How we react to unlicenced boats

[bottle]

I have not answered the poll.

 

I will make a comment though and that is.

 

When I see a boat all I see are the people, on deck and probably the name.

 

I am not that bothered whether they have a licence or not.

 

It is up to those in charge to carry out the necessary checks etc.

[gaggle]

well thats ok for you to say , but what about the people who have nothing better to do.

if they do not spend time on the worry about what others are up to then they will have to find something else to do with the time they have on their hands.

this could well end up with them getting involved in stuff that has absolutely nothing to do with them and then being labelled as busybody nosey parkers who go around snooping on others.

[mayalld]

well thats ok for you to say , but what about the people who have nothing better to do.

if they do not spend time on the worry about what others are up to then they will have to find something else to do with the time they have on their hands.

this could well end up with them getting involved in stuff that has absolutely nothing to do with them and then being labelled as busybody nosey parkers who go around snooping on others.

 

 

Or those with plenty better to do who don't make enough time to report evaders.

 

They could end up labelled as slackers!

[carlt]

Or those with plenty better to do who don't make enough time to report evaders.

 

They could end up labelled as slackers!

We're busy doing nothing, working all day through,

we're trying to find lots of things not to do.

We're busy going nowhere, isn't it such a crime ?

we'd like to be unhappy but we never do have the time.

 

I have to watch the river to see that it doesn't stop,

and stick around the rosebuds so they'll know when to pop.

Better keep those crickets cheerful,they're really a solemn bunch,

farso, farso. I never have the time for lunch.

 

I'd like to meet a turtle, and teach him how to swim,

then I have to shine the dew-drops, they're looking rather dim.

Meet my friend the robin and buy him a brand new vest.

Farso, farso, I never have time to rest.

[mayalld]

OK, so I'll pass a few comments here.

 

Taking the questions in reverse order.

 

It was gratifying to see that an overwhelming majority see it as a personal choice as to whether you report or not, but still worrying that a small number actually seem to think that others must conform to their views.

 

Question 2 is quite telling, as it suggests that for almost half of us, the question of reporting licence evaders isn't a matter of moral conviction about whether it is right to do so or not, but a question as to whether the problem is sufficiently serious to warrant action, or too trivial to worry about.

 

And so to question 1!

 

It would seem that about 17% of people are categorically against reporting people, and would never do it, whilst 28% are inclined to report offenders just for not displaying a licence.

 

55% might report an apparently unlicenced boat as a means of "dealing" with some other problem that the boat was causing, although the overwhelming majority would only do so if the problem was major. That still means a sizeable proportion who seem to view licencing enforcement as a tool for enforcing other things.

 

Sliced another way, 59% of boaters are broadly speaking unlikely to report somebody (the definite nos, and those who require a serious problem before reporting), whilst 41% are broadly speaking likely to report somebody.

 

I'm actually rather pleased that nobody thus far has answered that they actively go out looking for boats to report.

 

For reference (I suppose that I should declare my position if I seek to say what the votes mean), my own vote was;

 

Q1: Yes, if I got round to it

Q2: Yes

Q3: None of my business

 

Overall, I take the poll as telling me that 4 out of 5 people don't adhere to the view that we must never report , and that the likelihood of them doing something about it increases as the size of the problem increases.

[KenK]

Overall, I take the poll as telling me that 4 out of 5 people don't adhere to the view that we must never report , and that the likelihood of them doing something about it increases as the size of the problem increases.

 

As only 86 members voted out of 3181 I would not draw too many conclusions from your poll.

 

Ken

[cugsey]

As only 86 members voted out of 3181 I would not draw too many conclusions from your poll.

 

Ken

i think what you are trying to say ken is that the poll

was as they say

a waste of f....kin time

[Sir Nibble]

i think what you are trying to say ken is that the poll

was as they say

a waste of f....kin time

So what? DEAL WITH IT!

[John Orentas]

As only 86 members voted out of 3181 I would not draw too many conclusions from your poll.

 

Ken

 

 

Hi Ken.

