|
Post by Jim on Mar 25, 2024 9:29:07 GMT
Can snapping terrapins be as old as tortoises? I think when they are really old they have great trouble winding their necks in.
|
|
|
Post by on Mar 25, 2024 9:32:19 GMT
Apparently during the attack in Russia people were aggressively catapulting small Testudines at concert goers
They were terrorpins.
|
|
|
Post by kris on Mar 25, 2024 11:25:20 GMT
Apparently during the attack in Russia people were aggressively catapulting small Testudines at concert goers They were terrorpins. Those pesky terrapins, it’s all their fault.
|
|
|
Post by Tony Dunkley on Mar 25, 2024 14:03:22 GMT
I'm sure you won't mind, Nick, . . but I'm moving this post of yours to the - The C&RT Section 8 Notice - topic/thread. As you can see, idiot kris has been playing about with thread titles again, . . and I'm not going to post anything more under what it's been changed to now. ______________________________________________________ Mar 18, 2024 23:27:24 GMT Telemachus said: Tony, wrong on a few counts, correct on a few counts. Your attempt to use the absence of the word “from” the legislation to disempower section 8 from having any purpose with regard to boats moored without lawful authority, doesn’t work. It fails a common sense test. Although ultimately it would be up to a court to decide of course. And they have decided!
You are correct that seizing an asset by way securing a debt, is a civil matter. However that is not what is actually happening when CRT remove a boat. It is a matter governed by statute. I’m pretty sure that makes it a criminal matter, but anyway it is most certainly not a civil matter. In your case the police were called because you assaulted someone. I would agree that some of the wording on CRT’s paperwork is designed to scare, but it is not factually incorrect. Failing to comply with a court order could results in the issues stated but it would of course not be up to CRT, rather it would be up to the court to decide future actions and penalties. __________________________________________________________________________________________________ The inclusion or omission of the word - "from" - in any phrase or sentence can make a significant difference to the overall meaning of the wording of a phrase or sentence, . . or a clause in the wording of an Act of Parliament. In this instance the omission of 'from' from Section 8(2) of the British Waterways Act 1983 [the Act] and its inclusion in Section 9(1) of the Act is crucial to the meaning of and the intentions behind each of these two sections of the Act. There is not, and never has been, any attempt on my part to - quote - "disempower section 8 from having any purpose with regard to boats moored without lawful authority". Nor has this specific point ever been raised or argued before any Court, . . it is, therefore, NOT true to say that it is something the Courts have already ruled on. All I've ever sought to do is to firstly force C&RT to cease wilfully lying to and misleading the Courts with regard to the statutory powers it actually does have under Section 8(2) of the Act, . . and secondly, to cease the unlawful 'seizing' of , and the unlawful eviction of owners from 'relevant craft' as defined under Section 8(1) of the Act. Statutory powers to remove "objects" (defined under Section 9(1) of the Act as "anything other than a vessel) "from" any "inland waterway or reservoir" are restricted to only the "objects" so defined in Section 9(1) of the Act . There are NOT, and were never intended to be, any statutory powers to remove "relevant craft" or "vessels" FROM any "inland waterway or reservoir". ____________________________________________________________ The above post, and others similarly affected, will be reposted for as many times as is necessary for it to be seen and replied to by anyone with sufficient intelligence to read and understand it. The orchestrated stalking indulged in by a small clique of malevolent forum trolls will not be allowed to prevent my conducting conversations with other forum members, by swamping and obscuring every post I make with their irrelevant pointless drivel. These mindless idiots are also reminded, . . once again, . . of this :- www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1997/40/contents
|
|
|
Post by broccobanks on Mar 25, 2024 16:31:39 GMT
In S8 the word "remove" has a natural meaning which needs no further qualification - it can mean remove to a place of CRT choosing... it can mean remove from here to there... it can mean remove as in take off... what it does not mean is as you suggest "move", a word which has an entirely different natural meaning. The word "seize" is also a word you choose to use. S8 gives CRT statutory powers which they are entitled to exercise without court order ... but CRT secure an affirmatory court order where they believe the boat is a liveaboard. As the court order simply reinforces a statutory power, no writ of control (enforcement by a court bailiff) is necessary, so CRT can use whomsoever they choose to enforce their statutory rights.
