|
Post by Mr Stabby on Feb 28, 2024 8:39:56 GMT
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? the Trust's own ever growing record of abyssmal failures,Is an "abyssmal failure" the failure of an abyss?
|
|
|
Post by β on Feb 28, 2024 8:42:24 GMT
Its a nice little Tug Boat they have there.
|
|
|
Post by Jim on Feb 28, 2024 8:43:24 GMT
the Trust's own ever growing record of abyssmal failures,Is an "abyssmal failure" the failure of an abyss? The product of entrenched thinking?
|
|
|
Post by Tony Dunkley on Feb 29, 2024 7:29:25 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, specifically and for no other purpose than the removal of 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 administrative and operational failures, . . display 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 29, 2024 7:47:32 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 βMr Dunkley vs The C&RTβ whilst enjoying a nice bottle of wine!π Choo Chooβ¦Here we go again!
|
|
|
Post by Mr Stabby on Feb 29, 2024 7:59:34 GMT
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? C&RT controlled waters.
I feel there's a bit of a clue here.
|
|
|
Post by Tony Dunkley on Feb 29, 2024 21:53:25 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? I've posted the below in reply to you, I think, at least four times now, . . but you haven't yet responded. Why so uncharacteristically reticent, Telemachus, . . afraid of offending C&RT in some way, . . or is the plain, verifiable truth just a bit too difficult to come to terms with ? _____________________________________________________________________ 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, specifically and for no other purpose than the removal of 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 administrative and operational failures, . . display 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 Mr Stabby on Feb 29, 2024 22:08:15 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Telemachus on Feb 29, 2024 22:33:20 GMT
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? I've posted the below in reply to you, I think, at least four times now, . . but you haven't yet responded. Why so uncharacteristically reticent, Telemachus, . . afraid of offending C&RT in some way, . . or is the plain, verifiable truth just a bit too difficult to come to terms with ? _____________________________________________________________________ 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, specifically and for no other purpose than the removal of offending vessels from where they are either sunk, stranded, or abandoned, or have been left or moored without lawful authority.
Yes you did. I have mostly been away driving with a big trailer from Aberdeen to Kassel in central Germany, then back to uk and down to Tamworth and Loughborough before returning to Aberdeen. Which is quite a lot of driving. Anyway you have loquaciously explained what unlawful sanctions CRT employs, but please could you explain what lawful sanctions CRT ought to be employing against boats lacking a required PBC or licence? Could you explain how section 8, which applies to a boat moored without lawful authority, is not relevant to a boat lacking a valid licence that is moored on a CRT-controlled canal? I would agree that CRT avoids the use of bylaws, however bearing in mind the penalties specified in the bylaws are not linked to inflation, this canβt be too surprising as the penalties are simply trivial under the present currency values. A law that specifies the penalty for violation without linking it to inflation is an ill-thought out law. I posit that a bylaw whose specified penalties do not act as a deterrent, is a worthless law.
|
|
|
Post by Aloysius on Feb 29, 2024 22:40:13 GMT
I think I see your mistake here. You're using logic and reason.
|
|
|
Post by Tony Dunkley on Mar 1, 2024 5:40:39 GMT
I've posted the below in reply to you, I think, at least four times now, . . but you haven't yet responded. Why so uncharacteristically reticent, Telemachus, . . afraid of offending C&RT in some way, . . or is the plain, verifiable truth just a bit too difficult to come to terms with ? _____________________________________________________________________ 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, specifically and for no other purpose than the removal of offending vessels from where they are either sunk, stranded, or abandoned, or have been left or moored without lawful authority.
Anyway you have loquaciously explained what unlawful sanctions CRT employs, but please could you explain what lawful sanctions CRT ought to be employing against boats lacking a required PBC or licence?Could you explain how section 8, which applies to a boat moored without lawful authority, is not relevant to a boat lacking a valid licence that is moored on a CRT-controlled canal? I would agree that CRT avoids the use of bylaws, however bearing in mind the penalties specified in the bylaws are not linked to inflation, this canβt be too surprising as the penalties are simply trivial under the present currency values. A law that specifies the penalty for violation without linking it to inflation is an ill-thought out law. I posit that a bylaw whose specified penalties do not act as a deterrent, is a worthless law. The question of whether or not the current laws/sanctions available to C&RT are effective and adequate for its purposes is irrelevant. C&RT should, and must, abide by the Law as it stands at present. In future it must limit any or all punitive action taken against boat owners, for whatever cause or reason, to that which the Law specifies and authorizes - ie. the statutory powers, and Byelaws, it inherited when it took over from the British Waterways Board on 1 July 2012. If the current statutory powers, or Byelaws, are inadequate and/or outdated, and reform aimed at improving their effectiveness by bringing them up to date and in line with today's needs is required, then C&RT's only lawful route to that desired end result is to persuade Parliament to change or amend the Law as necessary. C&RT has NEVER sought to change or amend any of the stautes or laws by which it is governed by way of any such lawful and proper means, . . its chosen route to the desired outcome being instead to circumvent lawful due process by wilfully lying to and misleading the Courts, . . and lying to and misleading the Police into actively assisting in the enforcement/execution of the worthless misrepresented (Court) Orders the Courts have been deliberately misled into making. Finally, of course, C&RT also lie to and deceive the boat owners whose boats are being stolen by C&RT and contractors staff committing the serious criminal offence of impersonating Court authorized 'Enforcement Officers/Agents (Bailiffs) claiming - to the boat owners and the Police - to be enforcing/executing those same misrepresented worthless/void ab initio Court Orders that falsely appear, and are wilfully misrepresented by C&RT and its agents/contractors, to be what is known in broad terms as a power of seizure.It's all quite simply a carefully thought out, well rehearsed, and much practised performance of what is in truth fraud and theft, . . but it's coming to an end, . . C&RT and its crooks have been rumbled, . . and, rather like the Post Office, the ultimate full exposure of the true extent of the wrongdoing is now finally inevitable !
