|
Post by TonyDunkley on Oct 24, 2020 20:51:56 GMT
Thank you for saying so Kris, and for what you've said in your other posts. You were pretty close to the mark back on page 15, by the way, when you said - "It looks like they have taken his laptop". I guessed that as well Tony but I was concerned (and incidentally so was Peterboat) as I wasn't able to get you on your mobile to check you were ok Thank you both for your concerns, John. I kept both phones off to save as much battery as possible. Once I'd managed to get hold of the laptop again after the scrummage that led to it getting damaged the thickies wouldn't let me back inside carrying anything in case I locked myself in with whatever I was carrying. To go back in for the phone chargers I would have had to leave the laptop outside, and there are no prizes for guessing where it would have probably ended up . . . so the phone chargers got left aboard
|
|
|
Post by TonyDunkley on Oct 24, 2020 20:56:14 GMT
Who's complaining ? I'm certainly not ! All the thought, time, and effort that's gone into this has finally seen C&RT act on the ill-considered threats they've been throwing around since late 2015 and seize and remove a vessel that, on the strength of maps they've produced themselves and internal e-mails, was NOT on their waters but was moored to private land, over privately owned riverbed, in part of a river which statute specifically excludes from their control. In simple terms, they took eye off the ball. Whilst I've been arguing against their insistence that a boat compliant with all the BSS Exemption criteria should be subject to a full BSC examination, the fact that the boat in question was no longer either using or on C&RT waters has progressively moved out of their warped and shambolic trains of thought until forgotten completely. Where you have always gone wrong in your vendetta is in assuming that CRT behaves like a person. It doesn't. It is an organisation and it follows procedure just like any other organisation- HMRC, DVLA, DVSA etc. It does not have "a personality" and it is not interested in your spurious claims as to why you need not comply with its licensing requirements. You didn't comply with its licensing requirements, it followed the enforcement chain and this resulted in Halcyon Daze being towed away. We did warn you that this was going to happen but you wouldn't listen. If you feel that they were wrong in law to do this, then by all means take them to court. The court will find in your favour or against you, depending on what the relevant law says. In a way, yes, I do feel sorry for you. But you have brought all of this on yourself. Did you read anything of what I said before replying ?
|
|
|
Post by Mr Stabby on Oct 24, 2020 21:01:43 GMT
Where you have always gone wrong in your vendetta is in assuming that CRT behaves like a person. It doesn't. It is an organisation and it follows procedure just like any other organisation- HMRC, DVLA, DVSA etc. It does not have "a personality" and it is not interested in your spurious claims as to why you need not comply with its licensing requirements. You didn't comply with its licensing requirements, it followed the enforcement chain and this resulted in Halcyon Daze being towed away. We did warn you that this was going to happen but you wouldn't listen. If you feel that they were wrong in law to do this, then by all means take them to court. The court will find in your favour or against you, depending on what the relevant law says. In a way, yes, I do feel sorry for you. But you have brought all of this on yourself. Did you read anything of what I said before replying ? Yes, I read everything you post, including your posts about your five-year attempt to goad CRT into seizing your boat.
|
|
|
Post by duncan on Oct 24, 2020 21:05:30 GMT
I guessed that as well Tony but I was concerned (and incidentally so was Peterboat) as I wasn't able to get you on your mobile to check you were ok Thank you both for your concerns, John. I kept both phones off to save as much battery as possible. Once I'd managed to get hold of the laptop again after the scrummage that led to it getting damaged the thickies wouldn't let me back inside carrying anything in case I locked myself in with whatever I was carrying. To go back in for the phone chargers I would have had to leave the laptop outside, and there are no prizes for guessing where it would have probably ended up . . . so the phone chargers got left aboard Am I correct in saying that in previous instances like this that have been highlighted on here the owner has been permitted to remove their personal belongings before the boat is taken away? I seem to remember at least one case of a man left on the towpath with all his possessions.
CRT taking your boat away is one thing, taking your personal possessions is surely something else. Even if you are evicted from a house they have to let you take your possessions with you.
|
|
|
Post by TonyDunkley on Oct 24, 2020 21:07:53 GMT
Did you read anything of what I said before replying ? Yes, I read everything you post, including your posts about your five-year attempt to goad CRT into seizing your boat. Why bother, . . you appear not to understand a single word of any of it ?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 24, 2020 21:14:31 GMT
Thank you both for your concerns, John. I kept both phones off to save as much battery as possible. Once I'd managed to get hold of the laptop again after the scrummage that led to it getting damaged the thickies wouldn't let me back inside carrying anything in case I locked myself in with whatever I was carrying. To go back in for the phone chargers I would have had to leave the laptop outside, and there are no prizes for guessing where it would have probably ended up . . . so the phone chargers got left aboard Am I correct in saying that in previous instances like this that have been highlighted on here the owner has been permitted to remove their personal belongings before the boat is taken away? I seem to remember at least one case of a man left on the towpath with all his possessions.
