|
Post by kris on Mar 18, 2024 15:26:58 GMT
an appeal against a 'successful' S8 action which always stand on the question of movement and distance. Tony's S8 had nothing to do with movement or distance. The Boat was unlicensed but did have a place where it could reasonably be kept ie a mooring. Let’s face it a lot of Tony’s case was a personal vendetta between Stuart garner and Tony. It’s not right that personality comes into these situations but it does. Mind you if Tony spoke to him like he speaks to people on here, you can kind of understand why mr garner took it personally. He retired not long after seizing halcyon daze.
|
|
|
Post by Aloysius on Mar 18, 2024 15:49:56 GMT
an appeal against a 'successful' S8 action which always stand on the question of movement and distance. Tony's S8 had nothing to do with movement or distance. The Boat was unlicensed but did have a place where it could reasonably be kept ie a mooring. Ok mostly then. Tony's case may be unique or at least uncommon in that he was presumably paying for the mooring but refusing everything else. Most people who get an S8 are cc-ers and the issue is movement. You're just equivocating for the sake of it as bloody usual.
|
|
|
Post by kris on Mar 18, 2024 15:58:11 GMT
Tony's S8 had nothing to do with movement or distance. The Boat was unlicensed but did have a place where it could reasonably be kept ie a mooring. Ok mostly then. Tony's case may be unique or at least uncommon in that he was presumably paying for the mooring but refusing everything else. Most people who get an S8 are cc-ers and the issue is movement. You're just equivocating for the sake of it as bloody usual. Tony wasn’t paying for the mooring. Myself and the other boaters that he was illegally subletting the mooring to where paying for the mooring. Plus putting a substantial amount into Tony’s back pocket every year.
|
|
|
Post by Tony Dunkley on Mar 18, 2024 20:23:04 GMT
This is exactly CRT’s reasoning. Vulnerable elderly people, or people with mental health problems seem to be their favorite targets. Tony being a classic example. Obviously he's alright as the Boat was not his residence but for someone who actually lives aboard it is serious shit. They could be in a tent or under a bridge. I see that you're still doing your damnedest to line yourself up for Harassment and Stalking charges under the 1997 Act too. It would perhaps be best, were you to ask some friends or neighbours to get you laced-up back in your strait-jacket to keep you quiet.
|
|
|
Post by on Mar 18, 2024 20:30:14 GMT
Shut up idiot.
|
|
|
Post by kris on Mar 18, 2024 20:30:21 GMT
Do give it a rest Tony, the only person your fooling is yourself.
|
|
|
Post by on Mar 18, 2024 20:32:02 GMT
It might be his only social contact. I imagine everyone in real life probably shuns the poor blighter.
|
|
|
Post by kris on Mar 18, 2024 20:46:13 GMT
It might be his only social contact. I imagine everyone in real life probably shuns the poor blighter. What do you mean “might,” the only other people he talks to are his imaginary friends.
|
|
|
Post by Mr Stabby on Mar 18, 2024 21:04:50 GMT
Tony being a classic example. Obviously he's alright as the Boat was not his residence but for someone who actually lives aboard it is serious shit. They could be in a tent or under a bridge. I see that you're still doing your damnedest to line yourself up for Harassment and Stalking charges under the 1997 Act too. You really aren't very good at understanding Law, are you?
|
|
|
Post by kris on Mar 18, 2024 21:14:31 GMT
I see that you're still doing your damnedest to line yourself up for Harassment and Stalking charges under the 1997 Act too. You really aren't very good at understanding Law, are you? Tony is the law.
|
|
|
Post by Mr Stabby on Mar 18, 2024 21:19:51 GMT
It might be his only social contact. I imagine everyone in real life probably shuns the poor blighter. According to various posts on CWDF, Tony Dunkley is universally disliked by anybody who has encountered him in real life. His personality apparently mirrors his posting style here, in that he is generally considered to be boorish, arrogant, rude and bombastic.
|
|
|
Post by Tony Dunkley on Mar 18, 2024 22:53:36 GMT
It's obviously necessary to give this another airing, . . and cause C&RT's corrupt management and bent lawyers a bit more discomfort.
__________________________________________________
A brief explanation of how, and why, C&RT's actions -- in forcibly evicting boat occupiers from 'relevant craft' (almost always craft of which the occupiers are the undisputed rightful owner), then seizing the 'relevant craft', then craning it out of the waterway onto road transport and taking it away -- are all wholly unlawful : -
Section 8 of the British Waterways Act 1983 DOES NOT, and NEVER did, authorize or empower the C&RT to remove Section 8'd 'relevant craft' FROM C&RT managed or controlled inland waterways, or to "seize" the vessels from the owners, or to forcibly "evict" the owners from the vessel.
