|
Post by TonyDunkley on May 24, 2018 9:17:04 GMT
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. There's no harm in anyone taking up your suggestion, Ross, but he's being reported to the (Gloucestershire) Police for handling stolen property in any case. When they attended AlanR's attempted repossession of the ship on 23 April 2017, at our request, they were very much of a mind to open an investigation into the fraudulent seizure and removal (theft) from Liverpool, but couldn't proceed because those offences were committed outside of their area/jurisdiction.
|
|
|
Post by bargemast on May 24, 2018 11:22:15 GMT
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. There's no harm in anyone taking up your suggestion, Ross, but he's being reported to the (Gloucestershire) Police for handling stolen property in any case. When they attended AlanR's attempted repossession of the ship on 23 April 2017, at our request, they were very much of a mind to open an investigation into the fraudulent seizure and removal (theft) from Liverpool, but couldn't proceed because those offences were committed outside of their area/jurisdiction.This sounds so wrong, and it would make life for thieves very easy in that case.
I remember that in the past criminals had to escape to countries like Argentina etc to be safe from being caught by the police, but in this case moving to another part of the country is already enough.
They seem to have lost the whole idea of something that was called "Justice" in the past, now all that's left of that is a word without a meaning.
Peter.
|
|
|
Post by TonyDunkley on May 25, 2018 14:05:53 GMT
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 £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 Thanks for the good luck wishes, Peter, but I can't agree about Beacham. Describing the man as stupid would be something of an understatement, . . . almost qualifies as a compliment in his case. Underestimating the opposition certainly is a serious error to make, but the real opposition here isn't Beacham, he's just a convenient pawn in one of C&RT's nasty little games. The prime mover behind all this was one of the ill-intentioned and destructive rogue contingents within C&RT management/administration. Two of the individuals mainly responsible for planning and orchestrating this disgraceful episode from the very beginning have departed C&RT's employ, but some of their like-minded colleagues remain, and are still pulling the strings some 20 months on, or getting on for 22 months if you count from when (July 2016) the decision to take the ship to Sharpness was made. The small mountain of written material and evidence associated with this sad saga, going back to well before "Planet" was snatched, is a rather depressing record of bloody-mindedness, dishonesty, negative thinking, tunnel-vision and outright stupidity from which none of those involved emerge with any credit. Thanks in no small part, however, to the coverage this monumental foul-up has attracted - now worldwide on various shipping/maritime websites and forums - C&RT have become increasingly concerned over the growing adverse publicity they've created for themselves, and this is largely what has kept "Planet" away from the breakers. Apart from C&RT whinging to Alan Roberts about the detrimental effect all this publicity had on their attempts to sell the ship in May last year, five to six weeks after the sham 'sale' to Beacham, and Beacham himself doing the same in the intervening period, nothing of any significance has come about to break the impasse over the ship's continuing unlawful detention in Sharpness. Over the last few weeks, however, there have been increasingly clear indications that C&RT have got someone working quietly in the background attempting to cajole Alan Roberts in to some sort of bum payoff deal whereby he lets the whole matter drop and "Planet" returns to Liverpool having been 'saved' through the joint efforts of the heroic Mr Beacham and the Trust itself. For all his faults, Alan Roberts is a forgiving, trusting and generous soul whose natural instincts are to avoid confrontation rather than meet it head-on, but I suspect that some of his so-called friends in Liverpool, and especially C&RT's resident 'fifth columnist', are exploiting his inherent good nature and actively working against his best interests. I sincerely hope that either I'm wrong about this, or if I'm not, that Alan wakes up to what's happening before it's all too late and he's duped into letting C&RT and Beacham off the hook, and parting with his ship for much less than it's true value.
|
|
|
Post by naughtyfox on May 25, 2018 14:22:47 GMT
This entire thread should be copied and printed and turned into a book - it will become an historical document eventually. It would also be nice to see a fair and balanced report of this whole sordid affair written up, for future generations to have. I think if I had lived in England I would have had a go at chasing this up; but it could also be that having met some of the characters involved, my own opinion could have been altered. But I'm generally a go-getter and enjoy turning up in people's offices unannounced.
