Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 19, 2016 16:46:54 GMT
CRT actually need to make the next move at the moment. Until they refund and refuse him the licence, there is little he can do. At this moment, he has a licence, and is entitled to use the waterways that licence covers. CRT need to get their act together, and swallow the poison they filled this particular chalice with. Or go for the fight. Thanks for that,I pretty much thought that to be the position though just wondered if Tony,Nigel and Onionbargee were seeking a legal setting sooner rather than later, obviously not but watch this space.
|
|
|
Post by kris on Apr 19, 2016 17:21:18 GMT
The legislation is black and white. It's very clear on the needs for a licence to be issued. Onion bargee has satisfactorily met the "black and white" law to apply and receive a licence. The carry on trust are just attempting to work around it. They are wrong, onion bargee is right. That's pretty much how I see the situation. It looks like wriggle fingers has it in for you on the other channel. As soon as she comes back on site, your posts start to get removed. Regards kris
|
|
|
Post by JohnV on Apr 19, 2016 17:33:07 GMT
Interesting post by Nigel in the thread regarding court orders......I am even more convinced now that this is not such a simple situation as Jenlyn would have us believe. There is a lot in the background of this matter that I don't think we see.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 19, 2016 17:33:46 GMT
The legislation is black and white. It's very clear on the needs for a licence to be issued. Onion bargee has satisfactorily met the "black and white" law to apply and receive a licence. The carry on trust are just attempting to work around it. They are wrong, onion bargee is right. That's pretty much how I see the situation. It looks like wriggle fingers has it in for you on the other channel. As soon as she comes back on site, your posts start to get removed. Regards kris Yeh. I noticed lol. Doesn't really bother me. Little things pleases little minds and all that. Mike the prick probably sputtered and dribbled on the report button.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 19, 2016 17:35:33 GMT
Interesting post by Nigel in the thread regarding court orders......I am even more convinced now that this is not such a simple situation as Jenlyn would have us believe. There is a lot in the background of this matter that I don't think we see. I think you need to read his post again, slowly, and try to understand what he is stating.
|
|
|
Post by JohnV on Apr 19, 2016 17:40:27 GMT
I did, and I did any previous court order re permission stands (with the proviso "provisionally") That could well be the Achilles heel of Onion Bargee's case. The future will tell
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 19, 2016 17:47:59 GMT
I did, and I did any previous court order re permission stands (with the proviso "provisionally") That could well be the Achilles heel of Onion Bargee's case. The future will tell Your missing the point completely. The order does not specify or suggest in any way that onion bargee cannot have a new licence for being a naughty fellow in the past. The bullshit that some are making up is simply that, bullshit. Peter Palmer is bullshitting, hence the very obvious fact that they have not returned the licence fee. Pulling something to bits in the hope of making it fit their agenda, bloody laughable.
|
|
|
Post by JohnV on Apr 19, 2016 17:56:05 GMT
If there is a court order that requires OnionBargee to request permission to enter the "inland waterways" as has been suggested and it remains in force, CRT will probably claim (I would suggest with some justification)that by applying for his licence "on line" Onionbargee was attempting to avoid the vetting system that would be used during other methods of application. As such he was attempting to avoid the implications of the court order that he should request prior permission to return to the inland waterways. As I said I think there is a lot going on that we do not have information about and it is a long way from a simple cut and dried case.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 19, 2016 18:02:14 GMT
If there is a court order that requires OnionBargee to request permission to enter the "inland waterways" as has been suggested and it remains in force, CRT will probably claim (I would suggest with some justification)that by applying for his licence "on line" Onionbargee was attempting to avoid the vetting system that would be used during other methods of application. As such he was attempting to avoid the implications of the court order that he should request prior permission to return to the inland waterways. As I said I think there is a lot going on that we do not have information about and it is a long way from a simple cut and dried case. I'm moored behind him at the minute. I've also known him for a good few years. Your making assumptions and I have no idea why, but you are miles away with your assumptions, so I'm going to leave you to it.
|
|
|
Post by tadworth on Apr 19, 2016 18:26:31 GMT
As it stands now, CRT have admitted in their usual weasel way that when they said "it would not be appropriate to issue another licence " they were wrong, ( lied ) the relevance of the court order is now finished, we dont need to worry about it anymore, they have had to admit it does not prevent a new licence being granted.
Now they have claimed Tadworth is not "fit to navigate" according to 1965 canal bylaws, however they have not followed the procedure in that bylaw of giving 28 days notice to remedy the problem, before revoking the licence, nor have they told me what the problem is yet, nor have they ever inspected TW, so have no idea of what the problem is, if there is one. Unless they have a crystal ball ?
In short they have now accused me of breaking a bylaw, though they dont know how, or when, or why, and broken the same bylaw doing it. They are idiots.
|
|
|
Post by kris on Apr 19, 2016 18:39:01 GMT
I think the view I will stick with is I don't know who is right and who is wrong or both and to what degree. It will take something like a judicial review to settle it and until then I am going to stay ambivalent but with a strong suspicion that there is fault on both sides. Well fair enough John,none of us want any grief,thats not what we boat for but its that climate of fear again and those that don't think it will affect them,I hope they have that right. To be honest I don't think any of us moved to the water to get involved in a legal fight. But it's a situation. We have to deal with, if we want to continue living on the waterways. I think this is what is forgotten by the Crt cheer leaders on the other channel . Jenlyn if your moored behind onionbargee, get him to join here I'll see if I can tony dunkley to join here I'm sure he would but just isn't aware of The thunderboat yet. We can have some real discussion on here. I'm shure some of the disruptors on the other channel are crt/ shoosmiths representitives. Regards kris Ps I don't think the pllumber is a spook, he hasnt got the brains for that.
|
|
|
Post by kris on Apr 19, 2016 18:47:20 GMT
I see your here Tadworth welcome to the Thunderboat. Don't let them grind you down, they are idiots and need putting back in their box. If you do decide to go the judicial review route I'll be one of the ones willing to support.
Regards kris
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 19, 2016 18:48:26 GMT
Tadworth is onion bargee.
|
|
|
Post by kris on Apr 19, 2016 18:51:26 GMT
Tadworth is onion bargee. Yes I got that jenlyn thanks. He posted while I was writing a post. Dyslexia +phone means it takes me ages to compose a post.
|
|
|
Post by kris on Apr 19, 2016 19:07:14 GMT
I see the plumber thinks he is some sort of scycologist/ laywer.
|
|