|
Post by TonyDunkley on Nov 2, 2021 22:13:24 GMT
Laudable as this appeal might first appear, it does beg the question - why is this ill-defined "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 intended changes to C&RT's boat Licence T&C's are all founded in the Trust's long standing misuse of S.43 of the Transport Act of 1962. In August 2016 Nigel published a typically well researched and exhaustive analysis of precisely why S.43 of the 1962 Act could never be lawfully applicable to C&RT's already largely unenforceable and ever changing catalogue of extra-statutory boat licensing T&C's dreamt up in the Milton Keynes parliament by one of Parry's numerous mismanagement 'teams'. Watch and learn. I've watched, and I've asked some questions, . . and what I've learned is that :- 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 [£6,000(+)] 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. 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 opinon 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 alternative form of challenge to C&RT's ultra vires Licence T&C's, . . other than the long-winded, costly exercise of another Judicial Review.
|
|
|
Post by TonyDunkley on Nov 2, 2021 19:07:10 GMT
This is between me and that worthless little shit, kris, . . best not poke your noses in where you're not invited ! Sort it out by PM then and not in public. I want it in public, . . it's going to be done in public, . . shouldn't be too difficult to work out why !
|
|
|
Post by TonyDunkley on Nov 2, 2021 18:57:36 GMT
This is between me and that worthless little shit, kris, . . best not poke your noses in where you're not invited !
|
|
|
Post by TonyDunkley on Nov 2, 2021 18:11:20 GMT
You couldn't let it lie. Rog Give me one good reason why I should !
|
|
|
Post by TonyDunkley on Nov 2, 2021 17:53:22 GMT
Yes is the simple answer, not often though because of the cost. Sabina was part doubled, part replated, part insert.
She was doubled along the waterline, there she had some very large very deep pits but was watertight. She was lapstrake with the waterline strake inset. this meant that the doubler sat inbetween the top and bottom strake and was continuously welded top and bottom. because that filled in the inset it just looks as if she was carvel. Almost all the other sections were replated or if the damage was localised, an insert.
On big old barges another big advantage of doubling which is often a disadvantage on a modern narrow boat is the weight.
If Sabina had been doubled along the bottom with 20mm plate that would have taken her down about 3 inches and I would be able to get under Heck Bridge It must have cost you an arm and a leg? I’d hate to think what that amount of work would cost at today’s prices. You would have a fair idea of the cost at today's prices, . . if you had agreed to the damage you did to A41/Medlock being temporarily cement box patched, surveyed and ultra-sonic thickness tested, and then repaired in a planned scheduled manner, after holing it on the Aire & Calder near Heck on the early evening of 26 September 2017, . . instead of doing a panic bodge job with several tons of concrete and chicken wire, . . and not informing your Insurers.
|
|
|
Post by TonyDunkley on Nov 2, 2021 13:24:36 GMT
I’ve found it’s for the best [to avoid answering any questions about anything I post on the Thunderboat forum because I'm too stupid to be able to differentiate between what is OK for me to post or the stuff that I should be keeping quiet about. That idiotic remark I made the other day about TD having fallen out with the people behind the crowdjustice fund raising appeal for the Judicial Review into C&RT's illegal Licence T&C's has really dropped me in the shit] 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 2, 2021 7:22:30 GMT
I wonder if it's occurred to any of the invertebrate non-thinkers who so enthusiastically voiced their acceptance, or even approval, of C&RT's unnecessary limitation of the Ribble Link to around one quarter of its potential annual usage, that in doing so the Trust was in fact relying once again on its by now customary and habitual abuse of Section 43(3) of the Transport Act of 1962 -- the very same customary and habitual abuse of statutory powers that this crowdjustice appeal SHOULD have been directed at challenging via Judicial Review ?
For the benefit of the more seriously confused, stupid, and gullible of Thunderboat's active contributors, . . that's the same piece of inapplicable legislation that was used to ram the latest round of illegitimate and legally unenforceable boat licence T&C's down the majority of its customers overly receptive throats. Here, once again, is a brief reminder of how and why C&RT's lies regarding its authority to apply its own extra-statutory T&C's are put into effect :-
Section 43(3) of the Transport Act, far from giving CaRT open licence to charge for whatever they liked and to impose conditions for whatever they liked, on a unilateral basis, is in fact the one bit of legislation that specifically confirms the legislative principle that these charges and conditions cannot be made with respect to anything that had not previously been authorised as chargeable.
