|
Post by TonyDunkley on May 5, 2021 8:20:35 GMT
It's not within my remit to provide advice to CRT or CBS but my prediction is that at some point in the next year Halcyon Daze will be cut up for scrap. Oh dear, . . there you go again, forgetting that we live in a country where there are laws preventing companies and individuals from helping themselves to other people's goods and property, and then treating it as if it were their own. Moves to curb the kind of behaviour that the thieves and liars at C&RT and CBS indulge in began in 1267 when Parliament passed the 29 chapter Distress Act - now the oldest piece of statute law on the book, with chapters 1, 4 and 15 still in force. Laws, like anything else, have to change and evolve with the times, and there have been numerous other enactments over the years which have added to the protections afforded under the 1267 Act, . . the latest being the parts of the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act that came into effect on 6 April 2014, . . and which, together with S.2 and S.4 of the Fraud Act 2006, and unfortunately for C&RT and CBS, and their bogus 'Bailiffs', are targeted on the specific criminal offences committed by representatives of both organizations when 'Halcyon Daze' was unlawfully seized on 22 October 2020. Had C&RT's boat thieving bogus officials confined themselves, on that date, to exercising the statutory powers of boat removal conferred on its predecessor, BWB, under S.8 of the BW Act of 1983, there would be no criminal charges to answer, . . but they didn't, . . and there are ! In addition to the criminal offences committed on 22 October last, of course, there are also the ongoing civil wrongs of conversion and trespass to goods arising directly from C&RT's and CBS's unlawful actions on that day, to be remedied as a separate matter and through a different Court. The longer that C&RT and CBS keep 'Halcyon Daze' unlawfully impounded and inaccessible, the bigger the damages bill gets, . . and were they to be foolish enough to cut the vessel up for scrap, as you suggest, the damages bill would get even bigger still - an outcome with which I would be perfectly content ! I'm posting the above again to give those whose heads it went straight over the first time a second opportunity to read and think about what it says, . . and the implications for the rogue elements within C&RT's senior management who think that they, and the terminally corrupt organization for which they are wholly responsible, are above and exempt from the UK laws by which honest people and decently run companies live and work.
|
|
|
Post by TonyDunkley on May 5, 2021 7:15:16 GMT
So it's all played out exactly as we told you it would. No, . . I recall you predicting, a few days ago, that "HD" would eventually be scrapped. In fact "it's played out" pretty much as I hoped, . . but it hasn't taken anything like as long as I thought it probably would for C&RT to be foolish enough to start shouting about having sold something that isn't the Trust's to sell.
|
|
|
Post by TonyDunkley on May 5, 2021 6:48:57 GMT
I never mentioned the word "title" in my post. Here is a simple test you can apply to evaluate the current position. 1). Go to your mooring. 2). Examine the area closely. Can you see "Halcyon Daze"? If the answer is "No" then Halcyon Daze has gone. QED. If that's all you can come up with as an answer, . . have you got any helpful suggestions as to how C&RT can get itself out of the ever increasingly expensive stalemate it's got itself into ? As you rightly say, 'Halcyon Daze' isn't at my mooring, . . and that's because it was taken away, unlawfully and at C&RT's behest, by bogus 'Bailiffs' provided by its contractors, CBS, and has been held by CBS for the last six months at an undisclosed location, during which time both C&RT and CBS have consistently held to the position that I am not allowed access to my own goods and property. The vessel can't be sold, because it isn't C&RT's or CBS's to sell, . . and, owing to the fact that it was forcibly and unlawfully "seized", nor can either C&RT or CBS legitimately lay claim to be involuntary bailees of the vessel and its contents - a pre-condition under the 1977 Torts Act for entitlement to sell "uncollected goods". As I've no intention of paying C&RT anything being currently demanded, or any sum demanded at any future date, have you any helpful advice for C&RT, and CBS, as to how they can extricate themselves from this apparent impasse ? I got the following e-mail from C&RT's Matthew Aymes - otherwise known as "National Customer Support Manager - Licence Support" - yesterday afternoon. It's the latest from him in an exchange of e-mails over the last few weeks, . . all of them jointly addressed to Aymes and Deards, the nominated 'Head of Legal', with the more recent ones including the MD of Commercial Boat Services, Brian Clarke. Neither Deards nor Clarke have responded - it's been left entirely to Aymes to deal with - and, curiously, there's been no involvement, for the first time in the 5 year or so gestation period of this saga, of the Trust's Solicitor-Advocate/Self-appointed Legislator, Lucy 'the Lawgiver' Barry. Interestingly, the period of time from the unlawful seizure of "Halcyon Daze" to the time of the notification of the so-called "sale" of the boat is almost, to the day, exactly the same as it took C&RT to announce the so-called "sale" of the Liverpool Bar Lightship, "Planet", to the proprietor of Sharpness Shipyard & Drydock after "Planet" was unlawfully seized by the light fingered double act of C&RT and CBS in a remarkably similar manner. _____________________________________________________________