CRT taking your boat away is one thing, taking your personal possessions is surely something else. Even if you are evicted from a house they have to let you take your possessions with you.
Also most people imagining the real possibility of abandoning ship would prepare a 'grab-bag' of essentials. Especially if the disastrous event took the trouble to let you know when it was to occur. But whatever.
|
|
|
Post by patty on Oct 25, 2020 6:15:34 GMT
Oh, gee, thanks, you say the nicest things. π€ͺ Do u feel welcome and at home here now?..... I think u are possibly the only lady of the forum who has managed to get a T...!
|
|
|
Post by patty on Oct 25, 2020 6:18:04 GMT
I guessed that as well Tony but I was concerned (and incidentally so was Peterboat) as I wasn't able to get you on your mobile to check you were ok Thank you both for your concerns, John. I kept both phones off to save as much battery as possible. Once I'd managed to get hold of the laptop again after the scrummage that led to it getting damaged the thickies wouldn't let me back inside carrying anything in case I locked myself in with whatever I was carrying. To go back in for the phone chargers I would have had to leave the laptop outside, and there are no prizes for guessing where it would have probably ended up . . . so the phone chargers got left aboard I hope you have somewhere to stay and that this unpleasant event is resolved soon. I find it all quite horrible that CRT behave in this manner....
|
|
|
Post by rayb on Oct 25, 2020 6:37:40 GMT
With your detective skills and powers of interrogations, I'm not surprised Getting stuck in thunderboat style, I see. πππ JohnV summary was pretty on point. Welcome aboard. dyertribe , twat. ππ Just trying to fit in with the warm fuzzy feeling on here!Thanks
|
|
|
Post by rayb on Oct 25, 2020 6:46:59 GMT
In fairness Tony, you did post that you had been attempting to goad CRT into seizing your boat for five years so you can't really complain when they do. Who's complaining ?Β I'm certainly not ! All the thought, time, and effort that's gone into this has finally seen C&RT act on the ill-considered threats they've been throwing around since late 2015 and seize and remove a vessel that, on the strength of maps they've produced themselves and internal e-mails, was NOT on their waters but was moored to private land, over privately owned riverbed, in part of a river which statute specifically excludes from their control. In simple terms, they took eye off the ball. Whilst I've been arguing against their insistence that a boat compliant with all the BSS Exemption criteria should be subject to a full BSC examination, the fact that the boat in question was no longer either using or on C&RT waters has progressively moved out of their warped and shambolic trains of thought until forgotten completely. Very glad to see you are ok Tony.i'm Ray by the way - hello. Speaking honestly I cant understand how you seem happy after spending 5 years trying to have your home taken?!I've gone through some of the history and get your arguments,at least some but couldn't you have made the same arguments whilst not losing your boat?got a bssc and license and then got to court afterwards and get the same result but keep your boat?
|
|
|
Post by naughtyfox on Oct 25, 2020 7:20:26 GMT
Who's complaining ? I'm certainly not ! All the thought, time, and effort that's gone into this has finally seen C&RT act on the ill-considered threats they've been throwing around since late 2015 and seize and remove a vessel that, on the strength of maps they've produced themselves and internal e-mails, was NOT on their waters but was moored to private land, over privately owned riverbed, in part of a river which statute specifically excludes from their control. In simple terms, they took eye off the ball. Whilst I've been arguing against their insistence that a boat compliant with all the BSS Exemption criteria should be subject to a full BSC examination, the fact that the boat in question was no longer either using or on C&RT waters has progressively moved out of their warped and shambolic trains of thought until forgotten completely. Very glad to see you are ok Tony.i'm Ray by the way - hello. Speaking honestly I cant understand how you seem happy after spending 5 years trying to have your home taken?!I've gone through some of the history and get your arguments,at least some but couldn't you have made the same arguments whilst not losing your boat?got a bssc and license and then got to court afterwards and get the same result but keep your boat? My thought at this stage: CRT have (allegedly) stated Halycon Daze was not parked up on their waters/land/property. Surely a couple of blokes who turn up unannounced and who refuse to give their names or show identification have to be treated as chancers/thieves/pikeys? And the owner of boat the legal right to use sufficient force to restrain them? If (as alleged) HD has been 'stolen' what have the Police done/not done said/not said about this? Are the Police not concerned with such an 'attack' and 'theft' of personal belongings? If Tony has suffered physical damage during the 'scuffle' ... what have the Police said about that? This is a case that has a long history (I believe) and it would take a fair amount of reading to 'bring oneself up to speed'. CRT have made exceptions for boaters who have found themselves (or made themselves) in 'peculiar circumstances' and, as I see it, as Tony Dunkley is a rare creature who is knowledgeable about the waterways and their heritage, passionate about boating, and always willing to impart his knowledge on fellow/new boaters, if I had anything to do with it I'd have given this 'case' 'heritage status' and just have left Tony in peace - and, indeed, acknowledged his usefulness in promoting boating/the waterways. (as I have said before, many details are missing, so one has to be cautious. facts needed before judgement.)
