|
Post by Mr Stabby on Mar 21, 2024 11:25:35 GMT
I recently discovered something interesting that I never knew. Candy floss was invented by a dentist. "Candy floss was invented by a dentist and inventor by the name of William James Morrison, who created the spun sugar sweet in 1897. He worked with his friend, confectioner John C. Wharton, to design a ma-chine that could melt sugar and then force it through a wire screen, creating wispy strands of candy floss".
|
|
|
Post by kris on Mar 21, 2024 11:28:25 GMT
Fascinating
|
|
|
Post by Jim on Mar 21, 2024 11:51:04 GMT
Very enterprising, generated lots of customers over the years.
|
|
|
Post by Mr Stabby on Mar 21, 2024 15:16:10 GMT
Very enterprising, generated lots of customers over the years. I've always reckoned that it's glaziers who go round smashing shop windows at night.
|
|
|
Post by on Mar 21, 2024 17:02:43 GMT
I once suggested to a man with a tyre shop that leaving nails in the road might be a good idea. Far enough away to not cause suspicion.
He thought I was joking.
|
|
|
Post by Aloysius on Mar 21, 2024 17:21:16 GMT
I recently discovered something interesting that I never knew. Candy floss was invented by a dentist. "Candy floss was invented by a dentist and inventor by the name of William James Morrison, who created the spun sugar sweet in 1897. He worked with his friend, confectioner John C. Wharton, to design a ma-chine that could melt sugar and then force it through a wire screen, creating wispy strands of candy floss". And Maggie invented soft ice cream. No real significance though.
|
|
|
Post by Mr Stabby on Mar 21, 2024 18:13:10 GMT
I recently discovered something interesting that I never knew. Candy floss was invented by a dentist. "Candy floss was invented by a dentist and inventor by the name of William James Morrison, who created the spun sugar sweet in 1897. He worked with his friend, confectioner John C. Wharton, to design a ma-chine that could melt sugar and then force it through a wire screen, creating wispy strands of candy floss". And Maggie invented soft ice cream. No real significance though. Mr Whippy invented soft ice cream.
|
|
|
Post by brummieboy on Mar 21, 2024 18:24:44 GMT
I once suggested to a man with a tyre shop that leaving nails in the road might be a good idea. Far enough away to not cause suspicion. I worked at a factory which made pins, and often pan would fall off the truck transporting them from one end of the works to the packing department. The local Kwik Fit did wonderful business. It worked wonders for timekeeping though, as the earlier you were, the less drive you had to go down to the car park minimising the risk of punctures.
|
|
|
Post by Tony Dunkley on Apr 5, 2024 19:00:29 GMT
By way of a simple experiment, I'm posting this (below) to see if anyone is bright enough to pick up on it, and make the connection with something else that's already posted not very far away on the forum pages, . . and will later be re-posted as a follow-up to this post :-
"In the course of the obiter dictum recorded in the transcript, HHJ Halbert went to some trouble to satisfy himself that Geoff Mayers fully understood that although his boat 'Pearl' was 'seized', lifted out of the canal near Northwich, transported by road to the Gloucester area, then impounded by C&RT's agents with the owner refused access, . . that he, Geoff Mayers, retained full unencumbered ownership and good title to the vessel, . . and that he was within his rights, and the law, to go and collect his boat at any time he wished to, reclaiming it from the C&RT agents who held it, unlawfully impounded, on C&RT's instructions.
This very useful, and difficult to argue with, item of Judicial opinion and legal guidance, was discovered by Nigel Moore and I whilst preparing a Defence to a 2014 C&RT County Court Claim for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief in respect of another boat (other than 'Pearl') that this so-called Trust had in its sights, . . with the intention of stealing."
|
|
|
Post by Tony Dunkley on Apr 8, 2024 9:12:48 GMT
With George Ward one of the more recent victims of C&RT's boat stealing scam, this is an appropriate thread for posting this:-
Apr 3, 2024 12:33:11 GMT 1 Andyberg said:
Cant find any trace of Mersey or Wyre in the for sale ads now…mebbee they have both sold?
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________
For the attention of professional liars Tom Deards, Lucy Barry, and all the other crooked staff at the Canal & River Trust's Illegal & Connivance Services
If Commercial Boat Services/Brian Clarke have sold either boat they're in big trouble, . . the Law - that's the real Law, NOT the pretend version that C&RT sells to mindless pricks such as Andyberg - says that title to those two L&L Shortboats, Mersey and Wyre, remains with the owners they were seized from by the C&RT and its thieving contractors.
It's far more likely that both boats have been taken off the market because of the increasingly widespread publicity given to the fact that neither vessel is C&RT's or Commercial Boat Services to sell.
