Unlicensed craft

[fuzzyduck]

Eugene?

 

is the unlicenced boats problem "statistically increasing, or decreasing"?

 

I could FOIA you for the stats, but i figure rough ones would be enough.

[Eugene Baston]

Eugene?

 

is the unlicenced boats problem "statistically increasing, or decreasing"?

 

I could FOIA you for the stats, but i figure rough ones would be enough.

 

Fuzzyduck

 

I hate the phrase, but do bear with me. I've selected no less than 35 comments from this thread that I think deserve an answer to you lot for raising them in the first place. But this will obviously take a little time to compile. You'll be pleased to note the request above is included!

 

I do want to address one comment made already by John Orentas:

 

They also sent a leaflet 'Renew Online' www.watrerscape.com/renewal. It doesn't work, why am I not surprised.

 

Since 1 January renewals online have worked perfectly well, with no downtime experienced. At the risk of sticking my head above the parapet again against John who fails to respond to any comment I make back to him on his postings, could I possibly suggest you've made an error? You certainly did in the URL you provided. (And for the record, the leaflet text has been checked and it correctly reads www.waterscape.com).

 

Eugene

[John Orentas]

Eugene.

 

I have just spent 15 minutes trying to get on to www.waterscape.com/renewal. I have finally managed it, why is it only accessible through the Google search engine. I am very far from being a computer wizard but I can usually find even an obscure address with very little trouble. Why is your site only accessible through that one search engine.

[dor]

Just tried putting www.waterscape.com/renewal into my URL bar.

 

Came up straight away.

 

Using firefox 1.5.0.1

[Moley]

Eugene.

 

I have just spent 15 minutes trying to get on to www.waterscape.com/renewal. I have finally managed it, why is it only accessible through the Google search engine. I am very far from being a computer wizard but I can usually find even an obscure address with very little trouble. Why is your site only accessible through that one search engine.

 

Sorry John, I got onto it first try, and that's on a Mac running Internet Explorer 5.0

 

I can't use the facility as our mooring location differs from the information on our renewal notice, so I have to send by post, but it looks like the system works.

 

Ade.

[DHutch]

https://www.waterscape.com/renewal/

 

I dont have a leicence or renewal number, but the initail page certainly works fine for me

- apart from the fact there are non-secure item on the (secure) page so you get a dialog box asking if you want to view the non-secure parts.

 

Why is your site only accessible through that one search engine.

As i said, work fine for my john.

- Are you really quite sure your not trying to use www.watrerscape.com/renewal !

 

 

Daniel

Edited February 9, 2006 by dhutch

[Big John]

I have just spent 15 minutes trying to get on to www.waterscape.com/renewal. I have finally managed it, why is it only accessible through the Google search engine.

Hi John,

No problem here. The page you need is actually https://www.waterscape.com/renewal. Internet Exporer 6 and Mozilla Firefox 1.05 both change www.waterscape.com/renewal to that address automatically. Do you use either of those browsers? Also, that page is part secure, part non-secure, but I don't find that a problem. Also make sure the address has forward slash: / not a \

[DHutch]

Its also fine on Opera (8) - which is nice.

Edited February 9, 2006 by dhutch

[John Orentas]

Quote:

 

"As i said, work fine for my john.

- Are you really quite sure your not trying to use www.watrerscape.com/renewal".

 

Daniel.

 

That is exactly what I was trying to use, as detailed on the little leaflet sent by BW with the reminder.

 

You'll be done in minutes, it proclaims.

 

Surely the point is the facility is for the use of all boat owners, the average member on this forum will tend to be particularly computer literate.

 

The average boatowner would not know that the prefix https:// should be used and the last time I came up against a Mozilla Firefox I got rabies off it.

Edited February 9, 2006 by John Orentas

[fuzzyduck]

the last time I came up against a Mozilla Firefox I got rabies off it.

 

Thats because you were using the spanish version, there's no rabies in the UK

[Richard Fairhurst]

- Are you really quite sure your not trying to use www.watrerscape.com/renewal".

That is exactly what I was trying to use, as detailed on the little leaflet sent by BW with the reminder.

It doesn't say watrerscape on the leaflet. I'm fairly sure about that because I laid out that leaflet in a previous life!

 

I have just spent 15 minutes trying to get on to www.waterscape.com/renewal. I have finally managed it, why is it only accessible through the Google search engine.

To have something "only accessible through the Google search engine" is more or less impossible. (Note to techies - yes, I do know about the referer header. )

 

The average boatowner would not know that the prefix https:// should be used and the last time I came up against a Mozilla Firefox I got rabies off it.

