Jump to content

section 8 canning dock ?


gaggle

Featured Posts

 

The problem with that in this particular instance is that having been fed a load of guff by the C&RT Harbour Master and his phoney and devoid of documents 'Bailliffs', the police were standing nearby watching it all happening in the belief that they were there to prevent any breach of the peace occurring in the course of a lawful seizure process.

 

To annoy you and Graham Davis.

I am not in the least annoyed. In fact there are times I pity you as the rage and hatred for CRT is obviously all consuming. However I do feel the use of the word so regularly does a number of things.

 

First and perhaps most important, it casts doubt on the fact that CRt are actually doing anything wrong as you yourself don't seem to be certain stolen is the correct word. Remember there are many "lurkers" who are influenced by what is written but with out the depth of knowledge regular poster have about the case. To put it bluntly I feel you are undermining your own case.

 

Secondly when so much stress it put on minute interpretation of wording of laws emails etc it is perverse not to mention downright daft to be so inexact in what you write.

 

The regular use of the word stolen seems a desperation ploy by somebody hoping for sympathy rather than somebody confident they are right and that a court will prove them right.

 

Personally I feel having reported the " whether the police agree or not would have left you and the owner in a stronger position for when the court decides in your favour. You would be able to register a complaint about nothing being done about a reported crime. Laying down a marker which would help in future "thefts".

 

There are times when I feel your hatred (perhaps natural in the circumstances) overrides your sensible logical view of what is the best way forward.

  • Greenie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am not in the least annoyed. In fact there are times I pity you as the rage and hatred for CRT is obviously all consuming. However I do feel the use of the word so regularly does a number of things.

First and perhaps most important, it casts doubt on the fact that CRt are actually doing anything wrong as you yourself don't seem to be certain stolen is the correct word. Remember there are many "lurkers" who are influenced by what is written but with out the depth of knowledge regular poster have about the case. To put it bluntly I feel you are undermining your own case.

Secondly when so much stress it put on minute interpretation of wording of laws emails etc it is perverse not to mention downright daft to be so inexact in what you write.

The regular use of the word stolen seems a desperation ploy by somebody hoping for sympathy rather than somebody confident they are right and that a court will prove them right.

Personally I feel having reported the " whether the police agree or not would have left you and the owner in a stronger position for when the court decides in your favour. You would be able to register a complaint about nothing being done about a reported crime. Laying down a marker which would help in future "thefts".

There are times when I feel your hatred (perhaps natural in the circumstances) overrides your sensible logical view of what is the best way forward.

 

I'm sure you mean well in what you say, but I'm afraid you're thoughts and concerns are totally misplaced. I'll try to find time to respond more fully to what you've said, but I'm fairly over occupied with other matters at the moment.

Meanwhile, I've managed to wind-up GD fairly well, but I obviously need to direct far more effort into annoying you rolleyes.gif

Edited by Tony Dunkley
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Legal definition of theft in the UK from the 1968 Act, my bold.

 

Basic definition of theft.

(1)A person is guilty of theft if he dishonestly appropriates property belonging to another with the intention of permanently depriving the other of it; and “thief” and “steal” shall be construed accordingly.

 

(2)It is immaterial whether the appropriation is made with a view to gain, or is made for the thief’s own benefit.

What may be the case is that the vessel has removed in a way, manner or to a place which could be in contravention of English Civil Law. So in my opinion a criminal offence has not been committed and the matter remains a Civil Law matter.

With regard to the two police officers and their failure to intervene; it is possible that rather than stopping a breach of the peace they permitted one, if they did not check the legal documentation and assured themselves that it carried a court's seal and legal authority for the seizure and removal. As I understand it a police constable is required by law to assist a Court Enforcement Officer in their duties to the extent of making sure they are not assaulted or obstructed in any way and if they are by arresting and prosecuting the person who assaulted or obstructed a properly authorised the Court Officer. I also believe a police constable also has a duty to protect the property belonging to a citizen and by allowing unauthorised people to appropriate someone's property could be a breach of their duty.

Thought: It could be that the courts may take the view that by moving the vessel away from Liverpool, the place where the owner/s kept it, to a place a considerable, in the vessel's movement terms, distance could be viewed as being practically depriving permanently the owner of his vessel because of the high level of costs to return it to them in Liverpool.

Edited by Geo
  • Greenie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Legal definition of theft in the UK from the 1968 Act, my bold.

 

Basic definition of theft.

