Tony Dunkley

Thanks for that, I hadn't seen it before. Looks like the Buckby end of Braunston Tunnel. May have been loaded for the Jam 'Ole but could have been Croxley ( Dickinsons Paper Mill). Edit TA. The coal showing between the top planks and the sidecloths looks like the DS that went to Southall . . . the UT Singles or 'peas' that Croxley had was noticeably smaller in size.

It's a 3 day job, allowing for working locks a bit slower than normal for the first day while you're new to it. How much are you offering to pay?

Back in the late 1960's I worked that butty with 'Jaguar' as the winter time extra pair for Blue Line (ex Barlows) running to Southall from Baddesley pit (Atherstone). At that time it belonged to Birmingham and Midland but was on hire from them. The original elm bottoms had been replaced with steel, done by Vokins when still owned by British Waterways. The usual weight for that job on it was 27 tons. which looked as though it had a bit more than that on, because of the steel bottom.

As meanings can be so very much changed by adding, omitting or changing the position of just one word in a phrase or sentence, it is very important to pay attention to such details, particularly when dealing with a body such as C&RT who are so fond of trying attribute meanings to sentences or phrases that they were never intended to have. As far as them trying to define 'cruising', what they are doing is nothing of the sort because they don't want any 'set in stone' definitions of things that it will probably suit them to claim a different meaning for on some future occasion. The phrase 'bona fide for navigation' is mainly used by C&RT when reclassifying boats they intend to seize and remove, as houseboats, enabling them to issue a Section 13 Notice under the 1971 BW Act. Their very inventive use of words and language, in fact, means that whenever any boat is on its own mooring, or even elsewhere if it suits their purpose, it falls under C&RT's definition of a houseboat.

So you're native dialect is, presumably, C&RT Speak.

I certainly recognize the Claim no. , and I also recognize someone who seems to be unable to comprehend the difference between 'bona fide navigation' and 'bona fide for navigation'. Are you by any chance, one of C&RT's scriptwriters?

You're right, the Law, in effect, does just that, but C&RT want to redefine and rewrite it to suit themselves, and are quite prepared to waste any amount of money, which is urgently needed elsewhere, to see if they can get away with it.

I think " ducked the question earlier" would be a better description of what you did, and if you look more carefully at the relevant legislation you'll find that use of the expression 'bona fide navigation' is confined to you on this Forum.

Some time earlier this year, early to mid Summer I think, C&RT's Head of Legal Foul- ups, Jackie Lewis, made a statement, subsequently published in a NABO Newsletter to the effect that anyone with a 'home' mooring would quite definitely not have to comply with any 'continuous cruising' requirements. Since that statement was made to NABO there have been a number of instances when it's been very clear that C&RT are saying one thing whilst doing just the opposite. Here's the latest one : - ( from a statement in an Application Notice to the Court dated 23 Sept 2014, and appended with a Statement of Truth signed by C&RT's Solicitors) . . . as follows : - " As the Defendant was neither using his declared home mooring, nor continuously cruising whilst away from his declared home mooring, his licence was revoked on 3 January 2014" . . . I'm sure when Mr. Parry becomes aware of this he will be able to explain how they have ended up in a situation that makes it look as if he and either C&RT's Head of Legal or Shoosmiths are trying to mislead those who believe that C&RT have an agenda to impose CC'ing rules on boaters with home moorings.

Not only have you defined those three 'enforcement powers' inaccurately and over simplistically, but you've left out a whole lot of Bye Laws and powers they have but choose not to use, preferring instead to apply sanctions and penalties that are disproportionate and unjustifiable, but nonetheless ineffective as remedies for the perceived problems. A little earlier today I asked you the following : - Can you elaborate on 'messed up' as you see it? and ; You're using the term 'bona fide navigation' in respect of some of C&RT's objectives but I'm not sure that's what you really mean, and I'm more than a little curious as to how one could navigate in a manner that's not 'bona fide'. . . . . . any more thoughts about that ?

But I wasn't asking you to take sides . . . why make that assumption?

Can you elaborate on 'messed up' as you see it? You're using the term 'bona fide navigation' in respect of some of C&RT's objectives but I'm not sure that's what you really mean, and I'm more than a little curious as to how one could navigate in a manner that's not 'bona fide'.

She's providing the photos that C&RT have asked for and awaiting developments ( of other than the photographs).

