|
Post by Telemachus on Apr 12, 2021 8:47:35 GMT
Update: Thanks to all of our backers for your fantastic response. You can help us reach the target by continuing to share the campaign on social media, by email or in a blog. Our lawyers have started work and we should have more to report in a week or so. We are very grateful indeed for your support. Thank you! www.crowdjustice.com/case/protect-boats-homes/The motives behind bedruthan's (aka. S.Jenkin, J.Evans, S.Jay, A.Esterby etc. etc.) enthusiastic 'plugging' of this fund raising by this ill-defined "coalition of boat dwellers, the National Bargee Travellers Association and other support organisations" are unclear. Something that IS abundantly clear, however, is that in spite of previous warnings from the Courts of the fatal pitfalls in Judicial Review arguments made from the standpoint of what the C&RT might do at some future time, the money raised from this current crowdjustice fund raiser is going to pay for yet another Community Law Partnership inspired factual context free JR grounded in speculation as to what supposedly new levels of 'unreasonableness' C&RT might indulge in once the proposed changes to its already ultra vires boat Licence T&C's come into effect. During the course of conducting Judicial Review on the legality of C&RT's 'cruising guidance' for boats without a home mooring - discontinued on 19 February 2014 - Lewis J stated : ”During the course of argument I raised a problem that is that the Courts are reminded of the undesirability of deciding an issue absent a proper factual context… the Court has warned against abstract actions and needs a proper factual matrix to assess cases… ".Where, and what, is the point of another journey down a road that the Courts have already indicated will go nowhere, or of wasting raised funds in paying the Community Law Partnership to map out that journey, when a "factual matrix" of precisely the sort that Mr Justice Lewis lamented the absence of back in 2014 - AND one which makes out an almost unarguable case against the C&RT's ridiculous reliance on S.43 of the 1962 Transport Act for the authority and powers to impose ANY or ALL of the existing or future Licence T&C's, and ANYTHING else that the warped directing minds at C&RT might dream up in the future - was exhaustively researched post the discontinued 2014 JR and published by Nigel Moore in July 2016 ? As I think you are saying, a JR can only rule on an actual decision already made. It is not interested in the ifs and maybes of possible future events. However CRT have already made a decision to require acceptance of Ts and Cs before they will issue a licence. That is a clear decision which could be challenged as it does seem contrary to statute.
|
|
|
Post by TonyDunkley on Apr 12, 2021 20:25:10 GMT
The motives behind bedruthan's (aka. S.Jenkin, J.Evans, S.Jay, A.Esterby etc. etc.) enthusiastic 'plugging' of this fund raising by this ill-defined "coalition of boat dwellers, the National Bargee Travellers Association and other support organisations" are unclear. Something that IS abundantly clear, however, is that in spite of previous warnings from the Courts of the fatal pitfalls in Judicial Review arguments made from the standpoint of what the C&RT might do at some future time, the money raised from this current crowdjustice fund raiser is going to pay for yet another Community Law Partnership inspired factual context free JR grounded in speculation as to what supposedly new levels of 'unreasonableness' C&RT might indulge in once the proposed changes to its already ultra vires boat Licence T&C's come into effect. During the course of conducting Judicial Review on the legality of C&RT's 'cruising guidance' for boats without a home mooring - discontinued on 19 February 2014 - Lewis J stated : ”During the course of argument I raised a problem that is that the Courts are reminded of the undesirability of deciding an issue absent a proper factual context… the Court has warned against abstract actions and needs a proper factual matrix to assess cases… ".Where, and what, is the point of another journey down a road that the Courts have already indicated will go nowhere, or of wasting raised funds in paying the Community Law Partnership to map out that journey, when a "factual matrix" of precisely the sort that Mr Justice Lewis lamented the absence of back in 2014 - AND one which makes out an almost unarguable case against the C&RT's ridiculous reliance on S.43 of the 1962 Transport Act for the authority and powers to impose ANY or ALL of the existing or future Licence T&C's, and ANYTHING else that the warped directing minds at C&RT might dream up in the future - was exhaustively researched post the discontinued 2014 JR and published by Nigel Moore in July 2016 ? However CRT have already made a decision to require acceptance of Ts and Cs before they will issue a licence. That is a clear decision which could be challenged as it does seem contrary to statute. The uncomfortable, not to say highly inconvenient truth for the NBTA and its solicitors, the Community Law Partnership, is that just such a challenge was made, successfully, almost seven years ago. C&RT have been insisting, or rather trying to insist, on a signed declaration agreeing to the extra-statutory Licence T&C's on every boat Licence Application form since at least as far back as 2014. Leaving out the unidentified anonymous boat dwellers and other support organisations who now stand to benefit from this destined to be wasted funding appeal, the NBTA were kept fully informed and aware, at the time, that the mid-2014 C&RT decision to apply to the Court for formal discontinuance of the specious Section 8 action grounded in the extra-statutory and therefore unlawful January 2014 Licence T&C's based revoking of my current 'Rivers only Licence' was brought about by two events that neither C&RT nor their equally dishonest lawyers had reckoned on. The first of these 'events' was the inclusion in my filed Defence to the 2014 S.8 action of the fact that the 'Rivers only Licence', having been revoked solely on the grounds of non-compliance with the 2014 boat Licence T&C's, had been revoked unlawfully. The second of these two inconvenient 'events' - and another aspect of the specious S.8 action that C&RT dare not risk being argued out successfully and publicly in Court - was the fact that, in the course of what were in truth contrived and utterly groundless proceedings, it had been obliged to renew my unlawfully revoked 'Rivers only Licence' on its normal renewal date, . . without any declaration or agreement on my part to the extra-statutory T&C's.
