|
Post by TonyDunkley on May 27, 2021 14:58:27 GMT
I think this bloke is a couple of sandwiches short of a picnic. I've got plenty of grub in for the Whitsun week-end, thanks ! Try this even bigger typeface : -- There was nothing "legal" about my eviction from and the "seizure" of "Halcyon Daze". A fact which may eventually dawn on you, . . if you can find someone with a moderate command of plain written English, and endless patience, to explain the wording of the 15 August 2019 (Court) Order and S.8 of the 1983 BW Act to you, . . and the relevant sections and sub-sections of the Theft Act 1968, the TIG Act 1977, the Fraud Act 2006, and the TCE Act 2007.
|
|
|
Post by Telemachus on May 27, 2021 15:02:45 GMT
Here you are, . . same post you quoted, but in a bigger typeface to make it easier for someone to read and explain to you : -- There was nothing "legal" about my eviction from and the "seizure" of "Halcyon Daze". A fact which may eventually dawn on you, . . if you can find someone with a moderate command of plain written English, and endless patience, to explain the wording of the 15 August 2019 (Court) Order and S.8 of the 1983 BW Act to you, . . and the relevant sections and sub-sections of the Theft Act 1968, the TIG Act 1977, the Fraud Act 2006, and the TCE Act 2007.Ok, perhaps another Thunderboater with a moderate command of plain written English and endless patience can explain to me why the court order handed down on 15th August 2019 did not form part of a legal action. Only I think you'll find that a legal action is still a legal action, even if the loser has a major sad-on about it. “a legal action”, yes. A relevant and appropriate legal action to support their subsequent actions, no. Well that’s what Tony says, but the reality is that it doesn’t matter what Tony or you or I say, the only relevance is what the next court thinks of it.
|
|
|
Post by Mr Stabby on May 27, 2021 15:03:56 GMT
Or two boats short of a fleet. He’s just bat shit crazy. He's obviously not the "full ticket". A court hearing, in a County Court, before a County Court Judge, which results in the issue of a County Court judgment is obviously a "legal action", and no amount of repeating himself in ever larger typefaces will mean that it isn't. The classic definition of insanity is to continually repeat an action, expecting that it will lead to a different reaction.
|
|
|
Post by TonyDunkley on May 27, 2021 15:32:38 GMT
Oh dear, . . still having trouble reading it, . . typeface perhaps still not big enough. Try this : -- There was nothing "legal" about my eviction from and the "seizure" of "Halcyon Daze". A fact which may eventually dawn on you, . . if you can find someone with a moderate command of plain written English, and endless patience, to explain the wording of the 15 August 2019 (Court) Order and S.8 of the 1983 BW Act to you, . . and the relevant sections and sub-sections of the Theft Act 1968, the TIG Act 1977, the Fraud Act 2006, and the TCE Act 2007.Unfortunately using a big font and bold letters doesn’t actually strengthen your argument that S8 of the 1983 BW act doesn’t apply to your boat that was moored without legal authority and in contravention of the order against you. You're still missing the essential point as well ! The 15 August 2019 (Court)Order goes no further than stating that the Claimant [C&RT] is entitled to act " pursuant to its statutory powers" under S.8 of the 1983 Act. The Claimant [C&RT] has NO lawful powers of eviction, statutory or otherwise, of any boat dweller from the boat they are living aboard under ANY enactment, statutory instrument, or Order. The Claimant [C&RT] has NO lawful powers of seizure, statutory or otherwise, of any vessel under ANY enactment, statutory instrument, or Order. What is so very difficult to understand about any of that ?
|
|
|
Post by Mr Stabby on May 27, 2021 15:39:10 GMT
Unfortunately using a big font and bold letters doesn’t actually strengthen your argument that S8 of the 1983 BW act doesn’t apply to your boat that was moored without legal authority and in contravention of the order against you. You're still missing the essential point as well ! The 15 August 2019 (Court)Order goes no further than stating that the Claimant [C&RT] is entitled to act " pursuant to its statutory powers" under S.8 of the 1983 Act. The Claimant [C&RT] has NO lawful powers of eviction, statutory or otherwise, of any boat dweller from the boat they are living aboard under ANY enactment, statutory instrument, or Order. The Claimant [C&RT] has NO lawful powers of seizure, statutory or otherwise, of any vessel under ANY enactment, statutory instrument, or Order. What is so very difficult to understand about any of that ? Well, firstly you weren't living on the boat, you were living in a caravan and secondly the Court Order made it perfectly clear that CRT were entitled to remove the boat from the waterways.