|
|
|
Post by Tony Dunkley on Mar 26, 2024 0:04:55 GMT
In S8 the word "remove" has a natural meaning which needs no further qualification - it can mean remove to a place of CRT choosing... it can mean remove from here to there... it can mean remove as in take off... what it does not mean is as you suggest "move", a word which has an entirely different natural meaning. The word "seize" is also a word you choose to use. S8 gives CRT statutory powers which they are entitled to exercise without court order ... but CRT secure an affirmatory court order where they believe the boat is a liveaboard. As the court order simply reinforces a statutory power, no writ of control (enforcement by a court bailiff) is necessary, so CRT can use whomsoever they choose to enforce their statutory rights. You say that - "In S8 the word "remove" has a natural meaning which needs no further qualification - ", . . I say that I couldn't agree more. The senior British Waterways Board staff - most of whom I knew well - thought the same whilst drafting the Bill (that then became the Act of 1983), . . and so did both Houses (of Parliament), from the first to the last reading of the Bill. The Oxford Dictionary meaning for the verb - 'remove'- is to take somebody/something away from a place, . . that's 'place', . . as in 'place', . NOT 'place', . . as in 'inland waterway'. The removal of 'anything' FROM an 'inland waterway' is confined to 'objects' - defined as 'anything (other than a vessel)' in Section 9(1) of the 1983 Act. The act of removing boats, 'relevant craft', or 'vessels' FROM an 'inland waterway' DOES NOT get a mention, anywhere, in any enactment, and therefore CANNOT be, and is NOT included in or authorised by Section 8(2) of the 1983 Act -- the definitive section of the 1983 Act that specifies and sets limits on any and all statutory powers of boat removal under the 1983 Act. When it becomes apparent that this particular item of C&RT promoted confusion and muddle, about mythical non-existent statutory imaginary powers of boat removal ' from' inland waterways, has finally been seen for the ill-intentioned tripe it actually is, and disposed of once and for all, . . we'll then turn our attention to the other popular C&RT promoted fairy tales and misconceptions included in your post.
|
|
|
Post by broccobanks on Mar 26, 2024 8:25:10 GMT
Your boat, and hundreds of others, have been removed after court orders were granted, with many different solicitors and judges in different courts all content with the natural meaning of the word "Remove". Your "but whataboutery" now extends to a new word "place".
I won't engage further ... it is a worthless exercise when reduced to pedantry and semantics... but by all means you carry on Tony.
|
|
|
Post by Tony Dunkley on Mar 26, 2024 12:20:03 GMT
I'm sure you won't mind, Nick, . . but I'm moving this post of yours to the - The C&RT Section 8 Notice - topic/thread. As you can see, idiot kris has been playing about with thread titles again, . . and I'm not going to post anything more under what it's been changed to now. ______________________________________________________ Mar 18, 2024 23:27:24 GMT Telemachus said: Tony, wrong on a few counts, correct on a few counts. Your attempt to use the absence of the word “from” the legislation to disempower section 8 from having any purpose with regard to boats moored without lawful authority, doesn’t work. It fails a common sense test. Although ultimately it would be up to a court to decide of course. And they have decided! You are correct that seizing an asset by way securing a debt, is a civil matter. However that is not what is actually happening when CRT remove a boat. It is a matter governed by statute. I’m pretty sure that makes it a criminal matter, but anyway it is most certainly not a civil matter. In your case the police were called because you assaulted someone. I would agree that some of the wording on CRT’s paperwork is designed to scare, but it is not factually incorrect. Failing to comply with a court order could results in the issues stated but it would of course not be up to CRT, rather it would be up to the court to decide future actions and penalties. _________________________________________________________________________________________________________ The inclusion or omission of the word - "from" - in any phrase or sentence can make a significant difference to the overall meaning of the wording of a phrase or sentence, . . or a clause in the wording of an Act of Parliament. In this instance the omission of 'from' from Section 8(2) of the British