Leigh Ravenscroft

[letissier14]

All the legal paperwork

https://www.scribd.com/document/2658772 ... s-of-Claim

It does appear that the River and Canal Trust don't have a particular good name by all accounts

[hucknallred]

It pains me to say it, but I think he has a strong case.
Even though Tom Crawford didn't have a strong case he should have taken this approach.

[notorial dissent]

Just because they are unpleasant idiots doesn't necessarily mean they don't have a valid complaint and cause of action, it just make sit less palatable. The fact that they are unpleasant and stupid just means that they may just shoot themselves in the foot and lose in spite of having a valid complaint.

[Penny Wise]

Change of dates

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s12qjL9t0iM

[hucknallred]

Another observation, he says he was moored at all times at Farnon Ferry - north bank. From the aerial view it's obvious there's no way a crane is lifting a boat from there. Revisiting the 'eviction' video it happened at Newark Marina, a good 3 miles up (down?) the river.
Had he taken it there? Or would the CRT have towed it there?
I can picture a CRT boarding party, just like Pirates of The Caribbean. Seems they went to great lengths to do this, surely they must have tried a diplomatic solution beforehand. Ravenscroft & diplomatic don't sit well together though.
I suspect as usual there is more to this story.

[SteveUK]

Another observation, he says he was moored at all times at Farnon Ferry - north bank. From the aerial view it's obvious there's no way a crane is lifting a boat from there. Revisiting the 'eviction' video it happened at Newark Marina, a good 3 miles up (down?) the river.
Had he taken it there? Or would the CRT have towed it there?
I can picture a CRT boarding party, just like Pirates of The Caribbean. Seems they went to great lengths to do this, surely they must have tried a diplomatic solution beforehand. Ravenscroft & diplomatic don't sit well together though.
I suspect as usual there is more to this story.

They always bang on about how maritime law is the true law - perhaps they were right all along ?

[notorial dissent]

Some how I expect that the difference between the narrative we have, and actuality are as vast as the briny deep.

[aesmith]

Will be interesting to read if there's an accurate account of the case. As I understand it the issue may not be non-payment of the licence, but rather whether the trust was entitled to seize purely for non-payment. I think arguing that he didn't need the licence will probably fail, since he had a licence before and claimed he would be relicensing as soon as the repairs were complete. There may be a typical waterways paperwork issue, if the licence requires this Boat Safety Certificate (which is a bag of worms by the way, requiring stuff contrary to basic seamanship). From a quick look the trust's houseboat provisions only apply if you're on a trust houseboat mooring. So in the trust's eyes his boat probably counts as mobile even if not, and the fact that it's in the way probably means it's "navigating", even if not under way as defined in maritime matters.

[He Who Knows]

Anyone going along today? Rolls Buildings, 1pm Judge Asplin. Promises to be 4 days of fun.

[wanglepin]

The great stolen boat trial starts this week in London.

https://youtu.be/Zubt80eP6Mk

I find it totally astounding that these freetard sov`s absolutely deny that any Act of Parliament (Statute Law) applies to them , be here we see and hear Ravenscroft promoting the use of the oldest piece of statute law in the United Kingdom, The Statute of Marlborough!!!!11!!!!!! saying at 10:23 :

I have got them on an ancient law called the Marlborough Act..... the Marlborough Act is a very good act and I advise everybody to check it out 12 and 18 still standing and they are the acts that`s going to protect you - my emphasis.

I do hope Mark bonehead Haining, Ceylon is listening while videoing this talk!!!1!!!!

[notorial dissent]

And the mostly dead Statute of Marlborough is going to protect them how???

[ArthurWankspittle]

And the mostly dead Statute of Marlborough is going to protect them how???

It won't. The River and Canal Trust won't consent to it. Game over.

[wanglepin]

And the mostly dead Statute of Marlborough is going to protect them how???

maybe this ?:

chapters currently valid are c.1, c.4, and c.15 (often referred to as the Distress Act 1267),[5] which seek to govern the recovery of damages ("distresses") and make it illegal to obtain recompense for damages other than through the courts, and c.23 (the Waste Act 1267),[6] which seeks to prevent tenant farmers from "making waste" to land they are in tenancy of. Chapter 15 sets out places in which "distresses" are forbidden to be taken; these include the King's Highway

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statute_of_Marlborough

he does mention that this act is being used at the moment in a court `somewhere`

[notorial dissent]

Kinda sorta like MC 61 is being used somewhere, just not successfully, I'll wager.

[Penny Wise]

Any news on this one ?

[Siegfried Shrink]

I have read the statement of claim. Ravenscroft says he was not the owner of the boat from 2010 to 2015 or thereabouts so either this is a fiction (sold it to the cat) or the interim owner was responsible for most of the unpaid licence fees. I wonder why this is not mentioned. If there was a genune sale with a genuine interim owner, Ravenscroft may have a prima facie case that the original seizure was unlawful becuse he really did not owe so many years back licence fees.

I do not know if it is cunning or incompetence that does not make this interim owner question one that needs adjudication.

[hucknallred]

3 months to wait for judgement, his legal adviser has been posting updates on this board:

http://thunderboat.boards.net/thread/63 ... rt?page=36

[Normal Wisdom]

3 months to wait for judgement, his legal adviser has been posting updates on this board:

http://thunderboat.boards.net/thread/63 ... rt?page=36

Interesting, thanks. It's a long while since I watched Colon's video of the boat seizure but I seem to remember that "Cockroach" Ravenscroft's main argument was that the piece of water on which the boat was moored was not part of the river and thus exempt from fees. It hardly needs saying that in light of other videos featuring "Cockroach", especially the one of him abusing the older woman at the church in Hampstead, I wish him nothing but ill.

[Siegfried Shrink]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=52VIF9gAOUE

Posted today, does not seem to add anything new.

As someone who lived on a boat for many years I do not think the 'navigable channel' will get them far. The waterway is considered navigable up to the bank, since you can navigate even the shallowest parts in a canoe or a punt, and both canoes and punts need a licence to be used on canals and rivers that the CWT administers.

They may prevail on process and proportionality though, althugh these are not headline grabbers.

Off hand, does anyone have a reference for the court case that the McKenie friend acted in before and won?

[Penny Wise]

Anyone have any updates on this ?