(1)

A person is guilty of theft if he dishonestly appropriates property belonging to another with the intention of permanently depriving the other of it; and thief and steal shall be construed accordingly.

(2)

It is immaterial whether the appropriation is made with a view to gain, or is made for the thiefs own benefit.

What may be the case is that the vessel has removed in a way, manner or to a place which could be in contravention of English Civil Law. So in my opinion a criminal offence has not been committed and the matter remains a Civil Law matter.

With regard to the two police officers and their failure to intervene; it is possible that rather than stopping a breach of the peace they permitted one, if they did not check the legal documentation and assured themselves that it carried a court's seal and legal authority for the seizure and removal. As I understand it a police constable is required by law to assist a Court Enforcement Officer in their duties to the extent of making sure they are not assaulted or obstructed in any way and if they are by arresting and prosecuting the person who assaulted or obstructed a properly authorised the Court Officer. I also believe a police constable also has a duty to protect the property belonging to a citizen and allowing unauthorised people to appropriate someone's property could be a breach of their duty.

Thought: It could be that the courts may take the view that by moving the vessel away from Liverpool, the place where the owner/s kept it, to a place a considerable, in the vessel's movement terms, distance could be viewed as being practically depriving permanently the owner of his vessel because of the high level of costs to return it to them in Liverpool.

The oldest legislation 'on the books' forbids the removal of goods taken as lien (even legitimately) "out of the county". I imagine the rationale was close to your closing sentiment.

  • Greenie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The oldest legislation 'on the books' forbids the removal of goods taken as lien (even legitimately) "out of the county". I imagine the rationale was close to your closing sentiment.

 

That would fit perfectly smile.png so could possibly make my Thought valid.

Edited by Geo
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The oldest legislation 'on the books' forbids the removal of goods taken as lien (even legitimately) "out of the county". I imagine the rationale was close to your closing sentiment.

It would still need to be clarified as to whether CRT have taken the boat as lien or removed the boat to stop trespass, from the wording of their letter I would suggest the latter.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It would still need to be clarified as to whether CRT have taken the boat as lien or removed the boat to stop trespass, from the wording of their letter I would suggest the latter.

 

Not sure that can be the case where there is a contract in existence for the vessel to be there paid or not, I think a lien is the only option open.

 

This might help http://self-realisation.com/equity/banksterbusters/the-english-law-of-liens/and in particular may be 721

 

721. Care and Custody. The holder of a lien voluntarily in possesssion of a chattel which belongs to another [see BAILMENT vol 2 (Reissue) para 1801.], is a bailee of the chattel [the bailment is probably one for mutual advantage] and (subject to contrary agreement or special circumstances) owes the normal duty of care owed by the bailee towards the owner. This includes a duty to exercise reasonable care in the safekeeping and management of the chattel and a duty to answer for the deliberate wrongs of those to whom the holder of the lien has entrusted the chattel and delegated any part of that duty of care. In general, the party asserting the lien cannot charge the owner for the cost of keeping the chattel during the period of his possession by reason of the lien, and cannot add such costs to the charges in respect of which the lien is asserted.

 

Still reading

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It would still need to be clarified as to whether CRT have taken the boat as lien or removed the boat to stop trespass, from the wording of their letter I would suggest the latter.

 

C&RT frequently introduce the 'trespass' element into their specious arguments, but in the context they raise it, it's a non-starter and they know it, and that's why they don't bother to pursue it any further. The motives behind taking possession of the ship and their intention to sell it were, rather foolishly on their part, disclosed some time ago.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Moderator statement.

 

I am locking this thread for a short while so that I can have a good look at some of the posting.

 

Do not attempt open another thread discussing this, otherwise I shall place you in modqueue or worse.

 

Wriggly

 

Added ...

 

Thread is reopened. Do not get involved in tit for tat posting, it reflects badly on the forum and on you as a member. This is a serious and emotive matter, and I am trying to keep the thread civil and on topic. You can make sure that it continues.

Edited by wrigglefingers
Link to comment
Share on other sites

To answer my own original question, and if it's of any interest, it appears that three limited companies have been set up over a period since Mr Roberts bought the ship. The one with the original four directors, LV23 Ltd, was opened 9/9/08 and closed 27/4/10, at which point I presume Mr Roberts retained sole ownership of the ship. The other companies were Light Vessel 23 Ltd (24/9/08 - 4/5/10) and Planet Tea Garden Ltd (18/9/09 - 29/3/11). As far as I can tell, all these companies were compulsorily struck off because they never fulfilled their legal requirement of filing any accounts. The only indication that ownership was transferred to Mr Anderton in 2016 appears on the website, which may well be as reliable as everything else you read on the web.

