Leaderboard

That's what you believe is it? ...... I know people who believe the world is flat. Their customers only pay huge sums (in your opinion) because it costs a fortune to set up and run a marina. If you park your car in a pay and display slot in a car park and it gets stolen which industry do you suggest needs to wake up? I am irritated by today's attitude "It's not my responsibility" because guess what? Oh yes it is! You decided to buy a boat/car/helicopter/hovercraft/pogo stick ..... its safety and security is down to one person ...YOU! If you can't think of some easy ways to make your boat less nickable than the one next door then you're just not trying. * Put an additional remote and hidden cut off switch between the key and solenoid * Fit a second and hidden fuel tap which remains off when you leave it. * Attach an air tight valve to the exhaust which you leave turned off when not on board. * Fit another length of rope to your front line or off the bottom of a fender which in turn is connected to a chain and an anchor laying under your boat. * Wire your horn, lights and alarm to a hidden switch so they all come on when the engine is started, only you know how to isolate it. All you can ever do is make it more difficult to nick than the one next door. No scrote wants to draw attention to themselves.

I think that you need to clarify what you mean by your term "engineer". In the US it would be a train driver. In the UK the qualifications one holds and membership or the Engineers Registration Board may have a bearing. Now when I was on the tools I held memberships of three professional bodies (by exam) and could have upgraded them to higher grades of membership - except I could not justify the extra cost with a family to care for. With the grades I had I was a registered technician engineer and if had upgraded the professional body membership there would be no question that I would have been a registered engineer. I accept the general thrust of the discussion and am driven mad by the some of the problems foisted on ordinary people by so called engineers but I rather resent the implication that I was not an engineer, although I would describe myself as a boatyard engine rather than marine engineer because I understand marine engineers deal with somewhat larger engines that most of us have on the forum. I would also point out that there are several on here who are exceptionally knowledgeable in certain areas and well worth listening to like yourself on electrics, but may not hold many qualifications in the subject area. The same goes for some of the professionals working in the field.

O.K., just in case: WE'RE GOING TO FIND YOU. THERE IS NO ESCAPE. GIVE YOURSELF UP NOW.

Worth checking out, but unlikely I would have thought. A reputable crane hire company isn't just going to lift a boat out anywhere where the crane can get to the water's edge. They are going to want proper facilities, risk assessments, evidence that relevant permissions have been obtained etc. And Dewsbury & Proud looks to be a big enough concern not to be involved in anything like this.

Going through CCTV, I can see a boat that I am 90% sure is the one in question, being manouevred as the thieving skipper attempts to find the way out. He went the wrong way initially so he does not know the marina layout which is compatible with his having to ask the location of the pontoon. However, he is skilled at handling a boat. The timing is in keeping with the CRT logging of the licence number at 1130 at Bridge 32 on the T & M (Horninglow) on the same day. Working back from the time the boat was being cruised out, 9:40am on 11/7/16, I have checked the other cctv and there is no suspicious activity. I will try to get a better picture of the skipper but I am not sure what the cctv is capable of as the boat was about 200m away from the camera.

Facebook has just pointed me in the direction of a new section of the British Film Institute website that contains a map of where the films in their archive were shot, alreadty wasted an hour of company time looking through it! http://player.bfi.org.uk/britain-on-film/map/ Tim

The recent spate of boat thefts from marinas shows that there are huge deficiencies in the security of boats kept at marinas. Whilst im sure the marina owners cover themselves against liability with weasel words in the contract. I believe they DO have a responsibility to ensure the security of boat left in their care. The industry needs to wake up to the issue and start to provide their customers who pay huge sums in mooring fees some effective security. Top Cat

When passing the mouth of the Teme, just south of Worcester, I'm always half tempted to have a go and see how far I get, but then I lose my nerve. Is anyone out there braver than me?

