Several boats set to be removed from Bridgwater & Taunton Canal

[IanD]

10 minutes ago, ditchcrawler said:

So let me see. I sign on to the bank web site with my phone and then to check its really me they text a code to the phone I have in my hand so that I can enter it to prove than no one else is trying to log in as me.

Except it's not that simple. You can log onto a website from anywhere, including spoofed addresses. They send a text to a phone number which you have previously verified as yours when you set up online banking, including all that stuff about passwords and favourite numbers and personal facts and DOB and...

 

(so it's as secure -- or insecure -- as online banking)

 

That's the way the banks work and it's not bad, but it's not as secure as something like DUO because it relies on a text to your phone number, which acts as your ID -- if somebody's got your phone, they can get in. DUO can work in various ways including this, or using biometric ID (e.g. fingerprint), or a hardware USB dongle, or passwords/facts, so even if somebody has got hold of your phone they can't get access.

Edited July 8, 2023 by IanD

[Paul C]

7 minutes ago, ditchcrawler said:

So let me see. I sign on to the bank web site with my phone and then to check its really me they text a code to the phone I have in my hand so that I can enter it to prove than no one else is trying to log in as me.

 

Yep, that's right. The "factors" are:

 

1. Something you know

2. Something you have

3. Something you are

 

So, you log into your banking app based on the username/password (something you know) or eg Face ID (something you are). Then you are texted a code to the phone - something you have. A single device can do more than one "factor".

[IanD]

7 minutes ago, Alan de Enfield said:

We tend to moor 'in the wilds' a photo of us under an anonymous tree will be pretty much the same as the next mooring under another anonymous tree.

Or,

Can you only moor close to fixed objects which are recognisable?

No, when you take a photo it's "geotagged" with GPS location data -- along with other stuff like the make/model of phone, picture details, date and time. If the boat (and reg. no) are in the photo, this shows where you -- and the boat -- were at a given time. It's why Google Photos (if you use it) knows where and when a photo was taken.

 

An app sending this data back to CART can also prove that it was *your* phone that was used to take it, using both the phone number and IMEI (so SIM-swapping won't fool  it).

Edited July 8, 2023 by IanD

[beerbeerbeerbeerbeer]

24 minutes ago, IanD said:

If I just wanted to get it there in the minimum time then that's what I'd do.

 

But I want so spend a couple of weeks on it with the family, like our usual annual canal holiday. Unlike some, I actually *enjoy* being on the canals... 😉

 

 

 

I believe the law says you have to satisfy them, not the other way round 🙂

So how do you or they know I’m not (if I’m not)?

 

[Guest]

4 minutes ago, Paul C said:

 

Yep, that's right. The "factors" are:

 

1. Something you know

2. Something you have

3. Something you are

 

So, you log into your banking app based on the username/password (something you know) or eg Face ID (something you are). Then you are texted a code to the phone - something you have. A single device can do more than one "factor".

 

I dont log into the Nationwide banking app. using a text to my phone.

 

I just use my fingerprint.

 

I only have to use a text if I use the webrowser to log in.

[IanD]

3 minutes ago, Goliath said:

So how do you or they know I’m not (if I’m not)?

 

They don't have to prove you're not following the rules -- the law (which I quoted) says that to keep your license when CCing (no home mooring) you have to satisfy the board that you're following the rules.

 

Unless I've misinterpreted it that's literally what it says, according to what was helpfully posted a few pages back... 😉

Edited July 8, 2023 by IanD

[matty40s]

How to make something really really complicated, over engineered, and annoying.

 

Anyhow, I'm off to Walsall basin for 6 months , or until it gets overcrowded and CRT start checking.

[beerbeerbeerbeerbeer]

Just now, IanD said:

They don't have to prove you're not following the rules -- the law (which I quoted) says that to keep your license when CCing (no home mooring) you have to satisfy the board that you're following the rules.

 

That's literally what it says, according to what was helpfully posted a few pages back... 😉

Yes, so in turn they have to prove I’m not satisfying the board. 
 

Do I have to prove I’m a law abiding citizen?

No 

[Tacet]

6 hours ago, IanD said:

 

In case you haven't noticed, I'm not arguing with you about the law -- I was wrong, you knew better and were right. OK? Can we stop the character assasination right here before anyone else jumps on the bandwagon?

