Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 26, 2019 13:59:57 GMT
Can't be arsed syndrome I'm afraid !
I don't like shiny wood much prefer natural finishes. Even better is no external wood at all which is the case with the bunker.
|
|
|
Post by TonyDunkley on Oct 29, 2019 8:56:03 GMT
An article on a recent C&RT boat "seizure" has been posted on the KANDA website. The link to the whole article, and the title and first paragraph, is below : < kanda.boatingcommunity.org.uk/boat-seizure-averted-at-11th-hour-after-nbta-intervention/ > "Boat seizure averted at 11th hour after NBTA intervention
CRT attempted to seize a boat on the K&A on Wednesday 16th October after wrongly denying the boater the opportunity to license the boat. The seizure was prevented by the intervention of the Legal Officer of the National Bargee Travellers Association (NBTA) Nick Brown, who spoke to the police, the boater and a CRT Solicitor on the phone during the attempt to remove the boat. The owner had locked himself inside the boat which had been chained to another boat. The seizure team had begun to tow the boat away despite knowing that the owner was inside the boat. The NBTA intervened after the police had threatened to arrest the boat owner if he did not leave the boat." . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . There are a couple of things in the title, and the first paragraph, which deserve comment, . . beginning with the description of the exercise as a "seizure". The simple fact of the matter is that boat removals are NOT legal seizures, whether or not they follow on directly not less than 28 days after service of a Notice under Section 8 of the 1983 BW Act, or are executed pursuant to a Court Order. Since the implementation of the relevant parts of the 2007 Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act in 2013, seizure of goods or chattels by anyone other than a certificated officer of the Court has been a criminal offence. There are disturbing echoes here of the criminal behaviour indulged in by C&RT at the time the Liverpool lightship was illegally taken away from it's rightful owner by bogus 'Bailiffs' with C&RT lying about ''seizing'' the ship in the process of ''enforcing a High Court warrant'' simply to disguise what was in truth nothing less than outright theft. The other matter of concern is the apparently active participation of the Police. That they are prepared to assist in an unlawful 'seizure' to the extent of threatening to arrest the owner of the subject vessel for exercising the unassailable right he has to stay on board and in possession of a vessel he owns is something which has to be addressed, . . and taken to the highest available level if satisfaction can't be had from the Police themselves.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 29, 2019 17:54:45 GMT
I was told that if someone boards your vessel and attempts to take control of it you are legally entitled to hang them.
Not sure how accurate this advice but having one or two derrick cranes on the vessel would br quite handy in this respect.
What happened to PLANET anyway? Is it still dumped at the CBS yard awaiting scrappage ?
|
|
|
Post by broccobanks on Oct 29, 2019 18:01:56 GMT
There are numerous circumstances when goods can be seized without a court order, breach of a commercial contract which provides for seizure as in the case of Planet being but one. As usual Tony Dunkley is as good at barrack room lawyering as he is “marine engineering”.
|
|
|
Post by Gone on Oct 29, 2019 18:04:00 GMT
An article on a recent C&RT boat "seizure" has been posted on the KANDA website. The link to the whole article, and the title and first paragraph, is below : < kanda.boatingcommunity.org.uk/boat-seizure-averted-at-11th-hour-after-nbta-intervention/ > "Boat seizure averted at 11th hour after NBTA intervention
CRT attempted to seize a boat on the K&A on Wednesday 16th October after wrongly denying the boater the opportunity to license the boat. The seizure was prevented by the intervention of the Legal Officer of the National Bargee Travellers Association (NBTA) Nick Brown, who spoke to the police, the boater and a CRT Solicitor on the phone during the attempt to remove the boat. The owner had locked himself inside the boat which had been chained to another boat. The seizure team had begun to tow the boat away despite knowing that the owner was inside the boat. The NBTA intervened after the police had threatened to arrest the boat owner if he did not leave the boat." . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . There are a couple of things in the title, and the first paragraph, which deserve comment, . . beginning with the description of the exercise as a "seizure". The simple fact of the matter is that boat removals are NOT legal seizures, whether or not they follow on directly not less than 28 days after service of a Notice under Section 8 of the 1983 BW Act, or are executed pursuant to a Court Order. Since the implementation of the relevant parts of the 2007 Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act in 2013, seizure of goods or chattels by anyone other than a certificated officer of the Court has been a criminal offence. There are disturbing echoes here of the criminal behaviour indulged in by C&RT at the time the Liverpool lightship was illegally taken away from it's rightful owner by bogus 'Bailiffs' with C&RT lying about ''seizing'' the ship in the process of ''enforcing a High Court warrant'' simply to disguise what was in truth nothing less than outright theft. The other matter of concern is the apparently active participation of the Police. That they are prepared to assist in an unlawful 'seizure' to the extent of threatening to arrest the owner of the subject vessel for exercising the unassailable right he has to stay on board and in possession of a vessel he owns is something which has to be addressed, . . and taken to the highest available level if satisfaction can't be had from the Police themselves. If lightship Planet was illegally taken, how come it is still sat in Sharpness and not returned?
