|
|
Post by Aloysius on Apr 10, 2023 5:54:58 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by kris on Apr 10, 2023 6:21:36 GMT
You must like interacting with Tony?
|
|
|
|
Post by Aloysius on Apr 10, 2023 6:28:46 GMT
I'm considering the merits of a new hobby 😜
|
|
|
|
Post by kris on Apr 10, 2023 7:18:27 GMT
Watching paint dry is very much underrated.
|
|
|
|
Post by Tony Dunkley on Apr 10, 2023 7:31:16 GMT
In the unlikely event of your having a genuine interest in reaching a full and accurate understanding of the statutory powers of or associated with boat 'removal' as opposed to boat 'removal from' canals, scheduled river waterways, or reservoirs for the time being under the control of C&RT Ltd., you will have to include Section 7 - subtitled "Control of Unsafe Vessels" - of the 1983 Act, . . and read it in conjunction with Sections 8 and 9, . . and the 1976 Licensing Byelaws, . . and Section 5 of the 1983 Act, . . and Sections 17 and 18 of the 1995 Act. |
|
|
|
Post by Aloysius on Apr 10, 2023 7:50:19 GMT
In the unlikely event of your having a genuine interest in reaching a full and accurate understanding of the statutory powers of or associated with boat 'removal' as opposed to boat 'removal from' canals, scheduled river waterways, or reservoirs for the time being under the control of C&RT Ltd., you will have to include Section 7 - subtitled "Control of Unsafe Vessels" - of the 1983 Act, . . and read it in conjunction with Sections 8 and 9, . . and the 1976 Licensing Byelaws, . . and Section 5 of the 1983 Act, . . and Sections 17 and 18 of the 1995 Act. I sincerely hope I never reach your understanding of said statutory powers. But you go on all the time about section 8, which in conjunction with section 9, gives a clear and unambiguous statement of the powers that CRT have inherited. So why, when faced with this evidence, do you fail to see why it is that your boat was removed from the canal and subsequently sold? However I will add Section 7 when I have a moment to spare. ETA re s.7 I can see where you want to go with that. How outrageous! I suggest you seek legal counsel. |
|
|
|
Post by thebfg on Apr 10, 2023 8:17:35 GMT
If it was that simple, someone would have gone through the appeal court and won.
|
|
|
|
Post by ‎ on Apr 10, 2023 9:04:08 GMT
Its the duck and bucket story.
I have a duck in the bucket and am going to remove it.
Once removed the duck will no longer be in the bucket.
QED.
Boat=duck. Canal=bucket.
IF the intention was to simply move the duck to a different position I would be "moving" it not "removing" it.
If a boat is illegally on a waterway due to not being licensed or registered then how would the navigation authority be able to allow it to remain there?
I don't get this bit. This suggests they can over-rule their own requirement for a licence by keeping an illegal vessel on the water. This doesn't make sense. The only logical remedy for a boat which is not legally allowed to be on the water is for it to be removed from the water.
What else could removal mean? Removal to someone else's waterway? Removal to a privately owned arm or marina?
|
|
|
|
Post by Aloysius on Apr 10, 2023 9:19:12 GMT
I suggest you think about something other than ducks in buckets. And stop being mean to ducks.
|
|
|
|
Post by Aloysius on Apr 10, 2023 9:24:53 GMT
If it was that simple, someone would have gone through the appeal court and won. Maybe it's because anyone with pockets deep enough for such a venture has a boat which is far too large for any UK canal (except maybe the Caledonian Canal) and therefore sensibly sticks to the French Riviera. |
|
|
|
Post by ‎ on Apr 10, 2023 9:51:50 GMT
If it was that simple, someone would have gone through the appeal court and won. Maybe it's because anyone with pockets deep enough for such a venture has a boat which is far too large for any UK canal (except maybe the Caledonian Canal) and therefore sensibly sticks to the French Riviera. Maybe it's because anyone with pockets deep enough for such a venture has a boat which is licensed. |
|