|
|
|
Post by TonyDunkley on Jun 1, 2018 13:30:29 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 don’t 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
I replied to the above e-mail on Tuesday 29 May 2018, one week after it was sent, as follows : Mr Beacham, There is no point to going any further in responding to the incomprehensible gibberish in your e-mail transmission timed at 1917 hrs on 22 May 2018 other than to draw your attention to and/or remind you of the following :- * As Mr Roberts told you on 8 May last, the matter of the C&RT's unlawful seizure and impoundment of "Planet'' in Sharpness Dock has yet to be disposed of in Court. If, as you informed at least one prospective buyer last year, you have been supplied with copies of 'Court papers' in respect of this matter, then those papers, if genuine, will originate from the hearing at Chester on 19 December 2018 when C&RT misled the Court into lifting the Injunction preventing them from selling the ship having submitted false written evidence which they admitted to as such some seven plus months later. The false evidence stated that "Planet" had been seized under the authority of a High Court Warrant, but the Trust's Solicitors have since acknowledged, in writing, that this was untrue and that no such authority had been either obtained or even applied for. I will leave you to ponder the implications of this, but if you would like sight of the relevant documentation we will forward copies to you. * From correspondence you had with prospective buyers and from documentation originating from Commercial Boat Services that we have copies of, it appears that you may have been led to believe that the seizure of "Planet" was carried out under the Section 8 powers of the 1983 British Waterways Act, and if so, this is yet another serious misconception which C&RT and their lawyers have seen fit to leave uncorrected. * Were it a less serious matter, your suggestion that anyone should "purchase the vessel back" on behalf of Mr Roberts would be quite laughable. As things stand, however, you are in possession of, and attempting to sell or otherwise dispose of, a vessel of which the rightful owner has been unlawfully deprived. Until you were made aware of this you were in a position to plead that you were an innocent party acting in good faith and that you had been duped into believing that the C&RT had good title to the ship they handed over to you, and were therefore entitled to sell it as, supposedly, 'free of any encumbrances'. However, since being made aware, many times now, of the true situation, your protestations of innocent involvement cannot and will not be accepted and/or believed. Your persistent refusal to disclose any of the purchase documentation you claim to have is evidence enough that you yourself have serious doubts as to it's worth and validity. I suggest that you produce the requested copies of the C&RT 'Bill of Sale', together with any other relevant documentation supplied to you by the Trust, before it becomes too late for you to avoid the consequences of not so doing. A.K. Dunkley (Shipowner's Representative) ___________________________________________________________ To which Beacham replied, just over an hour later : Dear Mr Dunkley,
Unfortunately the ship was sold, over the weekend, the new owner, is aware of the history and further he has been advised of you and all of the correspondence that you have sent me, we have shown him, we will not be disclosing any details of the new owner for obvious reasons, his intentions are honourable as were ours, but unfortunately you, Mr Dunkley, have made it impossible for us to proceed with our plans for the vessel, so the best view was taken to sell her before depreciates any more to someone who can get on with bringing her back into good condition. Mr Dunkley I place you responsible for pushing us into this decision.
