|
Post by TonyDunkley on Aug 21, 2019 14:37:51 GMT
There is no question of C&RT not 'allowing' me to apply for a PBC. What they are saying is that - quote (copied and pasted from a C&RT e-mail) - "The Rivers Only Licence is valid for ‘River Waterways’ defined in Schedule 1 of the British Waterways Act 1971, as amended, and constitutes a “pleasure boat certificate” for the purposes of that Act.", and they are then simply following up that demonstrably incorrect statement by ignoring my request for a PBC application form, and referring me to the 'Licensing' pages on their website. In truth, they've dug themselves into a very deep and messy hole, and they're still digging ! The fantasizing around the 'Rivers Only Licence' constituting a PBC for the purposes of the 1971 BW Act wears a thin veneer of plausibility, . . until a search is made of the 1971 Act, and every other piece of relevant waterway legislation from the 1947 Transport Act, which gave birth to the BTC and took most of the inland waterways into public ownership, to the British Waterways (Transfer of Functions) Order 2012 which farted out the Canal & River Trust. Nowhere, in any of the aforementioned legislation is there to be found any reference whatsoever to a - "Rivers Only Licence". It is pure fantasy, dreamed up by an assemblage of power crazed megalomaniacs who have now foolishly put themselves into the position of having to explain away their lies to the Courts, . . lies by which they are actively preventing me from complying with the Court Order made last Thursday !
If I recall correctly, this case was more about, a Licence, attracting 20% VAT, as opposed to a certificate only having 5% VAT. If C&RT can only issue, by statute a "Certificate" then only 5% VAT can be charged, not the 20% that has been charged. Where has the 15% "vat" that was not required to be paid gone?
Bod
The VAT that C&RT have been fraudulently charging on their fictitious "Rivers Only Licence" since they slithered into existence in 2012 is but one aspect of this dispute. Registration certificates - ie 'Pleasure Boat Certificates' - don't attract VAT at all, whereas 'Licences' attract VAT at standard rate, currently 20%. C&RT are quite simply lying through their back teeth over this matter, . . AND I have proof of this in the form of copies of internal C&RT memo's with senior C&RT staff discussing en bloc Registrations for canoe clubs done by the BCU so that they could reclaim the fraudulently charged VAT and pass the saving on to the individual clubs. The fact that VAT is NOT chargeable on Registrations was described by these C&RT schemers in one memo as - quote - "the fly in the ointment".
|
|
|
Post by Telemachus on Aug 21, 2019 14:44:35 GMT
If I recall correctly, this case was more about, a Licence, attracting 20% VAT, as opposed to a certificate only having 5% VAT. If C&RT can only issue, by statute a "Certificate" then only 5% VAT can be charged, not the 20% that has been charged. Where has the 15% "vat" that was not required to be paid gone?
Bod
The VAT that C&RT have been fraudulently charging on their fictitious "Rivers Only Licence" since they slithered into existence in 2012 is but one aspect of this dispute. Registration certificates - ie 'Pleasure Boat Certificates' - don't attract VAT at all, whereas 'Licences' attract VAT at standard rate, currently 20%. C&RT are quite simply lying through their back teeth over this matter, . . AND I have proof of this in the form of copies of internal C&RT memo's with senior C&RT staff discussing en bloc Registrations for canoe clubs done by the BCU so that they could reclaim the fraudulently charged VAT and pass the saving on to the individual clubs. The fact that VAT is NOT chargeable on Registrations was described by these C&RT schemers in one memo as - quote - "the fly in the ointment". Have you made a complaint to HMRC about the incorrect charging of VAT?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 21, 2019 14:50:18 GMT
I've had a word with the ladies in the MI6 admin and they have agreed to put in place some undercover protection measures for our Tony.
|
|
|
Post by TonyDunkley on Aug 21, 2019 15:47:55 GMT
I've had a word with the ladies in the MI6 admin and they have agreed to put in place some undercover protection measures for our Tony. Very good of you Andrew, much appreciated. Perhap's we'll see now just what Parry's Ninjas are made of, . . although quite honestly, I expect they'll turn out to be every bit as useless and crappy as the rest of the turds he hides behind in his nasty little empire !
