|
Post by TonyDunkley on Apr 17, 2021 21:38:15 GMT
The inconvenient piece of statute (law) that C&RT's 'National Customer Support Manager' [M.Aymes] and 'Head of Legal' [T.Deards] are looking and hoping unilaterally to 'amend' at the moment is the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act of 2007, . . Sections 63 and 64 to be precise. Those who have been following this thread, and the saga behind it, (sniped for brevity)The 4th point is interesting! Hopefully someone will challenge it. 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 !
|
|
|
Post by TonyDunkley on Apr 17, 2021 20:14:50 GMT
The inconvenient piece of statute (law) that C&RT's 'National Customer Support Manager' [M.Aymes] and 'Head of Legal' [T.Deards] are looking and hoping unilaterally to 'amend' at the moment is the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act of 2007, . . Sections 63 and 64 to be precise. Those who have been following this thread, and the saga behind it, (sniped for brevity)The 4th point is interesting! Hopefully someone will challenge it. Well spotted, . . although, everything in every one of the six bullet points covering the bulk of what the Police have taken to be factual, true, and an accurate representation of the law as applicable to what C&RT did on 22 October last, and everything C&RT has done since then, is in fact complete and utter nonsense, . . and founded on nothing but the willing acceptance by the Police of the lies and inventions with which C&RT's S.Garner responded to Police questioning. None of this was unexpected, . . I would have been surprised had the Police reacted any differently. Now, courtesy of C&RT's so-called Legal & Governance Services, for it was undoubtedly they who would have provided Garner with the script to respond to Police questioning, the Police think that they've got just what they've been hoping for and needing for the last few months, . . a convenient means of distancing themselves from the very inconvenient fact that C&RT was actively assisted in its criminal actions by four remarkably stupid and inadequately trained Nottinghamshire Police officers.
|
|
|
Post by TonyDunkley on Apr 17, 2021 12:31:16 GMT
Allegedly Tony had not ignored the instruction but had applied for a Pleasure Boat Certificate, and on more than one occasion (was it three times?). The court had not made an order for the 'may be' consequences to be carried out. That is how I see it. My question would now be, is that how things are really supposed to work out... that a court has to, after making a 'declaratory order', give the thumbs up for punishment to be meted? What Tony has said does seem to make sense: "It's a standard warning to defendants of the consequences of not obeying the Order/Injunction, . . it is NOT an open invitation to claimants to go and help themselves to the defendants goods and property !" Nemesis is just making things up to suit his agenda, rather than zooming in on whether this (the above line quoted from Tony's post) is true or not. Simply put, the arrogant megalomaniacs that are the C&RT management are once again making it abundantly clear that any aspects of the law, and not just waterway specific law, that don't happen to suit their corrupt agenda will be either ignored or misused as and whenever it suits them so to do. The inconvenient piece of statute (law) that C&RT's 'National Customer Support Manager' [M.Aymes] and 'Head of Legal' [T.Deards] are looking and hoping unilaterally to 'amend' at the moment is the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act of 2007, . . Sections 63 and 64 to be precise. Those who have been following this thread, and the saga behind it, will recall that a few weeks ago, to get themselves off the hook by encouraging me to proceed with private criminal prosecutions against named C&RT employees, Criminal Boat Services and their bogus Bailiffs etc., Nottinghamshire Police provided me with a transcript of C&RT's S.Garner's responses to questioning over his, and the bogus Bailiff's, parts in the unlawful seizure of "Halcyon Daze" on 22 October last year. You will also recall that I've been awaiting the final decision from the Police on whether or not they will be passing the matter on to the Crown Prosecution Service. Well, . . the Police eventually made up what passes for their minds last week, . . and the decision came as no surprise. The conclusions arrived at by Notts Police, as relayed to me over the phone are briefly summed up below as a few general bullet points. Written confirmation to follow next week. Nottinghamshire Police conclude and accept that : - * 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.
|
|
|
Post by TonyDunkley on Apr 16, 2021 19:16:50 GMT
Gone very quiet TD. Hoping to sweep this failure under the carpet as well? Which "failure", . . . and "as well" as what ?
|
|
|
Post by TonyDunkley on Apr 16, 2021 19:07:14 GMT
As we are repeating ourselves, be rude not to.. Seized yours though didn't they.. You can blart all day long Tony, but they are doing it and getting away with it. I'm unsure as to the point you're trying to make. They, . . being the mendacious lowlifes in charge of C&RT's laughingly named Customer/Licence Support Team and its similarly misnamed Legal and Governance Services, . . certainly have been 'getting away' with misleading and hoodwinking the Courts through abuse of due process, and grossly exceeding the boat removal powers they enjoy (hugely) under S.8 of the 1983 Act. Are you condoning C&RT's 8(+) years of as yet unpunished illegal activities, . . or are you complaining that up until now no organization or individual has been wholly successful in curbing at least some of the outrageous excesses in which this so-called Trust has indulged ?
