|
Post by TonyDunkley on May 22, 2018 20:12:00 GMT
If I was Steve Beacham I would have disposed of Planet at the scrapyard by now and drawn a healthy profit from the affair. I do wonder where all this is going to go as its a complete mess from start to finish but then again most things involving CRT management are arnt they? He would be more likely to draw an unhealthy fine, or possibly a jail sentence, for doing that, Peter. Beacham was alerted, by a cautious prospective buyer who had sought legal advice before making an offer, to the reality over the question of 'good' title to the ship, and C&RT's spectacular 'own goal' in extinguishing the temporary, legitimate right to sell which they enjoyed whilst ever "Planet" was left in Canning Dock after expiry of the Berthing Agreement and under notice to go. The ship ceased to be C&RT's to sell (under the T&C's to the Berthing Agreement) from the moment she passed through the entrance gates of Canning Dock and into the Mersey. The (potentially) legitimate removal of "Planet" from Canning Dock (technically) became theft as the ship passed to seaward of Gladstone and Seaforth Dock entrance lock.
|
|
|
Post by peterboat on May 22, 2018 20:16:59 GMT
If I was Steve Beacham I would have disposed of Planet at the scrapyard by now and drawn a healthy profit from the affair. I do wonder where all this is going to go as its a complete mess from start to finish but then again most things involving CRT management are arnt they? He would be more likely to draw an unhealthy fine, or possibly a jail sentence, for doing that, Peter. Beacham was alerted, by a cautious prospective buyer who had sought legal advice before making an offer, to the reality over the question of 'good' title to the ship, and C&RT's spectacular 'own goal' in extinguishing the temporary, legitimate right to sell which they enjoyed whilst ever "Planet" was left in Canning Dock after expiry of the Berthing Agreement and under notice to go. The ship ceased to be C&RT's to sell (under the T&C's to the Berthing Agreement) from the moment she passed through the entrance gates of Canning Dock and into the Mersey. The (potentially) legitimate removal of "Planet" from Canning Dock (technically) became theft as the ship passed to seaward of Gladstone and Seaforth Dock entrance lock. The mess is just going to get worse then. Is their any court orders that prevent him scrapping planet at the moment?
|
|
|
Post by TonyDunkley on May 22, 2018 20:35:49 GMT
He would be more likely to draw an unhealthy fine, or possibly a jail sentence, for doing that, Peter. Beacham was alerted, by a cautious prospective buyer who had sought legal advice before making an offer, to the reality over the question of 'good' title to the ship, and C&RT's spectacular 'own goal' in extinguishing the temporary, legitimate right to sell which they enjoyed whilst ever "Planet" was left in Canning Dock after expiry of the Berthing Agreement and under notice to go. The ship ceased to be C&RT's to sell (under the T&C's to the Berthing Agreement) from the moment she passed through the entrance gates of Canning Dock and into the Mersey. The (potentially) legitimate removal of "Planet" from Canning Dock (technically) became theft as the ship passed to seaward of Gladstone and Seaforth Dock entrance lock. Is their any court orders that prevent him scrapping planet at the moment? Thanks entirely to the pissed-up, dishonest, struck-off and generally useless Solicitors that Alan Roberts has been instructing, and paying, for the last twelve months, nothing has been before a Court except, of course, for the successful Application by C&RT/Shoosmiths on 19 December 2016 to lift the Injunction, obtained the week previously, restraining C&RT from selling or scrapping the ship.
|
|
|
Post by peterboat on May 22, 2018 22:53:18 GMT
Well then if he has any sense, Beacham would be best of scrapping Planet now as their is nowt to stop him doing so, at that point he gets the dosh and CRT get the biggest headache ever as they wont have a boat to buy back and return if you win the eventual court case
|
|
|
Post by naughtyfox on May 23, 2018 4:18:02 GMT
A simple, entirely legal, course of action would be for everyone here on TB to write letters to Gloucestershire Police stating their concern, and to Sharpness Shipyard asking what will be happening to Planet. Cost of two stamps and a couple of envelopes.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 23, 2018 5:47:27 GMT
A simple, entirely legal, course of action would be for everyone here on TB to write letters to Gloucestershire Police stating their concern, and to Sharpness Shipyard asking what will be happening to Planet. Cost of two stamps and a couple of envelopes. Careful Foxy, you might get labelled as an activist for suggesting such things! I do ageee though. Whilst a good rant on a forum might make us feel better, itβs more effective to write to CRT, go to meetings and attend demonstrations. I was also going to suggest joining a boating association but Iβm not sure how effective they have been. Issues like maintenance, wasted funds and inappropriate signage are also worth pursuing!
|
|
|
Post by naughtyfox on May 23, 2018 6:56:43 GMT
|
|
|
Post by TonyDunkley on May 23, 2018 10:54:06 GMT
This is Beacham's reply to the "Open Letter" to him, posted on here yesterday. I'll refrain from comment for the moment, . . . mainly because it temporarily leaves me struggling to find quite the right words ! __________________________________________________
Sharpness Shipyard And Dry Dock Ltd
Mr Dunkley,
Very interesting you say my conversations were recorded as Mr Roberts was asked and said he was not recording.
