|
Post by kris on Sept 28, 2017 18:37:57 GMT
Really? Have Crt got away with stealing the lightship?
|
|
|
Post by TonyDunkley on Sept 29, 2017 1:04:37 GMT
Just heard on roger phillips show radio Merseyside !.05 pm ex river pilot saying new owner is owner of the docks where she is now berthed , sale contract says if he does not preserve planet the contract is voided so he cant scrap it , new owner is named and price paid etc. Thanks for alerting us to this so quickly alex . The story relayed by Liverpool historian/author Peter Elson on BBC Radio Merseyside came not from C&RT or Shoosmiths but from Steve Beacham, the obnoxious little twerp who runs Sharpness Shipyard, where "Planet" has been languishing under his 'caretakership' since C&RT stole it last year. Since releasing the fairytale about "Planet'' having been sold for £12,500 back in the Spring of this year, C&RT have been understandably cagey and evasive about just who the so-called 'new owner' was because in truth they know full well that they do NOT have, and never have had, title to the ship and cannot therefore pass on 'good' title to any other party. I would guess that there's likely to soon be a sizeable queue of people from both C&RT and Shoosmiths lining up to wring Mr Beacham's neck ! Alan Robert's civil action and criminal prosecution have both been delayed courtesy of incompetent and dishonest lawyers and he is presently having to re-instruct and begin the whole process again after successfully suing for the return of the up-front fees he stumped up to the first lot. One very positive aspect of today's revelations is that the lawyers who are coming to all this afresh will have even more useful and damaging info to work with, and unless he can come up with something spectacularly plausible, it is on the cards that the wretched Mr Beacham will find himself joining the ranks of the accused in respect of the criminal prosecution - technically he's admitted to being in receipt/possession of someone else's property in return for paying over a sum of money to a party offering for sale property to which they have no title. I'll be contacting him tomorrow with the good news - probably fairly late in the day, so as to allow ample time for C&RT and Shoosmiths to have given him a good mauling first !
|
|
|
Post by Phil on Sept 29, 2017 9:35:03 GMT
Just heard on roger phillips show radio Merseyside !.05 pm ex river pilot saying new owner is owner of the docks where she is now berthed , sale contract says if he does not preserve planet the contract is voided so he cant scrap it , new owner is named and price paid etc. Thanks for alerting us to this so quickly alex . The story relayed by Liverpool historian/author Peter Elson on BBC Radio Merseyside came not from C&RT or Shoosmiths but from Steve Beacham, the obnoxious little twerp who runs Sharpness Shipyard, where "Planet" has been languishing under his 'caretakership' since C&RT stole it last year. Since releasing the fairytale about "Planet'' having been sold for £12,500 back in the Spring of this year, C&RT have been understandably cagey and evasive about just who the so-called 'new owner' was because in truth they know full well that they do NOT have, and never have had, title to the ship and cannot therefore pass on 'good' title to any other party. I would guess that there's likely to soon be a sizeable queue of people from both C&RT and Shoosmiths lining up to wring Mr Beacham's neck ! Alan Robert's civil action and criminal prosecution have both been delayed courtesy of incompetent and dishonest lawyers and he is presently having to re-instruct and begin the whole process again after successfully suing for the return of the up-front fees he stumped up to the first lot. One very positive aspect of today's revelations is that the lawyers who are coming to all this afresh will have even more useful and damaging info to work with, and unless he can come up with something spectacularly plausible, it is on the cards that the wretched Mr Beacham will find himself joining the ranks of the accused in respect of the criminal prosecution - technically he's admitted to being in receipt/possession of someone else's property in return for paying over a sum of money to a party offering for sale property to which they have no title. I'll be contacting him tomorrow with the good news - probably fairly late in the day, so as to allow ample time for C&RT and Shoosmiths to have given him a good mauling first ! Just a couple of questions Tony, was the shipyard owner involved in the initial alleged theft of the ship, or did he only become involved once the alleged theft had occurred. Am I right in thinking that when you initially took the matter to the police in the area of the shipyard, that police force were more amenable to investigate but had to pass the matter over to Merseyside police where the alleged theft occurred. The reason for asking is if the shipyard owner was NOT involved in the original removal of the ship, but has bought it, knowing or believing it to be stolen, then an offence of handling stolen goods may have occurred. This offence would have occurred in Sharpness and therefore the police local to the shipyard would investigate and not Merseyside. The fact that you have evidence that the shipyard owner knows the ships real owner, and coupled with the fact the ship was sold at a ludicrously low price, way below market value all point towards him knowing or believing the ship to be stolen. His only defence is that he thought it was all legitimate and CRT had the right to sell, but this is totally undermined if the value he bought it for is so low. No legitimate owner sells something worth 100k for 12k.
|
|
|
Post by thebfg on Sept 29, 2017 9:51:32 GMT
Ah - old news revisited, I wondered who Steve Beacham is: "Despite Mr Roberts having ID and papers proving ownership, which were shown to the police, Steve Beacham, speaking from behind locked shipyard gates refused to look at these. He also denied that he had any of the documents or paperwork he had previously referred to and refused to party entry." " “You also made reference to an unspecified number of Invoices ('bills' was the actual word you used) which you stated would have to be settled - quote " before the owner can have his ship back". Please ensure that copies of these invoices, or bills, are also available to be given to Mr Roberts." "It is interesting to note that Mr Beacham seemed to accept that Mr Roberts was 'Planets' lawful owner ..."
