Jump to content

Tony Dunkley

  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Everything posted by Tony Dunkley

  1. After issuing a few Patrol Notices instructing me to "continue [your] journey", C&RT revoked the PBC for the boat I live on in early January 2014, initially citing non-compliance with Licence T&C's, specifically Conditions 2.1 and 3.1, with 'overstaying' thrown in for good measure.
  2. Kind of you to say so Alan, but I don't really think I can be included as one of the 'next generation'. Having left school to live and work on commercial boats on the rivers and canals some 52 years ago, I'm more of a decaying remnant of the last one.
  3. Your understanding and view of the situation is very C&RT 'ish, and you have, I think, also just invented a new type of Licence, the "Gold CC'er" for boats with a home mooring. The 'point' is that a great many of the Licence T&C's, or 'rules' as you call them, together with the 'authorized overstay' nonsense, that C&RT are conning boaters into accepting and complying with are nothing more than meaningless drivel which cannot be enforced other than by C&RT themselves acting unlawfully. Every success that C&RT achieve in this deception will do nothing other than to encourage them to persist in it all the more.
  4. It's straightforward enough really. Just consider the situation C&RT would find themselves in, were they to be foolish enough to embark on another of their Licence revoking / Section 8'ing pantomimes with a boat 'licensed' to use their canal, but 'registered' [ by them ] to use an adjoining river navigation which is not under their control, but which is the location of the boat's [home] mooring.
  5. Is your intention to get a [home] mooring in the EA owned marina in Northampton ? . . . if so, then you need have no more concerns with regard to C&RT being able to cause you any grief over using and mooring your boat on the canal closer to home. To the question you asked at the start of this topic ~ " If I conform to the 14 day rule and move her about a bit will I fall foul of the CRT? " ~ the answer is no, but they will try to make you believe otherwise. Buy what's called a 'Gold Licence', which covers you for all C&RT and EA waters, and your location and circumstances will be such that C&RT won't be in a position to impose any of what has now become their now customary, fanciful nonsense on either you or your boat.
  6. You have formed an over simplistic and far from accurate view of the true situation. My present dispute with C&RT began when I refused to buy either a boat Licence or a PBC whilst my boat, and I, were laid-up out of commission and out of the MNC of a PRN river. At no time was it ever my intention to use the boat in the MNC without a PBC, and despite being made aware from the outset that I would be buying a PBC just prior to the boat being re-commissioned and returned to use, C&RT chose, for the second time in two years, to initiate Section 8 proceedings which they knew full well I could force them into abandoning, either intentionally, if at any time I bought a PBC with the sole objective of pissing them about and demonstrating what a bunch of malevolent and stupid prats they are, or unintentionally, by way of an unwelcome [for C&RT] side-effect, if I bought a PBC solely in order to comply with the law after re-commissioning my boat. Of course, another aspect of C&RT's persistent use of inappropriate legislation in the shape of S.8 of the 1983 Act is that because it wasn't intended to be used in the way that C&RT now habitually does, it simply does NOT work unless the intended victim submits to the threat and allows it to. Something else which should also now be exercising C&RT's warped minds with regard to their Claim against me, and the Directions hearing listed for the 17th of next month, is the High Court decision that MNC and PRN issues warrant an airing at higher level than County Court.
  7. That would be one reason for buying a PBC, but an alternative, and an equally likely one would be to demonstrate to C&RT the futility of misusing statutory powers that they were given for purposes other than to intimidate boaters into complying with unlawful and otherwise unenforceable demands and Licence T&C's. They are unbelievably slow learners, but the penny may drop eventually.
  8. No, the reality is that as long as he retains a [home] mooring, C&RT cannot cause him, or anyone else in the same situation, any significant problems at all. I really do wish that people would not be so easily intimidated by C&RT's threats and tactics. The very fact that C&RT are exceeding their powers and misusing legislation does leave them open and vulnerable to cost free but effective retaliation, simply by means of correct use of the legislation that they are misusing At present C&RT are pursuing a County Court Section 8 action against me, which so far, which will have cost them in the region of £8 - 10,000 already, and they've got absolutely nowhere, and nor will they. Control of the situation, including the question of whether or not the matter proceeds to trial, or even to or beyond the Directions hearing [ listed for 17 Oct ] , rests entirely with me. Should I elect to buy a Licence or PBC, at any time of my choosing, then they have no option but to immediately discontinue the action, entirely at their expense. It is essential not to lose sight of the fact that any boater without a current Licence or PBC, for whatever reason, is free and entitled to apply for a new one at any time, and provided that the three requirements in S.17 of the 1995 Act are met, C&RT are obliged by law to issue it, thereby scuppering their own Section 8 proceedings in so doing.
  9. Disputes about the wording and provisions of the 1995 Act don't have to be conducted through the Courts. The only recourse open to C&RT with regard to any boater they accuse of not complying with their fanciful and warped interpretations of S.17 is to [illegally] revoke a boat Licence, or PBC, which they will then be obliged to renew on receipt of an application for a new one which complies with all three of the requirements set out in the Act. If they are repeatedly manoeuvred into this situation with some regularity, then, with any sort of luck, they may eventually disappear up their own backsides. The claim against C&RT you referred to above, was necessitated due to them illegally taking possession of a boat, or in other words, stealing it, and having done so, then extorting money from the owner as condition of returning it to him.
