Boater With Home Mooring - Court Action Started.

[Tony Dunkley]

I have been staying out of this up until now, because I know nothing of the current situation.

 

However in my mind the following two posts from another thread may have some bearing

 

 

Now I fully realise that we are talking 40 years on, and Tony may be a very different character from back in the 1970s, but I think it isn't being unfair to suggest that back then he was often operating on the fringes of what many people might have called reasonable. ......

 

Well, Alan Fincher, I don't know who or what you are but I can tell you that I'm no different now from 40, and more, years ago. . . . . . so come on, lets hear all about these fringes of reasonableness that I was operating on. While you're at it, why don't you remind me where and when we met, because I can't recall you at all . . . . . . . perhaps I was even less impressed with you at the time than I am now.

[Naughty Cal]

Well, Alan Fincher, I don't know who or what you are but I can tell you that I'm no different now from 40, and more, years ago. . . . . . so come on, lets hear all about these fringes of reasonableness that I was operating on. While you're at it, why don't you remind me where and when we met, because I can't recall you at all . . . . . . . perhaps I was even less impressed with you at the time than I am now.

I assume you have used that stance with CRT as well?

 

Things are a little bit clearer now. Thanks.

[alan_fincher]

Well, Alan Fincher, I don't know who or what you are but I can tell you that I'm no different now from 40, and more, years ago. . . . . . so come on, lets hear all about these fringes of reasonableness that I was operating on. While you're at it, why don't you remind me where and when we met, because I can't recall you at all . . . . . . . perhaps I was even less impressed with you at the time than I am now.

I have said I will issue a full grovelling apology if this goes to court and you win your case.

 

You were first to raise your situation here, but really were subsequently not very forthcoming when people asked you to clarify things.

 

I'm left with the feeling you are giving a very one sided version of events, but if you really are being singled out for victimisation by CRT, presumably it will go in your favour?

[MtB]

Well, Alan Fincher, I don't know who or what you are but I can tell you that I'm no different now from 40, and more, years ago. . . . . . so come on, lets hear all about these fringes of reasonableness that I was operating on. While you're at it, why don't you remind me where and when we met, because I can't recall you at all . . . . . . . perhaps I was even less impressed with you at the time than I am now.

 

Tony,

 

Thanks for showing up in this thread.

 

As Naughty Cal says, if this is the style in which you engage with CRT too, I think I can see why they feel unable to do business with you other than in the courtroom.

 

Could you clarify something for us please? Is there going to be a court hearing of some sort? And if so, who is the plaintiff and who is the defendant? When and where is the hearing set for?

 

Thanks.

 

MtB

[Tuscan]

[quote name="alan_fincher" post="1352406" timestamp="1405031102"

 

Now I fully realise that we are talking 40 years on, and Tony may be a very different character from back in the 1970s, but I think it isn't being unfair to suggest that back then he was often operating on the fringes of what many people might have called reasonable.

 

I know nothing of the circumstances or the individual involved. But I think if you are going to make statements like this about another forum member (which may be true) you should elaborate or withdraw them. Are you saying he would not have passed Nick Normans new p***taker test that he's trying to get CRT to adopt which also is outside the current legislation. Or is their a new Fincher CRB test being proposed for 2015 license applications that has yet to be introduced?

 

I assume many of the enforcement cases (and there are relatively few of them) involve boaters who are or have challenged CRTs authority and it must be difficult for the enforcement team not to see some of these as 'personal' challenges.

 

I look forward to the seeing the facts on both sides to understand where both parties are coming from.

[cotswoldsman]

It all seems pretty straightforward to me, though as I'm going off on the boat in a day or so I probaboy won't find out why I'm wrong... if someone's a liveaboard boater, then his home mooring must be registered as residential. If it aint, then it's not a genuine home mooring and he's a CC.

I think that is wrong it depends how much time they spend on the home mooring for it to have to qualify as residential

[jenlyn]

I know nothing of the circumstances or the individual involved. But I think if you are going to make statements like this about another forum member (which may be true) you should elaborate or withdraw them. Are you saying he would not have passed Nick Normans new p***taker test that he's trying to get CRT to adopt which also is outside the current legislation. Or is their a new Fincher CRB test being proposed for 2015 license applications that has yet to be introduced?

I assume many of the enforcement cases (and there are relatively few of them) involve boaters who are or have challenged CRTs authority and it must be difficult for the enforcement team not to see some of these as 'personal' challenges.

I look forward to the seeing the facts on both sides to understand where both parties are coming from.

Greenie.

 

I think Mr fincher needs to think a little longer before making such statements in public. I don't blame Tony Dunkley for retaliating, and I think he was justified in making such a reply to such a stupid statement.

[cotswoldsman]

 

Tony,

 

Thanks for showing up in this thread.

 

As Naughty Cal says, if this is the style in which you engage with CRT too, I think I can see why they feel unable to do business with you other than in the courtroom.

 

 

 

Sorry I know that I do get confused at times and that your use of English is far superior to mine but be interested to know how Tony is supposed to answer a statement such as this

 

 

Alan Fincher said

Now I fully realise that we are talking 40 years on, and Tony may be a very different character from back in the 1970s, but I think it isn't being unfair to suggest that back then he was often operating on the fringes of what many people might have called reasonable. Unfortunately in in the stuff he has posted in another thread he has clearly talked up the"CRT are bad guys" bit, whilst remaining quite coy about what he actually does in boating and mooring terms.

 

Now clearly Tony does not have a clue who Alan Fincher is and has no recollection of him back in the 70's might help if Alan gave Tony the name of his boat back in those days. If Tony is anything like me he might not know people by name but the name of the boat they owned in those days might help.

