|
Post by Telemachus on Jul 12, 2017 7:47:35 GMT
I see nicks talking about his favourite subject again, himself. Considering this entire thread is supposed to be about you, the irony made me laugh!
|
|
|
Post by kris on Jul 12, 2017 7:51:06 GMT
I see nicks talking about his favourite subject again, himself. Considering this entire thread is supposed to be about you, the irony made me laugh! Is it about me? Or is it about the situation concerning my boat?
|
|
|
Post by Telemachus on Jul 12, 2017 8:01:17 GMT
Considering this entire thread is supposed to be about you, the irony made me laugh! Is it about me? Or is it about the situation concerning my boat? One and the same. You are the engineer of your boat's "situation" and anyway, its about your personal interactions with CRT.
|
|
|
Post by kris on Jul 12, 2017 8:08:44 GMT
Is it about me? Or is it about the situation concerning my boat? One and the same. You are the engineer of your boat's "situation" and anyway, its about your personal interactions with CRT. Your correct, but it's not about you and your glider, so sod off and start your own thread.
|
|
|
Post by Telemachus on Jul 12, 2017 8:48:06 GMT
One and the same. You are the engineer of your boat's "situation" and anyway, its about your personal interactions with CRT. Your correct, but it's not about you and your glider, so sod off and start your own thread. Shan't! <stamps feet> i am just providing a bit of light relief against the monotony of how hard done by you are.
|
|
|
Post by TonyDunkley on Jul 12, 2017 9:57:51 GMT
You where one of the people who took delight in t point me I would loose my boat Nick, so I by should I take anything you say seriously? . . . . . . . that I thought you were on very thin ice and that it was likely that you could lose your boat if you didn't change your strategy. You did change your strategy and you didn't lose your boat. Result. It's just a pity you have to hate me for it, but c'est la vie. It transpires you have a lot of anger and hate in you so I don't take it personally! Posts such as are a delight to Parry's boat snatching contingent, serving as it does to help perpetuate the myth/misconception that C&RT have powers entitling them lawfully to take possession of and acquire title to someone's boat as and when they see fit. Truth is, they don't have any such powers under either Byelaw or Statute, and Kris's description of their activities is pretty much spot on ! Whichever way you look at what C&RT threaten, and do, regards boats and owners selected for the Section 8 process, they are offering those boaters the option of parting with their dosh in return for being left in peace, and in continuing possession of their property, . . . not really that much different from the rackets operated by the likes of such as Al Capone and the Krays.
|
|
|
Post by Telemachus on Jul 12, 2017 10:02:28 GMT
. . . . . . . that I thought you were on very thin ice and that it was likely that you could lose your boat if you didn't change your strategy. You did change your strategy and you didn't lose your boat. Result. It's just a pity you have to hate me for it, but c'est la vie. It transpires you have a lot of anger and hate in you so I don't take it personally! Posts such as are a delight to Parry's boat snatching contingent, serving as it does to help perpetuate the myth/misconception that C&RT have powers entitling them lawfully to take possession of and acquire title to someone's boat as and when they see fit. Truth is, they don't have any such powers under either Byelaw or Statute, and Kris's description of their activities is pretty much spot on ! Whichever way you look at what C&RT threaten, and do, regards boats and owners selected for the Section 8 process, they are offering those boaters the option of parting with their dosh in return for being left in peace, and in continuing possession of their property, . . . not really that much different from the rackets operated by the likes of such as Al Capone and the Krays. But the thing is Tony, they DO do those things. At a personal level whether or not they are entitled to is not relevant. Until one of the boating organisations gets their act together and tests the point in court, IMO it is better to bear in mind the reality rather than the ideal. I think it is unkind if you to encourage Kris to be a guineapig in this matter, he has too much to lose. As we know, with the presumption of probity etc there is no guarantee that CRT would lose such a case.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 12, 2017 10:27:13 GMT
Posts such as are a delight to Parry's boat snatching contingent, serving as it does to help perpetuate the myth/misconception that C&RT have powers entitling them lawfully to take possession of and acquire title to someone's boat as and when they see fit. Truth is, they don't have any such powers under either Byelaw or Statute, and Kris's description of their activities is pretty much spot on ! Whichever way you look at what C&RT threaten, and do, regards boats and owners selected for the Section 8 process, they are offering those boaters the option of parting with their dosh in return for being left in peace, and in continuing possession of their property, . . . not really that much different from the rackets operated by the likes of such as Al Capone and the Krays. But the thing is Tony, they DO do those things. At a personal level whether or not they are entitled to is not relevant. Until one of the boating organisations gets their act together and tests the point in court, IMO it is better to bear in mind the reality rather than the ideal. I think it is unkind if you to encourage Kris to be a guineapig in this matter, he has too much to lose. As we know, with the presumption of probity etc there is no guarantee that CRT would lose such a case. Dumb cunt Norman.