|
|
|
Post by JohnV on Oct 25, 2020 7:39:01 GMT
CRT and it's predecessors have a long history of "land grabbing" with total disregard for the law. in the late 70's a friend with a boat moored on a feeder stream of a river navigation used to receive regular threatening communications from BW demanding they pay for a licence threatening court action etc. ..... all this in spite of the fact they were in possession of an authorised copy (authorised by BW's own map department) of the area, showing the limit of their authority to be 6 foot from the start of the mooring.
|
|
|
Post by TonyDunkley on Oct 25, 2020 8:42:15 GMT
Thank you both for your concerns, John. I kept both phones off to save as much battery as possible. Once I'd managed to get hold of the laptop again after the scrummage that led to it getting damaged the thickies wouldn't let me back inside carrying anything in case I locked myself in with whatever I was carrying. To go back in for the phone chargers I would have had to leave the laptop outside, and there are no prizes for guessing where it would have probably ended up . . . so the phone chargers got left aboard Am I correct in saying that in previous instances like this that have been highlighted on here the owner has been permitted to remove their personal belongings before the boat is taken away? I seem to remember at least one case of a man left on the towpath with all his possessions.
CRT taking your boat away is one thing, taking your personal possessions is surely something else. Even if you are evicted from a house they have to let you take your possessions with you.
Truth to tell, there's great inconsistency in anything C&RT's Licensing and Legal departments do, . . . an inevitable consequence of making everything up as they go along rather than thoroughly acquainting themselves with the powers that Parliament did actually give them, and the constraints that were placed around those powers.
|
|
|
Post by TonyDunkley on Oct 25, 2020 9:15:36 GMT
Who's complaining ? I'm certainly not ! All the thought, time, and effort that's gone into this has finally seen C&RT act on the ill-considered threats they've been throwing around since late 2015 and seize and remove a vessel that, on the strength of maps they've produced themselves and internal e-mails, was NOT on their waters but was moored to private land, over privately owned riverbed, in part of a river which statute specifically excludes from their control. In simple terms, they took eye off the ball. Whilst I've been arguing against their insistence that a boat compliant with all the BSS Exemption criteria should be subject to a full BSC examination, the fact that the boat in question was no longer either using or on C&RT waters has progressively moved out of their warped and shambolic trains of thought until forgotten completely. Very glad to see you are ok Tony.i'm Ray by the way - hello. Speaking honestly I cant understand how you seem happy after spending 5 years trying to have your home taken?!I've gone through some of the history and get your arguments,at least some but couldn't you have made the same arguments whilst not losing your boat?got a bssc and license and then got to court afterwards and get the same result but keep your boat? Hello Ray, and thank you for your concern and good wishes. How far back have you gone into what lies behind the current beef with C&RT, . . the origins of which go back to January 2014 when they were kind enough to select me for a test case to see if they could get away with a DIY amendment to Section 17(3) of the 1995 BW Act and, in effect, impose the 'continuous cruising' rules on boat owners with a 'home mooring' ?
|
|
|
Post by Jim on Oct 25, 2020 9:22:33 GMT
Oh no Iβm very sure I wouldnβt want Tony on my boat. But Iβve got a tent he can have if he needs it. Have you got a picture of your tent? I took this of one of mine this Summer: 1.1 kilogrammes - candidate for the Pennine Way (which I am doing when I get the chance) Jim sucks teeth, sharp intake of breath. That return under will hardly give it a smooth profile for Pennine Gales.
|
|