|
Post by Mr Stabby on Mar 24, 2023 21:25:51 GMT
Interestingly, "The Law" is an anagram of "Wealth".
|
|
|
Post by Tony Dunkley on Mar 24, 2023 21:27:48 GMT
What I am doing is drawing attention to the wording of Sections 8 and 9 of the 1983 Act, . . Can you please quote the part of SECTION 8 which mentions removal from a location. Irrelevant, . . S.8 specifies "remove" (for 'relevant craft') and S.9 specifies "remove from" for ' objects' that are 'anything (other than a vessel)'. Look in any Dictionary, including the OED, and the primary meaning for the word 'remove' is given as - take (something) away or off from a place -- ie. the position occupied.
|
|
|
Post by on Mar 24, 2023 21:28:19 GMT
Yes I imagine if Tony had been a wealthy gent perhaps with a Sir title rather than a disgruntled retired boat skipper he would have been treated with more respect by the powers that be.
|
|
|
Post by on Mar 24, 2023 21:31:13 GMT
Can you please quote the part of SECTION 8 which mentions removal from a location. Irrelevant, . . S.8 specifies "remove" (for 'relevant craft') and S.9 specifies "remove from" for ' objects' that are 'anything (other than a vessel)'. Look in any Dictionary, including the OED, and the primary meaning for the word 'remove' is given as - take (something) away or off from the position occupied.So if I remove a toy duck from a bath does it remain in the bath? I think the clue here is that the position occupied by the boat is "in water" and by "removing" it the position is altered to being "out of the water". Any reasonable person will automatically add the words "from the canal". I understand what you are getting at but you clearly have no idea about how these things are interpreted. If the intention was to allow the Board to relocate the boat on the water the word used would be "move" or maybe "move to a dock or similar place where the vessel can be impounded". This option would of course involve the Board risking illegal intrusion and/or deliberate sinking of the vessel by bad actors. Surely you can figure out why this would be an undesirable outcome. Given that vessels which are removed under S8 will often, by definition, be of low grade and in poor condition it is obvious that storage on land will be preferable to storage on water. It isn't rocket science to work this out.
|
|
|
Post by fi on Mar 24, 2023 21:45:35 GMT
I've got a feeling that the at least one of the boats might not be happily moved (to wherever) - will be interesting to see what happens.
|
|
|
Post by Tony Dunkley on Mar 24, 2023 21:50:24 GMT
Irrelevant, . . S.8 specifies "remove" (for 'relevant craft') and S.9 specifies "remove from" for ' objects' that are 'anything (other than a vessel)'. Look in any Dictionary, including the OED, and the primary meaning for the word 'remove' is given as - take (something) away or off from the position occupied.So if I remove a toy duck from a bath does it remain in the bath? I think the clue here is that the position occupied by the boat is "in water" and by "removing" it the position is altered to being "out of the water". More rubbish ! Why do you think that C&RT's devious lawyers invariably leave Section 9 out of the copy extract from the 1983 Act that's included in the Judge's bundle/Court papers, whilst at the same time deliberately misquoting the wording of Section 8 - by inserting the word 'from' - in the draft Order that's included with the Claim Form/PoC, and is also in the Judge's bundle ?
|
|
|
Post by Aloysius on Mar 25, 2023 5:23:28 GMT
I've got a feeling that the at least one of the boats might not be happily moved (to wherever) - will be interesting to see what happens. Indeed. The wooden wreck is coming out of the water in pieces with a hiab.
|
|
|
Post by Aloysius on Mar 25, 2023 5:39:43 GMT
Sec 9 "Remove from" seems quite explanatory in case anyone was unsure. Yes,, . . it is 'quite explanatory', . . and so is the Section subtitle that says "Removal of Objects", . . and so is the wording in S.9(1) that says " . . . . . . anything ( other than a vessel). Object "An object is anything that has a fixed shape or form, that you can touch or see, and that is not alive." Do you think a boat is excluded from this definition? It does not explicitly state that a 'vessel' (or boat) is excluded from the definition, as you assert. And that's all it is - an assertion, and a rather flimsy one.
|
|
|
Post by on Mar 25, 2023 7:14:15 GMT
So if I remove a toy duck from a bath does it remain in the bath? I think the clue here is that the position occupied by the boat is "in water" and by "removing" it the position is altered to being "out of the water". More rubbish ! Why do you think that C&RT's devious lawyers invariably leave Section 9 out of the copy extract from the 1983 Act that's included in the Judge's bundle/Court papers, whilst at the same time deliberately misquoting the wording of Section 8 - by inserting the word 'from' - in the draft Order that's included with the Claim Form/PoC, and is also in the Judge's bundle ? Evidence please. Do you think a Judge would not have a look at the wording of the Act themselves? I would have thought this was part of their job. If not then they are wide open to being misled by everyone and anyone.. Provide proof that the CRT are misquoting S8, or SHUT UP. If they are adding the word "from" then there must be another word after that or it would be a non sequitur.
