|
Post by Mr Stabby on May 7, 2023 18:09:00 GMT
This is the crux of the matter. You aren't hinting that Tony could be just a tad wrong about this are you? Watch out for repetitive posts claiming otherwise. Well, it's really very simple. If the Police stop you while driving your car and discover that you do not have insurance/ VED/ MOT, then the last you see of that car is when it disappears into the great blue yonder on the back of a low-loader. So it is with boats, you need a licence and BSS and to comply with the requirements of the licence. CRT have been very accomodating to Mr Ward on account of his disability by waiving the continuous cruising requirement but Mr Ward has obviously formed the impression that this gives him carte blanche to kick the arse out of it. Much of Law is predicated on the concept of "a reasonable man" and his opinion. Would a reasonable man consider it right that a non-compliant boat can be removed from the waterways? I would suggest the answer is "Yes". Tony Dunkley considers that it would be "No" but the big problem here is that a mentally subnormal dribbling idiot does not constitute a "reasonable man".
|
|
|
Post by kris on May 7, 2023 19:34:13 GMT
The actual fate of George is seemingly entirely secondary to the main area of interest. Or even his well being.
|
|
|
Post by Mr Stabby on May 7, 2023 21:03:18 GMT
This is the crux of the matter. You aren't hinting that Tony could be just a tad wrong about this are you? Watch out for repetitive posts claiming otherwise. Well, it's really very simple. If the Police stop you while driving your car and discover that you do not have insurance/ VED/ MOT, then the last you see of that car is when it disappears into the great blue yonder on the back of a low-loader. So it is with boats, you need a licence and BSS and to comply with the requirements of the licence. CRT have been very accomodating to Mr Ward on account of his disability by waiving the continuous cruising requirement but Mr Ward has obviously formed the impression that this gives him carte blanche to kick the arse out of it. Much of Law is predicated on the concept of "a reasonable man" and his opinion. Would a reasonable man consider it right that a non-compliant boat can be removed from the waterways? I would suggest the answer is "Yes". Tony Dunkley considers that it would be "No" but the big problem here is that a mentally subnormal dribbling idiot does not constitute a "reasonable man".
|
|
|
Post by on May 7, 2023 21:15:32 GMT
It is pretty obvious other than to thick people what happened on the day the CRT were supposed to remove the boat.
You had a situation where there was quite a large audience and a man on a boat in a public area who had reportedly said he was going to set fire to the boat and attack people with an implement.
Any officer in charge with an ounce of sense would have worked out pretty quickly that this was a silly situation to be getting into.
I know our resident thicko thinks he is the centre of all this but this is simply delusional.
Nobody gives a shit about our Tony (except us of course).
I don't know the ins and outs of previous S8 procedures but it is possible that this was the first time there was a genuine risk to the public. You can't really have someone setting fire to the boat and surroundings in a public area. Not appropriate. Police officers were removing petrol cans so the threat was taken seriously.
These days a risk assessment must be carried out and I would not expect a senior police officer to authorise this action in those circumstances.
TD will milk this for all its worth, which is understandable as not much on the telly of any quality these days but at the end of the day it is all bullshit.
The police will have remained with Mr Ward after the CRT left because it is their job to ensure the safety of the public. It will all be in the risk assessment.
It is interesting to see what actually happens here.
|
|
|
Post by Tony Dunkley on May 7, 2023 22:02:00 GMT
May 5, 2023 Good afternoon, Mr. Dunkley. I’m afraid I’m unable to discuss the matter with you without the consent of Mr. Ward. If you can forward me such consent, it would be appreciated. You should note, however, that per our previous conversations about your incorrect interpretation of our lawful process (and related legislation) to remove boats from Trust waters, I disagree with any assertion of wrongdoing on the part of the Trust, which you make below. Regards Matthew Aymes National Customer Support Manager - Licence Support Between bouts of regurgitating Matthew Aymes' lies and nonsense for him, . . have you given any thought, . . or at least the closest thing to thought that you're capable of, . . as to why the Police refused (at Bradford-on-Avon on 19 April 2023) to give any assistance whatsoever to Aymes, or the rest of the C&RT(Ltd) instructed fraud and deception operatives accompanying him, in evicting George Ward from his boat on the strength of the Court Order they were fraudulently passing off as something it wasn't, so that they - Aymes and the hired in heavies supplied by Brian Clarke - crooked MD of Commercial Boat Services - could tow it away to be craned out and transported away to an undisclosed destination by road ? Did you give any thought as to why the Police chose to remain with George and his boat until after Aymes and his rent-a-thug mob left ? Nb: The 'undisclosed destination', by the way, is land adjoining Brian Clarke's farm, near Chester, . . where he hides all the privately owned pleasure craft he steals for and on the instructions of the Canal & River Trust (Ltd), . . and the hired in heavies supplied by Brian Clarke, crooked MD of Commercial Boat Services were the very same people that Aymes and C&RT(Ltd) Solicitor-Advocate Lucy Barry used to instruct directly and fraudulently misrepresent as 'Bailiffs', . . until Barry was caught out in this wilful lie via written evidence gathered by, among others, Nottinghamshire Police, . . and then had to hurriedly redesignate them as "contracted security operatives".
