CRT being sued in the High Court for misuse of Section 8 rule

[Paul C]

24 minutes ago, nicknorman said:

Paul I think you are out of order posting your interpretation / hearsay about Tony on here when you know he is banned from this forum and so can’t put his side of the story.

Nick, what I said is entirely factual. I have been very careful not to put my own opinion/interpretation onto it.

 

 

Tony had his chance in court........................The county court hearing is in the past. 

lost..........................................................................this is factual

and its looking like he can't appeal...........this is based on his incurred costs; bankruptcy; and general knowledge of how the court system works.

 

ETA, if it turns out (perhaps through changes of circumstance) Tony Dunkley IS able to appeal, I shall duly apologise for the inaccuracy.

Edited August 31, 2019 by Paul C

[nicknorman]

13 minutes ago, Paul C said:

Nick, what I said is entirely factual. I have been very careful not to put my own opinion/interpretation onto it.

 

 

Tony had his chance in court........................The county court hearing is in the past. 

lost..........................................................................this is factual

and its looking like he can't appeal...........this is based on his incurred costs; bankruptcy; and general knowledge of how the court system works.

 

ETA, if it turns out (perhaps through changes of circumstance) Tony Dunkley IS able to appeal, I shall duly apologise for the inaccuracy.

It is your third para that is pure opinion and interpretation and not based on any facts you know. Pure speculation.

22 minutes ago, Mike the Boilerman said:

 

Perfectly relevant. Tony has effectively self-excluded himself from answering Paul C's comments, so you criticism of Paul C for commenting is invalid.

I disagree. Obviously.

[dmr]

30 minutes ago, nicknorman said:

Paul I think you are out of order posting your interpretation / hearsay about Tony on here when you know he is banned from this forum and so can’t put his side of the story.

A case of glass houses and stones I would think. Tony made himself a very public and outspoken figure on this forum, and made his battles with CRT very public. He has also made all manner of untrue accusations about various people, myself included, when they were not in a position to defend themselves. If he had won anything he would have publicised it extensively so can't expect privacy if he has lost.

 

.............Dave

[Paul C]

1 minute ago, nicknorman said:

It is your third para that is pure opinion and interpretation and not based on any facts you know.

I'll hang on until the actual appeal occurs, before issuing an apology, if that's okay.

[nicknorman]

8 minutes ago, Paul C said:

I'll hang on until the actual appeal occurs, before issuing an apology, if that's okay.

You don’t have to apologise but you should, if you have any integrity, acknowledge that your earlier statement that you had only posted facts on the matter, was not correct.

Edited August 31, 2019 by nicknorman

[Arthur Marshall]

Must admit I quite miss Tony's take on things, which is why I nip over to the other forum every now and then though never bothered to join it. He does have a wealth of knowledge and can be enormously helpful, as well as on occasion being a serious pain in the wotsit. I could never understand why he wasn't from Yorkshire. 

[Paul C]

6 minutes ago, nicknorman said:

You don’t have to apologise but you should, if you have any integrity, acknowledge that your earlier statement that you had only posted facts on the matter, was untrue.

You're welcome to offer a coherent argument on why you interpret the situation differently. Let's not get too personal, but instead focus on the issues. I raised a (IMHO completely valid) point that the opportunity to appeal often requires some type of security of possible further costs incurred by the other party. For 11 days, that stood as the most recent post on this thread. Do you disagree with this? If so, please explain why.

Edited August 31, 2019 by Paul C

[nicknorman]

10 minutes ago, Paul C said:

You're welcome to offer a coherent argument on why you interpret the situation differently. Let's not get too personal, but instead focus on the issues. I raised a (IMHO completely valid) point that the opportunity to appeal often requires some type of security of possible further costs incurred by the other party. For 11 days, that stood as the most recent post on this thread. Do you disagree with this? If so, please explain why.

The bottom line is that you said “looking like he can’t appeal” (due to the various opinions you hold). You say this is a fact.