|
|
|
Post by JohnV on Oct 29, 2019 18:08:01 GMT
presumption of probity
|
|
|
Post by NigelMoore on Oct 29, 2019 18:31:26 GMT
There are numerous circumstances when goods can be seized without a court order, breach of a commercial contract which provides for seizure as in the case of Planet being but one. A person’s goods cannot be seized without due legal process, regardless of any alleged contractual terms. Another person’s goods already in one’s possession may be held as lien on monies owed – is that what you are thinking of? An example would be a vehicle or vessel left for repair, where the vehicle or vessel may be legally retained pending the owed payment for the repair. That is an entirely different matter to being owed money and seizing goods in lieu thereof.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 29, 2019 19:03:00 GMT
There are numerous circumstances when goods can be seized without a court order, breach of a commercial contract which provides for seizure as in the case of Planet being but one. A person’s goods cannot be seized without due legal process, regardless of any alleged contractual terms. Another person’s goods already in one’s possession may be held as lien on monies owed – is that what you are thinking of? An example would be a vehicle or vessel left for repair, where the vehicle or vessel may be legally retained pending the owed payment for the repair. That is an entirely different matter to being owed money and seizing goods in lieu thereof. Where is the line drawn on this Nigel? Are boats on hardstanding subject to seizure? I have always assumed they were and by extension I must admit I assumed that boats moored in a private marina were as well. By the way thanks for getting the fenders. It turns out they are Polyform rod buoys cleaned up lovely as good as new.
|
|
|
Post by TonyDunkley on Oct 29, 2019 19:11:09 GMT
. . . . . . as just now, so obligingly demonstrated by Chewy !
|
|
|
Post by TonyDunkley on Oct 29, 2019 19:31:12 GMT
What happened to PLANET anyway? Is it still dumped at the CBS yard awaiting scrappage ? 'Planet' was never taken to the CBS yard !
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 29, 2019 20:23:01 GMT
What happened to PLANET anyway? Is it still dumped at the CBS yard awaiting scrappage ? 'Planet' was never taken to the CBS yard ! Ok sorry I thought that is where it ended up. ETA I see it's old news boat was sold a couple of years ago. Sorry for the dredging.
|
|
|
Post by NigelMoore on Oct 29, 2019 20:39:12 GMT
A person’s goods cannot be seized without due legal process, regardless of any alleged contractual terms. Another person’s goods already in one’s possession may be held as lien on monies owed – is that what you are thinking of? An example would be a vehicle or vessel left for repair, where the vehicle or vessel may be legally retained pending the owed payment for the repair. That is an entirely different matter to being owed money and seizing goods in lieu thereof. Where is the line drawn on this Nigel? Are boats on hardstanding subject to seizure? I have always assumed they were and by extension I must admit I assumed that boats moored in a private marina were as well. By the way thanks for getting the fenders. It turns out they are Polyform rod buoys cleaned up lovely as good as new. Almost anything you own free and clear can be seized in the right circumstances and with appropriate authority, wherever they may be. It depends upon the legal sanctions applicable. Unilaterally decided upon self-help processes on the other hand are never legally sanctioned. Only authorised persons may seize goods, and may only do so under in accordance with legal authority. This has been the situation in this country since the very first statute on the ‘books’ – the Statute of Marlborough of 1267 (pre-dating the confirmation of Magna Carta as part of England’s statute law by 30 years). Though much of the original statute has been superceded and abolished, the pertinent sections remain on the statute book today – (I) Of wrongful Distresses, or Defiances of the King’s Courts. Punishment for unlawful Distresses.
