|
Post by TonyDunkley on Apr 19, 2021 16:24:18 GMT
Well, . . that didn't take long in coming. Most of the Police report is the same rambling crap that they dished out over the phone last week. Here are the relevant parts of the e-mail attachment it came as, . . everything I needed and hoped for, . . especially the parts underlined and in bold :- No mention of you being evicted.... No, . . how odd, . . I can't imagine why the Police would want to leave that out !
|
|
|
Post by TonyDunkley on Apr 19, 2021 16:01:17 GMT
Here are a couple of links to S.63 and S.64 of the Tribunals, Courts, and Enforcement Act [TCE Act] of 2007 : < www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2007/15/section/63 > < www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2007/15/section/64 > Although the Act itself went into the statute book in 2007, the sections with all the reforms to Bailiff action, including seizure, or taking control of goods, and the certification of Court authorized Enforcement Agents/Officers [Bailiffs], didn't come into force until 6 April 2014 - some 21 months AFTER the C&RT took over from British Waterways. The date is of great significance, . . C&RT's boat snatching squads, and their buddies at Criminal Boat Services, are still working from the old British Waterways handbook on how to get away with stealing people's boats, . . and that was written well BEFORE any of the Bailiff action reforms under the 2007 TCE Act came into effect ! If or when you get written correspondence confirming the Police verbal reply it would be good if you could post that up. Well, . . the Police shot at a written cover up didn't take long in coming. Most of the report is the same rambling crap that they dished out over the phone last week. Here are the relevant parts of the e-mail attachment it came as, . . everything I needed and hoped for, . . especially the parts underlined and in bold :- I have reviewed the court order which was used by the Canal and River Trust to seize your boat and I am in agreement with Pc Cartwright in that it was valid at the time it was enforced. The order was issued on 15/08/2019 at the County Court and outlines several conditions.and :-Mr Garner explained that he and several colleagues from the Canal and River Trust attended the moorings, along with enforcement officers employed by Greyknight Ltd, who had been hired by the Canal and River Trust to assist in the seizure of your boat on that dayand :-I have reviewed Section 63 of the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007 which provides for enforcement agents;63(2) an individual may act as an enforcement agent only if one of these applies - (a) he acts under a certificate under section 64; (b) he is exempt; (c) he acts in the presence and under the direction of a person to whom paragraph
(a) or (b) applies. Under these circumstances the Canal and River Trust have been issued with a County Court order authorising them to remove your boat which therefore allows their employees
to act under section 64. The additional enforcement officers hired by the Canal and River Trust are therefore acting in the presence and direction of an authorised person.and :-In summary I find that the attending response officers conducted sufficient checks of the parties who seized your boat on 22/10/2020, there has been no criminal offence of fraud or impersonating an enforcement officer, and the only offence which took place was your assault of one the enforcement officers.and :-I cannot go any further than Sgt Mackell’s very thorough investigation into your allegations. I
note that Sgt Mackell has answered your query about prosecuting the enforcement officers.
I have looked through the investigation he conducted and agree with his summary that states:
‘….there has been no criminal offence of fraud or impersonating an enforcement officer, and
the only offence which took place was your assault of one the enforcement officers.’
Therefore, Nottinghamshire Police will not be prosecuting the Enforcement Officers. Nottinghamshire Police 19/04/2021
|
|
|
Post by TonyDunkley on Apr 19, 2021 13:25:45 GMT
Why is it that you and the other resident lamebrains - kris, bedruthan and the Mr Shit-for-Brains himself - all regard not having had you respective boats unlawfully 'seized' by bogus Bailiffs acting under the direct instructions of the C&RT management as some sort of notable achievement ? When is your court case dunkley? Watch and learn, . . dinky !
|
|
|
Post by TonyDunkley on Apr 19, 2021 13:18:43 GMT
Yes, point proven indeed, and no room for any doubt whatsoever, . . . you are a complete and utter prick ! At least I still have my boat complete with its river registration Why is it that you and the other resident lamebrains - kris, bedruthan and the Mr Shit-for-Brains himself - all regard not having had you respective boats unlawfully 'seized' by bogus Bailiffs acting under the direct instructions of the C&RT management as some sort of notable achievement ?
|
|
|
Post by TonyDunkley on Apr 19, 2021 12:59:57 GMT
What makes you think that I want or need "support" for my cause, . . and what makes you think that if I was looking for support that I'd value anything that a prick like you could come up with ? Point proven Yes, point proven indeed, and no room for any doubt whatsoever, . . . you are a complete and utter prick !