|
|
|
Post by Gone on Aug 21, 2019 16:20:36 GMT
There is no question of C&RT not 'allowing' me to apply for a PBC. What they are saying is that - quote (copied and pasted from a C&RT e-mail) - "The Rivers Only Licence is valid for ‘River Waterways’ defined in Schedule 1 of the British Waterways Act 1971, as amended, and constitutes a “pleasure boat certificate” for the purposes of that Act.", and they are then simply following up that demonstrably incorrect statement by ignoring my request for a PBC application form, and referring me to the 'Licensing' pages on their website. In truth, they've dug themselves into a very deep and messy hole, and they're still digging ! The fantasizing around the 'Rivers Only Licence' constituting a PBC for the purposes of the 1971 BW Act wears a thin veneer of plausibility, . . until a search is made of the 1971 Act, and every other piece of relevant waterway legislation from the 1947 Transport Act, which gave birth to the BTC and took most of the inland waterways into public ownership, to the British Waterways (Transfer of Functions) Order 2012 which farted out the Canal & River Trust. Nowhere, in any of the aforementioned legislation is there to be found any reference whatsoever to a - "Rivers Only Licence". It is pure fantasy, dreamed up by an assemblage of power crazed megalomaniacs who have now foolishly put themselves into the position of having to explain away their lies to the Courts, . . lies by which they are actively preventing me from complying with the Court Order made last Thursday ! Just my thoughts. The law requires a pleasure boat to have a ‘pleasure boat certificate’. The ‘rivers only licence’ which is issued by CRT is only for rivers and not canals, so in that regard it is a ‘consent’ to use a pleasure boat on the river. So does it constitute a certificate as required by the act? A quick read through the act does not mandate the words to be used or even explicitly state that the certificate even has to be titled as ‘pleasure boat certificate’, so it is reasonably possible that the judge would accept that the ‘rivers only licence’ does indeed constitute a certificate as required by the law. Therefore without legal advice to the contrary, it may be wise to apply prior to the deadline. The point that it can not be a certificate because CRT may be charging the wrong vat rate is probably irrelevant to the argument that it is not a valid as a certificate. That is a different point and one to discuss with CRT and HMRC.
|
|
|
Post by naughtyfox on Aug 21, 2019 17:09:41 GMT
If I recall correctly, this case was more about, a Licence, attracting 20% VAT, as opposed to a certificate only having 5% VAT. If C&RT can only issue, by statute a "Certificate" then only 5% VAT can be charged, not the 20% that has been charged. Where has the 15% "vat" that was not required to be paid gone?
Bod
The VAT that C&RT have been fraudulently charging on their fictitious "Rivers Only Licence" since they slithered into existence in 2012 is but one aspect of this dispute. The recent discussion on Thunderboat about the VAT that C&RT have been fraudulently charging on their fictitious "Rivers Only Licence" slithered into the dark depths and was forgotten about.
|
|
|
Post by naughtyfox on Aug 21, 2019 17:11:14 GMT
The VAT that C&RT have been fraudulently charging on their fictitious "Rivers Only Licence" since they slithered into existence in 2012 is but one aspect of this dispute. Registration certificates - ie 'Pleasure Boat Certificates' - don't attract VAT at all, whereas 'Licences' attract VAT at standard rate, currently 20%. C&RT are quite simply lying through their back teeth over this matter, . . AND I have proof of this in the form of copies of internal C&RT memo's with senior C&RT staff discussing en bloc Registrations for canoe clubs done by the BCU so that they could reclaim the fraudulently charged VAT and pass the saving on to the individual clubs. The fact that VAT is NOT chargeable on Registrations was described by these C&RT schemers in one memo as - quote - "the fly in the ointment". Have you made a complaint to HMRC about the incorrect charging of VAT? Yes, I suggested this form of inquiry at the time this was brought up here (2 or 3 months ago?). Nobody did anything, of course. Chewy's post above is a good one. Has a "Rivers Only Licence" ever been construed as a "Pleasure Boat Certificate" ? Or is this going to be the first time?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 21, 2019 17:19:37 GMT
Have you made a complaint to HMRC about the incorrect charging of VAT? Yes, I suggested this form of inquiry at the time this was brought up here (2 or 3 months ago?). Nobody did anything, of course. Chewy's post above is a good one. Has a "Rivers Only Licence" ever been construed as a "Pleasure Boat Certificate" ? Or is this going to be the first time? You like pointing out what people should do but never do it yourself?
|
|
|
Post by naughtyfox on Aug 21, 2019 17:24:48 GMT
Yes, I suggested this form of inquiry at the time this was brought up here (2 or 3 months ago?). Nobody did anything, of course. Chewy's post above is a good one. Has a "Rivers Only Licence" ever been construed as a "Pleasure Boat Certificate" ? Or is this going to be the first time? You like pointing out what people should do but never do it yourself? I often do a lot of things, but why shouldn't others sometimes share the load? I did write the Private Eye article up here, 2 years ago, concerning lightship Planet. Letter by letter on my mobile phone. Have you ever contributed in such a way?
