|
Post by JohnV on Oct 25, 2020 14:11:08 GMT
they already had the government grant
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 25, 2020 14:12:55 GMT
There are many people who have what is referred to as 'hidden disabilities'. Epilepsy is certainly a non-apparent disability/condition/illness (when the sufferer isn't writhing about all over the towpath in a fit). I also have a hidden psychological disability. Can anybody guess what it is? Yes. You are a massive twat. Also, it isn't hidden and I doubt if it qualifies as a disability.
|
|
|
Post by naughtyfox on Oct 25, 2020 14:15:27 GMT
Someone must be giving public money to CRT....? Who are these persons? Anyway, everyone knows where to find CRT representatives, and everyone knows where Commercial Boat Thieves' offices are. 'Revolution is only one meal away'. We still haven't heard the views of Nottinghamshire Police. Do they approve of theft, or what? I doubt that Nottinghamshire Police will be volunteering anything to anybody about the part they played in actively assisting in the committing of two serious criminal offences on the part of each of the total of seven C&RT and Commercial Boat Services employees who participated in the illegal seizure of "Halcyon Daze" from private riverside land outwith the limits of C&RT's jurisdiction as defined under Part II, Section 4(1) of the British Waterways Act 1971. Without the considerable and distinctly biased assistance C&RT had from the Police, they would have ended the day with their tails between their legs, without the boat, but most importantly of all, with a first time ever failure of their beloved Section 8 boat removal process to reflect on and explain away to the Trustees, . . which of course, from the standpoint of convenience, would have been the preferred and best outcome for me personally. Based, however, on the part the Police have played in a great many bygone C&RT boat removals by either standing by and watching whilst non-certificated - in other words, bogus - 'Enforcement Officers', or 'Bailiffs', execute non-existent 'Warrants of Control' (in reality, the Declaratory Relief Orders C&RT obtain from the County Courts), or even on some occasions rendering active assistance, there was always the chance that C&RT would get their way on the day, . . which was the calculated risk that had to be taken if there was ever to be any hope at all of exposing and ending the persistent abuse of misdirected Section 8 powers at which C&RT have become so well rehearsed and adept. You'd think I had better things to do on a Sunday afternoon, but I have watched the above video all the way to the bitter end, and it is quite clear that the Police were assisting a very smug-looking Stuart Garner (if that be he?). Stuart seems throughout to think the whole affair is hilarious. As I said: "Quite ridiculous. If Leigh and chums thought that Sergeant Brooks was incompetent (let's face it - he is here!), then they should have asked for other Police* to attend and for Brooks to be hauled away; Brooks clearly handles the situation poorly; he at least could have asked for all relevant paperwork, and taken notes of who is who, and contacted his Police station to say he was out of his depth and needed back-up. He could have prevented the seizure of the boat until proof that CRT had the right to remove it was made clear. (*problem - they are all in on it - perhaps another Police force from another county, then?) Brooks argues and gives his opinion(s) - but his job is to uphold the law in a neutral and properly conducted fashion - and not to oversee and approve of what indeed would appear to be a theft. I did like the zoom in at (38:41) of the lorry driver eating his Pot Noodle - what a life, eh? Like a dog in a cage. Sort of entertaining, so here it is again:
|
|
|
Post by naughtyfox on Oct 25, 2020 14:20:04 GMT
Epilepsy is certainly a non-apparent disability/condition/illness (when the sufferer isn't writhing about all over the towpath in a fit). I also have a hidden psychological disability. Can anybody guess what it is? Yes. You are a massive twat. Also, it isn't hidden and I doubt if it qualifies as a disability. Back in your box, Monkey!
|
|
|
Post by Jim on Oct 25, 2020 14:45:04 GMT
Yes. You are a massive twat. Also, it isn't hidden and I doubt if it qualifies as a disability. Β Back in your box, Monkey! He beat me to it, I was going to suggest Twattery. ππ€‘ Do tell though, if we are wrong! ADHD?
|
|
|
Post by Clinton Cool on Oct 25, 2020 14:46:41 GMT
Epilepsy is certainly a non-apparent disability/condition/illness (when the sufferer isn't writhing about all over the towpath in a fit). I also have a hidden psychological disability. Can anybody guess what it is? Yes. You are a massive twat. Also, it isn't hidden and I doubt if it qualifies as a disability. All Disabilities Matter. Or perhaps not, in tickbox Britain.
|
|
|
Post by brummieboy on Oct 25, 2020 19:06:10 GMT
Back in your box, Monkey! He beat me to it, I was going to suggest Twattery. ππ€‘ Do tell though, if we are wrong! ADHD? The insistence upon oil changes at exactly the right hour typifies O.C.D. This is reinforced with comments about the detail of exposure and filters he makes about posted pictures. I bet he also keeps a cruising log to the exact minute and yard, (or at least chain/furlong).