I must say I feel very sorry for Mr Roberts, who appears to have invested a lot of his time, energy and money in the ship but sadly, in what looks like a consistently inefficient manner. Sometimes enthusiasm just isn't enough.

  • Greenie 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Late to the party as usual, but hey-ho! Seems to me that there's two main arguments happening here (and a number of minor arguments too) and it's all getting muddled up together.

 

Argument 1: Was the owner/operator of the lightship in the right or in the wrong?

 

Answer: Well we don't really know, do we? He should pay what he owes but we don't fully know why he hasn't paid, yet. Having said that, a boater getting behind on mooring fees can't be all that unusual, can it? There seems to be some kind of safety issue but nothing specific. if it's to do with customers on the ship being at risk then that's for the council/HSE (or possibly the MCA) to deal with not CRT.

 

Argument 2: Was CRT in the right or in the wrong?

 

Answer: This is where people on here seem to be getting things a bit muddled, when they defend CRTs response purely on the basis of the ship's owner being in the wrong. Effectively giving carte blanche to CRT to act however they choose. This is a very dangerous road to pursue. The key point is, did CRT act lawfully in removing the vessel, by sea, to Sharpness? To my mind, they'd better have a damn good defence up their sleeve because I cannot see how they can possibly have lawful authority to be towing a privately owned vessel out to sea, against the owner's wishes! Whether or not the owner had done wrong is irrelevant to this, we simply cannot have CRT acting beyond their powers so flagrantly. If they can do this to this boat, without due process or lawful authority, then they could do it to your boat!

 

(Other arguments in this thread include: are old boats worth preserving for their own sake? is T.D. a bit too blinkered? Are all scousers to be distrusted?

 

Answers: Yes, possibly, no.

  • Greenie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Late to the party as usual, but hey-ho! Seems to me that there's two main arguments happening here (and a number of minor arguments too) and it's all getting muddled up together.

 

Argument 1: Was the owner/operator of the lightship in the right or in the wrong?

 

Answer: Well we don't really know, do we? He should pay what he owes but we don't fully know why he hasn't paid, yet. Having said that, a boater getting behind on mooring fees can't be all that unusual, can it? There seems to be some kind of safety issue but nothing specific. if it's to do with customers on the ship being at risk then that's for the council/HSE (or possibly the MCA) to deal with not CRT.

 

Argument 2: Was CRT in the right or in the wrong?

 

Answer: This is where people on here seem to be getting things a bit muddled, when they defend CRTs response purely on the basis of the ship's owner being in the wrong. Effectively giving carte blanche to CRT to act however they choose. This is a very dangerous road to pursue. The key point is, did CRT act lawfully in removing the vessel, by sea, to Sharpness? To my mind, they'd better have a damn good defence up their sleeve because I cannot see how they can possibly have lawful authority to be towing a privately owned vessel out to sea, against the owner's wishes! Whether or not the owner had done wrong is irrelevant to this, we simply cannot have CRT acting beyond their powers so flagrantly. If they can do this to this boat, without due process or lawful authority, then they could do it to your boat!

 

(Other arguments in this thread include: are old boats worth preserving for their own sake? is T.D. a bit too blinkered? Are all scousers to be distrusted?

 

Answers: Yes, possibly, no.

Is it not the case that, in your first point, that CaRT have both a right and a duty to exercise due diligence in assuring themselves that a vessel is 'safe' before it is licensed or otherwise given permission to be on their waters? HSE has a duty to enforce but cannot inspect everything or even require certificates of every premises and works, let alone vessels, in the UK. For the most part they only act once they are aware of a potential problem - like there has been a reportable incident.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Is it not the case that, in your first point, that CaRT have both a right and a duty to exercise due diligence in assuring themselves that a vessel is 'safe' before it is licensed or otherwise given permission to be on their waters? HSE has a duty to enforce but cannot inspect everything or even require certificates of every premises and works, let alone vessels, in the UK. For the most part they only act once they are aware of a potential problem - like there has been a reportable incident.

Reading back through the thread, it seems that the soundness of the vessel is not in dispute. This is reinforced up by CRT having her towed out to sea. This leaves the other option that the safety issue was something to do with how the business on the vessel was operating. This is where the HSE/council/MCA would come in. Any of these would take action following a report of unsafe practice, no incident would be necessary. CRT could have made that report. In any case, how on earth would an unsafe business (even if there were one) be best addressed by towing the vessel out to sea?

