Tony Dunkley

Not just me, though.

Don't look now . . . but it seems that C&RT have just pulled the rug out from under you.

A licenced boat is paying for the right to float above the C&RT owned canal bed by paying the Licence fee, and that right is unaffected by whether the vessel is moored or underway. Any vessel kept permanently afloat in a canal, throughout the period of the Licence, will inevitably be floating above the Navigation Authority's property, or put another way, occupying waterspace commensurate with it's size and is doing so as of right by virtue of paying for a Licence.

Unfortunately no, as far as I am aware BW have successfully mislead the Courts into rejecting every attempt made so far to stop them from charging for mooring to land they don't own.

If you are moored to C&RT land they are quite entitled to charge for mooring, but they are not entitled to charge anyone for being moored to privately owned land . . like the end of a garden. Look again at Posts 70 and 78.

What do you think they were doing when they submitted a printout of it it to the Court as evidence?

So you don't object to being charged twice for the same thing?

I believe what you say, it is well known that C&RT is populated by a good many ex BW has-beens.

No error, unintentional or otherwise. I said " they{still} don't have the right to charge twice for keeping a boat on their waters, once for when it's in use and then again for when it's moored" and I stand by that statement. BW and now C&RT have in fact, always acknowledged that the right to charge for moorings to, or against, their land is derived from their being landowners, whereas only when attempting to justify charges for mooring to, or against privately owned land, such as EOG mooring charges, do they resort to claiming that the charge is for the waterspace.

It would be surprising if he hasn't already done so . . . . considering that he's spent so many years crapping on everything else.

See Post 70

You have misunderstood the situation. C&RT have no right to charge you for mooring to land they do not own, such as the end of a canalside garden. If you are moored to land they do own then they are entitled to charge you for mooring to that land. Unless you have a very unusual type of boat, such as one that can be in two different places at the same time, their claiming to be entitled to charge for the waterspace alongside that piece of privately owned land is just utter nonsense. As I have said previously, a Licenced boat is already paying for the waterspace it occupies by virtue of the Licence permitting the vessel to be kept on the water.

All of that is very good and sound advice . . . please take it. I would just add in agreement with the last bit of it . . . Don't even think about going below Torksey unless you're in the company of another boat with a crew who have been down there before or you can get someone with previous experience of that part of the river to go with you on your boat.

Careful Allan . . . C&RT and Shoosmiths may think you've been hacking into their files.

Can you explain all that please, it sounds as if you've been paying too much attention to NC. Have a look at Narrowboatworld instead (21 September posting by Allan Richards).

All that must have taken C&RT from delighted to ecstatic, but whatever you may think, they still don't have the right to charge twice for keeping a boat on their waters, once for when it's in use and then again for when it's moored. You appear to be very anxious that others should not question anything that C&RT do . . . any particular reason?

I' m sure C&RT will be delighted that you are prepared to stand up and defend at least this aspect of their questionable and probably illegal treatment of boat owners. If you're happy to let those in authority abuse the powers they have by making charges they are not entitled to do, then that's entirely your business. Personally, I think you sound like a mug.

Yes, but just to underline their almost unbelieveable stupidity, if the written evidence produced from their dubious computer system and submitted to the Court had been genuine and true, it was in fact detrimental to the argument of their own case.

The L2 mooring in this Table is clearly only charged for by C&RT on the basis that they own the waterspace. True, they do own the waterspace, but the owner of a Licenced boat, including one tied up at the bottom of his garden, is already paying for the waterspace taken up by that boat, through payment of the Licence Fee. Payment of an EOG Mooring charge is nothing less than paying for the same thing twice. The same comments equally apply to L3 and L4 moorings.

It looks to me like the sort of thing you should expect from a Navigation Authority run by a bunch of clowns Perhaps it's an indication of whether you might have enough depth in the lock tail because they can't be bothered to dredge out the build up that always happens at river locks.

Yes it was standard practice, but in the days before VHF it was usual to blow approaching 'blind' bights, particularly if trees and bushes or the height of the land on the ness side prevented seeing the mast or steaming light(s) of something coming the other way. Collisions did happen, those between barges usually resulting in not much more than the odd new dent or two, but the collisions just below Gainsborough between barges coming upriver on the flood and coasters leaving downriver as soon as there was water to float them could be much more serious. The need to get away from Gainsborough as early on the tide as possible in order to have water enough to get back down the Humber on the same tide resulted in the ships having very little depth under them for the first few miles, making steering difficult with a tendency to take violent and uncontrollable shears to one side or the other. In the pile ups that were caused by this the barges generally came off worse, with some of them sinking. While all this was going on there was also the regular scramble of up to about twenty barges (gravellers) leaving Hull and coming upriver on the first of the flood, all pretty well keeping pace with each other and racing to get to either Girton or (old) Besthorpe to load. Just imagine what some modern day Health & Safety pain in the arse would have to say about it all now . . . . of course we may not have to imagine for very long.

That's very true, but it's equally possible for complacency to creep up on folks who begin to think they're not going to suffer any mishaps because they have every possible piece of safety equipment with them. Just think about that in the context of approaching some 'blind' bight in the river and assuming that just because you haven't heard any broadcast from anything coming the other way that you're not going to meet something. VHF is like any other safety aid, used correctly and with a good helping of common sense it can be very useful, sometimes essential, but it's presence can in some circumstances give a false sense of security. So, whether you have VHF or not, it's still best to work on the assumption that when approaching a 'blind' bight you're going to meet something right in it. Sod's Law, and a healthy respect for it, is one of the most useful of all things to have with you.

It's fairly obvious that you don't have any experience or knowledge of the Trent, isn't it . . . willy waving might be a different story altogether.

If you take a little time to go back and read what I have said so far, you will see that at no time have I said that "VHF on the larger rivers isn't needed" . . . they are your words, not mine. What I have said is that the present absence of commercial traffic from Besthorpe means not having a VHF on the Trent between Cromwell and Keadby doesn't present any real problem, or risk. There are no loaded vessels heading North from Besthorpe to be met by pleasure boats heading South with the flood (as you always will be if you leave Keadby, Stockwith or Torksey at the time you will have been advised to) so there is no problem, or risk. The danger of collisions had used to arise when loaded barges leaving Besthorpe late on a tide grounded while still South of Gainsborough. After getting underway again on the next tide there was a very real possibility of meeting pleasure boats on some of the 'blind' bights from just South of Gainsborough to around Jenny Hurn or Kelfield. The possibility, or danger no longer exists. You seem to derive some kind of peculiar pleasure from talking about poor advice and fatalities, but posting ill informed opinions based on lack of experience and knowledge isn't helpful to anyone. How about either sticking to a subject you know and understand, or doing everyone a favour by keeping quiet instead? PS. You haven't yet said why you passed Inland Navigator to the wrong side near Muskham . . . could it be that you were too busy playing with the VHF instead of thinking about what you should have been doing, or maybe that you just don't know any better?

Ooooh dear . . . sounds like you that's getting wound up . . . why don't you give someone you know a call on the VHF about it and see if they can calm you down a bit?