Report Unlicensed Boats!

[carlt]

But after reading his diatribe, one can now more easily appreciate why possibly he was selected for redundancy!

Missed out his false Oxbridge claim though, eh Chris.

 

See, if you had had that Oxbridge education you would know the difference.

[Boats in the head]

Well as a newby to the system , I cant see the problem here. If no one paid we would not have a water way Looks like money is needed across all our waterways , so how should we pay for this? If an owner has not paid his fees good chance he has no insurance either..... that puts your home at risk

 

I can can see a need to help out folk who are less well off, and may be a rebate could be sorted to help ?

 

The other point is that if no one paid, the system would soon clog up with rotting hulls and broken equipment The wonderfull life style would soon be gone . Im more intrested in how the money is spent than not paying Also if we keep our eyes open for fee dodgers then BW can spend the cash that they save on somthing that the rest of us need Like open canals

 

No one likes telling on some one else , but as a victim of a car driver with no insurance ..,,,,, make you wonder

[carlt]

Also if we keep our eyes open for fee dodgers then BW can spend the cash that they save on somthing that the rest of us need Like open canals

Do you really think that this will reduce the number of patrol officers? They will just spend more time checking up on busybody reports and less time patrolling.

 

As the ones who are most hysterical about someone getting away with nothing are often the ones ranting about bandits and "no-go" areas I'd have thought they would be opposed to something that will result in less official bankside presence, not more.

 

The answer to the unlicensed boats "problem" is not to set up a snitch site but to get patrol officers walking their patch. I, personally, believe they already are doing their job, so the snitch site is merely an expensive publicity stunt (and an entertaining game).

 

Perhaps the true answer to getting the billions of pounds the licence dodgers are depriving the public purse of is the same one the govt have come up with to fund the £500 billion bail-out of the banks and their criminal activities....PRINT MORE MONEY!

[mayalld]

111111 comes up as unlicensed boat too, having time on my hands i have tried 000000 thru to 777777 and none of them are recognised

 

i guess it must be wonky programming?

 

Why must it be wonky programming?

 

111111 is a perfectly valid licence number

 

MAPLE SAPPHIRE - Length 3.67 metres (12 feet ) - Beam 1.53 metres (5 feet ) Fibre glass hull power of 10. Registered with British Waterways number 111111 as a Powered.

 

BW has issued 6-digit registrations in the 1xxxxx (mainly fibreglass hulls) and 5xxxxx (everything else) series since about 2000

[fender]

The answer to the unlicensed boats "problem" is not to set up a snitch site but to get patrol officers walking their patch. I, personally, believe they already are doing their job, so the snitch site is merely an expensive publicity stunt (and an entertaining game).

 

Perhaps the true answer to getting the billions of pounds the licence dodgers are depriving the public purse of is the same one the govt have come up with to fund the £500 billion bail-out of the banks and their criminal activities....PRINT MORE MONEY!

 

 

The snitch site merely pampers to those already well off and able to pay for a licence.

 

Printing more money only encourages the well-off and the rich, to be even more reckless in their spening habits.

Edited October 17, 2008 by fender

[carlt]

The snitch site merely pampers to those already well off and able to pay for a licence.

But I think the majority of people whose boats are licensed have no interest in other people's business and are too busy enjoying the scenery to note whether someone elses boat is displaying its disc, or not.

 

I believe it panders to a sad minority of people who really wouldn't figure on BW's radar, if it wasn't for their vociferous rantings.

 

Printing more money only encourages the well-off and the rich, to be even more reckless in their spening habits.

I was being tongue in cheek, again, highlighting the insignificant effect, a few hundred unlicenced boats has on the public purse.

 

Even the £10billion, wasted on the olympics, pales into insignificance.

Edited October 17, 2008 by carlt

[denboy]

But I think the majority of people whose boats are licensed have no interest in other people's business and are too busy enjoying the scenery to note whether someone elses boat is displaying its disc, or not.

 

I believe it panders to a sad minority of people who really wouldn't figure on BW's radar, if it wasn't for their vociferous rantings.

 

 

I was being tongue in cheek, again, highlighting the insignificant effect, a few hundred unlicenced boats has on the public purse.