Good precis.

If that was for me, then thanks. Your opinion is much valued at this end!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

C&RT frequently introduce the 'trespass' element into their specious arguments, but in the context they raise it, it's a non-starter and they know it, and that's why they don't bother to pursue it any further. The motives behind taking possession of the ship and their intention to sell it were, rather foolishly on their part, disclosed some time ago.

I think that you will find that no-one pursues the basic offence of trespass any further than removing the trespasser from wherever they are not supposed to be. The famous sign 'Trespassers will be Prosecuted' is pretty much meaningless. Off the top of my head the only occasions that further action is likely to be taken is trespass on the railway (separate offence under Section 55 British Transport Commission Act 1949) and trespass on protected sites (MOD,Royal sites, etc under Sections 128 - 131 of the Serious Organised Crime and Police Act 2005). So this isn't something peculiar to CRT it is how the law of trespass works.

 

Any ulterior motives that CRT may have regarding the disposal of the vessel could quite easily have been neutralised by Mr Roberts removing the boat himself when asked to do so (the letter you copied onto this thread). For whatever reason he chose not to do so. I also find it interesting that whilst you claim he may suffer from 'confusion', he wasn't so confused that he was unable to employ someone to run his business for him (and presumably pay this persons wages) nor was he so confused that he was unable to get traders to supply him with goods for that business (for which I presume they were also paid), it just seems that he was too 'confused' to pay his 'rent'(berthing fee).

  • Greenie 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Late to the party as usual, but hey-ho! Seems to me that there's two main arguments happening here (and a number of minor arguments too) and it's all getting muddled up together.

 

Argument 1: Was the owner/operator of the lightship in the right or in the wrong?

 

Answer: Well we don't really know, do we? He should pay what he owes but we don't fully know why he hasn't paid, yet. Having said that, a boater getting behind on mooring fees can't be all that unusual, can it? There seems to be some kind of safety issue but nothing specific. if it's to do with customers on the ship being at risk then that's for the council/HSE (or possibly the MCA) to deal with not CRT.

 

Argument 2: Was CRT in the right or in the wrong?

 

Answer: This is where people on here seem to be getting things a bit muddled, when they defend CRTs response purely on the basis of the ship's owner being in the wrong. Effectively giving carte blanche to CRT to act however they choose. This is a very dangerous road to pursue. The key point is, did CRT act lawfully in removing the vessel, by sea, to Sharpness? To my mind, they'd better have a damn good defence up their sleeve because I cannot see how they can possibly have lawful authority to be towing a privately owned vessel out to sea, against the owner's wishes! Whether or not the owner had done wrong is irrelevant to this, we simply cannot have CRT acting beyond their powers so flagrantly. If they can do this to this boat, without due process or lawful authority, then they could do it to your boat!

 

(Other arguments in this thread include: are old boats worth preserving for their own sake? is T.D. a bit too blinkered? Are all scousers to be distrusted?

 

Answers: Yes, possibly, no.

Exactly so. It seems a lot of the arguments on this thread are either 1, If CRT does it must be right - the 'no smoke without fire; argument, 2, If Tony Dunkley supports it, it must be wrong and 3. if the owner did bad then he deserves whatever CRT do, illegal or not.

 

In response to 3, it seems to me that no matter what the wrongs of the individual, there is an onus of CRT to act with absolute probity.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think that you will find that no-one pursues the basic offence of trespass any further than removing the trespasser from wherever they are not supposed to be. The famous sign 'Trespassers will be Prosecuted' is pretty much meaningless. Off the top of my head the only occasions that further action is likely to be taken is trespass on the railway (separate offence under Section 55 British Transport Commission Act 1949) and trespass on protected sites (MOD,Royal sites, etc under Sections 128 - 131 of the Serious Organised Crime and Police Act 2005). So this isn't something peculiar to CRT it is how the law of trespass works.

 

Any ulterior motives that CRT may have regarding the disposal of the vessel could quite easily have been neutralised by Mr Roberts removing the boat himself when asked to do so (the letter you copied onto this thread). For whatever reason he chose not to do so. I also find it interesting that whilst you claim he may suffer from 'confusion', he wasn't so confused that he was unable to employ someone to run his business for him (and presumably pay this persons wages) nor was he so confused that he was unable to get traders to supply him with goods for that business (for which I presume they were also paid), it just seems that he was too 'confused' to pay his 'rent'(berthing fee).

