Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 17, 2022 12:12:35 GMT
I beg to differ, given the FACT it's happened to you three times. Provide references or links to confirm that ! There are plenty on here and the Internet, I don't need to reproduce them yet again.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 17, 2022 12:13:55 GMT
He was suggesting you are suicidal and may need help on the path
I think you arrr not and don't.
dne
|
|
|
Post by Tony Dunkley on Jul 17, 2022 12:38:21 GMT
There is nothing in any of C&RT's governing legislation, or in other statute, or in common law that entitles it to seize, retain possession, and sell any vessel that's owned by a known, contactable owner, . . and neither has any Court ever made an Order authorizing C&RT, or an agent of the C&RT, to take possession of - ie. seize - and then sell anyone's vessel and property. That's why I asked what the appropriate sanction should be for a commercial vessel not meeting due requirements. Which requirements were not met on Selby Mike? Not that it's relevant, or any of your business, but if you want an answer to that you should direct the question to C&RT's Head of Legal Services, Tom Deards. I will e-mail him giving permission for the Trust to answer, in full, ANY questions you want to ask about me, and to forward whatever other information you want in relation to me, Halcyon Daze, and Selby Michael, to you personally via whatever form of communication you specify. You can contact Deards - I will tell him you will be in touch - by post at the Trust's registered office address :- National Waterways Museum Ellesmere Port, South Pier Road, Ellesmere Port, Cheshire CH65 4FW. or by e-mail at : - < Tom.Deards@canalrivertrust.org.uk >
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 17, 2022 12:44:46 GMT
That's why I asked what the appropriate sanction should be for a commercial vessel not meeting due requirements. Which requirements were not met on Selby Mike? Not that it's relevant, or any of your business, but if you want an answer to that you should direct the question to C&RT's Head of Legal Services, Tom Deards. I will e-mail him giving permission for the Trust to answer, in full, ANY questions you want to ask about me, and to forward whatever other information you want in relation to me, Halcyon Daze, and Selby Michael, to you personally via whatever form of communication you specify. You can contact Deards - I will tell him you will be in touch - by post at the Trust's registered office address :- National Waterways Museum Ellesmere Port, South Pier Road, Ellesmere Port, Cheshire CH65 4FW. or by e-mail at : - < Tom.Deards@canalrivertrust.org.uk > Meaning in layman's terms, you fucked up yet again. It is anybodies business owing to the fact you are making it so, (albeit very selectively).
|
|
|
Post by Tony Dunkley on Jul 17, 2022 12:47:41 GMT
Provide references or links to confirm that ! There are plenty on here and the Internet, I don't need to reproduce them yet again. No, . . there are NONE, . . and that's the real reason why you can't 'reproduce' any.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 17, 2022 12:56:09 GMT
There are plenty on here and the Internet, I don't need to reproduce them yet again. No, . . there are NONE, . . and that's the real reason why you can't 'reproduce' any. A quick search provides 172 hits on this site alone, (7 of which are mine). The real reason is, you won't accept or admit to being stupid and naive throughout the whole process, which has resulted in losing two of your own boats and a lightship. Even your most avid allies are now realising you're an idiot and time wasting player. I'm frankly quite amazed that your aggressive responses and attitude to some has not resulted in you getting a severe thumping, (though of course, that could still come about).
|
|
|
Post by Tony Dunkley on Jul 17, 2022 13:04:52 GMT
No, . . there are NONE, . . and that's the real reason why you can't 'reproduce' any. A quick search provides 172 hits on this site alone, (7 of which are mine). The real reason is, you won't accept or admit to being stupid and naive throughout the whole process, which has resulted in losing two of your own boats and a lightship. Even your most avid allies are now realising you're an idiot and time wasting player. I'm frankly quite amazed that your aggressive responses and attitude to some has not resulted in you getting a severe thumping, (though of course, that could still come about). 1) There is nothing in any of C&RT's governing legislation, or in other statute, or in common law that entitles it to seize, retain possession of, and sell, any vessel that's owned by a known, contactable owner. 2) No Court has ever made an Order authorizing C&RT, or an agent of the C&RT, to take possession of - ie. seize - and then sell anyone's vessel and property. _____________________________________________ Provide evidence to the contrary, in the form of references, links, or whatever else is available, . . or shut-up !
|
|
|
Post by Mr Stabby on Jul 17, 2022 13:05:06 GMT
No, . . there are NONE, . . and that's the real reason why you can't 'reproduce' any. A quick search provides 172 hits on this site alone, (7 of which are mine). The real reason is, you won't accept or admit to being stupid and naive throughout the whole process, which has resulted in losing two of your own boats and a lightship. Planet wasn't actually Tony's lightship. The chap who owned it did post on here for a while but unlike Tony he passed the "attitude test" so there was a fair bit of empathy and support for him.