|
|
|
Post by Tony Dunkley on May 8, 2023 6:03:58 GMT
Just wondering, seriously, if there's been any update about George? Is he/March Hare still at Smelly Bridge? Was there a deadline to move on 2nd May? Will that mean he has 14 days to comply? The last helpful communication sent to George Ward by C&RT(Ltd) was on 24 April when Matthew Aymes wrote to remind him that his remaining unstolen boat was still on the Trust's waterways (sic) and that any attempt to resolve matters that involved any communications with the C&RT(Ltd) or any of its employees, . . or moving the boat from where it was, . . or leaving the boat where it is, . . will result in the Police being asked to arrest him so that he - Aymes - and the Commercial Boat Services turds can steal the remaining boat and the rest of his belongings, and then hide it, at a weekly rental cost, on turd Brian Clarke's farm near Chester, . . with all the other stolen boats that C&RT(Ltd) pay Brian Clarke hundreds of £££'s a week to hide there for them. As far as I know, that's up to around midday yesterday, George Ward and his remaining boat, March Hare, are still tied at Smelly Bridge, . . and still waiting for C&RT(Ltd) to answer the questions asked in the e-mail sent on 5 May 2023. ____________________________________________________________________________ Craft "March Hare" - Index No 68691
Tony Dunkley 5 May 2023
FAO Matthew Aymes - National Customer Support Manager(sic) - Canal & River Trust
Mr Aymes,
As a direct consequence of the uncalled-for and dishonest lengths to which you and your employers have gone to prevent Mr George Ward, the owner of the above mention vessel, from making any form of contact with you, I am writing on his behalf with the following queries :-
* Was the unlawful attempt made on 19 April 2023 at Bradford-on-Avon to evict Mr Ward from "March Hare", then to seize the vessel and to tow it away to an undisclosed destination, performed on your personal directions, or on the directions and with the full knowledge and approval of your immediate superiors at Canal & River Trust ?
* Prior to proceeding with the next attempt - as you threaten in your letter to Mr Ward dated 24 April 2023 and headed Final Warning - do you intend to or have you already applied to the Court, as procedures and rules oblige, to ask the Court to enforce the terms of the Injunction obtained on 23 January 2023, or is it your intention to indulge in a second contempt of Court and statute by re-committing the dual offences of Fraud by false representation and Misconduct in Public Office that were first committed against Mr Ward on Wednesday 19 April 2023 by you in person and the Trust's Solicitor-Advocate Lucy Barry ?
* Is it your intention to apply to the Court for an Order relating to "March Hare" (Index No 68691) under Part 3, Chapter 1, Procedure for Enforcement by Taking Control of Goods as laid down in the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007, this being the ONLY procedure under which it is lawful for the Trust to EXCEED the statutory powers it enjoys - frequently, hugely, and unlawfully - under Section 8 of the British Waterways Act 1983 ?
Signed, A.K.Dunkley. (for and on behalf of Mr G.Ward - owner of "March Hare" (Index No 68691).
|
|
|
Post by kris on May 8, 2023 6:51:28 GMT
Well that will tell them Tony, I bet they are quaking in their boots.
