|
Post by Aloysius on Apr 17, 2023 19:27:15 GMT
Still, it is nice to see that Tony is finding so much pleasure in his retirement years.
|
|
|
Post by Aloysius on Apr 17, 2023 19:40:56 GMT
Still, it is nice to see that Tony is finding so much pleasure in his retirement years.
|
|
|
Post by Aloysius on Apr 17, 2023 23:11:24 GMT
Tony is so entrenched in his perception of the legal situation that he was convinced it was inevitable that the whole thing would collapse like a pack of cards. Instead of making the central issue of licencing the point of contention, in his mind the implication of the absence of a safety certificate was key; it was not.
It did throw the intransigent nature of the waterway's foremost vexatious litigant into sharp relief, but this pales into insignificance in comparison to his later incredibly reckless actions.
Still, it is nice to see that Tony is finding so much pleasure in his retirement years.
|
|
|
Post by Jim on Apr 18, 2023 7:44:08 GMT
Here's an IQ test. What happens if you don't get a Rivers only licence or equivalent plus vat and declare your boat BSS exempt when on inspection the board don't agree? Which boater is clever enough to know the answer?
Hint - if you don't have a boat you probably don't know or have learned the hard way.
|
|
|
Post by Mr Stabby on Apr 18, 2023 7:55:59 GMT
I told you before your boat was seized that it would be seized if you didn't give your head a wobble. No time travel required here, I predicted your future and your future came to pass. Suck it up, Buttercup.
|
|
|
Post by Mr Stabby on Apr 18, 2023 8:38:03 GMT
I told you before your boat was seized that it would be seized if you didn't give your head a wobble. No time travel required here, I predicted your future and your future came to pass. Suck it up, Buttercup.
|
|
|
Post by Aloysius on Apr 18, 2023 9:01:27 GMT
I know you used the PRN as your defence but why dident you add all this stuff and the 3 or 4 sections you talked about earlier. Whenever I have defended a court claim, I've thrown every possible defence at them and hope one sticks. Well, . . it would be a neat trick if you could get away with it, . Tony is so entrenched in his perception of the legal situation that he was convinced it was inevitable that the whole thing would collapse like a pack of cards. Instead of making the central issue of licencing the point of contention, in his mind the implication of the absence of a safety certificate was key; it was not. It did throw the intransigent nature of the waterway's foremost vexatious litigant into sharp relief, but this pales into insignificance in comparison to his later incredibly reckless actions. Still, it is nice to see that Tony is finding so much pleasure in his retirement years.
|
|
|
Post by on Apr 18, 2023 9:25:23 GMT
Time to shit in the ashpan and ladle it into the fire again. Incinerating is the answer for this thorny issue. In case anyone was doubtful the ash pan in this case is a shit wok. A 'kadai' I found by a bin. filled with wood ash it makes a good receptacle with a nice substrate for various different stools. Ease of ladle use. Shitting into a pan lined with ash is wiser than one which isn't.
|
|
|
Post by Tony Dunkley on Apr 18, 2023 9:54:12 GMT
No, . . C&RT Ltd's lawyers have never got beyond bleating about "not relying on" any part, chapter, section, or schedule of either Act, . . the implication being that "not relying on" certain specific statutes equates with being somehow 'exempt from'. The constraints or penalties imposed under ANY of the current statutes by which every company, organisation, or individual in the whole of the UK is bound by law to comply with and obey, do of course apply in equal measure to C&RT Ltd or Commercial Boat Services, . . regardless of whether or not any aspect of any of them happens to be inconvenient or over restrictive. I know you used the PRN as your defence but why dident you add all this stuff and the 3 or 4 sections you talked about earlier. Whenever I have defended a court claim, I've thrown every possible defence at them and hope one sticks. Well, . . it would be a neat trick if you could get away with it, . . but without first mastering practical time travel, or having Dr Who as the sitting Judge, it would be ill-advised to say the least, and a chronological miracle, to try or to succeed in persuading a Court to listen to a defence argument founded in the belief that it was the Claimant's future intention to abuse and fraudulently misrepresent an Injunction Order founded and dependent on the success of the Claim being heard. Incidentally, the original Defence to the April 2016 Claim for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief was founded on the question of the width of the Main Navigable Channel, and not entirely dependant on the PRN, . . as it became post some three years of C&RT's lawyers applying for the Claim to be stayed and not daring to proceed against me until after finally being successful in persuading Asplin J that the MNC extended across the full width of the Trent from bank to bank in Ravenscroft -v- C&RT. Have you remembered that Claim No. C10NG401 - issued early April 2016 out of sheer spite and in revenge for a previous humiliation - was C&RT Ltd's second attempt to steal Halcyon Daze ? The first attempt - Claim No. AOONG769 - was issued in January 2014, and ended in ignominious defeat with C&RT bearing all its own Costs.
