Report Unlicensed Boats!

[Jason Wilson and Family]

It's already happened, over here.

 

Well then you're a vicious lawbreaker and I applaud you for it my right honourable sir.

[alan_fincher]

I have just had a quick look at this site.

 

I could see no instructions or conditions there that made any attempt to restrict what data people enter into it, or anything that attempts to put an obligation on users of the site to only input "real" data.

 

As it currently stands, I can't see they would have a cat's chance in hell of taking action against people making "inaccurate" reports.

 

The supporters of this site all seem to thing it is better than nothing, and I still totally disagree.

 

Surely if everybody who has an unlicensed boat chose to report themselves, but to give their location as being at the other end of the country, such "data" could waste a great deal of time, if BW were actually to follow up every report made ?

[Jason Wilson and Family]

I could see no instructions or conditions there that made any attempt to restrict what data people enter into it, or anything that attempts to put an obligation on users of the site to only input "real" data.

 

Indeed it would be of no use if they required the data to be accurate. People would be less likely to enter information out of fear of being pursued for being mistaken.

[chris w]

Hopefully people will understand that everytime they use a site their IP address may be recorded, so anyone making a false statement could be identified if that's what BW chose to do.

 

Chris

[grahoom]

Hopefully people will understand that everytime they use a site their IP address may be recorded, so anyone making a false statement could be identified if that's what BW chose to do.

 

If BW are reluctant to prosecute people who don't stick the the CCing rules, then I very much doubt they will try and prosecute people for submitting data to their site. So even if they are (which they quite possibly are) storing IP addresses, I doubt BW will do anything about it.

[chris w]

If BW are reluctant to prosecute people who don't stick the the CCing rules, then I very much doubt they will try and prosecute people for submitting data to their site. So even if they are (which they quite possibly are) storing IP addresses, I doubt BW will do anything about it.

 

......................unless anyone knows differently

[carlt]

Hopefully people will understand that everytime they use a site their IP address may be recorded, so anyone making a false statement could be identified if that's what BW chose to do.

 

Chris

Emphasis on the "maybe", here. Certainly not, in my case.

 

Nobody is making a "false statement" btw.

[mayalld]

Ridiculous and impossible is it? Fine then how about this one?

 

If in the name of population control you were ordered to abort an unborn child would you do it?

 

Another impossible situation in the UK

 

It's only ridiculous to you Dave because you currently live in a society where the laws aren't that bad. You're too bloody narrowminded to see outside your little box to what could be and the future consequences of actions.

 

As for only commiting lawful protests, what happens when protesting is made against the law in the name of preserving peace?

 

You finally seem to be getting the point!

 

I live in a society where certain freedoms are entrenched.

 

As such, whilst government may do certain things that I dislike, it cannot go beyond that to the examples that you want to put up as straw men.

 

The point being that this is a complex relationship between individual and state. Centuries of development have left us in a situation where our government does not have unfettered power to dictate to us, but as a quid pro quo, we have to accept that we are bound by the laws that are created.

 

If BW are reluctant to prosecute people who don't stick the the CCing rules, then I very much doubt they will try and prosecute people for submitting data to their site. So even if they are (which they quite possibly are) storing IP addresses, I doubt BW will do anything about it.

 

I don't imagine for a moment that BW intend to press charges over false reports.

 

That doesn't alter the fact that feeding the database false data, knowing it to be false, is an offence.

 

We are back to the question of whether people should still obey the law if they can get away with breaking it.

[greywolf]

" If you see a boat that appears to be unlicensed and would like to check its status,"

 

It does not ask if you have seen the boat recently,and if the site does not show up numbers that have been long since scraped then it is the site that is at fault. If it shows a boat has not a license that in fact does have one is that not breaking the slander/libel laws especially if a vigilante element then chooses to harass the boater on the strength of this? Of course i know all the right thinking individuals on this forum would not stoop to such things.

 

Another thought is that the unlicensed boats could be BW way of helping them that have fallen on hard times.

[carlt]

The point being that this is a complex relationship between individual and state. Centuries of development have left us in a situation where our government does not have unfettered power to dictate to us, but as a quid pro quo, we have to accept that we are bound by the laws that are created.

Yes Dave.

 

I bet you didn't witness the Met, driving down a Yorkshire mining town high street, drumming their truncheons on the side of their van shouting "We're going to f**k your wives while you're on the picket line!" State sponsored terrorism....In good old Blighty.

[chris w]

Emphasis on the "maybe", here. Certainly not, in my case.

 

I didn't say "maybe"... I said "may be", there's a difference to those educated in English bro.

 

Nobody is making a "false statement" btw.

 

How do you know this - do you have access to thedatabase info? Otherwise you have no possible way of knowing what is being reported. It's obvious there are a number of ways to "falsify" the data input.

Edited October 23, 2008 by chris w

[carlt]

We are back to the question of whether people should still obey the law if they can get away with breaking it.

If I have (unknowingly) broken the law, it is not because I think I can get away with it.

 

I have openly said that, if I am successfully prosecuted for breaking a law then I will take my punishment and not complain.