 

Although it is no doubt true that there are theoretically 3,000 + members the numbers of active ones at any particular time can only be a very small percentage of that.

 

As with many of these polls it has not been in any way scientifically worked out. There is a laid down system of revenue collection on the waterways which has been with us for many decades, it may well be that the people who are tasked with the enforcement of the system are just not up to the job for one reason or another.

 

The consensus of opinion may well be that we would question a system whereby we need to report non compliances to the very people who are failing in their responsibilities to do their job, it is likely that no matter how much prodding came from us they would not do any better.

Edited September 10, 2007 by John Orentas

[mayalld]

As only 86 members voted out of 3181 I would not draw too many conclusions from your poll.

 

Ken

 

Do you imagine that the remaining members have markedly different views?

[carlt]

Do you imagine that the remaining members have markedly different views?

86 from a population of 3000 is actually a reasonable sample. Look at some of the 'national' polls in the papers that are actually pretty accurate (statistically) and you'll find a far smaller proportion of the population treated as a big enough sample.

[KenK]

Do you imagine that the remaining members have markedly different views?

 

I have no idea, nor of course do you. They either did not see the poll or don't care enough about the issue to bother voting. People who start polls generally hope they will reflect their own opinions. I know a couple of boat owners who don't have licences however they never move their boats from the private marina, they believe they don't need a BW licence, I'm not sure if that is BW's opinion.

 

Ken

[carlt]

People who start polls generally hope they will reflect their own opinions.

And generally interpret them that way too. I see the results saying 70%+ are not really interested in the licensing issue but will raise it if, in their opinion, a greater offence is being committed. Dave would probably interpret them differently, thus reaching the irrefutable conclusion that there isn't a definitive answer.

 

The debate goes on..................

[chris w]

86 from a population of 3000 is actually a reasonable sample. Look at some of the 'national' polls in the papers that are actually pretty accurate (statistically) and you'll find a far smaller proportion of the population treated as a big enough sample.

 

I agree with Carl. If one has formally studied Statistics in any depth, it is surprising to learn how very small a sample can be (as small as 30 people, providing it's random) to produce a result that is likely to reflect the view of >90% of the population as a whole.

 

The question is, of course, as to whether those who voted in this poll are indeed "random" or whether those with a particular view are more or less inclined to vote.

 

The importance of random sampling was not universally appreciated and in the USA the 1936 prediction of a Republican win in the presidential election went badly awry, due to severe bias.

 

A sample size of one million was obtained through magazine subscription lists and telephone directories. It was not appreciated that these lists were heavily biased towards Republicans and the resulting sample, though very large, was deeply flawed.

 

Chris

Edited September 10, 2007 by chris w

[mayalld]

And generally interpret them that way too. I see the results saying 70%+ are not really interested in the licensing issue but will raise it if, in their opinion, a greater offence is being committed. Dave would probably interpret them differently, thus reaching the irrefutable conclusion that there isn't a definitive answer.

Yup, that is another perfectly valid view of the statistics.To be honest, I was expecting rather more on the side of "don't report" than we actually saw.

I have no idea, nor of course do you. They either did not see the poll or don't care enough about the issue to bother voting. People who start polls generally hope they will reflect their own opinions.

Whilst I may well hope that my own opinions will be shared by others (because I believe them to be right, and believe the world would be a better place if that were the case, rather than because I feel any deep need for community approval), I did make every effort to phrase the questions so as not to introduce bias.

I know a couple of boat owners who don't have licences however they never move their boats from the private marina, they believe they don't need a BW licence, I'm not sure if that is BW's opinion.

That rather depends upon the marina. There are a tiny number of marinas where this is the case, however the majority of private marinas are required by their connection agreement to ensure that all boats there are licenced.

[smileypete]

I wouldn't worry so much about the license evaders if they were using the waterways for their intended purpose and were enjoying the water.

 

What worries me is the large amount of people I see looking at boats who ask me about living aboard and their only intention is to live on a boat, even if they do pay their licenses and moorings, they have no intention of living on the water to enjoy it, merely, living on it.

