|
Post by Mr Stabby on Mar 1, 2024 17:51:44 GMT
Agreed that CRT have made no efforts to change the law nor bring the bylaws up to date. However those were not my questions. My questions remains please could you explain what lawful sanctions CRT ought to be employing against boats lacking a required PBC or licence? You did after all say that such sanctions already exist but are not used by CRT.
And secondly, could you explain how section 8, which applies to a boat moored without lawful authority, is not relevant to a boat lacking a valid licence that is moored on a CRT-controlled canal? There is also no question that Section 8 of the 1983 Act DOES NOT empower the C&RT to remove a 'relevant craft' FROM any inland waterway, . . nor does it empower the C&RT to evict 'the owner' from any 'relevant craft' whilst 'seizing' it from its 'owner'. "It is hereby declared that the Claimant is entitled, after 4pm on 29 August 2019, to remove the Defendant's boat "Halcyon Daze", Index No. 52721 ("the Boat") from the canals and inland waterways under the Claimant's control coloured blue on the plan and listed in the Schedule pursuant to its statutory powers under Section 8 of the British Waterways Act..."
|
|
|
Post by Tony Dunkley on Mar 1, 2024 23:36:40 GMT
There is also no question that Section 8 of the 1983 Act DOES NOT empower the C&RT to remove a 'relevant craft' FROM any inland waterway, . . nor does it empower the C&RT to evict 'the owner' from any 'relevant craft' whilst 'seizing' it from its 'owner'. "It is hereby declared that the Claimant is entitled, after 4pm on 29 August 2019, to remove the Defendant's boat "Halcyon Daze", Index No. 52721 ("the Boat") from the canals and inland waterways under the Claimant's control coloured blue on the plan and listed in the Schedule pursuant to its statutory powers under Section 8 of the British Waterways Act..."Some crucially important words and phrases in there, Mr Shit-for-Brains, . . "pursuant to" - "statutory powers" - "under". Some crucially important words and phrases that aren't in there too, . . "draft Order" - "fictitious" - "lied to" - "the Court" - "wilfully deceive" - "legal nullity" - "end of career", . . far too many to list even a truly representative selection.
|
|
|
Post by Aloysius on Mar 1, 2024 23:47:15 GMT
Other crucially important words would include 'boat(s) gone', 'denial of reality' and 'deluded idiot'.
|
|
|
Post by Mr Stabby on Mar 2, 2024 5:06:04 GMT
"It is hereby declared that the Claimant is entitled, after 4pm on 29 August 2019, to remove the Defendant's boat "Halcyon Daze", Index No. 52721 ("the Boat") from the canals and inland waterways under the Claimant's control coloured blue on the plan and listed in the Schedule pursuant to its statutory powers under Section 8 of the British Waterways Act..." Some crucially important words and phrases in there, Mr Shit-for-Brains, . . "pursuant to" - "statutory powers" - "under". Some crucially important words and phrases that aren't in there too, . . "draft Order" - "fictitious" - "lied to" - "the Court" - "wilfully deceive" - "legal nullity" - "end of career", . . far too many to list even a truly representative selection. Whose career has ended, Tony the Kiddy Fiddler? And where are these Police you promised me?