Waterways Act 1983 [the Act] and its inclusion in Section 9(1) of the Act is crucial to the meaning of and the intentions behind each of these two sections of the Act. There is not, and never has been, any attempt on my part to - quote - "disempower section 8 from having any purpose with regard to boats moored without lawful authority". Nor has this specific point ever been raised or argued before any Court, . . it is, therefore, NOT true to say that it is something the Courts have already ruled on. All I've ever sought to do is to firstly force C&RT to cease wilfully lying to and misleading the Courts with regard to the statutory powers it actually does have under Section 8(2) of the Act, . . and secondly, to cease the unlawful 'seizing' of , and the unlawful eviction of owners from 'relevant craft' as defined under Section 8(1) of the Act. Statutory powers to remove "objects" (defined under Section 9(1) of the Act as "anything other than a vessel) "from" any "inland waterway or reservoir" are restricted to only the "objects" so defined in Section 9(1) of the Act . There are NOT, and were never intended to be, any statutory powers to remove "relevant craft" or "vessels" FROM any "inland waterway or reservoir". __________________________________________________________ The above post, and others similarly affected, will be reposted for as many times as is necessary for it to be seen and replied to by anyone with sufficient intelligence to read and understand it. The orchestrated stalking indulged in by a small clique of malevolent forum trolls will not be allowed to prevent my conducting conversations with other forum members, by swamping and obscuring every post I make with their irrelevant pointless drivel. These mindless idiots are also reminded, . . once again, . . of this :- www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1997/40/contents
|
|
|
Post by Tony Dunkley on Mar 26, 2024 20:44:30 GMT
Your boat, and hundreds of others, have been removed after court orders were granted, with many different solicitors and judges in different courts all content with the natural meaning of the word "Remove". Your "but whataboutery" now extends to a new word "place". I won't engage further ... it is a worthless exercise when reduced to pedantry and semantics... but by all means you carry on Tony. For those not already aware, broccobanks is a C&RT stooge. The above post is nothing more than plain nonsense mixed with simple parrotting of some of the standard spiel that C&RT's crooked management and bent lawyers have had so much success with in convincing the gullible and thick that the Trust's unlawful boat seizures and removals from C&RT managed/controlled waters are all perfectly correct and lawful.
|
|
|
Post by broccobanks on Mar 26, 2024 21:03:42 GMT
For the record, I have no and have never had any connection whatsoever with C&RT. My only connection with BW was having a brother who was a lengthsman on the Chesterfield, based at Stockwith. I do know how the law and courts work, and it is nothing like how you describe.
|
|
|
Post by on Mar 26, 2024 21:05:56 GMT
Tony is an ultracrepidarian.
Most of us know this and ignore him these days.
|
|
|
Post by on Mar 26, 2024 21:07:28 GMT
I believe he is also a slubberdegullion and a landlubber.
All rather shocking !
|
|
|
Post by Aloysius on Mar 26, 2024 21:11:10 GMT
For the record, I have no and have never had any connection whatsoever with C&RT. My only connection with BW was having a brother who was a lengthsman on the Chesterfield, based at Stockwith. I do know how the law and courts work, and it is nothing like how you describe. Where you're going wrong there is stating facts and describing reality. No place for that rubbish on this thread.
|
|
|
Post by on Mar 26, 2024 21:11:47 GMT
Possibly also a shite-a-bed scoundrel!
|
|
|
Post by Mr Stabby on Mar 26, 2024 21:30:54 GMT
For the record, I have no and have never had any connection whatsoever with C&RT. My only connection with BW was having a brother who was a lengthsman on the Chesterfield, based at Stockwith. I do know how the law and courts work, and it is nothing like how you describe. Where you're going wrong there is stating facts and describing reality. No place for that rubbish on this thread. Tony is clearly in the advanced stages of senile dementia now. Broccobanks is not the first person he has accused of being a "CRT stooge" simply because he has a correct and accurate understanding of the Law. You'd think the fact that absolutely nobody agrees with Tony's interpretation of it might be a bit of a hint here.
|
|