Jump to content

section 8 canning dock ?


gaggle

Featured Posts

A bit like the owner not paying mooring fees for a year and not having the right licences or permissions to operate as he was then?

Two wrongs do not make a right and a national organisation should, in my humble opinion, be beyond reproach in their conduct, although I'm fully aware this is not the case in an awful lot of official organisations.

  • Greenie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

I agree, he, along with a few others, is missing the point. However, it would be very wrong to believe that this disgraceful and quite unnecessary episode is anything more than the result of C&RT being in a position to extend the scope of their destructive and malevolent influence beyond merely our inland waterways.

 

The long running dispute between the old lightship owner and C&RT, it has been festering for over a year now, has seen much wrong, and fault on both sides, but those responsible for the running and administration of the old South Docks now under C&RT ownership and control have singularly failed to handle it in a way that measures up to what can, and should, reasonably be expected from such an organization.

 

Rather than working towards an outcome beneficial to all or most of those concerned, including and especially themselves and the city of Liverpool, they elected to reduce matters to the level of a personal and very expensive squabble focused entirely on nothing other than depriving yet another individual of his boat.

 

The events of last week, culminating in the "Planet" being moved at enormous expense, and for no good reason, from C&RT's Canning Dock to C&RT's Sharpness Dock, were nothing more than a festival of negativity, bloody-mindedness and spite, and I think the fact that they proved themselves incapable of rising above such conduct speaks volumes as to the sort of organization C&RT is, to say nothing of the calibre and worth of it's management.

 

Great.....but its all your opinion, there's a distinct lack of evidence or hard facts to decide this case upon.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Great.....but its all your opinion, there's a distinct lack of evidence or hard facts to decide this case upon.

 

There is a great deal of evidence and hard facts, none of which shows C&RT in a good light, or their actions and conduct to be anything other than ill-advised and/or illegal, . . . but it happens that at this stage neither you nor any of the rest of C&RT's dedicated apologists and cheerleaders are privy to very much of it.

Edited by Tony Dunkley
  • Greenie 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

There is a great deal of evidence and hard facts, none of which shows C&RT in a good light, or their actions and conduct to be anything other than ill-advised and/or illegal, . . . but it happens that at this stage neither you nor any of the rest of C&RT's dedicated apologists and cheerleaders are privy to very much of it.

 

 

 

I know you "get off" on being rude on internet forums but you really are a bit of a stuck record on this (and all other) occasions - I've already stated that I'd be very interested to hear why the ship needed to be taken from Liverpool. I'd await the evidence. If you're holding stuff back, then basing opinions on it and posting, then its not much use to anyone except yourself. I for one, can't take you seriously any more since your posts seem to have this single theme running through them.

  • Greenie 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

A bit like the owner not paying mooring fees for a year and not having the right licences or permissions to operate as he was then?

 

No, nothing like a well meaning, but quite possibly somewhat over ambitious and misguided individual, getting himself into financial difficulties.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

 

I know you "get off" on being rude on internet forums but you really are a bit of a stuck record on this (and all other) occasions - I've already stated that I'd be very interested to hear why the ship needed to be taken from Liverpool. I'd await the evidence. If you're holding stuff back, then basing opinions on it and posting, then its not much use to anyone except yourself. I for one, can't take you seriously any more since your posts seem to have this single theme running through them.

It seems quite obvious to me that Tony is in close contact with the boats owner and has that side of the evidence available - perhaps read back a bit.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It seems quite obvious to me that Tony is in close contact with the boats owner and has that side of the evidence available - perhaps read back a bit.

 

I know - but he seems shy of posting it on here. Possibly because it reveals that the owner is quite in the wrong in this matter.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

 

I know you "get off" on being rude on internet forums but you really are a bit of a stuck record on this (and all other) occasions - I've already stated that I'd be very interested to hear why the ship needed to be taken from Liverpool. I'd await the evidence. If you're holding stuff back, then basing opinions on it and posting, then its not much use to anyone except yourself. I for one, can't take you seriously any more since your posts seem to have this single theme running through them.

 

Whether or not you, or any other forum contributors, take me seriously is of no concern or consequence whatsoever.

 

As for the reason for moving "Planet" from Liverpool to Sharpness, this was done for precisely the same reason that Geoff Mayer's boat "Pearl" was transported from Northwich to Gloucester, after being illegally seized in direct contravention of a Judge's directions, and Leigh Ravenscroft's boat was transported from Newark to Chester after being unnecessarily and unlawfully seized on private property at nearby [to Newark] Farndon.

