Tony Dunkley

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.

May I suggest that you apply for membership of the FES. I am sure they would be delighted to have the benefit of your clear thinking and uncanny ability to get hold of the wrong end of every stick that comes along.

Could I ask you to read what I have said?

No I didn't . . . they did, when they were renting me an LT mooring at Holme Lock and subsequently after I began renting a mooring at Barton-in-Fabis. Licence Renewals are sent out with mooring and other details already filled in by C&RT.

I haven't been trying to analyse anything, nor do I need to "rebut" anything in C&RT's printout, in which they list me with a home mooring at Barton-in-Fabis (with their Invoices/Charges for that mooring) at the same time they were Invoicing me for one of their moorings at Holme Lock. They actually included copy Invoices for the Holme Lock LT Mooring with the Barton-in-Fabis printout . . . helpful of them, wasn't it.

I haven't entered any home mooring location into C&RT's records, they have, as only they can, for the last eleven years at Barton-in-Fabis on their computer records and since 2012 on Licence Renewals.

I am not complaining . . . just the opposite really. I'm sorry if you are finding this confusing, but I am simply passing on information, given to me by a C&RT EO. If you are not at all concerned that C&RT may be recording inaccurate information about your boat,it's LIcence,it's moorings and movements, then that is entirely a matter for you, and all is well.

I don't . . . but I am quoting what C&RT's EO Stuart Garner told me . . . their system does it. Why should we not believe him?

It refers to what is said in the next few sentences, but perhaps I should have added that my current home mooring is at Barton-in-Fabis,as it has been since BW/C&RT stopped renting me a long term mooring at Holme Lock (some 10 miles away) at the end of September 2011. Now C&RT's records( printout) show my boat as not having a home mooring anywhere other than Barton-in-Fabis since 2003. It's incidental to this thread, but C&RT are at present refusing to renew my Licence because they don't believe Barton-in-Fabis is a genuine home mooring. Hardly surprising that C&RT disbelieve their own records though, after all who would be better placed than them to know how unreliable they are.

It's not expectations that are not being matched, it's facts, because C&RT's system is changing previous entries to read the same as the most recent (current) entry.