|
|
Post by Andyberg on Feb 24, 2024 12:42:39 GMT
The Post Office's senior management regarded itself as being above the law. C&RT's senior management does too. You need to concentrate on getting an ITV drama commissioned to widen your target audience Tony. I can just imagine an enjoyable Sunday evening sat watching ‘Mr Dunkley vs The C&RT’ whilst enjoying a nice bottle of wine!👍 |
|
|
|
Post by metanoia on Feb 24, 2024 13:48:19 GMT
The Post Office's senior management regarded itself as being above the law. C&RT's senior management does too. You need to concentrate on getting an ITV drama commissioned to widen your target audience Tony. I can just imagine an enjoyable Sunday evening sat watching ‘Mr Dunkley vs The C&RT’ whilst enjoying a nice bottle of wine!👍 Which actor could they possibly get to play Tony though? |
|
|
|
Post by kris on Feb 24, 2024 13:50:27 GMT
You need to concentrate on getting an ITV drama commissioned to widen your target audience Tony. I can just imagine an enjoyable Sunday evening sat watching ‘Mr Dunkley vs The C&RT’ whilst enjoying a nice bottle of wine!👍 Which actor could they possibly get to play Tony though? Brian blessed maybe? He’s quite shouty. |
|
|
|
Post by metanoia on Feb 24, 2024 13:58:35 GMT
Which actor could they possibly get to play Tony though? Brian blessed maybe? He’s quite shouty. Yes, he does tend to speak in large font.... |
|
|
|
Post by Jim on Feb 24, 2024 14:04:16 GMT
Can anyone be as repetitive though, without the audience reaching for the remote ... And off!
|
|
|
|
Post by on Feb 24, 2024 14:11:12 GMT
Kylie Minogue.
She should be so lucky, lucky lucky lucky she should be so lucky &c.
|
|
|
|
Post by metanoia on Feb 24, 2024 14:12:46 GMT
Can anyone be as repetitive though, without the audience reaching for the remote ... And off! Perhaps the constant repetition could he construed as "subtitles for the hard of thinking"? |
|
|
|
Post by Jim on Feb 24, 2024 14:15:55 GMT
Kylie Minogue. She should be so lucky, lucky lucky lucky she should be so lucky &c. Shouldn't you be humming this or playing it on a beat box on your shoulder when in the local shop? |
|
|
|
Post by on Feb 24, 2024 14:18:58 GMT
Kylie Minogue. She should be so lucky, lucky lucky lucky she should be so lucky &c. Shouldn't you be humming this or playing it on a beat box on your shoulder when in the local shop? I've decided against the woman in the shop. Today was a bit alarming as she ran out from the till area and rearranged some items immediately behind me. I think she was checking the personal hygiene which is a known known.. Obviously there will be pheromones and other attractants along with the Diesel and firewood smells but I reckon she is going to run a mile. which is good ! |
|
|
|
Post by Tony Dunkley on Feb 25, 2024 18:15:05 GMT
Continuous cruisers virtually doubled in 12 years according to their statement. I would have described the legal situation where a boat does not require a home mooring if on a continuous journey as a permissible exception rather than an "enshrined right" . . . . Rog That's because you're a stupid mealy-mouthed arsehole who struggles with simple written English, . . even the clear concise stuff found in very uncomplicated Acts of Parliament, . . such as the British Waterways Acts of 1971, 1983, and 1995. |
|
|
|
Post by Mr Stabby on Feb 25, 2024 18:44:54 GMT
Continuous cruisers virtually doubled in 12 years according to their statement. I would have described the legal situation where a boat does not require a home mooring if on a continuous journey as a permissible exception rather than an "enshrined right" . . . . Rog That's because you're a stupid mealy-mouthed arsehole who struggles with simple written English, . . even the clear concise stuff found in very uncomplicated Acts of Parliament, . . such as the British Waterways Acts of 1971, 1983, and 1995. Any update on Warwickshire or Nottinghamshire Poilce's investigations into me Tony? |
|
|
|
Post by Tony Dunkley on Feb 28, 2024 8:05:39 GMT
That is a common, almost universal, misconception, . . brought about by C&RT, through its own retained lawyers at the Trust's so-called Legal & Governance Services, wilfully lying to the Courts and misleading/misdirecting the Judiciary by means of laying before them intentionally misworded draft Orders, . . the wording of which is knowingly at variation with that which is laid down in statute. In other words the 'Court Orders' under the pretext of which boats are removed from C&RT controlled waters are worthless and unenforceable from the moment the Court makes them. The legal terminology for this is "void - ab initio", . . and such a Court Order, being irreparably and fundamentally flawed, cannot be put right or corrected in any way or by any process. It is in fact, completely worthless and unenforceable by the party in whose favour it was made. But surely you can see just from a common sense viewpoint that it would be completely pointless to create a legal system for the issue of licences to use the waterways, if there were no sanctions for non-compliance. Why would anyone ever bother to pay for a licence?
