Que Sera Sera

[alan_fincher]

OK, I’ll try one more time.

 

I know there is a feeling that we have scared off the owners, but if they are genuine, should they not also be concerned about the discrepancies in the information given to the forum?

 

Perhaps Rose, if she is available, might be able to get some clarification.

 

I’ll start off with actual unedited previous statements made about the sightings.

 

According to Carole the siting at Shakerstone was made by a continuous cruiser who telephoned a friend who concequently telephone Carole. The person who saw it described the boat as a blue liverpool boat with the name Que Sera Sera on it. The person passing on the info described the person who made the sighting a thoroughly reliable and a guy that "knows his boats"

 

On Wednesday 18th March the boat was seen in Alrewas by an aqaintance of Carole & Tony's who knows the boat personally having been aboard. He was dog walking at the time. Because he was completely unaware that the boat had been stolen and knowing that it is regularly let out he saw nothing unusual about it until speaking to another friend 2 days later (Friday) who confirmed it had been stolen.

 

A Boater then saw it on Friday 20th between Alrewas and Shobnall "On a Mooring"

 

I have an urgent and very important update. I have just received a txt from Carole:

" Just found out the sighting a week last Thursday was not our boat - it was called Que Sera Sera. Makes us think that the other sightings may have been this boat"

 

I asked how they knew it was not their boat - the reply:

 

"The guy that saw it took a photo. A friend saw the photo today"

 

You will all be very aware that this means the boat we are looking for could be anywhere and any colour by now. We need to re-assess what we are looking for in the light of this new information

 

These are my questions,

 

If the person who saw it in Alrewas already knew the boat personally, having been aboard, why did they not know at the time it was not Carole and Tony’s boat, and how did it come to be reported that it was ?

 

If they are an acquaintance of Carole and Tony, I can’t think of any imaginable reason why they should not make the photo they took available, so that anybody involved in the search can see what the other Que Sera Sera looks like. Why can this photo not be obtained for publication ?

 

We are told that the Shackerstone sighting was by somebody reliable who “knows his boats”. They described named Que Sera Sera, and apparently volunteered that it was a blue Liverpool Boat. Is it now believed this was Carole and Tony’s QSS, or a different one ? Has the person who saw it been shown a picture of Carole and Tony’s one to say if they think it was ? (If that other picture were available, they could be shown that too for elimination purposes).

 

Has anybody else doing the searching at any point come across a suggestion of a duplicate QSS? (Again that photo might establish one exists).

 

I don’t think I have said anything controversial or antagonistic here, nor speculated in any way, I’m just looking for genuine answers to genuine questions that might, just might, help to unravel this.

 

Alan

[Dominic M]

OK, I’ll try one more time.

 

I know there is a feeling that we have scared off the owners, but if they are genuine, should they not also be concerned about the discrepancies in the information given to the forum?

 

Perhaps Rose, if she is available, might be able to get some clarification.

 

I’ll start off with actual unedited previous statements made about the sightings.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

These are my questions,

 

If the person who saw it in Alrewas already knew the boat personally, having been aboard, why did they not know at the time it was not Carole and Tony’s boat, and how did it come to be reported that it was ?

 

If they are an acquaintance of Carole and Tony, I can’t think of any imaginable reason why they should not make the photo they took available, so that anybody involved in the search can see what the other Que Sera Sera looks like. Why can this photo not be obtained for publication ?

 

We are told that the Shackerstone sighting was by somebody reliable who “knows his boats”. They described named Que Sera Sera, and apparently volunteered that it was a blue Liverpool Boat. Is it now believed this was Carole and Tony’s QSS, or a different one ? Has the person who saw it been shown a picture of Carole and Tony’s one to say if they think it was ? (If that other picture were available, they could be shown that too for elimination purposes).

 

Has anybody else doing the searching at any point come across a suggestion of a duplicate QSS? (Again that photo might establish one exists).

 

I don’t think I have said anything controversial or antagonistic here, nor speculated in any way, I’m just looking for genuine answers to genuine questions that might, just might, help to unravel this.

 

Alan

Perfectly reasonable questions already raised a number of times, to which it is perfectly reasonable to expect an answer.

