Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 30, 2019 19:34:18 GMT
. . . . . . . . . . . I suspect that BW’s revenue stream was greater than £35,000/annum in 1989, so for registration to be voluntary, their “turnover” would have to be interpreted in the mysterious way that bedevils me every Corporation Tax Return – I have yet to understand it (well, I get to some understanding before completion of each Return, but my brain promptly shuts down on the whole ghastly ordeal, and I enjoy a year’s respite before having to work it all out again.) I'm sure it was, Nigel. I've no figures for it, and I wouldn't know where to start looking for any, but I seem to remember that back in the 1960's and 1970's 'water sales', and I think some sort of drainage charges/dues, were spoken of and generally regarded as one of BWB's main sources of income. This is something that sticks in my mind through being told by one of BWB's senior engineers that they made more money out of water sales from their little used and semi-derelict canals every year than they ever did out of collecting tolls and having to maintain the commercially used rivers and canals up to the standards demanded by - "you people and your fucking commercial boats".Cable under the towpath is a massive income earner for CRT. I forget the annual figure, but it was substantial when I originally questioned them on it.
|
|
|
Post by TonyDunkley on Dec 7, 2019 12:05:13 GMT
I'm sure it was, Nigel. I've no figures for it, and I wouldn't know where to start looking for any, but I seem to remember that back in the 1960's and 1970's 'water sales', and I think some sort of drainage charges/dues, were spoken of and generally regarded as one of BWB's main sources of income. This is something that sticks in my mind through being told by one of BWB's senior engineers that they made more money out of water sales from their little used and semi-derelict canals every year than they ever did out of collecting tolls and having to maintain the commercially used rivers and canals up to the standards demanded by - "you people and your fucking commercial boats".Cable under the towpath is a massive income earner for CRT. I forget the annual figure, but it was substantial when I originally questioned them on it. Yes, . . I'd forgotten about that. Do you know if BWB/C&RT collected any ongoing payments such as some sort of ground rent for all the North Sea gas pipes that were laid under the BCN towpaths from Brum to Wolverhampton and along to Coven and Calf Heath in the early 1970's, . . if they did, and still do, that could be another nice little chunk of cash to add to annual income.
|
|
|
Post by TonyDunkley on Mar 9, 2020 22:19:36 GMT
A great point of discussion - but not on this thread! It's complicated enough already. . . . . . . . . . . .... this subject is not really complicated. Tony wants CRT to issue him with a Pleasure Boat Certificate, CRT are pretending no such thing exists and have thrown the BSS issue (red herring) into the ring to muddy the waters (just like their muddy canals!). Well, . . here we are, . . fourteen and a bit weeks on from when Foxy so aptly summed up the situation and reminded anyone finding this saga over complicated and difficult to follow that it is quite simply just another instance of C&RT inventing and then trying to enforce some of their very own DIY 'governing' legislation to circumvent the obligations and constraints actually imposed upon them by Parliament and statute. Since 25 September of last year the conditions and water levels in the Trent have consistently been well outside of C&RT's boat snatching contractors' comfort zone for any attempts to come and steal my boat from it's Barton Wharf mooring to go ahead, creating something of a hiatus in their enthusiasm for enforcing the boat removal option in the Court Order they lied their way into obtaining against me almost six weeks earlier, on 15 August 2019. Falling river levels, now down to around only 2' or so of fresh, have, however, today exposed what on the face of it would seem to be another serious problem for the temporary custodians of our river navigations and waterways. The falling river level at my mooring is now revealing the extent to which the floods have eroded and washed out the river bank at my mooring. An awful lot of what was river bank last year is now laying spread out all over what used to be the river bed under my boat, . . which will be well aground on it by the time the river returns to normal levels. In light of the C&RT's successes in gaining Court rulings [Ravenscroft -v- C&RT and C&RT -v- Dunkley] to the effect that the Main Navigable Channel extends over the full width of the navigation from bank to bank, I cannot see how the Trust can do other to comply with this self-imposed obligation of reinstating, by piling or revetting, the washed out bank and wall, and then dredging out the mooring back to it's former depth at normal water levels.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 9, 2020 22:44:28 GMT
. . . . . . . . . . .... this subject is not really complicated. Tony wants CRT to issue him with a Pleasure Boat Certificate, CRT are pretending no such thing exists and have thrown the BSS issue (red herring) into the ring to muddy the waters (just like their muddy canals!). I cannot see how the Trust can do other to comply with this self-imposed obligation of reinstating...the washed out bank and wall...to it's former depth at normal water levels. Really?