From this: www.thefloater.org/the-floater-may-2017/now-police-investigate-theft-of-planet
So, Steve Beacham knew exactly what 'Planet' was all about, then. According to the radio show if Steve sells the ship on, then the new owner is not obliged to carry out CRT's request that it be renovated. Could make a tidy profit if he flogs it for, say, £30,000.indeed. hee only has to sell it to his brother for half what he paid and then split the profit when it's scrapped.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 29, 2017 15:54:25 GMT
Ah - old news revisited, I wondered who Steve Beacham is: "Despite Mr Roberts having ID and papers proving ownership, which were shown to the police, Steve Beacham, speaking from behind locked shipyard gates refused to look at these. He also denied that he had any of the documents or paperwork he had previously referred to and refused to party entry." " “You also made reference to an unspecified number of Invoices ('bills' was the actual word you used) which you stated would have to be settled - quote " before the owner can have his ship back". Please ensure that copies of these invoices, or bills, are also available to be given to Mr Roberts." "It is interesting to note that Mr Beacham seemed to accept that Mr Roberts was 'Planets' lawful owner ..."
From this: www.thefloater.org/the-floater-may-2017/now-police-investigate-theft-of-planet
So, Steve Beacham knew exactly what 'Planet' was all about, then. According to the radio show if Steve sells the ship on, then the new owner is not obliged to carry out CRT's request that it be renovated. Could make a tidy profit if he flogs it for, say, £30,000.Google
|
|
|
Post by gigoguy on Sept 29, 2017 16:03:29 GMT
Tony. You know my friend on the bridgewater who is still arguing to get his boat back. He has papers to say it's his and he contacted the police to get it back. They said there was nothing they could do and it was a civil matter. Why or how is this different?
BTW I've had a final email from Peel it's on claim your fees thread
|
|
|
Post by bargemast on Sept 30, 2017 12:08:40 GMT
This very smelly story is getting worse by the day.
It's so strongly- and disgustingly smelly that I can even smell it here in France (if the wind is in the right direction).
At first I suspected that my underpants were the reason of this shitty smell, but after I checked that they were perfectly clean, which really wasn't a big surprise, as I'd changed them about 1 week before Christmas, I knew immediately that it was because of the "Planet's" story.
Hope that it will get resolved quickly after this last news, and that the very bad smell will finally disappear.
Peter.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 1, 2017 7:23:17 GMT
Vessel is called "Planet" not "Pilot".
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 1, 2017 8:03:50 GMT
Vessel is called "Planet" not "Pilot". Yes but we know what he meant don't we Pedantry is for that other place Welcome to the forum
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 1, 2017 8:09:47 GMT
ta
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 1, 2017 8:16:18 GMT
Peter will appreciate the correction
|
|
|
Post by bargemast on Oct 1, 2017 20:36:44 GMT
Vessel is called "Planet" not "Pilot". You are asolutely right someboater, the stupid thing is that I made the same mistake already several months ago. This may be because of that bad smell that's slowing the working of what's leftover of my brains down. Thanks for the correction which I will make to my previous posting now. Peter.