 

If you think getting one thing wrong undermines everything someone says then there's no point debating with you -- do you really want me to search through the CWDF archives and find something you said wrong (because I bet you did at some point...), and then say that this means that your posts on this subject are therefore discredited? Everyone makes mistakes -- unless you're claiming that you're perfect... 😉

 

I now have a clearer understanding of the law (so thank you for that...), and still think it's possible to come up with a better system than we have now. I'll try and explain -- and if I'm wrong please point out where, but let's keep the discussion away from personal motivations/reputations and stick to the facts... 🙂

 

There are two separate but linked things going on here, one is license conditions -- especially for CCers/CMers -- and the second is where mooring is permitted and for how long.

 

The CC exemption was introduced for what seemed good reasons at the time, so that those who roamed around the system were not forced to find and pay for a home mooring that they never used. The test for this -- "satisfying the board" -- was the 14-day rule about moving between several different places (not just ping-ponging back and forth) over a significant range, but nothing defining the exact terms was ever put into law, it was deliberately left woolly, presumably with the idea that the rules could be changed.

 

If a boat claims to be CCing but isn't -- doesn't "satisfy the board" -- then CART can refuse to renew their license, and then start the long and drawn-out enforcement proceedings leading to boat removal.

 

This worked fine until the last 20 years or so -- maybe more so since the 2008 financial crisis and stupid housing costs -- as more and more people decided to use the canals as a cheap place to live, move as little as possible, and stay near work or school. This was specifically excluded by the CART CC rules but then under "think of the children" pressure from the NBTA and others they were unwise enough to come up with an unofficial rule that effectively endorsed this for families with children, but not others -- yes this is discrimination but it's not illegal.

 

The result in popular areas like London and the Western K&A has been an increasing number of "CMers", end-to-end (or double-moored) boats (and more and more wideboats) with many overstaying as long as they can and moving as little as possible -- if it all -- including on visitor moorings, which has made such areas difficult to access for the "real CCers" (or any other boaters like hirers) for who the "CC exemption" was intended in the first place. Meanwhile out in the sticks where there are hardly any boats "real CCers" (not the "honeypot-squatters") still have to follow the 14-day rule -- which is seen as unfair, what's the point in moving? -- and CART still has to check that they do, which takes staff and money.

 

CART checking and monitoring of boat locations doesn't work very well, partly because it has to cover the whole 2000 mile system, and enforcement is ineffective, so the CC rules are widely flouted by CMers.

 

Am I right so far?

 

Meanwhile CART is cash-strapped and needs to find ways of getting more money, and one of these is via the license fee. I'm pretty sure they also want to do something to stop the growth of CMers who are clogging up honeypots, and probably also discourage wideboats by making them more expensive -- because these are very popular with almost-never-moving-CMers since they offer a lot more space for only a little more money. This is what the "license fee consultation" was all about. A lot of the problems can be traced back to the CCing rule which has encouraged CMers, which was not the original intention but has ended up that way, and the cost of monitoring and enforcing this over the whole canal system -- which is why the consultation also mentions the possibility of a "CC surcharge" to recoup these costs.

 

Agreed?

 

So what can CART do to get more money and discourage CMers, and restore the CC exemption back to something like its original purpose?

 

One proposal was a "CC surcharge" -- which might have to be labelled as a "home mooring discount" to stay within the law, but the effect is the same. IIRC the very old PDF (which was shot down in flames) suggested 2.5x the fee (+150%), more recently 2x has been suggested (+100%) -- these could mean (for example) doubling the license fee compared to today but offering a 50% "home mooring discount", which would keep the license fee unchanged for those with home moorings but double it for CCers and CMers. River-only fees would stay at 60% of canal+river, as now.

 

This could be seen as being unfair on "real CCers" since their fees double. One of the justifications for this put forward by CART is the extra costs of checking and enforcing the CC rules -- so is there a way to help out "real CCers"?

 

Why not stop CC-rule-checking outside popular honeypot areas (e.g towns/cities/junctions), so boats can stay where they want for as long as they want "out in the sticks"? The apocalyptic "the canals will be overrun with boats" prediction is unlikely to come true, because not that many boaters -- and very few CMers -- want to moor out in the middle of nowhere with no facilities, they almost all want to moor near civilisation.