 

I think most people would say that is an opinion, maybe a presumption, or even idle and slightly malicious gossip. But definitely not a fact.

[BillM]

For those in meed of simpler words than the wearysome details provided by messrs A de Enfield and N Moore, this link leads to a relatively straightforward explanation of the history of the Public Right of Navigation, and the duties imposed on CRT by the 1971 Waterways Act.

 https://nabo.org.uk/files/members/right_of_nav.pdf

 

The vat issue is simple too.  CRT provide vat chargeable services to licence holders... inclding buyers of what CRT describe as a Rivers Only Licence.  Some believe the Rivers Only Licence ( or Pleasure Boat Certificate if you prefer) is not vatable, because it is a mandatorily payable fee.  Some enterprising boater might take the issue up with Revenue & Customs for a determining ruling. Good luck with that. 

Edited August 31, 2019 by BillM

[nicknorman]

3 hours ago, Paul C said:

It looks like Tony Dunkley has failed to comply with the court order to obtain a Rivers Only Licence, due to his boat not having a BSS.

...and while I think of it, his boat doesn’t necessarily need to have a BSS to obtain a PBC.

Edited August 31, 2019 by nicknorman

[Paul C]

Just now, nicknorman said:

...and while I think of it, his boat doesn’t necessarily need to have a BSS

That's to be determined. As things stand, its accurate to say CRT have not issued the licence, due to no BSS. Tony provided a BSS Exemption form; it is yet to be determined independently if the boat meets the criteria to enjoy a BSS exemption. 

[Mike Todd]

17 minutes ago, nicknorman said:

The bottom line is that you said “looking like he can’t appeal” (due to the various opinions you hold). You say this is a fact.

 

I think most people would say that is an opinion, maybe a presumption, or even idle and slightly malicious gossip. But definitely not a fact.

The statement says 'looking like' - which seems fairly factual. It does not assert that he for definite cannot appeal. I susepoct it does not take a special set of spectacles to see it 'looking' like that.

[nicknorman]

29 minutes ago, Paul C said:

That's to be determined. As things stand, its accurate to say CRT have not issued the licence, due to no BSS. Tony provided a BSS Exemption form; it is yet to be determined independently if the boat meets the criteria to enjoy a BSS exemption. 

My factual statement does not need “to be determined”. As I said, his boat doesn’t necessarily need to have a BSS. I didn’t say “his boat doesn’t need to have a BSS”. Good grief, it really is difficult dealing with people who can’t or won’t read plain English (although a common problem on here!).

15 minutes ago, Mike Todd said:

The statement says 'looking like' - which seems fairly factual. It does not assert that he for definite cannot appeal. I susepoct it does not take a special set of spectacles to see it 'looking' like that.

If you think that “looking like” is a fact as opposed to an opinion or observation, then we have different ideas of what constitutes a fact. And yours is incorrect!  What is “fairly factual” anyway? Something is either a fact, or it is not.

Paul was justifying his post on the basis that it was entirely factual, when clearly it was not.

Edited August 31, 2019 by nicknorman

[Paul C]

No, it IS "to be determined". Because, Tony HAS applied for BSS exemption and CRT have declined it pending independent inspection. If this is done and the boat does in fact need a BSS, then you can't say "the boat doesn't necessarily need to have a BSS" because there is no further course of appeal, that boat WILL HAVE to have a BSS. 

 

You could say for any boat "it doesn't necessarily need to have a BSS" and that's true so long as a BSS Exemption hasn't been applied for. If it were applied for and accepted, it doesn't need BSS. If it were applied for, rejected, then the independent inspection deems that it doesn't, then it doesn't. If its applied for, rejected, but the inspection hasn't yet been done, then its "to be determined".

[Chewbacka]

Whilst you lot argue over the finer points of English syntax and grammar (which I struggle with) I shall sit here quietly splitting this very fine hair down the middle.

