|
Post by TonyDunkley on Nov 4, 2021 14:09:19 GMT
That's good, . . you just keep on responding like that, . . there's an excellent chance that this going to be seen, read and passed on by some of the very few people who aren't yet fully aware of the sort of brainless lowlife scum you are.
|
|
|
Post by TonyDunkley on Nov 4, 2021 12:53:10 GMT
I’ve come to a conclusion, you don’t understand the law, hence your losing two boats (soon to be three). What, if anything, are you hoping to achieve by repeatedly posting this tripe about "losing" two boats and being on the verge of "losing" another ? Are you getting it from some contact within C&RT, . . is it wishful thinking, . . or are you simply making it up and repeatedly posting it in an attempt to convince yourself that it's true ?
|
|
|
Post by TonyDunkley on Nov 4, 2021 11:16:23 GMT
Thread Disruption -- a Reminder
Anyone not already in direct contact and wanting to continue discussion on any topic without having to repeatedly pick their way through the tiresome disruption, can still contact me on the same e-mail address as before < Tonydtrent@gmail.com > or by phone on 07903 063179. Following initial contact by either of the above methods, you will be given another e-mail address and another mobile number for future use.
|
|
|
Post by TonyDunkley on Nov 4, 2021 11:09:55 GMT
Thread Disruption -- a Reminder
Anyone not already in direct contact and wanting to continue discussion on any topic without having to repeatedly pick their way through the tiresome disruption, can still contact me on the same e-mail address as before < Tonydtrent@gmail.com > or by phone on 07903 063179. Following initial contact by either of the above methods, you will be given another e-mail address and another mobile number for future use.
|
|
|
Post by TonyDunkley on Nov 4, 2021 11:04:39 GMT
Thread Disruption -- a Reminder
Anyone not already in direct contact and wanting to continue discussion on any topic without having to repeatedly pick their way through the tiresome disruption, can still contact me on the same e-mail address as before < Tonydtrent@gmail.com > or by phone on 07903 063179. Following initial contact by either of the above methods, you will be given another e-mail address and another mobile number for future use.
|
|
|
Post by TonyDunkley on Nov 4, 2021 11:01:55 GMT
Thread Disruption -- a Reminder
Anyone not already in direct contact and wanting to continue discussion on any topic without having to repeatedly pick their way through the tiresome disruption, can still contact me on the same e-mail address as before < Tonydtrent@gmail.com > or by phone on 07903 063179. Following initial contact by either of the above methods, you will be given another e-mail address and another mobile number for future use.
|
|
|
Post by TonyDunkley on Nov 4, 2021 10:57:23 GMT
Thread Disruption -- a Reminder
Anyone not already in direct contact and wanting to continue discussion on any topic without having to repeatedly pick their way through the tiresome disruption, can still contact me on the same e-mail address as before < Tonydtrent@gmail.com > or by phone on 07903 063179. Following initial contact by either of the above methods, you will be given another e-mail address and another mobile number for future use.
|
|
|
Post by TonyDunkley on Nov 4, 2021 8:54:50 GMT
Echo echo echo ………………………………………… As I said earlier, . . don't kid yourself that you're going to wriggle off the hook you hung yourself on a few days ago. You're incredibly stupid, . . you're also a despicable, worthless little shit who blights everything he touches and everywhere he goes.