Pal of mine calls himself an engineer. When I asked what kind he said he designs things. Opening lights for a London train station, squeegee design for a famous mop manufacturer... I said "Oh, you are an engineer"

By way of keeping everyone up to date re. the progress, or lack of it, of C&RT's latest pointless and idiotic attempt to have me abolished, here is the [my] Witness Statement, ordered to be filed prior to the Directions Hearing, which, according to what the Listings Office in Nottingham told me today, will probably be sometime in early September. ____________________________________ Witness Statement of Anthony K. Dunkley Para. 4, from Line 2 : The river bank to which 'Halcyon Daze' Index No.52721[ 'the boat' ] is moored is private property and is not under the management or control of Canal and River Trust [ C&RT ]. From line 6 : It is true that the boat is moored at the stated location without a C&RT boat Licence, but the river Trent at Barton-in-Fabis where the boat is moored is a River Navigation listed in Schedule 1 of the British Waterways Act 1971 [as amended - BW Act 1974] upon which there is a Common Law Public Right of Navigation and vessels thereon do not require a boat Licence issued by the Navigation Authority. Any vessel kept or used within the main navigable channel [MNC] of a Scheduled River Navigation is required under Section 5(1) of the 1971 BW Act to be registered by means of a Pleasure Boat Certificate [PBC] issued by the Navigation Authority. The penalty for keeping or using a vessel within the MNC without such a Certificate in force is prescribed in S.5(2) of the same Act. Extracts from the British Waterways Act 1971 are exhibited by the Claimant, but the page bearing the above mentioned Section 5 has been omitted entirely from the exhibit. The river Trent at Barton-in-Fabis is approximately 150 feet wide and the MNC [as defined in C&RT dredging and maintenance documentation] is less than 40 feet wide on this section of the river. My boat has been moored against the privately owned riverbank at this location since the last PBC expired on 31 August 2015 and is therefore well outside of the MNC. Whilst it remains so, it is exempted from the requirement for a PBC under Section 4(1) of the 1971 Act. Having now fully recovered from a lengthy and debilitating illness, I am presently undertaking repair and refitting work on my boat. On completion of this work it is, as C&RT have been made aware, my intention to apply for a new PBC prior to resuming use of the vessel on the river Trent and other adjoining waterways for which no boat Licence is required. From line 10 : C&RT is not entitled to remove my boat from 'the Property', or the waterway, under Section 8 of the 1983 British Waterways Act as is stated. The statutory powers under the 1983 Act entitle C&RT to remove vessels 'sunk, stranded or abandoned' in any waterway, or to remove any vessel left or moored without 'lawful authority', in a waterway owned or controlled by them. My boat is not 'sunk, stranded or abandoned', and the Common Law PRN applicable on the entire navigable length of the river Trent is the 'lawful authority' for my boat to be on the river Trent, with or without a current PBC. Para.5 : It is stated that my boat is moored on C&RT's 'Property'. This is untrue. The river bank to which the boat is moored is privately owned, and ownership extends to the centre of the river. Para.6 : In as far as this has any relevance to this Claim, this paragraph is a concoction of both distorted and misrepresented truths, half truths and untruths. In January 2014 C&RT informed me that they had 'revoked' my boat Licence. This action was solely in order to facilitate a Claim, identical to the present one, to remove my boat from their waters. At that time my boat, which was not Licensed, and did not need to be, but was registered by means of a current PBC, valid until 30 June 2014, was in constant, almost daily use, on the river Trent mainly between Barton-in Fabis and Holme Pierrepont, downriver from Nottingham, and was frequently and regularly moored overnight near to Holme Lock. The grounds for revoking what C&RT incorrectly referred to as a Licence were variously stated as contraventions of Licence Terms and Conditions by either ''mooring too frequently and for too long whilst cruising'' or "not cruising sufficiently whilst mooring away from the boat's 'home' mooring'', or ''not complying with the C&RT Cruising Guidelines for boats without a 'home' mooring'', none of which makes any kind of sense, or are lawful grounds under Section 17(4) of the 1995 BW Act to terminate either a boat Licence or a PBC. C&RT issued a Claim [No.A00NG769] in June 2014 for the removal of my boat from their waters, a Defence was filed, and I applied to renew my boat's PBC just prior to the normal annual renewal date on 1 July 2014, but C&RT refused the renewal of the PBC on the grounds that, despite having issued the two preceding annual PBC's on the basis of my having a 'home' mooring, a mooring where the boat could be lawfully kept when not in use, at Barton-in-Fabis, they now chose to believe that the mooring didn't really exist. Para.7 : After a further interval and confirmation from the landowner that my mooring really did exist C&RT issued, not a new Licence, but a new PBC for my boat, and Discontinued the Claim, whilst complaining that my use of the mooring that they had questioned the existence of, and my ongoing compliance with the statutory conditions for holding a PBC had rendered their Claim "worthless and academic". Para.9, from lines 2 to 25. C&RT's erroneous beliefs as to the extent of the main navigable channel [MNC] of a river navigation, and the unsupportable assertion that it extends over the full width of the river from bank to bank are shown to be incorrect in the wording of their own General Canal Byelaws. Byelaw 19(1) states :~ Navigation of Pleasure boats: 19. (1) A pleasure boat when meeting, overtaking or being overtaken by a power-driven vessel other than a pleasure boat shall as far as possible keep out of the main navigable channel. If, as C&RT claim, the MNC did extend for the full width of the navigation, then it would not be possible for any conventional vessel to comply with this Byelaw, and the only type of craft capable of compliance when confronted by either an oncoming or overtaking commercial vessel would be an amphibious vessel able to remove itself onto dry land under it's own power, or a canoe or similar craft which could be manhandled out of the water. As either type of craft is in a very small minority of the vessels that customarily use, or have used, C&RT's navigable waterways, it is not conceivable that this Byelaw was drafted with such vessels in mind. Para.19. In making this specious Claim, C&RT are well aware that in the event of my compliance, at any time prior to trial, with their unlawful demands that I obtain that which they misleadingly and wrongly describe as a 'Rivers only Licence' for my boat whilst it is confined to use on a Scheduled, PRN River Navigation, they would be obliged to Discontinue, as they were, in similar circumstances, in July 2014. I believe that, far from being necessary to (quote) - "enable C&RT to comply with it's statutory duty to ensure that the inland waterways controlled by C&RT are safe, well managed and properly conserved", this Claim for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief is both contemptuous of Statute, in that it disregards the distinction made between a boat Licence and a Pleasure Boat Certificate made in Section 5(1) of the 1971 BW Act and Section 17(1) of the 1995 BW Act, and amounts to an attempt to prevent an individual from exercising a Common Law Public Right, and that as such it is asking the Court to act beyond it's powers and jurisdiction. I respectfully ask that the Claim be struck out. Statement of Truth. I believe that the facts stated in this Statement are true. Dated day of 2016 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Anthony Kenneth Dunkley Defendant