The licensing of boats on the canals, and the registration of boats on the rivers, was never encompassed within pre-1962 legislation, hence nothing in s.43 could possibly apply to those. When those became law under primary legislation, the conditions for issue were laid out – and to start with, nothing more was required for either, other than a paid for application. The PBC's [introduced under the BW Act 1971] to begin with were subject to rigid price structures, but after boat licences became compulsory [under the 1976 Byelaws] those prices were then subsequently abolished [under the 1983 Act] and the PBC simply pegged to 60% of the Licence [which BW could charge for as they wished].
The BW Act 1983 added an extension to byelaw making powers, so that issue of the boat Licence could be made subject to compliance with prescribed standards of construction and equipment of vessels, but that was never implemented, and the section was repealed under s.36 and Schedule 3 of the 1995 Act – which substituted the BSSC condition instead. The 1995 Act added the only other two applicable conditions, to which issue of relevant consents [to include the *PBC’s as well] were to be subject.
*PBC is the Pleasure Boat Certificate, which C&RT disingenuously refer to as a Rivers Only Licence. It is, legally speaking, not a licence as none is needed on the C&RT controlled river waterways -- for which the Public Right of Navigation still exists.
|
|
|
Post by TonyDunkley on Nov 2, 2021 6:32:16 GMT
What is really needed is a man of action, not just a keyboard warrior. We need someone who is an expert in everything to glue their hands to the bonnet of Richard Parry's limo in Milton Keynes. Can't be me, I have to go boating. What's REALLY needed is for C&RT's 'customers' -- spineless, fawning victims is a better description -- to get their act together and stop accepting all the crap that Parry and Co. are dishing out in ever increasing measure. What IS the matter with you people, . . do you actually get some sort of perverse pleasure out of what C&RT are doing to you, . . and the inland waterways you all need to keep and use your wretched noddyboats on ? Get a grip on yourselves, and the reality of what is actually happening, . . and DO something about it before it's all too late ! I wonder if it's occurred to any of the invertebrate non-thinkers who so enthusiastically voiced their acceptance, or even approval, of C&RT's unnecessary limitation of the Ribble Link to around one quarter of its potential annual usage, that in doing so the Trust was in fact relying once again on its by now customary and habitual abuse of Section 43(3) of the Transport Act of 1962, . . as explained in the ' Boat licence T&C’s petition' thread ? For the benefit of the more seriously confused, stupid, and gullible of Thunderboat's active contributors, . . that's the same piece of inapplicable legislation that was used to ram the latest round of illegitimate and legally unenforceable boat licence T&C's down the majority of its customers overly receptive throats. Here, once again, is a brief reminder of how and why C&RT's lies regarding its authority to apply its own extra-statutory T&C's are put into effect :- Section 43(3) of the Transport Act, far from giving CaRT open licence to charge for whatever they liked and to impose conditions for whatever they liked, on a unilateral basis, is in fact the one bit of legislation that specifically confirms the legislative principle that these charges and conditions cannot be made with respect to anything that had not previously been authorised as chargeable. The licensing of boats on the canals, and the registration of boats on the rivers, was never encompassed within pre-1962 legislation, hence nothing in s.43 could possibly apply to those. When those became law under primary legislation, the conditions for issue were laid out – and to start with, nothing more was required for either, other than a paid for application. The PBC's [introduced under the BW Act 1971] to begin with were subject to rigid price structures, but after boat licences became compulsory [under the 1976 Byelaws] those prices were then subsequently abolished [under the 1983 Act] and the PBC simply pegged to 60% of the Licence [which BW could charge for as they wished]. The BW Act 1983 added an extension to byelaw making powers, so that issue of the boat Licence could be made subject to compliance with prescribed standards of construction and equipment of vessels, but that was never implemented, and the section was repealed under s.36 and Schedule 3 of the 1995 Act – which substituted the BSSC condition instead. The 1995 Act added the only other two applicable conditions, to which issue of relevant consents [to include the *PBC’s as well] were to be subject. *PBC is the Pleasure Boat Certificate, which C&RT disingenuously refer to as a Rivers Only Licence. It is, legally speaking, not a licence as none is needed on the C&RT controlled river waterways -- for which the Public Right of Navigation still exists.
|
|
|
Post by TonyDunkley on Nov 2, 2021 5:49:47 GMT
Ah my very own internet stalker. Don't be so utterly stupid, . . that's the second or third time you've trotted out that pathetic piece of nonsense ! Anyone looking to amuse themselves by publishing known untruths about others should at the very least expect a perfectly reasonably phrased response inviting them to either retract, or expand on and justify what they've said. Answer the question you were asked, . . three clear days ago, . . and if you don't want to get any more in the same vein, . . then stop publishing blatant known untruths on the internet !
|
|
|
Post by TonyDunkley on Nov 1, 2021 17:35:33 GMT
Never mind about what's happening some 5000 miles away -- answer the question you've been ducking for the last three days from the " Boat licence T&C’s petition" thread : -- Oct 29, 2021 at 9:50am kris said:-He’s fallen out with the people involved.