I wasn't really considering specific Laws or regulations governing the issuing of licences, but more of the general principle that a Licensing Authority should be dictating the amount and frequency of usage and distances to be travelled on pain of losing your boat/car for perceived non compliance. Loddon seemed to be suggesting in his Post that constant and frequent use of the same few miles of waterway and the same, otherwise unused moorings is something that the Authorities should come down hard on, whereas I'm sure neither he nor anyone else would take the same view if the DVLA tried to impose similar rules on the use of cars.

Your remarks have prompted me to ask a question that's had me wondering for some time now . . . it's this . . . How many among the car owning Forum members who regard C&RT's desire to regiment and dictate boat use as justified, would think it fair and reasonable if the DVLA revoked your Road Tax and then towed away your car and sold it, because you had only been using it for short local journeys and then left it parked outside your house every night?

No doubt C&RT would applaud and approve of that wording, however, another way of putting it would be to say that I was making very frequent use of my boat over relatively small distances and returning to tie up in the same area, as I and everyone else who has paid for a boat Licence is entitled to do. It really just depends on whether or not your intention is to misrepresent and imply some sort of wrong doing in completely legitimate activities.

Apart from the reasons you give there for being away from the Holme Lock area ( there were other reasons) that is all true. I'm still, in fact, using it as a postal address, and just to clarify things a bit more, for not an inconsiderable part of the time I regularly moored around the area I was paying BW for a Long Term Mooring which, incidentally, they were dishonestly charging me(and others) for because they don't own the land where the LT mooring is.

Agreed, but what has happened in regards to the boat I live on and me over the last few months is something very different. It began in 2010 with a thoroughly unpleasant, incompetent and above all dishonest Enforcement Orifice, new to the job and overkeen to prove his worth by wallpapering as many boats as he could with Patrol Notices irrespective of whether or not it was justifiable. All this, of course, was still in the times of BWB but with the arrival of Parry and the Trustees things took on a completely different slant. Looking for suitable people to make an examples of in order to demonstrate to the rest of the boating public that they can re-interpret the Law in any way they see fit, frighten boaters with threats of Court action and then 'steal' their boats, they find Stuart Garner scribbling away in his book of waterborne parking tickets, and able to provide just what they're looking for.

Not more Tony Dunkleys surely . . . there may be a few people somewhat unhappy about that.

No, not at all , . . . just the earache. Thanks for everything you've done. Tony D.

That's a very interesting public admission of what the Law, as opposed to C&RT, actually requires. The 1995 BW Act, which is the piece of legislation that governs the issue and the refusal (revoking of) boat Licences on C&RT waters, applies the same criteria to both processes. Section 17(3) covers issuing while Section 17(4) deals with refusal. He seems, from what you say, to have omitted to mention the third requirement of the Law, which is either a 'home mooring' to be 'available' (not 'used', as C&RT would have you believe) or the 'continuous cruising' option. Again, this requirement is equally applicable to both the issuing and refusal processes, and, crucially, there is nothing within the Act which allows C&RT to refuse a Licence as a consequence of any previous failure, either alleged or proven, to comply with CC'ing requirements, Bye Laws or Licence T&C's . . . put simply, they can't refuse to issue a new Licence solely because they think you have previously been breaking the rules in some way. Having been compelled as a consequence of this, to issue me with a new Licence, C&RT are now seeking to persuade the Court that in applying to renew my Licence I behaved unreasonably,thereby making their case against me, in their words, " worthless and academic" and that due to my unreasonable conduct, no Costs should be awarded against them.

I've not had any personal experience of these, but from those who have, nobody has ever had anything good to say about them. They seem to have a name for noisy and rough running and generally being quite a nasty little engine. PS. They were sold as a Perkins, mainly I believe as fixed speed engines for Gen. Sets, but I don't think Perkins actually made them. Also I think they're now obsolete.

Your opening sentence seems to suggest that you think what you've heard so far is not true. You also say that you haven't joined in before for fear of getting insults instead of answers. I would be interested to hear why you make that assumption. As far as the question you've asked about EA Land in relation to the Claim C&RT have made against me, the short answer to that is, no, you're not right. So there you are . . . no insults at all . . . so why not go ahead and ask whatever it is you really want to know?

According to the boat owner's it did, and as you've now, very publically admitted that was what the bet was about, you really should pay up. The arrival time in Torksey Cut is still available for everyone to read, along with the rest of the thread. You should have checked to see if was still there before you started spouting off again.

I do know that you certainly haven't.