|
Post by TonyDunkley on Aug 5, 2020 6:38:53 GMT
(TonyDunkley ) . . . . . .
Just for clarity ... my protests in this thread have been entirely about YOU and YOUR behaviour towards kris on here ... hectoring and badgering someone to do something they have made clear they do not wish to, and then attempting to belittle and demean them when you can't get your way.. . . . . . as a follow-up to posting this on the day before (Aug 3, 2020 at 11:49am) : Attempting to coerce someone to make a protest (pointless because it won't make ANY difference to C&RT management) using their home containing everything they possess, on a tidal river , is the worst kind of blustering, bullying buffoonery, particularly coming from a man that constantly berates others for acting in a 'stupid' manner on such rivers.
Had you taken the trouble to look carefully back through this thread prior to making either of the above posts you would have found the following rather revealing but apparently forgotten afterthought at the end of a post made by Kris some 13 clear days earlier on Jul 21, 2020 at 1834 hrs : ". . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I managed to run aground at Barton island, even though I knew where the sunken boat is. It took about an hour an a half to get off, a passing narrowboat gave me a little pull which is all it took. I’m sure Tony would want me stuck in the middle of the Trent for weeks on end, but I’m afraid that was never going to happen. So now I’m moored at Beeston and will move again when the water level rises."___________________________________________________ I'm wondering why the man to whose defence you were so ready to leap couldn't be bothered to save you any potential embarrassment by openly correcting your misconceptions about the 'tidal' river Trent upstream of Nottingham, or to make you, and everyone else equally outraged by my suggestions, aware of the fact that a fortnight earlier he had already run his "home containing everything" aground at the very same spot - Barton Island - to which I was suggesting he returned to once again ground his boat in a practical demonstration of C&RT's failure to meet their statutory maintenance obligations. The earlier grounding had been dismissed, by Kris himself on page 5, as a relatively minor inconvenience with no resulting loss or damage, and yet he was quite content to let you, and others, continue to post several more pages of alarmist and factually flawed opinions on the imagined dire consequences of repeating the exercise ! I'm also wondering why, having said - "maybe if we started taking photos then we might start having a case" on page 2 of this thread on 18 July, he didn't bother to photograph and document the first (pre-July 21st) grounding at the same spot as evidence for the legal action against C&RT he was so keen to persuade others to join and finance.
|
|
|
Post by kris on Aug 5, 2020 6:59:08 GMT
It’s you who missed the facts Tony and kept harping on. So it’s you who should have read the thread before posting. You have made yourself look stupid by what you’ve posted.
|
|
|
Post by TonyDunkley on Aug 5, 2020 23:28:18 GMT
It’s you who missed the facts Tony and kept harping on. So it’s you who should have read the thread before posting. You have made yourself look stupid by what you’ve posted. It would help a lot if you were able to direct me to all these 'facts' that you say I've missed. If you have a few moments to spare after doing that, perhaps, you could put together and post a 'Damian' style 'Update' on the progress you've made with raising funds and collecting evidence for the legal action you were so enthusiastically promoting via the first 4 pages of this topic.
|
|
|
Post by TonyDunkley on Aug 7, 2020 5:05:58 GMT
Amid the deafening silence from Windbag the Sailor Kris, in a thread in which he was so keen to urge others to action, this appears to be an apposite moment for a reminder about the content of a couple of sub-paragraphs from the C&RT/Defra Memorandum of Understanding that accompanied the handover of our inland waterways in 2012 :
CRT’s priorities for maintaining navigability of the waterways
12.4 CRT is successor to statutory duties under the Transport Act 1968 to maintain
certain of the waterways in its care (those classified as either commercial or
cruising waterways under the provisions of that Act) to specified statutory
dimensions. BW (as its predecessor in respect of those statutory duties) had
been subject to a long standing ministerial direction that in its management of
such waterways it should maintain to such dimensions as reflected their use
and prospects of use. It was further understood between BW and Government
that, in the event of enforcement of the statutory dimensions in circumstances
that did not reflect use and prospects of use, Government would exercise its
powers under the Transport Act 1968 to revise those dimensions so that they
reflected actual use and prospects of use.
