|
Post by JohnV on Feb 22, 2019 18:18:08 GMT
but has been said ....if the banks were in good order and the correct height above the water level and the spillways in good condition .... it still shouldn't have caused a breach
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 22, 2019 18:47:51 GMT
What evidence does Parry have of 'vandalism'? As far as I am aware he has no evidence. There is good evidence that all four paddles were left open at Stanthorn Lock but C&RT are no longer suggesting that vandalism was the cause. I understood just the bottom paddles were found open. Had all four been opened, the pound above Stanhorne would have been drained, which I understood was not the case. Rog
|
|
|
Post by TonyDunkley on Feb 22, 2019 19:58:13 GMT
After checking with the Notttingham Court office and having the Order made at the 25 January Directions Hearing e-mailed to me by the Court staff, I sent the following to C&RT - LaGS in the hope of them responding with some additional written evidence of their willingness to lie to me and to misrepresent the true situation to the Court :
Sent: 20 February 2019 09:41 To: Lucy Barry <Lucy.Barry@canalrivertrust.org.uk> Cc: Catherine Ness <Catherine.Ness@canalrivertrust.org.uk>; Richard Parry <Richard.Parry@canalrivertrust.org.uk> Subject: Re: FW: County Court Claim No. C10NG401
Fao. Lucy Barry.
Reference your e-mail communication of 18 February 2019.
With regard to the 25 January (your e-mail states 22 Jan) 2019 hearing which I was prevented from attending by a recurrent medical condition. Having received nothing by post from the Court since the hearing, I enquired by telephone and was told that an Order had been made for a further hearing on 13 March 2019, which I took to mean a listing for a final hearing.
If, as it now seems from your 18 February e-mail, the 13 March 2019 listing is a relisted Directions hearing in consequence of the January 25 Directions hearing being adjourned, then I am quite happy to sign a Consent Order for the the matter to be adjourned to the next available date after 17 March 2019 as requested in your 18 February 2019 e-mail, or 18 March 2019 as requested in your 14 February 2019 e-mail.
Yours faithfully, A.K.Dunkley. . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . Unfortunately the delightful Ms. Barry sensed the trap, responded with the truth, and sent me a copy of the Order I already had, . . . although she could not resist the temptation of trying to convince me that the Court may be prepared to listen and accede to an eleventh hour, last-ditch request from me to treat the Final Hearing as postponed Directions Hearing, instead of disposing of the matter on that day (see last sentence in bold below) :
Dear Mr Dunkley 21 February 2019
Thank you for your confirmation in your email below that you will agree to an adjournment of the hearing on 13 March 2019. I attach a consent order for you to sign and return to us accordingly. I would be grateful if you could sign and return this to us by Monday 25 March 2019 so that we can file this at court in good time.
I attach a copy of the order from the previous hearing and the listing for 13 March 2019.
The hearing currently listed for 13 March 2019 is listed as a final hearing. The Judge gave the directions as set out on the attached order of 25 January 2019, as he did not think that any other directions were necessary or appropriate. It is of course open to you to argue at the final hearing that the matter should not be disposed of on that date and to seek alternative directions.
Kind regards Lucy Barry Senior Solicitor-Advocate ________________________________________________________
My response to Ms. Barry's helpful advice is reproduced below, and was e-mailed, copied to Deards and Parry, this afternoon : Ms. Barry,
Reference your reply of 21 February 2019.
My agreement to signing a Consent Order was conditional on the 25th (stated as 22nd in your e-mail) January 2019 Directions Hearing at the Nottingham Court having been adjourned to a later date, as is plainly evident from the wording of my e-mailed communication of 20 February 2019, and was made on the somewhat foolish presumption that what you had written with regard to ''adjourned'' hearings in your e-mailed letter of 18 February was a factual and true representation of the Court's decision and directions.
