Jump to content

Another down in a lock

Dinz

By Dinz
in General Boating

 Share

Featured Posts

haggis Veteran

haggisDonate to Canal World

Posted
Posted

he didnt say he was talking to CRT

 

 

I think he did in post 308 when TD said " What I have said is an update and I haven't passed on any 'half truths' or 'gossip', but I have related the relevant content of my conversations with Anglo Welsh and C&RT"

 

I think a "conversation" means much the same as "talking to".

 

Mind you, I did find it very odd that anyone in C&RT had had a conversation with TD in view of what he has said previously and I found it even more odd that anyone (apart form his own fans) would speak to TD about an incident many many miles away. Buy, hey, lets not let the truth get in the way of a good story.

 

Haggis

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Dharl Rising Star

Dharl

Posted
Posted

I don't know who knows what, or talks to who, but what I do know is that it is a disgrace that that boat is still in that lock. And ultimately, it is CRT's responsibility to open up the navigation. Either by letting the owner of the boat move, or do it themselves. This is just plain ridiculous, and if it wasn't so serious, would be funny.

 

There was (is??) a boat moored in the side pond by the hotel, perhaps the boats stuck on the river can be locked up and join it?

Have a greenie.

 

I agree that it is disgraceful that the navigation has been closed for so long. I fear that CART have missed the window of good weather in which they could have achieved this with relative ease and now with the worse weather this will not only make things harder but also more pressing with the raising waters on the Avon.

 

Does anyone know how many boats are waiting to come up to the cut and are trapped?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Tony Dunkley Influencer

Tony Dunkley

Posted
Posted

I think he did in post 308 when TD said " What I have said is an update and I haven't passed on any 'half truths' or 'gossip', but I have related the relevant content of my conversations with Anglo Welsh and C&RT"

 

I think a "conversation" means much the same as "talking to".

 

Mind you, I did find it very odd that anyone in C&RT had had a conversation with TD in view of what he has said previously and I found it even more odd that anyone (apart form his own fans) would speak to TD about an incident many many miles away. Buy, hey, lets not let the truth get in the way of a good story.

 

Haggis

 

It may have something to do with a long established good reputation for raising and recovering boats, including some for BWB, going back as far as the early 1970's.

  • Greenie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Naughty Cal Veteran II

Naughty Cal

Posted
Posted

 

It may have something to do with a long established good reputation for raising and recovering boats, including some for BWB, going back as far as the early 1970's.

So there we have it folks.

 

Our very own Mr Dunkley is no CRT's resident expert on raising sunken boats.

 

So why are you in court with them if you are feathering their nest elsewhere?

Or is it "hey, lets not let the truth get in the way of a dig at Tony Dunkley"?

 

or can you perhaps back up your assertion that he hasn't spoken to CRT and Anglo-Welsh with evidence?

 

No? thought as much

So you believe that CRT are taking advice from a chap located many miles away from the incident and whom they are in court again with in a couple of weeks?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
luctor et emergo Veteran II

luctor et emergo

Posted
Posted

Indeed the CRT stoppage notice states that boats are welcome to moor between lock 7 and lock 8/9 while waiting for the navigation to be reopened.

Apart from the fact that there is not much room between 7 and 8/9, and the area is frequented by a group of homeless people. And whilst I never had a problem with them (indeed, they like to help you lock, and usually offered to shut the gates on the way down..), I would not like to leave my boat unattended down there, and other may feel intimidated.

A saving grace is that there is now a floating pontoon on the river, but it is only short.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
luctor et emergo Veteran II

luctor et emergo

Posted
Posted

Snip....

 

So you believe that CRT are taking advice from a chap located many miles away from the incident and whom they are in court again with in a couple of weeks?

Why not? Raising a sunken boat in a lock is pretty much the same wherever the lock is.

 

A bit like lift bridge operation I think.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Guest

Guest

Posted
Posted

What a well considered and erudite comment that is. So, just why would they do that then ?

If you really have to ask that then it's hardly worth me trying to explain it to you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
haggis Veteran

haggisDonate to Canal World

Posted
Posted

Or is it "hey, lets not let the truth get in the way of a dig at Tony Dunkley"?

 

or can you perhaps back up your assertion that he hasn't spoken to CRT and Anglo-Welsh with evidence?

 

No? thought as much

It wasn't me who said he hadn't spoken to C&RT, it was you!! can you back up your assertion? No? thought as much.

 

haggis

Link to comment
Share on other sites
ditchcrawler Veteran II

ditchcrawlerDonate to Canal World

Posted
Posted

Being currently moored in Bath on the rising river Avon I wish they would just get on and refloat the damn thing. Given that it has already been completely submerged I doubt it could suffer much more damage by being accidentally flooded again. As several have already mentioned it's not rocket science and has been done many times before. I would think a crane is a much more risky operation at the boat is currently pitched at around 30 degrees which would make lifting it without damaging the lock gates quite tricky. Not least as I doubt you could get a crane to the lock due to limited road access.

 

Come on CRT get a move on before I'm washed into the Bristol channel.

 

Edited for typo

Just watch those ropes

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Tuscan Veteran

Tuscan

Posted
Posted (edited)

Who is 'they'? Team Dunkley? Or someone else?

Believe they have found a way of harnessing all the hot air found in this thread, it's a new process called the 'Dunkley effect' ..............

Edited by Tuscan
  • Greenie 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Tony Dunkley Influencer

Tony Dunkley

Posted
Posted

 

Do you not think that should they need to, they would consult an "expert" a little closer to the incident and not one they are taking to court?

