Best pay your CRT licence

[John Williamson 1955]

 

His company is listed on your link if you care to look propely

Company results for "canal river"

Showing 1 to 10 of 26 Company results

CANAL & RIVER TRANSPORT LTD

Not Verified

Active - 09084892

WESTON WHARF SALT WORKS LANE, WESTON, STAFFORD, ST18 0JE

 

That's not Mr Dunkley's company, unless he's not using his real name to post here and lying about his company details. It was incorporated in 2014,and is run by Mr. Ian Malcolm Braine. Mr. Dunkley claims his company was started in 1968.

[Naughty Cal]

 

Only one person is looking like a fool in this and it isn't Tony. He is pretty well known about the cut by various people and has been for a very long time.

Yes he is well known, for several reasons.

 

Not sure if I would want to be known for any of them though.

Edited February 19, 2015 by Naughty Cal

[Paul C]

your funny .....MR..... I am the person as you put it thats sat in front of all the relevant paperwork concerning the whole matter plus more separate video footage that has not been placed on youtube.... That is actually engaging with CART concerning this actual boat.... But I suppose along the way of your keyboard warrior attitude you missed it out and added bits to beef up your argument now sad to say...... I was directed here by a kind soul who told me your were quote a "NICE BUNCH OF HELPFUL PEOPLE" maybe it was another forum they was directing me too.......... but to those who have been helpful and non negative thank you I appreciate the advice and sorry if its turned into a non relevant war of words ........Feel free to continue your non relevant posts

 

I for one, have not prejudged this case and I would very much appreciate hearing the facts of the case. This thread, unfortunately, is short of solid information but full of opinions, of various value.

[GoodGurl]

 

I for one, have not prejudged this case and I would very much appreciate hearing the facts of the case. This thread, unfortunately, is short of solid information but full of opinions, of various value.

as far as we know Tracynikol is in fact full of the facts seeing as she/he is working with the owner on his case.

[StarUKKiwi]

when I posted the other day I actually found someone who wanted to help and now have someone offering decent advice this post was 25 pages long before I even joined of people passing judgement

As the person who directed Tracynokol here when she asked me and I remembered this thread. I thought that at least it might give her some pointers, forgetting the maelstrom of thread life. To be honest, it doesn't matter who the owner is and what he did on the day. If CRT, in the execution of their duty, did not follow policy and procedure, then that is cause for concern to all on the water. If they acted precipitously, that is also a cause of concern.

I do hope that this gets resolved satisfactorily, I am not saying the present owner is without blame, but IMHO would be for a court of law.

Still reading through so apologies if this has been addressed and I do hope that you all see the bigger picture especially with the new T&CS.

[Arthur Marshall]

Not sure how saying that someone is well known becomes attacking them, nor that their business they are advertising doesn't seem to exist Anywhere.

 

I know this is irrelevant to the thread, but there seems to be a misunderstanding of what a business is. It's just something you do to earn money, and you can call it what you like. I was a business (sole trader) for thirty years and you won't find any trace of that on the web. A limited company or a partnership has to follow certain public disclosures, a sole trader doesn't, it's just between you and the Inland Revenue.

[Naughty Cal]

I know this is irrelevant to the thread, but there seems to be a misunderstanding of what a business is. It's just something you do to earn money, and you can call it what you like. I was a business (sole trader) for thirty years and you won't find any trace of that on the web. A limited company or a partnership has to follow certain public disclosures, a sole trader doesn't, it's just between you and the Inland Revenue.

Even as a sole trader you would expect to have contact details online. How else do people get hold of you?

 

A mention even. A recommendation. Not an eerie silence.

[Rod a mod from Tod]

Even as a sole trader you would expect to have contact details online. How else do people get hold of you?

A mention even. A recommendation. Not an eerie silence.

Nonsense. Like Arther I have been a sole trader for 30 + years, until recently, without the aid of the net. No work related info anywhere online and managed very well.

[cotswoldsman]

Even as a sole trader you would expect to have contact details online. How else do people get hold of you?

 

A mention even. A recommendation. Not an eerie silence.

You won't find the guy that services the engine on my boat anywhere on the net but if you want him to do a service better book him at least 2 weeks ahead.

[Tony Dunkley]

Once established there was no necessity to chase work, and I've never advertised my business on websites or in any other way, although I do now get a lot of publicity courtesy of some vacuous woman on an internet forum.

Edited February 20, 2015 by Tony Dunkley

[Jerra]

Nonsense. Like Arther I have been a sole trader for 30 + years, until recently, without the aid of the net. No work related info anywhere online and managed very well.

And you guarantee no trade directory picked you up? When we had the jewellers shops we appeared on many trade directories and had no idea how they got our details.

[mayalld]

as far as we know Tracynikol is in fact full of the facts seeing as she/he is working with the owner on his case.

 

That would be a HUGE assumption.

 

Tracynikol knows such information as the owner has chosen to share with her, much as we know such information as the owner has chosen to share with us.

 

It is clear that the owner has chosen to share with the public at large only such information as he believes will help his case. It is entirely possible that he has done exactly the same with Tracynikol

[boathunter]

Tony Dunkley

I've run out of greenies, shame.

