|
Post by kris on Mar 26, 2024 22:56:40 GMT
|
|
|
Post by on Mar 27, 2024 8:57:25 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Tony Dunkley on Mar 27, 2024 8:59:51 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. Alright then, . . demonstrate the extent of your claimed knowledge of Court procedure by way of a brief commentary on what, precisely, it is that C&RT make Applications (if that is in fact what they are) to the Court for, in respect of 28 day time expired Section 8 Notices. Explain how, . . for how long, . . and the extent to which the Courts examine and test the truthfulness and substance of the evidence supporting C&RT's Applications (if that is in fact what they are), . . the type of Orders made on the strength of that supporting evidence, . . what the Orders consist of and cover, which parts of them are enforceable, and by whom, . . and how the Court arrives at (decides on) the wording it puts into the Orders, . . and into the recitals to the Orders. Following that, you can also direct me to where on this forum, or anywhere else, you imagine that I've ever published any sort of description of how, in your words, - "Courts work". I've never published anything describing how Courts work, . . but I have, on numerous occasions, described in some detail the dishonest means by which C&RT's shyster lawyers routinely set about wilfully misleading the Courts into making void ab initio Orders that, in effect, purport to extend C&RT's statutory powers way beyond anything that Parliament ever conferred on its predecessors, the British Waterways Board.
|
|
|
Post by kris on Mar 27, 2024 9:32:16 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Jim on Mar 27, 2024 10:44:07 GMT
Don't feed the troll, it might only be a few crumbs on one thread but any engagement is sustenance to a troll.
|
|
|
Post by broccobanks on Mar 27, 2024 14:09:31 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. Alright then, . . demonstrate the extent of your claimed knowledge of Court procedure .... Explain how, . . Following that, you can also direct me to .... ________________________________________________________ Rather than giving out orders, try submitting honestly and humbly to the numerous court and bankruptcy orders made against you?
|
|
|
Post by Tony Dunkley on Mar 27, 2024 17:13:39 GMT
Alright then, . . demonstrate the extent of your claimed knowledge of Court procedure .... Explain how, . . Following that, you can also direct me to .... ________________________________________________________ Rather than giving out orders, try submitting honestly and humbly to the numerous court and bankruptcy orders made against you?
So much for your claimed knowledge of - "how Courts work". The best you can do is a piss-poor show of trying to wriggle out of having to explain something that you clearly know nothing about, . . with another characteristic helping of more unattestable tripe thrown in for good measure. Note: broccobanks can't be quoted properly because of the balls up he's made of posting his laughable reply.
|
|
|
Post by Clinton Cool on Mar 27, 2024 17:30:29 GMT
Regarding the earlier suggestion: I have the intelligence to read the various comments, but not to understand them. It's probably best then that I don't comment further.
|
|
|
Post by Mr Stabby on Mar 27, 2024 17:59:19 GMT
Given that there's only one person left on this forum who is prepared to engage with Tony or respond to his posts in any way, you'd think he would make a bit more of an effort not to alienate him.
|
|
|
Post by kris on Mar 27, 2024 18:21:26 GMT
But he’s a crt stooge
|
|
|
Post by on Mar 27, 2024 18:26:38 GMT
I am a CRT stooge until next Sunday then I am going to take them to the fucking cleaners. Bignose.
|
|
|
Post by kris on Mar 27, 2024 18:33:34 GMT
I always knew you are an agent provocateur.
|
|
|
Post by Tony Dunkley on Mar 27, 2024 20:29:31 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. _____________________________________________________________________________________________________ My reply :- 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 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 the small clique of moronic 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 Trina on Mar 27, 2024 20:50:17 GMT
Very wet today here,we had loads of hail showers !!!
|
|
|
Post by dogless on Mar 27, 2024 21:04:23 GMT
Incredibly we went to Stratford by train and managed to miss every shower 👍🏻
Rog
|
|