Best regards Steve Beacham
___________________________________________________________ . . . and I have replied today : Mr Beacham, Thank you very much for your e-mail transmission timed at 1405 hrs. on Tuesday 29 May 2018. It really was most considerate and helpful of you to send yet another item of useful evidence of your criminal offences in time for inclusion with all the other written evidence of your handling of stolen goods accompanying the crime report to Gloucestershire Police. If, as you state in your e-mail, you have in fact disclosed all correspondence relating to "Planet" to last weekend's prospective purchaser, including the 'Bill of Sale' fabricated by the C&RT and which you have been repeatedly advised is fraudulent and invalid, together with all correspondence relating to the circumstances in which the ship came to be in your possession, then in addition to the offence of handling stolen goods under Section 22 of the Theft Act 1968, you would also stand accused of fraud under Sections 1 and 2 of the Fraud Act 2006. The C&RT have stated that they 'sold' "Planet" to you on 10 April 2017, which was twelve days before you stated to to the rightful owner, Alan Roberts, on 23 April 2018 and in front of witnesses including an on duty police officer, that you were simply looking after the ship for the C&RT and that you were not even allowed to go aboard it. The Bill of Sale you claim to have from the C&RT, and on which you appear to place total and unquestioning reliance, is a fraudulent and worthless document, and you seem quite unable to grasp the fact that no person or organization can legitimize a criminal act or a civil wrong and gain 'good title' to goods and property they do not own, or have lawful entitlement to sell, by creating and passing off false documentation. Your so-called Bill of Sale is of no more worth than a forged logbook supplied by a thief selling a stolen car, and unless you very soon wake up to and recognize that uncomfortable truth then you will find yourself facing criminal charges for offences carrying a maximum penalty of up 14 years imprisonment. I suggest, once again, that you urgently reconsider your position and seek independent legal advice. Answers to the following questions may be of some assistance to you in so doing, and may leave you somewhat less inclined to put too much faith in whatever C&RT and/or Shoosmiths choose to tell you : * Why did the C&RT lie to the Marine Surveyors, brought in to inspect "Planet" on 19 September 2016 prior to taking it to sea, to the effect that they were 'enforcing a High Court Warrant' when it was later admitted by Shoosmiths, in writing, that no such warrant had ever been either applied for or obtained ? * Why did the C&RT illegally employ local nightclub doormen and football match stewards to 'seize' "Planet" and to dress as and to impersonate Court authorized, certificated 'Bailiffs' while so doing ? - (in itself a criminal offence under the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007) * Why did the C&RT lead both you and Commercial Boat Services to believe that "Planet" was seized under 'Section 8' powers ? Signed, A.K. Dunkley (Shipowner's Representative)_______________________________________________________A written report of Beacham's handling of stolen goods (ie. one ex-Lightship plus contents) awaits forwarding to Gloucestershire Police by Alan Roberts, as and when he sees fit so to do.
I really can't decide if Beacham is simply being unbelievably obtuse, or that he's even more stupid than I thought he was.
|
|
|
Post by bargemast on Jun 1, 2018 14:38:47 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 don’t 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
I replied to the above e-mail on Tuesday 29 May 2018, one week after it was sent, as follows : Mr Beacham, There is no point to going any further in responding to the incomprehensible gibberish in your e-mail transmission timed at 1917 hrs on 22 May 2018 other than to draw your attention to and/or remind you of the following :- * As Mr Roberts told you on 8 May last, the matter of the C&RT's unlawful seizure and impoundment of "Planet'' in Sharpness Dock has yet to be disposed of in Court. If, as you informed at least one prospective buyer last year, you have been supplied with copies of 'Court papers' in respect of this matter, then those papers, if genuine, will originate fromwhen C&RT misled the Court into lifting the Injunction preventing them from selling the ship having submitted false written evidenc the hearing at Chester on 19 December 2018 which they admitted to as such some seven plus months later. The false evidence stated that "Planet" had been seized under the authority of a High Court Warrant, but the Trust's Solicitors have since acknowledged, in writing, that this was untrue and that no such authority had been either obtained or even applied for. I will leave you to ponder the implications of this, but if you would like sight of the relevant documentation we will forward copies to you. * From correspondence you had with prospective buyers and from documentation originating from Commercial Boat Services that we have copies of, it appears that you may have been led to believe that the seizure of "Planet" was carried out under the Section 8 powers of the 1983 British Waterways Act, and if so, this is yet another serious misconception which C&RT and their lawyers have seen fit to leave uncorrected. * Were it a less serious matter, your suggestion that anyone should "purchase the vessel back" on behalf of Mr Roberts would be quite laughable. As things stand, however, you are in possession of, and attempting to sell or otherwise dispose of, a vessel of which the rightful owner has been unlawfully deprived. Until you were made aware of this you were in a position to plead that you were an innocent party acting in good faith and that you had been duped into believing that the C&RT had good title to the ship they handed over to you, and were therefore entitled to sell it as, supposedly, 'free of any encumbrances'. However, since being made aware, many times now, of the true situation, your protestations of innocent involvement cannot and will not be accepted and/or believed. Your persistent refusal to disclose any of the purchase documentation you claim to have is evidence enough that you yourself have serious doubts as to it's worth and validity. I suggest that you produce the requested copies of the C&RT 'Bill of Sale', together with any other relevant documentation supplied to you by the Trust, before it becomes too late for you to avoid the consequences of not so doing. A.K. Dunkley (Shipowner's Representative) ___________________________________________________________ To which Beacham replied, just over an hour later : Dear Mr Dunkley,
Unfortunately the ship was sold, over the weekend, the new owner, is aware of the history and further he has been advised of you and all of the correspondence that you have sent me, we have shown him, we will not be disclosing any details of the new owner for obvious reasons, his intentions are honourable as were ours, but unfortunately you, Mr Dunkley, have made it impossible for us to proceed with our plans for the vessel, so the best view was taken to sell her before depreciates any more to someone who can get on with bringing her back into good condition. Mr Dunkley I place you responsible for pushing us into this decision.