 

Even the £10billion, wasted on the olympics, pales into insignificance.

and already the tax payers are having to bail the Olympic building program out of the sh*t

[RLWP]

Have you got them with you ? Right, take two now with a glass of water and then go and lie down in a darkened room for a while...you'll be feeling much more human in the morning, I'm sure....

 

I'm not.

 

Richard

[Malarky]

Honestly, I have to ask why any of you are paying your license. You're paying with the expectation that services are going to be rendered. It's abundantly clear that, though services are eventually being rendered, they're either late, botched, done with waste or not asked for. On top of that the people who are horribly mismanaging your waterways are taking a fat slice off the top for themselves. So what are you paying for? Floating? A bit of dirt to tie up to? You can't guarantee facilities will be available or in working order. Last I checked no one has to pay to keep the buoyancy turned on. No one has to pay for the bit of dirt.

 

BW either can't or won't reliably hold up their end of the bargain, from what I've seen, why are you still paying them?

 

If I hired someone to mow my lawn and they didn't they wouldn't get paid.

If I hired someone to fix my car and they used duct tape, they wouldn't get paid.

If I hired someone to install a door in my house but it wasn't use-able, they wouldn't get paid.

 

It seems pretty simple. Or am I just thinking properly again

 

 

Someone call for a beaver, that stick is in there deep.

Some people not only pay them, but also liase with them to destroy other peoples lives to get their moorings and property.

(Please forgive me for harping on about this, but they are terrorists and thieves and need to be "brought to justice")

Could this reporting not only occur to remove established communities with their foot in the door; as they are more difficult to have their fees increased whenever; as they have not made any agreements with BWB,but also to get their moorings.

Could BWB be leaving some of the unlicenced boats to push the boundrys, and establish more moorings in contentuous places, and then charge them later by offering a discount in the form of monies saved whilst unlicenced. Anyone not playing the game though would be sorely punished! Surely I can't be the only person on the forum to wtiness this kind of behaviour!

[mayalld]

Whilst looking for something on Jim Sheads site I entered 000001 and got nothing but entered 1 and got "City of Gloucester" ( a former Bw Chief Executives boat) and 2 was "Douglass" a 15ft x 0.01 metre beam (maybe someone has licenced a plank ?) . Both are shown as licenced on Jims site but I havent checked them on the Bw site.

 

Douglass is actually number 200, not 2

 

AFAIK, all 1-4 digit numbers, with the exception of the vanity registration of City of Gloucester, were for unpowered craft (usually meaning canoes and rowing boats).

[Hobbler]

The answer to the unlicensed boats "problem" is not to set up a snitch site but to get patrol officers walking their patch. I, personally, believe they already are doing their job,

 

We had our monthly visit from the patrol officer today - quite why he has been told by his senior management to check licences in a basin EVERY MONTH where the boats dont move as they are all on official static residential moorings , or under long term rebuild and all have current licences (most of which expire in 2009) is a complete mystery .

 

It would be better if his time was spent out on the towpath pursuing non payers and continuous moorers and not looking at legal and law abiding craft .

[saltysplash]

I dont really like the reporting business, not least because I dont ever know the full story. I have noticed a boat seriously overstaying on a seriously lovely mooring near where I am at the moment. I was getting quite up tight about the whole thing and decided that if BW moved me on, I would tell them where to go, and tell them I wasn't listening until they sorted out the other problem moorers in the area. Why should I abide, when no-one else does.

 

A few days passed, and it turns out the boat I was livid about is the home to someone currently dying. I dont think I would have felt particularly proud of myself for heaping more trouble onto the guy. It is between him and BW, not me.

 

Of course, lots of people would say, well one ought not overstay regardless of the excuses. This might be true, but I am not the sort of person who likes to make other peoples lives more complicated than necessary. If people like me complain BW have to do something about it, if they dont complain, then BW dont. If BW are that worried about people overstaying or whatever, then they should employ people to sort it out. It is their job, not mine.