|
|
|
Post by Telemachus on Apr 12, 2021 21:00:13 GMT
However CRT have already made a decision to require acceptance of Ts and Cs before they will issue a licence. That is a clear decision which could be challenged as it does seem contrary to statute. The uncomfortable, not to say highly inconvenient truth for the NBTA and its solicitors, the Community Law Partnership, is that just such a challenge was made, successfully, almost seven years ago. C&RT have been insisting, or rather trying to insist, on a signed declaration agreeing to the extra-statutory Licence T&C's on every boat Licence Application form since at least as far back as 2014. Leaving out the unidentified anonymous boat dwellers and other support organisations who now stand to benefit from this destined to be wasted funding appeal, the NBTA were kept fully informed and aware, at the time, that the mid-2014 C&RT decision to apply to the Court for formal discontinuance of the specious Section 8 action grounded in the extra-statutory and therefore unlawful January 2014 Licence T&C's based revoking of my current 'Rivers only Licence' was brought about by two events that neither C&RT nor their equally dishonest lawyers had reckoned on. The first of these 'events' was the inclusion in my filed Defence to the 2014 S.8 action of the fact that the 'Rivers only Licence', having been revoked solely on the grounds of non-compliance with the 2014 boat Licence T&C's, had been revoked unlawfully. The second of these two inconvenient 'events' - and the one that C&RT could NOT risk being argued out successfully and publicly in Court - was the fact that, in the midst of these contrived and utterly groundless proceedings, it had been obliged to renew my unlawfully revoked 'Rivers only Licence' on its normal renewal date, without any declaration or agreement on my part to the extra-statutory T&C's.Yes I slightly lose track of all the shennigans, but that does suggest that CRT know perfectly well that they can't enforce Ts and Cs, it is all a bluff. Which is pretty bad for a (pseudo) public organisation
|
|
|
Post by TonyDunkley on Apr 12, 2021 21:16:14 GMT
However CRT have already made a decision to require acceptance of Ts and Cs before they will issue a licence. That is a clear decision which could be challenged as it does seem contrary to statute. The uncomfortable, not to say highly inconvenient truth for the NBTA and its solicitors, the Community Law Partnership, is that just such a challenge was made, successfully, almost seven years ago. C&RT have been insisting, or rather trying to insist, on a signed declaration agreeing to the extra-statutory Licence T&C's on every boat Licence Application form since at least as far back as 2014. . . . . . . . . . . . . . Time, I think, to eliminate any lingering doubts anyone may have as to the futility of - to quote from the crowdjustice appeal page - contributing to funding to "go towards the cost of a Legal Opinion on the extent of CRT powers to make the proposed changes to the Boat Licence Terms and Conditions." - rather than putting the funds raised towards the costs of Judicial Review of C&RT's seven years (+) documented misuse and abuse of S.43 of the 1962 Transport Act by way of the unilateral imposition of extra-statutory and therefore illegal and unenforceable Licence T&C's. Here is the exhaustively researched article that Nigel Moore, prompted in no small part by the events recounted in my previous post, generously made widely available to boating organizations, including the NBTA and NABO, and published on the internet back in July 2016 for the benefit of any organization or individual with the necessary will and resolve to take-on C&RT with a view to curbing its ever increasing, calculated, and knowingly unlawful excesses : Section 43 of the 1962 Transport Act; Use and abuse.Context is all, and is the one thing that most people fail to see when dealing with this bit of legislation in particular. It is surprising, because the very wording of the oft-quoted section demands that it be read subject to the preceding sub-sections and to preceding enabling Acts.The result of reading it in isolation is to form a view that this Act confers, for the first time, rights to charge for use by boats of the canals, and to impose conditions on such use. It does no such thing.From the very beginning, over two centuries ago now, canal companies were granted the right to charge for use by boats of their waterways, and to make conditions for such use. Nothing changed in those respects from the enabling Acts until now. What HAS changed, is the degree of limitations applicable to the