i wonder if a new thread should be made (sticky) for specific information and not general chat on the boat loss as i feel information gets lost in the many pages of this thread? maybe even locked and a Site Mod add the information? so it can quickly be viewed - ie the crane pic , detail of boat, poster, suspect description, important possable sightings? i have just had a few days away and come back to another 10 pages of posts so got me thinking.

I think the post would better have read "What does GROVE GMK mean?"

So we still have folks wishing cyclists harm. How dreary. It's simple; every tow path user should show respect and consideration for other users. Cycling on the tow path is here to stay. Walkers should step to one side when a cyclist approaches. Cyclists pay for tow path maintenance. Folk should not post on here wishing harm to others.

Thank you Will follow that up on my return from hols on the Ouse regards Mij

I'm not too sure about that. Brunel seems to have been very driven and involved in many of his projects. Wasn't he caught in one of the Thames tunnel floods when his father was building it? Richard

Actually, I'm not. I'm trying to avoid a meme where 'long fenders protect your boat' becomes an accepted bit of knowledge. They don't under all circumstances whereas awareness at locks does Richard

As I off-topically mentioned in another thread recently, we are good at 'help, mystery battery fault' threads. They always resolve into 'your batteries are goosed because you've not been charging them enough'. This thread seems a good example!

CRT have long demonstrated that they are unable to collate the various sources of boat logging information they already have for the purposes of checking that 30,000 boats comply with boat movement requirements. Why do you think they would now be able to pull a rabbit out of a hat for one stolen boat?

One question and a couple of thoughts.... Do C&RT allow a boat to be registered without a name .... I thought all boats had to have a name ? Surely C&RT have a bigger part to play in this - even if it is to show their support for the boaters who have had their boat stolen and the community doing so much to find it. They surely have data out there not yet collated - from the loggers and the keepers plus maybe central office etc. Could they not make a effort to call this data in to see if there are any anomalies/patterns (how else to they track the 20 mile judication - not for this subject matter of course) such as: Same index on different parts of the canal on the same day or close days in July A boat index making substantial and one way distance mileage - might need so analysis A boat index that does not match a name - might need to do some cross referencing ? Any (not yet reported) activity that is unusual from their staff - I presume they have put out an all staff email asking for help ? All new boat registrations and the boat length in July similar to the stolen boat Any new BSS's - if they are needed for new boats at 50 foot in July Any new moorings processed for 50 foot boats in July - or maybe June if the thief's planned ahead Any new end of garden moorings recently approved for a 50 foot craft Is there one person in C&RT who is dealing with this theft who could pick these questions up ? Not a go at C&RT just would be useful if they learnt from this and were able to introduce systems to help in the future should (when) this happens again. Do they have a policy/procedure for helping in such circumstances Just my thoughts ..... Finally and not for this group as I am sure all are doing their best for the community they share.... are the insurers offering a reward for information, this may well interest those that may have some casual knowledge but are not inclined to share due to a false loyalty - unless there is a decent cash incentive?