12.5 Defra confirms to CRT its intention that the maintenance of statutory
dimensions of the classified waterways should continue to reflect actual use
and prospects of use.
______________________________________
For the avoidance of any doubt as to exactly what that means, . . . it means if there's no demonstrable need to maintain cruising or commercial waterways to present depth standards, the maintained depth WILL be reduced, . . simply by way of C&RT continuing to do absolutely nothing to maintain the navigable depth to existing published standards.
It also means that a successful legal challenge to C&RT reducing the maintained depth by default will be dependent on proving to the satisfaction of the Court that the present maintained depth of any waterway is inadequate for vessels presently using the waterway, or likely to be using the waterway in the foreseeable future.
It therefore falls to anyone with a genuine desire to halt at least one very important aspect - dredging and MNC depth - of the progressive decline in waterway maintenance standards under C&RT to do anything in their power to that end, and above all, not pass-up any opportunity to provide irrefutable physical evidence to put before the Court.
Neglecting to document and record an earlier grounding episode and the consequential aborted passage attempt, and then refusing to repeat the exercise for the purpose of evidence gathering, whilst in possession of in a vessel drawing significantly more - 3' 3" standing, 3' 6"(+) underway - than the majority of the pleasure traffic normally using the river, are hardly the actions of someone with genuine concerns for the future of the inland waterways. Nor is announcing - on page 5 of this thread - that he has no intention of moving the boat that grounded and had to turn back until it rains enough to make river levels rise, . . all whilst the [relatively deep-draughted] vessel in question, lays moored in Beeston Cut, only just over a mile away from the shoal area in the river Trent where the earlier grounding occurred and which is significantly shallower than the minimum depth - 4' 9'' - required to permit the navigable draught - 4' - for that waterway as published by C&RT.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 8, 2020 5:31:23 GMT
It is one thing to encounter difficulty despite the best of planning and quite another to court the possibility of disaster with deliberation. Encouraging somebody else to do exactly that smacks of malice and (in the case of TD) lunacy.
I recall that TD himself described the state of the motor in 'Halcyon Daze' as 'decommissioned' but not unsalvegable. Given the seemingly prodigious mechanical knowledge of the skipper, the obvious path would be to re-initialise the said motor and carry out the mooted plan.
I imagine this is in fact (roughly) the plan.
|
|
|
Post by Allan on Aug 8, 2020 11:25:34 GMT
CRT’s priorities for maintaining navigability of the waterways
12.4 CRT is successor to statutory duties under the Transport Act 1968 to maintain certain of the waterways in its care (those classified as either commercial or cruising waterways under the provisions of that Act) to specified statutorydimensions. BW (as its predecessor in respect of those statutory duties) had been subject to a long standing ministerial direction that in its management of
such waterways it should maintain to such dimensions as reflected their use
and prospects of use. It was further understood between BW and Government that, in the event of enforcement of the statutory dimensions in circumstances
that did not reflect use and prospects of use, Government would exercise its powers under the Transport Act 1968 to revise those dimensions so that they reflected actual use and prospects of use. 12.5 Defra confirms to CRT its intention that the maintenance of statutory
dimensions of the classified waterways should continue to reflect actual useand prospects of use. I wonder I Defra actually know what the statutory dimensions are?
