Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 11, 2021 11:32:30 GMT
. . . . . . . . . I'm reluctant to take legal advise from someone whose actions have caused the loss of his own boat. Before addressing the queries just raised on the previous page of this thread, it's perhaps worth pointing out, yet again, that "Halcyon Daze" hasn't been 'lost', . . except perhaps in the same sense that anyone can, either temporarily or permanently, 'lose' a car or other possessions by way of having them stolen. There is a world of difference between losing a boat, and title to it, by way of the legitimate exercising of statutory powers entitling a navigation authority to 'remove' an offending vessel that falls into any one of the categories qualifying it for lawful removal specified under some appropriate piece of legislation, . . and having a boat systematically, and technically, stolen by a rogue organization, the Canal & River Trust, committing criminal acts and civil wrongs whilst hiding behind the pretence of acting lawfully under the very statutory powers it is knowingly abusing and exceeding under the directing minds of CEO Richard Parry and Company Secretary Tom Deards. I think it's pretty safe to say you've "lost" your boat, in that it's gone, you won't be getting it back period.
|
|
|
Post by Gone on Jul 11, 2021 11:36:28 GMT
. . . . . . . . . I'm reluctant to take legal advise from someone whose actions have caused the loss of his own boat. Before addressing the queries just raised on the previous page of this thread, it's perhaps worth pointing out, yet again, that "Halcyon Daze" hasn't been 'lost', . . except perhaps in the same sense that anyone can, either temporarily or permanently, 'lose' a car or other possessions by way of having them stolen. There is a world of difference between losing a boat, and title to it, by way of the legitimate exercising of statutory powers entitling a navigation authority to 'remove' an offending vessel that falls into any one of the categories qualifying it for lawful removal specified under some appropriate piece of legislation, . . and having a boat systematically, and technically, stolen by a rogue organization, the Canal & River Trust, committing criminal acts and civil wrongs whilst hiding behind the pretence of acting lawfully under the very statutory powers it is knowingly abusing and exceeding under the directing minds of CEO Richard Parry and Company Secretary Tom Deards. In which case why have you failed to retrieve your boat??
|
|
|
Post by Jim on Jul 11, 2021 12:34:23 GMT
I think it's pretty safe to say you've "lost" your boat, in that it's gone, you won't be getting it back period. As indeed it's pretty safe to say you lost your membership of the ACC through your bullying and general obnoxiousness, and you won't be getting it back ever. RIP ACC. I thought he was the sole remaining member, chair, treasurer, secretary and sticker salesman. Has committee meetings arguing with himself.
|
|
|
Post by Jim on Jul 11, 2021 12:54:52 GMT
I thought he was the sole remaining member, chair, treasurer, secretary and sticker salesman. Has committee meetings arguing with himself. All 4 personalities? Which is which?
|
|
|
Post by TonyDunkley on Jul 11, 2021 13:15:51 GMT
Before addressing the queries just raised on the previous page of this thread, it's perhaps worth pointing out, yet again, that "Halcyon Daze" hasn't been 'lost', . . except perhaps in the same sense that anyone can, either temporarily or permanently, 'lose' a car or other possessions by way of having them stolen. There is a world of difference between losing a boat, and title to it, by way of the legitimate exercising of statutory powers entitling a navigation authority to 'remove' an offending vessel that falls into any one of the categories qualifying it for lawful removal specified under some appropriate piece of legislation, . . and having a boat systematically, and technically, stolen by a rogue organization, the Canal & River Trust, committing criminal acts and civil wrongs whilst hiding behind the pretence of acting lawfully under the very statutory powers it is knowingly abusing and exceeding under the directing minds of CEO Richard Parry and Company Secretary Tom Deards. In which case why have you failed to retrieve your boat?? Your question is missing the words - ". . . or its replacement value", . . and - ". . . yet ? ", . . and the answer to the question is that the process is being conducted in keeping with my agenda and timetable, . . and no-one else's !
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 11, 2021 14:10:59 GMT
In which case why have you failed to retrieve your boat?? Your question is missing the words - ". . . or its replacement value", . . and - ". . . yet ? ", . . and the answer to the question is that the process is being conducted in keeping with my agenda and timetable, . . and no-one else's ! In that case I'll presume you'll be pushing up daisy's, still not having retrieved your *lost* boat. (Which you probably still consider to be a win).
|
|
|
Post by Jim on Jul 11, 2021 15:43:55 GMT
Your question is missing the words - ". . . or its replacement value", . . and - ". . . yet ? ", . . and the answer to the question is that the process is being conducted in keeping with my agenda and timetable, . . and no-one else's ! In that case I'll presume you'll be pushing up daisy's, still not having retrieved your *lost* boat. (Which you probably still consider to be a win). "Pushing up Daisy's"? Pushing what up which bit of Daisy? Might need a little blue pill.
|
|
|
Post by thebfg on Jul 11, 2021 16:42:05 GMT
Not sure Miss Daisy will be happy.
