Jim on Sept 4, 2020 18:01:47 GMT
I don't understand this colour theme.... I have a blue background and white letters/text... looks fine to me. I'm guessing this is the Thunderboat/Probaords default? Why people would want to change it is beyond me. I prefer black text on a white background. Sometimes highlit text shows up yellow, hard to read, so I just select it and it's easier to read.
|
|
|
Post by Jim on Sept 4, 2020 18:07:11 GMT
I'd describe the blue I have as 'middling' - neither light nor dark. The only dismal thing about Thunderboat is when I see 'certain persons' have quoted me and I know there's some sarky comment awaiting me. π Cooee...π¦ naughtyfoxπ€‘πππ
|
|
|
Post by Mr Stabby on Sept 5, 2020 20:01:12 GMT
I come back to the point about the BSS. It seems to me that Tony is on dodgy grounds by not having a BSS and refusing to engage on the matter. It seems to me that Tony Dunkley doesn't have very much going on in his life and has few if any interpersonal relationships. In the absence of a partner with whom he can take out his anger, and being of an awkward and argumentative nature, he chooses to engage with CRT, totally failing to realise that CRT is an organisation which does not have a "personality" but simply follows standard procedures, as all organisations do. Any confrontation with CRT in which Tony Dunkley declares his unwillingness to comply with these procedures is destined to end in "tears before bedtime". And not for CRT.
|
|
|
Post by TonyDunkley on Sept 5, 2020 21:42:19 GMT
I come back to the point about the BSS. It seems to me that Tony is on dodgy grounds by not having a BSS and refusing to engage on the matter. CRT's obligation to issue a PBC is conditional upon this para of the act: "Notwithstanding anything in any enactment but subject to subsection (7) below, the Board may refuse a relevant consent in respect of any vessel unlessβ (a)the applicant for the relevant consent satisfies the Board that the vessel complies with the standards applicable to that vessel;"... Tony has not satisfied the board that the vessel complies with the standards applicable to that vessel. He says that he doesn't need a BSS because of equipment {not) installed in the vessel, but CRT only has his word for that and he refuses to offer evidence. The exemption from holding a BSS is not enshrined in law, it is just something BW/CRT agreed to under their terms. And they have set out their terms, but Tony has declined to accept them and thus one has to revert to the law. Tony has not complied with the law and thus CRT are entitled to refuse the relevant consent. All of which is a shame because it totally smokescreens the issue about a "rivers only licence". Tony will lose his boat and along with it, but unnoticed by the powers that be, any battle about rivers only licence vs PBC. The 1995 BW Act's S.17 requirement to 'satisfy' the Board (now C&RT) is confined to applicants for PBL's or PBC's demonstrating compliance with prescribed standards for the construction and equipment of vessels. The requirement to 'satisfy' is not, and was never intended to be, an open ended commission for rogue administrators employed by 'the Board' to ignore statutory obligations which happen to be unhelpful to their own personal agendas, . . or to indulge in endless rounds of goalpost moving. As to the question of who is and who isn't complying with the law, the statutory - ie. mandatory - procedures for resolving disputes arising from boat safety matters are again to be found within the 1995 Act - specifically, references to the Standards Appeal Panel to be found in Schedule 2, Part II, para's 12 and 13, and the Inland Waterways Advisory Council (Abolition) Order 2012. By refusing, as the C&RT have, formal written requests to refer this matter to the statutory Standards Appeal Panel, it is 'the Board' that is falling well short of compliance with the law in this instance, . . by way of sidestepping and ignoring statutory obligations perceived as a threat and an impediment to the corporate megalomania projected by a few of Parry's chosen disciples. I fully understand the point you're making, and it's a very valid one. The BSS exemption criteria aspect of this dispute will almost certainly have to be temporarily put aside quite soon for the sake not only of avoiding the risk of a visit from C&RT's bogus bailiffs enforcing a Court Order which exists only in the minds of a limited number of the Trust's employees, but of not losing sight of the primary objective. When and if a partial tactical withdrawal becomes necessary is entirely dependent on when, and to what extent, C&RT's legal and 'Customer Licence Support' departments choose yet again to exercise their already well rehearsed contempt for the statutory procedures to which Parliament has bound them.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 5, 2020 21:48:18 GMT
I come back to the point about the BSS. It seems to me that Tony is on dodgy grounds by not having a BSS and refusing to engage on the matter. CRT's obligation to issue a PBC is conditional upon this para of the act: "Notwithstanding anything in any enactment but subject to subsection (7) below, the Board may refuse a relevant consent in respect of any vessel unlessβ (a)the applicant for the relevant consent satisfies the Board that the vessel complies with the standards applicable to that vessel;"... Tony has not satisfied the board that the vessel complies with the standards applicable to that vessel. He says that he doesn't need a BSS because of equipment {not) installed in the vessel, but CRT only has his word for that and he refuses to offer evidence. The exemption from holding a BSS is not enshrined in law, it is just something BW/CRT agreed to under their terms. And they have set out their terms, but Tony has declined to accept them and thus one has to revert to the law. Tony has not complied with the law and thus CRT are entitled to refuse the relevant consent. All of which is a shame because it totally smokescreens the issue about a "rivers only licence". Tony will lose his boat and along with it, but unnoticed by the powers that be, any battle about rivers only licence vs PBC. ...but when and if that does happen is entirely dependent on when, and to what extent, C&RT's legal and 'Customer Licence Support' departments choose to indulge in their next departure from the procedures to which Parliament has bound them.
|
|
|
Post by TonyDunkley on Nov 4, 2021 11:04:39 GMT
Thread Disruption -- a Reminder
Anyone not already in direct contact and wanting to continue discussion on any topic without having to repeatedly pick their way through the tiresome disruption, can still contact me on the same e-mail address as before < Tonydtrent@gmail.com > or by phone on 07903 063179. Following initial contact by either of the above methods, you will be given another e-mail address and another mobile number for future use.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 4, 2021 11:41:27 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Mr Stabby on Nov 4, 2021 12:40:44 GMT
Thread Disruption -- a Reminder
Anyone not already in direct contact and wanting to continue discussion on any topic without having to repeatedly pick their way through the tiresome disruption, can still contact me on the same e-mail address as before < Tonydtrent@gmail.com > or by phone on 07903 063179. Following initial contact by either of the above methods, you will be given another e-mail address and another mobile number for future use. In that nobody had posted to this thread for over a year, it would appear that nobody wanted to continue discussion on it.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 4, 2021 14:36:53 GMT
Tony did, over and over and over with himself.
|
|