|
|
|
Post by Mr Stabby on Jul 17, 2022 13:06:39 GMT
A quick search provides 172 hits on this site alone, (7 of which are mine). The real reason is, you won't accept or admit to being stupid and naive throughout the whole process, which has resulted in losing two of your own boats and a lightship. Even your most avid allies are now realising you're an idiot and time wasting player. I'm frankly quite amazed that your aggressive responses and attitude to some has not resulted in you getting a severe thumping, (though of course, that could still come about). 1) There is nothing in any of C&RT's governing legislation, or in other statute, or in common law that entitles it to seize, retain possession of, and sell, any vessel that's owned by a known, contactable owner. 2) No Court has ever made an Order authorizing C&RT, or an agent of the C&RT, to take possession of - ie. seize - and then sell anyone's vessel and property. _____________________________________________ Provide evidence to the contrary, in the form of references, links, or whatever else is available, . . or shut-up ! The best evidence is that large gap on your mooring where your boat used to be.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 17, 2022 13:07:40 GMT
A quick search provides 172 hits on this site alone, (7 of which are mine). The real reason is, you won't accept or admit to being stupid and naive throughout the whole process, which has resulted in losing two of your own boats and a lightship. Even your most avid allies are now realising you're an idiot and time wasting player. I'm frankly quite amazed that your aggressive responses and attitude to some has not resulted in you getting a severe thumping, (though of course, that could still come about). 1) There is nothing in any of C&RT's governing legislation, or in other statute, or in common law that entitles it to seize, retain possession of, and sell, any vessel that's owned by a known, contactable owner. 2) No Court has ever made an Order authorizing C&RT, or an agent of the C&RT, to take possession of - ie. seize - and then sell anyone's vessel and property. _____________________________________________ Provide evidence to the contrary, in the form of references, links, or whatever else is available, . . or shut-up ! Why should i shut up, I'm right and you're wrong. Sit on it and twist.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 17, 2022 13:09:40 GMT
A quick search provides 172 hits on this site alone, (7 of which are mine). The real reason is, you won't accept or admit to being stupid and naive throughout the whole process, which has resulted in losing two of your own boats and a lightship. Planet wasn't actually Tony's lightship. The chap who owned it did post on here for a while but unlike Tony he passed the "attitude test" so there was a fair bit of empathy and support for him. I didn’t suggest anywhere that the lightship was his, (but he was instrumental in helping crt to take it).
|
|
|
Post by Tony Dunkley on Jul 17, 2022 13:15:38 GMT
1) There is nothing in any of C&RT's governing legislation, or in other statute, or in common law that entitles it to seize, retain possession of, and sell, any vessel that's owned by a known, contactable owner. 2) No Court has ever made an Order authorizing C&RT, or an agent of the C&RT, to take possession of - ie. seize - and then sell anyone's vessel and property. _____________________________________________ Provide evidence to the contrary, in the form of references, links, or whatever else is available, . . or shut-up ! Why should i shut up, I'm right and you're wrong. Sit on it and twist. 1) There is nothing in any of C&RT's governing legislation, or in other statute, or in common law that entitles it to seize, retain possession of, and sell, any vessel that's owned by a known, contactable owner. 2) No Court has ever made an Order authorizing C&RT, or an agent of the C&RT, to take possession of - ie. seize - and then sell anyone's vessel and property. _____________________________________________ Provide evidence to the contrary, in the form of references, links, or whatever else is available, . . or shut-up !
|
|
|
Post by broccobanks on Jul 17, 2022 13:49:06 GMT
CRT only relied on s8 of the 1983 Waterways Act to remove your boat from their waters, and render you liable for the costs of removal. Once your boat had been removed, CRT may simply have exercised their rights to recover their costs of removal and the costs awarded against you of c. £7k in the court action, by exercising a possessory lien. It was always, and still is, in your hands to challenge their conduct, prove it unlawful, and seek a remedy.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 17, 2022 13:57:19 GMT
CRT only relied on s8 of the 1983 Waterways Act to remove your boat from their waters, and render you liable for the costs of removal. Once your boat had been removed, CRT may simply have exercised their rights to recover their costs of removal and the costs awarded against you of c. £7k in the court action, by exercising a possessory lien. It was always, and still is, in your hands to challenge their conduct, and prove it unlawful. And that is where he has, and continues to fuck up. He adamantly attempts to have his day in court albeit through a CRT action, when in fact it is he who has to initiate the process. Oddly enough, I'm pretty certain he would win if he initiated such a process.
|
|
|
Post by Mr Stabby on Jul 17, 2022 17:58:27 GMT
CRT only relied on s8 of the 1983 Waterways Act to remove your boat from their waters, and render you liable for the costs of removal. Once your boat had been removed, CRT may simply have exercised their rights to recover their costs of removal and the costs awarded against you of c. £7k in the court action, by exercising a possessory lien. It was always, and still is, in your hands to challenge their conduct, and prove it unlawful. And that is where he has, and continues to fuck up. He adamantly attempts to have his day in court albeit through a CRT action, when in fact it is he who has to initiate the process. Oddly enough, I'm pretty certain he would win if he initiated such a process. There's more chance of Lord Lucan coming back riding Shergar than Tony Dunkley ever seeing Halcyon Daze again.
|
|