 

That's not actually what's happening. Having decided to cease their ill conceived legal action, C&RT are trying to persuade the Court that my costs should not be awarded against them. The Judge rejected their application for this to be decided without a hearing, and that hearing is due to take place next week. So, really it would be more accurate to say that rather than taking me, they're in fact taking themselves to Court. . . . . Just a minor detail, but I do think it's important to get these things right, isn't it ?

 

PS. Of course you're quite right in saying that the C&RT assessment of, and decision on someone's suitability for raising/recovering a sunken boat should be based on whether or not they've just wasted a heap of money and made fools of themselves by embarking on some ill advised and groundless legal action against that same person. How else should such a decision be made ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Tony Dunkley Influencer

Tony Dunkley

Posted
Posted

 

 

Who is 'they'? Team Dunkley? Or someone else?

 

No it's not 'Team Dunkley', it's someone else using the method I outlined to C&RT's Engineer on Wednesday. If they follow the procedure I laid down, the boat will be afloat and clear of the lock today.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Wanderer Vagabond Influencer

Wanderer VagabondDonate to Canal World

Posted
Posted (edited)

 

It may have something to do with a long established good reputation for raising and recovering boats, including some for BWB, going back as far as the early 1970's.

I think that comes under the heading of an unverifiable claim. To enable us to try to verify this claim can you give us some precise details as in locations, boat names and dates of all of these boats that you have raised? Exactly how many sunken boats have you raised from locks (and of course names and dates)? With this information I'd be more inclined to believe you. By the way did I ever tell you about my long and distinguished career in the SAS??rolleyes.gif

Edited by Wanderer Vagabond
Link to comment
Share on other sites
NigelMoore Veteran

NigelMoore

Posted
Posted

As a matter of general interest, and by way of response to various queries [i have only just looked at this topic] – Yes, according to BW legislation the responsibility lies with the authority to maintain the navigation in a fit state for cruising as per the ’68 Act.

 

Without relating this to the present specific case, or as being a necessarily a suitable recourse in all or any such instances, if there is serious and persistent failure to discharge that duty, then the legislation provides for any member of the public to apply to the High Court for an Order against CaRT for enforcement of maintenance duty, requiring them to remedy that failure.

 

The law’s delay probably means that the process is only really suitable for long-term recalcitrance or negligence, and I am still unclear as to the current applicability to CaRT given the seeming dilution of some of BW’s obligations in this regard, yet the relevant section itself does still bind CaRT, according to the Transfer of Functions Order.

 

It is worth bearing in mind though, that the legislation provides a get-out whereby CaRT could ask a Minister to provide a certificate in writing to the effect “that it appears to the Minister that the imposition of any requirement on the Board on the basis of their existing duty would result in their incurring substantial expense, and that, having regard to their financial position . . . it would be unreasonable for them to bear that expense without a grant or further grant under section 43 of this Act.”

 

Nonetheless, it is an invaluable existing public right to hold the authority to account over maintenance, which I suspect very few are aware of. If more people knew and considered applying it, even the ‘threat’ of such action could motivate a change in priorities.

 

The possibility of diverting a portion of the millions devoted to CaRT's enforcement against boaters, to meeting boaters’ enforcement against CaRT, could arguably be sufficient rebuttal of any such Minister’s certificate pleading impecuniosity.

 

I have only heard of one instance of this being used, many years ago. It was successful in getting work done that BW had refused to do.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Wanderer Vagabond Influencer

Wanderer VagabondDonate to Canal World

Posted
Posted

As a matter of general interest, and by way of response to various queries [i have only just looked at this topic] – Yes, according to BW legislation the responsibility lies with the authority to maintain the navigation in a fit state for cruising as per the ’68 Act.

 

Without relating this to the present specific case, or as being a necessarily a suitable recourse in all or any such instances, if there is serious and persistent failure to discharge that duty, then the legislation provides for any member of the public to apply to the High Court for an Order against CaRT for enforcement of maintenance duty, requiring them to remedy that failure.

 

The law’s delay probably means that the process is only really suitable for long-term recalcitrance or negligence, and I am still unclear as to the current applicability to CaRT given the seeming dilution of some of BW’s obligations in this regard, yet the relevant section itself does still bind CaRT, according to the Transfer of Functions Order.

 

It is worth bearing in mind though, that the legislation provides a get-out whereby CaRT could ask a Minister to provide a certificate in writing to the effect “that it appears to the Minister that the imposition of any requirement on the Board on the basis of their existing duty would result in their incurring substantial expense, and that, having regard to their financial position . . . it would be unreasonable for them to bear that expense without a grant or further grant under section 43 of this Act.”

 

Nonetheless, it is an invaluable existing public right to hold the authority to account over maintenance, which I suspect very few are aware of. If more people knew and considered applying it, even the ‘threat’ of such action could motivate a change in priorities.

 

The possibility of diverting a portion of the millions devoted to CaRT's enforcement against boaters, to meeting boaters’ enforcement against CaRT, could arguably be sufficient rebuttal of any such Minister’s certificate pleading impecuniosity.

 

I have only heard of one instance of this being used, many years ago. It was successful in getting work done that BW had refused to do.

You obviously have the Freedom of Information data corroborating these figure, please do share!

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Alf Roberts Proficient

Alf Roberts

Posted
Posted

I think that comes under the heading of an unverifiable claim. To enable us to try to verify this claim can you give us some precise details as in locations, boat names and dates of all of these boats that you have raised? Exactly how many sunken boats have you raised from locks (and of course names and dates)? With this information I'd be more inclined to believe you. By the way did I ever tell you about my long and distinguished career in the SAS??rolleyes.gif

Can you give me one good reason why Tony Dunkley should care enough about your opinion to provide this data?

Any proof of this?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share
Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • 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.