4 May 2021 Dear Mr. Dunkley.
Repeating the same claims and labelling them ‘undeniable’ will not alter the facts surrounding them. Ascribing terms and names to elements of the removal process will not make them so.
The Trust’s position on the removal of Halcyon Daze has been made plain and was explained in my previous email to you.
I am unaware of any evidence that the contractors (or any Trust representative) on the day of removal made any false representation to either you or Nottinghamshire Police.
We’ve made efforts to contact you and arrange return of items from Halcyon Daze. You have refused to reasonably engage with that contact. Should you wish to arrange the return of items from the boat, please provide a suitable address for an identifiable premises and we will have the items sent to you. Stuart Garner can facilitate this.
I can confirm for you that due to your failure to reimburse the Trust’s costs for the removal of Halcyon Daze, as per the torts notice you received, the boat has been sold and a reasonable and fair price achieved. The new owner took possession of the boat on 27th April 2021. I will arrange for an updated invoice to be sent to you, if it hasn’t been already.
I have advised that I would not respond to points covered previously. You are now updated on the sale of Halcyon Daze, reminded of how to recover property from it, and know that an updated invoice will be arranged. I agree that there is little value in continuing repetitious communication relating to this matter: considering the reality of the situation, as you’ve asked, there is nothing further I can add.
Sincerely,
Matthew Aymes National Customer Support Manager - Licence Support
_________________________________________________________________
|
|
|
Post by TonyDunkley on May 4, 2021 5:51:33 GMT
They really don't give a shit do they? I'm at a complete loss to understand why the affected boat owners are even bothering to try reasoning with C&RT over this matter. The Lee is a river waterway under Schedule 1 to the BW Act 1971 -- "The River Lee Navigation from Hertford to the river Thames at Limehouse and to the tail of Bow Locks" -- and as such the granting, or refusing, of permission to moor vessels alongside the river or navigation banks is a matter entirely for the riparian owners of the riverside land and the river bed. The question that everything hinges on is ; -- who is the riparian owner of of the lengths of riverbank that C&RT are set on turfing these boats off ? If it is C&RT, then the Trust is acting lawfully, if somewhat unreasonably, . . if it isn't C&RT, and the landowners have no objection to boat moorings, then those affected should stay put and tell C&RT to get stuffed.
|
|
|
Post by TonyDunkley on May 3, 2021 11:33:53 GMT
I think you might mean the Secretary of State for the Environment, Food & Rural Affairs not the Home secretary. ... but it is certainly a possibility as he has been misled by CRT's chair. Yes this has been pointed out. At least if you email them, then it gets brought to their attention and gets logged on their system. So in the future the minister wouldn’t be able to claim ignorance. naive
ADJECTIVE (of a person or action) showing a lack of experience, wisdom, or judgement.
|
|
|
Post by TonyDunkley on May 3, 2021 11:12:31 GMT
Since when did the Home Secretary have any responsibility for or within DEFRA? . . . . . . . . . . . . I still think the minister responsible might have an interest. Someone less kindly disposed towards the likes of Leighton and Parry than me, might be 'uncharitable' enough to suggest that the 'minister responsible' could already have discreetly declared his 'interest' in the board approved TAR figures by tipping off the C&RT management that telling the truth wasn't going to butter any of next year's turnips.
|
|
|
Post by TonyDunkley on May 3, 2021 9:27:38 GMT
Maybe an email to the Home Secretary in their role as head of defra? Brilliant, . . what a terrific idea ! You should stand for a place on the C&RT Council, . . boating is in dire need of representation by someone with your talent, insight, and grasp of reality !