 

Can you see any legal reasons why this cannot be done? (assuming the logistics can be worked out)

 

The disadvantage is that it does go completely against CARTs policy on online/EOG moorings because boats can then moor anywhere "out in the sticks" -- but is this really such a big problem, given the size of the system and the small number of boats who would do this? (and they'll still be paying 2x the fee of boats with a home mooring -- a farm mooring would be cheaper). If the CCers already spend a lot of their time moored in remote spots the number of boats moored there doesn't even change, it just means they don't have to artificially shuffle round every 14 days.

 

The advantage is that all the checking/enforcement which is currently spread around 2000 miles of canals can be focused on the much smaller (100 miles?) of "honeypot areas", so it should be much more effective.

 

It might also be possible to offer "real CCers" a discount, but make them have to provide the proof of movement instead of using CART checkers -- for example, regular geotagged photos from a phone registered to the license holder. These could even be checked using software instead of real people. Yes a smartphone is needed, but these are dirt cheap nowadays -- and if you don't want one, you don't get the discount... 😉

 

I'm not saying these ideas don't have disadvantages because there is no perfect solution, but it seem to me that this would put the canals in a considerably better place than they are today.

 

Any genuine criticism of why they can't/won't work is fine by me, I'm not claiming to know everything about all this -- but it would be nice to keep any debate factual rather than descending into accusations and abuse... 😉

In an attempt to summarise, IanDs proposal is broadly equivalent to CRT providing additional permanent moorings out of town.  Then all that needs to be done is to persuade those who currently CM in the popular locations (free of charge) to take up the new moorings in unpopular locations and, of course, pay for them.

 

If anyone can see a problem, tell Ian.

[Barneyp]

I'm confused by all the talk of using technology to track boats, the problem boats are those that don't move for weeks, months or even years, Or if they do move they only go a few miles.

The problem is not finding out who is breaking the rules (aka failing to satisfy the board) but the lack of enforcement action taken against those that have been proven to be breaking the rules.

 

 

[IanD]

Just now, Goliath said:

Yes, so in turn they have to prove I’m not satisfying the board. 
 

Do I have to prove I’m a law abiding citizen?

No 

Can somebody who knows the law better than me clarify this?

 

The exact words from the 1995 regulations say this:

 

"the Board may refuse a relevant consent in respect of any vessel unless the applicant for the relevant consent satisfies the Board that the vessel to which the application relates will be used bona fide for navigation throughout the period for which the consent is valid without remaining continuously in any one place for more than 14 days or such longer period as is reasonable in the circumstances."

 

That reads to me that you have to prove to them that you're following the rules, not that they have to prove you're not...

[Guest]

1 minute ago, Barneyp said:

I'm confused by all the talk of using technology to track boats, the problem boats are those that don't move for weeks, months or even years, Or if they do move they only go a few miles.

The problem is not finding out who is breaking the rules (aka failing to satisfy the board) but the lack of enforcement action taken against those that have been proven to be breaking the rules.

 

 

 

Indeed. Identifying the 'offenders' is one thing, dealing with them is another.

[Alan de Enfield]

5 minutes ago, Goliath said:

Yes, so in turn they have to prove I’m not satisfying the board. 

 

 

If you read into the legislation in more detail you'll find that C&RT simply have to say "we are not satisfied" and the onus is then on you to prove compliance.

 

This is why C&RT suggest that all boaters keep a log of their movements (not movements of your log !!)

[IanD]

6 minutes ago, Barneyp said:

I'm confused by all the talk of using technology to track boats, the problem boats are those that don't move for weeks, months or even years, Or if they do move they only go a few miles.

The problem is not finding out who is breaking the rules (aka failing to satisfy the board) but the lack of enforcement action taken against those that have been proven to be breaking the rules.

 

 

It's both -- detection is certainly spotty, and enforcement is weak, partly because of the CART wibbling about what the rules actually mean, and partly because the whole process of enforcement is long and difficult and also in many cases easy to evade.

