Tony Dunkley

Yes, I know it does, . . . it's the number I used yesterday.

And, of course, there is always the possibility that whatever prevented him from updating the website, also prevented him from taking care of the administrative side of running the business as he would have wished to do, . . . . such as illness, for instance.

You think so, do you ? Try ringing the number, . . it doesn't work, and all you'll get is a ''number not recognized'' recording.

You're assuming rather a lot there, but in the event of any or all of your assumptions being remotely accurate or factual, do you not think that C&RT have decided on the most sensible course of action, . . . . ie. ~ in the abscence of an 'in date' Survey report, we have concerns as to the condition of the hull, so we're going to take it out of a sheltered dock and tow it the best part of 50 miles up the coast to Fleetwood ? The truth is, there are no genuine safety concerns with regard to the vessel. The 'safety' gambit is an overused piece of hypocrisy that C&RT trot out all too frequently when indulging in some underhanded activity to deprive someone of either their boat, or the use of it . . . . remember 'Tadworth' ?

Within the brief and very limited correspondence between themselves and the owners, C&RT are putting considerable, even exclusive, emphasis on their contention that this vessel, and anyone going aboard without their permission is trespassing on their ''waterspace''. I wonder which of the three options they will select to include "waterspace", . . . works, land or premises ?

Peel Ports/Holdings don't own Canning Dock, or any of the other of the South Docks, . . . ownership was transferred to BW some years ago, so now it all belongs to C&RT. I'm guessing that neither Canning Dock, nor any of the others, fall under the S.8 umbrella, being neither an "inland waterway" nor a "reservoir", as specified in S.8(1).

C&RT have declared their intention to remove the vessel ['Planet'- ex LV23] from Canning Dock, Liverpool, at 1500 this afternoon. and because it's a bit too big to be taken to their stolen boats storage facility [in Chester] on a low loader, they're having it towed to Fleetwood. The owners/vessel have NOT been served with an S.8 Notice, and nor have C&RT obtained, or even attempted to obtain, a Debt Judgment against the owners/operators. An E-mail has been sent to Parry, copied to the 'legal team' (sic), drawing attention to the omissions and shortcomings in the process so far, and putting C&RT on notice that if they do proceed this afternoon, the owners of 'Planet' will be taking action to secure the return of the vessel, and seeking appropriate compensation/damages. The process, and C&RT's high-handed and illegal conduct of it, is remarkably similar to the illegal seizure and removal of Leigh Ravenscroft's boat from the Trent at Newark in Jan. 2015, except in that this instant the removal costs will be very much higher, and C&RT are proposing to tow a vessel which they have expressed concerns as to the condition of, out of a sheltered dock and some 45 - 50 miles up the West coast. Leaving aside any argument as to the rights or wrongs, or legality, of what C&RT are doing, you really do have to ask, . . . what do they use for brains when they're having a good day ?

Dog Rose is just another name for a wild rose, and was what Ron called them himself. Frank Jones and Frank Nurser generally only did them in red or yellow, which as far as I know aren't colours that occur in Dog [wild] roses, . . . I've only ever seen white ones, so in always making his white, I think Ron was technically the more correct. Bringing the dark blue into the centre of the panel would prevent the castle power station from being seen

Do you have any contact details for the owners ? If so will you please PM them to me.

This bunch of clowns just can't help themselves, can they ? They're already on the wrong end of a High Court action after illegally seizing a boat under S.8 [of the 1983 Act] as a means of recovery of an alleged debt, and as for the 'safety reasons' ; they're intending to move a vessel which may have as yet unknown hull defects [in the absence of an 'in date' hull survey] out of a sheltered berth and into the Mersey, . . . . well, words fail me !!! Have C&RT merely taken possession, or have they actually moved it, and do you know what immediate action the owners are taking to bring a halt to what C&RT are doing ?

They're Dog Roses, and I've seen them on other painter's work, . . . . Frank Jones and Frank Nurser. I wouldn't describe them as odd looking, just Ron's version of them. As for the table cupboard, above, he may have suggested it could be much improved by bringing the dark blue in to the centre of the panel.

It's called the 'collar', it's cast iron, it sits in the top of the 'ellum tube', and what you are calling the "swan's neck" is the 'ram's head'. A 'swan's neck' is an item of decorative ropework, only to be found on butty's 'ellums'. The collar in the photo's looks too small [on the OD] for the ellum tube, which won't be the original, and it's sitting offset to one side, . . . probably jammed in with a packer of some sort. I would leave well alone, . . . until it really has to come out for some reason.

You will get the sort of vibration you describe if the mounts are not adjusted correctly so as to share the weight of the engine, and the dynamic loads when running, equally between all four mounts.

