Report Unlicensed Boats!

[Jason Wilson and Family]

If we all just ignored the sheme it will fail by default.

 

What makes you think that is remotely possible?

 

there is no comparison between the historic fight to secure Voting Rights fo Women, and frustrating BW's faulted scheme to report alledged licence evaders, and if you think there is you have a very distorted understanding of political history.

Wrong both are acts of Civil Disobedience necessary because too many people follow the rules because they're the rules and not because it's the right thing to do.

[carlt]

No but I understand that now it ignores any entry from Carl's IP address!

Which one?

[Malarky]

Iwonder if you could send one of theseexample of virus on u tubeto their website?

[fuzzyduck]

It struck me that there might be some really fun games to play with this.

 

1. buy 1 small boat that is currently unlicenced, and buy for it a short term licence (from small local boatyard), moor it with STL displayed on the offside in a honeytrap spot (10 yards from Tom Crossley's mooring should suffice).

 

2. wait for "you aint got a licence" backlash

 

3. Sue BW for libel

 

4. ???????

 

5. Profit

Edited October 20, 2008 by fuzzyduck

[sueb]

Yes they do. Most patrol officers are pretty good at their job. The system falls down when the office staff get involved.

It is very difficult to take enforcement action against someone when they have no address and their name changes weekly, as does the ownership of the boat.

Sue

[homer2911]

I know it's been said already that this system has no objective purpose, as BW have a licensing database and hence know who has, and who hasn't got a licence. All this is going to achieve is to give the aforementioned busybodies the impression that they're justified.

 

 

 

Er, they may know which boats are licenced and which are not, but how can they know at all times where they are and therefore how to serve notices?

[alan_fincher]

Er, they may know which boats are licenced and which are not, but how can they know at all times where they are and therefore how to serve notices?

As I said in a previous post, they do record locations of boats on a regular basis, and it seems to be the case that most of the ones needing to be served with anything move very little.

 

Once they have shown any commitment to go after the ones that don't move, they could then turn their hand to the harder target of the (I believe much fewer) ones that do go any distance from "home".

 

We can have a BW man buzzing backwards and forwards all over the place to the locations that have just been reported, and maybe "ticketing" half a dozen boats. Or he could go on one well populated length of towpath, and "ticket" dozens in the same time-frame. (If he really wanted to, that is).

 

Which is the better use of time?

[sueb]

BW staff do their walk of the towpaths next month looking for unlicenced boats. They have also found moorings that haven't been paid for.

Sue

[Chertsey]

It struck me that there might be some really fun games to play with this.

 

1. buy 1 small boat that is currently unlicenced, and buy for it a short term licence (from small local boatyard), moor it with STL displayed on the offside in a honeytrap spot (10 yards from Tom Crossley's mooring should suffice).

 

2. wait for "you aint got a licence" backlash

 

3. Sue BW for libel

 

4. ???????

 

5. Profit

This works even if you buy your short term licence direct from BW and display it on the towpath side, as we discovered last summer. I think the plan might fail at number 3 though, as for it to be libel they have to state it publicly.

[carlt]

BW staff do their walk of the towpaths next month looking for unlicenced boats. They have also found moorings that haven't been paid for.

Sue

Making the snitchline a pointless expense.

[Triton]

Just a thought…..

 

It will cost BW absolutely nothing to just ‘ignore’ any reports sent to their web site.

 

It cost BW time and effort to have to answer phones to folk reporting unlicensed boats.

 

As has been noted before, BW are very well aware of all of the unlicensed boats on the system and where they are located. They gain nothing from their new web page except not having to answer some unnecessary phone calls.

[grahoom]

It will cost BW absolutely nothing to just ‘ignore’ any reports sent to their web site.

 

not really, they had to pay for the site to be built, and knowing how "public" sector seem to fork out a hell of a lot for IT, id quite like to know exactly how much they paid for the new snitch site.

[saltysplash]

not really, they had to pay for the site to be built, and knowing how "public" sector seem to fork out a hell of a lot for IT, id quite like to know exactly how much they paid for the new snitch site.

 

 

Agree

 

I'm not dressing it up in any way. I believe that using the public for unpaid enforcement is far worse than disrupting such a system.

 

I believe my actions are right, the Snitch-line is wrong.

 

You are welcome to your opinion but it is no more valid than mine.

 

 

Agree

 

I'm with Carl on this one

 

The system is divisive and can be disrupted as a matter of principle

 

 

And thrice agree...

[Triton]

not really, they had to pay for the site to be built, and knowing how "public" sector seem to fork out a hell of a lot for IT, id quite like to know exactly how much they paid for the new snitch site.

I would think that the site will pay for itself in a very short time if they receive fewer phone calls as a result.

 

I would also not expect the setting up of the additional pages would have cost them very much as much of the infrastructure already existed before they opened it up to the public. It is very likely based on their own internal checking and recording system – if they have any sense ????

[saltysplash]

I would think that the site will pay for itself in a very short time if they receive fewer phone calls as a result.

 

I would also not expect the setting up of the additional pages would have cost them very much as much of the infrastructure already existed before they opened it up to the public. It is very likely based on their own internal checking and recording system – if they have any sense ????

 

 

 

They will...or should, still need to forward the gleaned information to their ground bods, either by email or phone, and that means time wasted by wardens walking a length looking for a non existant boat

 

 

 

Id rather ave a lengths man/woman back on the case living in a lock cottage looking after their length and maintaining the same.....

[carlt]

Iif they have any sense ????

As this is British Waterways, being discussed, I believe this point answers your previous comments.

[magnetman]

Id rather ave a lengths man/woman back on the case living in a lock cottage looking after their length and maintaining the same.....