|
|
|
Post by TonyDunkley on Apr 16, 2021 15:58:51 GMT
In all probability, dinky is yet another of the numerous aliases used by the congenital liar and suspected embezzler who currently posts on here under the name of bedruthan. His previous known incarnations prior to 'bedruthan' have included; Jenlyn, Steve Jenkin, John Evans, Steve Jay, and Alan Esterby. Under the name of Steve Jenkin he is suspected of pocketing the left over funds - membership subscriptions and such - from the demise of the Association of Continuous Cruisers [ACC], a short lived organization that faded into anonymous oblivion in 2014, leaving 'Steve Jenkin' as the sole remaining committee member and the sole remaining association's officer, after the rest of the committee resigned citing Jenkin's general misconduct as the reason for their departure. The ACC had a committee plus two officers - a General Secretary and Treasurer. Only the officers had access to the ACC bank account and only one signatory was needed for transactions. When the whole committee resigned Steve Jenkin was left as the sole signatory. There was a clause in the ACC constitution stating :- Winding Up If on the winding up or dissolution of the Association there remains after the settling of all liabilities any property whatsoever, this shall not be paid to or distributed among the members of the Association, but shall be given to such a registered Charity or charities established for similar charitable purposes as the Association shall decide.There was talk of a meeting of a reconstituted committee in early 2015, but that meeting never happened so no decision to either continue with the ACC or wind it up giving its funds to charity was ever officially taken. No-one knows for sure what happened to the residue of funds, and on paper at least, the ACC still exists with one member, one Association officer (General Secretary and Treasurer), and one committee member, . . all called Steve Jenkin, and all declining to own up about what happened to the left over money. Cognitive dissonance, that’s your problem. Preferable to being caught with your hand in the till !
|
|
|
Post by TonyDunkley on Apr 16, 2021 12:26:37 GMT
In all probability, dinky is yet another of the numerous aliases used by the congenital liar and suspected embezzler who currently posts on here under the name of bedruthan. His previous known incarnations prior to 'bedruthan' have included; Jenlyn, Steve Jenkin, John Evans, Steve Jay, and Alan Esterby. Under the name of Steve Jenkin he is suspected of pocketing the left over funds - membership subscriptions and such - from the demise of the Association of Continuous Cruisers [ACC], a short lived organization that faded into anonymous oblivion in 2014, leaving 'Steve Jenkin' as the sole remaining committee member and the sole remaining association's officer, after the rest of the committee resigned citing Jenkin's general misconduct as the reason for their departure. The ACC had a committee plus two officers - a General Secretary and Treasurer. Only the officers had access to the ACC bank account and only one signatory was needed for transactions. When the whole committee resigned Steve Jenkin was left as the sole signatory. There was a clause in the ACC constitution stating :- Winding Up If on the winding up or dissolution of the Association there remains after the settling of all liabilities any property whatsoever, this shall not be paid to or distributed among the members of the Association, but shall be given to such a registered Charity or charities established for similar charitable purposes as the Association shall decide.There was talk of a meeting of a reconstituted committee in early 2015, but that meeting never happened so no decision to either continue with the ACC or wind it up giving its funds to charity was ever officially taken. No-one knows for sure what happened to the residue of funds, and on paper at least, the ACC still exists with one member, one Association officer (General Secretary and Treasurer), and one committee member, . . all called Steve Jenkin, and all declining to own up about what happened to the left over money.
|
|
|
Post by TonyDunkley on Apr 15, 2021 20:53:40 GMT
Has that actually happened at Anderton then? - That's currently what all my hopes are pinned on... (ignoring stanthorne which just makes it heartbreak hill and a lot longer boating days) to get back on track... I saw the email from crt earlier regarding the LLangollen whhich pretty much covered all bases... If we get stuck on there, I could just about manage - it'd be a pain for the later cruises but worse case, if it went tits up AFTER we got on there, we could overwinter where Tony C did... CRT finally managed to work out how to hire 2 blokes with a shovel and a wheelbarrow... . . . . . . or, . . Parry's snoopers might just have done something constructive and useful for a change, and made the office chair polishers realize that something could be done to get the cut open to boat traffic again without making too much of a song and dance about it : - Back in the days when slips such as this one occurred and were stopping the passage of commercial traffic the standard first option for getting the traffic moving again was to get a tug there, preferably on the other side of the slip to the side on which the first pair of loaded boats would arrive from.
After sawing and clearing away any tree branches, working off and with the tug, the motor of the loaded pair would then try to force its way through and past the slip using its own power plus the tug pulling on a long heavy towline, or pushing if the tug was on the same side of the slip as the loaded boats. It usually worked, . . with the tug and the loaded motor literally ploughing a 'boat sized' channel through the material that was blocking the canal. If no tug was available, or the slip was too bad to force the loaded motor through, the alternative was winching the boats through with one or more 'Tirfors' pulling from off the towpath.
You might find that it's possible to force your boat through the Anderton slip in a similar fashion with one or more other pleasure craft pulling yours off a long towline from the clear water on the other side of it, . . or with a Tirfor, . . or with both boats and a Tirfor. With the first boat through, you'll find that the resulting 'boat sized' channel will gradually open up and deepen slightly with the passage of every subsequent boat.