Best regards Steve Beacham
___________________________________________________________ . . . and I have replied today : Mr Beacham, Thank you very much for your e-mail transmission timed at 1405 hrs. on Tuesday 29 May 2018. It really was most considerate and helpful of you to send yet another item of useful evidence of your criminal offences in time for inclusion with all the other written evidence of your handling of stolen goods accompanying the crime report to Gloucestershire Police. If, as you state in your e-mail, you have in fact disclosed all correspondence relating to "Planet" to last weekend's prospective purchaser, including the 'Bill of Sale' fabricated by the C&RT and which you have been repeatedly advised is fraudulent and invalid, together with all correspondence relating to the circumstances in which the ship came to be in your possession, then in addition to the offence of handling stolen goods under Section 22 of the Theft Act 1968, you would also stand accused of fraud under Sections 1 and 2 of the Fraud Act 2006. The C&RT have stated that they 'sold' "Planet" to you on 10 April 2017, which was twelve days before you stated to to the rightful owner, Alan Roberts, on 23 April 2018 and in front of witnesses including an on duty police officer, that you were simply looking after the ship for the C&RT and that you were not even allowed to go aboard it. The Bill of Sale you claim to have from the C&RT, and on which you appear to place total and unquestioning reliance, is a fraudulent and worthless document, and you seem quite unable to grasp the fact that no person or organization can legitimize a criminal act or a civil wrong and gain 'good title' to goods and property they do not own, or have lawful entitlement to sell, by creating and passing off false documentation. Your so-called Bill of Sale is of no more worth than a forged logbook supplied by a thief selling a stolen car, and unless you very soon wake up to and recognize that uncomfortable truth then you will find yourself facing criminal charges for offences carrying a maximum penalty of up 14 years imprisonment. I suggest, once again, that you urgently reconsider your position and seek independent legal advice. Answers to the following questions may be of some assistance to you in so doing, and may leave you somewhat less inclined to put too much faith in whatever C&RT and/or Shoosmiths choose to tell you : * Why did the C&RT lie to the Marine Surveyors, brought in to inspect "Planet" on 19 September 2016 prior to taking it to sea, to the effect that they were 'enforcing a High Court Warrant' when it was later admitted by Shoosmiths, in writing, that no such warrant had ever been either applied for or obtained ? * Why did the C&RT illegally employ local nightclub doormen and football match stewards to 'seize' "Planet" and to dress as and to impersonate Court authorized, certificated 'Bailiffs' while so doing ? - (in itself a criminal offence under the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007) * Why did the C&RT lead both you and Commercial Boat Services to believe that "Planet" was seized under 'Section 8' powers ? Signed, A.K. Dunkley (Shipowner's Representative)_______________________________________________________A written report of Beacham's handling of stolen goods (ie. one ex-Lightship plus contents) awaits forwarding to Gloucestershire Police by Alan Roberts, as and when he sees fit so to do.
I really can't decide if Beacham is simply being unbelievably obtuse, or that he's even more stupid than I thought he was. Excellent letter Tony, I only discovered a slight mistake in a date that still has to come 19 December 2018.