|
|
|
Post by Tony Dunkley on Mar 2, 2024 8:04:58 GMT
The question of whether or not the current laws/sanctions available to C&RT are effective and adequate for its purposes is irrelevant. C&RT should, and must, abide by the Law as it stands at present. In future it must limit any or all punitive action taken against boat owners, for whatever cause or reason, to that which the Law specifies and authorizes - ie. the statutory powers, and Byelaws, it inherited when it took over from the British Waterways Board on 1 July 2012. If the current statutory powers, or Byelaws, are inadequate and/or outdated, and reform aimed at improving their effectiveness by bringing them up to date and in line with today's needs is required, then C&RT's only lawful route to that desired end result is to persuade Parliament to change or amend the Law as necessary. C&RT has NEVER sought to change or amend any of the stautes or laws by which it is governed by way of any such lawful and proper means, . . its chosen route to the desired outcome being instead to circumvent lawful due process by wilfully lying to and misleading the Courts, . . and lying to and misleading the Police into actively assisting in the enforcement/execution of the worthless misrepresented (Court) Orders the Courts have been deliberately misled into making. Finally, of course, C&RT also lie to and deceive the boat owners whose boats are being stolen by C&RT and contractors staff committing the serious criminal offence of impersonating Court authorized 'Enforcement Officers/Agents (Bailiffs) claiming - to the boat owners and the Police - to be enforcing/executing those same misrepresented worthless/void ab initio Court Orders that falsely appear, and are wilfully misrepresented by C&RT and its agents/contractors, to be what is known in broad terms as a power of seizure.It's all quite simply a carefully thought out, well rehearsed, and much practised performance of what is in truth fraud and theft, . . but it's coming to an end, . . C&RT and its crooks have been rumbled, . . and, rather like the Post Office, the ultimate full exposure of the true extent of the wrongdoing is now finally inevitable ! So, as an aggrieved party, why have you not challenged them in court? Prattling on on here does nowt, it doesn't educate us, we've all heard your sorry take umpteen times, CRT staff find you risible, as do most of us. Shit or get off the pot. Only someone as stupid as you, . . and there are a few amongst the active Thunderboat membership, . . would imagine that anything I post on this public forum is directed at, or in any sense intended for the attention of, the mindless few who daily fill these pages with their inane claptrap.
|
|
|
Post by broccobanks on Mar 2, 2024 8:13:09 GMT
s8 boat removals are a deterrent that works... court orders for recovery of money are no deterrent because money judgments (obtained at some cost) can so easily be evaded. Throwing good money after bad is the colloquial term.
|
|
|
Post by β on Mar 2, 2024 8:18:40 GMT
It will be effective because it is so obvious and public.
Clearly some people can afford to lose the Boat as they live ashore like our recently returned forum resident but there are people who would be in trouble if the Boat was taken.
S8 is a useful and effective tool for the navigation authority to use to avoid obvious negative outcomes.
It doesn't take a lot of thinking.
|
|
|
Post by β on Mar 2, 2024 8:22:06 GMT
There was a duck in a bucket of water.
Duck was removed.
Duck no longer in bucket.
Bucket = waterway Duck = Boat
|
|
|
Post by Mr Stabby on Mar 2, 2024 8:28:24 GMT
So, as an aggrieved party, why have you not challenged them in court? Prattling on on here does nowt, it doesn't educate us, we've all heard your sorry take umpteen times, CRT staff find you risible, as do most of us. Shit or get off the pot. Only someone as stupid as you, . . and there are a few amongst the active Thunderboat membership, . . would imagine that anything I post on this public forum is directed at, or in any sense intended for the attention of, the mindless few who daily fill these pages with their inane claptrap. Tony, just for you here are the facts of the matter. 1). It is five years this year since the Court Order was issued and four years this year since the boat was removed. 2) You issued CRT with instructions to return it (see signature below) and they ignored this. 3) Halcyon Daze has been renamed, renumbered and now belongs to somebody else. You will never set foot aboard it again. 4) Nobody has been sacked or imprisoned or faced any type of sanction over the seizure of Halcyon Daze, nor will they ever do. Now, the sooner you get your head around this, the better it will be for you, so sit down in a dark and quiet place and give your head a wobble.
|
|
|
Post by Jim on Mar 2, 2024 8:53:47 GMT
Agreed that CRT have made no efforts to change the law nor bring the bylaws up to date. However those were not my questions. My questions remains please could you explain what lawful sanctions CRT ought to be employing against boats lacking a required PBC or licence? You did after all say that such sanctions already exist but are not used by CRT.