[Nightwatch]

Alan, I have seen that you have recieved much flak from others "misreading" your comments but I have to say I agree with you.

 

A long,long time ago when this thread had been running for a few days I also wrote my feelings on the subject and indeed recieved a heap of "words", some of which were from the owners daughter who didn't like being refered to as "offspring" Perhaps that might get her back into making comments, who knows.

 

I ahve also written that Rose is the one I will feel for if this goes the way that some on here think it will go.

 

 

I will repeat my comments also from ages ago, if it were mine, and I haven't been a boater for too long (7 years), I would be doing more than this to secure the return of my pride and joy. Maybe they are and have fallen out with us and don't want to tell us. maybe they are.......

 

Alan I'm with you on this.

 

 

Martyn

[stickleback]

Indeed they did ask for the forums help, and with it they have had the forums judgement, which is surely unacceptable.

 

Not the whole forums judgement - quite a number are genuinely concerned and hope they get the boat back. As do I.

[Ex- Member]

QUOTE (Bones @ Mar 30 2009, 02:39 PM)

Indeed they did ask for the forums help, and with it they have had the forums judgement, which is surely unacceptable.

 

This has been pointed out. They didn't ask the forums help initially. Someone posted info about the stolen boat. The forum members then requested to know more info to assist in locating it. The info then received from the owners was felt to be lacking and slow in coming. That's when comments were made by members as to the lack of info.

 

At least that's how i see it from what I can glean.

 

Also there's been hardly anything said negatively in the past 5 days until last night and today. Many members including myself were politely requesting more info over a the previous 3 to 4 day period, none was forthcoming, nothing what so ever. most members like myself want to help and do so in the best way we think we can, is it any wonder that some scepticism arises when people offering help don't get the information they feel will assist or even any updates.

 

Edited to add, a few sceptics would hardly put me off trying to find our pride and joy, that's for sure.

Edited March 30, 2009 by Julynian

[gaggle]

Was this boat previously up for sale?

 

If so, who inquired about the boat?

 

the link to ebay says ,i think , it was up for hire privatly in the weeks before the week it was stolen , i wonder if it was hired out the weeks previous to the theft , maybe if was not the owners could have got downhearted with the lack of bookings and decided to invent a booking with imaginary customers so the could claim it had been stolen and all the time knowing they had already took it themselves and sunk it in some very deep place on some very lonely river.

 

If someone cares dispute that .

[kawaton]

the link to ebay says ,i think , it was up for hire privatly in the weeks before the week it was stolen , i wonder if it was hired out the weeks previous to the theft , maybe if was not the owners could have got downhearted with the lack of bookings and decided to invent a booking with imaginary customers so the could claim it had been stolen and all the time knowing they had already took it themselves and sunk it in some very deep place on some very lonely river.

 

If someone cares dispute that .

 

case solved

[Roger Gunkel]

This is my first post on the QSS threads, although I have followed them from the start.

 

It seems to me as though the forum has decided to run a kangaroo court on whether the theft is genuine or a scam! Personally I find the whole thing quite fascinating and have no particular bias either way. However I think that all the bickering and conjecture is missing a golden opportunity to see what we can actually do!

 

If we are interested in what is actually going on, which I'm sure we all are, we don't actually need any further information other that that which our own members can supply. Lets find out ourselves whether it is genuine or not, which will satisfy the owners if that is what they want and ourselves, as it will answer all the questions.

 

Forget any reports and information regarding possible sitings, because they are completely irrelevant. We know what the boat looked like before it disappeared and any distinctive features. In the time since it has been reported missing, it could literally be almost anywhere in the world, including the yard it came from! If we assume it is in the UK, then ignore the fact that there are various stoppages around the country, as the boat could quite possibly have been lowloaded to any quiet backwater in the country.

 

As we have over 7000 members registered on the forum, there must be members scattered round most of the waterways, so if we all got off our backsides and away from our computers for a while, we could walk, cycle or boat around our own particular area, looking for any boat either fitting the description, or looking similar with recent signs of modification or painting. Perhaps a picture would help to match it to the one we already have, or dismiss it from the equation. Also the location of any other QSS named boast can be established to avoid confusion.