Edited by Tony Dunkley
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Whether or not you, or any other forum contributors, take me seriously is of no concern or consequence whatsoever.

 

As for the reason for moving "Planet" from Liverpool to Sharpness, this was done for precisely the same reason that Geoff Mayer's boat "Pearl" was transported from Northwich to Gloucester, after being illegally seized in direct contravention of the directions of a Judge, and Leigh Ravenscroft's boat was transported from Newark to Chester after being unnecessarily and unlawfully seized on private property at nearby [to Newark] Farndon.

 

And putting aside opinions, the facts are that the owner doesn't have his boat any more.

 

I don't know (I'll be happy to accept they are, given EVIDENCE) that CRT have been needlessly harsh here - but its undisputed that the owner of Planet didn't pay his bills, to the tune of ~£10,000. That's a not insignificant amount to accrue. I'm all for CRT giving leniancy where appropriate, but then coming down like a ton of bricks if its clear that they're dealing with a "piss taker" rather than simply a person who's fallen on hard times etc.

 

May I ask, what was the time period in between the stopping of paying the mooring fees, and the first action by CRT (ie involving solicitors or court case, rather than simply a reminder letter asking to bring the payments up-to-date)?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

I know - but he seems shy of posting it on here. Possibly because it reveals that the owner is quite in the wrong in this matter.

 

The way I read the thread there may well be legal action in the offing AGAINST CaRT so it would be prudent tot to prejudice the outcome by putting too much information in the public domain - remember when it suits them Cart are alleged to copy posts from Sith forum to discredit those involved in a case against them.

 

I simply do not know why CaRT did not arrest the ship as per normal procedure and take it from there. CaRT are remarkably silent on their reasons so why should you expect the "other side" to be any more forthcoming?

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

I know - but he seems shy of posting it on here. Possibly because it reveals that the owner is quite in the wrong in this matter.

 

The owner of the Lightship has been guilty of a great many wrongs in the lead up to this regrettable state of affairs, as I have already said in an earlier post, and is undoubtedly the main architect of a good many of his own difficulties, but he is NOT the party to the dispute that is knowingly indulging in continuing illegal, or even criminal, activity in the course of it.

  • Greenie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

The way I read the thread there may well be legal action in the offing AGAINST CaRT so it would be prudent tot to prejudice the outcome by putting too much information in the public domain - remember when it suits them Cart are alleged to copy posts from Sith forum to discredit those involved in a case against them.

 

I simply do not know why CaRT did not arrest the ship as per normal procedure and take it from there. CaRT are remarkably silent on their reasons so why should you expect the "other side" to be any more forthcoming?

 

 

 

 

That's fair enough, if it proves to be the case. If the information is truthful there is no problem though, after all facts will remain to be so throughout. If its genuinely the case that Tony or others on the owner's side don't want to put pertinant information up, its best they say so; respecting that new information or developments may come to light (excuse the pun).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In my opinion, i just wasted ten minutes of my life reading all this.

Allegedly......

 

Try not to see it as a complete waste of time, . . . at least you will know who not to expect any sympathy from if C&RT turn up one day and steal your boat.

  • Greenie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Try not to see it as a complete waste of time, . . . at least you will know who not to expect any sympathy from if C&RT turn up one day and steal your boat.

 

That did make me chuckle...

 

I abide by the laws that they set, i am not interested in the legality of those laws, they do not cause me any discomfort so i am happy, so i doubt very much they will turn up and steal my boat.

  • Greenie 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

That did make me chuckle...

 

I abide by the laws that they set, i am not interested in the legality of those laws, they do not cause me any discomfort so i am happy, so i doubt very much they will turn up and steal my boat.

 

No-one expected the Spanish Inquisition either !

  • Greenie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

That did make me chuckle...

 

I abide by the laws that they set, i am not interested in the legality of those laws, they do not cause me any discomfort so i am happy, so i doubt very much they will turn up and steal my boat.

 

What a selfish attitude - "I don't care what they do if it doesn't affect me".

 

So, how far will you go in accepting 'illegal rules' ?

 

What happens when some new rule starts to 'cause you discomfort' ?

 

Maybe the day of the introduction of £10 per night for mooring 'anywhere' and £20 per night on VMs ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

What a selfish attitude - "I don't care what they do if it doesn't affect me".

 

So, how far will you go in accepting 'illegal rules' ?

 

What happens when some new rule starts to 'cause you discomfort' ?

 

Maybe the day of the introduction of £10 per night for mooring 'anywhere' and £20 per night on VMs ?

 

 

By then it will be too late and it will have become the norm through custom & practice so no one will entertain any action to reverse the situation.

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.