Report Unlicensed Boats!

[grahoom]

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.

 

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.

 

but that's presuming that people will use the site rather than phone to inform on un-licences boats? I'd probably hazard that people interested in Boating (or the canals etc) don't have a high proportion that use the internet on a regular basis, and will quite possibly feel it's easier to pick up a phone to report a boat than turn their computer on, find the web-site, and then fill out a form.... but I am guessing.

 

so - still a waste of money... a publicity stunt that is divisive; doesn't solve the problem of un-licenced boats

[Triton]

so - still a waste of money... a publicity stunt that is divisive; doesn't solve the problem of un-licenced boats

This is the bit I struggle with – I don’t believe it would have cost them much (if anything at all) to implement the few new pages and enable the public to gain access to them.

 

I suspect that BW have their own IT team and when they are not busy updating the stoppages page they could quite easily have knocked up the un-licensed reporting page.

[carlt]

This is the bit I struggle with – I don’t believe it would have cost them much (if anything at all) to implement the few new pages and enable the public to gain access to them.

 

I suspect that BW have their own IT team and when they are not busy updating the stoppages page they could quite easily have knocked up the un-licensed reporting page.

Having witnessed civil service IT people despair at the rubbish produced, when the work is contracted out and then left for them to pick up the pieces (and take the flak), I'm not sure you're right, in assuming that BW did this, in-house.

[grahoom]

This is the bit I struggle with – I don’t believe it would have cost them much (if anything at all) to implement the few new pages and enable the public to gain access to them.

 

I suspect that BW have their own IT team and when they are not busy updating the stoppages page they could quite easily have knocked up the un-licensed reporting page.

 

The thing is it isn't just them "knocking" up a web-site - they've also invested in Logo's for the Licence it or Lose it campaign, publications, (adverts and the likes).

 

So what you believe to cost (if anything at all) has probably cost them a lot more than you'd expect.

 

It would have taken them a long time to "brain storming" (actually I think you supposed to use the term thought showers) to come up with the catchy Licence it or Lose it - phrase, quite possibly employing some external agencies for this. Then it quite possibly would have cost them a bit more for an agency to design the "logo".

 

It would then have taken them time to probably integrate the Database they currently hold so that it works with the web site, and then the development time for their IT team to work on the site (or they just knocked it up in their spare time....)

 

It's quite amazing how much costs creep in IT - especially when quite a few people are involved.

 

But I'll stand corrected. After all it could have cost them nothing (but I very much doubt that)

Edited October 21, 2008 by grahoom

[sueb]

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 ?

Because BW don't want anyone working for them on the ground who know what they are doing. It shows the management up. Colin at Frankton had his job advertised before he was told he was to be moved.

Sue

[mayalld]

Do you even have to ask?

 

Dave, you're making it abundently clear what sort of person you are but I'll give you benefit of doubt for a little while longer.

 

If you had been a black man in the US would you have sold out Martin Luther King because he wasn't following the rules?

If you had been a german during WWII would you have thrown bricks through Jewish shop windows because that's what you were told to do?

 

Godwins Law!

 

My understanding of political history is fine, David.

 

I'm not about to throw myself under a race horse, so the level of the protest will match the level of the injustice.

 

The question wasn't directed at you, David, but Dave Mayall, who believes one should do nothing, despite feeling strongly that something is wrong.

 

I don't suggest that you should do nothing.

 

You should feel free to voice your views of the system, and argue your views eloquently (as you usually do, when we are on opposite ends of an argument).

 

If after everybody has argued their case, people start to share your views rather than share mine, all well and good.

 

What you seem to be suggesting is that instead of trying to bring opinion round to your POV, you consider it appropriate to use underhand tactics to ensure that your view prevails, regardless of the support that it has.

[carlt]

Quirk's exception!

[mayalld]

Quirk's exception!

 

Quirk's Exception only applies where somebody deliberately mentioned the Nazis in an attempt to curtail discussion.

 

That doesn't apply here

[carlt]

I don't suggest that you should do nothing.

 

You should feel free to voice your views of the system, and argue your views eloquently (as you usually do, when we are on opposite ends of an argument).

 

If after everybody has argued their case, people start to share your views rather than share mine, all well and good.

 

What you seem to be suggesting is that instead of trying to bring opinion round to your POV, you consider it appropriate to use underhand tactics to ensure that your view prevails, regardless of the support that it has.

If I, personally, feel strongly enough about an issue then I am quite willing to protest unilaterally.

 

My actions, outside of this forum, are not based on their popularity, within it.

 

I'm not taking a straw poll and then deciding on a course of action....one far less underhand than the thing I'm protesting about. Iam merely saying what action I am taking, to disrupt the underhand tactics that BW are employing.

 

 

Quirk's Exception only applies where somebody deliberately mentioned the Nazis in an attempt to curtail discussion.

 

That doesn't apply here

On the contrary. You weren't being likened to a Nazi, therefore Godwin's Law doesn't apply.

[mayalld]

On the contrary. You weren't being likened to a Nazi, therefore Godwin's Law doesn't apply.

 

That isn't neccessary.

 

It is merely necessary that a comparison is drawn to the Nazis, not that one calls one's adversary a Nazi.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin%27s_law may assist you

[carlt]

That isn't neccessary.

 

It is merely necessary that a comparison is drawn to the Nazis, not that one calls one's adversary a Nazi.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin%27s_law may assist you

Only if that comparison is inappropriate.