 

I have stated on this forum that I will go to prison, rather than carry an id card and I was perfectly happy to go to prison for non-payment of the poll-tax (the govt. bottled it, before I did).

 

I also repeatedly disabled my water meter because, unlike many people, I believed that I, as a single man in a small cottage, should pay the same for the access to water, as the (theoretical) family with four kids, across the road.

 

All of these protests (or possible law breaking actions) were done, not because I thought I'd get away with it but because I thought I wouldn't.

 

I didn't say "maybe"... I said "may be", there's a difference to those educated in English bro.

 

 

 

How do you know this - do you have access to thedatabase info? Otherwise you have no possible way of knowing what is being reported. It's obvious there are a number of ways to "falsify" the data input.

You actually said "could be" my error was merely a a typo.

 

"I have made no false statements." is what I should have said, perhaps but I believe that nobody is making any actual "statement", true or false, to this snitchsite.

[chris w]

.................as a single man in a small cottage

 

Now I understand why

 

 

You actually said "could be" my error was merely a a typo.

 

Nope.......................... "everytime they use a site their IP address may be recorded"

[mayalld]

Yes Dave.

 

I bet you didn't witness the Met, driving down a Yorkshire mining town high street, drumming their truncheons on the side of their van shouting "We're going to f**k your wives while you're on the picket line!" State sponsored terrorism....In good old Blighty.

 

No, I didn't witness it.

 

We clearly aren't going to have the same view of King Arthur's little escapade.

 

Yes, the police behaved badly, but they didn't drop concrete blocks onto cars

[carlt]

Now I understand why

At the time, I was single (were you born married) I am no longer.

[Chris Pink]

Surely if everybody who has an unlicensed boat chose to report themselves, but to give their location as being at the other end of the country, such "data" could waste a great deal of time, if BW were actually to follow up every report made ?

 

now there's a good idea

[chris w]

At the time, I was single (were you born married) I am no longer.

 

Yep, I was born married with three kids and a mortgage and a socialist government. And you think you have had a tough life.

[carlt]

Yep, I was born married with three kids and a mortgage and a socialist government. And you think you have had a tough life.

Chris I don't have a tough life, at all.

[US Marines]

For those that are interested, I flounced off earlier and contacted Jane Thomson of BW to ask her about where the licence money goes.

 

I've now heard back from her and started a new thread giving her response:

 

Where Recovered Licence Fees Go

[chris w]

For those that are interested, I flounced off earlier...............

 

A marine "flouncing", whatever next...........

[Chertsey]

I live in a society where certain freedoms are entrenched.

I wish I could have your confidence.

 

Out of interest, which freedoms are 'entrenched' in our society?

[US Marines]

A marine "flouncing", whatever next...........

You've not seen anything yet...

 

Harumph....

 

[in unison]

 

'Out on the winding, windy moors

We'd roll and fall in green...'

 

 

 

 

Tickets for the next talent night are on sale in the unStable Bar (50p each but bring your own spoon)

 

And yes, we will be doing the dance....

 

 

[you don't believe us do you ?]

[Jason Wilson and Family]

Another impossible situation in the UK

 

I live in a society where certain freedoms are entrenched.

 

Utter bullshit. Freedoms are only entrenched as long as people are willing to fight for them, something you seem completely unwilling to do.

 

You live in a society with more cameras watching its people than anywhere else, you live in a society which is actively encouraging spying on your neighbours, you live in a society where your right to protest has been revoked or at least limited. Even I'm old enough to know this wasn't always the way, so what happened to your entrenched freedoms, Dave?

 

The point being that this is a complex relationship between individual and state. Centuries of development have left us in a situation where our government does not have unfettered power to dictate to us, but as a quid pro quo, we have to accept that we are bound by the laws that are created.

 

If you accept that you are bound by your government's rules then the government does have unfettered power to dictate. If you won't object, unlawfully if need be, to a law, then what stops them from passing what they please.

Edited October 23, 2008 by Jason Wilson and Family

[mayalld]

Utter bullshit. Freedoms are only entrenched as long as people are willing to fight for them, something you seem completely unwilling to do.

 

You live in a society with more cameras watching its people than anywhere else, you live in a society which is actively encouraging spying on your neighbours, you live in a society where your right to protest has been revoked or at least limited. Even I'm old enough to know this wasn't always the way, so what happened to your entrenched freedoms, Dave?

 

An unfettered right to protest was never an entrenched freedom.

 

Freedoms are entrenched, not because people are willing to fight for them, but because of the delicate constitutional balance that exists in this society

 

If you accept that you are bound by your government's rules then the government does have unfettered power to dictate. If you won't object, unlawfully if need be, to a law, then what stops them from passing what they please.

 

What utter drivel.

 

I accept that I am bound by the rules, because it is a prerequisite of a civilised society that people can't pick and choose which rules they accept.

 

I accept the rules, because I know that the flip-side to everybody accepting the rules is that government accepts that it cannot create any rule that they choose.

 

It is known as Checks and Balances.

[Chertsey]

Freedoms are entrenched, not because people are willing to fight for them, but because of the delicate constitutional balance that exists in this society

 

Which freedoms are entrenched, and how?