|
Post by Mr Stabby on May 26, 2021 10:52:16 GMT
I'll have a look and try get a bit more acquainted with the circumstances, at the moment I know fairly little about it. I will say that I thought at the time that towing Planet from Liverpool to Sharpness was unnecessarily excessive. Much more than that I do not know at the present time. You said " you still can help us, there is no reason why not to, everyone needs a friend to help" and to a degree this has plucked at my heartstrings although you must bear in mind that despite the suggestions that I am some type of undercover stooge working for CRT, I am in reality just an ordinary, perennially impoverished liveaboard boater living hand-to-mouth with little or no influence over what happens in pretty much every sphere of life, not just boating. How's the Shit-for-Brainsmiths LLB review of the theft of the ex-Liverpool Bar Lightship by the C&RT in September 2016 going ? Space reserved for future use
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 26, 2021 10:55:34 GMT
Post Reserved
|
|
|
Post by Jim on May 26, 2021 12:04:56 GMT
Oi, twat, what have you done with MY towel? Sitting on my bit of sand. Hope you get sand rash up your crack.
|
|
|
Post by TonyDunkley on May 26, 2021 14:34:59 GMT
I'm re-posting the opening post of this thread to ensure that C&RT's lawyers don't miss it : --
On 21 May, on the "Grumpy Dunk" thread, duncan said:
The one thing I would like to learn is how Tony and Bigred plan to get Planet back from whoever now claims to own it, particularly as Tony told us a couple of pages ago that CRT have already convinced a judge to lift an injunction preventing its sale. Is there a judge in the land that isn't going to come down on CRTs side should anything ever get to court?
_________________________________________________________________________________________________
The reply :
The answer to the first part of your question is of need quite lengthy and complex. The answer to the part of it about the likelihood of continuing Judicial approval of C&RT's conduct was in a post of mine on page 12 of the "Grumpy Dunk" thread, duncan. It's buried, along with some other bona fide posts, amongst a lot of TB goon squad garbage, . .so it's hardly surprising that you missed it.
The specious arguments that C&RT's lawyers relied on, at the Injunction hearing in Chester on 19 December 2016, to convince the Court of the Trust's entitlement to sell the ship - the obscure circuitous mainstay of them being that a termination clause in the annually renewable Berthing Licence Agreement gave the Trust the absolute right to seize the ship and sell it if it remained in the South Docks post expiry of the BLA - would never have stood up to careful examination, . . and C&RT's lawyers knew it.
In the event, the Judge felt no need to expend Court time in allowing the applicant to expose C&RT's ridiculous assertions for what they truly were, having been seriously misled - by false written evidence included with supporting documentation submitted prior to the hearing - into believing that the seizure of "Planet" on 19 September 2016 was executed under a High Court Warrant.
The false written evidence - giving the impression that the seizure of "Planet" was pursuant to earlier proceedings at which High Court approval had been gained by the Trust - was retracted and replaced in the C&RT case files with an alternative and truthful version of events at some unknown time in the aftermath of the lifting of the interim Injunction that was preventing the sale of "Planet", and of the sham 'sale' of the ship for a mere £12,500, by the C&RT, . . to the man to whom its care had been entrusted, Steve Beacham, of Sharpness Shipyard & Drydock.
______________________________________________________________________
Here's the post (from page 12 of the "Grumpy Dunk" thread) that was buried amongst the diversionary twaddle : -
"The full extent of C&RT's knowing lies and deception relating to the unlawful seizure of the ex-Liverpool Bar Lightship "Planet" was truly breath-taking, John. The so-called 'Bailiffs', the bill for whom came to £4,500, were just as phony and uncertificated as the "Trust instructed" - (to quote the Trust's Solicitor-Advocate, Lucy Barry) - supposed 'Bailiffs' who were sent to evict me from and seize "Halcyon Daze".
In common with the bogus Bailiffs who, with the active assistance of four of Nottinghamshire's thickest, took "HD" from its Barton Wharf mooring on 22 October last, the uncertificated, unidentifiable goons who seized "Planet" carried no written Court authorization of any sort. They did, however, together with the local C&RT managers and representatives, state to the Police and others that they were - quote - "enforcing a High Court Warrant" - authorizing the seizure and removal of the ship.
The County Court money claim you mentioned was in fact in process in the Liverpool County Court at the time of the unlawful seizure of the ship, and Judgment, for something in the region of £5,650 (including costs), was in fact entered at Court on the day "Planet" entered the Bristol Channel under tow. It was a straightforward, everyday County Court money claim Judgment, and C&RT were fully aware that the Judgment would not, and in fact could not, include any instructions or authorization from the Court to levy distress on the ship.
The next strategic deployment of the "High Court Warrant" lie by C&RT and it's lawyers came 3 months after the unlawful seizure of the ship when, at the High Court in Chester on 19 December 2016, C&RT persuaded HHJ Pearce to lift the Injunction preventing them from selling "Planet" on the back of written evidence submitted to the Court indicating that the ship had been seized in Liverpool on 19 September 2016 pursuant to a High Court Warrant.
For the last 4 years and 5 months, C&RT, and its shyster lawyers, have been kidding themselves that they've got away with that one. They need to think again !"
|
|
|
Post by kris on May 26, 2021 14:46:30 GMT
Twat.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 26, 2021 15:06:07 GMT
I'm reposting this, just in case Dunkers missed it.
|
|
|
Post by kris on May 26, 2021 15:16:18 GMT
I'm reposting this, just in case Dunkers missed it. someone needs to explain to him how Internet forums work.
|
|
|
Post by TonyDunkley on May 26, 2021 21:03:09 GMT
Anyone remember this ?