|
|
|
Post by TonyDunkley on Apr 19, 2021 12:53:24 GMT
Watch and learn. What’s happening with your court challenge? I’ll tell you, free of charge, fuckall. You’re full of wind and piss, yet you criticise, condemn and ridicule others who are sincere and make the effort. You’re a waste of space and full of wind. Whilst one or two support you, the majority think you’re a joke. I couldn't support TD, not because he is wrong but because he is so fekin rude to anybody that he disagrees with or that disagree with him. That is not the way to win support for your cause. Contrast TD to NM the latter of whom was pleasant polite and logical even in the heat of an argument. Guess which one had success and which one is doomed to failure. What makes you think that I want or need "support" for what you probably see as my "cause", . . and what makes you think that if I was looking for support that I'd value anything that a prick like you could come up with ?
|
|
|
Post by TonyDunkley on Apr 19, 2021 12:45:23 GMT
It's certainly a 'fact' that the strength of the Appeal arguments frightened C&RT into blowing in the region of £90,000 to induce Leigh Ravenscroft into dropping the Appeal. The 'fact' is that Nigel Moore's overall handling of Leigh's claim was going to end in it being ultimately successful, . . or do you think that C&RT offered around £90,000 worth of inducements to drop the Appeal out of the sheer kindness of their hearts ? As per usual, you are making presumption. Totally worthless. So, . . you think that C&RT chose to let Leigh Ravenscroft off around £90,000 of costs awarded against him because they were confident that the Appeal of the Asplin Judgment was going to fail, . . . is that right ?
|
|
|
Post by TonyDunkley on Apr 19, 2021 12:38:48 GMT
No-one, least of all me, is saying that there shouldn't be a legal challenge to C&RT's extra-statutory T&C's. What I am saying is that the challenge should be founded in Nigel Moore's analysis and arguments in respect of the long standing misuse and abuse by C&RT of S.43 of the 1962 Transport Act, . . rather than blowing whatever money this appeal raises on yet another lot of destined to fail arguments over grounds that have failed previously, . . AND are directed merely at the latest proposed amendments to Licence T&C's that in truth were invalid and unenforceable from the time they were first introduced. I've no doubt that the distinction will go straight over the top of your head, . . again, . . but that's your problem ! Watch and learn. What’s happening with your court challenge? I’ll tell you, free of charge, fuckall. You’re full of wind and piss, yet you criticise, condemn and ridicule others who are sincere and make the effort. You’re a waste of space and full of wind. Whilst one or two support you, the majority think you’re a joke. The distinction went straight over the top of your head as well, . . didn't it ?
|
|
|
Post by TonyDunkley on Apr 19, 2021 11:45:24 GMT
I hope you lot have given to this fund. Despite what the grumpy dunk says with out some form of legal challenge boating as we know it is fucked. Or maybe you want cart to be able to tell you how much time you have to spend on your mooring every year. No-one, least of all me, is saying that there shouldn't be a legal challenge to C&RT's extra-statutory T&C's. What I am saying is that the challenge should be founded in Nigel Moore's analysis and arguments in respect of the long standing misuse and abuse by C&RT of S.43 of the 1962 Transport Act, . . rather than blowing whatever money this appeal raises on yet another lot of destined to fail arguments over grounds that have failed previously, . . AND are directed merely at the latest proposed amendments to Licence T&C's that in truth were invalid and unenforceable from the time they were first introduced. I've no doubt that the distinction will go straight over the top of your head, . . again, . . but that's your problem !
|
|
|
Post by TonyDunkley on Apr 19, 2021 11:20:13 GMT
Here are a couple of links to S.63 and S.64 of the Tribunals, Courts, and Enforcement Act [TCE Act] of 2007 : < www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2007/15/section/63 > < www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2007/15/section/64 > Although the Act itself went into the statute book in 2007, the sections with all the reforms to Bailiff action, including seizure, or taking control of goods, and the certification of Court authorized Enforcement Agents/Officers [Bailiffs], didn't come into force until 6 April 2014 - some 21 months AFTER the C&RT took over from British Waterways. The date is of great significance, . . C&RT's boat snatching squads, and their buddies at Criminal Boat Services, are still working from the old British Waterways handbook on how to get away with stealing people's boats, . . and that was written well BEFORE any of the Bailiff action reforms under the 2007 TCE Act came into effect ! If or when you get written correspondence confirming the Police verbal reply it would be good if you could post that up. Yes, . . I'll be delighted to publish it, . . IF it ever comes !