  10. Having done more of these sorts of jobs in barge, tug and narrowboat enginerooms since the 1960's than I really care to remember, I would generally go for the workshop option, if I had the choice. However, in this instance, and taking into account the relatively small amount of work, difficulty and time, involved in changing the crank, bearings, barrels and pistons on an air cooled Lister twin, in comparison with adding the tasks of taking off, and replacing an engine room top, lifting out and then lifting back in, and getting the engine to and back from the workshop, then I'd say that, on balance, it would be quicker and easier to leave the engine in the boat.
  11. Your doubts are well founded. The Judges remarks did not form part of the Judgment, and even if they had, would not be binding on any other Court. However, taken in context with the wording of the 1995 Act, which requires nothing more than the mooring to be "available", they are persuasive and influential.
  12. Unless the engine hole has been radically altered from the standard 'Northwich' length, and width, there is enough room to get a 2 x cylinder crank out. The gearbox has to come off to remove the crankshaft timing gear before pulling the crank out, and with the box out of the way and the remaining bed bolts out, the engine will go far enough back towards the cabin bulkhead to leave more than enough space at the flywheel end. This is not strictly 'doing it in situ', I know, but taking out the two holding down bolts on ether side of the flywheel housing and sliding the engine back, or lifting it from a bar across the pigeon box hole and standing it across the beds on a couple of pieces of timber, is a whole lot less work and effort than taking the engine-hole top off and bringing a crane in.
  13. This is complete nonsense, . . . doing something that the law does not forbid, is NOT exploiting a 'loophole'.
  14. C&RT's strategy for re-writing the law to suit themselves is entirely dependent on spreading this mistaken belief, and having it accepted by a sufficient number of boat owners. Why are you lending support to C&RT's attempts to fool boaters into believing that they can refuse a Licence or seize a boat on the grounds that it's [home] mooring is not being used ?
  15. You may well do. C&RT have been attempting to replace the law, as put on the Statute books by Parliament, with their own fanciful load of wished for twaddle since 2013. The "rules for moving your boat" referred to in the post above are the 'wished for twaddle' ! If you do end up being harassed by C&RT, then just tell them to get lost. As long as you retain the marina mooring, wherever it is, there is, ultimately, nothing whatsoever that C&RT can do to prevent you from mooring your boat where it suits you best.
  16. I don't know why you think this, but you couldn't be more wrong. The design and construction of all of the H-range engines, up to the 3 x cylinder models, permits complete dismantling, overhaul and reassembly with the engine in situ. Changing cranks, bearings, barrels and pistons on a 2 or 3 x cylinder is no more than a days work.
  17. I think we've ended up talking about different ''new'' locks here. It sounds as though you meant the 'New Locks' between the top of Wigram's and the top of Knowle, but I wasn't sure if you were talking about the ''new'' locks down the Junction, which are not significantly different in size from any of the others back as far as the bottom of Braunston. I don't know what name they go under in books and maps, but I've never heard the two locks either end of the short, straight pound at Nash Mill called anything other than the ''New 'uns".
  18. Crank end-float in the direction of [towards] the gearbox can only occur in either neutral or astern gear and is limited by the front thrust face of the centre main bearing. The force of the end-thrust in that direction is only the same as any other engine, ie. minimal, and the thrust face acts mainly in locating the crankshaft and limiting movement. When the Bruntons box is driving in ahead gear, there is a fairly hefty end-thrust force applied to the crank in the direction of [towards] the flywheel, acting as a self-servo engagement force to hold the ahead clutch in when it's transmitting power. To engage either ahead or astern gear, the gearbox mainshaft, and the male cones of both sets of clutches moves/slides either towards or away from the engine, and due to the orientation of the helical cut teeth on the reduction pinion and wheel, the clutches are forced harder into engagement as the the power they're transmitting increases. There is a separate [ball] thrust bearing within the mainbox to look after the astern thrust from the helical gears, but when ahead gear is engaged, the ahead thrust from them is transmitted directly to the crankshaft via the [female] ahead clutch cone which fits to a taper on the timing case end of it. To ensure that all the gearbox thrust is taken by the [ball] thrust bearing, the timing case end of the centre main crankshaft bearing of a National marine engine is shortened slightly by having a generous amount machined off the timing end thrust face in comparison with the industrial version of the same engine. This is why Nationals fitted with Bruntons boxes and the marine engine centre main crankshaft bearing are frequently found with excessive crankshaft end float due to the thrust bearing not being shimmed up correctly.
  19. The crankshaft end-float is set by means of shims behind the ahead [female] clutch cone thrust bearing, between the clutch cone and the timing case end cover. I can't remember the last time I saw one that didn't have too much end-float, caused either by wear in the ahead clutch thrust bearing or not being shimmed up correctly during assembly.
  20. If you've got 4 - 5 turns from ahead to astern, then either the bevel gears under/in the engine hole top have been changed from the 1 : 1 bevels that were fitted originally, or there is a lot of cumulative wear in clutches, mainshaft bearings and bushes, and internal operating components, and probably excessive engine crankshaft end-float as well.
  21. Complying with what is laid down in Statute is no guarantee that you won't attract some unwelcome attention from the Enforcement gang. As for C&RT not wanting to risk opening a can of worms in Court, it's far too late for that, they've already done it.
  22. I was never quite convinced that going to work undercover for C&RT was a good career move, . . . . I should have stuck with my old job with the Government's Diplomatic Service.
  23. They don't just 'monitor' Forums such as this, . . . . they recently included the content of some postings in written material submitted to the High Court.
  24. It certainly does suit them, . . . . what could be better than a duff computer records system for an organization that falsifies written evidence to use in legal actions against selected boaters ?
  25. It's the prize winning shower that runs the Trust, . . . from the drip of a CEO, to all the drips working under him !
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.