 

Unfortunately there's no simple solution that doesn't have problems of its own, but it seems unlikely that nothing better than we have now can be devised, because right now the whole thing is a mess.

 

9 minutes ago, Tacet said:

In an attempt to summarise, IanDs proposal is broadly equivalent to CRT providing additional permanent moorings out of town.  Then all that needs to be done is to persuade those who currently CM in the popular locations (free of charge) to take up the new moorings in unpopular locations and, of course, pay for them.

 

If anyone can see a problem, tell Ian.

 

The problem is of course enforcement, as any fule kno... 😞

Edited July 8, 2023 by IanD

[Tacet]

2 minutes ago, IanD said:

Can somebody who knows the law better than me clarify this?

 

The exact words from the 1995 regulations say this:

 

"the Board may refuse a relevant consent in respect of any vessel unless the applicant for the relevant consent satisfies the Board that the vessel to which the application relates will be used bona fide for navigation throughout the period for which the consent is valid without remaining continuously in any one place for more than 14 days or such longer period as is reasonable in the circumstances."

 

That reads to me that you have to prove to them that you're following the rules, not that they have to prove you're not...

Not quite.  The applicant has to satisfy the board that the vessel will be used etc throughout the consent period.  Not is or was used.

 

No doubt track record can be a factor in satisfying the board as to future behaviour.

[Barneyp]

4 hours ago, David Mack said:

Yes. I suggested this recently on another thread:

 

 

"I have thought for some time that CRT should grasp the nettle on this by announcing clearly and unequivocally that all new applicants for a licence without a home mooring will be required to travel much more extensively as a condition of keeping their licence, and that a corresponding set of criteria of what is needed to 'satisfy the Board' should be published. Applicants should be required to sign that they will comply with these requirements. And all existing licence holders without a home mooring should be given a period of (say) five years within which they will either have to comply with the new requirements or take a home mooring. That should give those who have work, education or similar commitments that keep them in one area time to adjust."

All licence holders are required to agree to the existing conditions in order to get a licence, as CMers seem happy to agree and then not follow the conditions how would making them agree to travel more extensively change anything. They will agree and then carry on as normal.

[Tacet]

2 minutes ago, IanD said:

 

 

 

The problem is of course enforcement... 😞

To be honest, it did occur to me that enforcement might be a problem, but I didn't like to say.

[IanD]

2 minutes ago, Tacet said:

Not quite.  The applicant has to satisfy the board that the vessel will be used etc throughout the consent period.  Not is or was used.

 

No doubt track record can be a factor in satisfying the board as to future behaviour.

But the point is that it's up to the boater to satisfy the board that they're a good boy, *not* that the board has to prove that they're a bad boy. It's an important difference... 😉

[beerbeerbeerbeerbeer]

 But the board do inform you when you are not complying and present the evidence. 

[IanD]

1 minute ago, Tacet said:

To be honest, it did occur to me that enforcement might be a problem, but I didn't like to say.

I don't see why not, everyone else seems determined to raise any possible objection, valid or not... 😉

 

You can't have effective -- or ineffective! -- enforcement without solid proof about whether the boater followed the rules or not, and from looking at cases it seems that's often what's lacking -- for example they claim they did move further but weren't detected. And we know this does happen to "real CCers" who have been falsely accused of not following the rules because the trackers missed them moving, so it does happen, which makes it easier to claim innocence even of you're guilty.

 

Even with a much more robust (and harder to fiddle) tracking system, all this does is make it much easier to prove that CMers have broken the rules, so they can be refused a license -- which is a big step forwards, because it's the equivalenmt of criminals worrying about being caught more than they worry about the sentence (see other thread), so it should discourage rule-breaking.

 

Then there are the problems of enforcement which this doesn't solve, and that may be harder to fix becasue legal changes may be required.

 

But that doesn't mean a better checking system isn't a good idea, it's a first step... 😉

[Tacet]

4 minutes ago, IanD said:

But the point is that it's up to the boater to satisfy the board that they're a good boy, *not* that the board has to prove that they're a bad boy. It's an important difference... 😉

I agree - other than it is you will be a good boy.

 

Tangentially, it is sometimes suggested that the Board can be capricious in its being satisfied, which I don't accept.  For example, I don't think it is available to the Board to be satisfied solely because you paid an additional £1000 per annum.