 

His question was no more inappropriate than the curtain-twitchers defence "if you saw an old lady being mugged, would you report it."

 

Jason was merely trying to establish at what point you would say "Enough!" and protest at injustice.

[Jason Wilson and Family]

Quirk's Exception only applies where somebody deliberately mentioned the Nazis in an attempt to curtail discussion.

 

That doesn't apply here

 

You invoked Godwin's Law then ceased discussion of the topic, how does it not apply?

[mayalld]

Only if that comparison is inappropriate.

 

His question was no more inappropriate than the curtain-twitchers defence "if you saw an old lady being mugged, would you report it."

 

Jason was merely trying to establish at what point you would say "Enough!" and protest at injustice.

 

So, you claim that the comparison to the Nazis was appropriate?

 

You invoked Godwin's Law then ceased discussion of the topic, how does it not apply?

 

I invoked Godwin's Law, after you made a very silly comparison with the Nazis.

 

Quirk's Exception only applies if you made the nazi analogy in a deliberate attempt to terminate the discussion

[carlt]

So, you claim that the comparison to the Nazis was appropriate?

It wasn't a comparison to the Nazis, it was asking if you would protest and try to disrupt other, more extreme, forms of state injustice.

 

You are obviously running out of steam, with your argument, Dave.

 

You've inappropriately invoked Godwin's law in order to avoid answering Jason's question...

 

Is there a point at which you would actively protest against something which you felt was unjust?

 

Hmmm. A question of degree, surely. Would you refuse to "snitch" on a paedophile? An arsonist? A neighbour harassing another, perhaps vulnerable, neighbour? Would someone doing this be public-spirited, or would they too be mean-spirited? And what if it was your child or grandmother being targeted, or your boat being burned - would that change your opinion?

 

I was quite happy to answer this question, without hiding behind "Godwin's Law" despite the comparison of a Paedophile being just as extreme as a German throwing stones through a Jew's window.

Edited October 21, 2008 by carlt

[ditch paddler]

If I, personally, feel strongly enough about an issue then I am quite willing to protest unilaterally.

 

My actions, outside of this forum, are not based on their popularity, within it.

 

I'm not taking a straw poll and then deciding on a course of action....one far less underhand than the thing I'm protesting about. Iam merely saying what action I am taking, to disrupt the underhand tactics that BW are employing.

 

 

 

On the contrary. You weren't being likened to a Nazi, therefore Godwin's Law doesn't apply.

Once again obviously Carlt just uses this site as some kind of social networking site and really has nothing of paticular interest to add other than he is right so sod you.

[grahoom]

Once again obviously Carlt just uses this site as some kind of social networking site and really has nothing of paticular interest to add other than he is right so sod you.

I thought - in principle, a discussion forum is "some kind of social networking site" ?

[carlt]

Once again obviously Carlt just uses this site as some kind of social networking site and really has nothing of paticular interest to add other than he is right so sod you.

On the contrary. You are free to disagree with me, and debate the point.

 

Slinging insults about isn't really adding to the debate and is hardly going to change my mind.

[mayalld]

Dave, you're making it abundently clear what sort of person you are but I'll give you benefit of doubt for a little while longer.

 

Indeed I am making it clear.

 

I am the sort of person who doesn't hold with others granting themselves an exemption from paying their way in society.

 

I am the sort of person who will stand fast to his principles of right and wrong even if others try to whip up the mob with their pitchforks.

 

If you had been a black man in the US would you have sold out Martin Luther King because he wasn't following the rules?

 

I regret that I am not sufficiently informed about the situation then to comment properly. If laws were being broken, I very much doubt I would have been a participant.

 

If you had been a german during WWII would you have thrown bricks through Jewish shop windows because that's what you were told to do?

 

I'm not German, and wasn't born until many years later. Were there rules mandating the throwing of bricks?

 

You seem to give no thought to whether what the rulemakers are doing is immoral, or just, you just say "That's the rules" and get on with it.

 

Au contraire. I see nothing immoral about reporting a criminal act.

 

What carl is doing is known as civil disobedience and is perfectly called for in this situation.

 

I disagree.

[carlt]

I disagree.

But still you won't answer the question...Is there a point at which you will say "Enough!" and protest at what you see as a state-endorsed injustice?

[tidal]

What carl is doing is known as civil disobedience

 

I totally agree, there are far more uncivil ways of dealing with the website, some of which are actually illegal, and some merely highly annoying........but effective.

 

I would provide a short list of effective methods but will not cause both the moderators and the forum the resultant grief.

 

And of course I would strongly advise against the use of such methods

[greywolf]

I suppose it may be time to say that all authoritarian societies be they communist or dictatorship did use a fair amount of community spying to keep the populace in check.People must do as they see fit personally i would not use such a site.We had one set up at our works for if you suspected somebody was stealing. :lol:

[Malarky]

Indeed I am making it clear.

 

Au contraire. I see nothing immoral about reporting a criminal act.

 

Indeed I am making it clear.

 

Although we all enjoy differing opinions, thankfully,

this licencing issue has nothing to do with criminal acts.

[chris w]

......................Mornington Crescent.

[Malarky]

......................Mornington Crescent.

 

Eh?

Tudor Court Rules!

[chris w]

Eh?

Tudor Court Rules!

B*gger, you're absolutely correct, so................. The Strand (get out of that clever move)