|
|
|
Post by Mr Stabby on May 8, 2023 7:03:07 GMT
Just wondering, seriously, if there's been any update about George? Is he/March Hare still at Smelly Bridge? Was there a deadline to move on 2nd May? Will that mean he has 14 days to comply? As far as I know, that's up to around midday yesterday, George Ward and his remaining boat, March Hare, are still tied at Smelly Bridge, . . and still waiting for C&RT(Ltd) to answer the questions asked in the e-mail sent on 5 May 2023. They have answered your email. You were just too thick to understand the answers. Matthew Aymes May 5, 2023 Good afternoon, Mr. Dunkley. I’m afraid I’m unable to discuss the matter with you without the consent of Mr. Ward. If you can forward me such consent, it would be appreciated. You should note, however, that per our previous conversations about your incorrect interpretation of our lawful process (and related legislation) to remove boats from Trust waters, I disagree with any assertion of wrongdoing on the part of the Trust, which you make below. Regards Matthew Aymes National Customer Support Manager - Licence Support
|
|
|
Post by Tony Dunkley on May 8, 2023 7:07:13 GMT
Is Matty being very crafty, I reckon a letter from George authorising you would be classified as a banned communication. I do suspect he is but the trust stated. "This means that, unless in an emergency or to manage their boat licence, the boater isn’t able to approach people working or volunteering for Canal & River Trust as they go about their work to look after the canal." So without knowing what exactly the restraining order says it appears to not prevent him putting something in writing. Very, very doubtful that any Court would ever make any such sort of Order. Only thoroughly disreputable dishonest lawyers, . . such as those specially selected for employment by C&RT(Ltd) CEO Richard Parry, . . ever play mendacious verbal gymnastics with wording for the sole purpose of catching out parties to proceedings in a "can't win whatever you say or do situation". Aymes letter dated 24 April 2023 stated -- "If the circumstances surrounding your boat have recently changed(sic), you should make contact with us IMMEDIATELY through your support network." -- a plain enough statement, . . following straight on from the previous paragraph/sentence which states - " Any breach of that Order in respect of this matter will be reported to the Police and may lead to your arrest." I haven't had sight of a copy of the Restraining Order, . . but I will now get one. Be interesting to see if the wording of Aymes' letter of 24 April 2023 is an accurate reiteration of the wording of the Order, . . or if this is another instance of Aymes/C&RT(Ltd) again taking it upon themselves to knowingly reword, alter, or wilfully misrepresent a Court Order. Thanks for alerting me to that, . . it's something else that compulsive liar Matthew Aymes will have to try to explain away, . . by making it clear if it's the Court itself that's made an Order instructing George Ward to communicate ONLY in writing and through a "support network", . . or if it's Aymes/C&RT(Ltd)once again contemptuously attempting to alter and wilfuly misrepresent the meaning and/or authority of an Order of the Court.
|
|
|
Post by kris on May 8, 2023 7:46:15 GMT
Why do you insist on insulting them Tony? If you stuck to the facts as you see them rather than swerving into personal attacks your argument might get taken more seriously.
|
|
|
Post by Jim on May 8, 2023 7:52:35 GMT
Tony is hanging on to George's coat tails in the hope that, if George succeeds, he can claim the credit. He's claiming to know what the restraining order says before he has seen it, in the hope that it will suit his needs. Shame Tony didn't have the bottle to have a lock in stand off himself when they confiscated his boats.
|
|
|
Post by kris on May 8, 2023 7:54:52 GMT
Yes it would have been totally different if Tony had locked himself in. But as you say he was scared and hasn’t got the balls to actually do anything other than post on the Internet.
|
|
|
Post by Mr Stabby on May 8, 2023 7:56:11 GMT
Tony is hanging on to George's coat tails in the hope that, if George succeeds, he can claim the credit. He's claiming to know what the restraining order says before he has seen it, in the hope that it will suit his needs. Shame Tony didn't have the bottle to have a lock in stand off himself when they confiscated his boats. Tony was in his house when CRT arrived to Section 8 his boat and by the time he'd arrived at it CRT had already taken control.
|
|
|
Post by on May 8, 2023 7:58:29 GMT
There is an incredibly easy way to solve this problem..
"I’m afraid I’m unable to discuss the matter with you without the consent of Mr. Ward. If you can forward me such consent, it would be appreciated."
just forward the consent.
They are not asking you to swim the channel then run to Paris and go shopping in that famous department store naked to buy Jean Paul Gaultier perfume for delivery by hand to the Leeds offices.
It is entirely reasonable to ask for proof of consent as you might just be a troll. I could understand why someone might think you are a troll as you do have quite a lot of the characteristics.
Just send the proof of consent and you will be able to communicate. If you in fact don't have consent then you ARRR a troll. Simple.
|
|
|
Post by on May 8, 2023 8:05:44 GMT
Tony is hanging on to George's coat tails in the hope that, if George succeeds, he can claim the credit. He's claiming to know what the restraining order says before he has seen it, in the hope that it will suit his needs. Shame Tony didn't have the bottle to have a lock in stand off himself when they confiscated his boats. Tony was in his house when CRT arrived to Section 8 his boat and by the time he'd arrived at it CRT had already taken control. Indeed. There is a big difference between living on boats and living ashore. Does anyone know if this (Mr Ward) type of situation has occurred before in the S8 process? I think this Mr Ward character might be quite plausible unlike some people and his reported threats may have been taken seriously. What I don't understand is if there is someone who is a danger to themselves or others why can't they be sectioned? My sister has been sectioned for far less serious things than threatening to attack people or set fire to stuff. It seems to me that the police could nick him for reasons unrelated to the legality of the boat status. Separate the two things. Problematic individual and illegal boat. Maybe he has become a lot more pleasant and less trouble in recent times, or is gone like a long dog.
|
|