Whereas at the time of a Commotion late stirred up within this Realm, and also sithence, many great Men, and divers other, refusing to be justified by the King and his Court, like as they ought and were wont in Time of the King’s noble Progenitors, and also in his Time; but took great Revenges and Distresses of their Neighbours, and of other, until they had Amends and Fines at their own Pleasure; and further, some of them would not be justified by the King’s Officers, nor would suffer them to make Delivery of such Distresses as they had taken of their own Authority; It is Provided, agreed, and granted, that all Persons, as well of high as of low Estate, shall receive Justice in the King’s Court; and none from henceforth shall take any such Revenge or Distress of his own Authority, without Award of our Court, though he have Damage or Injury, whereby he would have amends of his Neighbour either higher or lower.
And upon the foresaid Article It is Provided and granted, that if any from henceforth take such Revenges of his own Authority, without Award of the King’s Court as before is said, and be convict thereof, he shall be punished by Fine, and that according to the Trespass; and likewise if one Neighbour take a Distress of another without Award of the King’s Court, whereby he hath Damage, he shall be punished in the same wise, and that after the Quantity of the Trespass; and nevertheless sufficient and full Amends shall be made to them that have sustained Loss by such Distresses.
(IV) Distresses shall not be driven out of the County. Distresses shall be reasonable.
None from henceforth shall cause any Distress that he hath taken, to be driven out of the County where it was [taken]; and if one Neighbour do so to another of his own Authority, and without Judgment, he shall make Fine, as above is said, as for a Thing done against the Peace; nevertheless, if the Lord Presume so to do against his Tenant, he shall be grievously punished by Amerciament.
Moreover, Distresses shall be reasonable, and not too great; and he that taketh great and unreasonable Distresses, shall be grievously amerced for the Excess of such Distresses.
(XV) In what Places Distresses shall not be taken.
It shall be lawful for no Man from henceforth, for any manner of cause, to take Distresses out of his Fee, nor in the King’s Highway, nor in the common Street, but only to the King or his Officers, [having special authority to do the same.] www.legislation.gov.uk/aep/Hen3cc1415/52/1/section/I My pleasure re: the fenders, glad they scrubbed up nicely.
|
|
|
Post by TonyDunkley on Oct 29, 2019 20:57:40 GMT
'Planet' was never taken to the CBS yard ! ETA I see it's old news boat was sold a couple of years ago. In truth 'Planet' was never actually sold, and remains the property of Alan Roberts, the rightful owner at the time it was stolen by the C&RT, . . technically, at the moment it passed to seaward of the furthest Westerly safe berth or haven in the Mersey on 21 September 2016. The supposed 'sale' of the ship to the proprietor of Sharpness Shipyard was a rather pathetic attempt on the part of the C&RT management to try and distance themselves from the whole sorry affair. The most amusing aspect of the Trust's spectacularly back-fired master plan is that ever since the ship arrived in Sharpness the C&RT has been forking out berthing fees for it to the port operator to whom they lease the port facilities in Sharpness Dock. Rather ironic, . . considering that the reason put forward by C&RT for 'seizing' the ship and removing it from Liverpool was publicized as being unpaid berthing fees !
|
|
|
Post by broccobanks on Oct 29, 2019 22:52:38 GMT
There are numerous circumstances when goods can be seized without a court order, breach of a commercial contract which provides for seizure as in the case of Planet being but one. A person’s goods cannot be seized without due legal process, regardless of any alleged contractual terms. Another person’s goods already in one’s possession may be held as lien on monies owed – is that what you are thinking of? An example would be a vehicle or vessel left for repair, where the vehicle or vessel may be legally retained pending the owed payment for the repair. That is an entirely different matter to being owed money and seizing goods in lieu thereof. A receiver appointed to recover unpaid commercial rent can seize goods, the unrepealed elements of the hire purchase acts still provide for summary repossession of goods if less than one third of the total due has been paid, goods can be summarily recovered upon default of a commercial goods lease. Planet was lawfully seized in light of the commercial rent agreement exhibited in the Planet thread. I could go on...
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 29, 2019 23:17:27 GMT
|
|