|
|
|
Post by TonyDunkley on Apr 19, 2021 11:17:08 GMT
NOT true, . . Richard Churchill [Tadworth] came away from the hearing with one of C&RT's usual Sections 8 and 13 Orders consisting of a Declaration and Injunction chalked up against him, . . AND believing that the boat named in the Order could not be re-licensed and was permanently barred from C&RT controlled waters entirely at the Trust's discretion. It took months of badgering to get C&RT to stop pretending that it was entitled to refuse a licence on the strength of the Injunction and to finally abide by the mandatory obligations arising out of S.17 of the BW Act of 1995 to issue a Licence. The unlawful refusal to re-license the boat named on the Injunction was in fact just another instance of C&RT inventing and applying unenforceable extra-statutory T&C's, . . but in this case NOT getting away with it thanks to the resolve of the boat owner in not accepting any spurious licensing condition that wasn't encompassed under S.17 of the 1995 Act. How do I know this ? Because in the absence of any further assistance from the "professionals", whose net contributions to the proceedings had left Richard to be endlessly pissed about by C&RT applying its extra-statutory T&C's, . . I was helping him to draft all the letters he sent to Paul Griffin and Denise Yelland - C&RT's 'enforcement' supremoes at the time. As for the crass remark regarding Nigel Moore's handling of Leigh Ravenscroft's claim against C&RT, you've neglected, intentionally no doubt, to mention that C&RT lawyers thought that there was every chance of the adverse Judgment being overturned on Appeal. Why otherwise would the Trust have seen fit to bribe Leigh Ravenscroft to drop the Appeal - after reading through the pleadings - with an offer to forego some £90,000 in costs awards, and charging orders on properties that he owned ? I should have made it clear I was referring to Ken Churchill. There is nothing crass about my remark, it is fact. It's certainly a 'fact' that the strength of the Appeal arguments frightened C&RT into blowing in the region of £90,000 to induce Leigh Ravenscroft into dropping the Appeal. The 'fact' is that Nigel Moore's overall handling of Leigh's claim was going to end in it being ultimately successful, . . or do you think that C&RT offered around £90,000 worth of inducements to drop the Appeal out of the sheer kindness of their hearts ?
|
|
|
Post by TonyDunkley on Apr 19, 2021 11:00:24 GMT
Both this case and the Ravenscroft one could have been won if only they had been managed professionally. The Churchill case was a prime example of how you play crt at their own game, and win. (Although to be fair, the barrister on that case just happened to live on a boat, so had a good knowledge of the subject). NOT true, . . Richard Churchill [Tadworth] came away from the hearing with one of C&RT's usual Sections 8 and 13 Orders consisting of a Declaration and Injunction chalked up against him, . . AND believing that the boat named in the Order could not be re-licensed and was permanently barred from C&RT controlled waters entirely at the Trust's discretion. It took months of badgering to get C&RT to stop pretending that it was entitled to refuse a licence on the strength of the Injunction and to finally abide by the mandatory obligations arising out of S.17 of the BW Act of 1995 to issue a Licence. The unlawful refusal to re-license the boat named on the Injunction was in fact just another instance of C&RT inventing and applying unenforceable extra-statutory T&C's, . . but in this case NOT getting away with it thanks to the resolve of the boat owner in not accepting any spurious licensing condition that wasn't encompassed under S.17 of the 1995 Act. How do I know this ? Because in the absence of any further assistance from the "professionals", whose net contributions to the proceedings had left Richard to be endlessly pissed about by C&RT applying its extra-statutory T&C's, . . I was helping him to draft all the letters he sent to Paul Griffin and Denise Yelland - C&RT's 'enforcement' supremoes at the time. As for the crass remark regarding Nigel Moore's handling of Leigh Ravenscroft's claim against C&RT, you've neglected, intentionally no doubt, to mention that C&RT's lawyers thought that there was every chance of the adverse Judgment being overturned on Appeal. Why otherwise would the Trust have seen fit to bribe Leigh Ravenscroft to drop the Appeal - after reading through the pleadings - with an offer to forego some £90,000 in costs awards, and charging orders on properties that he owned ?