In light of the above, the conditions under which I will give due consideration to signing a Consent Order agreeing to the adjournment of the hearing listed for 13 March 2019 remain as previously stated :-
1) Identify and direct me to the legislation empowering the C&RT to permit or deny the use of any part of the publicly navigable (PRN) river waterways listed in Schedule 1 to the British Waterways Act 1971, as amended, by way of the issuing or withholding of a 'Rivers only Licence', as requested on 14 January 2019 by e-mail to your Licensing Manager, B.Ashdown, and copied to you and the CEO. - or: 2) Provide me with written acknowledgement that the common law PRN is the lawful authority for any pleasure boat to be kept or used on any of the river waterways listed in Schedule 1 to the British Waterways Act 1971, as amended, irrespective of whether or not the vessel is registered at the time by means of the Pleasure Boat Certificate called for under Section 5(1) of the same Act.
I am well aware that complying with either or both of these two options would embarrass the Trust by effectively putting an end to this latest groundless claim, but that is the risk to which the Trust and it's LaGS elected to expose themselves in making this second vexatious claim for Court approval for the unwarranted and unlawful seizure and possession of my boat, plus an ultra vires Injunction preventing it's future use on publicly navigable river waterways absent it being licensed for use on the Trust's canals.
It has been said that the list of essential attributes of a successful liar begins with a thorough grasp of the true details of any situation, encompasses the likes of a reliable memory supported by assiduous record keeping, and ends with the ability to manufacture plausible and convincing untruths. It would seem that the Trust's Legal & Governance Services are coming up short in all departments.
Yours faithfully, A.K.Dunkley.
|
|
|
Post by Mr Stabby on Feb 22, 2019 20:01:15 GMT
Why don't you just buy a licence, same as the rest of us, you scrounging parasite?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 22, 2019 20:26:26 GMT
It does appear to be a fair question.
there must be loads of people waiting in the wings to stop paying if it turns out you don't need to.
|
|
|
Post by TonyDunkley on Feb 22, 2019 21:16:56 GMT
It does appear to be a fair question. there must be loads of people waiting in the wings to stop paying if it turns out you don't need to. I doubt that's so, but in any case, that is NOT the point. The central issue here is that C&RT are seeking to exercise powers which they simply don't have, and unlawfully to deprive people of their boats in the course of so doing. They have no say or powers over the common law PRN on their river waterways other than the conditions of use, or the keeping, of a boat in the MNC as imposed under the 1971 British Waterways Act.
|
|
|
Post by Mr Stabby on Feb 22, 2019 23:23:29 GMT
If you have a boat on any waterway in the UK, then it needs a licence. God alone knows how much it is going to cost the rest of us through our licence fees to get this through to you because I would be highly surprised if the scrap value of your boat covered even a tenth of CRTs legal costs.
How much would a River Licence have been, a couple of hundred quid? Surely to a Commercial Vessel Operator and Marine Engineer that is just pocket money?
|
|
|
Post by Telemachus on Feb 23, 2019 0:20:28 GMT
If you have a boat on any waterway in the UK, then it needs a licence. God alone knows how much it is going to cost the rest of us through our licence fees to get this through to you because I would be highly surprised if the scrap value of your boat covered even a tenth of CRTs legal costs. How much would a River Licence have been, a couple of hundred quid? Surely to a Commercial Vessel Operator and Marine Engineer that is just pocket money? I find myself siding with Tony on this one. SHOCK HORROR!!!!! Yes he is a miserly scrounging bloody-minded old git, but one that does seem to have the law on his side. I suppose it’s a bit like Amazon, Apple etc who don’t pay much tax. We all whinge about it but ultimately they pay the tax they are legally obliged to pay, and no more. And let’s face it, which of us volunteers to pay more tax than legally obliged to? IMO it is wrong that you can keep a boat on the Trent and not pay for a licence (using the umbrella term!), in part because it makes it very difficult to police and enforce - Tony can sneak off his mooring in the dead of night and move into the MNC, drop his trousers and do a big shit onto a photograph of Richard Parry, without any risk of being caught. So unfair, but unfortunately that is the law. CRT should not be compensating for the failing of the current law by making up their own laws.