And secondly, could you explain how section 8, which applies to a boat moored without lawful authority, is not relevant to a boat lacking a valid licence that is moored on a CRT-controlled canal? The lawful sanctions C&RT should be employing against boats lacking a current PBC or PBL have been explained, referenced, and published, comprehensively and in great detail, many times already by Nigel Moore and I. As indicated earlier, your question is not pertinent to the fact that in the matter of Section 8 boat removals, C&RT is wilfully abusing, misusing, and ultimately ignoring, perfectly lawful statutory remedies it has at its disposal. C&RT is wilfully lying to and misleading the Courts, . . and it's doing this for the sole purpose of defrauding boat owners and stealing their boats and belongings, . . absent ANY lawful powers or authority so to do. There is no question that a Section 8 Notice, together with a lawful Section 8 boat removal, IS applicable to ANY "relevant craft" [S.8(1) BW Act 1983]. There is also no question that Section 8 of the 1983 Act DOES NOT empower the C&RT to remove a 'relevant craft' FROM any inland waterway, . . nor does it empower the C&RT to evict 'the owner' from any 'relevant craft' whilst 'seizing' it from its 'owner'. But we'd like to know anyway! Three simple questions remain unanswered... So, as an aggrieved party, why have you not challenged them in court? Could you explain what lawful sanctions CRT ought to be employing against boats lacking a required PBC or licence? You did after all say that such sanctions already exist but are not used by CRT. Could you explain how section 8, which applies to a boat moored without lawful authority, is not relevant to a boat lacking a valid licence that is moored on a CRT-controlled canal?
|
|
|
Post by Tony Dunkley on Mar 2, 2024 16:22:28 GMT
s8 boat removals are a deterrent that works... court orders for recovery of money are no deterrent because money judgments (obtained at some cost) can so easily be evaded. Throwing good money after bad is the colloquial term. C&RT's Section 8 boat removals go way beyond what is lawful, specified, or authorized under the 1983 Act. C&RT lies and exaggerates about the powers it does actually have under Section 8 of the British Waterways Act 1983. C&RT lies and exaggerates to boat owners, to the Courts, and to the Police - who it frequently, and illegally, involves as civil enforcers, in its unlawful Section 8 boat removals. The lying starts here, with this blatant lie, on C&RT's webages at :- < canalrivertrust.org.uk/boating/licence-your-boat/boat-licence-customer-support-team/how-we-tackle-evasion > Removing boats is a last resort
Our main tool is the power for the Trust to βSection 8β unlicensed boats. This relates to power given in the British Waterways Act 1983 (and transferred to the Canal & River Trust). It allows us to remove boats from the waterway if they are there without our permission or persistently in breach of our licence terms and conditions, including not having a licence. ----- the words in larger print and underlined in the above extract from C&RT's webpages are untrue and intended to mislead. _____________________________________________________ The plain truth is that the powers of boat 'removal' conferred on C&RT under S.8 of the 1983 Act are limited only to the removal of an offending vessel from its location at the time of the serving and expiry of the mandatory 28 day Notice specified in Section 8(2) of the Act. There is no power or authority under Section 8(2), or under any other section, part, or clause of the 1983 Act, or any other Act, to remove any vessel - referred to as a "relevant craft" in the Act of 1983 - FROM any inland waterway (under C&RT management/control), . . or to take possession or control of any vessel, temporary or otherwise, by means of 'seizing' it from its owner or occupier, . . or to forcibly 'evict' an owner or occupier from any vessel in the process of being lawfully 'removed' from the location on the inland waterway at which the owner was served with the aforementioned mandatory 28 day Notice (under S.8(2) of the 1983 Act). If anyone wants to argue with or dispute any of the above, . . then they'd better reference and quote from a specific section, part, or clause of any relevant enactment that says otherwise. C&RT's crooked management and dishonest lawyers [Richard Parry, Tom Deards, Matthew Aymes, Lucy Barry, et al] have been invited to do so on numerous previous occasions -- they have consistently declined, . . and continue so to do.
|
|
|
Post by Aloysius on Mar 2, 2024 16:29:14 GMT
What they need is an ultimatum.
|
|
|
Post by Jim on Mar 2, 2024 17:13:38 GMT
Yeh Tone, give it to em straight. When you have could you answer those questions?
|
|
|
Post by β on Mar 2, 2024 17:20:10 GMT
Care in the community is not dead.