|
|
|
Post by TonyDunkley on Apr 18, 2021 19:07:10 GMT
Nottinghamshire Police and C&RT WILL have taken legal advice ... obviously in light of their respective clients, such advice will be swayed in favour of the fee payer no doubt. The establishments primary role is to protect and support the establishment so it is no surprise that the courts, C&RT, and the Police, thus far seem to be 'singing from the same hymn sheet'. I understand your views on the process and action so far, and like many here, have sympathy for your plight. However, where does this leave you, and more importantly your boat ? How can you continue to challenge what appears to be a 'fait accompli' ? Rog It's plain that you haven't understood anything about this matter, or anything that I've posted about it. I'm not in any sort of "plight", and I neither want nor need your "sympathy", . . nor anyone else's. Now, . . let's see if your ability to read and understand written English is any better than your grasp of French. Take a few moments to look through S.63, S.64, and Schedule 12 of the Tribunals, Courts, and Enforcement Act 2007. You'll find links to S.63 and S.64 in Part 3 (Enforcement by taking control of goods), Chapter 1 (Procedure), and Schedule 12, in the list of links to the contents of the Act, which you'll get straight to by clicking onto this link - < www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2007/15/contents >. This is statute law, laid down by and in Parliament, over which the Judiciary has no discretion as to its application or scope, . . as opposed to common law which comes about and evolves through custom, usage, and the Courts themselves. Having done that, try reconciling what is set down in S.63, S.64, and Schedule 12 of the TCE Act 2007 with the statement that C&RT's S.Garner has made to the Police to the effect that, for practical purposes the (Court) Order made on 15 August 2019 (to be found on page 221 of this thread) serves as the mandatory certificate to act as an Enforcement Agent/Officer [Bailiff] specified under S.63(2) and S.64 of the TCE Act 2007. Garner isn't 'singing' from any sort of 'hymn sheet', . . he's parroting a load of utter tripe from a script he's been supplied with by C&RT's mendacious and increasingly desperate lawyers, . . . and the Police are rather stupidly going along with it !
|
|
|
Post by TonyDunkley on Apr 18, 2021 13:00:48 GMT
Before too much more time is wasted on the irrelevant supposed assault on the bogus Bailiff, it's worth pointing out that the supposed assault has no bearing on the seriousness of the criminal offences that C&RT arsewipe S. Garner and the goons provided by CBS to masquerade as 'Bailiffs' committed on the morning of 22 October last, . . or the fact that C&RT, through Garner's answers under Police questioning, has in effect admitted to those offences. The apparent confusion over this comparatively uncomplicated matter will be disposed of by a few minutes spent in reading through the relevant parts of the Tribunals, Courts, and Enforcement Act of 2007 [TCE Act], . . rather than indulging in any more uninformed speculation. The 2007 TCE Act is STATUTE law, over which the Judiciary has no discretion in application, as opposed to COMMON law, which evolves through custom and use, . . and over which the Judiciary has almost limitless discretion. Part 3 (Enforcement by taking control of goods), Chapter 1 (Procedure), Sections 62 - 70 (inc.), and Schedule 12 of the 2007 TCE Act are the places to look, . . and here's a link to the contents page of the entire Act : < www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2007/15/contents >
|
|
|
Post by TonyDunkley on Apr 17, 2021 22:13:11 GMT
.........................snip......... * The dispute with C&RT is entirely a civil matter in pursuit of unpaid licence fees. * The Court Order [see page 221 of this thread] made on 15 August 2019 authorizes the C&RT to seize the Defendant's assets, including "Halcyon Daze", and to evict the resident owner from the boat, absent the mandatory accompanying Warrants or Writs of Control and Possession from the Courts that the law requires. * The costs awarded to the Claimant in the Order made on 15 August 2019 were specifically to cover the seizure, transporting and storage of "Halcyon Daze". * The Court Order made on 15 August 2019 is the mandatory 'certificate to act as an Enforcement Agent/Officer [Bailiff]' that the law requires under S.63(2) of the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007, and as such confers the Court's authority on C&RT's S.Garner to act as an Enforcement Agent/Officer [Bailiff], and to supervise and instruct other unauthorized and uncertificated personnel to act as Enforcement Agents/Officers [Bailiffs] whilst in his presence and acting directly under his instructions. * The uncertificated (Grey Knight Ltd) Enforcement Agents/Officers [Bailiffs] who executed the eviction and seizure on 22 October 2019 were acting under the instructions of the C&RT's Court authorized and certificated 'Enforcement Officer' [Bailiff], S.Garner, and therefore acted lawfully. * There was no criminal offence committed during the 22 October 2020 incident at Barton Wharf on the river Trent other than the assault on the Grey Knight Ltd Enforcement Officer [Bailiff], Gerard Mills, whilst going about his lawful duties. Presumably this is not the opinion of the police as such but the opinion of the lawyers employed by the CPS. So probably expensive to challenge further. Sorry to hear this, as I never wanted you to lose your boat, maybe time to stop fighting. No, . . the decision is down to Nottinghamshire Police alone, . . none of this has been referred to the Crown Prosecution Service. Hardly surprising really, . . what Police force would want to go to the CPS and recommend proceeding against anyone or any organization who had succeeded in conning four of their officers into actively assisting in the committing of several criminal offences that are to be the subject of the prosecutions ?
|
|