Peter.
|
|
|
Post by kris on Jun 1, 2018 14:58:44 GMT
Yes good letter Tony, I can't believe that they expect yourself and Alan to just go away and leave them alone. If in fact he has sold the ship again then I expect he has found another patsy to pass the hot potatoe onto. Exactly like cart did to him. I bet he wishes he'd never heard of planet now. The name of Steve beacham and commercial boat services will be sullied by this sordid affair for ever more.
|
|
|
Post by TonyDunkley on Jun 1, 2018 15:42:20 GMT
I replied to the above e-mail on Tuesday 29 May 2018, one week after it was sent, as follows : Mr Beacham, There is no point to going any further in responding to the incomprehensible gibberish in your e-mail transmission timed at 1917 hrs on 22 May 2018 other than to draw your attention to and/or remind you of the following :- * As Mr Roberts told you on 8 May last, the matter of the C&RT's unlawful seizure and impoundment of "Planet'' in Sharpness Dock has yet to be disposed of in Court. If, as you informed at least one prospective buyer last year, you have been supplied with copies of 'Court papers' in respect of this matter, then those papers, if genuine, will originate fromwhen C&RT misled the Court into lifting the Injunction preventing them from selling the ship having submitted false written evidenc the hearing at Chester on 19 December 2018 which they admitted to as such some seven plus months later. The false evidence stated that "Planet" had been seized under the authority of a High Court Warrant, but the Trust's Solicitors have since acknowledged, in writing, that this was untrue and that no such authority had been either obtained or even applied for. I will leave you to ponder the implications of this, but if you would like sight of the relevant documentation we will forward copies to you. * From correspondence you had with prospective buyers and from documentation originating from Commercial Boat Services that we have copies of, it appears that you may have been led to believe that the seizure of "Planet" was carried out under the Section 8 powers of the 1983 British Waterways Act, and if so, this is yet another serious misconception which C&RT and their lawyers have seen fit to leave uncorrected. * Were it a less serious matter, your suggestion that anyone should "purchase the vessel back" on behalf of Mr Roberts would be quite laughable. As things stand, however, you are in possession of, and attempting to sell or otherwise dispose of, a vessel of which the rightful owner has been unlawfully deprived. Until you were made aware of this you were in a position to plead that you were an innocent party acting in good faith and that you had been duped into believing that the C&RT had good title to the ship they handed over to you, and were therefore entitled to sell it as, supposedly, 'free of any encumbrances'. However, since being made aware, many times now, of the true situation, your protestations of innocent involvement cannot and will not be accepted and/or believed. Your persistent refusal to disclose any of the purchase documentation you claim to have is evidence enough that you yourself have serious doubts as to it's worth and validity. I suggest that you produce the requested copies of the C&RT 'Bill of Sale', together with any other relevant documentation supplied to you by the Trust, before it becomes too late for you to avoid the consequences of not so doing. A.K. Dunkley (Shipowner's Representative) ___________________________________________________________ To which Beacham replied, just over an hour later : Dear Mr Dunkley,
Unfortunately the ship was sold, over the weekend, the new owner, is aware of the history and further he has been advised of you and all of the correspondence that you have sent me, we have shown him, we will not be disclosing any details of the new owner for obvious reasons, his intentions are honourable as were ours, but unfortunately you, Mr Dunkley, have made it impossible for us to proceed with our plans for the vessel, so the best view was taken to sell her before depreciates any more to someone who can get on with bringing her back into good condition. Mr Dunkley I place you responsible for pushing us into this decision.
