|
Post by Mr Stabby on Mar 29, 2024 20:04:51 GMT
Ah ok, I thought maybe you were out on the lash Nah, Although I'm off for the next two weeks now. So I suspect that will happen at some point. We're away the second week so differently will be on it then. Where you going?
|
|
|
Post by thebfg on Mar 29, 2024 20:21:13 GMT
Nothing exciting, big family holiday to Exmouth.
|
|
|
Post by Trina on Mar 29, 2024 21:08:37 GMT
Weather realllllly odd this week.P down at lyneal Wharf Wed' on the Golly getting stuff organised for the season(boating for disabled,vulnerable,poorly folk) Me coffeeing with a lovely lady from there.We sat in my house with hailstones hammering down making the decking & patio white.Meanwhile,at the wharf-not a hailstone,drop of rain or any clouds at all.Spooky !!
|
|
|
Post by Tony Dunkley on Mar 30, 2024 1:34:02 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 - NOT ! The highlighted words in this sentence are at the core of the C&RT con-trick with the 'Court Orders' the C&RT's lawyers lie to and mislead the Courts into making - "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 fact is, that C&RT do NOT have the statutory powers, or any lawful right, to evict boat owners from their boats, or to seize boats from the owners, . . and C&RT's lawyers go to great lengths to hide this fact from the Courts when obtaining the 'Court Order' by means of wilfully deceiving the Courts into believing that they do.
|
|
|
Post by Jim on Mar 30, 2024 6:18:32 GMT
Weather realllllly odd this week.P down at lyneal Wharf Wed' on the Golly getting stuff organised for the season(boating for disabled,vulnerable,poorly folk) Me coffeeing with a lovely lady from there.We sat in my house with hailstones hammering down making the decking & patio white.Meanwhile,at the wharf-not a hailstone,drop of rain or any clouds at all.Spooky !! Do we not know any disabled vulnerable old people who'd appreciate a ride on a boat? I hope your coffe gets better too.
|
|
|
Post by Mr Stabby on Mar 30, 2024 8:21:21 GMT
Nothing exciting, big family holiday to Exmouth. It's a nice part of the world there. Anywhere different for a change of scenery is good imo.
|
|
|
Post by Tony Dunkley on Mar 30, 2024 13:45:48 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 - NOT ! The highlighted words in this sentence are at the core of the C&RT con-trick with the 'Court Orders' the C&RT's lawyers lie to and mislead the Courts into making - "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 fact is, that C&RT do NOT have the statutory powers, or any lawful right, to evict boat owners from their boats, or to seize boats from the owners, . . and C&RT's lawyers go to great lengths to hide this fact from the Courts when obtaining the 'Court Order' by means of wilfully deceiving the Courts into believing that they do.
|
|
|
Post by on Mar 30, 2024 13:48:35 GMT
Nothing exciting, big family holiday to Exmouth. It's a nice part of the world there. Anywhere different for a change of scenery is good imo. we used to have a Dartmoor pony. There were too many of them and they were knocking them out for a pony (£25). This was around 1976. I learned to ride on Nutmeg she was 11/2 quite little but not tiny. Not exmoor but same sort of idea. We had her about 25 yars before selling her to the sausage factory.
|
|
|
Post by fi on Mar 30, 2024 13:55:46 GMT
It's a nice part of the world there. Anywhere different for a change of scenery is good imo. we used to have a Dartmoor pony. There were too many of them and they were knocking them out for a pony (£25). This was around 1976. I learned to ride on Nutmeg she was 11/2 quite little but not tiny. Not exmoor but same sort of idea. We had her about 25 yars before selling her to the sausage factory. Exmouth nearer Dartmoor than Exmoor, just saying...
|
|
|
Post by Tony Dunkley on Mar 30, 2024 14:51:09 GMT
Mar 25, 2024 at 4:31pm broccobanks said:
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.
_______________________________________________________________________________________________
. . and Tony Dunkley replied:
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 - NOT !
