Tony Dunkley

Well aren't you a lucky chap then, you can add that to all the other things you don't know.

Is there anyone on this Forum who can translate what Dave Mayall is saying into understandable English? I don't think he's saying anything worth listening to but he is trying . . . isn't he!

There is nothing "apparent" about the differences about home moorings in the two printouts. I didn't ask for anything. C&RT produced the two self contradictory printouts as evidence to use in Court.

Yes, they (the boat sighting printouts posted by Nigel Moore) do help. The Functional Location column (home mooring or CC'er) starts in 2009 with the boat as a CC'er, changes 12 Nov 2009 to a different Code ( which C&RT won't explain) then on 23 Apr 2010 changes to CC'er again. On 30 June 2011 it changes to a home mooring at Holme Lock. On 1 Feb 2012 it changes to MAC before finally changing to a home mooring at Barton-in-Fabis on 8 May 2012. If you now look at the 19 line X 11 column printout ( for the same boat from 2003 to 2014) it tells a completely different story about that boat's home mooring. So there are two printouts from C&RT, both produced at the same time as evidence to be used in Court, and contradicting each other. At the very least, one of them has to be wrong. Perhaps you failed to notice the discrepancies because you were too busy "interpretting" rather than reading.

This from C&RT e-mail in response to similar question:-- a. Floc affected Functional location affected b. RT-011-003 Holme Lock c. RT-011-002 Holme Lock d. RT-012-005 Holme Lock e. RT-011 Holme Lock f. RT-011-003 Holme Lock g. RT-011-013 Holme Lock h. Functional loc Functional Location i. UT-011-001 Barton in Fabis j. MAC Mooring awaiting confirmation. Used where a customer has not notified CRT of their home mooring. k. RT-011-002-01 Holme Lock l. BW-065-007 Sap code for a boat declared as a Continuous Cruiser m. TE-005-008-01 n. BW-016-007 Old Sap code used for a continuous cruiser o. ZE Sap code for an enforcement case p. DUP Sap code for duplicate notification. q. SIG Sap code for a boat sighting, This will just signify that the boat was sighted without any notification being raised. r. ZC Sap code for a boat sighting. Each ZC will have an individual ZC reference number Floc.Affected = location of boat sighting Functional Location = Home mooring They don't seem to want say anything more about the seven different codes for Holme Lock, but one of them may be the length of piled wall on the EA owned land -- possibly RT-011-002.

So, in other words, C&RT's computer system has produced a printout which is just a load of misleading tripe. If it can do the same job on boat sightings then it may go some way towards explaining why some people are being wrongly accused of overstaying.

I don't understand what you mean . . . could you interpret it for me?

Nothing needs interpreting . . . the printout lists my boat as having a home mooring(FunctLoc) at Barton-in-Fabis since 2003 - wrong! . . it lists BW/C&RT Invoices for that mooring(lines with ZM code) but BW/C&RT don't, and have never owned or controlled any moorings at Barton-in-Fabis . . so wrong again! When words and figures are printed onto a sheet of paper they are intended to be read and taken to mean what they say, and these words and figures are just plainly and simply misleading and wrong.

You're missing the point. The printout is just factually incorrect rubbish. Post 131 is the true Mooring history for my boat. The C&RT printout is pure fiction . . . even listing their Invoicing for a mooring they neither own nor control.

Yes, that may well be so, but doesn't that make it all the more strange that they produce it to back up their legal action. I think its importance relevant to my case is that it demonstrates just how unreliable their records are when presented as proof of boat locations at any specific time. I will ask them about the archived original documents as you have suggested. Thanks for your help.

C&RT say that these are their codes for Home mooring name and Home mooring location. It's incidental to this thread, but this printout is part of C&RT's evidence in support of their Application for an Injunction. I have asked them and Shoosmiths why they have produced it and how it assists their Claim/Application. They say they are not really sure, but that it is proof I have a Home Mooring !?!

The quote below is from a C&RT e-mail to me in response to my enquiry about their dubious record keeping (or creating) . . . " . . . the information held within our corporate systems can be extracted and displayed in many different ways depending on the reason or purpose it is needed." . . . well, at least that seems to be true.