You are hurting Mr Roberts by promising him something you cannot give him, why donβt you leave him alone.
You appear to have had your time in courts along with solicitors and failed and further cost Mr Roberts more money and more suffering.
How about you put your money where your mouth is and purchase the vessel back for him if you feel so strongly, anyone can be a ship
owners representative and stand behind someone else.
I am not the enemy here.
I will now be in touch with the police to advise of your continual harassment.
Best regards
Steve Beacham
Ps I know you will see this reply as a win and advise all of your colleagues that you have had this reply possibly even advertise the fact,
but I just wish you to go away and leave myself and Mr Roberts alone. Please do not contact again in any form as I will not respond,
but will inform the police.
Sent from my iPhone
|
|
|
Post by naughtyfox on May 23, 2018 11:15:49 GMT
Perhaps then the Police will finally get a chance to examine the 'Bill of Sale'.
|
|
|
Post by bargemast on May 23, 2018 13:12:58 GMT
This is Beacham's reply to the "Open Letter" to him, posted on here yesterday. I'll refrain from comment for the moment, . . . mainly because it temporarily leaves me struggling to find quite the right words ! __________________________________________________ Sharpness Shipyard And Dry Dock Ltd
Mr Dunkley,
Very interesting you say my conversations were recorded as Mr Roberts was asked and said he was not recording.
You are hurting Mr Roberts by promising him something you cannot give him, why donβt you leave him alone.
You appear to have had your time in courts along with solicitors and failed and further cost Mr Roberts more money and more suffering.
How about you put your money where your mouth is and purchase the vessel back for him if you feel so strongly, anyone can be a ship
owners representative and stand behind someone else.
I am not the enemy here.
I will now be in touch with the police to advise of your continual harassment.
Best regards
Steve Beacham
Ps I know you will see this reply as a win and advise all of your colleagues that you have had this reply possibly even advertise the fact,
but I just wish you to go away and leave myself and Mr Roberts alone. Please do not contact again in any form as I will not respond,
but will inform the police.
Sent from my iPhone
Maybe I don't really understand what this foolish man is writing, but I have a very strong impression that he likes you Tony.
Are you going to write back to say thank you for your message, much appreciated etc ? .
Peter.
|
|
|
Post by TonyDunkley on May 24, 2018 5:05:05 GMT
This is Beacham's reply to the "Open Letter" to him, posted on here yesterday. I'll refrain from comment for the moment, . . . mainly because it temporarily leaves me struggling to find quite the right words ! __________________________________________________ Sharpness Shipyard And Dry Dock Ltd
Mr Dunkley,
Very interesting you say my conversations were recorded as Mr Roberts was asked and said he was not recording.
You are hurting Mr Roberts by promising him something you cannot give him, why donβt you leave him alone.
You appear to have had your time in courts along with solicitors and failed and further cost Mr Roberts more money and more suffering.
How about you put your money where your mouth is and purchase the vessel back for him if you feel so strongly, anyone can be a ship
owners representative and stand behind someone else.
I am not the enemy here.
I will now be in touch with the police to advise of your continual harassment.
Best regards
Steve Beacham
Ps I know you will see this reply as a win and advise all of your colleagues that you have had this reply possibly even advertise the fact,
but I just wish you to go away and leave myself and Mr Roberts alone. Please do not contact again in any form as I will not respond,
but will inform the police.
Sent from my iPhone
Maybe I don't really understand what this foolish man is writing, but I have a very strong impression that he likes you Tony.
Are you going to write back to say thank you for your message, much appreciated etc ? .
Peter.
I doubt it's possible for anyone to make much sense out of a load of babbling nonsense such as that, Peter, . . . it has to rate as one of the weirdest letters/e-mails I've ever received. There's one line in which Beacham writes - " You appear to have had your time in courts along with solicitors and failed . . . " - but in the recording of Alan Roberts' conversation with Beacham in his office at Sharpness on 8 May 2018, Beacham is told, plainly enough, that the matter has not yet been to Court ! Here's the relevant part from the transcript of that conversation : . . . . . . . . . AR: Have you got any documentation to say you own it ?