[Paul C]

as far as we know Tracynikol is in fact full of the facts seeing as she/he is working with the owner on his case.

 

I am respectfully asking Tracynikol to type them into the forum.

[Alf Roberts]

 

I am respectfully asking Tracynikol to type them into the forum.

if she did then she would be far more stupid than she appears.

 

tell you what...

 

you get CRT to put their side on this forum and I'll guarantee to get the other side posted also.

[jenlyn]

That would be a HUGE assumption.

 

Tracynikol knows such information as the owner has chosen to share with her, much as we know such information as the owner has chosen to share with us.

 

It is clear that the owner has chosen to share with the public at large only such information as he believes will help his case. It is entirely possible that he has done exactly the same with Tracynikol

And this is your assumption of course ;-)

[Paul C]

if she did then she would be far more stupid than she appears.

 

tell you what...

 

you get CRT to put their side on this forum and I'll guarantee to get the other side posted also.

 

Exactly! The non-appearance of the facts means that forum readers are left to assume things, or fill in the gaps, or extrapolate the evidence so far to a possibly unreasonable level. I would personally not make a judgement on this case until more facts come to light. And since CRT DOES have more facts/evidence available than me, I can't see how one could rigourously dispute their actions as wrong until more of the info/facts/evidence surrounding this was available in the public domain. One could suspect or assume they're wrong however......

[Alf Roberts]

the way I would express it is;

 

Here's a public body with immense powers, I would like their actions held up to scrutiny because there is a suspicion they behaved with less than probity.

 

with the exception of, predictably, Tony Dunkley, Mayalld and Naughty Cal, most of the advice had been about routes to take if the owner feels they have been wronged.

 

The members above simply assume their usual entrenched positions without regard to the possibilities.

 

if CRT has acted outside the law, it would appear to be another example of them acting as if they were above the law. if they have acted within the law then they have nothing to fear from scrutiny.

[mayalld]

And this is your assumption of course ;-)

 

I am refraining from assuming either way.

 

I simply post to challenge the assumption that somebody working directly with the owner must have all the facts.

 

It is possible that she has all the facts, and possible that she does not.

[bassplayer]

the way I would express it is;

 

Here's a public body with immense powers, I would like their actions held up to scrutiny because there is a suspicion they behaved with less than probity.

 

with the exception of, predictably, Tony Dunkley, Mayalld and Naughty Cal, most of the advice had been about routes to take if the owner feels they have been wronged.

 

The members above simply assume their usual entrenched positions without regard to the possibilities.

 

if CRT has acted outside the law, it would appear to be another example of them acting as if they were above the law. if they have acted within the law then they have nothing to fear from scrutiny.

This is what worries me too. Having been subjected to what I believe was a cover up many years ago in the BWB days I am naturally paranoid...maybe wrongly.

[jenlyn]

I am refraining from assuming either way.

 

I simply post to challenge the assumption that somebody working directly with the owner must have all the facts.

 

It is possible that she has all the facts, and possible that she does not.

Lol. Ok

[cotswoldsman]

the way I would express it is;

 

Here's a public body with immense powers, I would like their actions held up to scrutiny because there is a suspicion they behaved with less than probity.

 

with the exception of, predictably, Tony Dunkley, Mayalld and Naughty Cal, most of the advice had been about routes to take if the owner feels they have been wronged.

 

The members above simply assume their usual entrenched positions without regard to the possibilities.

 

if CRT has acted outside the law, it would appear to be another example of them acting as if they were above the law. if they have acted within the law then they have nothing to fear from scrutiny.

I wonder if CRT ever use Non Dissclosure to try and stop things that have gone badly for them getting into the public domain

[Arthur Marshall]

 

I am respectfully asking Tracynikol to type them into the forum.

Possibly better if she doesn't, especially if the assumption that CRT will play dirty tricks is right. Why let them know your side of the case in detail when they don't do the same for you? . The helpful suggestions that have been made I gather she's finding useful, and is probably pursuing relevant info privately. And it isn't really any of our business, after all. We picked it up from a video posted by someone else - she didn't start the thread. Any real discussion can only take place when the situation has been finally resolved one way or another and all the facts can be in the public arena without further risk to anyone.

Once established there was no necessity to chase work, and I've never advertised my business on websites or in any other way,

When some of us started our businesses, there wasn't even an internet, let alone a web. I never advertised either. Word of mouth is a lot better than websites.

[bassplayer]

When some of us started our businesses, there wasn't even an internet, let alone a web. I never advertised either. Word of mouth is a lot better than websites.

Very true, it works for our band too. On the big scale, if you have to spend lots of money brainwashing people to buy something, it's often not worth buying it in the first place, Advertising your presence so that people know a product is there, or you that you are available for a service is different. A business has to start up somehow, usually slowly.

[Rod a mod from Tod]

And you guarantee no trade directory picked you up? When we had the jewellers shops we appeared on many trade directories and had no idea how they got our details.

Absolutely. When I was a sole trader l had several building contractors who would contact me and several that I could turn to on the rare occasion work got tightly. Like a few on here once you have got a name for reliability and good workmanship there is no need to advertise anywhere. I trade under my own name and internet searches have never turned up any work related stuff.