|
|
|
Post by TonyDunkley on May 1, 2021 18:38:53 GMT
Really, . . and what makes you so sure of that ? Had you forgotten about C&RT's very own 'bogus Bailiff', S. Garner, lying to the Police and leading them to believe that he had a current (Court issued) certificate to act as an Enforcement Agent or Officer under S.63(2)(a) of the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007, . . and leading the Police to believe that the phony 'Bailiffs' that CBS supplied were acting lawfully because they were acting under his supervision and instruction - under S.63(2)(c) of the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007 ? Had you forgotten that S.Garner's immediate Trust superior, M.Aymes, has now admitted in writing that the phony 'Bailiffs' that CBS supplied, and were charged for as "Bailiffs" on an itemized invoice, were in fact what are now being truthfully referred to by C&RT as "contracted security professionals" ? You yourself have published the confirmation you received from Nottinghamshire Police stating that the Court Order obtained by CRT fully entitled them to take the actions they did and in the way that they did. The 15 August 2019 (Court) Order - the one that C&RT misrepresented and relied on as what the Courts call a "seizure power" - did NOT in fact 'entitle' C&RT to do anything other than exercise the statutory powers of boat 'removal' conferred on its predecessor by Parliament under S.8 of the 1983 Act. The Order has been reproduced and posted earlier in this thread, and the BW Act of 1983 is available at :- < www.legislation.gov.uk/ukla/1983/2/pdfs/ukla_19830002_en.pdf > Take a few minutes to read carefully through S.8, and S.9, of the 1983 Act, . . then read carefully through the whole of the recital to the 15 August 2019 (Court) Order By the way, thank you for confirming that those short extracts from the 10 page Police report and findings on their investigation into the events of 22 October 2020 have got you even more confused than you already were, . . I thought they probably would, . . despite the investigation and the report being the work of someone almost as stupid as you !
|
|
|
Post by TonyDunkley on May 1, 2021 14:34:55 GMT
Oh dear, . . there you go again, forgetting that we live in a country where there are laws preventing companies and individuals from helping themselves to other people's goods and property, and then treating it as if it were their own. Moves to curb the kind of behaviour that the thieves and liars at C&RT and CBS indulge in began in 1267 when Parliament passed the 29 chapter Distress Act - now the oldest piece of statute law on the book, with chapters 1, 4 and 15 still in force. Laws, like anything else, have to change and evolve with the times, and there have been numerous other enactments over the years which have added to the protections afforded under the 1267 Act, . . the latest being the parts of the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act that came into effect on 6 April 2014, . . and which, together with S.2 and S.4 of the Fraud Act 2006, and unfortunately for C&RT and CBS, and their bogus 'Bailiffs', are targeted on the specific criminal offences committed by representatives of both organizations when 'Halcyon Daze' was unlawfully seized on 22 October 2020. Had C&RT's boat thieving bogus officials confined themselves, on that date, to exercising the statutory powers of boat removal conferred on its predecessor, BWB, under S.8 of the BW Act of 1983, there would be no criminal charges to answer, . . but they didn't, . . and there are ! In addition to the criminal offences committed on 22 October last, of course, there are also the ongoing civil wrongs of conversion and trespass to goods arising directly from C&RT's and CBS's unlawful actions on that day, to be remedied as a separate matter and through a different Court. The longer that C&RT and CBS keep 'Halcyon Daze' unlawfully impounded and inaccessible, the bigger the damages bill gets, . . and were they to be foolish enough to cut the vessel up for scrap, as you suggest, the damages bill would get even bigger still - an outcome with which I would be perfectly content ! Look, I'm sorry to be the bearer of bad news but neither CRT nor anybody employed by CRT is going to face any criminal charges, and you aren't going to be getting any "damages". Your best approach in moving forward is to be realistic about this. Really, . . and what makes you so sure of that ? Had you forgotten about C&RT's very own 'bogus Bailiff', S. Garner, lying to the Police and leading them to believe that he had a current (Court issued) certificate to act as an Enforcement Agent or Officer under S.63(2)(a) of the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007, . . and leading the Police to believe that the phony 'Bailiffs' that CBS supplied were acting lawfully because they were acting under his supervision and instruction - under S.63(2)(c) of the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007 ? Had you forgotten that S.Garner's immediate Trust superior, M.Aymes, has now admitted in writing that the phony 'Bailiffs' that CBS supplied, and were charged for as "Bailiffs" on an itemized invoice, were in fact what are now being truthfully referred to by C&RT as "contracted security professionals" ?