The highlighted words in this sentence are at the core of the C&RT con-trick with the 'Court Orders' the C&RT's lawyers lie to and mislead the Courts into making - "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 fact is, that C&RT do NOT have the statutory powers, or any lawful right, to evict boat owners from their boats, or to seize boats from the owners, . . and C&RT's lawyers go to great lengths to hide this fact from the Courts when obtaining the 'Court Order' by means of wilfully deceiving the Courts into believing that they do.
|
|
|
Post by Jim on Mar 30, 2024 15:00:21 GMT
we used to have a Dartmoor pony. There were too many of them and they were knocking them out for a pony (£25). This was around 1976. I learned to ride on Nutmeg she was 11/2 quite little but not tiny. Not exmoor but same sort of idea. We had her about 25 yars before selling her to the sausage factory. Exmouth nearer Dartmoor than Exmoor, just saying... Is Dartmouth nearer Exmoor too?
|
|
|
Post by Tony Dunkley on Mar 30, 2024 17:24:24 GMT
Mar 25, 2024 at 4:31pm broccobanks said: 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. __________________________________________________________________________________________. . and Tony Dunkley replied: 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 - NOT ! The highlighted words in this sentence are at the core of the C&RT con-trick with the 'Court Orders' the C&RT's lawyers lie to and mislead the Courts into making - "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 fact is, that C&RT do NOT have the statutory powers, or any lawful right, to evict boat owners from their boats, or to seize boats from the owners, . . and C&RT's lawyers go to great lengths to hide this fact from the Courts when obtaining the 'Court Order' by means of wilfully deceiving the Courts into believing that they do. By way of illustrating the length of time for which this deception has been going on, . . this extract is from a BBC News Magazine dated 15 April 2016 :- "The Canal and Rivers Trust is currently carrying out enforcement proceedings against 45 boat owners who have been refused further licences because of repeated failures to travel sufficiently. According to CRT, it is currently instructing solicitors to seek court orders to seize the boats in 15 cases. Two canal boats have already been removed from the water and destroyed."Court Orders to 'seize' boats -- will the NBTA, and their Solicitors, the Community Law Partnership, ever wake-up to how C&RT is conning them, . . and the Courts, . . and the Police, . . and almost the whole of the pleasure boat owning public ?
|
|
|
Post by Jim on Mar 30, 2024 17:51:57 GMT
Shall I read it, will it be anything new? Nah, doubt it. Ignore.
|
|
|
Post by Aloysius on Mar 30, 2024 18:06:38 GMT
Shall I read it, will it be anything new? Nah, doubt it. Ignore. OK I will totally ignore your post 😀
|
|
|
Post by Tony Dunkley on Mar 30, 2024 18:12:16 GMT
Mar 25, 2024 at 4:31pm broccobanks said: 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. __________________________________________________________________________________________. . and Tony Dunkley replied: 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 - NOT ! The highlighted words in this sentence are at the core of the C&RT con-trick with the 'Court Orders' the C&RT's lawyers lie to and mislead the Courts into making - "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 fact is, that C&RT do NOT have the statutory powers, or any lawful right, to evict boat owners from their boats, or to seize boats from the owners, . . and C&RT's lawyers go to great lengths to hide this fact from the Courts when obtaining the 'Court Order' by means of wilfully deceiving the Courts into believing that they do. By way of illustrating the length of time for which this deception has been going on, . . this extract is from a BBC News Magazine dated 15 April 2016 :- "The Canal and Rivers Trust is currently carrying out enforcement proceedings against 45 boat owners who have been refused further licences because of repeated failures to travel sufficiently. According to CRT, it is currently instructing solicitors to seek court orders to seize the boats in 15 cases. Two canal boats have already been removed from the water and destroyed."
Court Orders to ' seize' boats, . . how blatant do C&RT's crooked lawyers have to get in their lying to and misleading of the Courts ? Will the NBTA, and their Solicitors, the Community Law Partnership, ever wake-up to how C&RT is conning them, . . and the Courts, . . and the Police, . . and almost the whole of the pleasure boat owning public ? Prior to the passing into Law of the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007 [TCE Act 2007], the 'seizing' of goods, property and possessions was very loosely regulated business, . . and open to much abuse and unlawful acts of seizure. The TCE Act 2007, which, importantly post dates the British Waterways Act 1983, change all that, and much for the better. The C&RT, however, regards itself as exempt from and above the restrictions and protections that this Act brought to the owners and possessors of boats, and of any goods, property and belongings associated with or kept on board those boats. ______________________________________________________________________________________________ Bumped up, . . due to continuing uncalled for responses from Jim. This last response comes after a prolonged period of uncalled for responses amounting to internet stalking (on this forum) by Jim, and others, in collusion with Vince ' Mr Stabby' Coventon - a malicious psychopath with a long recorded history of internet stalking that has recently included publishing confidential personal information, on the internet, calculated to compromise other individual's privacy and safety. www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1997/40/contents
|
|