|
|
|
Post by Gone on Aug 21, 2019 17:32:00 GMT
You like pointing out what people should do but never do it yourself? I often do a lot of things, but why shouldn't others sometimes share the load? I did write the Private Eye article up here, 2 years ago, concerning lightship Planet. Letter by letter on my mobile phone. Have you ever contributed in such a way? Talking of ‘planet’ it is still moored in Sharpness, though in good company as there is an even bigger boat complete with a baby helicopter on the roof that has been there for months as well. added - sadly I expect planet will just sit there rusting away until it is scrapped. Oh and at the other end of the canal in Gloucester is another lightship still for sale, so any one want a (reasonably) matching pair??
|
|
|
Post by naughtyfox on Aug 21, 2019 17:53:38 GMT
This is the first news of Planet for a long time.
|
|
|
Post by TonyDunkley on Aug 21, 2019 18:12:21 GMT
There is no question of C&RT not 'allowing' me to apply for a PBC. What they are saying is that - quote (copied and pasted from a C&RT e-mail) - "The Rivers Only Licence is valid for ‘River Waterways’ defined in Schedule 1 of the British Waterways Act 1971, as amended, and constitutes a “pleasure boat certificate” for the purposes of that Act.", and they are then simply following up that demonstrably incorrect statement by ignoring my request for a PBC application form, and referring me to the 'Licensing' pages on their website. In truth, they've dug themselves into a very deep and messy hole, and they're still digging ! The fantasizing around the 'Rivers Only Licence' constituting a PBC for the purposes of the 1971 BW Act wears a thin veneer of plausibility, . . until a search is made of the 1971 Act, and every other piece of relevant waterway legislation from the 1947 Transport Act, which gave birth to the BTC and took most of the inland waterways into public ownership, to the British Waterways (Transfer of Functions) Order 2012 which farted out the Canal & River Trust. Nowhere, in any of the aforementioned legislation is there to be found any reference whatsoever to a - "Rivers Only Licence". It is pure fantasy, dreamed up by an assemblage of power crazed megalomaniacs who have now foolishly put themselves into the position of having to explain away their lies to the Courts, . . lies by which they are actively preventing me from complying with the Court Order made last Thursday ! Just my thoughts. The law requires a pleasure boat to have a ‘pleasure boat certificate’. The ‘rivers only licence’ which is issued by CRT is only for rivers and not canals, so in that regard it is a ‘consent’ to use a pleasure boat on the river. So does it constitute a certificate as required by the act? A quick read through the act does not mandate the words to be used or even explicitly state that the certificate even has to be titled as ‘pleasure boat certificate’, so it is reasonably possible that the judge would accept that the ‘rivers only licence’ does indeed constitute a certificate as required by the law. Therefore without legal advice to the contrary, it may be wise to apply prior to the deadline. Firstly, and perhaps most important of all is that C&RT have no authority or powers, statutory or otherwise, to 'license' - or in other words - give or refuse their 'consent' to any pleasure boat being used or kept on any of the 'river waterways' listed in Schedule 1 to the 1971 BW Act. The common law PRN is an absolute and unassailable right to keep or use a boat on a publicly navigable river, and NOT something which the C&RT, or for that matter, any County Court, can withdraw, suspend, or nullify. The common law PRN can be made subject to statutorily imposed conditions of use, as it was under the 1971 Act, but the common law PRN cannot under any circumstances be overridden or extinguished on the whim of some power crazed megalomaniac in a navigation authority office, . . or a County Court Judge ! Section 5(1) of the 1971 Act is very clear and specific about precisely what a 'pleasure boat certificate' is, and it also states very clearly and unequivocally what type of 'licence' can be substituted for the PBC, . . and that is - quote - "a licence issued by the Board allowing the use of ALL inland waterways without further payment".
|
|
|
Post by TonyDunkley on Aug 21, 2019 18:25:26 GMT
There is no question of C&RT not 'allowing' me to apply for a PBC. What they are saying is that - quote (copied and pasted from a C&RT e-mail) - "The Rivers Only Licence is valid for ‘River Waterways’ defined in Schedule 1 of the British Waterways Act 1971, as amended, and constitutes a “pleasure boat certificate” for the purposes of that Act.", and they are then simply following up that demonstrably incorrect statement by ignoring my request for a PBC application form, and referring me to the 'Licensing' pages on their website. In truth, they've dug themselves into a very deep and messy hole, and they're still digging ! The fantasizing around the 'Rivers Only Licence' constituting a PBC for the purposes of the 1971 BW Act wears a thin veneer of plausibility, . . until a search is made of the 1971 Act, and every other piece of relevant waterway legislation from the 1947 Transport Act, which gave birth to the BTC and took most of the inland waterways into public ownership, to the British Waterways (Transfer of Functions) Order 2012 which farted out the Canal & River Trust. Nowhere, in any of the aforementioned legislation is there to be found any reference whatsoever to a - "Rivers Only Licence". It is pure fantasy, dreamed up by an assemblage of power crazed megalomaniacs who have now foolishly put themselves into the position of having to explain away their lies to the Courts, . . lies by which they are actively preventing me from complying with the Court Order made last Thursday ! The point that it can not be a certificate because CRT may be charging the wrong vat rate is probably irrelevant to the argument that it is not a valid as a certificate. That is a different point and one to discuss with CRT and HMRC. I think your rather standing the argument on it's head there, . . C&RT are slapping VAT on top of the mythical 'Rivers Only Licence' fee simply to lend credence to their lies about it being a 'real' Licence !