The prefix doesn't need to be used. The computer redirects to that accordingly.

 

Works 100% fine for me here on Internet Explorer, Apple Safari and Mozilla Firefox. Are you sure you're using a computer and not, say, an electric toothbrush?

 

Richard

[gringogordo]

Sorry John, I got onto it first try, and that's on a Mac running Internet Explorer 5.0

 

I can't use the facility as our mooring location differs from the information on our renewal notice, so I have to send by post, but it looks like the system works.

 

Ade.

 

I renewed online in December 1995. Although I am using a work LAN so its a good speed connection.

 

Just got on to site no problem.

[DHutch]

I think its good, there are a loarg number of boats who are computer litterate enough to use that (really very simple) site, including me, and bascialy everyone else on this site.

- And i seams to work 100% first time for eveyone, except john, who it did work for after a few attemts.

- And we now going massivly off topic.

 

So can we just move on now and get back to the issuse of Unlicensed craft?

- Maybe you could split the last 6/7 posts of into a sepreate topic john please.

 

 

Daniel

[alan_fincher]

No issues at all getting to page

 

www.waterscape.com/renewal

 

with boring old Internet Explorer, (as stated it takes care of the "https" for you, or it least it does on my XP machine).

 

Can't go any futher than that, as I don't have renewal details, but looks like it would work fine.

 

Can also find it easily navigating from the

 

www.waterscape.com

 

home page.

 

I'm the first to bash BW if I feel it's justified, but I'd add that when we bought out boat last year, I made a postal application for the licence rewnewal, (it was just expiring), along with an ownership change, and had everything back without problems in well under a week.

 

I'm sure people do have problems, but clearly sometimes the system works fine.

[Liam]

I'd just like to add that the re-direction from the plain old http:// to https:// takes place on the server, and not locally on the client (your PC and web browser).

 

It will only NOT work, if you're running an outdated operating system or web browser which doesn't support the secure HTTP protocol.

[Khayamanzi]

Personally I feel I have un-earthed a much more fundamental problem than that of unlicenced craft: the tragedy of a society which believes that upholding the law is of hugely less importance than our personal dreams of 'living the good life' and that we, as individuals, are of more importance than the laws we are subject to.

 

The minute we decide which laws we wish to follow and which we don't, we not only make judgements that we are unqualified to make but we end up with the type of society that many of us are taking to the waterways to escape from!

 

I apologise if I have offended anyone by my 'black and white' thinking but do feel the regulations are clear; the one criticism we can't levvy at BW is that of not making this position plain. I am interested in Eugene's reply to the question from Fuzzy regarding the statistics, however a regular following in the waterway press, (together with the knowledge of anyone else who has a degree involving statistical analysis,) reveals their position clearly, together with their expertise in 'spin'. I would still appreciate a boaters opinion together with 'first hand' evidence from those who cruise and see the 'front line' problem. Please, at the risk of making myself sound boring, may I clarify yet again my position. I am not wishing to police the situation in the slightest, (so those of you who have made your positions clear but your comments, are completely safe!) I merely wish to test the BW statements and see if they match up with my perception of the reality - as I suspect they don't. The problem is, as yet I have no evidence to challenge them with. To con a phrase from business, this is merely a fact-finding exercise and ANYONE who suggests I am policing, sticking my nose in, interfering or any other phrase you choose to use, are clearly not reading this thread correctly.

[fuzzyduck]

the problem with this as a fact finding mission is that in the summer if we were all out helping you out, the same boat may get logged 10 times thus grossly exaggerating your figures.

 

for you to be able to identify boats and eliminate this you're going to have to use index numbers, or maybe names, and then eliminate dulicate sightings, and how do you count an unlicenced boat that's say doing the Leicester, 4 counties, or any of the other rings? and gets counted on 5 different canals.

 

If you use the index number and or name, then you yourself might find yourself running into the law if you say Fuzzyduck index number 145678 on the G.U had no licence, just because your spotter had missed the fact that my craft had a short term licence on the offside. I'd be well within my rights to sue. You've publically accused me of a crime (not that I would, but you get the point)

 

As for the rest of it, it's about free choice, I haven't got a problem if someone wants to break the law, as long as there is no real harm (or chance thereof) to any other human being, and I don't count offending BW as harm. Lets face it, we all break the law from time to time, take car drivers, if you drive, can you honestly say that you've never sped, never driven while a bit tired, never reached for a drink, never smoked, never eaten an apple, never had an arguement with someone in the passenger seat, these are all potential crimes. As long as the law breakers don't come wingeing to me when BW make em buy a full licence without the discount, or any other sanction they choose to apply.