|
|
|
Post by TonyDunkley on Mar 10, 2020 1:02:05 GMT
I cannot see how the Trust can do other to comply with this self-imposed obligation of reinstating...the washed out bank and wall...to it's former depth at normal water levels. Really? You're quite right in questioning what I've said, . . which does in fact ignore the one course of action which would certainly get them off the hook, or at least, off one hook and onto another.
|
|
|
Post by JohnV on Mar 10, 2020 8:43:12 GMT
they do sometimes seem to delight in hopping from one to another equally precarious position
|
|
|
Post by thebfg on Mar 10, 2020 14:01:45 GMT
I cannot see how the Trust can do other to comply with this self-imposed obligation of reinstating...the washed out bank and wall...to it's former depth at normal water levels. Really? well they could always come out on record and say the mnc is not bank to bank.
|
|
|
Post by Gone on Mar 10, 2020 15:58:12 GMT
. . . . . . . . . . .... this subject is not really complicated. Tony wants CRT to issue him with a Pleasure Boat Certificate, CRT are pretending no such thing exists and have thrown the BSS issue (red herring) into the ring to muddy the waters (just like their muddy canals!). In light of the C&RT's successes in gaining Court rulings [Ravenscroft -v- C&RT and C&RT -v- Dunkley] to the effect that the Main Navigable Channel extends over the full width of the navigation from bank to bank, I cannot see how the Trust can do other to comply with this self-imposed obligation of reinstating, by piling or revetting, the washed out bank and wall, and then dredging out the mooring back to it's former depth at normal water levels. But as you well know, MNC is not defined, and so as far as CRT are concerned it means different things in different contexts. So for boats navigating it is a strip down the middle, but for registration/license issues it is the entire width of the waterway, but excluding tributaries and channels of the side as and when it suits them.
|
|
|
Post by TonyDunkley on Mar 10, 2020 21:36:58 GMT
In light of the C&RT's successes in gaining Court rulings [Ravenscroft -v- C&RT and C&RT -v- Dunkley] to the effect that the Main Navigable Channel extends over the full width of the navigation from bank to bank, I cannot see how the Trust can do other to comply with this self-imposed obligation of reinstating, by piling or revetting, the washed out bank and wall, and then dredging out the mooring back to it's former depth at normal water levels. But as you well know, MNC is not defined, and so as far as CRT are concerned it means different things in different contexts. So for boats navigating it is a strip down the middle, but for registration/license issues it is the entire width of the waterway, but excluding tributaries and channels of the side as and when it suits them. On the contrary, . . I know for a fact that the MNC of the river Trent, including the river in the vicinity of my mooring at Barton Wharf, is defined on maps from BWB records held by C&RT. The course of the river is clearly marked on these maps with three coloured bands/strips, one band along the centreline of the river being a dark grey/blue and described in the key to the map as ''Navigable River'', with two more bands along each side of the river being in a light green and described in the key to the map as "Non-navigable River". With one notable exception, my request to C&RT for the reinstatement of the river bank washed out by the recent floods at my mooring, along with any necessary dredging, was rejected, quite rightly and as expected, by all but one of the various 'teams' it was put to, and wholly in line with the information displayed on the above mentioned maps. One 'team' leader even took the trouble to correct my apparent misunderstanding of what is meant by the term "main navigable channel". It was, he said, only a narrow channel in the centre of the river that they were obliged to keep dredged to a minimum depth, and that every other part of the river, right up to and including both banks, was neither their responsibility nor their concern. On the other side of the coin, however, certain members of staff from C&RT's legal section and the 'Licence Support Team' - the 'notable' exception mentioned above - are now engaged in conducting what will prove to be a fruitless search for any piece of governing legislation which empowers or entitles the Trust, or their predecessors, to 'licence' the using or keeping of pleasure craft on the waters coloured light green on the above mentioned maps. The 'Licence Support' Supervisor for the East Midlands area has given a verbal undertaking to e-mail me with directions to the relevant piece of legislation.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 10, 2020 23:24:08 GMT
well they could always come out on record and say the mnc is not bank to bank. Conversation at Milton Keynes HQ (legal dept) earlier today: 'Fancy a pint'? 'Yeah go on then'.