|
|
|
Post by Gone on May 27, 2021 15:46:36 GMT
Unfortunately using a big font and bold letters doesn’t actually strengthen your argument that S8 of the 1983 BW act doesn’t apply to your boat that was moored without legal authority and in contravention of the order against you. You're still missing the essential point as well ! The 15 August 2019 (Court)Order goes no further than stating that the Claimant [C&RT] is entitled to act " pursuant to its statutory powers" under S.8 of the 1983 Act. The Claimant [C&RT] has NO lawful powers of eviction, statutory or otherwise, of any boat dweller from the boat they are living aboard under ANY enactment, statutory instrument, or Order. The Claimant [C&RT] has NO lawful powers of seizure, statutory or otherwise, of any vessel under ANY enactment, statutory instrument, or Order. What is so very difficult to understand about any of that ? The problem is that you don’t seem to understand that they didn’t ‘seize’ your boat with the intention of selling it, they removed it from their waters because you didn’t remove it or gain the relevant consent as required by the Act of 1983. Furthermore the judge told CRT to wait until a specific date (I forget the actual date) to give you an opportunity to comply, warning you that if you failed to comply CRT will remove your boat. This they did. Having removed your boat, CRT advised you that it was available for collection once you had paid the costs allowed for in the 1983 act, furthermore they offered to return any personal items on the boat if you wanted them. As you refused to pay their costs and collect your boat, CRT were not prepared to let this ‘stalemate’ go on indefinitely - adding further costs. So they sold it.
|
|
|
Post by TonyDunkley on May 27, 2021 15:50:51 GMT
You're still missing the essential point as well ! The 15 August 2019 (Court)Order goes no further than stating that the Claimant [C&RT] is entitled to act " pursuant to its statutory powers" under S.8 of the 1983 Act. The Claimant [C&RT] has NO lawful powers of eviction, statutory or otherwise, of any boat dweller from the boat they are living aboard under ANY enactment, statutory instrument, or Order. The Claimant [C&RT] has NO lawful powers of seizure, statutory or otherwise, of any vessel under ANY enactment, statutory instrument, or Order. What is so very difficult to understand about any of that ? Well, firstly you weren't living on the boat, you were living in a caravan and secondly the Court Order made it perfectly clear that CRT were entitled to remove the boat from the waterways. If you can find someone with the requisite grasp of plain written English - and the obviously endless time and patience that are going to be needed to pass the ability on to you - ask them to look up the words "remove" and "seize" in the OED, or any other reputable Dictionary, . . and get them to explain the differences in meaning and definition to you, . . and to Chewy !
|
|
|
Post by patty on May 27, 2021 16:00:44 GMT
gonna be honest..just dunno where this is all going...
|
|
|
Post by Gone on May 27, 2021 16:20:25 GMT
Well, firstly you weren't living on the boat, you were living in a caravan and secondly the Court Order made it perfectly clear that CRT were entitled to remove the boat from the waterways. If you can find someone with the requisite grasp of plain written English - and the obviously endless time and patience that are going to be needed to pass the ability on to you - ask them to look up the words "remove" and "seize" in the OED, or any other reputable Dictionary, . . and get them to explain the differences in meaning and definition to you, . . and to Chewy ! I know very well the meaning of seize and remove. Your boat was REMOVED, it was not seized. Once you can accept your boat was not seized and was simply removed things should become clear. However as this is simply a matter of opinion, only the court can settle it. Good luck should you ever decide to bring a claim against CRT, but I doubt you can.