Alan has made some fairly serious implied accusations against someone so maybe it would have been better if he had expanded on those

[MtB]

 

Sorry I know that I do get confused at times and that your use of English is far superior to mine but be interested to know how Tony is supposed to answer a statement such as this

 

A statement doe not require an answer.

 

It would be nice if Tony answered the questions I asked though, which you chose not to quote.

 

MtB

[cotswoldsman]

 

A statement doe not require an answer.

 

It would be nice if Tony answered the questions I asked though, which you chose not to quote.

 

MtB

I did not quote it because it was not relevant to the question I was asking

[MtB]

P.S. I'm sure you could write proper English if you chose to. I think you rush to get the thoughts out and don't read and edit before you post.

I did not quote it because it was not relevant to the question I was asking

 

Your question was 'How is Tony supposed to answer a statement?"

 

My answer is that he isn't!

 

 

MtB

[alan_fincher]

I take on board comments made, and have withdrawn the part of my post that I guess is being objected to. (EDIT: Well I thought I had, having trouble getting forum to work here at the moment, but I think it's gone now?)

 

(I obviously can't remove attempts to quote it, so leave it up to those who have whether they want to edit there posts or not).

 

I stand by my statement that Tony initially raised this matter as another "CRT are the bad guys" post, but has not exactly been forthcoming when people have asked him for more explanations.

 

If you are going to make a story out of something, then in my view you should be prepared to tell the whole story.

 

Sorry if I have offended people, and as I say, I will unconditionally apologise to Tony if he wins a case against CRT.

Edited July 11, 2014 by alan_fincher

[Naughty Cal]

Tony seems to be pretty quiet on the reasons why this case is going to court.

 

Can you inform us of your side of the story Tony?

[cotswoldsman]

Tony seems to be pretty quiet on the reasons why this case is going to court.

 

Can you inform us of your side of the story Tony?

Unlike some i am no expert on legal stuff but I think maybe while the case is ongoing Tony might be limited in what he can say

[Naughty Cal]

Unlike some i am no expert on legal stuff but I think maybe while the case is ongoing Tony might be limited in what he can say

I understand that but he must surely be able to tell us what he will tell the courts?

[jenlyn]

I understand that but he must surely be able to tell us what he will tell the courts?

Perhaps tony is struggling to single hand through a lift bridge. ;-)

[Guest]

Unlike some i am no expert on legal stuff but I think maybe while the case is ongoing Tony might be limited in what he can say

I don't think I would expect either Tony or CRT also. Even if they were legally able to I think it would be folly to disclose your arguments in an open public forum in advance of any case coming to court.

[Paul C]

I see parallels with Nick Brown's recent Judicial Review case on the CRT guidance for CCers - in his flowery and long-winded defence, he provided only very vague details about the actual critical facts - his movement pattern - and ultimately, for a partly-related reason (because he was theorising, rather than applying the law to a particular case) he was persuaded to withdraw the case thus not getting the result he wanted.

 

Hopefully Tony in his court case will take heed and actually provide proper details of his boat movements (which, at the end of the day, are the important facts of the case such as this). And of course if the case runs to completion, then is subsequently published, both sides of the argument (Tony and CRT's) will be in the public domain. I'm not too worried if Tony doesn't provide much info, or is very selective and emotional about the info presented out-of-court, we can all see through that. I'm interested in the outcome (once all the facts are on the table and have been properly considered in court), however.

[Naughty Cal]

Hmm. Perhaps.

 

But then why would he bother commenting here at all, especially given the manner of his post which didn't really paint a shining picture!

[MtB]

I don't think I would expect either Tony or CRT also. Even if they were legally able to I think it would be folly to disclose your arguments in an open public forum in advance of any case coming to court.

 

 

There is no reason to keep the court hearing date a secret though. They are supposed to be public hearings.

 

MtB

[Guest]

Hmm. Perhaps.

But then why would he bother commenting here at all, especially given the manner of his post which didn't really paint a shining picture!

Well I actually think it was pretty restrained considering the post he was responding too TBH. He,d had some pretty serious unsubstantiated things said about him which may or may not be true of course but given that it was some time ago now it may not even be remotely relevant.

There is no reason to keep the court hearing date a secret though. They are supposed to be public hearings.

 

MtB

I agree, but that is not the point I was responding to.

[Tuscan]

I understand that but he must surely be able to tell us what he will tell the courts?

If I was Tony I certainly would not reveal my defence on an open CRT read forum before the court case. It is CRT that are taking him to court wouldn't it be more appropriate for CRT to make there case public. I agree with Paul C's post above.

[Guest]

If I was Tony I certainly would not reveal my defence on an open CRT read forum before the court case. It is CRT that are taking him to court wouldn't it be more appropriate for CRT to make there case public. I agree with Paul C's post above.

I disagree. I don't think either side should. It will come out in any hearing and people can then form a view as to the validity of CRT's case.

[MtB]

If I was Tony I certainly would not reveal my defence on an open CRT read forum before the court case. It is CRT that are taking him to court wouldn't it be more appropriate for CRT to make there case public. I agree with Paul C's post above.

 

But we don't even know that do we? Or have you seen it stated as a fact somewhere?

 

MtB

[Tuscan]

My understanding is that CRT applied recently for the equivalent of a summary judgement which was refused by the judge and 2 weeks were granted for a defence to be prepared and submitted. This is hearsay so I am uncertain of dates etc but presumably it's now fairly imminent . CRT no doubt will have their barrister I have no idea whether the defendant is legally represented.