|
|
|
Post by TonyDunkley on Aug 9, 2020 7:28:13 GMT
CRT’s priorities for maintaining navigability of the waterways
12.4 CRT is successor to statutory duties under the Transport Act 1968 to maintain certain of the waterways in its care (those classified as either commercial or cruising waterways under the provisions of that Act) to specified statutorydimensions. BW (as its predecessor in respect of those statutory duties) had been subject to a long standing ministerial direction that in its management of
such waterways it should maintain to such dimensions as reflected their use
and prospects of use. It was further understood between BW and Government that, in the event of enforcement of the statutory dimensions in circumstances
that did not reflect use and prospects of use, Government would exercise its powers under the Transport Act 1968 to revise those dimensions so that they reflected actual use and prospects of use. 12.5 Defra confirms to CRT its intention that the maintenance of statutory
dimensions of the classified waterways should continue to reflect actual useand prospects of use. I wonder I Defra actually know what the statutory dimensions are? I'm sorry to have to say that in reality the answer is that the 'statutory dimensions', or more correctly the 'maintenance dimensions' are whatever C&RT choose to tell Defra they are ! The concept of 'statutory dimensions', as such, came into being via the 2012 C&RT/Defra MoU that accompanied the furtive privatization of the BWB controlled waterways. Prior to that, S.105(1) of the Transport Act 1968 imposed an obligation to maintain those waterways to the dimensions laid down under S.105(2) of the same Act, and those dimensions were defined as suitable for - " . . . a vessel of that kind which customarily used that waterway [or part] during the period of nine months ending with 8th December 1967; ". S.105(3) of the TA 1968 further provided ''the Minister'' - in effect, now Defra - with powers to order a change in the maintenance dimensions of a waterway to reflect any changes to the dimensions, which include draught, of vessels "customarily using" that waterway, and an amendment (Subsection 3ZA) to S.105(3) dating from the time of the handover provided that - "Canal & River Trust may apply to the Minister for the making of an order under subsection (3).
Although, apparently, well beyond the comprehension of the majority of contributors to this thread, and in light of the above, it isn't difficult to foresee that in the circumstances of C&RT being allowed, without effective resistance or protest, to get away with reducing the navigable draught of any particular part of any waterway from it's 'customary' figure by default - in other words by not dredging - that C&RT will have all the ammunition they need to apply for a ministerial order to revise the navigable draught of any waterway down to whatever their wilful neglect has allowed it to become.
|
|
|
Post by naughtyfox on Aug 9, 2020 7:44:35 GMT
Use it or lose it! ...or... Catch 22, as they say.
The British will default to their usual attitude of stating: "Mustn't grumble!" They will continue to pay their licence fees without serious complaint, a captive audience ripe for milking. Fear of reprisals.
The Japanese have a saying: “The nail that sticks out gets hammered down.”
|
|
|
Post by TonyDunkley on Aug 9, 2020 9:16:00 GMT
Use it or lose it! ...or... Catch 22, as they say. The British will default to their usual attitude of stating: "Mustn't grumble!" They will continue to pay their licence fees without serious complaint, a captive audience ripe for milking. Fear of reprisals. The Japanese have a saying: “The nail that sticks out gets hammered down.” Yes, . . sad but true ! Equally sad, in my view, are the ill-considered reactions to my suggestion of Kris intentionally grounding in and blocking the remnants of the MNC with his well within published/customary/existing maintenance dimensions boat in a part of the Trent that C&RT have allowed to remain at shoal draught since last Winter's floods deposited so much sand and silt there. When the maintenance standards laid down in the 1968 Transport Act came into effect the companies still operating commercial carrying vessels went out of their way, whenever possible and sometimes at considerable cost to themselves, to do anything necessary to ensure that BWB were obliged to comply with the maintenance standards laid down in the Act, including loading their vessels down to a draught which they knew was too deep for certain parts of the waterways on which they were trading. At the time I was running a pair of commercial narrowboats subcontracting to Blue Line, carrying coal from Baddesley pit (Atherstone) to a North London factory (Southall). The first few miles of each trip were along the then notoriously shallow section of the Coventry Canal from the top of Atherstone (locks) to the outskirts of Nuneaton, and on several occasions I intentionally loaded the motor with a few tons more than what was becoming the normal maximum load for that section of canal with the result that BW had to come out and winch my boats through the worst spots and then spot-dredge out at least some of the of mud and silt that they were allowing the local stone quarries to dump into the canal from their washing screens. Although I always tried to time these episodes so as not to cause hold-ups and the consequential loss of earnings to the crews of the other boats on the same contract - we were all paid only against delivered tonnage tickets/receipts, not weekly wages - there were occasions when this was unavoidable. In stark contrast with all the irrational garbage that's been posted on here in response to my suggestion that C&RT are treated to a documented practical demonstration of the extent to which they are failing to dredge out severe shoaling in parts of the river Trent, my practical demonstrations of BW's wilful neglect in the 1960's received the support and approval not only of the other boat crews, who were adversely affected by both the neglect and my antics for drawing attention to it, but also of the companies we were all working for too. All in all, a somewhat wretched but evidently accurate reflection of the calibre, and the character, of a good many of the spineless windbags those who populate our inland waterways these days !