 

Your whole second paragraph seems to imply the very confusion which I mentioned in my previous post. Just because Mr Roberts was in the wrong, does not give CRT any free rein to follow suit. How Mr Roberts has behaved in this is of minimal concern to me (other than a mild 'tut'), but how CRT have behaved is deeply concerning. It seems to me that many posters on this thread have their priorities back-to-front, more concerned with a type of mob justice known as trial-by-internet than with a potential gross abuse of power by a national charity and statutory public body.

 

When I was about 5 years old, my mum sat me on her knee and explained the concept of 'two wrongs don't make a right'.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Reading back through the thread, it seems that the soundness of the vessel is not in dispute. This is reinforced up by CRT having her towed out to sea. This leaves the other option that the safety issue was something to do with how the business on the vessel was operating. This is where the HSE/council/MCA would come in. Any of these would take action following a report of unsafe practice, no incident would be necessary. CRT could have made that report. In any case, how on earth would an unsafe business (even if there were one) be best addressed by towing the vessel out to sea?

 

Whilst it is purely speculation on my part I would suggest that some pressure may well have been applied to CRT from other businesses in the dock area. If I were running a licensed premises in Liverpool Dock (let us say Revolution or Blue or one of the others) and I was losing clientele to another business who was paying no rent for the privelege of operating in a prime site I may well be tempted to ask CRT why I should continue paying my rent to them if other businesses are to be allowed to operate rent free. And their answer would be?......

 

 

Your whole second paragraph seems to imply the very confusion which I mentioned in my previous post. Just because Mr Roberts was in the wrong, does not give CRT any free rein to follow suit. How Mr Roberts has behaved in this is of minimal concern to me (other than a mild 'tut'), but how CRT have behaved is deeply concerning. It seems to me that many posters on this thread have their priorities back-to-front, more concerned with a type of mob justice known as trial-by-internet than with a potential gross abuse of power by a national charity and statutory public body.

 

When I was about 5 years old, my mum sat me on her knee and explained the concept of 'two wrongs don't make a right'.

You seem to be prejudging any outcome. Until some Court decides one way or another who is to say whether or not CRT have behaved illegally? Information from Mr Dunkley suggests a Court has already decided that Mr Roberts hasn't behaved lawfully since there now appears to be a debt judgement against him, where is any judgement (other than on this forum) against CRT? If there is any trial-by-internet you seem to be as enthusiastic a participant as those you criticise.

  • Greenie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Whilst it is purely speculation on my part I would suggest that some pressure may well have been applied to CRT from other businesses in the dock area. If I were running a licensed premises in Liverpool Dock (let us say Revolution or Blue or one of the others) and I was losing clientele to another business who was paying no rent for the privelege of operating in a prime site I may well be tempted to ask CRT why I should continue paying my rent to them if other businesses are to be allowed to operate rent free. And their answer would be?......

 

 

It does seem that you are trying to find acceptable reasons for CRT's action by speculation and that holds no water at all. You have I believe grumbled at others about a lack of evidence. I assume that you do not have any evidence for the above statement.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's fairly self-evident that the ship wasn't trading lawfully as it didn't have a licence to do so, and hadn't had for a considerable time. Perhaps CRT decided the only way to actually stop it trading was to take it somewhere it couldn't, as nothing else seemed to be persuading the owners to act within the law.

What penalties would be imposed on, say, a hotel narrowboat operating on the canal system with no licences, insurance, safety cert etc?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

It does seem that you are trying to find acceptable reasons for CRT's action by speculation and that holds no water at all. You have I believe grumbled at others about a lack of evidence. I assume that you do not have any evidence for the above statement.

I think you may find it was a 'speculation' as evidenced in the first 7 words of the text. It is however what I would do if I were running a licensed premises in the area (as also contained in the text) since the property rental comprises a significant part of one's business expenses and why should one pay one's rent if a competitor is given a free rental site?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think you may find it was a 'speculation' as evidenced in the first 7 words of the text. It is however what I would do if I were running a licensed premises in the area (as also contained in the text) since the property rental comprises a significant part of one's business expenses and why should one pay one's rent if a competitor is given a free rental site?

 

Interesting how are you going to find out?

 

I think you will find that information would be covered by the DPA 1998, for CRT to release it would be a breach of that act and opening CRT to a fine.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.