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 25, 2020 19:31:39 GMT
He beat me to it, I was going to suggest Twattery. ππ€‘ Do tell though, if we are wrong! ADHD? The insistence upon oil changes at exactly the right hour typifies O.C.D. This is reinforced with comments about the detail of exposure and filters he makes about posted pictures. I bet he also keeps a cruising log to the exact minute and yard, (or at least chain/furlong). I'd put naughtyfox on the austim spectrum. If they still diagnosed it I would go for Aspergers, had it already been diagnosed. They took this diagnosis out of the DSM a few years ago so if anyone is looking at getting a diagnosis it will probably be something boring like PDD NOS or ASD. The days of having your autism condition named after a psycho nazi (Hans Asperger) are long gone. For better or for worse..
|
|
|
Post by TonyDunkley on Oct 25, 2020 20:02:47 GMT
It's very apparent from reading through this inappropriately titled thread that the saddest part of this long running saga is, with one or two notable exceptions, just how little of what Nigel Moore and I have posted on the subject has been understood by the majority of those who have followed and commented on it. To everyone who has expressed concern, thank you all very much, and let me assure you that I'm absolutely fine, no ill-effects of any sort, . . although the same probably can't be said for two of the 'Enforcement Officers' unidentifiable arseholes who I had to persuade to get off my boat prior to the Police arriving. Including four policemen, the illegal seizure and removal of my boat took a total of eleven personnel, five of them being Commercial Boat Services employees, none of whom carried any identification and refused to identify themselves, and two more from C&RT, . . one of those being S. Garner, now promoted to East Midlands Licence Support Supervisor. I'm fairly confident that the events of Thursday last will be something that C&RT, the ' wellbeing charity' private limited company will, in time, come to regret in a number of ways. I'm not the first to be left standing by the side of one of their waterways with nothing but the clothes I stood up in, and I probably won't be the last, . . but let's at least hope there won't be too many more ! Glad to hear you are ok. Interested to hear what paperwork they had that persuaded the cops to let them take your boat. Thanks Nick, . . the paperwork was a copy of the Court Order made on 15 August 2019. This is the opening, main paragraph of it, the one that specifies and defines C&RT's entitlement to "remove" : IT IS ORDERED THAT : It is hereby declared that the Claimant is entitled, after 4pm on 29 August 2019, to remove the Defendant's boat "Halcyon Daze" Index No 52721 [the Boat] from the canals and inland waterways under the Claimant's control shown coloured blue on the plan and listed in the Schedule ("the Claimant's waterways"), both annexed hereto, pursuant to its statutory powers under Section 8 of the British Waterways Act 1983 and Section 13 of the British Waterways Act 1971, unless on or before that date the Defendant has obtained a licence or a pleasure boat certificate (as appropriate) for the Boat, or otherwise the consent of the Claimant for the Boat to remain thereon. _______________________________________________________ When read in conjunction with the wording in the Order underlined and in bold, the following two internal e-mails became something of a massive problem for C&RT back in March of this year : Sent: 10 March 2020 13:04 Subject: Dredging the Upper Trent Hi Richard I have just had Mr Tony Dunkley on the phone regards dredging at his location on the Upper Trent. His boat is moored at Barton In Fabis, Mr Dunkley believes that the Trust should dredge from bank to bank. I am under the impression that as the navigation authority the Trust are only responsible for the main navigable channel. Could you just confirm my understanding or not as the case may be Thanks Stuart Stuart Garner Licence Support Supervisor
and the reply :
Hi Stuart You're correct- we need to maintain the appropriate navigable channel- so on wide river sections, this is not 'bank to bank'. The dimension of channel we maintain in this area is shown on the first row of the table below. [Screen Clipping] - [Width of dredged channel from Shardlow to Meadow Lane Lock - 7m's] Richard Richard Bennett There also exists, from another source within the Trust's administration, a C&RT produced map of the river Trent showing ''non-navigable water'' along both banks of the river, with "navigable water" - ie the 7 metre wide main navigable channel referred to in the 10 March 2020 internal e-mail - shown for a considerable distance both upstream and downstream from the location of the private land from where "Halcyon Daze" was forcibly seized and removed by the C&RT on Thursday 22 October 2020. Together with the map and the two internal e-mails, the wording of the 15 August 2019 Order puts it beyond any possibility of doubt that C&RT knowingly acted beyond its lawful authority in seizing and removing "Halcyon Daze" from waters - a part of the river Trent - known not to be under its control.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 25, 2020 20:22:03 GMT
Is there any historical precedence which supports the assertion that vessels moored outside of the MNC are not required to be licenced or registered when on the River Trent? Similarly, is there any document which overtly states that the navigation authority has no jurisdiction or authority of any kind on the Trent outside of the MNC?