|
|
|
Post by TonyDunkley on May 1, 2021 12:48:03 GMT
If that's all you can come up with as an answer, . . have you got any helpful suggestions as to how C&RT can get itself out of the ever increasingly expensive stalemate it's got itself into ? As you rightly say, 'Halcyon Daze' isn't at my mooring, . . and that's because it was taken away, unlawfully and at C&RT's behest, by bogus 'Bailiffs' provided by its contractors, CBS, and has been held by CBS for the last six months at an undisclosed location, during which time both C&RT and CBS have consistently held to the position that I am not allowed access to my own goods and property. The vessel can't be sold, because it isn't C&RT's or CBS's to sell, . . and, owing to the fact that it was forcibly and unlawfully "seized", nor can either C&RT or CBS legitimately lay claim to be voluntary bailees of the vessel and its contents - a pre-condition under the 1977 Torts Act for entitlement to sell "uncollected goods". As I've no intention of paying C&RT anything being currently demanded, or being demanded at any future date, have you any helpful advice for C&RT, and CBS, as to how they can extricate themselves from this apparent impasse ? It's not within my remit to provide advice to CRT or CBS but my prediction is that at some point in the next year Halcyon Daze will be cut up for scrap. Oh dear, . . there you go again, forgetting that we live in a country where there are laws preventing companies and individuals from helping themselves to other people's goods and property, and then treating it as if it were their own. Moves to curb the kind of behaviour that the thieves and liars at C&RT and CBS indulge in began in 1267 when Parliament passed the 29 chapter Distress Act - now the oldest piece of statute law on the book, with chapters 1, 4 and 15 still in force. Laws, like anything else, have to change and evolve with the times, and there have been numerous other enactments over the years which have added to the protections afforded under the 1267 Act, . . the latest being the parts of the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act that came into effect on 6 April 2014, . . and which, together with S.2 and S.4 of the Fraud Act 2006, and unfortunately for C&RT and CBS, and their bogus 'Bailiffs', are targeted on the specific criminal offences committed by representatives of both organizations when 'Halcyon Daze' was unlawfully seized on 22 October 2020. Had C&RT's boat thieving bogus officials confined themselves, on that date, to exercising the statutory powers of boat removal conferred on its predecessor, BWB, under S.8 of the BW Act of 1983, there would be no criminal charges to answer, . . but they didn't, . . and there are ! In addition to the criminal offences committed on 22 October last, of course, there are also the ongoing civil wrongs of conversion and trespass to goods arising directly from C&RT's and CBS's unlawful actions on that day, to be remedied as a separate matter and through a different Court. The longer that C&RT and CBS keep 'Halcyon Daze' unlawfully impounded and inaccessible, the bigger the damages bill gets, . . and were they to be foolish enough to cut the vessel up for scrap, as you suggest, the damages bill would get even bigger still - an outcome with which I would be perfectly content !
|
|
|
Post by TonyDunkley on May 1, 2021 7:35:33 GMT
In his new found role as a legal adviser, perhaps Mr Shit-for-Brainsmiths LLB can tell enlighten me as to : - * Where, and to whom, he thinks title to 'Halcyon Daze', or the vessel itself, has "gone" ? I never mentioned the word "title" in my post. Here is a simple test you can apply to evaluate the current position. 1). Go to your mooring. 2). Examine the area closely. Can you see "Halcyon Daze"? If the answer is "No" then Halcyon Daze has gone. QED. If that's all you can come up with as an answer, . . have you got any helpful suggestions as to how C&RT can get itself out of the ever increasingly expensive stalemate it's got itself into ? As you rightly say, 'Halcyon Daze' isn't at my mooring, . . and that's because it was taken away, unlawfully and at C&RT's behest, by bogus 'Bailiffs' provided by its contractors, CBS, and has been held by CBS for the last six months at an undisclosed location, during which time both C&RT and CBS have consistently held to the position that I am not allowed access to my own goods and property. The vessel can't be sold, because it isn't C&RT's or CBS's to sell, . . and, owing to the fact that it was forcibly and unlawfully "seized", nor can either C&RT or CBS legitimately lay claim to be involuntary bailees of the vessel and its contents - a pre-condition under the 1977 Torts Act for entitlement to sell "uncollected goods". As I've no intention of paying C&RT anything being currently demanded, or any sum demanded at any future date, have you any helpful advice for C&RT, and CBS, as to how they can extricate themselves from this apparent impasse ?