|
|
|
Post by Gone on May 27, 2021 16:20:51 GMT
gonna be honest..just dunno where this is all going... Nowhere
|
|
|
Post by TonyDunkley on May 27, 2021 16:56:48 GMT
You're still missing the essential point as well ! The 15 August 2019 (Court)Order goes no further than stating that the Claimant [C&RT] is entitled to act " pursuant to its statutory powers" under S.8 of the 1983 Act. The Claimant [C&RT] has NO lawful powers of eviction, statutory or otherwise, of any boat dweller from the boat they are living aboard under ANY enactment, statutory instrument, or Order. The Claimant [C&RT] has NO lawful powers of seizure, statutory or otherwise, of any vessel under ANY enactment, statutory instrument, or Order. What is so very difficult to understand about any of that ? Well, firstly you weren't living on the boat, you were living in a caravan and secondly the Court Order made it perfectly clear that CRT were entitled to remove the boat from the waterways.. . . pursuant to its statutory powers - which DON'T extend to the authority or power to SEIZE anything !
|
|
|
Post by thebfg on May 27, 2021 17:12:44 GMT
You're still missing the essential point as well ! The 15 August 2019 (Court)Order goes no further than stating that the Claimant [C&RT] is entitled to act " pursuant to its statutory powers" under S.8 of the 1983 Act. The Claimant [C&RT] has NO lawful powers of eviction, statutory or otherwise, of any boat dweller from the boat they are living aboard under ANY enactment, statutory instrument, or Order. The Claimant [C&RT] has NO lawful powers of seizure, statutory or otherwise, of any vessel under ANY enactment, statutory instrument, or Order. What is so very difficult to understand about any of that ? Well, firstly you weren't living on the boat, you were living in a caravan and secondly the Court Order made it perfectly clear that CRT were entitled to remove the boat from the waterways. I think what TD is saying is they didn't s8 it, thus removing it from the waterways. I think he is saying that they in their words, seized the boat using that court order and in doing so unlawfully evicted him. But I maybe wrong.
|
|
|
Post by thebfg on May 27, 2021 17:14:55 GMT
If you can find someone with the requisite grasp of plain written English - and the obviously endless time and patience that are going to be needed to pass the ability on to you - ask them to look up the words "remove" and "seize" in the OED, or any other reputable Dictionary, . . and get them to explain the differences in meaning and definition to you, . . and to Chewy ! I know very well the meaning of seize and remove. Your boat was REMOVED, it was not seized. Once you can accept your boat was not seized and was simply removed things should become clear. However as this is simply a matter of opinion, only the court can settle it. Good luck should you ever decide to bring a claim against CRT, but I doubt you can. I'm not in either camp to be honest but we have read the documents where CRT have clearly said they seized it,
|
|
|
Post by Mr Stabby on May 27, 2021 17:20:09 GMT
Well, firstly you weren't living on the boat, you were living in a caravan and secondly the Court Order made it perfectly clear that CRT were entitled to remove the boat from the waterways.. . . pursuant to its statutory powers - which DON'T extend to the authority or power to SEIZE anything ! This is just pointless arguing over semantics. CRT had the legal right to remove Halcyon Daze from the waterway. You had the legal right to claim it back, and you chose not to. This is the end game now. You have no further legal recourse available to you. If you wish to continue blustering on this forum then that's your right, just don't be surprised if we call it out for what it is.
|
|
|
Post by TonyDunkley on May 27, 2021 18:29:09 GMT
. . . pursuant to its statutory powers - which DON'T extend to the authority or power to SEIZE anything ! This is just pointless arguing over semantics. CRT had the legal right to remove Halcyon Daze from the waterway. You had the legal right to claim it back, and you chose not to. This is the end game now. You have no further legal recourse available to you. If you wish to continue blustering on this forum then that's your right, just don't be surprised if we call it out for what it is. This will obviously come as something of a shock to you, . . but statute and common law are totally dependant on semantics in both application and function. The 'Law' doesn't follow or bend to the whims and notions of some megalomanic tosspot sitting behind a desk in some half-arsed apology for a navigation authority's office in Milton Keynes, . . or muddle-headed twerps on an internet forum. Statute functions and common law evolves and functions on the back of one thing -- SEMANTICS -- so get used to the idea. C&RT is having to !
|
|