|
|
|
Post by TonyDunkley on Nov 4, 2021 7:43:03 GMT
Laudable as this appeal might have first appeared, from the start it always begged the question - why is this ill-defined and partially anonymous "coalition" appealing to raise money to pay for a "legal opinion" on a matter that was covered - almost certainly in a far more thorough and detailed fashion than that to be had from any solicitor or barrister in return for the sum of £1000, or more - just under four and a half years ago in an article circulated to involved inland boating organizations and published on the internet by Nigel Moore ? The latest round of intended changes to C&RT's boat Licence T&C's are, predictably, once again founded in the Trust's long standing abuse and misuse of S.43 of the Transport Act of 1962, . . the clauses that C&RT, and BWB before it, have for far to long been allowed to get away with treating as a catch-all proviso to the effect that it can legitimately amend or ignore any or all of its later governing legislation as and when it so chooses. On 1 August 2016 Nigel Moore published a typically well researched and exhaustive analysis of precisely why S.43 of the 1962 Act could never be lawfully applied to creating, and especially not amending, the majority of C&RT's already largely unenforceable, self-conferred catalogue of extra-statutory boat licensing T&C's dreamed up in Richard Parry's 'kangaroo parliament' by one of his specialist mismanagement 'teams'. A phone call to the Community Law Partnership, the lawyers instructed by the largely anonymous " coalition of boat dwellers, [the National Bargee Travellers Association] and other support organisations", has elicited the following :- 1) The Community Law Partnership doesn't know who the " coalition of boat dwellers" are 2) The Community Law Partnership doesn't know who the " other support organisations" are. 3) Most of the money [£6,432.00] raised went on Counsel's opinion that the the only aspect of C&RT's new T&C's that might be successfully challenged via Judicial Review is the requirement to cruise in the same manner as a CC'er when away from the boats home mooring -- Clause 5.4 in the new Licence T&C's. 4) That there was some dosh left over from getting the first Counsel's opinion, . . so they blew the rest on getting another equally useless opinion from a second barrister, . . who said the same as the first one. 5) That no thought has been applied to the quicker, less costly, and rather more appropriate form of challenge to C&RT's ultra vires Licence T&C's, . . application for Declaratory Judgment under CPR Part 8, . . other than the long-winded, costly exercise of yet another application for Judicial Review, . . something that C&RT can, and will, block, stall on, and keep out of Court for as long as it so wishes. Should anyone who donated to this lost before it started cause wish to verify any of the above for themselves, the Community Law Partnership can be reached on 0121 685 8677. The crowdjustice website for the appeal is at : < www.crowdjustice.com/case/protect-boats-homes/
|
|
|
Post by TonyDunkley on Nov 4, 2021 7:32:59 GMT
You seem to have got stuck Tony. Don't kid yourself that you're going to wriggle off the hook you hung yourself on 4 days ago. The Community Law Partnership -- the lawyers who've pocketed the £6,432.00 raised from the crowdjustice appeal pages, in return for absolutely sod all of any use or value -- know who the NBTA are, but they don't know who the " coalition of boat dwellers" are, and they don't know who the " other support organisations" are. On 29 October, 2021 at 09:50hrs YOU made a post saying : - " He’s [meaning me] fallen out with the people involved." From that rather rash and ill-considered statement, there is no possible alternative inference to draw, . . other than YOU DO know who these anonymous people are.
|
|
|
Post by TonyDunkley on Nov 4, 2021 7:27:47 GMT
Ah bless the troll has popped up from under his bridge. Other than the NBTA, who for obvious reasons are well known to many thousands of pleasure boaters, . . I don't know who ' the people involved' are, . . but in stating - quote - " He’s fallen out with the people involved." - you've made it very apparent that YOU DO KNOW who they are ! So, in light of this careless revelation on your part, . . are you now prepared to identify these mysterious people who YOU say I have "fallen out with", . . and who hide behind a description of themselves as a " coalition of boat dwellers, [the National Bargee Travellers Association] and other support organisations" ? Is the fact that they're still inviting donations some 6 weeks after saying that the appeal had been "paused" associated in some way with their continuing anonymity, . . and YOUR previously undisclosed but now obvious connections with them ?
|
|
|
Post by TonyDunkley on Nov 3, 2021 22:07:32 GMT
You seem to have got stuck Tony. Don't kid yourself that you're going to wriggle off the hook you hung yourself on 4 days ago. The Community Law Partnership -- the lawyers who've pocketed the £6,432.00 raised from the crowdjustice appeal pages, in return for absolutely sod all of any use or value -- know who the NBTA are, but they don't know who the " coalition of boat dwellers" are, and they don't know who the " other support organisations" are. On 29 October, 2021 at 09:50hrs YOU made a post saying : - " He’s [meaning me] fallen out with the people involved." From that rather rash and ill-considered statement, there is no possible alternative inference to draw other than YOU DO know who these anonymous people are.