|
|
|
Post by Telemachus on Mar 1, 2024 8:46:10 GMT
Anyway you have loquaciously explained what unlawful sanctions CRT employs, but please could you explain what lawful sanctions CRT ought to be employing against boats lacking a required PBC or licence?Could you explain how section 8, which applies to a boat moored without lawful authority, is not relevant to a boat lacking a valid licence that is moored on a CRT-controlled canal? I would agree that CRT avoids the use of bylaws, however bearing in mind the penalties specified in the bylaws are not linked to inflation, this canβt be too surprising as the penalties are simply trivial under the present currency values. A law that specifies the penalty for violation without linking it to inflation is an ill-thought out law. I posit that a bylaw whose specified penalties do not act as a deterrent, is a worthless law. The question of whether or not the current laws/sanctions available to C&RT are effective and adequate for its purposes is irrelevant. C&RT should, and must, abide by the Law as it stands at present. In future it must limit any or all punitive action taken against boat owners, for whatever cause or reason, to that which the Law specifies and authorizes - ie. the statutory powers, and Byelaws, it inherited when it took over from the British Waterways Board on 1 July 2012. If the current statutory powers, or Byelaws, are inadequate and/or outdated, and reform aimed at improving their effectiveness by bringing them up to date and in line with today's needs is required, then C&RT's only lawful route to that desired end result is to persuade Parliament to change or amend the Law as necessary. C&RT has NEVER sought to change or amend any of the stautes or laws by which it is governed by way of any such lawful and proper means, . . its chosen route to the desired outcome being instead to circumvent lawful due process by wilfully lying to and misleading the Courts, . . and lying to and misleading the Police into actively assisting in the enforcement/execution of the worthless misrepresented (Court) Orders the Courts have been deliberately misled into making. Finally, of course, C&RT also lie to and deceive the boat owners whose boats are being stolen by C&RT and contractors staff committing the serious criminal offence of impersonating Court authorized 'Enforcement Officers/Agents (Bailiffs) claiming - to the boat owners and the Police - to be enforcing/executing those same misrepresented worthless/void ab initio Court Orders that falsely appear, and are wilfully misrepresented by C&RT and its agents/contractors, to be what is known in broad terms as a power of seizure.It's all quite simply a carefully thought out, well rehearsed, and much practised performance of what is in truth fraud and theft, . . but it's coming to an end, . . C&RT and its crooks have been rumbled, . . and, rather like the Post Office, the ultimate full exposure of the true extent of the wrongdoing is now finally inevitable ! Agreed that CRT have made no efforts to change the law nor bring the bylaws up to date. However those were not my questions. My questions remains please could you explain what lawful sanctions CRT ought to be employing against boats lacking a required PBC or licence? You did after all say that such sanctions already exist but are not used by CRT. And secondly, could you explain how section 8, which applies to a boat moored without lawful authority, is not relevant to a boat lacking a valid licence that is moored on a CRT-controlled canal?