|
|
|
Post by TonyDunkley on Aug 10, 2020 7:05:05 GMT
Any news yet on the outcome of your latest complaint to C&RT about the inland waterway equivalent of the Goodwin Sands they've allowed to build up in the "tidal" Trent upstream of Nottingham ? That's the conversation you were going to have with S. Garner more than 2 weeks ago, by the way, . . just in case all the dreadful bullying has left you over stressed and forgetful ! . . . . . . . . . any conversation between myself and cart is private until such time as I decide otherwise. So it’s none of your business. I note that another week has gone by and you're still keeping very quiet about C&RT having allowed the Trent at Barton Island to become so shallow that you can't get your boat back to it's nearby mooring until there's been enough rain to make the river level rise substantially. What is that you're so anxious to hide ?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 10, 2020 7:07:30 GMT
In any case, promoting some boneheaded guerrilla strategy about the depth of the Trent is probably not the best way forward. The narrow canals are quite shallow - you wouldn't get a coal boat down any of them these days - but then again there are no coal boats. All the rest seem to manage ok for the most part.
However today in the news CaRT have announced a massive spending program on upgrading towpaths. Shame about the locks. It seems to me a campaign to force parliament to review just exactly what strategy for the preservation of the system as a whole CaRT are pursuing would be time and effort better spent.
|
|
|
Post by patty on Aug 10, 2020 7:12:43 GMT
However today in the news CaRT have announced a massive spending program on upgrading towpaths. Shame about the locks. It seems to me a campaign to force parliament to review just exactly what strategy for the preservation of the system as a whole CaRT are pursuing would be time and effort better spent. Maybe CaRT want walkers and cyclists but not boaters...
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 10, 2020 7:17:49 GMT
Cyclists and Ramblers Trust?
This has been suggested yes.
Would people still want to use the canal towing path amenity if there were no moving boats? Do people like lines and lines of moored boats or do they want to see the water?
It's certainly interesting to see how things develop.
Would derelict locks be good picnic sites perhaps?
A partially derelict canal might actually be better because the type of boaters using it would be those who can deal with a bit of adversity and the spineless windbags might go elsewhere.
|
|
|
Post by TonyDunkley on Aug 10, 2020 7:23:05 GMT
However today in the news CaRT have announced a massive spending program on upgrading towpaths. Shame about the locks. It seems to me a campaign to force parliament to review just exactly what strategy for the preservation of the system as a whole CaRT are pursuing would be time and effort better spent. Maybe CaRT want walkers and cyclists but not boaters... That's exactly right, Patty, . . and unless there is some positive and resolute action on the part of boaters to prevent them from achieving their goal, there soon won't be any inland waterways maintained to a standard fit for anything other than angling, or cycling and walking along !
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 10, 2020 7:24:53 GMT
The argument will probably run that there are more walkers, cyclists, fisherman and canoeists then narrowboaters and thus the money spent benefits a wider selection of the public. It makes perfect sense so long as you are not a boater.
|
|