Tony Dunkley

Having heard this particular tale so many times, and attributed to so many different children and families, I'm inclined to think to think the latter. When all's said and done, there are other items always to hand to put on the cabin top on the opposite side to the chimney and cans, like the mop, cabinshaft or stern-string to help a child learning to steer. Why use stuff that would be better made into a sandwich and eaten ?

No, get it right, . . . . THEY, and they alone, are choosing to waste money by issuing Claims [instigating legal action] they know full well have no prospect of succeeding. Indulging in such idiotic activities can be described in many different ways, but repeated with sufficient frequency, and with the same lack of any prospect of success, the Courts will eventually regard it as vexatious.

I can understand why many would find the whole ridiculous process too stressful and would want to avoid it if possible by knuckling under to what I see as C&RT's unacceptable conduct and tactics, but whenever that happens it will only encourage them to inflict more of the same misery on others. The option of complying with that which Parliament has set down in statute, and treating their 'customers' with a measure of decency and respect is always open to C&RT to take, but if they choose not to so do, then I, for one, am more than happy to piss them around as much as I possibly can. The remedy is entirely in their hands.

Yes, they complain to the Court that their intended victim's compliance with, what in reality are their unlawful demands, has rendered their Claim "worthless and academic", . . . but it doesn't get them out of the fairly expensive hole they've dug themselves into.

That explains that Scottish expression/saying, which goes something like " Lang may your lum reek ", . . . I'd always wondered what it meant.

On the face of it that would seem to be so, but the reality is that you can retain control of both the situation and the process, and force C&RT to discontinue legal action just prior to trial without incurring any costs liabilities yourself. The combination of C&RT's largely unenforceable Licence T&C's and their persistent misuse of inapplicable legislation results in every one of their contrived legal actions being on very dubious and shaky grounds.

Yes, those pins that were cast into the top gate collar anchors were about the size of the average thumb, so I'd think there's a good probability that's how thumb-strings got their name. Quite a few of them had got broken off over the years, often by accident when new gates were going in, so where that had happened, and if a thumb-string was needed, everybody used the centre [paddle] spindle on the gate instead.

The canal from Keadby to Bramwith, and the New Junction from Bramwith to the Aire and Calder to the West of Goole, are a seemingly endless procession of, nowadays un-manned lift and swing bridges, which not only slow the journey down but are a complete pain in the arse if it's at all windy while you're having to tie-up twice at each bridge to work it yourself. So, if this is just a boat moving exercise and time taken to do it is a consideration, then there is slightly quicker route on to the Aire and Calder via the river Ouse and Goole, but it is not a safe and suitable alternative for a lone vessel in the hands of someone without previous experience of the Trent below Keadby and the Ouse between the Humber and Goole. Even only going as far downriver as Keadby, it would be advisable to either take someone with some relevant experience with you, or, at the very least, go in the company of another boat. Getting into Keadby lock with a good ebb running down, which you will almost certainly be doing if you follow the advice and adhere to the timings you will get from the likes of C&RT's lock keepers, can be a bit daunting, so have a search on this Forum, or You Tube, for some video clips of how it's done. Alternatively, it is possible to time your arrival at Keadby for a doddle of an entry into the lock around [local] High Water [HW] with the tide [river current] dropping slack and the river not far off level with the canal.

It's the tiller that's held over to either the bread, or the cheese, . . . however, things can get very confused if you happen to have two cheese sandwiches on either side of the cabin top.

The need for thumb-strings would have arisen with the introduction of powered boats, steam or diesel, to work with and tow former horseboats as buttys on any canal with double locks, and then solely due to the tendency any powered boat has to draw any other boat which is very close alongside, along with it, and into it's own stern quarter. A thumb-string prevents a loaded butty from being drawn across to the motor's side of a [double, or wide] lock, and being drawn along with the motor, 'nipping' it against the (motor's side) chamber wall while the motor is still only part way out of the lock. This only happens to any great effect with downhill loaded boats, and is most pronounced and troublesome if either the pound below the lock is down a few inches, or the lock is overdue for a stoppage and there's a lot of mud and rubbish in the bottom of the chamber.

I can't tell you that because I don't know, . . . but I do know that brass bands were mainly to be found at cotton mills and coal mines, but NEVER round the top of a chimley on what are now called working boats* , . . . they were called 'rims'. *Nb. I don't think the term 'working boats' was used by ' them as worked 'em ', . . . and as far as I can recall it was just 'boats', or occasionally, 'trade boats'.