There are two main reasons for obtaining these - what are in truth - technically and legally worthless, irreparably flawed/void ab initio, and therefore, in law/legally, unenforceable (Court) Orders.
Firstly, window dressing, . . to draw attention away from the fact that the statutory powers of 'relevant craft' removal DO NOT - and never did - include forcibly seizing ANY 'relevant craft' from a known and contactable owner who is in lawful undisputed possession of the named/identified vessel.
Secondly, . . and this is the vitally important bit, . . to provide the Commercial Boat Services rent-a-thug bogus Bailiffs with a piece of paper - a Court Order - that has - "If you do not obey paragraphs 2 and 3 of this Order, then you may be held in contempt of Court and imprisoned or fined, OR YOUR ASSETS MAY BE SEIZED" - printed across the top of the page.
It's the ". . OR YOUR ASSETS MAY BE SEIZED" - wording on the Order that C&RT and its crooked contractors are so keen on having, . . so that, prior to being shown to the Police it can be used to intimidate the boat owner by C&RT's so-called Licence/Customer Support Officers, and the bogus (uncertificated) Bailiffs they bring with them.
The 'seizing' of assets is, however, something that can only be ordered by the Court in the event of the owner of the named vessel not complying with the 'Injunction' part of the Court Orders that C&RT obtain, . . and then ONLY after C&RT reapplying to the Court and asking the Court to make an appropriate, and specific 'seizure power' Order.
The so-called C&RT "Licence/Customer Support Officers" who attend C&RT's unlawful Section 8 so-called boat 'removals', arrive together with Brian Clarke/CBS's rent-a-thug bogus (uncertificated) Bailiffs, . . all too frequently accompanied by thick ill-trained policemen who are incapable of reading and understanding, or the true worth of, the fraudulently obtained and therefore legally unenforceable Court Orders they are shown.
The C&RT 'Court Orders' are in fact nothing more than Orders for what the Courts call Declaratory and Injunctive Relief, . . and therefore are NOT 'enforceable' by C&RT, by the Police, or even by genuine Court authorized/certificated Bailiffs - WITHOUT FIRST GOING BACK TO THE COURT AND REAPPLYING for a seizure power Order against a specific named person in respect of their assets and/or goods.
The Police provide hands-on support and physical assistance in what is in fact a civil dispute enforcement process that is being fraudulently executed, absent the mandatory Court Warrant or Writ, by bogus, uncertificated Bailiffs (phoney Enforcement Agents or Officers) who neither have nor carry the mandatory wet ink Judge's signature Court authorization/certification that the Law demands that Enforcement Agents or Officers must hold, and carry with them at all times, under the Tribunals, Courts & Enforcement Act 2007, and the Taking Control of Goods Regulations 2013. The enforcement of (Court)Orders made pursuant to civil proceedings is NOT a criminal matter - and therefore outwith the Police remit in any event.
______________________________________________________
When, if ever, the above explanation finally begins to sink into the thick heads of Thunderboat's most stupid posters - I'll go on to explain how C&RT's bent lawyers lie to and mislead the Courts into making the technically worthless void ab initio Court Orders fraudulently deployed and misused by C&RT and Commercial Boat Services at their unlawful boat 'removals'.
|
|
|
Post by kris on Mar 18, 2024 22:57:39 GMT
We are not interested Tony.
|
|
|
Post by Tony Dunkley on Mar 18, 2024 23:27:20 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Telemachus on Mar 18, 2024 23:27:24 GMT
Tony, wrong on a few counts, correct on a few counts.
Your attempt to use the absence of the word “from” the legislation to disempower section 8 from having any purpose with regard to boats moored without lawful authority, doesn’t work. It fails a common sense test. Although ultimately it would be up to a court to decide of course. And they have decided!
You are correct that seizing an asset by way securing a debt, is a civil matter. However that is not what is actually happening when CRT remove a boat. It is a matter governed by statute. I’m pretty sure that makes it a criminal matter, but anyway it is most certainly not a civil matter. In your case the police were called because you assaulted someone.
I would agree that some of the wording on CRT’s paperwork is designed to scare, but it is not factually incorrect. Failing to comply with a court order could results in the issues stated but it would of course not be up to CRT, rather it would be up to the court to decide future actions and penalties.
|
|