|
|
|
Post by Tony Dunkley on Mar 25, 2023 7:20:47 GMT
If, within six weeks of its removal... any relevant craft cannot be proved... to belong to any claimant... it shall... vest in the Board. vest in sb/sth phrasal verb with vest verb [ I or T ] UK /vest/ US LAW if property, shares, etc. vest in someone, they legally become theirs: You may not have noticed yet, . . but you've now been outdone twice in the competition to post the worst thought out counter argument to the documented and 'on record' evidence of C&RT's misuse and abuse of its Section 8 powers of boat removal under the British Waterways Act 1983. Edit to add :- Three times now, . . another one whilst I was typing this !
|
|
|
Post by Mr Stabby on Mar 25, 2023 7:26:17 GMT
The British Waterways Act 1983 is totally unambiguous. The Authority may remove from the waterways a boat which is unlawfully moored and recover the costs involved from the owner. After six weeks, if the owner has not claimed it and paid these costs it becomes the property of the Authority who may dispose of it as they see fit to recoup these costs. There is only one person in the whole scenario who cannot understand this.
|
|
|
Post by on Mar 25, 2023 7:37:55 GMT
There is also only one person in this scenario who has found out that it actually happens.
It is a bit of a QED situation which in some ways, while being slightly sad, is quite amusing.
Hobbies are good.
|
|
|
Post by on Mar 25, 2023 7:46:17 GMT
If, within six weeks of its removal... any relevant craft cannot be proved... to belong to any claimant... it shall... vest in the Board. vest in sb/sth phrasal verb with vest verb [ I or T ] UK /vest/ US LAW if property, shares, etc. vest in someone, they legally become theirs: You may not have noticed yet, . . but you've now been outdone twice in the competition to post the worst thought out counter argument to the documented and 'on record' evidence of C&RT's misuse and abuse of its Section 8 powers of boat removal under the British Waterways Act 1983. Edit to add :- Three times now, . . another one whilst I was typing this ! Do you think a Judge would not have a look at the wording of the Act themselves? Do you know about "interpretation"? I would tend to go with the interpretation of a legal professional with a silly wig than a random nut on an internet forum ! "What is the term of interpretation of the law? Interpretation in law is a rational process by which we understand a text. Through interpretation, we come to know the normative message of a text. It is a process that “extracts” the legal meaning of the text from its semantic." assets.press.princeton.edu/chapters/s7991.pdf&ved=2ahUKEwjc5pTYyvb9AhXqQUEAHXvkC3kQFnoECAoQBg&usg=AOvVaw3qg-eQQEhGYV-0rJvHlovMOf course those kids at Princeton know nothing compared with a disgruntled ex commercial boat skipper from somewhere in the East Midlands.
|
|
|
Post by Mr Stabby on Mar 25, 2023 8:04:05 GMT
Please allow me to explain.
You are wrong and stupid. I am wrong and stupid. All of the lawyers involved, including Tony's are wrong and stupid. CRT are wrong and stupid, the Judge is wrong and stupid, the Police are wrong and stupid and Tony is right.
Hope this helps.
|
|
|
Post by Tony Dunkley on Mar 25, 2023 8:13:51 GMT
More rubbish ! Why do you think that C&RT's devious lawyers invariably leave Section 9 out of the copy extract from the 1983 Act that's included in the Judge's bundle/Court papers, whilst at the same time deliberately misquoting the wording of Section 8 - by inserting the word 'from' - in the draft Order that's included with the Claim Form/PoC, and is also in the Judge's bundle ? Evidence please. Do you think a Judge would not have a look at the wording of the Act themselves? I would have thought this was part of their job. If not then they are wide open to being misled by everyone and anyone.. Provide proof that the CRT are misquoting S8, or SHUT UP. If they are adding the word "from" then there must be another word after that or it would be a non sequitur. Look at the page on the C&RT website that lists the most recent instances of C&RT's shyster lawyers deliberately/intentionally misleading the Courts as to the extent of its Section 8 powers of boat 'removal'. Look at paragraph 1) - the Declaration - of every single one of those Court Orders Look at the wording of paragraph 1) . . . "entitled to remove [the Defendant's boat] . . FROM the canals and rivers . . . PURSUANT to its statutory powers under Section 8 of the British Waterways Act 1983 . . etc . . etc." If you want to know how many Courts/Judges have been intentionally misled and lied to by C&RT's lawyers, . . count them up for yourself. < canalrivertrust.org.uk/the-publication-scheme/governance/legal-documents/court-action-to-remove-boats-from-our-waterways >
|
|