|
|
|
Post by Gone on Aug 21, 2019 18:28:31 GMT
Just my thoughts. The law requires a pleasure boat to have a ‘pleasure boat certificate’. The ‘rivers only licence’ which is issued by CRT is only for rivers and not canals, so in that regard it is a ‘consent’ to use a pleasure boat on the river. So does it constitute a certificate as required by the act? A quick read through the act does not mandate the words to be used or even explicitly state that the certificate even has to be titled as ‘pleasure boat certificate’, so it is reasonably possible that the judge would accept that the ‘rivers only licence’ does indeed constitute a certificate as required by the law. Therefore without legal advice to the contrary, it may be wise to apply prior to the deadline. Firstly, and perhaps most important of all is that C&RT have no authority or powers, statutory or otherwise, to 'license' - or in other words - give or refuse their 'consent' to any pleasure boat being used or kept on any of the 'river waterways' listed in Schedule 1 to the 1971 BW Act. The common law PRN is an absolute and unassailable right to keep or use a boat on a publicly navigable river, and NOT something which the C&RT, or for that matter, any County Court, can withdraw, suspend, or nullify. The common law PRN can be made subject to statutorily imposed conditions of use, as it was under the 1971 Act, but the common law PRN cannot under any circumstances be overridden or extinguished on the whim of some power crazed megalomaniac in a navigation authority office, . . or a County Court Judge ! Section 5(1) of the 1971 Act is very clear and specific about precisely what a 'pleasure boat certificate' is, and it also states very clearly and unequivocally what type of 'licence' can be substituted for the PBC, . . and that is - quote - "a licence issued by the Board allowing the use of ALL inland waterways without further payment". The rivers only licence covers the requirements of the pbc, whilst the rivers & canal licence covers the second alternative licence conditions. I think you are in danger of getting hung up over the word ‘licence’, if the rivers only licence had ‘pleasure boat certificate’ across the top would you be happy?
|
|
|
Post by TonyDunkley on Aug 21, 2019 19:29:31 GMT
Firstly, and perhaps most important of all is that C&RT have no authority or powers, statutory or otherwise, to 'license' - or in other words - give or refuse their 'consent' to any pleasure boat being used or kept on any of the 'river waterways' listed in Schedule 1 to the 1971 BW Act. The common law PRN is an absolute and unassailable right to keep or use a boat on a publicly navigable river, and NOT something which the C&RT, or for that matter, any County Court, can withdraw, suspend, or nullify. The common law PRN can be made subject to statutorily imposed conditions of use, as it was under the 1971 Act, but the common law PRN cannot under any circumstances be overridden or extinguished on the whim of some power crazed megalomaniac in a navigation authority office, . . or a County Court Judge ! Section 5(1) of the 1971 Act is very clear and specific about precisely what a 'pleasure boat certificate' is, and it also states very clearly and unequivocally what type of 'licence' can be substituted for the PBC, . . and that is - quote - "a licence issued by the Board allowing the use of ALL inland waterways without further payment". The rivers only licence covers the requirements of the pbc, whilst the rivers & canal licence covers the second alternative licence conditions. I think you are in danger of getting hung up over the word ‘licence’, if the rivers only licence had ‘pleasure boat certificate’ across the top would you be happy? You bet I'm 'hung up' over the precise meaning of words, . . it's C&RT's calculated and deliberate attempts to distort the sense and meaning of the words used in certain passages of their governing legislation that's at the very heart of this matter ! As for whether or not I'd be happy if they wrote 'Pleasure Boat Certificate' across the top of one of their phony 'licences', . . well, no, I certainly would NOT be at all happy. The phrase 'Pleasure Boat Certificate' and the word 'licence' denote two entirely different things. One is a 'registration' certificate, which does nothing other than prove that the boat named on the certificate has been registered for identification purposes, and a 'licence' is a form of permission to do something which without the licence would be unlawful.
|
|