I blame Gordon Brown but originally it was Thatcher who fucked all this shit.
Some people with issues will go for internet forums. My mad sister (who still has not been sectioned) gets looked after by crazy friends. The interesting thing is that ..... can't remember.... whatever.
It might just be all made up and it is rather exhausting in a number of different regards.
Time to chainsaw a bit of fresh ash wood.
|
|
|
Post by Tony Dunkley on Mar 3, 2024 2:02:25 GMT
s8 boat removals are a deterrent that works... court orders for recovery of money are no deterrent because money judgments (obtained at some cost) can so easily be evaded. Throwing good money after bad is the colloquial term. C&RT's Section 8 boat removals go way beyond what is lawful, specified, or authorized under the 1983 Act. C&RT lies and exaggerates about the powers it does actually have under Section 8 of the British Waterways Act 1983. C&RT lies and exaggerates to boat owners, to the Courts, and to the Police - who it frequently, and illegally, involves as civil enforcers, in its unlawful Section 8 boat removals. The lying starts here, with this blatant lie, on C&RT's webages at :- < canalrivertrust.org.uk/boating/licence-your-boat/boat-licence-customer-support-team/how-we-tackle-evasion > Removing boats is a last resort
Our main tool is the power for the Trust to βSection 8β unlicensed boats. This relates to power given in the British Waterways Act 1983 (and transferred to the Canal & River Trust). It allows us to remove boats from the waterway if they are there without our permission or persistently in breach of our licence terms and conditions, including not having a licence. ----- the words in larger print and underlined in the above extract from C&RT's webpages are untrue and intended to mislead. _____________________________________________________ The plain truth is that the powers of boat 'removal' conferred on C&RT under S.8 of the 1983 Act are limited only to the removal of an offending vessel from its location at the time of the serving and expiry of the mandatory 28 day Notice specified in Section 8(2) of the Act. There is no power or authority under Section 8(2), or under any other section, part, or clause of the 1983 Act, or any other Act, to remove any vessel - referred to as a "relevant craft" in the Act of 1983 - FROM any inland waterway (under C&RT management/control), . . or to take possession or control of any vessel, temporary or otherwise, by means of 'seizing' it from its owner or occupier, . . or to forcibly 'evict' an owner or occupier from any vessel in the process of being lawfully 'removed' from the location on the inland waterway at which the owner was served with the aforementioned mandatory 28 day Notice (under S.8(2) of the 1983 Act). If anyone wants to argue with or dispute any of the above, . . then they'd better reference and quote from a specific section, part, or clause of any relevant enactment that says otherwise. C&RT's crooked management and dishonest lawyers [Richard Parry, Tom Deards, Matthew Aymes, Lucy Barry, et al] have been invited to do so on numerous previous occasions -- they have consistently declined, . . and continue so to do.
______________________________________________________________
Very few non-posting/non-participating followers of Thunderboat appear to be having any difficulty in following and understanding any of what's been said/posted above, . . or, for that matter, anything else that I post on here.
Difficulties, or rather effected apparent difficulties, in following and understanding what's been said/posted above, or anything else I say/post, appear to be confined to the small group of vacuous arsewipes who hi-jacked and significantly damaged and degraded Thunderboat some while ago, . . and persist in doing their damnedest to drag it down still further.
In targeting their constant monitoring and frequently almost instantaneous response trolling on every post I put up on Thunderboat, these stupid people - they all know who they are, and if they persist, will be individually identified and named on these pages prior to prosecution - are committing, and guilty of, serious offences under the Protection from Harassment Act 1997 [the Act], . . and WILL be prosecuted under the appropriate sections and provisions of the Act.
Anyone inclined to dismiss any of this as idle threats, would do well to reconsider, . . and think again.
Enough is enough, . . it's time, . . it's long past time, . . for the idiot hi-jackers and the mindless trolls to leave Thunderboat alone, . . to allow it to return to being the lively, informative, interesting, and entertaining (mainly) boating related forum that it once was.
|
|