 

So a few years down the line, when a lot of younger folk can't afford to buy properties, then they are going to turn to boats, and there are going to be marina's or BW moorings full of people who simply won't ever move.

 

I would love to enjoy the waterways more if it were not for work commitements, but I do whenever I get the chance and not painting something, but it's a shame there are a lot I know who have no interest in the water, just the cheap living.

 

How long have you lived on a boat Stonehenge?

 

cheers,

Pete.

Edited September 10, 2007 by smileypete

[Dominic M]

There are a tiny number of marinas where this is the case, however the majority of private marinas are required by their connection agreement to ensure that all boats there are licenced.

 

There's quite a number of moorings - and not just marinas - which lie outside of BW's jurisdiction and therefore the moorers are not required to license their boats. Many old basins and canal arms were not nationalised in 1947 - Whilton Marina, the Kayes Arm at Long Itchington, Barry Hawkins's basin at Atherstone, Glascote Basin, the linear moorings just south of Milton Keynes at Willowbridge are just some of many in my area. The River Soar has moorings that lie on the river but outside of the Navigation as defined by the original Act of Parliament, and the same is true for the River Kennet. I also understand that all of the offside of the Oxford Canal - certainly the Southern Oxford - is outside of BW's right to insist on a licence as the original Canal Act defines it thus. I believe a farmer who lets moorings above Claydon top won such a battle a few years back after a long argument in which the Ombudsman ruled in his favour.

 

Of course if a boat wants to move then a licence is a requirement - but not everyone does, and if they're happy with living on a boat without moving then who is anyone else to pass judgement?

[Guest]

There's quite a number of moorings - and not just marinas - which lie outside of BW's jurisdiction and therefore the moorers are not required to license their boats. Many old basins and canal arms were not nationalised in 1947 - Whilton Marina, the Kayes Arm at Long Itchington, Barry Hawkins's basin at Atherstone, Glascote Basin, the linear moorings just south of Milton Keynes at Willowbridge are just some of many in my area. The River Soar has moorings that lie on the river but outside of the Navigation as defined by the original Act of Parliament, and the same is true for the River Kennet. I also understand that all of the offside of the Oxford Canal - certainly the Southern Oxford - is outside of BW's right to insist on a licence as the original Canal Act defines it thus. I believe a farmer who lets moorings above Claydon top won such a battle a few years back after a long argument in which the Ombudsman ruled in his favour.

 

Of course if a boat wants to move then a licence is a requirement - but not everyone does, and if they're happy with living on a boat without moving then who is anyone else to pass judgement?

I am on a marina where no licence is required. BW need permission to enter it. My good friend is a BW enforcement officer and endorses same.

[carlt]

I also understand that all of the offside of the Oxford Canal - certainly the Southern Oxford - is outside of BW's right to insist on a licence as the original Canal Act defines it thus. I believe a farmer who lets moorings above Claydon top won such a battle a few years back after a long argument in which the Ombudsman ruled in his favour.

You don't know anything more about this do you. If my memory is working it concerned EOGs having to pay BW a mooring fee, rather than a licence issue. I have mentioned it before but Eugene denied it ever happened (though, admittedly, I got the location wrong).

[Dominic M]

You don't know anything more about this do you. If my memory is working it concerned EOGs having to pay BW a mooring fee, rather than a licence issue. I have mentioned it before but Eugene denied it ever happened (though, admittedly, I got the location wrong).

There is a landowner/farmer at Claydon who owns canalside land on the offside. I met him about a year ago as he was selling bankside plots and I expressed an interest. He told me that he had won this dispute with BW as the Act of Parliament authorising the construction of the Oxford Canal meant that offside landowners' adjoining land was outside the control of the Oxford Canal Company, and read in such a way that craft moored to that land were also outside the jurisdiction of the Company (and subsequently, post-nationalisation, BW). He added that it also permitted such landowners to connect to the canal without penalty - and I believe Fenny Compton Marina is an example of that, where boats are outside of BW jurisdiction as well. Later canal Acts, the Oxford being one of the very early ones, did not permit such rights. However, it may well be that the same applies to the Staffs and Worcs, the landowner told me.