|
|
|
Post by TonyDunkley on Nov 3, 2021 20:53:19 GMT
Ah bless the troll has popped up from under his bridge. Other than the NBTA, who for obvious reasons are well known to many thousands of pleasure boaters, . . I don't know who ' the people involved' are, . . but in stating - quote - " He’s fallen out with the people involved." - you've made it very apparent that YOU DO KNOW who they are ! So, in light of this careless revelation on your part, . . are you now prepared to identify these mysterious people who YOU say I have "fallen out with", . . and who hide behind a description of themselves as a " coalition of boat dwellers, [the National Bargee Travellers Association] and other support organisations" ? Is the fact that they're still inviting donations some 6 weeks after saying that the appeal had been "paused" associated in some way with their continuing anonymity, . . and YOUR previously undisclosed but now obvious connections with them ?
|
|
|
Post by TonyDunkley on Nov 3, 2021 20:46:49 GMT
Laudable as this appeal might have first appeared, from the start it always begged the question - why is this ill-defined and partially anonymous "coalition" appealing to raise money to pay for a "legal opinion" on a matter that was covered - almost certainly in a far more thorough and detailed fashion than that to be had from any solicitor or barrister in return for the sum of £1000, or more - just under four and a half years ago in an article circulated to involved inland boating organizations and published on the internet by Nigel Moore ? The latest round of intended changes to C&RT's boat Licence T&C's are, predictably, once again founded in the Trust's long standing abuse and misuse of S.43 of the Transport Act of 1962, . . the clauses that C&RT, and BWB before it, have for far to long been allowed to get away with treating as a catch-all proviso to the effect that it can legitimately amend or ignore any or all of its later governing legislation as and when it so chooses. On 1 August 2016 Nigel Moore published a typically well researched and exhaustive analysis of precisely why S.43 of the 1962 Act could never be lawfully applied to creating, and especially not amending, the majority of C&RT's already largely unenforceable, self-conferred catalogue of extra-statutory boat licensing T&C's dreamed up in Richard Parry's 'kangaroo parliament' by one of his specialist mismanagement 'teams'. A phone call to the Community Law Partnership, the lawyers instructed by the largely anonymous "coalition of boat dwellers, the National Bargee Travellers Association and other support organisations", has elicited the following :- 1) The Community Law Partnership doesn't know who the "coalition of boat dwellers" are. 2) The Community Law Partnership doesn't know who the "other support organisations" are. 3) Most of the money [£6,432.00] raised went on Counsel's opinion that the the only aspect of C&RT's new T&C's that might be successfully challenged via Judicial Review is the requirement to cruise in the same manner as a CC'er when away from the boats home mooring -- Clause 5.4 in the new Licence T&C's. 4) That there was some dosh left over from getting the first Counsel's opinion, . . so they blew the rest on getting another equally useless opinion from a second barrister, . . who said the same as the first one. 5) That no thought has been applied to the quicker, less costly, and rather more appropriate form of challenge to C&RT's ultra vires Licence T&C's, . . application for Declaratory Judgment under CPR Part 8, . . other than the long-winded, costly exercise of yet another application for Judicial Review, . . something that C&RT can, and will, block, stall on, and keep out of Court for as long as it so wishes. Should anyone who donated to this lost before it started cause wish to verify any of the above for themselves, the Community Law Partnership can be reached on 0121 685 8677. The crowdjustice website for the appeal is at : < www.crowdjustice.com/case/protect-boats-homes/
|
|
|
Post by TonyDunkley on Nov 3, 2021 11:09:50 GMT
Fair point, however I think the overriding obligation on the Landowner is that of public safety, if the waterway is navigable is it a “Navigation “? Not sure. There is a general public right of navigation on any UK waters where the tide flows, ie the furthest inland point to where the tide reaches, and that holds good from the smallest creek or inlet to the UK's biggest rivers. Hand in hand with the common law PRN on tidal waters also goes a common law public right of way -- both being extinguishable only by an Act of Parliament or the waterway becoming unnavigable through natural siltation and shallowing. The creek in question here clearly is navigable, and although not classed as a navigation per se, it is a public right of way on which there is also a public right of navigation. The owners of the land on either side will also own the bed of the creek to the centre, and so will be liable for any safety matters relating to property in the creek or persons using it to the same extent as any other landowner.
|
|