 

I don't know if it is technically possible, but could the site crew do a mass PM to all members with email notification, including the picture and description, for those members who perhaps don't log on often or have not read the threads. I would have thought that with all of us looking out, if this boat exists and it is on or near the waterways, we should be able to locate it and satisfy our curiosity!

 

As a final thought, I believe Liam had the original contact from the three mystery people, perhaps he could contact them to find out their connection to the saga.

 

Roger

[david and julie]

What are the chances that two "Que Sera Sera's" are on the same bit of canal? The right one gets recognised by someone who has apparently been on it and takes a photo of it. Then suddenly it's the wrong "Que Sera Sera" - the one he hasn't been on (out of only 3 registered in the UK).

Not beyond the wit of man this one Chris.

 

A neighbour of mine was a subby courier driver and his main customer wanted their name on the side of his van - but wouldn't guarantee him work. Without such a quarantee he was reluctant because this name would stop him working for other companies. The eventual solution was a flexible magnetic sign which could be used when required or rolled up and left in the van at other times.

 

Consider a similar scenario with a boat.

 

You keep dodgy company and want a boat and one of your equally dodgy mates already has a legit blue cruiser. You look around for the "victim" - being on Ebay or a part time hire boat doesn't come into it - colour, stern, length, even make (all quite common in this case) are the most important attributes.

 

You then have two sets of magnetic signs made.

 

Sign one is in the name of the legit boat and big enough to completely cover the stolen boats name - further quick and easy disguise would be taking off the cratch and cover then covering the original stripes with bigger different coloured tape. Perhaps more importantly - the stolen boat would also then have legit licence and plates in the window etc. Even if seen by BW, the police or one of us, we would more than likely believe the licence disc and plates.

 

Sign two is the name of the stolen boat and is occasionally stuck on the legit boat - which then deliberately passes through busy areas quite near the theft to throw the scent.

 

Not suggesting this is the case here, I'm just demonstrating a relatively straightforward way to pinch a boat.

[jami dodgers]

I'm very impressed the way so much diverse brain power comes at this from so many different angles.

 

I think it's a great shame and a missed opportunity that the owners and their daughter won't enter into a proper 2 way dialogue with the forum.

 

They could benefit tremendously from in-depth knowledge, properly organised searches, lateral thinking (including insights into the criminal mind!!) and so on.

 

Very frustrating ;-((

[Postcode]

I know personally the calls that Rose has received from the owners on occasions. If this were a scam there is no real point in the owners contacting Rose considering the flak that is available for them on the forum.

 

I for one am willing to have a poster in my boat's window in case it helps find the boat.

[jami dodgers]

Hi postcode, I think flak is too strong........sure there is questioning of many aspects of this case, but most of it born of a frustration at lack of feedback and direct communication (no offence intended Rose...well done to you for being proactive).

 

And still it goes on, I'm sure I will be corrected, I haven't spent ages trawling back thru' the various threads, but when did we last have an update? Have we been told if the police saw anything on the CCTV? Do we know if more of the number plate is readable under closer investigation? If it's a sensitive matter under investigation then at least tell the forum!

Edited March 30, 2009 by jami dodgers

[cheshire~rose]

I would like to just add to this thread a word or two.

 

For anyone who is in any doubt I would like to make it plain that my only connection with Carole & Tony is that I chose to telephone them and speak to them to try and assist in getting information to post on the forum when the information we were all screaming out for seemed painfully hard to get. I have never met Carole & Tony at all.

 

I would also like to add that one day I sincerely hope I can meet them as having spoken to them both I am as sure as one can be via a telephone conversation that they are a lovely couple that are going through a horrendous time right now. Now it might be that I come to regret trusting them but I have a pretty good track record on intuitively knowing when things are ok and when they are not (very many years in an occupation where I had to be able to spot a problem pretty fast for the sake of my own safety has probably left its mark)

 

People keep asking questions on here knowing full well that Carole and Tony do not have any access to the internet and so are very unlikely to read what they are asking let alone be able to respond to it.

 

I have tried to get a balance between an occasional phone call to request information or clarification of a point which I feel is especially important and relevant and allowing these poor people to work their way through the horrendous time they are going through without having me constantly bombard them with texts and calls.

