Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 11, 2016 22:54:51 GMT
The best was when he was interviewed on c4 news, he made himself look a right idiot. Well to be honest he looked like an idiot in the film "off the cut." So if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck. He makes a Dick of himself every time he opens his mouth. I've had two run ins with him, of which he made himself look stupid and proved wrong on both occasions. (Ex labour councillor, so well briefed on dishing out bullshit).
|
|
|
Post by kris on Oct 11, 2016 22:57:42 GMT
The best was when he was interviewed on c4 news, he made himself look a right idiot. Well to be honest he looked like an idiot in the film "off the cut." So if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck. He makes a Dick of himself every time he opens his mouth. I've had two run ins with him, of which he made himself look stupid and proved wrong on both occasions. (Ex labour councillor, so well briefed on dishing out bullshit). yes unfortunately he's quite involved in the London mooring consultation. So idiots like him are having an influence on our lives. Crt do seem to be employing a lot of glad handing politicians.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 11, 2016 22:57:49 GMT
He was at it again last night on the BBC inside out (west) programme. Has to be the worst representative for the trust they've ever had.
|
|
|
Post by tadworth on Oct 11, 2016 23:02:26 GMT
Proves the point that you should never talk to CRT without recording it.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 11, 2016 23:05:24 GMT
Proves the point that you should never talk to CRT without recording it. I've recorded every conversation and meeting I've ever had with them. It's come in handy on more than one occasion.
|
|
|
Post by kris on Oct 11, 2016 23:07:14 GMT
Proves the point that you should never talk to CRT without recording it. yes especially if your on their radar.only have written communications with them. Recording conversations is okay but it can't be used as evidence later unless you tell the other party your recording it at the beginning.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 11, 2016 23:09:15 GMT
Proves the point that you should never talk to CRT without recording it. yes especially if your on their radar.only have written communications with them. Recording conversations is okay but it can't be used as evidence later unless you tell the other party your recording it at the beginning. Your allowed to quote from it and use as "a conversation I had with you".
|
|
|
Post by kris on Oct 11, 2016 23:11:07 GMT
yes especially if your on their radar.only have written communications with them. Recording conversations is okay but it can't be used as evidence later unless you tell the other party your recording it at the beginning. Your allowed to quote from it and use as "a conversation I had with you". yes as a personal record it's okay for something to refer to later.
|
|
|
Post by peterboat on Oct 11, 2016 23:32:13 GMT
I really do wonder where it is all going to go with the lightship tony feels confident but i just think a judge is going to look at it and say the owner was taking the piss 18 months owed on rent what does he expect. I am not saying crt are right they should have waited a week or two and gone in with the court order and a judge should have told them to ensure all costs were kept to a minimum. For me thats the real issue its the inflated costs not the seizing of the vessel
|
|
|
Post by rockdodger on Oct 11, 2016 23:55:34 GMT
yes especially if your on their radar.only have written communications with them. Recording conversations is okay but it can't be used as evidence later unless you tell the other party your recording it at the beginning. Your allowed to quote from it and use as "a conversation I had with you". Use your recording as the basis to write up the 'minutes of the meeting' and then immediately send (email) these minutes to all participants of the meeting, if these minutes are not disputed (or even commented on) they then stand as the record of that meeting /discussion.
|
|
|
Post by TonyDunkley on Oct 12, 2016 10:21:12 GMT
I really do wonder where it is all going to go with the lightship tony feels confident but i just think a judge is going to look at it and say the owner was taking the piss 18 months owed on rent what does he expect. I am not saying crt are right they should have waited a week or two and gone in with the court order and a judge should have told them to ensure all costs were kept to a minimum. For me thats the real issue its the inflated costs not the seizing of the vessel One very important point here is that, apart from a Small Claims Court claim for arrears of Berthing Fees, C&RT have kept this dispute out of the Courts and away from Judges. Why ? Quite simply because in seizing, removing to Sharpness and putting the ship on sale, they have been, and are, acting well outside of the boundaries of what the law demands, and in such circumstances no Judge would ever go down the route that you suggest, if for no other reason than in this particular dispute, no Court Order in respect of seizure and possession has been sought, let alone obtained. Judges are bound by the law, in some ways, to an even greater extent than the rest of us. Not only do they have to abide by common and statute law as we all do in our daily lives, but they have to administer and impose it as well. Common law differs from statute law in that common law has grown up out of Court decisions and thinking, whereas statute, or statutory, law has been drafted, examined, debated, and finally passes into the 'statute books' with the approval of Parliament, . . . both carry equal weight, but common law can be made and/or modified via Judges and their thoughts and decisions, whereas statute law most certainly cannot. However, with regard to what C&RT have done with the ex-Liverpool Bar lightship, they are NOT disputing that seizing, towing away, and putting it on sale violates some provisions of some much used, everyday UK statute law, specifically the 1968 Theft Act, the 1977 Torts Act, and the 2007 Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act, over which Judges and Courts have no discretion, . . they must adhere to what has been laid down and approved by Parliament. What C&RT ARE claiming is that a clause in the Berthing Agreement between themselves and the ship's owner exempts them from complying with the law and removes the protection afforded to the ship's owner by the law.