SB: Yeah, I've got that. . .
AR: Could you show me please, Steve, . . . just so I can be satisfied, if I took a quick photograph. . . .
SB: To be honest, . . you must have had that through the Courts. . . AR: We've done nothing through the Courts . . . we haven't been to Court yet . . I've gota new barrister on it, . . . .. . . . . . . . . Since first contact with Beacham back in early 2017 it's been very apparent that nothing put to him, either verbally or in writing, ever seems to sink in. He inhabits a strange world, all of his own, somewhat short on fact and truth, and apparently functioning around only what he assumes, aspires to, or imagines. On 1 December 2017 a prospective buyer, who had sought legal advice over concerns he had about the circumstances under which the ship was acquired, e-mailed Beacham asking - " In view of the circumstances and the past history we would also appreciate sight of a copy of a Bill of Sale confirming you as the new owner and who you bought it from."
We have a copy of Beacham's reply to the prospective buyer in which he declines to go beyond stating - " I have a legal and binding βBill of saleβ there are no disputes over our ownership ". Aside from the failure to produce this mythical 'Bill of Sale', to state that there was no dispute over ownership of "Planet" was simply a blatant lie.
Very nearly six months on, and his reluctance to produce this elusive 'Bill of Sale' persists. I rather hope he does go bleating to the Police with his pathetic complaint over being 'harassed' into producing documentary proof that "Planet" is legitimately in his possession, but I think it's far more likely that he'll go scuttling back to the C&RT schemers who cunningly chose to dump this massive problem in his lap early last year.
|
|
|
Post by naughtyfox on May 24, 2018 7:04:54 GMT
It looks like this 'Bill of Sale' doesn't exist, just like Barrack Obama's Hawaiian birth certificate.
As before, I'd suggest everyone here send a letter to the Gloucestershire Police - how much trouble is it for them to nip round and check that Bill of Sale? No harm in checking - they do checks for bald tyres and drunkenness as routine.
|
|
|
Post by bargemast on May 24, 2018 7:07:42 GMT
By everything this Beacham guy is saying and writing, it seems that he has a problem in the most upper part of his head that should be looked at, before it's too late, if it isn't too late for him already to do something about it.
It's too bad that there's no DNA on mails, as if you would be able to get a DNA sample of this guy, it wouldn't surprise me at all if he's (closely) related to a certain Trump, Donald.
They both seem to take their dreams (nightmares) for reality, and are doing a lot of harm to others.
Peter.
|
|
|
Post by TonyDunkley on May 24, 2018 8:46:19 GMT
Well then if he has any sense, Beacham would be best of scrapping Planet now as their is nowt to stop him doing so, at that point he gets the dosh and CRT get the biggest headache ever as they wont have a boat to buy back and return if you win the eventual court case Sense is a commodity Beacham is mighty short of, but stupid as he demonstrably is, he's very unlikely to go for that option, . . it would be too damaging to the image he likes to promote of himself as a well meaning saviour of endangered, historic ships. There's every chance that this matter could well be resolved before it gets to Court, and the reason is that C&RT and Shoosmiths have jointly dropped a number of potentially very serious legal 'clangers' which they certainly won't want exposing to scrutiny and airing in Court, . . most serious of all being post-hearing tampering with and amendment of (false) written evidence exhibited in support of the Application for the (High Court) Order lifting the Injunction restraining C&RT from selling or otherwise disposing of the ship on 19 December 2016. The written evidence exhibited in support of the Application to lift the Injunction included a copy of a Survey Report having the effect of misleading anyone reading it into believing that the ship had been seized by 'agents' authorized by the Court and acting under the authority of the Court. Other than this false and misleading statement, there was nothing within the Survey Report having any bearing on the proceedings in hand, and therefore no reason to exhibit the report in evidence, other than to intentionally mislead and decieve. The pre-amble to the Survey Report submitted to the Court stated that : *At 08:30 hours on 19th September 2016 agents acting for Canal & River Trust enforced a High Court Warrant and seized the vessel*Some seven months after C&RT/Shoosmiths successfully put this false evidence to good use in Court it was discovered that the wording in the pre-amble to the Survey Report had been altered to read : *At 08:30 hours on 19th September 2016 Canal & River Trust enforced their rights under the berthing agreement and instructed agents to remove the vessel*
When pressed for an explanation the best Shoosmiths could come up with was this clumsy effort (dated 27 July 2017) : '' The reference to a High Court warrant being enforced in the report by Braemar Technical Services Limited was an error, which was later corrected and a revised and accurate report was issued (copy attached). Unfortunately, upon the Trust sending the exhibits to us to attach to the witness statement of Zoe Jayne Wright of 16 December 2017, the wrong version of the Braemar report was sent. Our client confirms that both CBS, and the security agents instructed by them, were aware of the basis of their instruction and that this was not in order to enforce a High Court warrant, as no warrant was issued nor was one required in the circumstances."