 

Any communication received via text from Carole often leaves very many questions unanswered and I find it is usually best to resort to calling her to get more detail. It can be frustrating - yes - but it does not make someone a bad person because communication is not their strong point. I feel quite strongly that this couple have been tragically naive and trusting. Lots of us think we would react very differently if it happened to us. God forbid that ANY us ever have to find out!

 

I would like to thank those of you who are showing support for me. Yes it is true I might be making myself look a prize prat by helping but I guess I like to think of myself as a good samaritan and I really cannot be one of those who turns their head and looks the other way when help is requested. As Carl so rightly said I would rather a naive prat who was trying to help than a nasty prat who tried to stir up bad feeling.

 

My role in this has simply been to pass on information which I hope might be relevant and useful in the search for the boat. I am unable to vouch for the accuracy of the information and I do not expect everyone to believe it is without flaw. Like has been said so many times - where is the harm in us keeping our eyes peeled while out and about on the canal network just in case we spot anything that might be a clue to the boats wherabouts?

 

Lots of people have made judgments about Carole & Tony based on a lot of supposition and speculation on this thread. Has anyone else actually spoken to them? They have made their phone number public and would be quite happy to talk to anyone who wants to help them.

 

If and when I get any updates from them I will continue to post them here. Apart from that I will not be responding any further or adding anything to this thread.

[churchward]

I would like to just add to this thread a word or two.

 

For anyone who is in any doubt I would like to make it plain that my only connection with Carole & Tony is that I chose to telephone them and speak to them to try and assist in getting information to post on the forum when the information we were all screaming out for seemed painfully hard to get. I have never met Carole & Tony at all.

 

I would also like to add that one day I sincerely hope I can meet them as having spoken to them both I am as sure as one can be via a telephone conversation that they are a lovely couple that are going through a horrendous time right now. Now it might be that I come to regret trusting them but I have a pretty good track record on intuitively knowing when things are ok and when they are not (very many years in an occupation where I had to be able to spot a problem pretty fast for the sake of my own safety has probably left its mark)

 

People keep asking questions on here knowing full well that Carole and Tony do not have any access to the internet and so are very unlikely to read what they are asking let alone be able to respond to it.

 

I have tried to get a balance between an occasional phone call to request information or clarification of a point which I feel is especially important and relevant and allowing these poor people to work their way through the horrendous time they are going through without having me constantly bombard them with texts and calls.

 

Any communication received via text from Carole often leaves very many questions unanswered and I find it is usually best to resort to calling her to get more detail. It can be frustrating - yes - but it does not make someone a bad person because communication is not their strong point. I feel quite strongly that this couple have been tragically naive and trusting. Lots of us think we would react very differently if it happened to us. God forbid that ANY us ever have to find out!

 

I would like to thank those of you who are showing support for me. Yes it is true I might be making myself look a prize prat by helping but I guess I like to think of myself as a good samaritan and I really cannot be one of those who turns their head and looks the other way when help is requested. As Carl so rightly said I would rather a naive prat who was trying to help than a nasty prat who tried to stir up bad feeling.

 

My role in this has simply been to pass on information which I hope might be relevant and useful in the search for the boat. I am unable to vouch for the accuracy of the information and I do not expect everyone to believe it is without flaw. Like has been said so many times - where is the harm in us keeping our eyes peeled while out and about on the canal network just in case we spot anything that might be a clue to the boats wherabouts?

 

Lots of people have made judgments about Carole & Tony based on a lot of supposition and speculation on this thread. Has anyone else actually spoken to them? They have made their phone number public and would be quite happy to talk to anyone who wants to help them.

 

If and when I get any updates from them I will continue to post them here. Apart from that I will not be responding any further or adding anything to this thread.

 

There is no way that you are a prat for helping the owners, Even if it is mis-placed a good deed is a good deed pure and simple.

 

All power to you and well done.

 

It is strange those that demand answers and make accusations do not feel the need to call or contact the owners directly.

 

When I am out on the cut I will continue to keep a look-out.

[NiceNarrowboat]

Well put, Cheshire Rose. My sentiments exactly.

[sueb]

We used to have magnetic name plates on our boat. They collect water behind them and cause rust which has nothing to do with anything.

