|
Post by on Apr 22, 2023 9:04:45 GMT
Maybe the holiday is Finnished.
|
|
|
Post by kris on Apr 22, 2023 9:05:38 GMT
Maybe the holiday is Finnished. Hes not in a good mood if he is on holiday.
|
|
|
Post by Tony Dunkley on Apr 22, 2023 9:20:53 GMT
If The Law has ordered that the boat shall be removed from the waterway, then one way or another it will be. One of the most basic principles of Law is that compliance is not optional. Another is that no matter how slowly the wheels of justice turn, they continue to turn. It's taken 12 years to get this far, another week or two makes no difference to the authorities. In what context can the boat be removed using the present order issued on the 23rd January? If you cannot define this, it would probably be better if you took your own advice of "let's wait and see". Just parping on with the same old shit is no better than dunkley, except most of the shit your coming up with is pure shit. It's obvious you have no grasp on the complexity of such orders, so do us all a favour and stop pretending you do. There's nothing complex about either the flawed/defectively worded Declaration part or the Injunction part of the standard Orders for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief that C&RT Ltd knowingly deceive the Courts into issuing, . . although there are questions as to the worth or validity of the Orders due to the miswording in paragraph 1) - the Declaration - that specifies "removal from" all C&RT Ltd controlled waterways as opposed to simply a "removal" within any C&RT Ltd controlled waterway, . . which actually IS what Section 8 of the 1983 Act does give the navigation authority the statutory powers to do WIHOUT reference to or the blessing of any Court..
|
|
|
Post by on Apr 22, 2023 9:27:18 GMT
So in your learnèd opinion can the CRT move the boat or can they not move the boat?
Duck and bucket come to mind here.
|
|
|
Post by Mr Stabby on Apr 22, 2023 9:40:59 GMT
In what context can the boat be removed using the present order issued on the 23rd January? If you cannot define this, it would probably be better if you took your own advice of "let's wait and see". Just parping on with the same old shit is no better than dunkley, except most of the shit your coming up with is pure shit. It's obvious you have no grasp on the complexity of such orders, so do us all a favour and stop pretending you do. the statutory powers to do WIHOUT reference to or the blessing of any Court.. If you are going to spell a word in uppercase letters for emphasis at least make sure you spell it correctly, otherwise all you empasise is your ignorance.
|
|
|
Post by kris on Apr 22, 2023 10:16:53 GMT
Who the fuck is sue Wallis?
|
|
|
Post by on Apr 22, 2023 10:21:30 GMT
Libel case?
Maaan.
|
|
|
Post by on Apr 22, 2023 10:22:34 GMT
Who the fuck is sue Wallis? Someone who noticed an aroma not related to the fire or the sewage works? Perhaps they have sensitive old factory nerves.
|
|
|
Post by kris on Apr 22, 2023 10:31:16 GMT
The comment has gone already. Although I did like the comment pointing out Tony Dunkley isn’t a canal boat expert.
|
|
|
Post by on Apr 22, 2023 10:40:39 GMT
To be fair he does know a lot about cNals and canal boats.
The fact he has demonstrated, despite his protestations, that the CRT will take the boat makes him questionable as an adviser.
|
|
|
Post by kris on Apr 22, 2023 10:45:48 GMT
To be fair he does know a lot about cNals and canal boats. The fact he has demonstrated, despite his protestations, that the CRT will take the boat makes him questionable as an adviser. Remember under his guidance he got me to set the timing wrong on my engine. He took advantage of the fact I’d never done it before. It was either incompetence or deliberately malicious on his part. So I’d question calling him an expert. He undoubtedly has some knowledge but he would be last person I’d take advice from. In fact if he told me the sky is blue, I’d go and check for myself.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 22, 2023 10:50:12 GMT
I thought you where on holiday Steve? I am. Biding my time at the moment, and doing a bit of research. 😉
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 22, 2023 11:08:58 GMT
So in your learnèd opinion can the CRT move the boat or can they not move the boat? Duck and bucket come to mind here. Yes, they can move the boat, but not before "legally" removing the occupant. Removing the occupant will be a massive issue for them, even though they are pretending otherwise.
|
|
|
Post by Tony Dunkley on Apr 22, 2023 11:16:53 GMT
There is no question that George Ward is in contempt of Court through his non-compliance with paragrahs 2) and 3), the Injunction part of the (Court) Order for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief obtained by C&RT Ltd on 23 January 2023. There is a question, however, as to why so many who have commented have expressed opinions saying that they expect the Police to return with the Commercial Boat Services rent-a-thug mob and evict George from the privately owned boat of which he is the undisputed owner, . . and of which C&RT Ltd's boat thieves/professional liars, Lucy Barry and Matthew Aymes are deterrmined to dispossess him.
Others appear to imagine that the Court will be following the course of events at Bradford-on-Avon, . . and that by some sort of mystical automatic process it will be instructing the Police to go and drag George Ward off his boat and bring him before the Court to purge his contempt and be punished accordingly.
C&RT Ltd's wishful intentions to see George Ward unlawfully evicted from the boat he lives on were thwarted last Wednesday by the appropriate and wholly correct actions of the Police in refusing to do C&RT Ltd's unlawful dirty work for them.
If C&RT Ltd's Matthew Aymes now wants to demonstrate that there is any truth in his statement claiming that all of these C&RT Ltd boat seizures and evictions are properly conducted executions of specific actions ordered by the Court, then he's going to have to get his equally dishonest colleague, Solicitor-Advocate Lucy Barry, to go back to the Court that made the 23 January 2023 Order and persuade it to impose whatever sanctions it sees fit on the contemptuous George Ward.
Problem with that from C&RT Ltd's standpoint, of course, is that Lucy Barry will also have to explain to the Court, and excuse, her employer's own in contempt of Court actions last Wednesday in deploying its redesignated bogus Bailiffs - they're now called "contracted security operatives" - in a blatant move to contemptuously assume the powers the Court by way of an attempted imposition of their own of the non-compliance sanctions that are in fact the sole preserve of the Court to impose and enforce - ie, the seizure of assets.
|
|
|
Post by on Apr 22, 2023 11:20:24 GMT
So in your learnèd opinion can the CRT move the boat or can they not move the boat? Duck and bucket come to mind here. Yes, they can move the boat, but not before "legally" removing the occupant. Removing the occupant will be a massive issue for them, even though they are pretending otherwise. maybe just a waiting game then.
|
|