 

You yourself would get naffed off pretty sharpish if someone followed you round all the time waiting for you to break the law.

 

I'm not claiming non licenced boats should be able to get away scot free, what I am saying is these witch hunts that we are far too prone to getting caught up in just harm us. I myself am not whiter than white, so I don't automatically insist on it in others, as that would make me a hypocrite.

 

Regards

Edited February 9, 2006 by fuzzyduck

[Khayamanzi]

Fuzzy, thank you for justifying and explaining your position. Whilst not agreeing with all of it, I respect you for it. I fully take on baord your point about duplication, (in fact one or two others have also mentioned it,) there is no way I am going down the line of 'naming and shaming' for exactly the reasons you suggest. I don't intend this database being an infallible or statistically accurate record, rather, a guage of the extent to what I believe is a problem not taken seriously by the powers that be. I appreciate the following are genralisations and should be taken as such but many unlicenced craft will rarely move and so it is the hope that any entry with a location at one time, will not be re-submitted within a reasonable period of time. If it is, I shall, in fact delete the posting and assume a duplication. Whilst the issue of displaying a licence on both sides of the vessel has already been discussed, I appreciate that legitimate licence payers may not always display a current licence for perfectly legitimate reasons and that is also a reason why the database is not intended as an infalable 'record to snitch'.

 

As for freedom of choice, I fully respect that position also and thank you for your respect of my freedom of choice to protest against 'crimes' I do not agree with, whether or not they cause harm, indeed, to take the 'it doesn't do harm' argument to the full extent, that time I break in and steal treasured possessions from an old lady who wasn't in at the time is fine and no-one has the right to say otherwise - I have simply excercised my freedom of choice and the act didn't do any harm, so please kindly forgive me. Granted, we probably all break the law at some point, but I am grateful that the law often recognises a distinction between intention and accidental even if we don't always. 'We all do it' unfortunately doesn't make it right, it simply makes it more sociably acceptable and social acceptibility very much depends on the social society one mixes with and so you can see the whole issue becomes extremely subjective. Rather than end up in subjective debate, I would rather accept that democratic laws are there to be adhered to - I find it makes life simpler!

 

As for the term 'witch hunt' I can only, yet again, re-iterate that the type of date being sought after together with the purpose of the data collection does not and can not, in any form, shape or manner constitute a 'witch hunt'. I appreciate and respect that some people will have their own reasons for not agreeing with my cause, but the emotive use of incorrect terminology is something I feel I must challenge.

Edited February 9, 2006 by Khayamanzi

[fuzzyduck]

Fair enough i respect your right to investigate a problem to see if it is a problem, but you can't do anything with the data, any you publish will not pass peer review.

 

When i say "harm" your counter example of the old lady involves "harm" she is "harmed" by the loss of her stuff, and the violation of her home. Don't let the fact that you're angry ruin a damn good post by picking an ill considered counter arguement. you yourself have attacked sarcasm in this thread.

 

The law recognises no such thing, intent is not an offence. It can make it a different crime, but will not save you from the law.

 

However, back to licence evasion

 

I AM NOT SAYING IT'S RIGHT, I am saying that the waterways community only harms itself everytime people whip up such ferver, and it's counter productive. by whipping up this issue I'm going to have to worry every time I put my boat on BW waters, because some nutter all fired up by the anti licence evader ferver that 3/4 quarters of the canal community seem to have caught, decides that i'm unlicenced. So actually the people most being harmed here are those of us who don't display the nice red square on BOTH sides of the boat.

 

and for the record my boat is always properly licenced (As required), BSC'd, and insured.

[Lesd]

I'm with fuzzy's ''quarter'' on this particular subject. I'm trying to get away fro the dam rat race, not join a mini version of it.

 

Fair enough i respect your right to investigate a problem to see if it is a problem, but you can't do anything with the data, any you publish will not pass peer review.

 

When i say "harm" your counter example of the old lady involves "harm" she is "harmed" by the loss of her stuff, and the violation of her home. Don't let the fact that you're angry ruin a damn good post by picking an ill considered counter arguement. you yourself have attacked sarcasm in this thread.

 

The law recognises no such thing, intent is not an offence. It can make it a different crime, but will not save you from the law.

 

However, back to licence evasion

 

I AM NOT SAYING IT'S RIGHT, I am saying that the waterways community only harms itself everytime people whip up such ferver, and it's counter productive. by whipping up this issue I'm going to have to worry every time I put my boat on BW waters, because some nutter all fired up by the anti licence evader ferver that 3/4 quarters of the canal community seem to have caught, decides that i'm unlicenced. So actually the people most being harmed here are those of us who don't display the nice red square on BOTH sides of the boat.