Sue

[Bullfrog]

Well put, Cheshire Rose. My sentiments exactly.

Respect Rose, as always.

 

David

[ditchcrawler]

There is no way that you are a prat for helping the owners, Even if it is mis-placed a good deed is a good deed pure and simple.

 

All power to you and well done.

 

It is strange those that demand answers and make accusations do not feel the need to call or contact the owners directly.

 

When I am out on the cut I will continue to keep a look-out.

In the past week we have done Napton top lock to Oxford, Isis Lock and back to Cropredy with no sign of it, Seen one or two Liverpool cruiser sterns but not the same layout as her

[alan_fincher]

It is strange those that demand answers and make accusations do not feel the need to call or contact the owners directly.

I would have assumed, (perhaps wrongly it seemed), that the owners probably would be a bit phased by multiple calls from all and sundry.

 

As someone, (Rose), has put themselves out to be a point of contact, and established a rapport with the owners, it seemed not unreasonable that anything other than the most urgent questions got channelled through her. (I do appreciate though that she has been away, and it's unfair to expect her to be doing this as a full time job).

 

I guess what has confused some people is that an "owner" account was created called (something like) "Carole - Que Sera Sera", not "Zoe - Que Sera Sera", and I believe some early communications were signed "Carole". That will have led many to think that the owners are looking at the postings.

 

Even if it is Zoe that is manning that account, I think many will have also assumed that if a reasonable question is asked, that she is better placed to get the information from her parents than a complete stranger.

 

(I still don't see if someone using the above account has signed in up to now, they are not still able to do so, and find out answers to reasonable questions being asked.)

 

We have been told the father is unwell, which is why I personally wouldn't chose to phone for a non urgent question. (I would though if it were time critical, or I had information).

 

I think you are being too tough on forum members, most of whom tried for a long while to help, but have found the experience progressively more frustrating, particularly this last weekend, when no communication has been made, even after previously given information has been retracted. It's hardly surprising that speculation starts to break out in this vacuum.

 

(I'm glad we can agree about engine oil though. - And, like you, we will be looking, but it now seems that there is no more that forum members can actively do, other than keep their eyes open, unfortunately)

Edited March 30, 2009 by alan_fincher

[cheshire~rose]

In response to the speculation about the possibility of another similar boat named Que Sera Sera:

 

I have this evening had a PM from another forum member. I will quote it here but I have removed the references which might allow the member to be identified:

 

Hello.

I have just been catching up on this thread.

I see there is lots of speculation about the sightings of "Que Sera Sera" and the possibilities / probabilities of there being two boats of the same name is the area. Some people think this is unlikely.

Well, I seem to remember that a boat of that name and colour was at the boatyard ****** I hasten to add that this was ages ago - some time between September 08 and January 09.

When I first read this thread a while back, I just thought "Oh, that's the boat that was having work done.....but now I see there is speculation about how many boats have this name in the same area.

If this "Que Sera Sera" that I saw does NOT belong to Carole's - then there are TWO boats of that name looking very similar in the West Midlands.

I am so sorry that I cannot be more specific about the boat that I saw...only that the name rings a bell and I am pretty sure a boat of that name and colour has been at **** yard in the last six months.

Maybe you could ask Carole if the boat has had work done there.

Sorry to PM you about this and not post it directly on CWDF.....but you only have to read that thread to understand why.

 

I have text Carole and asked her if they have ever had any work done in this boat yard.

 

Her reply:

 

Hi Jan - No we have never been to ********

 

Tomorrow a friend will give the boat yard in question a ring to ask about the boat of that name that had work done in the yard in the last 6 months.

It would appear that there may be another blue boat in the Midlands with the same name. I will post more details if I can tomorrow.

 

It is a shame that people who might have information which can potentially assist (even if only to rule out the possible misleading sightings we have had in the past) are unwilling to post on the thread. I really cannot blame them though and for that reason I will

[churchward]

I would have assumed, (perhaps wrongly it seemed), that the owners probably would be a bit phased by multiple calls from all and sundry.

 

As someone, (Rose), has put themselves out to be a point of contact, and established a rapport with the owners, it seemed not unreasonable that anything other than the most urgent questions got channelled through her. (I do appreciate though that she has been away, and it's unfair to expect her to be doing this as a full time job).