There's something about this that doesn't quite add up. Not Chris and Graham's report, nor the Mercia Marina man (apologies for not noting your name); I have absolute confidence they are kosher. But somewhere along the line we're losing sight of something. On the one hand, we're concluding that the most likely thief is a solo individual who is 'one sandwich short...' Yet he (or they - there has been the odd report pointing to a woman, as well as a description of a man at variance with the one everybody has been assuming is the culprit) have managed to hide an extremely distinctive craft from what's probably the most extensive and intensive search that's ever hit the waterways. So it would be easy enough, with an angle grinder or a gas axe, to make some modifications to the most distinctive features of the stern end. But would it be possible to do so, in the time they've had, without leaving some fairly obvious traces of their handiwork? And the window layout is pretty distinctive too, and a lot harder to modify, yet nothing has been seen. So that sandwich short has managed to be pretty clever, by the looks. At this stage I'm not sure quite where that leaves us, except that we perhaps need to adjust some of our own assumptions. My feeling is that we need to try and put ourselves in the villain's head, work out what he/they would try and do. I know that's likely to lead to some crazy ideas. But the sensible ones haven't - yet - yielded any results, so there's nowt to lose. It will be a way for those who are forced to be armchair participants to do their bit, a way to support the searchers on the ground. I'm going to see if I can come up with any thoughts overnight. But hopefully others will come up with better thoughts quicker than I can. I suspect we need to cover all bases from the solo 'one sandwich short...' to a well-organised gang with access to facilities and equipment; each possible combination will result in a different approach - and there may be one that will suddenly resonate with people and allow the search to focus more helpfully. One final thought for Chris and Graham: when you were chatting with your curious gongoozler, could the information you gave have included when you would be leaving the boat and how long it would be before you returned? That, too, might just give us a little clue.

After buying my boat and working for a while, I quit and became a full time post-grad student at Birmingham Uni. Birmingham would be a good choice for you for a number of reasons. 1. The canal goes right through the campus. (There's even a nice guy called Peter who moors on campus permanently - he's one of those perpetual student types). 2. There's a railway station on campus. 3. There's many many miles of canal which are commutable to the Uni by foot, bike or train. (more canals than venice and all that) So you could get a boat and be a continuous cruiser, which means you wouldn't need to pay for a mooring. So yes, you could get a small, basic boat for £10,000, say 40 foot long. You'd need to pay for a licence, fuel, repairs, insurance etc. It wouldn't be cheaper than staying in a cheap rented room in Selly Oak, but you'd have your privacy and you'd be the coolest undergrad on campus (I'd be the coolest post-grad of course). Keep your pets cool with a fan. I know of rabbits and guinea pigs which live happily on boats. Not sure about ferrets. I have a permanent mooring a few miles away but when I have a big assignment to do, I moor on campus so I can walk straight into the library to work. Here's the continuous cruising guidelines. https://canalrivertrust.org.uk/enjoy-the-waterways/boating/mooring-your-boat/want-to-be-a-continuous-cruiser Here's the licence costs https://canalrivertrust.org.uk/refresh/media/thumbnail/24443-licence-fees-2016-2017-private-boats.pdf If you're going to Uni, then you're gonna have to do some studying, so for now, study the old threads on this site and read as much of the CRT website as you can. I'm biased but I would say that Birmingham is a better choice than any other if you want to be a continuous cruiser. Most other cities have one or two canals running through them which limits cruising and mooring options. The canals around Birmingham are like an intricate network.

Stolen boat Advert now live on Apollo Duck so hopefully it might get some sightings. http://narrowboats.apolloduck.co.uk/feature.phtml?id=483648 Cheers Glyn New and Used Boat Co Mercia

If the boat will never move out of the marina, wouldn't it be better and a lot cheaper to simply buy a large static caravan instead?

That's as may be, but it is perfectly legal to move at night, and even if it weren't that would be the least of the offences committed. Tam