 

and for the record my boat is always properly licenced (As required), BSC'd, and insured.

[fuzzyduck]

 

Personally I feel I have un-earthed a much more fundamental problem than that of unlicenced craft: the tragedy of a society which believes that upholding the law is of hugely less importance than our personal dreams of 'living the good life' and that we, as individuals, are of more importance than the laws we are subject to.

 

Please tell me this isn't supposed to read as it sounds.

[wrigglefingers]

Fair enough i respect your right to investigate a problem to see if it is a problem, but you can't do anything with the data, any you publish will not pass peer review.

 

I'm with Fuzzy on this. I know that you mean well, and I know that the upholding of certain rules ensures that we live in a world that is civilised and well-ordered, but the unqualified, unsubstantiated collection of random data will not be enough to make BW sit and take action against those you claim are flouting the regulations. To my mind, this is both divisive and ultimately futile in scope, you will have succeeded in causing argument amongst ourselves and to what end? The collection of disregardable evidence? When we're at school and a child complains about another we demand names and details so that we (as the people in charge) can take effective action. But, we're not in charge here, we just seem like a group of perpetual malcontents with a series of gripes.

 

If we're serious about this then numbers should be collected. But ...... we can't because we lack the necessary authority to do so. Moreover, there is a fear of intimidation and violence from some if we do; sometimes that's why BW haven't always been able to tackle some of the problems with long-term stayers and licence evaders. Of course we deplore evasion; given the effect it has on us all who wouldn't? However, in any community there are those who don't necessarily hold the same views about authority and how beholden we should be to it. In any case, it would be good to hear from Eugene about how BW view this and whether it might be considered by them as legitimate evidence in any way.

 

Regards, Jill

[John Orentas]

Andy.

 

Why do you feel so strongly about this, catching license evaders is not your job. If you really feel that they should be pursued with enthusiasm as most people do you should be directing your energies and powers of persuasion at the people who's job it is.

 

Do you want to live in a society of vigilante's and snoopers, I certainly don't and why do you have such a deferential attitude towards the very people who have allowed this situation reach the stage it is at now. It is BW's job to trace and prosecute the evaders and they are clearly not doing it, many of them must be slouched back in their comfortable chairs being amused and entertained by many of the members here who are so anxious to do their work for them.

[Sir Nibble]

Why do you feel so strongly about this, catching license evaders is not your job. If you really feel that they should be pursued with enthusiasm as most people do you should be directing your energies and powers of persuasion at the people who's job it is.

But that is what he is trying to do! that's why he's trying to gather information.

Like I've said before, I don't give a damn about wheather BW get their pound of flesh, but instead of all these analogies about TV licences and car tax, try looking at it this way. 11 Of us club together every day for pizza and all get a slice each. The 12th slice is taken by someone who doesn't pay and is not envited to join in. Big deal, I don't get any less pizza than if he had paid, (though I may pay a little more) but it doesn't end there. You and I are at work all day earning money to buy pizza, he isn't, so he is the one there when the pizza is delivered and takes for himself the best slice, with the most topping, every day, and no thought of fair shares.

As you can tell my problem is with those who choose a prime mooring site and live there, if the lack of a licence is a stick to beat them with then pass the stick.

[Khayamanzi]

I despair!! This thread has now become a battle of opinions which is NOT what it was intended for. I am also sure that that some people on the site have now changed their opinion by trackijng the threads back. The waterways contains a diverse bunch of people I appreciate that but please don't forget the bunch of people who are there because they are passionate about the history, heritage and restoration of the waterways NOT becuase they wish to excape from the world in some dillusioned idea of grandeur! It is not I who has whipped up fervour or anything else. I am simply counter arguing my case to prove that I have thought it through. Please be assured that my, (once again,) silence on this site is because I am quietly watching rather than participating as this issue, surely more than most, should not provoke such anti responses from genuine canal enthusuasts! I am constantly having to repeat myself on this forum as people query the same points I have already made!?

 

Continue the debate and enjoy the provokation one can have with each other as you argue fiercely amongst yourselves about how peace loving we all should be!!??

 

Eugene, I feel a genuine and more reasoned reply would be better suited in the wider canal press where canal enthusiasts will have reasoned opinions and LISTEN to the points put forward. I have emailed the canal press reagring this issue and if anything is published, I would look forward to receiving a reply from you.

 

Kind regards,