|
|
|
Post by TonyDunkley on May 1, 2021 6:33:27 GMT
If it's about this: "that a large number of the boating community are digitally excluded either in that they do not have any online access or that they have grave difficulties in dealing with anything online", then yes, that was already up a few days ago. What happens to the money so far raised when the lawyer looks at it, sniffs and then walks away because it's less than what he wanted? Or pockets the lot and gives a 'reduced service'? Who is this lawyer? And photos of him/her posted? Any info about him/her posted? What is their track record? Seems all very vague to me, I haven't the faintest what they intend to challenge CRT about. Only it looks like they won't be challenging anything as the target hasn't been reached. I find it a bit strange that their communication to CRT is about the unfairness of boaters excluded from the 'digital' consultation, and then they go on to say "Please keep this going so we can reach the target - please share the link below on social media, Tweet, re-Tweet, send emails or post it on a blog" so they are using ONLY digital communication!!! Do they have no interest in the digitally excluded boaters!!!! Every aspect of this fundraising appeal seems to be as ill-conceived and badly thought out as the objective to be pursued. C&RT's claimed authority - S.43 of the 1962 Transport Act - for setting ANY Licence T&C's to compliment or override the statutory conditions set down in S.17 of the BW Act of 1995, is what should be the objective for Judicial Review, . . NOT quibbling about C&RT's right to amend or add to Licence T&C's that were unlawful and unenforceable from inception.
|
|
|
Post by TonyDunkley on May 1, 2021 6:00:32 GMT
After 241 pages in which the conversation has gone around and around like the Magic Roundabout I thought I would sum up the situation in as brief a way as possible. 1) Tony Dunkley's boat, "Halcyon Daze" has gone. He won't be getting it back. 2) Tony Dunkley has a legal bill of £16,000 to pay. He will not be perused for this as he does not have the wherewithal to pay it, nor any assets which could be seized and sold to pay said bill. And that is basically it. No matter how many times Tony Dunkley furiously hammers out the words "bogus bailiffs" on his keyboard, nothing is going to change from the status quo. Not ever. It's "Game Over". Looking back over the last few pages to make sure I hadn't missed any constructive or thoughtful posts buried amongst the vacuous garbage, . . my attention was drawn to this TB rarity - garbage to which at least some thought, misguided as it is, appears to have been given ! In his new found role as a legal adviser, perhaps Mr Shit-for-Brainsmiths LLB can tell enlighten me as to : - * Where, and to whom, he thinks title to 'Halcyon Daze', or the vessel itself, has "gone" ? * What he sees as legitimate grounds for C&RT's Accounts department raising what he refers to as a 'legal bill' for £16,000 ? * What "game" is being played, . . and why it's "over" ?
|
|
|
Post by TonyDunkley on Apr 29, 2021 21:12:50 GMT
Only 2 days to go! Pledge now! Why bother, . . not a penny of it will go on a correctly focussed challenge to C&RT's authority to impose or enforce ANY extra-statutory boat Licence T&C's at all. Have you seen or read the latest 'update' about the pre-action letter the lawyers acting for the "boat dwellers" and other "support organizations" have sent to the C&RT ?
|
|
|
Post by TonyDunkley on Apr 29, 2021 20:56:24 GMT
So what has your ‘top solicitor’ had to say after Mondays meet? When is your ‘day in court’ going to be and when will Planet be returning to Liverpool Docks? Watching, waiting, following This is gonna be good Whilst you're watching, waiting and following, . . why don't you tell everyone what you did with the money you half-inched from the ACC membership under one of the other names you skulk about behind ?
|
|