|
|
|
Post by thebfg on Oct 1, 2017 20:44:12 GMT
Vessel is called "Planet" not "Pilot". You are asolutely right someboater, the stupid thing is that I made the same mistake already several months ago. This may be because of that bad smell that's slowing the working of what's leftover of my brains down. Thanks for the correction which I will make to my previous posting now. Peter. some boaters, hey. 😉
|
|
|
Post by TonyDunkley on Oct 2, 2017 9:03:29 GMT
Thanks for alerting us to this so quickly alex . The story relayed by Liverpool historian/author Peter Elson on BBC Radio Merseyside came not from C&RT or Shoosmiths but from Steve Beacham, the obnoxious little twerp who runs Sharpness Shipyard, where "Planet" has been languishing under his 'caretakership' since C&RT stole it last year. Since releasing the fairytale about "Planet'' having been sold for £12,500 back in the Spring of this year, C&RT have been understandably cagey and evasive about just who the so-called 'new owner' was because in truth they know full well that they do NOT have, and never have had, title to the ship and cannot therefore pass on 'good' title to any other party. I would guess that there's likely to soon be a sizeable queue of people from both C&RT and Shoosmiths lining up to wring Mr Beacham's neck ! Alan Robert's civil action and criminal prosecution have both been delayed courtesy of incompetent and dishonest lawyers and he is presently having to re-instruct and begin the whole process again after successfully suing for the return of the up-front fees he stumped up to the first lot. One very positive aspect of today's revelations is that the lawyers who are coming to all this afresh will have even more useful and damaging info to work with, and unless he can come up with something spectacularly plausible, it is on the cards that the wretched Mr Beacham will find himself joining the ranks of the accused in respect of the criminal prosecution - technically he's admitted to being in receipt/possession of someone else's property in return for paying over a sum of money to a party offering for sale property to which they have no title. I'll be contacting him tomorrow with the good news - probably fairly late in the day, so as to allow ample time for C&RT and Shoosmiths to have given him a good mauling first ! Just a couple of questions Tony, was the shipyard owner involved in the initial alleged theft of the ship, or did he only become involved once the alleged theft had occurred. Am I right in thinking that when you initially took the matter to the police in the area of the shipyard, that police force were more amenable to investigate but had to pass the matter over to Merseyside police where the alleged theft occurred. The reason for asking is if the shipyard owner was NOT involved in the original removal of the ship, but has bought it, knowing or believing it to be stolen, then an offence of handling stolen goods may have occurred. This offence would have occurred in Sharpness and therefore the police local to the shipyard would investigate and not Merseyside. The fact that you have evidence that the shipyard owner knows the ships real owner, and coupled with the fact the ship was sold at a ludicrously low price, way below market value all point towards him knowing or believing the ship to be stolen. His only defence is that he thought it was all legitimate and CRT had the right to sell, but this is totally undermined if the value he bought it for is so low. No legitimate owner sells something worth 100k for 12k. Yes, Phil, Steve Beacham of Sharpness Shipyard wasn't involved until "Planet" arrived at Sharpness and was handed over into his care by C&RT's boat/ship snatching contractors, Commercial Boat Services of Chester. You are also correct in that Gloucestershire Police were prepared to investigate the matter but were prevented from so doing due to the fraudulent/illegal seizure having occurred in the Merseyside Force's jurisdiction. Beacham was and is fully aware of the truth as to the fact that Alan Roberts is the rightful owner of the ship, and that title did not, and could not, pass to C&RT by way of their unlawful actions in Liverpool, implemented as they were under a knowingly and intentionally misrepresented termination clause in an expired berthing agreement. His loose tongue and inherent stupidity have provided some very useful ammunition, in particular in a taped telephone conversation from Saturday 22 April this year in which he states quite unambiguously that the owner has some bills to pay before he can have his ship back. It would appear from what was said in the BBC Radio Merseyside broadcast that Mr Beacham has completely forgotten about making this admission on record, despite having been reminded of it in the e-mail, which I sent him on the morning of the following day, ahead of the arrival of the owner, Alan Roberts, along with Gloucestershire Police! ______________________________________________ Tony Dunkley <tony@canalrivertransport.com>
23 April 2017
to Steve, force.controlr., Alan
Dear Mr Beacham,
Further to our telephone conversation of yesterday evening following up your earlier e-mail, I write to confirm that the owner of the above named vessel, Mr Alan Roberts of 1 Day Street, Liverpool, L13 2DS, will be visiting your premises at Sharpness today, Sunday 23 April 2017, in order to repossess and inspect the ship.
It would seem, from our recording of yesterday's telephone conversation, that you have documentation and/or paperwork from C&RT, the organization responsible for the unlawful removal of "Planet" from the river Mersey/Liverpool, instructing and authorizing the subsequent unlawful impoundment in your yard at Sharpness. Please arrange for copies of this documentation/paperwork to be available for the ship's owner, Mr Roberts, later today.
You also made reference to an unspecified number of Invoices ('bills' was the actual word you used) which you stated would have to be settled - quote -" before the owner can have his ship back". Please ensure that copies of these invoices, or bills, are also available to be given to Mr Roberts.
In light of your generally unhelpful and threatening manner in the course of yesterdays telephone conversation we are requesting that Gloucestershire Police attend today's boarding and repossession
Yours faithfully, A.K.Dunkley (Shipowner's Representative)
|
|
|
Post by TonyDunkley on Oct 2, 2017 9:41:33 GMT
Tony. You know my friend on the bridgewater who is still arguing to get his boat back. He has papers to say it's his and he contacted the police to get it back. They said there was nothing they could do and it was a civil matter. Why or how is this different? In essence, it might not be so very different, Steve, but to establish that the taking of a vessel by or on behalf of a navigation authority is/was theft it is necessary to demonstrate and prove dishonest intent, in addition to the intention to "permanently deprive". If the NA can show themselves to have simply been mistaken in what they believed they were lawfully entitled to do, then at least the theft aspect of the criminal element is removed from the reckoning. There could, however, still be an element of criminality under the 2007 Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act - it is a criminal offence to levy distress absent the authority of the Court, and by anyone other than either Court authorized Enforcement Agents or High Court Enforcement Officers. To answer your question and to say whether or not there was any criminal element in Peel seizing and impounding/keeping possession of a vessel I would need to see any/all documentation relevant to the seizure, and to know the full details of the circumstances under which the boat was taken and subsequently held.
|
|