There looks to be the beginnings of some possible mis-understanding about the term 'chuck back' in one or two posts from earlier. A 'chuck back' is the brief engagement of (a)stern gear to clear the 'blade' [propeller]* of rubbish, leaves etc., whereas running in stern gear to bring the boats to a standstill is 'holding back', . . . . and to hold back well, or push gates open, most empty motors needed the counter at least 'flat-on' so they had plenty of 'fan-hold'. *Nb. Badly fouled 'blade' with enough rubbish on it to affect how well it works was known as a 'bladeful'.

Port and Starboard were 'Chimney side' and 'side-bed' side respectively. '[A]head gear and 'starn gear' ~ self explanatory ~ and when in 'starn gear', you are 'holding back'. Fore-end and Starn-end ~ again, self-explanatory, but the 'starn-end' of a 'motor' was the 'counter', and of a butty, the 'hatches' ~ not to be confused with the 'door-holes', which both motors and butties had. More later, when I'm not so busy !

Yes, I think that's very likely to be pretty well what's happened, but, sadly, the muddle, confusion and general ineptitude isn't limited to when the way narrowboats were worked is being either written or talked about. Some video's I've seen with today's 'enthusiasts' trying to work a pair of boats, empty or loaded, are enough to make you [ me, that is] weep.

The terms 'thumbline' or 'thumb-lining' were definitely never spoken about or practiced by those who taught me how to work narrowboats, . . . [in no particular order, and only a few of the many] . . . Jack Monk, Arthur Bray, Ernie Kendall, Jim Collins, Percy Hambridge, Henry Grantham, Ken and Ted Ward, Ronny Green, Johnny Anderson, Ted Barrett(s) [ old and young], George Wain, Tom Humphries, Erne Humphries, Johnny Boswell, George Radford, Sam Horne, Sam Brooks, Alf Best, Bert Wallington, Ron Hough, Alf Wright, Jack Meredith, . . . and many, many more, far too numerous to list everyone. Something that was used when necessary, however, was a 'thumb-string', which has nothing whatsover to do with pulling gates open, but was used from the stern T-stud of a loaded butty singling out from a downhill lock. I haven't got time to type an explanation of the way to work loaded boats singling out in downhill locks right now, but if enough people are sufficiently interested, then I'll try to find time to do so in the next day or two.

In normal conditions [ ie. fairly normal levels upriver] Torksey HW is around three and a half hours, and sometimes a bit more, after Hull HW, . . . Flood at Torksey [ ie. LW ] should be around or shortly before 1700 on Monday 12 Sept., and it'll be fairly unspectacular because the tides are right at the bottom [smallest] of Neaps. There'll be a slowish rise in river level before it starts 'running up', which will probably be around 15 - 20 minutes later.

* Hull HW is 1522 BST on Mon 12 Sept.

If you're aiming for Torksey, then set off from Cromwell any time that suits you. If you want to get straight in at Stockwith, with the river nigh on slack, and in daylight, then aim to get there at, or just before [local] HW, which will be around 1615-20 on Sun 11 Sept, and 1735-40 on Mon 12 Sept. Time the departure from Cromwell, and run at a speed that will get you to somewhere around the low end of Knaith Rack, West Burton [Cheese House] or Lea Marshes at the same time as HW at Hull, . . . . Cromwell to Stockwith is about 31 miles.