|
|
|
Post by Graham on Oct 12, 2016 10:32:35 GMT
I really do wonder where it is all going to go with the lightship tony feels confident but i just think a judge is going to look at it and say the owner was taking the piss 18 months owed on rent what does he expect. I am not saying crt are right they should have waited a week or two and gone in with the court order and a judge should have told them to ensure all costs were kept to a minimum. For me thats the real issue its the inflated costs not the seizing of the vessel One very important point here is that, apart from a Small Claims Court claim for arrears of Berthing Fees, C&RT have kept this dispute out of the Courts and away from Judges. Why ? Quite simply because in seizing, removing to Sharpness and putting the ship on sale, they have been, and are, acting well outside of the boundaries of what the law demands, and in such circumstances no Judge would ever go down the route that you suggest, if for no other reason than in this particular dispute, no Court Order in respect of seizure and possession has been sought, let alone obtained. Judges are bound by the law, in some ways, to an even greater extent than the rest of us. Not only do they have to abide by common and statute law as we all do in our daily lives, but they have to administer and impose it as well. Common law differs from statute law in that common law has grown up out of Court decisions and thinking, whereas statute, or statutory, law has been drafted, examined, debated, and finally passes into the 'statute books' with the approval of Parliament, . . . both carry equal weight, but common law can be made and/or modified via Judges and their thoughts and decisions, whereas statute law most certainly cannot. However, with regard to what C&RT have done with the ex-Liverpool Bar lightship, they are NOT disputing that seizing, towing away, and putting it on sale violates some provisions of some much used, everyday UK statute law, specifically the 1968 Theft Act, the 1977 Torts Act, and the 2007 Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act, over which Judges and Courts have no discretion, . . they must adhere to what has been laid down and approved by Parliament. What C&RT ARE claiming is that a clause in the Berthing Agreement between themselves and the ship's owner exempts them from complying with the law and removes the protection afforded to the ship's owner by the law. I wonder if this is where Nigel's favourite Marlborough could help
|
|
|
Post by TonyDunkley on Oct 12, 2016 12:07:35 GMT
One very important point here is that, apart from a Small Claims Court claim for arrears of Berthing Fees, C&RT have kept this dispute out of the Courts and away from Judges. Why ? Quite simply because in seizing, removing to Sharpness and putting the ship on sale, they have been, and are, acting well outside of the boundaries of what the law demands, and in such circumstances no Judge would ever go down the route that you suggest, if for no other reason than in this particular dispute, no Court Order in respect of seizure and possession has been sought, let alone obtained. Judges are bound by the law, in some ways, to an even greater extent than the rest of us. Not only do they have to abide by common and statute law as we all do in our daily lives, but they have to administer and impose it as well. Common law differs from statute law in that common law has grown up out of Court decisions and thinking, whereas statute, or statutory, law has been drafted, examined, debated, and finally passes into the 'statute books' with the approval of Parliament, . . . both carry equal weight, but common law can be made and/or modified via Judges and their thoughts and decisions, whereas statute law most certainly cannot. However, with regard to what C&RT have done with the ex-Liverpool Bar lightship, they are NOT disputing that seizing, towing away, and putting it on sale violates some provisions of some much used, everyday UK statute law, specifically the 1968 Theft Act, the 1977 Torts Act, and the 2007 Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act, over which Judges and Courts have no discretion, . . they must adhere to what has been laid down and approved by Parliament. What C&RT ARE claiming is that a clause in the Berthing Agreement between themselves and the ship's owner exempts them from complying with the law and removes the protection afforded to the ship's owner by the law. I wonder if this is where Nigel's favourite Marlborough could help Yes, it certainly is, Graham, and of course it will be held by Shoosmiths to be as equally inapplicable as any other statute. From the outset C&RT have relied, and still are relying, solely on a clause in the Berthing Agreement which they claim prevails over statute in that, in their view the ship's owner contracted out of statutory protection of his rights and property by signing the Agreement. Here's one of their responses to my request to be directed to any supporting authorities they have : ~ Dear Mr Dunkley Section 7(1) of Schedule 1 Part II of the Torts (Interference with Goods) Act 1977 (βthe Actβ) prevents a bailee either serving a notice under section 12(3) of the Act or selling the goods under this section of the Act. As the Trust is not relying on this Act then this section does not apply to the current situation. Your suggestion that the Act being statute prevails over the Agreement is incorrect. Yours sincerely Lucy Barry Associate Solicitor-Advocate