 

added - splitting hairs is a fairly pointless past time.......

 

 

Edited August 31, 2019 by Chewbacka

[Arthur Marshall]

5 minutes ago, Chewbacka said:

Whilst you lot argue over the finer points of English syntax and grammar (which I struggle with) I shall sit here quietly splitting this very fine hair down the middle.

 

added - splitting hairs is a fairly pointless past time.......

 

 

You could always drop the hair and count the angels dancing on the pin? 

[nicknorman]

27 minutes ago, Paul C said:

 

You could say for any boat "it doesn't necessarily need to have a BSS”

That is exactly what I did say.

[MtB]

27 minutes ago, Chewbacka said:

Whilst you lot argue over the finer points of English syntax and grammar (which I struggle with) I shall sit here quietly splitting this very fine hair down the middle.

 

added - splitting hairs is a fairly pointless past time.......

 

 

 

 

The point of Nick's hair splitting is to divert attention from the incorrect point he was failing to make.

 

Or something like that!

[Alan de Enfield]

7 minutes ago, Mike the Boilerman said:

 

 

The point of Nick's hair splitting is to divert attention from the incorrect point he was failing to make.

 

Or something like that!

If he was failing to make an incorrect point, he must surely have been successfully making a correct point.

[MtB]

Just now, Alan de Enfield said:

If he was failing to make an incorrect point, he must surely have been successfully making a correct point.

 

Not necessarily.

 

He may have been making an incorrect point, and succeeding. What then?

 

I hold that making a correct point is subtly different from failing to make an incorrect point..

 

[Alan de Enfield]

26 minutes ago, Mike the Boilerman said:

 

Not necessarily.

 

He may have been making an incorrect point, and succeeding. What then?

 

I hold that making a correct point is subtly different from failing to make an incorrect point..

 

 

You can off course succeed to make an incorrect point if you convince the 'other side' that your point is valid and they do not realise it is incorrect.

 

But you actually said 'he was failing to make an incorrect point'

So, I think that can only be 'successfully making a correct point'

Edited August 31, 2019 by Alan de Enfield

[NigelMoore]

2 hours ago, Paul C said:

 

and its looking like he can't appeal...........this is based on his incurred costs; bankruptcy; and general knowledge of how the court system works.

 

If the County Court judge has not given permission to appeal, Tony can apply for permission from the High Court to do so (whether or not he does so is another matter). If granted, such an appeal could entail a suspension of the Costs Order pending determination. Bankruptcy does not prevent such an appeal. In fact, if CaRT were to seek “Security for costs”, it would be the perfect defence against such an order, he being manifestly able under those circumstances to “plead his own impecuniosity”, such that an order of that nature would be a denial of his access to justice.

 

The deciding factor in considering whether to grant permission will be only whether there is an identifiable potential error in law (or, more tenuously, in the facts).

[Captain Pegg]

8 minutes ago, Alan de Enfield said:

 

You can off course succeed to make an incorrect point if you convince the 'other side' that your point is valid and they do not realise it is incorrect.

 

But you actually said 'he was failing to make an incorrect point'

So, I think that can only be 'successfully making a correct point'

No. It’s not a double negative. In MtBs view he has failed to make any point at all, correct or incorrect.

 

JP

 

 

[MtB]

11 minutes ago, Captain Pegg said:

No. It’s not a double negative. In MtBs view he has failed to make any point at all, correct or incorrect.

 

JP

 

 

 

Exactly.

 

Nick was attempting to convince me of his incorrect point, and failing miserably because his point was incorrect.

 

So failing to make an incorrect point. Obvs innit!

 

 

Edited August 31, 2019 by Mike the Boilerman
Clarify.

[Graham Davis]

3 hours ago, Mike the Boilerman said:

 

Perfectly relevant. Tony has effectively self-excluded himself from answering Paul C's comments, so you criticism of Paul C for commenting is invalid.

And allegedly he has tried to come back using various pseudonyms.