setting of charges and conditions.None of these could ever have applied to the grant of permission for boats to enter the waterways; the canals were all of them subject to the public right of navigation. It is not that boats were not subject to conditions attached to the exercise of their right – they were, as provided for in primary and secondary legislation. All boats exercising the public right to enter and use the canals, for example, were required by primary legislation to be registered. All such boats were also required to conform to the conditions of use as set out in the various byelaws. Penalties were set out for breach of these. That still applies, having nothing to do with boat licences, nor with PBC’s.Originally, the canal companies were set fixed levels of charges for the uses they were entitled to charge for [and unless those uses were specified, they were not entitled to charge at all]. Additionally, conditions attached to the services and facilities for which they were entitled to charge were often legislated also. An example of the latter is that while the GJCC were entitled to create wharves and commensurate facilities on any offside land they had purchased for the purpose – just as private riparian landowners were – they were not entitled [by contrast with the private owners], to say who could or could not avail themselves of those facilities; they had to be open to all.The awkwardness of the system meant that new legislation had to be passed every time it was necessary to upgrade the charge levels in line with current costs.These rigid price structures and conditions – differing with every one of the multitudinous companies – were modified in a series of subsequent national legislation. Not what could be charged for and conditioned, which remained then as now, subject to express and implied prohibitions, but how and at what level.The Transport Act 1947 set out a reform applicable to all the nationalised companies within the British Transport Commission, under section 76 headed “Charges Schemes”. This provided that: –“The Commission shall from time to time prepare, and submit to the Transport Tribunal for confirmation, drafts of schemes (hereafter in this Act referred to as “charges schemes”) for determining, as respects the services and facilities provided by the Commission to which the schemes respectively relate – a ) the charges which are to be made by the Commission and b ) where it is necessary or expedient to do so, the other terms and conditions which are to be applicable to the provision of those services and facilities, including, in particular, terms and conditions as to the liability of the Commission for loss or damage.” So the disparate levels of charges under the prior enabling Acts was to be brought under a unified scheme, appropriate to the unified companies under the aegis of the BTC. These charges and related T&C’s were to be submitted to an independent Tribunal for approval. In 1958 the BTC’s Charges Scheme was approved by the Tribunal, coming into force on the 1 June 1958. It laid down that –“4. The Commission may in the case of any inland waterway of the Commission make such charges as may be reasonable – (1) for the use thereof by any ship or boat; (2) for the provision by them of towage thereon; (3) for the provision of port facilities at or in connection with any dock thereon; and (4) for the use of any services and facilities connected with such port facilities . . .” “5. Any questions as to the reasonableness of any charge made by the Commission under paragraph 4 of this Scheme shall be determined on the application either of the Commission or of the person liable to the charge by the Transport Tribunal to the exclusion of any other Court.” “6. The Commission may make the use of any of the services and facilities to which this Scheme relates subject to such reasonable terms and conditions (not being provisions as to the amount of any charges) as the Commission may from time to time determine.” “7. Any questions as to the reasonableness of any term or condition imposed or sought to be imposed by the Commission under paragraph 6 of this Scheme shall be determined by the Transport Tribunal.” The difference between the 1958 Scheme and everything which applied previously, was that the rigid and disparate charges levels were abolished in favour of a uniform level of charge across all relevant waterways, and the T&C’s attached to the service/facility charged for, were likewise made uniform. For both charge levels and T&C’s, the only restriction was that these were to be “reasonable”; the test for reasonableness determinable