|
Post by on Apr 9, 2023 9:06:29 GMT
|
|
|
Post by on Apr 9, 2023 9:08:04 GMT
So yeah,like I said the owner may retake the vessel subject to payment of expenses.
Shock horror it even goes on to say that if the vessel has been sold then blah blah blah it is all obvious.
|
|
|
Post by on Apr 9, 2023 9:10:49 GMT
The second paragraph of subsection 4 is also relevant. The owner may retake the boat upon payment of expenses Only in the event that the owner of the 'relevant craft' was unknown or uncontactable at the time that the Section 8 Notice was served, is the second paragraph of subsection 4) relevant. The wording - your wording - 'The owner may retake the boat upon payment of expenses' - is not only taken out of context, but neither does it appear in that (quoted) form anywhere within para.2) of subsection 4) of Section 8, . . or anywhere else within the text of the 1983 Act. So you are saying that if the Trust know who owns the boat they can't remove it? How would they know whose boat it is other than from the licensing paperwork? You could have sold it the day before they took it. Why didn't you do this? You seem to be implying that the Trust can not do anything about unlicensed craft which are therefore illegally on their water if the owner is known to them. Also can you see the bit about being illegally kept on Trust waterways? This is a subtle but very important point which helps to explain why 'removal' is taking the boat out of the water.It is not allowed to be in the water. Duck and bucket scenario.
|
|
|
Post by on Apr 9, 2023 9:13:07 GMT
if only for the truth that his bullshit would be better received; the 'Freeman On The Land' crowd would be an excellent choice, as would 'The Flat Earth Society'. If the earth was round there would be no up or down.
|
|
|
Post by Tony Dunkley on Apr 9, 2023 10:27:14 GMT
Only in the event that the owner of the 'relevant craft' was unknown or uncontactable at the time that the Section 8 Notice was served, is the second paragraph of subsection 4) relevant. The wording - your wording - 'The owner may retake the boat upon payment of expenses' - is not only taken out of context, but neither does it appear in that (quoted) form anywhere within para.2) of subsection 4) of Section 8, . . or anywhere else within the text of the 1983 Act. So you are saying that if the Trust know who owns the boat they can't remove it? No, . . not at all, . . read what I said more carefully, . . which was :- "Only in the event that the owner of the 'relevant craft' was unknown or uncontactable at the time that the Section 8 Notice was served, is the second paragraph of subsection 4) relevant. The wording - your wording - 'The owner may retake the boat upon payment of expenses' - is not only taken out of context, but neither does it appear in that (quoted) form anywhere within para.2) of subsection 4) of Section 8, . . or anywhere else within the text of the 1983 Act."Unlicensed craft, or craft "left" [therein] or moored "without lawful authority" in a C&RT Ltd controlled waterway, and in the possession of known and contactable owners, can and should be dealt with via the procedurally correct, and lawful, processes of criminal prosecution under the 1976 Licensing Byelaws, the use of the statutory powers specifically for the 'Recovery of Charges' and 'Control of Unsafe Vessels' under Sections 5 and 7 respectively of the !983 Act, and if necessary in the circumstances, the statutory powers applicable under Sections 17 and 18 of the 1995 Act.
|
|
|
Post by on Apr 9, 2023 10:51:10 GMT
Byelaws might not work very well because some people would simply pay the fines then carry on as normal.
Removing the boat to a remote location then selling it does work and is probably quite a good deterrent.
Sensible people, for example, would not do what you did because it results in losing the boat. In some cases losing the boat would be a very serious situation. Obviously not for you but there are people who live on boats.
We know what your views on this are but at the end of the day the CRT will take your boat. This is just fact. If you would like to present this to a court of law that would be great but I can see why you don't. The risk of losing your house really is a serious matter.
The court might find that the CRT were right.
Not worth it eh?
|
|
|
Post by kris on Apr 9, 2023 12:34:18 GMT
Let’s face it, Tony had his chance to beat crt in court but he blew it.
|
|
|
Post by on Apr 9, 2023 12:40:07 GMT
I think a reasonable man (or woman, non specific gender etc) would take a dim view of the pisstaking around the BS exemption.
This was a badly executed manoover which significantly detracts from the overall credibility.
|
|
|
Post by thebfg on Apr 9, 2023 16:44:01 GMT
Let’s face it, Tony had his chance to beat crt in court but he blew it. Could have worked but for the BSS issue.
|
|
|
Post by thebfg on Apr 9, 2023 16:45:52 GMT
If the earth was round there would be no up or down. Up and down is only relative to the individual.
|
|
|
Post by thebfg on Apr 9, 2023 16:48:22 GMT
Byelaws might not work very well because some people would simply pay the fines then carry on as normal. Removing the boat to a remote location then selling it does work and is probably quite a good deterrent. Sensible people, for example, would not do what you did because it results in losing the boat. In some cases losing the boat would be a very serious situation. Obviously not for you but there are people who live on boats. We know what your views on this are but at the end of the day the CRT will take your boat. This is just fact. If you would like to present this to a court of law that would be great but I can see why you don't. The risk of losing your house really is a serious matter. The court might find that the CRT were right. Not worth it eh? George had a few weeks to whack a defence in. Why didn't Tony do so?
|
|
|
Post by naughtyfox on Apr 9, 2023 17:06:18 GMT
" Call me 'G' or 'Tillerpin' "
|
|
|
Post by Mr Stabby on Apr 9, 2023 18:59:30 GMT
Byelaws might not work very well because some people would simply pay the fines then carry on as normal. Removing the boat to a remote location then selling it does work and is probably quite a good deterrent. Sensible people, for example, would not do what you did because it results in losing the boat. In some cases losing the boat would be a very serious situation. Obviously not for you but there are people who live on boats. We know what your views on this are but at the end of the day the CRT will take your boat. This is just fact. If you would like to present this to a court of law that would be great but I can see why you don't. The risk of losing your house really is a serious matter. The court might find that the CRT were right. Not worth it eh? George had a few weeks to whack a defence in. Why didn't Tony do so? According to the Court Order, Tony Dunkley did attend the hearing "by telephone" so presumably he did try to present some type of defence.
|
|
|
Post by Aloysius on Apr 9, 2023 19:43:57 GMT
Let’s face it, Tony had his chance to beat crt in court but he blew it. Could have worked but for the BSS issue. I find it amazing that anybody at all still thinks Dunkley's bullshit has any credibility.
|
|
|
Post by Tony Dunkley on Apr 9, 2023 19:46:17 GMT
Byelaws might not work very well because some people would simply pay the fines then carry on as normal. Removing the boat to a remote location then selling it does work and is probably quite a good deterrent. Sensible people, for example, would not do what you did because it results in losing the boat. In some cases losing the boat would be a very serious situation. Obviously not for you but there are people who live on boats. We know what your views on this are but at the end of the day the CRT will take your boat. This is just fact. If you would like to present this to a court of law that would be great but I can see why you don't. The risk of losing your house really is a serious matter. The court might find that the CRT were right. Not worth it eh? George had a few weeks to whack a defence in. Why didn't Tony do so? Be a little more precise and explicit. A Defence to what exactly, . . on whose behalf, . . or did you really mean to say Appeal ?
|
|