You're not mistaken, Alan, and in fact, I can truthfully say that the boat in question has never been moored on a Visitor Mooring during the whole time I've owned it. The E-mail below, which originated from the same author as the comedy E-mails referred to in post # 613 above, is clear evidence that at the time of, and prior to, the 2013/2014 difference of opinion with C&RT, they were well aware that my boat was not on the Holme Lock VM's -- when moored it was never other than much further along on C&RT's side of Holme Lock Cut, or up at Meadow Lane Wharf, or in the canal at Lenton, or on the EA owned land adjacent to Colwick Sluices :~ 10th April 2014 (Sent by post and email) Dear Mr Dunkley Halcyon Daze (Index number 52721) This letter is in response to your email of 6th March 2014. You asked following question in the email: “Please advise the precise location of the Visitor Moorings at Holme Lock on the River Trent. Is it the high length of wall on the South side of the Lock Cut where it is difficult to get on and off from low freeboard vessels, with the exception of the short length of wall at the Western end equipped with Boarding Steps and reserved at all times for the use of the Nottingham based passenger boats, or possibly the low length of wall with the protruding underwater stone ledge, which was declared by British Waterways, on record, to be an unsuitable and unsafe place for loading and unloading boat passengers? Could it be the Environment Agency owned land on the North side of the Lock Cut? “ I have attached at the end of this letter a map below showing the boundaries of the visitor mooring. The boundary area for Holme Lock visitor mooring is highlighted in red on the map and on the Low Side as in 100 metres in length. Your boat is presently situated on the High Side which is not within the boundary. However it is still within the waterway for which the Canal and River Trust is the navigational authority. Furthermore throughout the Trust’s waterway network nationally there is a 14 day limit, whether or not specific areas are designated as visitor moorings. Notwithstanding the location of your boat outside of the boundary of the Home Lock visitor mooring, the fact remains that whilst your licence was in force you were not complying with the licence terms and conditions because you were not mooring your boat on the Trust’s waterway for short periods while cruising. Your boat has been overstaying in locations along the waterway owned and managed by the Trust and this includes where your boat is currently located just outside of the boundary of the visitor mooring. Yours sincerely Thami Nomvete Solicitor T: 01908 351930 E: Thami.Nomvete@canalrivertrust.org.uk ____________________________________________ Also worthy of note is the fact that some 6 months after this admission that my boat wasn't using the Holme Lock VM's, Parry, in the first paragraph of that load of hypocritical claptrap in post # 613 [22 October 2014 E-mail] was still putting that forward as the primary reason for reluctantly taking legal against me as a measure of 'last resort'. Incidentally, Nick, it's not strictly true to say there 'were two conflicts' with C&RT, . . . their latest legal action to have me abolished, brought about by my refusal to buy a PBC until I need my boat back in commission, is still mired in the initial, pre-directions stages more than a year and an estimated £10,000 - £11,000 of legal expenses after the dispute started. After last week's spectacular High Court coup, when Parry's CWDF mole 'debbifiggy' E-mailed three of Nigel [Moore]'s posts to Shoosmiths as ammunition for their attempts to persuade the Court to exclude him from the proceedings in Leigh Ravenscroft's action, I did wonder if she may repeat the exercise prior to my next hearing in Nottingham. Since the Spring of 2014, Parry and his gangs of enforcers and dubious lawyers have squandered in the region of a total of £26,000 - £27,000 so far in trying, and failing, to rid themselves of me, or more precisely the boat I live on at present, and I'm sure that Shoosmiths would be able to make good use of some of my posts as evidence of my, apparently, undesirable presence on their waterways being such a severe impediment to C&RT's ability to discharge their obligations to,

No, I hadn't noticed that, Nigel; I was just speculating on the minor flurry of approval [greenies] for the asinine remark [ post # 549] about how wrong it would be to crowd fund the destruction of the waterways. Parry has undoubtedly had his minions keeping watch for adverse and/or embarrassing comment, and reporting back directly to him from very soon after he slithered into the CEO job. Shortly after I published those two hilarious E-mails from his Solicitors office -- the invitations to 'cruise' with an unlicensed boat in order to demonstrate my future intent to comply with their Licence T&C's, back in 2014, he included a somewhat pathetic whinge about it in this hypocritical and nauseating E-mail :~ Dear Mr Dunkley, 22 October 2014 As I think you are very aware, the original enforcement action against you was commenced because you insisted on overstaying at the visitor mooring at Holme Lock rather than mooring at your declared home mooring at Barton in Fabis. We wrote to you on several occasions explaining very clearly that this was a breach of your licence terms and conditions which only permits mooring on the waterway – especially on visitor moorings - for short periods whilst cruising away from your home mooring and urging you to return your boat to its home mooring or to resume cruising. Despite this, you continued to refuse to comply, and this ultimately led to us terminating your licence and then to commence enforcement proceedings to remove your unlicensed vessel from our waterways. The Trust only commences enforcement action as a last resort and, even then, we always try to work with boaters who are the subject of such action to explore ways of avoiding the need to take a case into court. This was why, even after your licence was terminated, we wrote to you offering you the chance to satisfy us that you did intend to cruise whilst away from your home mooring, stopping only for short periods of 14 days or less and not overstaying. The e-mails you refer to were not encouragement for you to remain unlicensed, but were genuine attempts to give you a chance to demonstrate to us that you were prepared to comply with our licence terms and conditions. I find it frustrating that you are so determined to mis-represent our position. After the first court hearing - but before the second directions hearing - you moved your boat from Holme Lock and onto your home mooring at Barton in Fabis (and provided evidence that you had the right to use that as your home mooring), as we had been asking you to do for several months. This demonstrated a willingness on your part to comply with the requirements set out in our terms and conditions which is why we were then prepared to re-issue you with a licence. We therefore chose to discontinue the legal action against you because, as stated above, the Trust does not take matters to court whenever there is an opportunity to avoid it. This is entirely appropriate behaviour for a responsible charitable body looking to avoid the time and costs involved in litigation and seeking to promote a constructive relationship with all those using our waterways. It is disappointing that you waited until the eve of the court proceedings before demonstrating compliant behaviour as an earlier response on your part would have avoided wasting the time and costs that have already been expended. As has been explained to you, we will monitor your boat movements going forward – as we do for any other boat - and if you return to your previous pattern of behaviour (ie overstaying on visitor moorings rather than cruising whilst away from your home mooring), we will have no choice but to re-commence action and this may lead to us terminating your newly-issued licence. I very much hope this doesn’t happen but you will appreciate that we have to treat all customers consistently and we cannot allow any individual boater to persistently breach our terms and conditions without taking action to remedy the position. You seem to take great heart from vilifying the Trust. I am going to continue to ignore such remarks as my only interest is in caring for the waterways and enabling boaters and others to enjoy using them. Regards Richard Parry