There are sanctions - clearly and concisely laid down statutory sanctions - for non compliance with statutory boat licensing rules and requirements, . . but C&RT shuns the use of them in the same way it consistently and wilfully shuns the use of Byelaws as a foundation for prosecutions against the very offenders the Byelaws were enacted to sanction or punish, . . preferring instead to abuse, misuse, and misrepresent, the statutory powers of boat removal given to its predecessor, the British Waterways Board, under Section 8 of the British Waterways Act 1983, only for the express purpose of removing offending vessels from where they are either sunk, stranded, or abandoned, or have been left or moored without lawful authority.
The shameful truth is that C&RT's senior management, . . in what has the outward appearance a cynical strategy to divert attention from the Trust's own ever growing record of aadministrative and operational failures, . .exhibit a repugnant and unlawful taste for selecting and making public examples of a few carefully chosen targets, . . chosen targets whose boats, through the repeated misuse and abuse of fraudulently misrepresented statutory remedies, are unlawfully seized/confiscated, along with the owner's personal property and possessions.
These thefts, . . because that IS in truth exactly what they are, . . are accomplished on C&RT's behalf through its much favoured criminally inclined contractors, Commercial Boat Services, deploying their own sub-contracted bogus, uncertificated Bailiffs unlawfully enforcing what are in fact 'void' - ie. worthless and legally unenforceable Court Orders - that frequently result in leaving the boat owner victims homeless on a canal towpath or riverbank, without shelter, or their goods and personal possessions.
C&RT, it seems, simply cannot come to terms with the fact that the clearly and concisely laid down statutory sanctions for dealing with those who offend against the boat licensing rules, DO NOT extend to seizing, confiscating, or permanently or otherwise depriving the rightful owner of the vessel in question of their boat, goods and possessions, whilst at the same time, illegally removing the vessel from C&RT controlled waters.
C&RT's well practised routine for dealing with the perceived (by C&RT) problem of boats, and their owners who don't keep to the rules, is to lie to and mislead the Courts into making Court Orders that in fact are a legal nullity, ie. void and legally unenforceable, simply because they, these 'void' Orders, are misworded - by intent and design on the part of C&RT's dishonest and corrupt lawyers - to the extent that the meaning and intention of certain key clauses in the relevant Act has been fundamentally altered and distorted.
These fundamentally defective (Court) Orders therefore have no foundation in the Acts of Parliament by which C&RT is, or rather SHOULD, be governed and strictly limited in its actions and conduct. The legislation that C&RT has routinely abused and misused since it came into being in July 2012 is Section 8 of the British Waterways Act 1983. The extent of C&RT's wilful and habitual contempt of Court and abuse of due process, in the cause of what are quite simply instances of fraud and theft, is both appalling and breathtaking, . . and now it's well documented too.
All in all, there are some quite notable similarities and comparisons in C&RT's preference for taking an illegal, and in some respects truly criminal approach to deal with what are in fact lawfully sanctionable transgressions of the statutorily enforceable licensing rules, . . and the way the Post Office, through its own dishonest contractors/suppliers, its own dishonest senior managers, and its own bent lawyers, has treated so many Subpostmasters for so very long, . . and, apparently, still is doing !
The Post Office's senior management regarded itself as being above the law, . . C&RT's senior management sees itself in much the same way too, . . and has been getting away with it for far too long ! |
|
|
|
Post by Andyberg on Feb 28, 2024 8:11:34 GMT
You need to concentrate on getting an ITV drama commissioned to widen your target audience Tony. I can just imagine an enjoyable Sunday evening sat watching ‘Mr Dunkley vs The C&RT’ whilst enjoying a nice bottle of wine!👍 Choo Choo…here we go again! |
|
|
|
Post by Mr Stabby on Feb 28, 2024 8:18:25 GMT
Yes, but they can't do that.  |
|
|
|
Post by Jim on Feb 28, 2024 8:38:01 GMT
You need to concentrate on getting an ITV drama commissioned to widen your target audience Tony. I can just imagine an enjoyable Sunday evening sat watching ‘Mr Dunkley vs The C&RT’ whilst enjoying a nice bottle of wine!👍 Choo Choo…here we go again! Carry On Sinking? A complete Farce. |
|