|
|
|
Post by duncan on Oct 25, 2020 20:24:09 GMT
Glad to hear you are ok. Interested to hear what paperwork they had that persuaded the cops to let them take your boat. Thanks Nick, . . the paperwork was a copy of the Court Order made on 15 August 2019. Here's the opening, main paragraph of it, the one that specifies and defines C&RT's entitlement to "remove" : IT IS ORDERED THAT :It is hereby declared that the Claimant is entitled, after 4pm on 29 August 2019, to remove the Defendant's boat "Halcyon Daze" Index No
52721 [the Boat] from the canals and inland waterways under the Claimant's control shown coloured blue on the plan and listed in the Schedule ("the Claimant's waterways"), both annexed hereto, pursuant to its statutory powers under Section 8 of the British Waterways Act 1983 and Section 13 of the British Waterways Act 1971, unless on or before that date the Defendant has obtained a licence or a pleasure boat certificate (as appropriate) for the Boat, or otherwise the consent of the Claimant for the Boat to remain thereon. When read in conjunction with the wording underlined and in bold, the following two internal e-mails became something of a massive problem for C&RT back in March of this year : Sent: 10 March 2020 13:04 Subject: Dredging the Upper Trent Hi Richard I have just had Mr Tony Dunkley on the phone regards dredging at his location on the Upper Trent. His boat is moored at Barton In Fabis, Mr Dunkley believes that the Trust should dredge from bank to bank. I am under the impression that as the navigation authority the Trust are only responsible for the main navigable channel. Could you just confirm my understanding or not as the case may be Thanks Stuart Stuart Garner Licence Support Supervisor
and the reply :
Hi Stuart You're correct- we need to maintain the appropriate navigable channel- so on wide river sections, this is not 'bank to bank'. The dimension of channel we maintain in this area is shown on the first row of the table below. [Screen Clipping] - [Width of dredged channel from Shardlow to Meadow Lane Lock - 7m's] Richard Richard Bennett There also exists, from another source within the Trust's administration, a C&RT produced map of the river Trent showing ''non-navigable water'' along both banks of the river, with "navigable water" - ie the 7 metre wide main navigable channel referred to in the 10 March 2020 internal e-mail - shown for a considerable distance both upstream and downstream from the location of the private land from where "Halcyon Daze" was forcibly seized and removed by the C&RT on Thursday 22 October 2020. Together with the map and the two internal e-mails, the wording of the 15 August 2019 Order puts it beyond any possibility of doubt that C&RT knowingly acted beyond its lawful authority in seizing and removing "Halcyon Daze" from waters - a part of the river Trent - known not to be under its control. Hi Tony, I will freely admit to being ignorant of the rights and wrongs of all this, but from your post quoted, in the emails CRT are stating that they do not have a need to maintain the appropriate navigable channel on this stretch of water. To me, that is not the same as saying that the particular stretch of water is not under their control. Is there other paperwork that makes it clear that CRT only control the navigable parts of waterways? Edit to add post crossed with nemesis
|
|
|
Post by JohnV on Oct 25, 2020 20:46:27 GMT
Is there any historical precedence which supports the assertion that vessels moored outside of the MNC are not required to be licenced or registered when on the River Trent? Similarly, is there any document which overtly states that the navigation authority has no jurisdiction or authority of any kind on the Trent outside of the MNC? I suggest you read this thread, giving particular attention to NigelMoore's posts thunderboat.boards.net/post/205830/thread
|
|
|
Post by Telemachus on Oct 25, 2020 21:16:50 GMT