It's a letter from a law firm acting for C&RT, . . and it was sent with the express purpose and in the hope of deterring me from publishing details of how C&RT's lawyers intentionally mislead the Courts, . . of their preparedness to exhibit false evidence at hearing, . . and of their preparedness to instigate or facilitate the falsification of Court papers and documentation : --
Mr A.K.Dunkley 11 January 2021
Dear Sir
Our client: Canal & River Trust
We are instructed by Canal & River Trust ("the Trust") which is, as you are aware, a charity and statutory authority with responsibility for over 2000 miles of inland canals and waterways in England and Wales and takes reputational issues very seriously.
It has come to their attention that the Website Thunderboat, operated through ProBoards contains a chat thread General Boating Cart the only charity that works to make people homeless (https://thunderboat.boards.net/thread/6872/cart-charity-works-people-homeless?page=22) which contains a wide variety of comments posted by you which are untrue and misleading and are defamatory of the Trust and members of their staff.
Our client wrote to you on 1 December to express their concerns, in particular regarding posts on 18 November 2020 at 12.43am and 25 November 2020 at 8.04am.
The posts contained allegations regarding the Trust and a member of their legal team (who had previously been identified by name in earlier posts, Lucy Barry) suggesting that "doctored" evidence had been provided to the court and that the Trust paid bribes to opponents. These allegations are utterly without foundation and categorically untrue.
The posts are likely to cause serious harm to the reputation of Miss Barry and the Trust, and are intended to do so. They are defamatory of them and constitute malicious falsehood.
Subsequent postings by you during the months of November and December 2020 regarding the Trust and their personnel repeat references to "doctored" evidence, fraud, individuals retained by the Trust "posing" as bailiffs or being bogus etc. Again these claims are false and utterly without foundation and are defamatory and constitute malicious falsehood.
The Trust accept that it is legitimate for customers to express their views online in relation to genuine boating matters or customer service issues, and that there may be vigorous differences of opinion over matters of policy.
What is not acceptable is to publish unsubstantiated allegations attacking individuals for no good reason as part of what appears to be a settling of scores.
Despite the Trust writing to you on 1 December setting out their concerns you have not removed the posts and indeed have made further posts with similar content and indeed posted the content of the letter of 1 December.
We take the view that is conduct is abusive and violates the ProBoards Terms of Service and in particular clauses 18 and 19 in that the posts amount to objectionable content which is defamatory, abusive and threatening and is also false and misleading. Accordingly we have been in touch with ProBoards who have reviewed the content in question and removed the offending posts.
The purpose of this letter is to advise you that our client will continue to monitor your activity on social media and in the event that further similar material is published by you they will not hesitate to take further action and this may include commencing legal proceedings against you. They reserve the right to refer to this correspondence should this prove necessary.
Yours faithfully Blake Morgan LLP
|
|
|
Post by Telemachus on May 26, 2021 21:08:11 GMT
Did Proboards actually delete any of your posts? I can’t remember.
|
|
|
Post by TonyDunkley on May 26, 2021 21:14:16 GMT
Did Proboards actually delete any of your posts? I can’t remember. Yes they did, . . one made on 18 November 2020 at 1243 hrs, and one made on 25 November 2020 at 0804 hrs. I'm going to re-post exactly the same facts and information, . . only this time in far greater detail, and with some additions.
|
|
|
Post by Mr Stabby on May 26, 2021 21:36:39 GMT
Did Proboards actually delete any of your posts? I can’t remember. Yes they did, . . one made on 18 November 2020 at 1243 hrs, and one made on 25 November 2020 at 0804 hrs. I'm going to re-post exactly the same facts and information, . . only this time in far greater detail. And what do you imagine that might achieve? By all means, feel free to vent your spleen on Thunderboat, just don't make the mistake of thinking it will make any difference.
|
|
|
Post by TonyDunkley on May 26, 2021 21:39:13 GMT
Yes they did, . . one made on 18 November 2020 at 1243 hrs, and one made on 25 November 2020 at 0804 hrs. I'm going to re-post exactly the same facts and information, . . only this time in far greater detail. And what do you imagine that might achieve? By all means, feel free to vent your spleen on Thunderboat, just don't make the mistake of thinking it will make any difference. "Difference" to what ?
|
|
|
Post by Mr Stabby on May 26, 2021 21:44:56 GMT
And what do you imagine that might achieve? By all means, feel free to vent your spleen on Thunderboat, just don't make the mistake of thinking it will make any difference. "Difference" to what ? Any difference to your ex-ownership of Halcyon Daze. It's gone now, somebody else owns it, and nothing you post on here is going to change that.
|
|
|
Post by Telemachus on May 26, 2021 21:53:55 GMT
Yes they did, . . one made on 18 November 2020 at 1243 hrs, and one made on 25 November 2020 at 0804 hrs. I'm going to re-post exactly the same facts and information, . . only this time in far greater detail. And what do you imagine that might achieve? Well best guess is that it would provoke them into the threatened “commencement of legal proceedings” which would give him the opportunity to make the defence that you can’t defame or libel someone with the truth, and to justify that by airing his evidence of the truthfulness of his assertions in court, which would give CRT a bloody nose. But it does seem to me that, by “wearing his heart on his sleeve” he is unlikely to be able to dupe them into doing something as a result of such obvious baiting.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 26, 2021 22:26:28 GMT
And what do you imagine that might achieve? Well best guess is that it would provoke them into the threatened “commencement of legal proceedings” which would give him the opportunity to make the defence that you can’t defame or libel someone with the truth, and to justify that by airing his evidence of the truthfulness of his assertions in court, which would give CRT a bloody nose. But it does seem to me that, by “wearing his heart on his sleeve” he is unlikely to be able to dupe them into doing something as a result of such obvious baiting. He’s just shit at fishing isn’t he….
|
|