[IanD]

4 minutes ago, Goliath said:

 But the board do inform you when you are not complying and present the evidence. 

 

Because right now there's no other way of picking out rule-breakers. But once they have done that, you have to prove to them that you have followed the rules and deserve to keep your license, and unless you do this it'll be taken away. It's not up to them to prove that you broke the rules, that's not what the law says.

 

Leastways, that's what the words say, and usually that's the law...

[Tacet]

3 minutes ago, IanD said:

I don't see why not, everyone else seems determined to raise any possible objection, valid or not... 😉

 

You can't have effective -- or ineffective! -- enforcement without solid proof about whether the boater followed the rules or not, and from looking at cases it seems that's often what's lacking -- for example they claim they did move further but weren't detected. And we know this does happen to "real CCers" who have been falsely accused of not following the rules because the trackers missed them moving, so it does happen, which makes it easier to claim innocence even of you're guilty.

 

Even with a much more robust (and harder to fiddle) tracking system, all this does is make it much easier to prove that CMers have broken the rules, so they can be refused a license -- which is a big step forwards, because it's the equivalenmt of criminals worrying about being caught more than they worry about the sentence (see other thread), so it should discourage rule-breaking.

 

Then there are the problems of enforcement which this doesn't solve, and that may be harder to fix becasue legal changes may be required.

 

But that doesn't mean a better checking system isn't a good idea, it's a first step... 😉

I'm not sure that do-they- move(comply) or not is a regular feature of s8 proceedings for those instances that reach the courts.  It may be a factor in deciding which cases are taken, of course.

 

I would expect that gathering evidence to be the least of the problems faced. Having identified the suspects from the usual monitoring, it shouldn't be too much trouble to watch the very few vessels that proceed to firm enforcement.

 

There are sufficient blatant cases to mean it is not sensible to pursue the borderline ones yet.

 

[IanD]

16 minutes ago, Tacet said:

I agree - other than it is you will be a good boy.

 

Tangentially, it is sometimes suggested that the Board can be capricious in its being satisfied, which I don't accept.  For example, I don't think it is available to the Board to be satisfied solely because you paid an additional £1000 per annum.

 

Please correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't the law say that CART can take your license away unless you satisfy the board with regard to the CC rules?

 

It doesn't say that they are required to take it away if you don't.

 

So if CART decide to not remove it for whatever reason -- for example because of illness or inability to move or ice or stoppages or you paying them £1000 extra -- then they don't have to.

 

7 minutes ago, Tacet said:

I'm not sure that do-they- move(comply) or not is a regular feature of s8 proceedings for those instances that reach the courts.  It may be a factor in deciding which cases are taken, of course.

 

I would expect that gathering evidence to be the least of the problems faced. Having identified the suspects from the usual monitoring, it shouldn't be too much trouble to watch the very few vessels that proceed to firm enforcement.

 

There are sufficient blatant cases to mean it is not sensible to pursue the borderline ones yet.

 

 

I wouldn't argue with most of that, except -- like in the thread about criminals -- one thing that usually puts people off from doing something wrong is the certainty that they'll be caught bang to rights, rather than the penalty.

 

So I just don't see how having a much better/fairer tracking/detection system which is more difficult to evade or argue "it wasn't me, guv" can be a bad thing.

 

What to do afterwards is still a problem, but having more watertight proof of infringement must surely make prosecution easier?

 

And having much better detection and a more solid case ought to reduce the number of offenders, surely?

 

If we wait until a perfect solution comes up then we'll be waiting forever, because there isn't one... 😞

Edited July 8, 2023 by IanD

[magnetman]

Another approach would be to use drones for enforcement and require boat number to be written on top of the boat. 

 

Anyone not adhering to the norm can be taken out or given warnings. 

 

Dropping hand grenades would be one way of sorting this. One could use non functional but realistic hardware and the bang on the top of the boat followed by discovery of a 'grenade that failed to go awf' could help to psychologically shift bad actors (not Tom Cruise) towards are more compliant behaviour model. 

 

Other ones just blow them up. 

 

Then shoot them. Then cut their heads orf and display at locksides for to encourager les autres.