'Seizing' goods, an item, property, or belongings does not equate with acquiring 'good title', . . unless the seizure of the goods (etc.) has been properly and specifically authorized or ordered by way of an enactment, a Writ, or a Warrant.
This, apparently, incomprehensible (for all C&RT's gullible, unthinking supporters) and (for C&RT and CBS) inconvenient but undeniable fact, is what makes every single one of C&RT's Section 8 boat "removals" unlawful, . . because the 'seizure' of the vessel in question is executed with the predetermined intention of either destroying the vessel, or selling it on to a third party, . . entirely absent any authority or documentation originating from any enactment or Court ordered 'seizure power' to do so lawfully/legally. ___________________________________________________
Paragraph 2) of Schedule 12) to the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007 states :-
Enforcement agents
2(1) In this Schedule “enforcement agent” means an individual authorised by section 63(2) to act as an enforcement agent.
2(2) Only an enforcement agent may take control of goods and sell them under an enforcement power.
_____________________________________________
The words - "enforcement power" (Para, 2(2) of Schedule 12 to TCE Act 2007) are of special significance with regard to C&RT's unlawful seizures of Section 8'd boats from their rightful owners.
Neither C&RT, nor Commercial Boat Services bogus Bailiffs, have ever acted or are ever, or ever have been authorized to act under any such "enforcement power", although it is a matter of record that both organizations routinely and wilfully mislead and lie to the Police to lead them to believe that such powers are being lawfully exercised when 'removing' boats subject to Section 8 Notices from C&RT managed or controlled inland waterways.
It follows therefore that C&RT's Section 8 boat 'seizures', and the 'evictions' of the owners that usually accompany the 'seizing' of the vessel are all, without exception, wholly unlawful/illegal. _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Keeping in mind what's written above, . . now read what's written below :-
"In the course of the obiter dictum recorded in the transcript, the trial Judge, HHJ Halbert, went to some trouble to ensure that Geoffrey Mayers, the boat owner, fully understood the law with regard to the ownership of the boat that the C&RT had removed from the canal. Although the C&RT led the boat owner to believe that his boat 'Pearl' was legally 'seized' when it was lifted it out of the canal near Northwich, transported by road to the Gloucester area, then the owner told that it now belonged to the C&RT, was impounded by its agents, and that he was not allowed access to it, . . the Judge told Geoffrey Mayers that he did in fact retain full unencumbered ownership and good title to the vessel, . . and that he was within his rights, and the law, to go and collect his boat at any time he wished to, . . reclaiming it from the C&RT agents who held it, unlawfully impounded, on C&RT's instructions.
This informative, and rather difficult to argue with combination of Judicial guidance and legal opinion, was discovered by Nigel Moore and I in a copy of a trial transcript I had whilst we were working on and preparing a (successful) Defence to a 2014 C&RT County Court Claim for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief in respect of another boat (not 'Pearl') that this so-called Trust had in its sights, . . with the intention of stealing it from the rightful owner, . . as the Canal & River Trust has, by 2024, now done to hundreds of boat owners in the course of many hundreds of unlawfully executed Section 8 boat removals." _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________
|
|
|
Post by Andyberg on Apr 8, 2024 10:16:05 GMT
Interesting boat FOR SALE here for a measly £10k.👍
|
|
|
Post by Aloysius on Apr 8, 2024 10:27:29 GMT
Must be a tough sale...knackered engine, internal fit questionable, and not a boat one could repaint and hope nobody recognises it (unlike HD) what with all the publicity. The new owner is bound to get some stick.
He lived on it for over a decade. Jesus.
So much needs doing. It looks like it doesn't even have any internal framing. Will the deal include use of a skip?
|
|
|
Post by dogless on Apr 8, 2024 11:16:41 GMT
Do they sell merely to recover outstanding debt or (rare occasion I would guess) if worth more do they return any excess cash to the previous owner ?
Anyone know ?
Rog
|
|
|
Post by Aloysius on Apr 8, 2024 11:22:51 GMT
I'd assume...the seller / agent would be required to refund any outstanding funds. But I don't think George will be seeing anything. I would guess 'March Hare' might eventually sell for around the 7k region. Maybe. I think CRT are chasing George for more than that.
|
|
|
Post by Andyberg on Apr 8, 2024 11:35:02 GMT
Do they sell merely to recover outstanding debt or (rare occasion I would guess) if worth more do they return any excess cash to the previous owner ? Rog They should be allowed to keep any excess cash to spend in the pub celebrating a great job well done in ridding our waterways of freeloading entitled scrotes! 🍻👍
|
|