Firstly, any engine with a bent valve isn't going to run alright at idling, or at any other rpm's. Secondly, valves don't bend at the rocker end of the stems, . . . they bend at the other end of the stem, below where it protrudes from the guide into the port. If the top end of the valve stem isn't sitting directly under the rocker pad, and there's a lot of carbon and soot around it, then the guide, and probably the valve stem, are either very severely worn or the guide itself has worked loose in the head. Whatever the problem with the valve and guide turns out to be, that won't be the cause of the overheating after running for half to three-quarters of an hour, so you need to look elsewhere for the cause of that.

I don't think the Professor of Gobbledygook was involved in drafting any waterways legislation, but it is beyond doubt that C&RT are now employing some of his direct descendants to 'interpret' it for them.

A canal, or a river navigation, is not in itself a 'service' or a 'facility', but the USE of them by "any ship or boat" is defined as such in S.43(8) the 1962 Act. It is important to note that only 'use' is so defined, and to 'keep' a boat on a canal or river navigation is NOT included as utilizing a 'service' or 'facility'. Seems definitive enough to me, and certainly doesn't require any 'interpreting' in a attempt to make it appear to mean something different !

Doesn't it just, . . . . thanks for that, Nigel. Are you forwarding it to Mr Stoner, or leaving that for "debbifiggy" to do ?

I've no idea who Alan Faulkner is, or where, or who, he got his information from, but what I know comes from knowing Michael Streat personally and being directly involved with Blue Line's carrying activities whilst working for them. The annual Licence deal and the consequent savings on toll payments were just one aspect of the help and support that British Waterways gave to Willow Wren; the other major one being the handing over of most of the remaining narrowboat carrying fleet for a peppercorn rent after the 1963 freeze up when, lime juice, piles and cement jobs excepted, BW pulled out of narrowboat carrying.

There was no 'out of Court' settlement, and nothing informal about C&RT dropping the 2014 Claim against me following recognition that they were on a hiding to nothing after being served with the Defence and receiving a valid and un-refuseable PBC application for the boat in question. In a final throw of the dice and, presumably, hoping to come out of it with a little less egg on their faces and something in the way of costs, rather than simply filing a Notice of Discontinuance, which is the procedure laid down in the CPR's for ending an action in such circumstances, they pushed the matter to a second Hearing to obtain a ruling on the Discontinuance despite that being entirely at the Claimant's discretion, and NOT requiring the agreement of the Court.

Yes, you are wrong. As I said above, the £25 per year Carrying Licence deal was limited to Willow Wren only. Blue Line's own 3 x pairs, and mine as the regular Winter time sub-contractor, had to fork out toll payments on tonnage for every load we ploughed round the Atherstone pound with. Michael Streat described it as " honorary unpaid dredging", and having to pay BWB for the privilege of doing it didn't go down at all well with us. Not long after the traffic ceased, the Atherstone pound was treated to the extensive dredging it had needed for years, but which BWB had been able to get away with not doing, thanks to the regular passage of loaded boats.

I believe the term "mechanic" is Americanism for contract killers, . . . . but I don't know if there's an equivalent for people who bugger up engines.

I would call them what they were, . . . . non-statutory, or perhaps more accurately, non-compulsory Licences, which were offered by BWB as an alternative to paying tolls or for the use of separate locks ! The optional Licence idea had also been extended to some of the carrying boats that were still operating back in the 1960's. Somewhat strangely the scheme was confined to Willow Wren, who could buy an annual commercial licence for £25 per boat instead of running a Tolls account with Leeds office.

Not having much luck with engines in boats are you ? . . . just over 3 weeks ago you posted the following about a Lister ST2 : ~ Posted 28 August 2016 06:19 PM "Right, iv set the gov up on my lister st 2, but its still ticking over way to quick when you go to turn engine off the rack is almost fully back as well I mean its mm. But if you open it up and control it on gov by hand it ticks over lovley this is with the morse disconected. You then stop engine and re start and back to square one again. Any ideas and sometimes has a habbit of running away too. Both pump marks are spot on with the sides of the housing so im baffled know.could retarding fuel pump timing move the rack to a diffrent position "

It was successful in that C&RT refunded all of the money they had siphoned out of his bank account post revoking his PBC and succeeding in evicting him from their waters. On the other hand, it was a miserable failure in that the spoilsports paid up a day or two before I was to drive Andy down to Milton Keynes for him to serve the Stat. Demand on Parry.

All C&RT's legal actions are a bit odd, and that's putting it mildly. It DID get to Court, and the PBC was NOT 're-instated', so no, wrong ! The 2014 action against me went before a Judge in Nottingham on 4 July 2014 after I filed and served notice of intention to contest the Claim and a brief statement, which is availble to read on Scribd, courtesy of Nigel M. The Judge accepted my argument that C&RT's Claim [the usual Declaratory and Injunctive Relief] should not go ahead under CPR Part 8 and gave me 3 weeks to file a Defence. Coincidental with filing and serving the Defence, I submitted an application for a new PBC to C&RT, which they initially refused whilst at the same time, having had sight of the Defence, notifying the Court of their intention to Discontinue the action under CPR Part 38, following my refusal to agree to halting the proceedings by their preferred means of a Consent Order.