by the Transport Tribunal in case of challenge.What interested parties need to ask then, is wherein lies the difference between the Charges Scheme 1958 and the Transport Act 1962?The 1962 Act [which abolished all Charges Schemes under the 1947 Act] clarifies that the charging regime applies only to the uses chargeable under the enabling Acts, while removing the burden of reasonableness on the charges and on the related terms and conditions for the chargeable services and facilities.So s.43 introduces nothing new in terms of what can be charged for and conditioned; it simply removes all restrictions and oversight as previously obtained, such that BW could set charges, and set T&C’s for the chargeable services and facilities “as they see fit”.The latter four words form the ONLY point of difference from all that went before.The 1962 Act, far from giving CaRT open licence to charge for whatever they liked and to impose conditions for whatever they liked, on a unilateral basis, is in fact the one bit of legislation that specifically confirms the legislative principle that these charges and conditions cannot be made with respect to anything that had not previously been authorised as chargeable.The licensing of boats on the canals, and the registration of boats on the rivers, was never encompassed within pre-1962 legislation, hence nothing in s.43 could possibly apply to those. When those became law under primary legislation, the conditions for issue were laid out – and to start with, nothing more was required for either, other than a paid for application. The PBC’s to begin with were subject to rigid price structures, but when boat licences became compulsory those prices were abolished and the PBC simply pegged to 60% of the Licence [which BW could charge for as they wished].The BW Act 1983 added an extension to byelaw making powers, so that issue of the boat Licence could be made subject to compliance with prescribed standards of construction and equipment of vessels, but that was never implemented, and the section was repealed under s.36 and Schedule 3 of the 1995 Act – which substituted the BSSC condition instead. The 1995 Act added the only other two applicable conditions, to which issue of relevant consents [to include the *PBC’s as well] were to be subject.*PBC is a Pleasure Boat Certificate, which CRT disingenuously refer to as a Rivers Only Licence. It is, legally speaking, not a licence as none is needed on those rives for which the Public Right of Navigation still exists. _______________________________________________
|
|
|
Post by TonyDunkley on Apr 13, 2021 12:39:51 GMT
Whilst checking the 'mystery coalition' crowdjustice funding appeal page this morning to see what figure the donations have reached, I noticed this remarkable statement on the 'About the Case' page in a paragraph sub-headed 'What is happening?' : -
"Every boat needs to have a licence, otherwise it can be seized by the Trust."
It is unclear from where or from whom this misleading and demonstrable untruth has originated.
If from the unnamed 'boat dwellers' or the anonymous 'other support organisations', or even the NBTA itself, then this gross misrepresentation is at least partially understandable and forgivable. If, on the other hand, it has come from the very same lawyers who will be handed the eventual total raised in return for a 'legal opinion' regarding C&RT's proposed Licence T&C's changes, then it raises very serious questions as to these lawyer's professional competence, . . and possibly even the question as to which side they're really batting for !
The simple truth is that C&RT do NOT have statutory powers, OR any other lawful authority, to SEIZE anyone's goods or property, unless like any other UK organization or company, or any UK citizen, they have a UK Court issued Warrant or Writ of Control commanding and instructing a Court certificated Enforcement Officer or Agent (Bailiff) to take control of goods pursuant to the satisfaction of a Court Order with which the defendant has failed to comply.
Is there any TB member, or anyone who is a member of, or connected with, the NBTA or any of the unnamed 'boat dwellers' or the anonymous 'other support organisations' who would care to comment, . . and to direct the TB readership to whatever statute or common law authority they mistakenly believe entitles the C&RT to help itself, entirely at its own discretion, to other people's goods and property?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 13, 2021 13:26:40 GMT
Seized yours though didn't they..
You can blart all day long Tony, but they are doing it and getting away with it.
