Tony Dunkley

Are you sure about that? The OP said C&RT wanted the photos to prove she had moved the required distance.

The Judge used the Mersey Ferry example to illustrate the fallacy in C&RT's assertion that 'bona fide navigation' can be determined on the basis of distance travelled.

It was C&RT v Geoff Mayers. The Judge himself used the example of the Mersey Ferries make the point that 'bona fide navigation' is very definitely not dependent on distance travelled.

I believe that vessels based on other Navigation Authority waters have on occasions been subject to the attention of C&RT's Enforcement Orifices, and I've heard a rumour that C&RT are considering taking action against the Mersey Ferries for not 'cruising' the requisite amount when away from their home moorings. I hope you're going to write to Judge Halbert at Chester and tell him so.

Of course he does . . . many times every day. . . Liverpool and Birkenhead are definitely two different places, even on C&RT's Maps.

Yes, and there's the option of a 4 blader to increase blade area some more, but they're even more inefficient. Strange as it may seem, the most efficient design of propellor would be a single blade . . . the vibration might be a bit of a problem though.

The engine horsepower is more than adequate for the boat, including any sort of river use. However, without trying out the boat on deep water there is no way of knowing what it's max. speed is with the propellor that's fitted. Because of their shallow draft most modern so-called narrow boats have relatively small diameter propellors, they are also frequently under pitched and unable to absorb all the available horsepower, with the small diameter making them very inefficient at turning that limited amount of power into useful thrust. Fuel consumption is a good guide as to whether a propellor is making full use of the available power. If possible, ask the previous owner if they have any figures for that, particularly river use. A good approximation to work on is that a diesel engine will burn one gallon of fuel per hour for every 20 horsepower it's producing.

No, write "You already have it" on the Renewal Form and send it off. There really isn't any point in looking for a good reason for things that C&RT do or ask for, there won't be one, just put it down to the fact that it's C&RT.

According to the Judge who presided over Geoff Mayers trial at Chester the answer to that is a most definite yes.

I don't need to check anything. What you say about lockeepers is true, but also irrelevant because I haven't suggested putting keepers at every lock. As far as your second comment goes . . . I don't think it's for you to say what I am for or against, or what suits me. You don't know me and you don't know what my opinions are, but as you just seem to want to quibble about whatever's said whilst having nothing useful to contribute yourself, I think I'll follow the very sensible example of many others and just completely ignore you.

Yes, and look at the bloody awful state most locks are now in as a result. I'll just have more attempt at getting the point across . . . not having the Enforcement Orifices would save £2.7 million pa. that could be spent on lockeepers and lengthsmen, who could also check boat Licences, as they used to do.

Shouldn't that read 'Surgical Support Manager'?

They would be instead of not in addition to the Enforcement Orifices, as I said on Post 165. It's a method that worked alright before, with the added benefit of getting the now totally neglected day to day routine maintenance done.

From what has been said so far on this thread it appears to be assumed that C&RT want the photographs to prove compliance with their CC'ing requirements, but is it not possible that they really want them for quite the opposite reason? The OP suggests that Boston's boat may not have been sighted or logged in all the places she has moored (due to the warden's patrol range being limited). Perhaps they are asking her to produce evidence that they can use to show that she has not moved to a different "place" every 14 days, with the location and extent of those "places" being decided by C&RT after they have the photographs.

It's not a problem . . . C&RT are being watched to see if they start looking for another target to make an example of to try and frighten other boaters into complying with their "make it up as you go along rulebook". . . . Boston may have been selected for the purpose.

When they thought it would suit their purpose C&RT decided, and announced, that 'bona fide navigation' and 'cruising' were the same thing. Unfortunately for them, in their usual blundering manner, they omitted to first look up the meaning of 'cruising' as relevant to inland waterways, which turned out to be . . . "sail about in an area without a precise destination" . . . so you can forget about 'objective' tests and mileage and go and find them a bandage for the corporate foot they've shot themselves in.

So you're saying if everyone sends Parry a photo of their boat every couple of weeks that he'll sack his Enforcement Gang and spend the £2.7 million on maintenance instead? I am also left wondering why, after your recent ringing endorsement of C&RT's lousy boat location/logging system, you're now shouting about how everyone should send in photos of their moored boats so that C&RT know where they are at any given time and date.

Lockeepers and lengsthsmen, if reintroduced as one of the measures needed to turn round the present decline in repairs and maintenance, could combine boat Licence checking with their other duties, passing on details of unlicenced boats to a small administrative staff for appropriate legal action. Unlicenced boats are not hard to spot. On C&RT's own admission there is at present one unlicenced boat for approximately every one and a half miles of waterway under their control.

You now seem to be agreeing that the direction of funds is, as I said, Parry's job. Can you now explain just what you were raving on about when you put the following on Post 268 : -- >>You suggested that this was Parry's job. The Act says otherwise. Now, you may imagine that you aren't talking about the 1995 Act, but the post that you were replying to when you said that it was Parry's job was very clearly talking about that Act. Randomly talking about things that other people aren't talking about doesn't mean that they have a reading comprehension problem.<< All that was in response to my remark about one specific(red highlighted) sentence in Post 158 that mentioned diverting funds. I really don't see how it's possible to link the allocation of funds to the 1995 BW Act, unless, of course, you had first run it through C&RT's computer system.

Were the two Patrol Notices issued recently and was the second one 14 days after the first and for the same location?

It was a reply (in my Post 160) to the sentence in Post 158 that I highlighted in red, which referred specifically to diverting funds, and therefore has no relevance to the provisions of the 1995 BW Act. I'm sorry if that's still too complicated for you and Nutty Cal to understand, but I don't think it can be simplified any more than that.

I wasn't referring to the 1995 BW Act . . . . still not mastered this reading thing have you.

The trouble with all that is they don't "collect monies owing to them" . . . they waste money taking people to Court and seizing their boats, more often than not with no hope of recovering the cost. Appropriate, and legally correct remedies to punish and collect money from Licence dodgers exist, but C&RT and the Enforcement Gang choose to apply their favoured draconian, and expensive, measures instead. As a measure of their current level of success against Licence evasion, there is, on C&RT's own figures, one unlicenced boat for approximately every one and a half miles of waterway under their control.

It shouldn't be necessary for a boater to do that . . . it's Parry's job.

No, she certainly isn't . . . and I sincerely hope that she doesn't become one of their targets selected to be made an example of in order to frighten others into complying with their "make it up as you go along " rulebook.