Tony Dunkley

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.

Your words, not mine . . . but stick at it . . . I'm sure that one day you'll manage to respond to a Post without misquoting or distorting what's been said.

They haven't got an official policy . . . they make up rules and pseudo legal requirements as they go along and as they need them.

Don't you think C&RT should be doing that anyway . . . it's called getting priorities in order.

They portray it as a huge problem, but in reality I think they blow it up out of all proportion as one way to divert attention from their miserable failure as a Navigation Authority.

Is that a factual statement or a plausible sounding supposition?

Something that would help . . . convince Parry to spend the £2.7 million p.a. 'Enforcement' budget on maintenance and repairs instead.

Check for leakage through the gates behind you while still in the lock, just before it levels off, whether going up or down. If there is no significant leakage then closing the gate(s) behind you at the other end is completely pointless. Leaving gates open gives the next boat along a 50/50 chance of finding the lock ready for them. Closing gates for no good reason only ensures that nobody ever has a lock ready.

Well, you should check . . . . it's a lot quicker and easier than stopping your boat clear of the lock and then closing the gate(s) you've come out of, just to see if they'll stay shut.

I think you'll find that without exception the stern end of every boat will be the overall length of the boat away from the forward edge of the stem . . which should be right up to the bottom gates before drawing up. PS. You may find that a useful bit of information to have at hand when filling in Boat Safety Certificates.

So if there isn't any leakage at the other end of the lock, what is the purpose of closing gates behind you?

Have you been pleasure boating for long enough to have ever seen any of what I mean by "professional boatmen" ? . . . . the ones that finished working narrowboats and vanished from the Cut a long time ago. Just to correct your assumption about going to "the other side of the bottom gate" . . . nobody did that, it wasn't necessary, you just glanced over the gate to see if there was any noticeable turbulence in the lock tail, such as would be caused by a fouled or damaged cill, or a paddle not right down. Of course you would already have a good idea of whether or not there was any serious leakage, by the amount of time the lock was taking to fill and level off.

Earlier on you said this about cill notices -- " I think they are in the right place, on the top balance beams."

I asked about checking when working and just before leaving a lock . . . not "before locking". Checking that the boat is clear of the cill when going downhill is the last thing to do before drawing the bottom paddles, and the person best placed to do that is whoever happens to be at the bottom gates to draw up.

What's the point of re-closing a gate that's swung open. If there was any significant leakage from the other end it wouldn't have done so. The fact that it has swung open again should be telling you that there was no point in closing it the first time.

You've identified there the circumstances when a narrowboat is probably most likely to come to grief in the Humber or lower Ouse and Trent. Grounding and then waiting for the next tide certainly isn't a problem, but the arrival of that next tide may turn into a potentially very dangerous situation, depending on whether you've sat down on mud or sand and if the tides at that time are big Springs which start running up at a very brisk pace right from the first of the flood. Narrowboats, like any flat bottomed vessel, can 'suck in' to soft mud when drying out and then fail to lift before getting swamped on the on the next tide. A few hard bursts of ahead and astern are likely to do the trick, but, depending on such as freeboard and hull openings, there can be no guarantees. If you've grounded on a big tide and get swung beam on to the flood as you float free, particularly on the outer end of a sandbank, a vessel with so narrow a beam and probably very small GM could be rolled over by the force of the incoming tide. I would suggest limiting passage by narrowboat in these waters to the times around the smallest Neaps, when the first of the flood is nothing more than a gentle and slow rise in water level, which will neither try to roll you over nor swamp you before you can get free if you're in soft mud. Of course, both these potential dangers can be much reduced, but never completely eliminated, if you're with someone who has sufficiently good, and very importantly up to date local knowledge to avoid grounding in the first place. The fact that there has not yet been, as far as I am aware, any really serious mishap with a narrowboat in this area, doesn't mean that they are suitable or safe vessels for use in these waters. You can get away with walking across the M1, but it doesn't make it a safe or advisable thing to do.

Yes, precisely that. I don't see that any blame whatsoever can be attached to the Maersk. The HL shouldn't have attempted the overtake at that time or place.