One has to ask why a "wrong version" of the Survey Report cover page was ever created or needed, and why the second, truthful version of the same cover page to the same Survey Report, identical in every detail except for the crucial wording of one sentence on the cover page, took seven months to produce after the 'wrong version' just happened, so very fortuitously, to be used as evidence in Court ?
It is also interesting to note that the 'agents' who, according to the 'corrected' version of the Survey Report cover page, did not 'enforce a High Court Warrant' or 'seize' the vessel, and for whose highly questionable services C&RT tried to relieve Alan Roberts of Β£4500.00, have now metamorphized from "Bailiffs" (as per C&RT's 'Schedule of Costs') into something described as 'security agents'. Impersonation of a Court authorized/certificated 'Bailiff' or 'Enforcement Agent' by an unauthorized person, such as for example a 'security agent', is a criminal offence under Section 63(6) of the Tribunal, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007.
|
|
|
Post by peterboat on May 24, 2018 9:14:34 GMT
Well then if he has any sense, Beacham would be best of scrapping Planet now as their is nowt to stop him doing so, at that point he gets the dosh and CRT get the biggest headache ever as they wont have a boat to buy back and return if you win the eventual court case Sense is a commodity Beacham is mighty short of, but stupid as he demonstrably is, he's very unlikely to go for that option, . . it would be too damaging to the image he likes to promote of himself as a well meaning saviour of endangered, historic ships. There's every chance that this matter could well be resolved before it gets to Court, and the reason is that C&RT and Shoosmiths have jointly dropped a number of potentially very serious legal 'clangers' which they certainly won't want exposing to scrutiny and airing in Court, . . most serious of all being post-hearing tampering with and amendment of (false) written evidence exhibited in support of the Application for the (High Court) Order lifting the Injunction restraining C&RT from selling or otherwise disposing of the ship on 19 December 2016. The written evidence exhibited in support of the Application to lift the Injunction included a copy of a Survey Report having the effect of misleading anyone reading it into believing that the ship had been seized by 'agents' authorized by the Court and acting under the authority of the Court. Other than this false and misleading statement, there was nothing within the Survey Report having any bearing on the proceedings in hand, and therefore no reason to exhibit the report in evidence, other than to intentionally mislead and decieve. The pre-amble to the Survey Report submitted to the Court stated that : *At 08:30 hours on 19th September 2016 agents acting for Canal & River Trust enforced a High Court Warrant and seized the vessel*Some seven months after C&RT/Shoosmiths successfully put this false evidence to good use in Court it was discovered that the wording in the pre-amble to the Survey Report had been altered to read : *At 08:30 hours on 19th September 2016 Canal & River Trust enforced their rights under the berthing agreement and instructed agents to remove the vessel*
When pressed for an explanation the best Shoosmiths could come up with was this clumsy effort (dated 27 July 2017) : '' The reference to a High Court warrant being enforced in the report by Braemar Technical Services Limited was an error, which was later corrected and a revised and accurate report was issued (copy attached). Unfortunately, upon the Trust sending the exhibits to us to attach to the witness statement of Zoe Jayne Wright of 16 December 2017, the wrong version of the Braemar report was sent. Our client confirms that both CBS, and the security agents instructed by them, were aware of the basis of their instruction and that this was not in order to enforce a High Court warrant, as no warrant was issued nor was one required in the circumstances."
One has to ask why a "wrong version" was ever created or needed, and why a second version of the same Survey Report was produced seven months later, identical in every detail except for the wording of one line on the cover page of each ? It is also interesting to note that the "Bailiffs" (in reality authorized officers of the Court and nowadays known as Enforcement Agents) who, according to the 'corrected' version of the Survey Report, did NOT 'enforce a High Court Warrant' or 'seize' the vessel, and for whose highly questionable services C&RT tried to relieve Alan Roberts of Β£4500.00, have now metamorphized into 'security agents' !
You need to get this in court Tony, because believe me Beacham will see the writing on the wall soon, and Planet will be gone! He runs a successful business and to think he is stupid is underestimating the enemy! Good luck Tony
|
|