Tony Dunkley

Diesel spills on water do generally appear to be a larger quantity than is actually spilled, and 2000 litres does seem to be a lot to come from a small boat.

Steady on Nigel, that's getting a bit over complicated for her.

One edit,in fact, done to add more information, namely about the boat being identifiable in the photo on Post 689. The quantity of diesel was specified by you in your original question.

I 'm not looking for support, but if I was, then I really wouldn't want it from anyone preferring the sort of posting you seem to be suggesting.

I do know a boat called "Siwa", it's the small cruiser visible between two bigger vessels on the North side of Holme Lock Cut in the first photo in Post 689, but I hadn't heard anything about a sinking until I saw your Post.

Apologies to Naughty Cal, MtB and Mayalld. I didn't know you were all being kind enough to let a fourth one have the use of it as well.

Parry and his cronies departure is not something I, or anyone else for that matter, could ever "achieve" alone, and if you had correctly read what I said before you spouted off, you would see that I said that I am "considering" their departure.

Sad? ... definitely not. . . Angry? ... yes, but I'm glad you enjoy your boating despite having warts. I certainly do distrust Parry and his cronies, and with good reason, but it's their departure, not mine that I'm considering.

Parry is not someone to be believed . . . and, in fact, is beginning to look potentially like a strong candidate for being an even bigger disaster than Evans, due in part to the fact that he is much better at disguising his real character and putting on a good front than Evans ever was. As far as C&RT not making decisions "to throw people off the cut on a whim" . . . well, they do actually. They have just taken several months over wasting a lot of money that would have been better spent on the rapidly increasing maintenance backlog, trying to evict me from their disintegrating empire, just to see if they can get away with exceeding their statutory powers by imposing CC'ing rules on boats with home moorings. So, you're spot on when you say "those that break the rules have the capacity to spoil it for us all" . . . they really do, and they're called Richard Parry and C&RT.

No . . . I hadn't even heard about it until now.

There are certainly indications that Jackie Lewis and Parry have differing views on some matters, as demonstrated by this statement from Jackie Lewis, reported in a NABO Newsletter : -- " . . . We intend to remain a ‘critical friend’ of CRT and to be proactive in our dialogue. In this spirit we also publish this month the response from CRT’s Jackie Lewis to the issues raised in May by our legal-beaver, Geoffrey Rogerson. Of serious importance is the unequivocal statement that if you have a home mooring then you are NOT subject to any continuous cruising requirements . . ." and an e-mail to me from Parry : -- Dear Tony My answer was given in response to a question posed at Leicester, which said we should check, in advance of issue, that a licence applicant (without a home mooring) didn’t have children in school or some other such personal circumstance that would, in the view of the questioner, make it very difficult to undertake bona fide navigation. As I understand it, this is rather different from your case which is concerned with your actual pattern of mooring and movement. Regards Richard Richard Parry Chief Executive Canal & River Trust

As far as my direct involvement in this, in reality a C&RT exercise to test their chances of successfully operating beyond their powers under Section 17(3) of the 1995 BW Act by imposing cruising requirements on boats when away from their home mooring, then you are probably right in what you say. My greatest concern is that they will now choose to start the process all over again with someone else who may turn out to be a somewhat easier target. If this happens they will almost certainly begin the process in the same way as they did in my case and others, with an inappropriate County Court Procedure accompanied by late served and incomplete paperwork, with the intention, successful in previous cases, of obtaining a Court Order and Injunction after a ten minute hearing when the boat owner is not allowed to speak in their own defence, even in the unlikely event of them actually being there. Information and details of C&RT's methods for abuse of legal process, and repertoire of dirty tricks, are being passed on to all organisations representing boaters interests, and I hope that an awareness of how C&RT are prepared to behave, and the fact that they do not have to be allowed to get away with it, will find it's way out to all boaters via the members and readers of this Forum.

Alright, I will. How about working out and posting a roster for it (the TSSBC) on the Forum . . . then I'll know which one of you to be offensive to on any particular day.

For the reasons explained in earlier posts of Nigel's and mine.