Glad to hear you are ok. Interested to hear what paperwork they had that persuaded the cops to let them take your boat. Thanks Nick, . . the paperwork was a copy of the Court Order made on 15 August 2019. This is the opening, main paragraph of it, the one that specifies and defines C&RT's entitlement to "remove" : IT IS ORDERED THAT : It is hereby declared that the Claimant is entitled, after 4pm on 29 August 2019, to remove the Defendant's boat "Halcyon Daze" Index No 52721 [the Boat] from the canals and inland waterways under the Claimant's control shown coloured blue on the plan and listed in the Schedule ("the Claimant's waterways"), both annexed hereto, pursuant to its statutory powers under Section 8 of the British Waterways Act 1983 and Section 13 of the British Waterways Act 1971, unless on or before that date the Defendant has obtained a licence or a pleasure boat certificate (as appropriate) for the Boat, or otherwise the consent of the Claimant for the Boat to remain thereon. _______________________________________________________ When read in conjunction with the wording in the Order underlined and in bold, the following two internal e-mails became something of a massive problem for C&RT back in March of this year : Sent: 10 March 2020 13:04 Subject: Dredging the Upper Trent Hi Richard I have just had Mr Tony Dunkley on the phone regards dredging at his location on the Upper Trent. His boat is moored at Barton In Fabis, Mr Dunkley believes that the Trust should dredge from bank to bank. I am under the impression that as the navigation authority the Trust are only responsible for the main navigable channel. Could you just confirm my understanding or not as the case may be Thanks Stuart Stuart Garner Licence Support Supervisor
and the reply :
Hi Stuart You're correct- we need to maintain the appropriate navigable channel- so on wide river sections, this is not 'bank to bank'. The dimension of channel we maintain in this area is shown on the first row of the table below. [Screen Clipping] - [Width of dredged channel from Shardlow to Meadow Lane Lock - 7m's] Richard Richard Bennett There also exists, from another source within the Trust's administration, a C&RT produced map of the river Trent showing ''non-navigable water'' along both banks of the river, with "navigable water" - ie the 7 metre wide main navigable channel referred to in the 10 March 2020 internal e-mail - shown for a considerable distance both upstream and downstream from the location of the private land from where "Halcyon Daze" was forcibly seized and removed by the C&RT on Thursday 22 October 2020. Together with the map and the two internal e-mails, the wording of the 15 August 2019 Order puts it beyond any possibility of doubt that C&RT knowingly acted beyond its lawful authority in seizing and removing "Halcyon Daze" from waters - a part of the river Trent - known not to be under its control. So I suppose we can sort of see why PC Plod supported Mr Garner. Were you aware of these court proceedings on 15th August and did you have an opportunity to participate? How did this link up with the previous judgement whereby you were required to obtain a PBC /licence (as appropriate) and yet CRT declined to issue such a PBC or licence? Was the court on 15th August aware of the previous judgement?
|
|
|
Post by JohnV on Oct 25, 2020 21:41:30 GMT
bloody hell Nick, do you only read electrical threads
|
|
|
Post by Gone on Oct 25, 2020 21:41:41 GMT
There is some critical information that you have not considered fully which is -β from the canals and inland waterways under the Claimant's control shown coloured blue on the plan and listed in the Schedule ("the Claimant's waterways"), both annexed hereto, pursuant to its statutory powers under Section 8 of the British Waterways Act 1983 and Section 13 of the British Waterways Act 1971β
So if the mooring is within the area coloured blue on the plan, then the court has accepted that is within the control of CRT, and as such the court has said that CRT are entitled to remove the boat if it is within the blue zone.
From memory the problem you had at the court hearing in 2019 is that the term MNC is not defined and I think the court has accepted CRTβs assertion that it means the whole river excluding feeders etc for CRT as navigation authority but something more restricted when it comes to CRTβs responsibility for dredging etc. In which case your emails may not be that helpful to your case. I wish you well in your fight, but ........
|
|