_______________________________________ The question you've been ducking :- 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 revelation, . . 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 Oct 30, 2021 18:27:27 GMT
Somebody had a go at taking on CRT and it didn't get the response they required? You should join them Tony, be right up your street. He’s fallen out with the people involved. 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 revelation, . . 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 Oct 30, 2021 17:59:39 GMT
< www.crowdjustice.com/case/protect-boats-homes/ > In comparison with the apparent support and enthusiasm initially shown by the Thunderboat membership on page 1 of this thread, the current level of interest appears to have declined somewhat. Is there any interest at all, on the part of those who donated, as to just who or what this still largely anonymous " coalition of boat dwellers", (the National Bargee Travellers Association) and " other support organisations" actually is, . . to say nothing of how several thousands of pounds was frittered away on nothing more than a couple of ineffectual letters that C&RT has completely ignored ? Please send answers, written in pencil, on the back of a signed blank cheque drawn in favour of Steve Jay, John Evans, Jenlyn, Steve Jenkin, Bedruthan, Walter Mitty, or E.M.Bezzler, c/o Richard Parry at the Canal & River Trust.
|
|
|
Post by TonyDunkley on Oct 29, 2021 18:24:24 GMT
Is he still alive? He might be able to answer some of Tony's questions. I doubt it….. Not whether he’s still alive, I mean I doubt he would be able to answer any questions, after all, theres nothing The Dunk doesn't already know! 🙄 There are in fact no questions left to answer, . . except for confirmation of the height relative to ODN or CD of the outer cill of Lock No.8 of the Ribble Link from previously published material dating back to when it was in the early stages of planning and construction. Answers to everything I needed to know have been severally gleaned from or provided by Admiralty Charts, the Douglas Boatyard, the Harbour Authority for the former Preston Docks, and Preston Marina, . . of which the latter three all shared my views on C&RT's thinking, and the unnecessary closures and restrictions that in effect reduce usage of the non-tidal Ribble Link to 90 days, or less, out of any 12 month period. The only sources from which pilotage, least depths, and tidal information for the areas of the River Douglas from Tarleton Lock to the confluence with the Ribble was not readily obtainable, but SHOULD be, were C&RT itself, . . and those in thrall to C&RT and clearly unwilling to put the lucrative lock operating retainer at risk by saying or providing anything that deviated from the 'official' C&RT line -- Mayors Boatyard at Tarleton.
|
|
|
Post by TonyDunkley on Oct 29, 2021 18:16:16 GMT
The appeal for more cash was renewed again this morning for another 30 days -- although, oddly, it did still carry the following opening sentences from the most recent 'Update' (No.9 - 19 Sept, 2021) : - "We are extremely grateful to all the supporters who have made donations to this appeal. There has not been very much to report since the last update at the end of June. The appeal has been paused and may be wound up soon. This will not prevent us opening another appeal to continue the case if we believe this is necessary and appropriate. We have used the remainder of the funds to seek further advice from a senior Barrister regarding Canal & River Trust’s (CRT) response to our second Pre-Action Protocol letter."
The appeal pages can be found in full at :- < www.crowdjustice.com/case/protect-boats-homes/ > ___________________________________________________________________________________________________ See also this post from page 1 of this thread :- < thunderboat.boards.net/post/287073/thread > The article referred to was by Nigel Moore explaining the correct grounds, the Trust's long standing misuse of S.43 of the Transport Act of 1962, upon which to found an application for Judicial Review regarding C&RT's intended changes to the Licence T&C's, and is here :- kanda.boatingcommunity.org.uk/section-43-of-the-1962-waterways-act-its-use-and-abuse/The work for which this ill-considered funding appeal was supposedly launched to pay for HAD ALREADY BEEN DONE by Nigel Moore, . . and published for the benefit and free use of all on 1 August 2016. This funding appeal was a pointless waste of time and money from day one !!
|
|
|
Post by TonyDunkley on Oct 29, 2021 15:56:19 GMT
Somebody had a go at taking on CRT and it didn't get the response they required? You should join them Tony, be right up your street. He’s fallen out with the people involved. 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 revelation, . . 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 ?
|
|