 

I guess what has confused some people is that an "owner" account was created called (something like) "Carole - Que Sera Sera", not "Zoe - Que Sera Sera", and I believe some early communications were signed "Carole". That will have led many to think that the owners are looking at the postings.

 

Even if it is Zoe that is manning that account, I think many will have also assumed that if a reasonable question is asked, that she is better placed to get the information from her parents than a complete stranger.

 

(I still don't see if someone using the above account has signed in up to now, they are not still able to do so, and find out answers to reasonable questions being asked.)

 

We have been told the father is unwell, which is why I personally wouldn't chose to phone for a non urgent question. (I would though if it were time critical, or I had information).

 

I think you are being too tough on forum members, most of whom tried for a long while to help, but have found the experience progressively more frustrating, particularly this last weekend, when no communication has been made, even after previously given information has been retracted. It's hardly surprising that speculation starts to break out in this vacuum.

 

(I'm glad we can agree about engine oil though. - And, like you, we will be looking, but it now seems that there is no more that forum members can actively do, other than keep their eyes open, unfortunately)

 

I have no reason or wish to fall out with you over this we obviously see it differently. I agree that it wouldn't be a good idea for the owners to be flooded with a lot of people asking questions but if the questions are so non-critical then why are some getting so frustrated and irritated by it? As for those that engage in speculation of the kind that suspects the owners of under hand deeds I care as much about there feelings as they have shown for the owners in this situation. Too tough on them? personally I don't think so.

 

After all as I have said before all we can do is keep looking and pass the word to try and help. I have been looking as much I feel as anyone else it is all I can do to help and I won't get upset or irritated by not getting a steady flow of info from the owners or on demand.

[Keeping Up]

After all as I have said before all we can do is keep looking and pass the word to try and help.

I have no doubt that everyone on this forum, from the most avid helper to the most sceptical and vociferous doubter, will be keeping their eyes open whenever they are near the canal and hoping to see the boat. Unless and until we get a positive sighting in the future, there is not a great deal more that they can do - except of course to engage in idle speculation.

[g-man]

It seems to me as though the forum has decided to run a kangaroo court on whether the theft is genuine or a scam! Personally I find the whole thing quite fascinating and have no particular bias either way. However I think that all the bickering and conjecture is missing a golden opportunity to see what we can actually do!

 

Roger

 

Exactly what I was thinking, I've found the speculation and innuendo's in this thread quite distastful considering the stress and anxiety the owners must be going through.

[Radiomariner]

Exactly what I was thinking, I've found the speculation and innuendo's in this thread quite distastful considering the stress and anxiety the owners must be going through.

 

I also agree. This thread has become distastful. Speculation and innuendo is quite unnecessary. We have seen the photo's we know what the boat looks like. I do not think that any of us are so thick that we can not speculate on all probabilities and keep our speculations to ourselves!

I know the boat is missing. I keep a lookout for it. I scan this site to see if it has been sighted or found so that I can be more vigilant still if a sighting was in my area, or forget it if it was found. I do not wish to trawl through unnecessary garbage!

(Like my own text above!!)

[alan_fincher]

I asked Rose last night if anybody had checked with BW what other Que Sera Seras they have on their books.

 

She suggested I did this.

 

I have now done so, and the following answer was received.....

 

There are 5 boats registered with BW with that name, two can be excluded as being fibre glass Cabin Cruisers. Another narrowboat can be excluded as the name is Que Sera, not Que Sera Sera. The other not stolen boat is a nb but not as long as the missing one.

 

So BW do not have knowledge of any other Que Sera Sera of a similar length.

 

Of course it's still possible that....

 

1) There is an unlicensed boat of that name.

2) There is a boat now bearing that name, which has been renamed, but where the owners have still not told BW.

 

If the acquaintance of the owners Carole and Tony actually photographed this boat, I really don't understand why that picture can't be produced. I can't think of a more effective way of quieting some of the doubters.

 

A final thought: Have the owners actually notified BW that their boat is stolen ? A lot of people have criticised BW for not being actively involved in the search, but is it possible they have not been told ?