Tony Dunkley

Are you by any chance George W. Bush using a pseudonym?

Answers: - Q1) They claim to have done so, but there was no formal notice of such ever issued. Q2) Several different ones because they kept changing their minds about what they claimed I was doing wrong ; a) didn't believe I had a home mooring and boat movements insufficient to comply with CC Guidance. insufficient use of my home mooring and overstaying on nearby VM's . . . they had to give up with this one after they were obliged to admit in writing that one of the places where I am frequently seen to be moored are not VM's at all, and my other much used spot is against land owned by the Environment Agency. c) in breach of Licence T&C's Clause 2.1 . . . apparently I was not mooring while cruising. d) in breach of Licence T&C's Clause 2.1 . . . not cruising while mooring. e) now they say that they do believe I have a home mooring but that it is not a genuine one because I only have it in order to comply with Sect.17(3)©(i) of the 1995 BW Act. Q3) Yes Q4) Yes Q5) Nottingham Q6) First one was 4 July at which C&RT ( Shoosmiths) failed to get the whole thing railroaded past the Court by using an inappropriate County Court procedure and telling the Court that the matter was not disputed. The Judge gave me the time I asked for to prepare and file a written Defence, and made an Order for a hearing in the form of a Case Management Conference on the 1st. of September 2014 estimated to be dealt with in 30 minutes.

You have responded to only the first sentence of what I said . . . . there was no need and it wasn't actually directed at you anyway. I'm sure you would like to know what really is going on so why not accept my invitation and ask C&RT for all the relevant paperwork. You will be doing so with my full permission (in writing if you so wish . . . let me know if that's what you need before asking them) so they should be prepared to make any or all of it available.

That's quite right, and the reason I "showed up in the thread" (MtB) was to invite Alan Fincher to elaborate on his remark . . . . he didn't, and I see he's now withdrawn it . . . . enough said. So lets get back to what a lot of you seem keen to know, like the background and reasons for C&RT's legal action to remove me from all waterways under their control to. . . . . and I quote from the papers filed by Shoosmiths (C&RT Solicitors) with the Court, "enable CRT to comply with its Statutory duty to ensure that the inland waterways controlled by CRT are safe, well managed and properly conserved." I am quite happy, and prepared, to make all the correspondence from both sides, and forthcoming Court dates available to members of this Forum and anyone else who wants to know. Before I can do this, however, I would need C&RT's permission to publish all their relevant paperwork, and I authorize and invite interested members of this Forum to request that permission from C&RT on my behalf. Because so much of the relevant paperwork has not been revealed to the Court it may be that C&RT will be reluctant to reveal it to anyone else, but please feel free to ask them.

Well, Alan Fincher, I don't know who or what you are but I can tell you that I'm no different now from 40, and more, years ago. . . . . . so come on, lets hear all about these fringes of reasonableness that I was operating on. While you're at it, why don't you remind me where and when we met, because I can't recall you at all . . . . . . . perhaps I was even less impressed with you at the time than I am now.

Has the BW/C&RT claim to a right to charge for boats floating above their land, but moored to land not owned by them, ever been tested in, or upheld by, a Court? A licenced boat afloat on any waterway, whether in use or moored, will be occupying, at all times, waterspace commensurate with its size and Licence Fee and as no vessel can possibly be in two different places at the same time, then charging for the use of waterspace in the guise of a Mooring Fee would seem on the face of it to be charging for the same thing twice,

In 2010 and 2011 C&RT rented a mooring to me without first putting it up for Auction. I don't know why they did this but the mooring is on a river and on land they don't own. If you want to be kind about it you could say they were taking an opportunity to gain additional income for the Trust, on the other hand if you are feeling less charitable you could call it something else entirely.

If you want your new lights to comply with the Col.Regs these won't do.The minimum visibility for the white(masthead)light is 2 Nm's. The all round white light is OK for a boat of your size but if you mount what looks in the picture to be a fairly short mast on the cabin top,then the white light will be dazzling you when looking ahead from the wheel.

Yes I am.

Yes it would be --so now we all know you can add up as well as having to stand up to talk.

Local means local -- if you're struggling to understand it, go and buy a Dictionary -- you might even get one locally.

That's right -- but C&RT's new interpretation of Clause 2.1 of the Licence T&C's ( the one that says you can moor for up to 14 days whilst cruising) is that if you return to the same place without going somewhere else first you are not "cruising" -- so that means you can't moor for up to 14 days. I am not kidding about this, it has been explained in those words by C&RT's Enforcement Gang.

You might call it "shuffling about" but how about calling it using your boat on every day for which your 365 day Licence runs? Just to clear up your incorrect assumptions, my boat use is local to my mooring.

Plenty -- written and verbal, with a big proportion from boat owners reluctant have their names published for fear of provoking C&RT to even greater excesses.

Don't know who the Dark Side are -- is it the thoroughly nasty bunch called the Enforcement Team left over from the bad old days of British Waterways and now stopping at nothing to try and justify the huge cost of employing them.

C&RT are trying out a new form of nonsense which, if they get away with it, will mean that boat owners with home moorings who like to take regular or frequent weekend trips on the same stretch of waterway to an overnight mooring in the same vicinity as the week before will find their Licences under threat for alleged breaching of Clause 2.1 of the Licence T&C's. This Clause says you can moor for short periods whilst cruising, but C&RT are now claiming that regular and frequent returns to the same location is not "cruising" and so you are not complying with Clause 2,1. The Towpath Traffic Wardens are under instructions to record sightings on two different dates at the same place as evidence that a boat has not moved. Lets hope the DVLA don't pick up on the idea and threaten us all with losing our car Road Tax (Licence) if we park on,or use, the same stretch of road too often.