|
|
|
Post by TonyDunkley on Apr 13, 2021 13:33:21 GMT
Seized yours though didn't they.. You can blart all day long Tony, but they are doing it and getting away with it. Do you have anything useful to say, . . or is that the full extent of what you're able to contribute ?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 13, 2021 13:52:51 GMT
Nope, im done.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 13, 2021 14:18:36 GMT
Seized yours though didn't they.. You can blart all day long Tony, but they are doing it and getting away with it. Do you have anything useful to say, . . or is that the full extent of what you're able to contribute ? Since you are quite possibly the leading (non-professional) expert on the subject, perhaps all the useful things you say would be most constructively brought to the attention of the legal eagles referred to in the crowdfund appeal instead of blowing off here all the time? It could save a great deal of time and possibly even money.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 13, 2021 14:37:48 GMT
Do you have anything useful to say, . . or is that the full extent of what you're able to contribute ? Since you are quite possibly the leading (non-professional) expert on the subject, perhaps all the useful things you say would be most constructively brought to the attention of the legal eagles referred to in the crowdfund appeal instead of blowing off here all the time? It could save a great deal of time and possibly even money. I did try and find a link on the funding page to point Tony at, I am sure he could put them in their place and save the day, but alas I couldn't find one.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 13, 2021 15:17:01 GMT
Seized yours though didn't they.. You can blart all day long Tony, but they are doing it and getting away with it. Do you have anything useful to say, . . or is that the full extent of what you're able to contribute ? You’re a proper prick you ain’t ya. Your way obviously fails with undeniable evidence being you lost two boats, and neither will ever be returned to their owners. Others then attempt another route using the proper legal representation, and what does the fuckin idiot dunkley do? Slags them off. You really are a thick c**t dunkley. A nasty vindictive prick. Now fuck off and fester in your own poison.
|
|
|
Post by TonyDunkley on Apr 13, 2021 15:31:26 GMT
Update: Thanks to all of our backers for your fantastic response. You can help us reach the target by continuing to share the campaign on social media, by email or in a blog. Our lawyers have started work and we should have more to report in a week or so. We are very grateful indeed for your support. Thank you! www.crowdjustice.com/case/protect-boats-homes/The motives behind bedruthan's (aka. S.Jenkin, J.Evans, S.Jay, A.Esterby etc. etc.) enthusiastic 'plugging' of this fund raising by this ill-defined "coalition of boat dwellers, the National Bargee Travellers Association and other support organisations" are unclear. Looks as if those motives could have just become a little clearer ! I wonder if he'll ever own up about where all the cash left over from the winding up of the ACC went ?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 13, 2021 15:49:13 GMT
The motives behind bedruthan's (aka. S.Jenkin, J.Evans, S.Jay, A.Esterby etc. etc.) enthusiastic 'plugging' of this fund raising by this ill-defined "coalition of boat dwellers, the National Bargee Travellers Association and other support organisations" are unclear. Looks as if those motives could have just become a little clearer ! I wonder if he'll ever own up about where all the cash left over from the winding up of the ACC went ? You’re a fuckin idiot Dunkley.
|
|
|
Post by bigredlv23 on Apr 13, 2021 15:53:08 GMT
Whilst checking the 'mystery coalition' crowdjustice funding appeal page this morning to see what figure the donations have reached, I noticed this remarkable statement on the 'About the Case' page in a paragraph sub-headed 'What is happening?' : - " Every boat needs to have a licence, otherwise it can be seized by the Trust." It is unclear from where or from whom this misleading and demonstrable untruth has originated. If from the unnamed 'boat dwellers' or the anonymous 'other support organisations', or even the NBTA itself, then this gross misrepresentation is at least partially understandable and forgivable. If, on the other hand, it has come from the very same lawyers who will be handed the eventual total raised in return for a 'legal opinion' regarding C&RT's proposed Licence T&C's changes, then it raises very serious questions as to these lawyer's professional competence, . . and possibly even the question as to which side they're really batting for ! The simple truth is that C&RT do NOT have statutory powers, OR any other lawful authority, to SEIZE anyone's goods or property, unless like any other UK organization or company, or any UK citizen, they have a UK Court issued Warrant or Writ of Control commanding and instructing a Court certificated Enforcement Officer or Agent (Bailiff) to take control of goods pursuant to the satisfaction of a Court Order with which the defendant has failed to comply. Is there any TB member, or anyone who is a member of, or connected with, the NBTA or any of the unnamed 'boat dwellers' or the anonymous 'other support organisations' who would care to comment, . . and to direct the TB readership to whatever statute or common law authority they mistakenly believe entitles the C&RT to help itself, entirely at its own discretion, to other people's goods and property?
|
|
|
Post by TonyDunkley on Apr 13, 2021 16:11:29 GMT
Do you have anything useful to say, . . or is that the full extent of what you're able to contribute ? . . . . . . . . . Your way obviously fails with undeniable evidence being you lost two boats, and neither will ever be returned to their owners. What have you been taking that's brought on the hallucinations about how I - "lost two boats" ? Do these mystery boats have names, . . or is everything in the strange world of whoever you think you are today just an impenetrable blur ?
|
|