|
|
|
Post by lollygagger on Jul 12, 2017 10:35:06 GMT
At a personal level whether or not they are entitled to is not relevant. Eh? LOL
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 12, 2017 10:42:40 GMT
At a personal level whether or not they are entitled to is not relevant. Eh? LOL He's a complete idiot. The crap he's coming out with gets worse.
|
|
|
Post by TonyDunkley on Jul 12, 2017 11:08:56 GMT
Posts such as are a delight to Parry's boat snatching contingent, serving as it does to help perpetuate the myth/misconception that C&RT have powers entitling them lawfully to take possession of and acquire title to someone's boat as and when they see fit. Truth is, they don't have any such powers under either Byelaw or Statute, and Kris's description of their activities is pretty much spot on ! Whichever way you look at what C&RT threaten, and do, regards boats and owners selected for the Section 8 process, they are offering those boaters the option of parting with their dosh in return for being left in peace, and in continuing possession of their property, . . . not really that much different from the rackets operated by the likes of such as Al Capone and the Krays. But the thing is Tony, they DO do those things. At a personal level whether or not they are entitled to is not relevant. Until one of the boating organisations gets their act together and tests the point in court, IMO it is better to bear in mind the reality rather than the ideal. I think it is unkind if you to encourage Kris to be a guineapig in this matter, he has too much to lose. As we know, with the presumption of probity etc there is no guarantee that CRT would lose such a case. A few more 'wide of the mark' hypotheses there. Firstly, the legality of what C&RT do is, and has to be, very relevant. You speak of boating organizations getting their act(s) together to test matters in Court, but the reality is that absent a specific incidence/occurrence for the Court to deliberate on there won't be any judicial scrutiny of what C&RT are doing, . . . the NBTA Judicial Review of the CC'ing rules was halted for this very reason. As for encouraging Kris, or anyone else for that matter, to be a 'guinea pig', I'm doing no such thing. What I would, and do, encourage is that anyone selected by C&RT as potential S.8 targets should make it abundantly clear from the very beginning that they will not accept any unlawful actions or conduct on the part of the Trust, and that any attempts to act outside of what the law (that's UK Statute and Common law) does permit will not go unchallenged. To the best of my knowledge, apart from their unsuccessful attempt to have me abolished, C&RT have never proceeded against any boater in such circumstances. In holding on to your misconceptions you are overlooking the fact that C&RT know full well that they doing wrong, that the very last thing they want happening is for any of their actions to be thoroughly scrutinized in Court, and if they come up against resolute and well grounded opposition they will back down.
|
|
|
Post by Telemachus on Jul 12, 2017 11:17:03 GMT
At a personal level whether or not they are entitled to is not relevant. Eh? LOL I'm sorry you don't understand the point. Which is that, unless one wants to be a martyr, it is better not to find out whether they are entitled to or not, lest you find out that they are. Of course if you are prepared to take that risk then fine, but it should be done with any sense of surety.
|
|
|
Post by Telemachus on Jul 12, 2017 11:19:34 GMT
But the thing is Tony, they DO do those things. At a personal level whether or not they are entitled to is not relevant. Until one of the boating organisations gets their act together and tests the point in court, IMO it is better to bear in mind the reality rather than the ideal. I think it is unkind if you to encourage Kris to be a guineapig in this matter, he has too much to lose. As we know, with the presumption of probity etc there is no guarantee that CRT would lose such a case. A few more 'wide of the mark' hypotheses there. Firstly, the legality of what C&RT do is, and has to be, very relevant. You speak of boating organizations getting their act(s) together to test matters in Court, but the reality is that absent a specific incidence/occurrence for the Court to deliberate on there won't be any judicial scrutiny of what C&RT are doing, . . . the NBTA Judicial Review of the CC'ing rules was halted for this very reason. As for encouraging Kris, or anyone else for that matter, to be a 'guinea pig', I'm doing no such thing. What I would, and do, encourage is that anyone selected by C&RT as potential S.8 targets should make it abundantly clear from the very beginning that they will not accept any unlawful actions or conduct on the part of the Trust, and that any attempts to act outside of what the law (that's UK Statute and Common law) does permit will not go unchallenged. To the best of my knowledge, apart from their unsuccessful attempt to have me abolished, C&RT have never proceeded against any boater in such circumstances. In holding on to your misconceptions you are overlooking the fact that C&RT know full well that they doing wrong, that the very last thing they want happening is for any of their actions to be thoroughly scrutinized in Court, and if they come up against resolute and well grounded opposition they will back down. But, correct me if I'm wrong, lots of boaters have had their licences revoked and then boats removed as unlicensed for failing to meet CRT's CC requirements. If it is as easy to "resist" as you say it is, why have these people not done so? You paint a rosy picture but it doesn't seem to correlate with reality.
