|
Post by Tony Dunkley on Mar 27, 2024 22:59:40 GMT
Very wet today here,we had loads of hail showers !!! Probably something to do with your sour face. Try a bag over your head next time you go out anywhere, . . and post all your vacuous small talk in a more appropriately titled thread -- this one's about C&RT's habitual abuse and misuse of its Section 8 powers, . . and its wilful misleading of and lying to the Courts, simply to obtain Court Orders with which to intimidate boat owners, and fool the Police. Court Orders that are in truth and reality, worthless and legally unenforceable from the moment they're made.
|
|
|
Post by dyertribe on Mar 27, 2024 23:21:23 GMT
Hail was very localised here, the next village over got it but we had sun and torrential rail alternating all day. After our trip to the surgery we stayed in all day
|
|
|
Post by thebfg on Mar 28, 2024 7:11:47 GMT
We had the hail overnight. It was really loud on the warehouse roof. Blue skies now.
|
|
|
Post by dyertribe on Mar 28, 2024 8:34:56 GMT
We had a smattering of snow!
|
|
|
Post by Jim on Mar 28, 2024 9:24:55 GMT
Had a brickie working on our house yesterday replacing spalled brick, he'd done a few then we had a downpour so he clocked off. Rain washed out some of the fresh cement. Once the rain stopped I brushed the surface clean and raked back the cement a little so it can be pointed properly. He's back on the job again today. Meanwhile a trip to the docs for me, abcess on my leg, need to check it's healing, already had a course of antibiotics.
|
|
|
Post by Tony Dunkley on Mar 28, 2024 15:13:42 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 Jim on Mar 28, 2024 17:03:19 GMT
Heavy shower now, hope it doesn't wash the cement out! That would be pointless pointing. Somewhat akin to pointless posting.
Popped in to the quacks, apparently it's a multi headed beast! More antibiotics.
|
|
|
Post by Aloysius on Mar 28, 2024 17:27:48 GMT
Nowt but grey sky 🥺
|
|
|
Post by dogless on Mar 28, 2024 17:33:13 GMT
It's a bit grim but looks like a pleasant weekend.
We're going home for a spell for a wedding ... may have to go a bit early because more rail strikes start on Thursday and don't really wish to get caught up in that.
Probably home Wednesday in that case for nine days.
On return we head to London innit 👍🏻
Rog
|
|
|
Post by Mr Stabby on Mar 28, 2024 19:26:28 GMT
I've never known such a wet and rainy start to the year. When will it ever end? I'm hoping for at least one dry spell over the weekend so I can fit the 12v socket and an on/off switch to the Vespa.
|
|
|
Post by on Mar 28, 2024 19:32:57 GMT
Climate change innit.
A couple of yars ago everyone was moaning about it being too hot in the summer. Toads were melting. Beer was terribly hard to keep cool and it was all a bit of a nightmare. I even had to buy a compressor cool box for the Beer.
Very shocking.
And now we have silly amounts of rain.
I reckon its all fucked and the only valid solution is to go out on a Boat somewhere and throw caution to the wind.
All this shit can't last forever so probably best to just get on with it as one can not buy it.
|
|
|
Post by Mr Stabby on Mar 28, 2024 19:38:15 GMT
Well, it's more that people experience short term weather trends and imagine, wrongly, that these are part of a long term trend. When I was a teenager we had a couple of back-to-back cold Winters in succession and everybody said we were "entering a new Ice Age".
|
|
|
Post by Aloysius on Mar 28, 2024 19:45:59 GMT
El Nino innit apparently
|
|
|
Post by Tony Dunkley on Mar 29, 2024 1:26:50 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, 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 the 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 29, 2024 2:29:04 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. The wording of that last sentence in the post above is rather interesting, . . I've seen it before, . . but the author of the post, broccobanks, claims to have no connection whatsoever to the C&RT, the organization that employs the people from whom I first heard exactly the same wording, . . used with the same dishonest intent, and the same devious objectives in mind. What a remarkable coincidence !
|
|