|
|
|
Post by kris on Oct 12, 2016 14:05:10 GMT
I wonder if this is where Nigel's favourite Marlborough could help Yes, it certainly is, Graham, and of course it will be held by Shoosmiths to be as equally inapplicable as any other statute. From the outset C&RT have relied, and still are relying, solely on a clause in the Berthing Agreement which they claim prevails over statute in that, in their view the ship's owner contracted out of statutory protection of his rights and property by signing the Agreement. Here's one of their responses to my request to be directed to any supportingΒ authorities they have : ~ Dear Mr Dunkley Section 7(1) of Schedule 1 Part II of the Torts (Interference with Goods) Act 1977 (βthe Actβ) prevents a bailee either serving a notice under section 12(3) of the Act or selling the goods under this section of the Act. As the Trust is not relying on this Act then this section does not apply to the current situation. Your suggestion that the Act being statute prevails over the Agreement is incorrect. Yours sincerely Lucy Barry Associate Solicitor-Advocate so it's another important case then. Because it effects every boater, if cart can make up terms and conditions that overule statute. I know they can't legally but obviously from what you have posted Tony they think they can.
|
|
|
Post by peterboat on Oct 12, 2016 14:58:27 GMT
I really do wonder where it is all going to go with the lightship tony feels confident but i just think a judge is going to look at it and say the owner was taking the piss 18 months owed on rent what does he expect. I am not saying crt are right they should have waited a week or two and gone in with the court order and a judge should have told them to ensure all costs were kept to a minimum. For me thats the real issue its the inflated costs not the seizing of the vessel One very important point here is that, apart from a Small Claims Court claim for arrears of Berthing Fees, C&RT have kept this dispute out of the Courts and away from Judges. Why ? Quite simply because in seizing, removing to Sharpness and putting the ship on sale, they have been, and are, acting well outside of the boundaries of what the law demands, and in such circumstances no Judge would ever go down the route that you suggest, if for no other reason than in this particular dispute, no Court Order in respect of seizure and possession has been sought, let alone obtained. Judges are bound by the law, in some ways, to an even greater extent than the rest of us. Not only do they have to abide by common and statute law as we all do in our daily lives, but they have to administer and impose it as well. Common law differs from statute law in that common law has grown up out of Court decisions and thinking, whereas statute, or statutory, law has been drafted, examined, debated, and finally passes into the 'statute books' with the approval of Parliament, . . . both carry equal weight, but common law can be made and/or modified via Judges and their thoughts and decisions, whereas statute law most certainly cannot. However, with regard to what C&RT have done with the ex-Liverpool Bar lightship, they are NOT disputing that seizing, towing away, and putting it on sale violates some provisions of some much used, everyday UK statute law, specifically the 1968 Theft Act, the 1977 Torts Act, and the 2007 Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act, over which Judges and Courts have no discretion, . . they must adhere to what has been laid down and approved by Parliament. What C&RT ARE claiming is that a clause in the Berthing Agreement between themselves and the ship's owner exempts them from complying with the law and removes the protection afforded to the ship's owner by the law. I spoke to one of my ex customers yesterday afternoon who is a magistrate I discussed this with Neil and told him about the berthing contract and how people thought it was illegal, his response was the customer signed it didnt he, i said it had expired and the customer is in 18 months arrears, response the customer signed it and in his view until another contract is signed the old one holds. Now magistrates arnt judges but do dispense the law so who knows what will happen but i notice the police havnt arrested anyone yet so i really do think you will not be getting the boat back any time soon
|
|