|
|
|
Post by kris on Jul 12, 2017 11:24:33 GMT
A few more 'wide of the mark' hypotheses there. Firstly, the legality of what C&RT do is, and has to be, very relevant. You speak of boating organizations getting their act(s) together to test matters in Court, but the reality is that absent a specific incidence/occurrence for the Court to deliberate on there won't be any judicial scrutiny of what C&RT are doing, . . . the NBTA Judicial Review of the CC'ing rules was halted for this very reason. As for encouraging Kris, or anyone else for that matter, to be a 'guinea pig', I'm doing no such thing. What I would, and do, encourage is that anyone selected by C&RT as potential S.8 targets should make it abundantly clear from the very beginning that they will not accept any unlawful actions or conduct on the part of the Trust, and that any attempts to act outside of what the law (that's UK Statute and Common law) does permit will not go unchallenged. To the best of my knowledge, apart from their unsuccessful attempt to have me abolished, C&RT have never proceeded against any boater in such circumstances. In holding on to your misconceptions you are overlooking the fact that C&RT know full well that they doing wrong, that the very last thing they want happening is for any of their actions to be thoroughly scrutinized in Court, and if they come up against resolute and well grounded opposition they will back down. But, correct me if I'm wrong, lots of boaters have had their licences revoked and then boats removed as unlicensed for failing to meet CRT's CC requirements. If it is as easy to "resist" as you say it is, why have these people not done so? You paint a rosy picture but it doesn't seem to correlate with reality. You are wrong again Nick, people have their liscence revoked and their boats removed for not having a liscence, not for failing to meet crt's cc requirements as you state.
|
|
|
Post by TonyDunkley on Jul 12, 2017 11:50:30 GMT
A few more 'wide of the mark' hypotheses there. Firstly, the legality of what C&RT do is, and has to be, very relevant. You speak of boating organizations getting their act(s) together to test matters in Court, but the reality is that absent a specific incidence/occurrence for the Court to deliberate on there won't be any judicial scrutiny of what C&RT are doing, . . . the NBTA Judicial Review of the CC'ing rules was halted for this very reason. As for encouraging Kris, or anyone else for that matter, to be a 'guinea pig', I'm doing no such thing. What I would, and do, encourage is that anyone selected by C&RT as potential S.8 targets should make it abundantly clear from the very beginning that they will not accept any unlawful actions or conduct on the part of the Trust, and that any attempts to act outside of what the law (that's UK Statute and Common law) does permit will not go unchallenged. To the best of my knowledge, apart from their unsuccessful attempt to have me abolished, C&RT have never proceeded against any boater in such circumstances. In holding on to your misconceptions you are overlooking the fact that C&RT know full well that they doing wrong, that the very last thing they want happening is for any of their actions to be thoroughly scrutinized in Court, and if they come up against resolute and well grounded opposition they will back down. But, correct me if I'm wrong, lots of boaters have had their licences revoked and then boats removed as unlicensed for failing to meet CRT's CC requirements. If it is as easy to "resist" as you say it is, why have these people not done so? You paint a rosy picture but it doesn't seem to correlate with reality. You're not wrong, lots of boaters have had their Licences, or PBC's, revoked and then boats removed as unlicensed for failing to meet C&RT's CC'ing requirements, but every instance of this where S.8 has been BW/C&RT's weapon of choice, then in either application and/or execution, the removal from the waterways and subsequent impoundment of the boats has exceeded statutory powers and was therefore unlawful. As for why few, if any, of these boaters have put up any effective resistance, there is a very simple and obvious answer to that, . . . they have assumed that there was no point in putting up any sort of fight against an organization such as C&RT, a presumption no doubt reinforced by reading all the doom laden, defeatist tripe that gets posted on internet forums !
|
|