|
|
|
Post by TonyDunkley on Feb 23, 2019 0:39:47 GMT
If you have a boat on any waterway in the UK, then it needs a licence. God alone knows how much it is going to cost the rest of us through our licence fees to get this through to you because I would be highly surprised if the scrap value of your boat covered even a tenth of CRTs legal costs. How much would a River Licence have been, a couple of hundred quid? Surely to a Commercial Vessel Operator and Marine Engineer that is just pocket money? Blimey, . . a stunning grasp of common law rights of navigation reaching back over several centuries, AND, advanced mathematics ! No flies on you, . . . are there ? Incidentally, there's no such thing as a "River Licence", except of course, in the warped minds of the megalomaniacs who run C&RT, and mugs like you who swallow all the garbage they dream up and publish.
|
|
|
Post by TonyDunkley on Feb 23, 2019 5:38:22 GMT
If you have a boat on any waterway in the UK, then it needs a licence. God alone knows how much it is going to cost the rest of us through our licence fees to get this through to you because I would be highly surprised if the scrap value of your boat covered even a tenth of CRTs legal costs. How much would a River Licence have been, a couple of hundred quid? Surely to a Commercial Vessel Operator and Marine Engineer that is just pocket money? I find myself siding with Tony on this one. IMO it is wrong that you can keep a boat on the Trent and not pay for a licence (using the umbrella term!), in part because it makes it very difficult to police and enforce . . . . . . . . . So unfair, but unfortunately that is the law. CRT should not be compensating for the failing of the current law by making up their own laws. Good effort, Nick, . . you almost managed a reasoned, sensible post there. Began and ended well, but a pity you had to foul it up towards the middle. Would you care to enlighten me about precisely what C&RT needs to 'police' and 'enforce' along a privately owned river bank to which no-one except a boat owner who happens to moor his boat to it ever does, or needs to do, any sort of maintenance or work ?
|
|
|
Post by JohnV on Feb 23, 2019 8:24:44 GMT
If you have a boat on any waterway in the UK, then it needs a licence. God alone knows how much it is going to cost the rest of us through our licence fees to get this through to you because I would be highly surprised if the scrap value of your boat covered even a tenth of CRTs legal costs. How much would a River Licence have been, a couple of hundred quid? Surely to a Commercial Vessel Operator and Marine Engineer that is just pocket money? Bollocks ...... You really ought to do some research before you spout off on things of which you have little knowledge
|
|
|
Post by ched on Feb 23, 2019 8:33:01 GMT
I like lot of others no doubt, also support Tony in this matter. It's this kind of overstretch by them that is in danger of just becoming the norm if someone doesn't stand up - good on ya Tony I say!
Wonder if mr stabby has mot, insurance and tax for his moped - it's not on private land so surely he needs to be paying this....😜
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 23, 2019 8:39:32 GMT
It will be interesting to see what happens as TD does appear to be technically correct.
Eta however it would seem to me to be a less stressful route to simply pay the protection money.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 23, 2019 8:40:21 GMT
I thought Mrs tabby's yellow peril was MoT and Tax exempt.
|
|
|
Post by Telemachus on Feb 23, 2019 8:45:17 GMT
I find myself siding with Tony on this one. IMO it is wrong that you can keep a boat on the Trent and not pay for a licence (using the umbrella term!), in part because it makes it very difficult to police and enforce . . . . . . . . . So unfair, but unfortunately that is the law. CRT should not be compensating for the failing of the current law by making up their own laws. Good effort, Nick, . . you almost managed a reasoned, sensible post there. Began and ended well, but a pity you had to foul it up towards the middle. Would you care to enlighten me about precisely what C&RT needs to 'police' and 'enforce' along a privately owned river bank to which no-one except a boat owner who happens to moor his boat to it ever does, or needs to do, any sort of maintenance or work ? Yes I would care to enlighten you. Well someone has to I suppose. The point is that if it were generally accepted practice to be able to keep a boat on the river outside the MNC without a “licence”, it would become popular amongst certain categories of boater. And when those people decided to take their boat out for a sunny afternoon into the MNC, the chances of being caught would be virtually zero unless they wanted to transit through locks. Of course I am not saying you would do/have done that. Well to be honest, I have no idea whether you have or haven’t/would or wouldn’t. But the point is to see the big picture. It is not just all about your specific circumstance, it is about the effect your campaign might have on others. But as I said earlier, you do probably have the law on your side. It’s not a good law and it should IMO require anyone having a boat on the river, to have a “licence” regardless of which bit of the river it is kept. But it doesn’t.
|
|