|
|
|
Post by TonyDunkley on Mar 12, 2020 21:11:06 GMT
But as you well know, MNC is not defined, and so as far as CRT are concerned it means different things in different contexts. So for boats navigating it is a strip down the middle, but for registration/license issues it is the entire width of the waterway, but excluding tributaries and channels of the side as and when it suits them. On the contrary, . . I know for a fact that the MNC of the river Trent, including the river in the vicinity of my mooring at Barton Wharf, is defined on maps from BWB records held by C&RT. The course of the river is clearly marked on these maps with three coloured bands/strips, one band along the centreline of the river being a dark grey/blue and described in the key to the map as ''Navigable River'', with two more bands along each side of the river being in a light green and described in the key to the map as "Non-navigable River". With one notable exception, my request to C&RT for the reinstatement of the river bank washed out by the recent floods at my mooring, along with any necessary dredging, was rejected, quite rightly and as expected, by all but one of the various 'teams' it was put to, and wholly in line with the information displayed on the above mentioned maps. One 'team' leader even took the trouble to correct my apparent misunderstanding of what is meant by the term "main navigable channel". It was, he said, only a narrow channel in the centre of the river that they were obliged to keep dredged to a minimum depth, and that every other part of the river, right up to and including both banks, was neither their responsibility nor their concern. On the other side of the coin, however, certain members of staff from C&RT's legal section and the 'Licence Support Team' - the 'notable' exception mentioned above - are now engaged in conducting what will prove to be a fruitless search for any piece of governing legislation which empowers or entitles the Trust, or their predecessors, to 'licence' the using or keeping of pleasure craft on the waters coloured light green on the above mentioned maps. The 'Licence Support' Supervisor for the East Midlands area has given a verbal undertaking to e-mail me with directions to the relevant piece of legislation. The inevitably 'fruitless search' has led, as intended, to an ill-conceived attempt to sidestep the 10 March 2020 request for directions to the governing legislation empowering the C&RT to 'licence' the using or keeping of pleasure craft on the waters designated as "Non-navigable River" and coloured light green on the maps they wish didn't exist. A stumbling and hesitant effort over the phone by C&RT's East Midlands Licence Support Supervisor to put over his own version of the Ravenscroft -v- C&RT Judgment with regard to the many different meanings which can apparently be attributed to the phrase "Main Navigable Channel" [MNC] amounted to nothing more than a repetition of the ridiculous contention that for maintenance and navigation purposes the MNC is a narrow strip of water in the centre of a river, whilst for licensing purposes it extends across the whole width of a river (waterway) navigation from bank to bank. Given C&RT's reliance on Section 43(3), and 43(8), of the Transport Act of 1962 in both their unenforceable Licence T&C's and the pleadings to every Section 8/Boat removal County Court Order they've ever lied their way into obtaining, the following C&RT internal e-mail exchange has effectively left them well up into the upper reaches of the main navigable channel of Shit Creek : To: Richard Bennett Subject: Dredging the Upper Trent Hi Richard I have just had Mr Tony Dunkley on the phone regards dredging at his location on the Upper Trent. His boat is moored at Barton In Fabis, Mr Dunkley believes that the Trust should dredge from bank to bank. I am under the impression that as the navigation authority the Trust are only responsible for the main navigable channel. Could you just confirm my understanding or not as the case may be Thanks Stuart Stuart Garner Licence Support Supervisorand the reply :Subject: RE: Dredging the Upper Trent
Hi Stuart
You're correct- we need to maintain the appropriate navigable channel- so on wide river sections, this is not 'bank to bank'.
The dimension of channel we maintain in this area is shown on the first row of the table below.
[Screen Clipping]
Richard
_____________________________________________________________ For arguing, amid other fallacies, the delusional entitlement to grant and issue the mythical 'Rivers Only Licence' before a Court, C&RT rely wholly, and wrongly, upon subsection (3) of S.43 of the 1962 Act which states that they - " . . . . . . have power to demand, take and recover [or waive] such charges for their services and facilities, and to make the use of those services and facilities subject to such terms and conditions, as they think fit." - and subsection (8) which states that those same services and facilities include - " . . . . . . the use of any inland waterway owned or managed by them by any ship or boat."Given the content of the above two internal C&RT e-mails, it is difficult to imagine what possible argument could be put to a Court by way of explaining just what 'services and facilities' are provided in the margins of any river waterway alongside both banks, designated on their own maps as "Non-navigable River", the bed and banks of which they do not own, and from which they quite rightly absolve themselves of all responsibility for any form of management or maintenance.