 

Having overstayed for a long period of time in one place, I appreciate the leniency that BW offer. When I did overstay, the only reason I had a licence was because the boat I was on had one. I wouldn't have been able to pay for it had the renewal come up, but by the time it did come up I was able to. That was chance, and I am eternally grateful that my 'neighbours' didn't go about making my life any harder than it already was.

 

 

1st post ive read so far that has some human feeling and relevence,

 

Thanks Bones

[saltysplash]

We had our monthly visit from the patrol officer today - quite why he has been told by his senior management to check licences in a basin EVERY MONTH where the boats dont move as they are all on official static residential moorings , or under long term rebuild and all have current licences (most of which expire in 2009) is a complete mystery .

 

It would be better if his time was spent out on the towpath pursuing non payers and continuous moorers and not looking at legal and law abiding craft .

 

 

The local volunteer patrol officer for the Slough Arm was met at the Slough canal festival a few weeks ago.....she suggested to us any probs should be reported to BW!!! when asked what she thinks when she walks the length? she replied, "oh I dont walk the tow path, its too scary"

 

Quite right too.....let some one else do it and you sit there in your corporate jumper looking important at gatherings.

[carlt]

The local volunteer patrol officer

 

Do they wear brown shirts?

[fuzzyduck]

Is she at least a decorative wench?

[saltysplash]

You and a hard core of members clocking up 6/9 posts a day are spoiling it for everyone else and when you don't see others genuine points of view you resort to insults frightening off real members as this thread shows.

 

 

 

6-9 posts a day!!!!!!! blimey.......such active involvment on a different forum would be sure to attract a warning!

 

Do they wear brown shirts?

 

 

Corporate Green was the order of the day

 

Is she at least a decorative wench?

 

 

I wouldntve said no.....but then thats no recomendation

[Tiny]

Douglass is actually number 200, not 2

 

AFAIK, all 1-4 digit numbers, with the exception of the vanity registration of City of Gloucester, were for unpowered craft (usually meaning canoes and rowing boats).

 

 

And is it a boat or a misprint? (Douglas not the vanity job.)

Edited October 17, 2008 by Tiny

[mayalld]

And is it a boat or a misprint? (Douglas not the vanity job.)

The figures that they hold for beam are often wrong!

 

I know of a few people who will get a shock if/when they start charging wider boats more, because their beam is recorded wrongly

[sueb]

The local volunteer patrol officer for the Slough Arm was met at the Slough canal festival a few weeks ago.....she suggested to us any probs should be reported to BW!!! when asked what she thinks when she walks the length? she replied, "oh I dont walk the tow path, its too scary"

 

Quite right too.....let some one else do it and you sit there in your corporate jumper looking important at gatherings.

Ah the joys of volunteers, they don't have to do anything.

Sue

[topcatm]

I contacted BW about many hire narrowboats sailing on the Stratford Canal without licences on the 23 September and 29th September. They told me the local Officer would contact me shortly. I am STILL waiting!!!!

Edited October 18, 2008 by topcatm

[Sam]

I will deffo be partaking in this.

I can't believe some of the reactions from members on this forum. Do you all have something to hide?

Edited October 19, 2008 by Sam

[alan_fincher]

I will deffo be partaking in this.

I can't believe some of the reactions from members on this forum. Do you all have something to hide?

Sam,

 

I'll ask you the same question as I have everybody else.

 

If BW know from regular audits what boats are on the system, and definitely know which are licenced, why is you repeating that information to them going to change the action they take (or don't take) on the matter.

 

I really don't understand why this "initiative" is anything other than a smokescreen.

[Chertsey]

I will deffo be partaking in this.

I can't believe some of the reactions from members on this forum. Do you all have something to hide?

Why? Because some object to being used as unpaid patrol officers, and others have concerns about what it does to society if everyone is seen as a potential snooper? And some just think it's a gimmick. What does that suggest anyone has to hide?

Edited October 18, 2008 by WarriorWoman

[Malarky]

I will deffo be partaking in this.

I can't believe some of the reactions from members on this forum. Do you all have something to hide?

Respectable!

[US Marines]

Do you all have something to hide?

Can't speak for everyone but we certainly have a few skellingtons in the cupboard.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[them were the larst lot of snoopers we ad round ere]

Edited October 18, 2008 by US Marines