If it's burning all the oil it's using, then you would be getting quite a bit of noticeable blue smoke when running. Is it sending much blue smoke out of the exhaust ?

There isn't anything resembling logic in what you've said, and it's very evident that you haven't even begun to understand the 'argument' at all. It's a fact, and NOT a 'belief', that boats kept and used on the Lee don't have to be licensed. The Lee is one of the river navigations listed in Schedule 1 of the 1971 BW Act, and as such, the law requires only that vessels kept or used within the MNC must be registered by means of a Pleasure Boat Certificate [PBC]. I don't know how many of your three and half hours worth of boats ever leave their moorings and make use of the MNC, but those that do merely require, not a Licence, but a PBC in order to comply with the law. Only such boats as are permanently moored out of the MNC, and never make use of it at any time are relieved of the obligation to hold either a current PBC, or a current Licence.

If you really do believe that, then you're probably one of the minority still clinging to the belief that the Earth is flat and that it's possible to sail a boat over the edge of it. Back in around the mid 2000's BW raised the crest of Beeston Weir on the Trent with the aims achieving an acceptable navigation channel depth and increasing the head and volume of water available for the recently installed Hydro-electric plant at Beeston, but without having to revert to the regular routine dredging that they had abandoned some years earlier. Raising the weir cill had two immediate effects. The 'normal' or 'minimum retention' river level was raised proportionally, and, contrary to your beliefs, flooding levels then occured after less rainfall than previously. The normal level to high level range of the flooding was unchanged, but the peaks were proportionally higher because the initial level was higher, and necessitated the raising of flood banks and walls in the area. As for not applying your argument re. moored boats contributing to the upkeep of the river, both I, and those who drafted and passed the 1971 BW Act, seem to agree that any boat kept moored outside of the MNC in the Trent between Cromwell and Gainsborough should not be contributing to the [navigational] upkeep, such as it is, but C&RT take the predictable alternative view that any such vessels must be 'licensed' like any other.

Thanks for putting those clips up, Simon. I'm pretty sure I've seen some You Tube video clips of boats going in at Keadby and Selby as well, but I don't know how to post them on here, even if I could find them again.

Weirs don't stabilize the water levels in a river, they retain a minimum upstream level. Severe fluctuations in river levels are related solely to rainfall, and are not lessened by the existence of weirs. The absence of a weir on any stretch of river would have no effect whatsoever on the range of the level fluctuations, it would simply mean that the range of increased levels would operate above a lower 'normal' level, and the floating stages which are the preferred, and usual, method of mooring on a river would function in precisely the same way as they do when the river is held back above a set least level by a weir. Would you apply your arguments and reasoning to the 26 miles of C&RT controlled river Trent from Cromwell Lock to Gainsborough Bridge, along which there are neither weirs, nor navigational flood control of any sort ?