|
|
|
Post by TonyDunkley on Sept 2, 2020 21:47:37 GMT
With the UK's Covid-19 restrictions being relaxed, nothing more constructive or worthwhile at which to direct their efforts and resources, and ignoring the fact that they had already unlawfully blocked and declined no less than four applications for a Pleasure Boat Certificate [PBC] made in compliance with the terms of the 15 August 2019 Court Order, C&RT sent me this e-mail on Friday 7 August : ___________________________________________________________________________ Good morning Fri, Aug 7, 9:21 AM I hope you are well
As you are aware the governments advice to shield has now come to an end, the latest advice (updated on 04.08.2020) is that those who were previously shielding may now go outside as much as they wish, visit supermarkets, shops etc whilst maintaining social distancing and the use of face coverings.
The Trust are now seeking to progress the removal of your craft Halcyon Daze index 5721 from the Upper Trent in accordance with the court order granted on the 15th August 2019. I have attached a copy of the court order along with the Trust's final warning letter. A copy will also be posted to your registered postal address.
Previously, you had stated that you believe that your craft was exempt from the Boat Safety Scheme, the Trust had asked for photographs of the interior of your craft to confirm exemption. To date no photographs have been received, The Trust also informed you that staff members could attend the craft to take the necessary photos if you could provide a suitable date and time, you have so far not provided a suitable time or date.
If you believe your craft is exempt or you have recently had a boat safety examination please contact me as a matter of urgency.
Please do not ignore this email, you are at risk of losing your boat.
Kind regards Stuart Garner Licence Support Supervisor ___________________________________________________________________________________________________
In the euphoria brought on by the prospect of evicting me from my boat, and removing the boat from it's private mooring outwith the MNC of the river Trent at Barton Wharf, the author of this charming little missive appeared to be labouring under the misapprehension, or perhaps the hope, that the yet to be issued Pleasure Boat Certificate, first applied for with payment tendered and full valid accompanying documentation on 29 August 2019 and on no less than three subsequent occasions, had been forgotten about and would no longer be sought as a means of spoiling their fun.
Having no means of taking the internal photographs of my boat, I invited Mr Garner to come and take as many of these urgently required photo's as he wanted of my partially removed knackered engine and it's disconnected fuel system, my non-existent LPG system and appliances, and my non-existent batteries and electrical system. In the event he chose not to visit me and my boat in person, and instead sent along an extremely pleasant young lady to obtain the photo's in his place.
That was a week ago, on Wednesday 26 August, and despite the apparent urgency in the need for the photo's as proof that my boat meets the Trust's own published BSS Exemption criteria, the final decision on this purely technical matter awaits the return from holiday of the delightful Ms Barry, . . a solicitor currently employed by the C&RT, and with neither the technical expertise nor the qualifications to make any sort of technical decisions with regard to boat safety or BSS compliance.
More about the still unanswered questions raised by the 12 March post to follow shortly, . . especially the matter of the self-conferred imaginary powers that C&RT would have everyone believing empower them to 'licence' the keeping of boats and the use of those boats on the PRN navigations listed as river waterways in Schedule 1 to the British Waterways Act of 1971, . . up to and including the top echelons of the Judiciary that both the Trust and it's predecessors have been successfully deceiving for far too long.
|
|
|
Post by patty on Sept 3, 2020 6:07:12 GMT
Good luck Tony..I do hope it all resolves soon
|
|
|
Post by TonyDunkley on Sept 3, 2020 6:57:41 GMT
Good luck Tony..I do hope it all resolves soon Thanks Patty, . . but realistically there's little or no hope of an early resolution to this. The extensive web of cleverly disguised lies and deceit with which C&RT, and their predecessors, have bamboozled the Courts and the Judiciary over recent years with their very own megalomanic versions of the powers which Parliament did actually confer upon them post nationalization and up to the time the 1995 BW Act came into effect, is not something which can be quickly or easily swept away.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 3, 2020 10:01:53 GMT
Good luck Tony..I do hope it all resolves soon The question of 'will they, won't they' is going to be resolved fairly soon by the sound of it. Of course it depends on the decision of the appeal hearing but I for one will be surprised if it goes in TD's favour (it would be a fine thing but it doesn't seem likely). Assuming this all comes to pass before the river is in flood again, I expect CaRT will waste no time in carrying out what Tony, to use his own words, has been 'goading them into' for quite some time. But I doubt very much if that will be the end...
|
|