If that's so, I'm sure C&RT will be glad of your support and approval. They are certainly not looking forward to it at all.

It would be nice to think so, but I wouldn't bet on it. If the C&RT instigators of all this nonsense were fair minded, honest and sensible people then they would serve and file Notice of Discontinuance and put an end to it all, but having said that, if they were any of those things, then they would not have embarked on this course of action in the first place.

That wording was in the first drafted Consent Order which Shoosmiths wanted me to agree to and sign, and I took it to mean that once C&RT had renewed my Licence, as they were obliged to do, then there would be no need, and indeed no basis, to continue with their Claim. Discontinuing by means of a Consent Order, which is signed by both parties, is what C&RT are now trying to get me to agree to, but this is definitely not going to happen because C&RT would then be free to start the whole process going again at will. Stopping proceedings by means of a Notice of Discontinuance, which is what C&RT have agreed to in writing but, as yet, not done, leaves them unable to begin "substantially similar" proceedings against me again without first obtaining the permission of the Court. If proceedings are not stopped by means of either a Consent Order (not going to happen) or a Notice of Discontinuance (from the Claimant only) then the process resumes at the re-scheduled Directions Hearing on 24 November.

Of course I was joking . . . if you really were in the single cell organism category you would be an amoeba.

14ft. 6in. is maximum beam on the river to Shardlow. Headroom, or air draft as it is often called nowadays, is limited in the canal through Nottingham . . 8ft. 6in. at the lowest flat topped bridge( Dunkirk Railway Bridge). There are 3 x stone/brick canal style hump-back arched bridges, the most restricting being the original Meadow Lane Bridge in Nottingham. . . a lot more than 8ft. 6in. in the centre of the arch, but the arch is roughly semi-circular.

Glad to see that the Single Brain Cell Time Share arrangement you have with Naughty Cal and MtB is working so well.

It's Holme Lock Cut on the River Trent a couple of miles below Nottingham. There are 3 x C&RT photos of it on Post 689. The pictures were all taken by C&RT at the same time on the same day for use as evidence of how I was selfishly depriving others of the opportunity of mooring there. In the event only one of the pictures was submitted with their written evidence, I don't think I need to tell you which one.

This isn't strictly on topic for this thread, but it is a really good example of C&RT's talent for turning something quite innocuous into what could be presented as evidence of wrong doing. These photographs were taken by C&RT, at the same time and on the same day, to be used in Court in support of their contention that my too frequent mooring at Holme Lock Visitor Moorings was depriving others of the use of those facilities. In the event, only one of the three was submitted to the Court as evidence. There are no prizes on offer for correctly guessing which one. It should also be noted that C&RT's designated, but unsigned VM's are beyond the narrowboat visible in the distance in the upriver shot, and the length of low wall where I am moored was declared, in writing, by BW to be an unsafe and unsuitable location for people to board or leave boats due to a protruding underwater ledge which prevents vessels mooring close in to the wall.

From Post 547 : -- False Records as Trial Evidence Tony Dunkley Aug 20 (11 days ago) to Sarina, richard.parry, roger.hanbury, Steven, tracey.bose Request for Information I refer to your communication dated 6 August 2014 which neither addresses my concerns or answers the question I asked. My concern is that Canal and River Trust has provided information to the Court (a printout on Page 83 of Exhibit SAG1) which purports to show 19 financial transactions relating to my boat "Halcyon Daze" Index No.52721, a great many of which never took place. The document also indicates that, since 2003 (a period of 11 years), the vessel has always been declared, for Licencing purposes, as having a ‘home mooring’ at Barton In Fabis. This is untrue and seriously misleading, as when read in conjunction with a list of boat sightings at Holme Lock on the River Trent, also contained in Exhibit SAG1 as evidence of "overstaying" at that location, the printout disguises the fact that for part of the period covered by the list of sightings, I was paying BW for a Long Term mooring at Holme Lock.

I don't know, but interestingly, neither do C&RT.

I don't know who said that, but it's wrong. The document is nothing but a Licencing and Mooring history. Again, more details on Post 547