(Thunderboat - 8 April 2021)
|
|
|
Post by TonyDunkley on Apr 15, 2021 16:39:59 GMT
so far we only have your word for it that it was not lived on I’m not really bothered John. I know he wasn’t living aboard, and more importantly, so did crt. Hence why they didn’t break the law and evict him. You don't 'know' anything ! You're either spouting malicious twaddle that's come from nowhere but your own warped mind, . . or you're relaying equally dubious drivel originating from some other congenital liar. I've asked you twice before to identify the source of your supposedly '100% assured' information about me not living aboard "Halcyon Daze", . . now I'm asking again. Break the habits of a lifetime, . . either come clean, or shut up !
|
|
|
Post by TonyDunkley on Apr 15, 2021 16:11:57 GMT
As we are repeating ourselves, be rude not to.. Seized yours though didn't they.. You can blart all day long Tony, but they are doing it and getting away with it. I'm unsure as to the point you're trying to make. They, . . being the mendacious lowlifes in charge of C&RT's laughingly named Customer/Licence Support Team and its similarly misnamed Legal and Governance Services, . . certainly have been 'getting away' with misleading and hoodwinking the Courts through abuse of due process, and grossly exceeding the boat removal powers they enjoy (hugely) under S.8 of the 1983 Act. Are you condoning C&RT's 8(+) years of as yet unpunished illegal activities, . . or are you complaining that up until now no organization or individual has been wholly successful in curbing at least some of the outrageous excesses in which this so-called Trust has indulged ?
|
|
|
Post by TonyDunkley on Apr 14, 2021 19:11:42 GMT
Not so much 'Oracle', . . more plain simple 'oik', . . nose wedged very firmly up C&RT's corporate backsides, . . contrary to the public image he tries so hard to cultivate ! So speaks Is this some sort of hint or clue as to where you first hid all the ACC membership subscriptions dosh that you pocketed after the rest of the committee members all resigned because they'd had such a belly full of you ?
|
|
|
Post by TonyDunkley on Apr 14, 2021 18:55:25 GMT
Not so much 'Oracle', . . more plain simple 'oik', . . nose wedged very firmly up C&RT's corporate backsides, . . contrary to the public image he tries so hard to cultivate !
|
|
|
Post by TonyDunkley on Apr 14, 2021 18:46:21 GMT
I'm amazed that you're having to make contingency plans for disposing of excess shit, . . I thought you got rid of it all on here ! And here is why nobody supports you.. . . . here is why the terminally stupid, like me and Mr Shit-for-Brains, don't support you. There you are, . . corrected that for you, . . reads much better now !
|
|
|
Post by TonyDunkley on Apr 14, 2021 18:26:26 GMT
Whilst checking the 'mystery coalition' crowdjustice funding appeal page this morning to see what figure the donations have reached, I noticed this remarkable statement on the 'About the Case' page in a paragraph sub-headed 'What is happening?' : - " Every boat needs to have a licence, otherwise it can be seized by the Trust." It is unclear from where or from whom this misleading and demonstrable untruth has originated. If from the unnamed 'boat dwellers' or the anonymous 'other support organisations', or even the NBTA itself, then this gross misrepresentation is at least partially understandable and forgivable. If, on the other hand, it has come from the very same lawyers who will be handed the eventual total raised in return for a 'legal opinion' regarding C&RT's proposed Licence T&C's changes, then it raises very serious questions as to these lawyer's professional competence, . . and possibly even the question as to which side they're really batting for ! The simple truth is that C&RT do NOT have statutory powers, OR any other lawful authority, to SEIZE anyone's goods or property, unless like any other UK organization or company, or any UK citizen, they have a UK Court issued Warrant or Writ of Control commanding and instructing a Court certificated Enforcement Officer or Agent (Bailiff) to take control of goods pursuant to the satisfaction of a Court Order with which the defendant has failed to comply.Returning to the question of the misleading and untrue statement with regard to C&RT having the powers and the authority to seize goods at its own discretion. The statement, as quoted above, was still there on the crowdjustice funding appeal page when I last looked a few moments ago. As the point that's being made here seems to have been missed by almost everyone - with the notable exception of bedruthan who appears determined to divert attention away from the fundamental flaws at the heart of this seriously misdirected legal action funding appeal - I'll repeat the question I asked yesterday : - Is there any TB member, or anyone who is a member of, or connected with, the NBTA or any of the unnamed 'boat dwellers' or the anonymous 'other support organisations' who would care to comment, . . and to direct the TB readership to whatever statute or common law authority they mistakenly believe entitles the C&RT to help itself, entirely at its own discretion, to other people's goods and property?
|
|
|
Post by TonyDunkley on Apr 14, 2021 14:25:44 GMT
This gives us upto eight days to locate an Elsan, but invariably we pass one every few days . . . . . . Rog Change of diet, . . . or some proprietary brand of laxative might help !
|
|