 

Easy to say that and it sounds like a nice idea but who would want to have a job which involved getting into bother with boaters? Helping to maintain a canal system would be a nice job for someone but dealing with problematic boats and their residents just isn't something you'd want to do, is it?

 

In the old days users of the canals were paying tolls. This means a well looked after canal and a lengthsman will help promote a good image. Lock closures will be short because time is money. Yearly payment of license fees is a bad system specially when most people don't use their boats year-round anyway.

Edited October 21, 2008 by magnetman

[carlt]

Easy to say that and it sounds like a nice idea but who would want to have a job which involved getting into bother with boaters? Helping to maintain a canal system would be a nice job for someone but dealing with problematic boats and their residents just isn't something you'd want to do, is it?

So we might as well scrap the police force and just rely on "concerned members of the public" for crime prevention.

 

We wouldn't want professional enforcement officers actually getting involved with "problematic" people, would we?

 

 

In the old days users of the canals were paying tolls. This means a well looked after canal and a lengthsman will help promote a good image. Lock closures will be short because time is money. Yearly payment of license fees is a bad system specially when most people don't use their boats year-round anyway.

I agree that a toll system would be far easier to police but it would also work out cheaper, for many boaters so BW wouldn't like that.

[grahoom]

Easy to say that and it sounds like a nice idea but who would want to have a job which involved getting into bother with boaters? Helping to maintain a canal system would be a nice job for someone but dealing with problematic boats and their residents just isn't something you'd want to do, is it?

 

But surely, they have Patrol Officers who are supposed to Patrol and deal with Problematic boaters... So they already have the people employed to do the work.

[saltysplash]

Easy to say that and it sounds like a nice idea but who would want to have a job which involved getting into bother with boaters? Helping to maintain a canal system would be a nice job for someone but dealing with problematic boats and their residents just isn't something you'd want to do, is it?

 

In the old days users of the canals were paying tolls. This means a well looked after canal and a lengthsman will help promote a good image. Lock closures will be short because time is money. Yearly payment of license fees is a bad system specially when most people don't use their boats year-round anyway.

 

 

Count me in Andy old chap....Ill chuck my job tomorrow for a change like that......Any length , looked after by a dedicated person would benefit the system in both maintainance and security 100 fold......the locals would know the face and if any bother arose would come to his/her assistance much more readily than they would the local Fuzz, Plus, visiting boats would return and also spread the word about the quality of that length.

[carlt]

Count me in Andy old chap....Ill chuck my job tomorrow for a change like that......Any length , looked after by a dedicated person would benefit the system in both maintainance and security 100 fold......the locals would know the face and if any bother arose would come to his/her assistance much more readily than they would the local Fuzz, Plus, visiting boats would return and also spread the word about the quality of that length.

Me too! I used to get paid to walk 10 miles of road a day, so a towpath would be far more pleasant.

 

We need a greater official presence, on the cut, rather than busybodies who just fill out their notebook and bleat about mooring in "bandit country".

 

If there were more uniformed officials tramping the towpath the "no go areas" may become a thing of the past.

[Malarky]

I have been unlucky, as the only policing I have expirienced, first hand, has been vendetta, vigilantie and conspiritorial, I presume thiese orientations would therefore be a big part of the motives of a system useing members of the public.

[US Marines]

Going back to lengthsmen - whether as BW employees or BW supported Volunteer Groups - is the ONLY sensible way forward....

 

No snitch lines, no mistrust, no confusion, just decent people looking after their 'own' section of the network, and someone knowledgeable and helpful to turn to when there is a problem.

 

It really is very easy....

 

 

 

 

....so why are BW making such a B*lls up of it ?

[Sir Nibble]

I have been unlucky, as the only policing I have expirienced, first hand, has been vendetta, vigilantie and conspiritorial, I presume thiese orientations would therefore be a big part of the motives of a system useing members of the public.

Clearly you have had some negative experiences to relate.

"Nature abhores a vacuum". In the absence of proper enforcement by whatever authority (police, local authorities, BW) there will be a degree of frustration engendered in those who percieve that there is widespread disregard of rules they consider important and worthwhile. Under those circumstances there will always be those who are willing to stand as some kind of Nemesis to the wrongdoer. I feel that there will only be a role for the "concerned citizen" in actual enforcement when those employed and empowered to carry out enforcement don't do the job for whatever reason. Setting up a scheme such as this is in my view an admission by BW that they are not up to doing the job the enabling legislation requires them to do.

[Triton]

They will...or should, still need to forward the gleaned information to their ground bods, either by email or phone, and that means time wasted by wardens walking a length looking for a non existant boat

 

Id rather ave a lengths man/woman back on the case living in a lock cottage looking after their length and maintaining the same.....

As I mentioned in my first post, I suspect that BW don’t do anything with the data entered by the public. Why would they when they already know about all of the boats on the system already – licensed and unlicensed. I believe it is just to make the ‘non-license’ reporters feel good in themselves.

 

I know a few of the BW employees (not sure of their titles these days) that walk their ‘length’ recording all of the boats they pass. They tell me that they have to check their length at least once every month. Many have now been issued with bicycles which are next to useless to them because of the state of the tow paths. Many that do the checking don’t do the enforcing, that is handled by a different team. So far, all of the BW length walkers I have met have been very nice people and are sympathetic with boat owners that do not have licenses because they have fallen on hard times (it could happen to any of us).

 

So, to re-cap, I believe the new reporting page will make life easier for the BW phone answering personnel and BW will do nothing with the data they receive from the web page as they already have it. The non-license reporters will feel good because they will believe they have ‘put the boot in’ to a non-license payer. All only my personal thoughts.