|
|
|
Post by Aloysius on Apr 18, 2023 9:57:58 GMT
I know you used the PRN as your defence but why dident you add all this stuff and the 3 or 4 sections you talked about earlier. Whenever I have defended a court claim, I've thrown every possible defence at them and hope one sticks. Have you remembered that Claim No. C10NG401 - issued early April 2016 out of sheer spite and in revenge for a previous humiliation - was C&RT Ltd's second attempt to steal Halcyon Daze ? The first attempt - Claim No. AOONG769 - was issued in January 2014, and ended in ignominious defeat with C&RT bearing all its own Costs. And ignominiously later took both your boats and fucked you off for good. Do you recall that claim number?
|
|
|
Post by Tony Dunkley on Apr 18, 2023 10:12:37 GMT
Have you remembered that Claim No. C10NG401 - issued early April 2016 out of sheer spite and in revenge for a previous humiliation - was C&RT Ltd's second attempt to steal Halcyon Daze ? The first attempt - Claim No. AOONG769 - was issued in January 2014, and ended in ignominious defeat with C&RT bearing all its own Costs. Do you recall that claim number? It was Claim No. C10NG401 - as just now quoted - you fucking idiot. C&RT Ltd's shyster lawyers don't have to go very far out of their way to tie morons like you in knots, . . do they !
|
|
|
Post by on Apr 18, 2023 10:13:32 GMT
The ignominiosity of having all the other licence fee payers and general public bear the costs this sort of legal claptrap nonsense must give one a warm fuzzy feeling.
Don't tell me he thinks the people working at the CRT had to pay !
|
|
|
Post by Aloysius on Apr 18, 2023 10:21:43 GMT
Do you recall that claim number? It was Claim No. C10NG401 - as just now quoted - you fucking idiot. You really got them that time. Are you a genius?
|
|
|
Post by Aloysius on Apr 18, 2023 10:31:48 GMT
Do you recall that claim number? It was Claim No. C10NG401 - as just now quoted - you fucking idiot. Would you describe it as a strategic or a tactical victory?
|
|
|
Post by Tony Dunkley on Apr 18, 2023 10:38:58 GMT
No, . . C&RT Ltd's lawyers have never got beyond bleating about "not relying on" any part, chapter, section, or schedule of either Act, . . the implication being that "not relying on" certain specific statutes equates with being somehow 'exempt from'. The constraints or penalties imposed under ANY of the current statutes by which every company, organisation, or individual in the whole of the UK is bound by law to comply with and obey, do of course apply in equal measure to C&RT Ltd or Commercial Boat Services, . . regardless of whether or not any aspect of any of them happens to be inconvenient or over restrictive. I know you used the PRN as your defence but why dident you add all this stuff and the 3 or 4 sections you talked about earlier. Whenever I have defended a court claim, I've thrown every possible defence at them and hope one sticks. Well, . . it would be a neat trick if you could get away with it, . . but without first mastering practical time travel, or having Dr Who as the sitting Judge, it would be ill-advised to say the least, and a chronological miracle, to try or to succeed in persuading a Court to listen to a defence argument founded in the belief that it was the Claimant's future intention to abuse and fraudulently misrepresent an Injunction Order founded and dependent on the success of the Claim being heard. Incidentally, the original Defence to the April 2016 Claim for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief was founded on the question of the width of the Main Navigable Channel, and not entirely dependant on the PRN, . . as it became post some three years of C&RT's lawyers applying for the Claim to be stayed and not daring to proceed against me until after finally being successful in persuading Asplin J that the MNC extended across the full width of the Trent from bank to bank in Ravenscroft -v- C&RT. Have you remembered that Claim No. C10NG401 - issued early April 2016 out of sheer spite and in revenge for a previous humiliation - was C&RT Ltd's second attempt to steal Halcyon Daze ? The first attempt - Claim No. AOONG769 - was issued in January 2014, and ended in ignominious defeat with C&RT bearing all its own Costs.
|
|