Best regards Steve Beacham
___________________________________________________________ . . . and I have replied today : Mr Beacham, Thank you very much for your e-mail transmission timed at 1405 hrs. on Tuesday 29 May 2018. It really was most considerate and helpful of you to send yet another item of useful evidence of your criminal offences in time for inclusion with all the other written evidence of your handling of stolen goods accompanying the crime report to Gloucestershire Police. If, as you state in your e-mail, you have in fact disclosed all correspondence relating to "Planet" to last weekend's prospective purchaser, including the 'Bill of Sale' fabricated by the C&RT and which you have been repeatedly advised is fraudulent and invalid, together with all correspondence relating to the circumstances in which the ship came to be in your possession, then in addition to the offence of handling stolen goods under Section 22 of the Theft Act 1968, you would also stand accused of fraud under Sections 1 and 2 of the Fraud Act 2006. The C&RT have stated that they 'sold' "Planet" to you on 10 April 2017, which was twelve days before you stated to to the rightful owner, Alan Roberts, on 23 April 2018 and in front of witnesses including an on duty police officer, that you were simply looking after the ship for the C&RT and that you were not even allowed to go aboard it. The Bill of Sale you claim to have from the C&RT, and on which you appear to place total and unquestioning reliance, is a fraudulent and worthless document, and you seem quite unable to grasp the fact that no person or organization can legitimize a criminal act or a civil wrong and gain 'good title' to goods and property they do not own, or have lawful entitlement to sell, by creating and passing off false documentation. Your so-called Bill of Sale is of no more worth than a forged logbook supplied by a thief selling a stolen car, and unless you very soon wake up to and recognize that uncomfortable truth then you will find yourself facing criminal charges for offences carrying a maximum penalty of up 14 years imprisonment. I suggest, once again, that you urgently reconsider your position and seek independent legal advice. Answers to the following questions may be of some assistance to you in so doing, and may leave you somewhat less inclined to put too much faith in whatever C&RT and/or Shoosmiths choose to tell you : * Why did the C&RT lie to the Marine Surveyors, brought in to inspect "Planet" on 19 September 2016 prior to taking it to sea, to the effect that they were 'enforcing a High Court Warrant' when it was later admitted by Shoosmiths, in writing, that no such warrant had ever been either applied for or obtained ? * Why did the C&RT illegally employ local nightclub doormen and football match stewards to 'seize' "Planet" and to dress as and to impersonate Court authorized, certificated 'Bailiffs' while so doing ? - (in itself a criminal offence under the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007) * Why did the C&RT lead both you and Commercial Boat Services to believe that "Planet" was seized under 'Section 8' powers ? Signed, A.K. Dunkley (Shipowner's Representative)_______________________________________________________A written report of Beacham's handling of stolen goods (ie. one ex-Lightship plus contents) awaits forwarding to Gloucestershire Police by Alan Roberts, as and when he sees fit so to do.
I really can't decide if Beacham is simply being unbelievably obtuse, or that he's even more stupid than I thought he was. Excellent letter Tony, I only discovered a slight mistake in a date that still has to come 19 December 2018.
Peter.
Thanks for that, Peter, . . I really will have to get some new specs, . . I read through that e-mail three times before sending it
|
|
|
Post by TonyDunkley on Jun 1, 2018 21:45:27 GMT
Surely this now is a matter for the Gloucestershire Police Force as an (alleged) crime has taken place within their jurisdiction. Isn't this known as 'fencing'? what-when-how.com/police-science/fencing-stolen-property-police/ I'd have Plod down to Sharpness Shityard* ASAP. *I really will have to get some new specs, . . I read through that post three times before sending it Yes, it certainly is a matter for Gloucestershire Police, . . . the offence of handling stolen goods, at or from Sharpness Shipwrecks Shipyard and Drydock Ltd premises is well enough documented in Beacham's foolish e-mails, as are the number of times he's been advised and/or warned that the BoS and the accompanying documentation that he claims to possess, but has been 'told' not to show/disclose to Alan Roberts or anyone associated with him, isn't worth the paper it probably isn't written on. I wonder if Beacham's co-schemers have had the decency to draw his attention to this bit of the 2006 Fraud Act ? _____________________________________________________________ 2 Fraud by false representation
(1)A person is in breach of this section if he— (a)dishonestly makes a false representation, and (b)intends, by making the representation— (i)to make a gain for himself or another, or (ii)to cause loss to another or to expose another to a risk of loss. (2)A representation is false if— (a)it is untrue or misleading, and (b)the person making it knows that it is, or might be, untrue or misleading. (3)“Representation” means any representation as to fact or law, including a representation as to the state of mind of— (a)the person making the representation, or (b)any other person. (4)A representation may be express or implied. (5)For the purposes of this section a representation may be regarded as made if it (or anything implying it) is submitted in any form to any system or device designed to receive, convey or respond to communications (with or without human intervention).
