Lots of Tony Dunkley’s bullshit.

The full judgment is linked in this article.

I found it an interesting read.

www.communitylawpartnership.co.uk/gypsy-and-traveller-cases/boat-cases/canal-and-river-trust-v-geoffrey-douglas-mayers

Thanks. It sort of puts that one to bed. One of the consequences appears to be that if one is living on one's boat as a primary residence then by definition you can't be performing bona-fide navigation since that activity requires a boat-related purpose like transporting coal or whatever and the primary purpose of the boat (if it's a residence) is to be a home...gulp.

Might be time to get a mooring while you still can...by the time the full extent of the cc-er surcharge has kicked in a few years from now it'll cost much the same anyway.

But...the notion that a distance like 30 or 40 miles is required is still a nonsense, at least in the view of that beak; it's the act of changing locations between one parish and another that counts.

I'm not pro CRT, yet I'm not anti CRT. I wasn't concerned with the full transcript(at the time)

I thought the judgement was very interesting.


I would like to read the full transcript if its available.

Did he mention that if any costs need paying before collecting or could they be ignored?

You complain about people posting unrelated post on your threads and them you go and do it yourself.

You complain about being harassed and then you harass others.

Odd behaviour really.

OK.

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 special attention of Tom Deards, Lucy Barry, and the rest of the crooked
                      lawyers 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 like you - 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 inconvenient (for C&RT and CBS) 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" 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 authorized to act under any such "enforcement power". 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 item of Judicial guidance, and legal opinion, was discovered by Nigel Moore and I in a copy of a trial transcript I gave him 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."

Are you are trying to wind Tony up?