 

Other marinas have had to pay for the cost of connection (known in the industry as the "ransom strip") not just by ensuring that all moorers are licensed and insured, but also by having to hand over a slice of the mooring income (typically 20% I am told). EOG moorers are charged a permit at a half rate of the nearest long term BW mooring, which will make the auction process interesting to those in sought after areas, I imagine. But, as the South Oxford case shows, they might care to look into this more carefully.

[fender]

There is a landowner/farmer at Claydon who owns canalside land on the offside. I met him about a year ago as he was selling bankside plots and I expressed an interest. He told me that he had won this dispute with BW as the Act of Parliament authorising the construction of the Oxford Canal meant that offside landowners' adjoining land was outside the control of the Oxford Canal Company, and read in such a way that craft moored to that land were also outside the jurisdiction of the Company (and subsequently, post-nationalisation, BW). He added that it also permitted such landowners to connect to the canal without penalty - and I believe Fenny Compton Marina is an example of that, where boats are outside of BW jurisdiction as well. Later canal Acts, the Oxford being one of the very early ones, did not permit such rights. However, it may well be that the same applies to the Staffs and Worcs, the landowner told me.

 

Other marinas have had to pay for the cost of connection (known in the industry as the "ransom strip") not just by ensuring that all moorers are licensed and insured, but also by having to hand over a slice of the mooring income (typically 20% I am told). EOG moorers are charged a permit at a half rate of the nearest long term BW mooring, which will make the auction process interesting to those in sought after areas, I imagine. But, as the South Oxford case shows, they might care to look into this more carefully.

 

I expect the snitchers will have a field day outside these marinas spotting and reporting unlicensed boats to BW.

[saltysplash]

There is a landowner/farmer at Claydon who owns canalside land on the offside. I met him about a year ago as he was selling bankside plots and I expressed an interest. He told me that he had won this dispute with BW as the Act of Parliament authorising the construction of the Oxford Canal meant that offside landowners' adjoining land was outside the control of the Oxford Canal Company, and read in such a way that craft moored to that land were also outside the jurisdiction of the Company (and subsequently, post-nationalisation, BW). He added that it also permitted such landowners to connect to the canal without penalty - and I believe Fenny Compton Marina is an example of that, where boats are outside of BW jurisdiction as well. Later canal Acts, the Oxford being one of the very early ones, did not permit such rights. However, it may well be that the same applies to the Staffs and Worcs, the landowner told me.

 

Other marinas have had to pay for the cost of connection (known in the industry as the "ransom strip") not just by ensuring that all moorers are licensed and insured, but also by having to hand over a slice of the mooring income (typically 20% I am told). EOG moorers are charged a permit at a half rate of the nearest long term BW mooring, which will make the auction process interesting to those in sought after areas, I imagine. But, as the South Oxford case shows, they might care to look into this more carefully.

 

I used to moor my old harborough boat in the early 90's on this chaps moorings if its the same place im thinking of. A big american or canadian chap at clattercote wharf. Used to grow pumpkins and had a wind pump inthe field. He was a really decent and nice bloke. We only ever paid the licence fee. No mooring permit.

[carlt]

I used to moor my old harborough boat in the early 90's on this chaps moorings if its the same place im thinking of. A big american or canadian chap at clattercote wharf. Used to grow pumpkins and had a wind pump inthe field. He was a really decent and nice bloke. We only ever paid the licence fee. No mooring permit.

Still there 10 years ago when I worked picking his pumpkins, for a few weeks.

[Dominic M]

I used to moor my old harborough boat in the early 90's on this chaps moorings if its the same place im thinking of. A big american or canadian chap at clattercote wharf. Used to grow pumpkins and had a wind pump inthe field. He was a really decent and nice bloke. We only ever paid the licence fee. No mooring permit.

 

Still there today. And, they tell me, no need for a licence anymore.