|
|
|
Post by Gone on Jul 11, 2021 20:19:01 GMT
In which case why have you failed to retrieve your boat?? Your question is missing the words - ". . . or its replacement value", . . and - ". . . yet ? ", . . and the answer to the question is that the process is being conducted in keeping with my agenda and timetable, . . and no-one else's ! Probably best I don’t hold my breath waiting for your victory.
|
|
|
Post by Telemachus on Jul 11, 2021 20:31:34 GMT
It's an interesting claim from TD that mooring is part of the PRN. I think it is sort of correct in the sense you would have to be able to stop overnight but I'm reluctant to take legal advise from someone whose actions have caused the loss of his own boat. No, mooring isn’t part of the PRN. I think what TD was saying is that the river authority eg CRT, EA etc, can’t prohibit mooring to private land. Only the landowner has that power.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 11, 2021 20:38:41 GMT
It's an interesting claim from TD that mooring is part of the PRN. I think it is sort of correct in the sense you would have to be able to stop overnight but I'm reluctant to take legal advise from someone whose actions have caused the loss of his own boat. No, mooring isn’t part of the PRN. I think what TD was saying is that the river authority eg CRT, EA etc, can’t prohibit mooring to private land. Only the landowner has that power. I thought that the council in this instance owned the land. If they don't then I got the wrong end of the stick yet again and not sure why they would think they can control moorings on someone else's land.
|
|
|
Post by TonyDunkley on Jul 11, 2021 22:09:39 GMT
[PRN] river, and the fact that even if BaNES Council was the navigation authority it would NOT have the powers or authority to deny or permit the use of the river, including mooring, under any circumstances. As I said earlier, . . nobody lost, and nobody won, . . except for the lawyers who collected their fees ! Are you saying that a riparian owner cannot prevent someone mooring on their land on a prn river? So the council aren't reviewing their decision then and mead Lane moorings have been closed? If no then that is a win of sorts against the original decision to close the moorings, regardless of whether they are entitled to or not. No, . . I'm not saying that a riparian owner can't prevent boats being moored to their land. What I am saying is that the only route open to the Council to control or prevent mooring to or on its land is through an action for trespass against named boat owners, or, . . an action founded in a claim that the use of Mead Lane moorings by certain named pleasure craft and their owners are obstructing others from exercising their rights to the PRN in respect of access to or the use of moorings or similar facilities that the Council has provided specifically for that purpose. The common law PRN, as applicable to tidal and non-tidal navigable rivers, is a powerful weapon in the hands of anyone with the knowledge and resolve to exercise it, . . and for that reason is something that affected landowners or navigation authorities will disregard and suppress if and whenever it threatens their plans and agendas in any way. What is not apparent from the recent media reporting of the Mead Lane moorings saga, but IS apparent from the extensively researched material published on the KandA website over the last eighteen months, is the fact that BaNES Council have been very well aware of the legal position as outlined above since at least as far back as January 2020. Another worrying aspect regarding the Council's shenanigans, is the extent to which the C&RT has been involved, consulted, and believed from the outset. A BaNES Council Report on Mead Lane moorings prepared for a meeting dated 16 January 2020 contains passages expounding C&RT's customary garbage about pleasure craft using the [PRN] river Avon being 'licensed' so to do by way of "continuous cruising" Licences that impose a legal obligation on the licence holders to move location every 14 days despite being moored to or on land NOT owned or controlled by the C&RT.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 11, 2021 22:14:09 GMT
No, . . I'm not saying that a riparian owner can't prevent boats being moored to their land. What I am saying is that the only route open to the Council to control or prevent mooring to or on its land is through an action for trespass against named boat owners, or, . . an action founded in a claim that the use of Mead Lane moorings by certain named pleasure craft and their owners are obstructing others from exercising their rights to the PRN in respect of access to or the use of moorings or similar facilities that the Council has provided specifically for that purpose. So you reckon the council can't apply for a byelaw to control moorings then. I notice you have steered clear of responding to this assertion which I admit is one that I make from a position of limited knowledge. I would say they can IF they own the land and IF they find that they are having problems controlling moorings to that land.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 11, 2021 22:18:35 GMT
|
|
|
Post by TonyDunkley on Jul 11, 2021 22:36:46 GMT
No, . . I'm not saying that a riparian owner can't prevent boats being moored to their land. What I am saying is that the only route open to the Council to control or prevent mooring to or on its land is through an action for trespass against named boat owners, or, . . an action founded in a claim that the use of Mead Lane moorings by certain named pleasure craft and their owners are obstructing others from exercising their rights to the PRN in respect of access to or the use of moorings or similar facilities that the Council has provided specifically for that purpose. So you reckon the council can't apply for a byelaw to control moorings then. I don't doubt that local authorities with PRN rivers within their areas can, and have, sought and acquired byelaw powers to control moorings to or on Council owned or controlled land. But what I do doubt is that the enforcement of such byelaws would stand up to a properly formulated legal challenge.
|
|