It was on a BW Long Term Mooring at Holme Lock from 2010 to 2011. Prior to that, 2009 - 2010 Licenced as CC'er. Prior to July 2009, not in my ownership, as correctly indicated in column 11, but I do know that with it's previous owner to me it was 2 years at Castle Marina with 2 years CC'ing(approx). Before that, I don't know. Columns 2,3,5,6 & 7 are quite interesting. The ZM code is for Mooring Charges, Sales Doc is Invoice No. . . . so that's me and previous owners being invoiced by BW/C&RT for moorings they don't own and now, apparently, believe not to be genuine.

Yes, I was wondering the same thing until I read the C&RT Statement they have submitted to the Court in support of their application for an Injunction. It seems that they believe there will not be a future for the waterways unless they can have me abolished. The relevant extract from their Statement is quoted in the following e-mail, sent to the CEO some two weeks ago and, as yet, unanswered. Mr. Parry, I am curious as to whether or not you are aware of, and agree with, why it has been deemed to be necessary to remove me and the boat I live on from all waterways under C&RT control, in order to , and I quote from a C&RT statement to be used against me in Court . . . " to enable C&RT to comply with it's statutory duty to ensure that the inland waterways controlled by C&RT are safe, well managed and properly conserved." The implications of this remarkable statement are, of course, that my continued presence, beyond this the 50th year since I began living and working on this country's waterways, will result in those very same waterways becoming unsafe, mis-managed and falling into decline . . . something a great many of your boat owning customers believe to have already occurred under C&RT's stewardship. It may be that you sincerely believe that my continued presence constitutes a very real and serious threat to the future of our waterways . . . after all you will be claiming this in open Court having already submitted it in writing. If, however, you really think, as everyone who has seen it up to now does, that it is one of the most ridiculous statements ever made, then the question arises of why you are intending to rely upon it in Court as credible evidence? Please refrain from time wasting and stalling by responding with any red herrings such as . . . "sub judice so we can't comment" . . . or any thing similar. I am not asking questions about the expensive, unwarranted, disproportionate and legally inappropriate action that C&RT is taking against me, but I am questioning whether C&RT and the personnel responsible for it's day to day operation and administration are, in fact, fit for purpose. Signed A.K.Dunkley

There' a bit more in Post 508 about other disgraceful things I was doing whilst shuffling.

Contrary to what BW and now C&RT would like everyone believe, they have no Statutory powers to control moorings and are entitled to control, and charge for, moorings only where they own the land to which vessels are moored. Their argument about charging for the waterspace at a mooring is rubbish, Any licenced boat is paying for the waterspace it occupies regardless of whether it is underway or moored, demanding payment for waterspace at a mooring is, in fact, making the boat owner pay for the same thing twice.

See post 108.

Alright then, look at what Stuart Garner said ,and forget about the question I asked C&RT just for the moment . . . now look at the post title . . . it's a question . . . now, can you remember the first eight words at the beginning of this sentence? . . . yes . . . well done . . . now relate what Stuart Garner said, to the post title . . . got it now?

Is it true that if you put crap into a computer then you will just get crap back out?

Look at what I said( quoting Stuart Garner) in the opening paragraph of the OP.

I was not on EA waters, but moored to EA land. C&RT(and BW before them) sell Long Term Mooring Permits for some adjoining EA land. They don't have any Agreement with the EA to do this, but have got away with it for many years, eventually becoming sufficiently sure of themselves to think they can exercise control over mooring to other EA owned land nearby. The EA have no issues with boats mooring to their land in this vicinity, and have even gone to the trouble of supplying me with a drawing/map with the boundaries of their land clearly marked.

This from a C&RT E-mail in response to the question I asked in the OP. . . ". . . the information held within our corporate systems can be extracted and displayed in many different ways depending on the reason or purpose it is needed." . . . that's reassuring, isn't it.

I couldn't agree more, but it's not me that you need to convince, its the frightened boat owners. C&RT's Abolish Tony Dunkley Campaign is probably not doing much to reassure them, but if you or any other Forum members can do or say anything to encourage them to make their fears and concerns known, then please do so. A great many peoples lives will be much the better for it.

I know of many who wish to do precisely this, but are reluctant to do so for fear of attracting special attention from the over zealous, vindictive and bullying elements within the C&RT Enforcement Team. The systematic and relentless intimidation of targetted, usually liveaboard, boat owners by BW/C&RT really has worked. The originators of this shameful campaign have now either gone or been moved to where they can do less harm, but,sadly, the evil that men(and some women) do will live on after them.