|
Post by Jim on Oct 23, 2020 8:49:04 GMT
Tony is always going to be Tony, so no one would be able to get him to change his mind. And why should one change one's mind when one is in the right? Because sometimes it's best to be strategic to get what you want, giving way on a small point to achieve a greater victory. Maybe there is a cunning plan, but somehow I suspect not. No comment from TonyDunkley yet? He's playing the stunned kingfisher card.
|
|
|
Post by Gone on Oct 23, 2020 10:21:29 GMT
anybody remember the lightship? Planet - no (or few) details in the past couple of years... Still in Sharpness a couple of months ago when I was last there. Moored next to the boat with it’s own little helicopter.
|
|
|
Post by lollygagger on Oct 23, 2020 11:20:43 GMT
I'm sure Tony will be busy asking them to justify their actions. He will see this as CRT shooting themselves in the foot. He'd want current written evidence of CRT's reasoning, a demand for £ for moving and storage in his hand?
|
|
|
Post by Telemachus on Oct 23, 2020 11:56:11 GMT
One would presume the plan is to go back to court and accuse CRT of contempt of court because they didn’t issue a pleasure boat certificate as the court had ordered.
|
|
|
Post by lollygagger on Oct 23, 2020 12:18:02 GMT
One would presume the plan is to go back to court and accuse CRT of contempt of court because they didn’t issue a pleasure boat certificate as the court had ordered. At which point he can introduce the VAT problem.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 23, 2020 12:25:11 GMT
A tad reductive, I feel. But CRT didnae issue a certificate because they only issue licences...your turn. You're saying they can't issue a Pleasure Boat Certificate? Good grief, man! - if nothing else a Licencing Person can write on a piece of paper 'PBC for Mr Dunkley' and plonk the CRT stamp on it with a signature. I have read the thread(s) but it's not my major study project... and, as I said, my guess is if one gets a PBC everyone will want one... and loss of that carefully engineered nice little earner will simply not do. As I have also mentioned, details are missing. Its funny, every now and again, and quite unexpectedly, you write something that sounds intelligent. This is not one of those times.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 23, 2020 12:48:10 GMT
A PBC is the same thing that CRT and BW before them call a "Rivers only license". It won't cost any more because it is called a "license". A PBC aka Rivers Only License is available to anyone who only uses their boat on a scheduled river waterway. One of my boats is on Limehouse cut which is a very old man made canal but it is part of the River Lea navigation therefore I can have a Rivers only license on that particular boat provided it does not move onto canals which are subject to Pleasure boat license. Given the background to this case it seems likely that TD has deliberately driven CRT to this outcome -possibly- in order to expose something. Whether it will work is obviously interesting. The simple fact is that to get a license OR certificate you need to have insurance and a boat safety. There exists (or existed) an option to self declare exemption from the Boat Safety. IF the applicant ie TonyDunkley has in fact met the obligations as required but been refused a "Rivers only license"/PBC then it is interesting because that would mean that CRT are behaving outside of the law. The "License" v "Certificate" thing is a secondary topic. The primary aim, I suspect, is to prove to anyone who does not quite believe it that CRT are willing and able to break the law. Whether it will work I don't know but it certainly is interesting.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 23, 2020 12:48:56 GMT
One would presume the plan is to go back to court and accuse CRT of contempt of court because they didn’t issue a pleasure boat certificate as the court had ordered. Its all about two little words - '...as appropriate...' Did the court specifically order CRT to issue a PBC? I don't think so. Did CRT in the end tow Tony's boat because it was un-licenced? No, they did so because it was not certified as safe despite the owner having been given much opportunity to rectify matters. Was Tony telling fibs about his boat's eligibility for exemption? Demonstrably. Did this come as any surprise to anybody? Nope. Tony has pursued a policy of non co-operation with CRT for a long time, and when he ran out of things to not co-operate with he turned to vandalism and reckless endangerment instead. What a waste, as many have commented.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 23, 2020 12:52:06 GMT
Vandalism? Careful now!
|
|
|
Post by naughtyfox on Oct 23, 2020 13:38:51 GMT
One would presume the plan is to go back to court and accuse CRT of contempt of court because they didn’t issue a pleasure boat certificate as the court had ordered. That's funny 'cos I said: "Tony is still the owner of HD? It's just been removed 'illegally' as CRT, in contempt of court, refuse to issue him with Pleasure Boat Certificate....?" Nemesis claims the action was not illegal but hasn't yet stated why not.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 23, 2020 13:41:30 GMT
One would presume the plan is to go back to court and accuse CRT of contempt of court because they didn’t issue a pleasure boat certificate as the court had ordered. That's funny 'cos I said: How unusual !!
|
|
|
Post by naughtyfox on Oct 23, 2020 13:42:11 GMT
That's funny 'cos I said: How unusual !! Can't you wait?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 23, 2020 13:43:45 GMT
Never had any patience. I see you edited your post now. Great minds like a think I believe is the expression. You should be incredibly proud that someone as highly regarded and obviously very special as Telemachus would think exactly the same as you.
|
|
|
Post by naughtyfox on Oct 23, 2020 13:48:16 GMT
One would presume the plan is to go back to court and accuse CRT of contempt of court because they didn’t issue a pleasure boat certificate as the court had ordered. At which point he can introduce the VAT problem. As I recall, this was CRT illegally charging VAT for 'River Only Licences' when they should be issuing 'Pleasure Boat certificates' for navigable rivers.
|
|
|
Post by naughtyfox on Oct 23, 2020 13:49:02 GMT
I see you edited your post now. Well, I had to go and fetch something, didn't I?
|
|