|
|
|
Post by Jim on Mar 1, 2024 14:26:48 GMT
Anyway you have loquaciously explained what unlawful sanctions CRT employs, but please could you explain what lawful sanctions CRT ought to be employing against boats lacking a required PBC or licence?Could you explain how section 8, which applies to a boat moored without lawful authority, is not relevant to a boat lacking a valid licence that is moored on a CRT-controlled canal? I would agree that CRT avoids the use of bylaws, however bearing in mind the penalties specified in the bylaws are not linked to inflation, this canβt be too surprising as the penalties are simply trivial under the present currency values. A law that specifies the penalty for violation without linking it to inflation is an ill-thought out law. I posit that a bylaw whose specified penalties do not act as a deterrent, is a worthless law. The question of whether or not the current laws/sanctions available to C&RT are effective and adequate for its purposes is irrelevant.Β C&RT should, and must, abide by the Law as it stands at present.Β In future it must limit any or all punitive action taken against boat owners, for whatever cause or reason, to that which the Law specifies and authorizes - ie. the statutory powers, and Byelaws, it inherited when it took over from the British Waterways Board on 1 July 2012. If the current statutory powers, or Byelaws, are inadequate and/or outdated, and reform aimed at improving their effectiveness by bringing them up to date and in line with today's needs is required, then C&RT's only lawful route to that desired end result is to persuade Parliament to change or amend the Law as necessary. C&RT has NEVER sought to change or amend any of the stautes or laws by which it is governed by way of any such lawful and proper means, . . its chosen route to the desired outcome being instead to circumvent lawful due process by wilfully lying to and misleading the Courts, . . and lying to and misleading the Police into actively assisting in the enforcement/execution of the worthless misrepresented (Court) Orders the Courts have been deliberately misled into making.Β Finally, of course, C&RT also lie to and deceive the boat owners whose boats are being stolen by C&RT and contractors staff committing the serious criminal offence of impersonating Court authorized 'Enforcement Officers/Agents (Bailiffs) claiming - to the boat owners and the Police - to be enforcing/executing those same misrepresented worthless/void ab initio Court Orders that falsely appear, and are wilfully misrepresented by C&RT and its agents/contractors, to be what is known in broad terms as a power of seizure.It's all quite simply a carefully thought out, well rehearsed, and much practised performance of what is in truth fraud and theft, . . but it's coming to an end, . . C&RT and its crooks have been rumbled, . . and, rather like the Post Office, the ultimate full exposure of the true extent of the wrongdoing is now finally inevitable ! So, as an aggrieved party, why have you not challenged them in court? Prattling on on here does nowt, it doesn't educate us, we've all heard your sorry take umpteen times, CRT staff find you risible, as do most of us. Shit or get off the pot.
|
|
|
Post by Tony Dunkley on Mar 1, 2024 17:32:52 GMT
The question of whether or not the current laws/sanctions available to C&RT are effective and adequate for its purposes is irrelevant. C&RT should, and must, abide by the Law as it stands at present. In future it must limit any or all punitive action taken against boat owners, for whatever cause or reason, to that which the Law specifies and authorizes - ie. the statutory powers, and Byelaws, it inherited when it took over from the British Waterways Board on 1 July 2012. If the current statutory powers, or Byelaws, are inadequate and/or outdated, and reform aimed at improving their effectiveness by bringing them up to date and in line with today's needs is required, then C&RT's only lawful route to that desired end result is to persuade Parliament to change or amend the Law as necessary. C&RT has NEVER sought to change or amend any of the stautes or laws by which it is governed by way of any such lawful and proper means, . . its chosen route to the desired outcome being instead to circumvent lawful due process by wilfully lying to and misleading the Courts, . . and lying to and misleading the Police into actively assisting in the enforcement/execution of the worthless misrepresented (Court) Orders the Courts have been deliberately misled into making. Finally, of course, C&RT also lie to and deceive the boat owners whose boats are being stolen by C&RT and contractors staff committing the serious criminal offence of impersonating Court authorized 'Enforcement Officers/Agents (Bailiffs) claiming - to the boat owners and the Police - to be enforcing/executing those same misrepresented worthless/void ab initio Court Orders that falsely appear, and are wilfully misrepresented by C&RT and its agents/contractors, to be what is known in broad terms as a power of seizure.It's all quite simply a carefully thought out, well rehearsed, and much practised performance of what is in truth fraud and theft, . . but it's coming to an end, . . C&RT and its crooks have been rumbled, . . and, rather like the Post Office, the ultimate full exposure of the true extent of the wrongdoing is now finally inevitable ! Agreed that CRT have made no efforts to change the law nor bring the bylaws up to date. However those were not my questions. My questions remains please could you explain what lawful sanctions CRT ought to be employing against boats lacking a required PBC or licence? You did after all say that such sanctions already exist but are not used by CRT.
And secondly, could you explain how section 8, which applies to a boat moored without lawful authority, is not relevant to a boat lacking a valid licence that is moored on a CRT-controlled canal? The lawful sanctions C&RT should be employing against boats lacking a current PBC or PBL have been explained, referenced, and published, comprehensively and in great detail, many times already by Nigel Moore and I. As indicated earlier, your question is not pertinent to the fact that in the matter of Section 8 boat removals, C&RT is wilfully abusing, misusing, and ultimately ignoring, perfectly lawful statutory remedies it has at its disposal. C&RT is wilfully lying to and misleading the Courts, . . and it's doing this for the sole purpose of defrauding boat owners and stealing their boats and belongings, . . absent ANY lawful powers or authority so to do. There is no question that a Section 8 Notice, together with a lawful Section 8 boat removal, IS applicable to ANY "relevant craft" [S.8(1) BW Act 1983]. There is also no question that Section 8 of the 1983 Act DOES NOT empower the C&RT to remove a 'relevant craft' FROM any inland waterway, . . nor does it empower the C&RT to evict 'the owner' from any 'relevant craft' whilst 'seizing' it from its 'owner'.
|
|
|
Post by Aloysius on Mar 1, 2024 17:48:09 GMT
Just answer the question, you ridiculous old fraud.
|
|