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 1, 2018 21:47:37 GMT
Conspirators not conspiritors
|
|
|
Post by Andyberg on Jun 2, 2018 8:18:53 GMT
Surely this now is a matter for the Gloucestershire Police Force as an (alleged) crime has taken place within their jurisdiction. Isn't this known as 'fencing'? what-when-how.com/police-science/fencing-stolen-property-police/ I'd have Plod down to Sharpness Shityard* ASAP. *I really will have to get some new specs, . . I read through that post three times before sending it Yes, it certainly is a matter for Gloucestershire Police, . . . the offence of handling stolen goods, at or from Sharpness Shipwrecks Shipyard and Drydock Ltd premises is well enough documented in Beacham's foolish e-mails, as are the number of times he's been advised and/or warned that the BoS and the accompanying documentation that he claims to possess, but has been 'told' not to show/disclose to Alan Roberts or anyone associated with him, isn't worth the paper it probably isn't written on. So why havent Gloucester police already investigated the offence of handling stolen goods?
|
|
|
Post by TonyDunkley on Jun 2, 2018 10:10:21 GMT
Yes, it certainly is a matter for Gloucestershire Police, . . . the offence of handling stolen goods, at or from Sharpness Shipwrecks Shipyard and Drydock Ltd premises is well enough documented in Beacham's foolish e-mails, as are the number of times he's been advised and/or warned that the BoS and the accompanying documentation that he claims to possess, but has been 'told' not to show/disclose to Alan Roberts or anyone associated with him, isn't worth the paper it probably isn't written on. So why havent Gloucester police already investigated the offence of handling stolen goods? As far as I'm aware, Alan Roberts hasn't yet reported the offence to the Gloucestershire Police, and the initial crime report really should be made by the owner of the stolen goods. I think he might have been 'got at' in some way by C&RT trying to buy their way out of the pickle they know they're in with this, . . see last para. of my 25 May post - fourth one down on page 75. There's been no contact from AR with me or the barrister in the last 15 days.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 2, 2018 11:04:21 GMT
So why havent Gloucester police already investigated the offence of handling stolen goods? As far as I'm aware, Alan Roberts hasn't yet reported the offence to the Gloucestershire Police, and the initial crime report really should be made by the owner of the stolen goods. I think he might have been 'got at' in some way by C&RT trying to buy their way out of the pickle they know they're in with this, . . see last para. of my 25 May post - fourth one down on page 75. There's been no contact from AR with me or the barrister in the last 15 days. Surely if one really believes they have been victim of a theft, they’d report it immediately? This has been going on for ages.
|
|
|
Post by TonyDunkley on Jun 2, 2018 11:57:18 GMT
As far as I'm aware, Alan Roberts hasn't yet reported the offence to the Gloucestershire Police, and the initial crime report really should be made by the owner of the stolen goods. I think he might have been 'got at' in some way by C&RT trying to buy their way out of the pickle they know they're in with this, . . see last para. of my 25 May post - fourth one down on page 75. There's been no contact from AR with me or the barrister in the last 15 days. Surely if one really believes they have been victim of a theft, they’d report it immediately? This has been going on for ages. The seizure of the ship, and the means by which it was accomplished, was reported as a crime to Merseyside Police shortly after the ship was taken by C&RT in September 2016, but due to the fact that they had neglected to check the credentials of C&RT's bogus 'Bailiffs', or ask to be shown the (fictitious) 'High Court Warrant' that C&RT lied about and claimed to be 'enforcing', the Merseyside Police sought to hide their embarrassing negligence and sweep everything under the carpet by dismissing the unlawful seizure as a 'civil matter' and refusing to record or investigate the incident as a crime.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 2, 2018 14:19:06 GMT
Surely if one really believes they have been victim of a theft, they’d report it immediately? This has been going on for ages. The seizure of the ship, and the means by which it was accomplished, was reported as a crime to Merseyside Police shortly after the ship was taken by C&RT in September 2016, but due to the fact that they had neglected to check the credentials of C&RT's bogus 'Bailiffs', or ask to be shown the (fictitious) 'High Court Warrant' that C&RT lied about and claimed to be 'enforcing', the Merseyside Police sought to hide their embarrassing negligence and sweep everything under the carpet by dismissing the unlawful seizure as a 'civil matter' and refusing to record or investigate the incident as a crime. So, it was reported as a crime in 2016 but the police decided not to log it because they didn’t believe it was a crime. Now there is more evidence to show it might be a crime, the owner doesn’t want to take it any further. Yes, that does seem a bit odd.
|
|