BW's approach to Continuous Cruising?

[Allan(nb Albert)]

Only 640 hire boats. They must all be on the K&A then.

 

Ten years ago the number was 1458. I thought BW claimed the number to be static at around 1000.

[Smelly]

 

 

Enforcement action against continuous cruisers represents just 327 out of 4329 enforcement actions.

 

 

I was one of the 4002 actions against people with moorings; apparently I overstayed at Alvechurch; shame there was 4 to 6 inches of ice hemming me in; I just thought it was easier to walk everywhere... Bad me!

 

Would those be the same stats which have been extensively debunked here last week, as saying nothing of the sort?

 

Not this time!

[Allan(nb Albert)]

I was one of the 4002 actions against people with moorings; apparently I overstayed at Alvechurch; shame there was 4 to 6 inches of ice hemming me in; I just thought it was easier to walk everywhere... Bad me!

 

'Reasonable in the circumstances' obviously does not apply if you have a home mooring.

[Cosmic]

In section C, they haven't really answered the question properly. More than half of all enforcement proceedings are lumped together under "other". At the very least, they could have given some indication of the kinds of action included here.

 

In sections B and D, they've said that they don't hold the information. I wonder whether, when this happens, a penny drops inside the head of a BW employee and they actually begin to ask themselves why they don't hold the information and whether they might actually be able to do something useful with it if they did.

[mayalld]

BW have now responded to Dave's FoI request.

 

Figures here.

 

Enforcement action against continuous cruisers represents just 327 out of 4329 enforcement actions. That's 7.5%!

 

BTW, I agree with the OP's proposition -

 

 

 

That would appear to be cooking the books a little.

 

7.5% of all enforcement action is definitely against CCers.

 

There is absolutely nothing in the statistics that says that action in all the other categories is exclusively against boats with home moorings (do you contend that all 1304 boats that are being pursued for failing to renew their licence have a home mooring? Likewise, are all 165 overstay enforcements for boats with home moorings, and what are we to make of the fact that over half the enforcements fall into the category of "other")

 

I don't believe that BW have responded adequately to the request BTW, and will be requesting an internal review on Tuesday.

[blodger]

That would appear to be cooking the books a little.

 

7.5% of all enforcement action is definitely against CCers.

 

There is absolutely nothing in the statistics that says that action in all the other categories is exclusively against boats with home moorings (do you contend that all 1304 boats that are being pursued for failing to renew their licence have a home mooring? Likewise, are all 165 overstay enforcements for boats with home moorings, and what are we to make of the fact that over half the enforcements fall into the category of "other")

 

I don't believe that BW have responded adequately to the request BTW, and will be requesting an internal review on Tuesday.

But at least indicative that your assumptions/debunking were flawed

[Allan(nb Albert)]

I don't believe that BW have responded adequately to the request BTW, and will be requesting an internal review on Tuesday.

 

The last time I requested an internal review, I was told that all executive directors were busy with the move to the third sector.

 

I suggest you ask them to carry out a review on Thursday or Friday rather than Tuesday:rolleyes:

 

Still agree with the OP

[mayalld]

But at least indicative that your assumptions/debunking were flawed

 

Not at all.

 

Glad to see that we couldn't accuse YOU of overstaying when we passed you on our last trip.

[mayalld]

In section C, they haven't really answered the question properly. More than half of all enforcement proceedings are lumped together under "other". At the very least, they could have given some indication of the kinds of action included here.

 

In sections B and D, they've said that they don't hold the information. I wonder whether, when this happens, a penny drops inside the head of a BW employee and they actually begin to ask themselves why they don't hold the information and whether they might actually be able to do something useful with it if they did.

 

 

I suspect that there may be an error here, and that the "Other" is actually the total. I have asked for clarification.

 

I have also now requested an internal review, because frankly they are going to have to do a LOT better to convince anybody that the information doesn't exist.

[blodger]

Not at all.

 

Glad to see that we couldn't accuse YOU of overstaying when we passed you on our last trip.

 

Passed you this weekend. For some reason or other I thought you were nearer the bridge by the factory. This boat lived at New Mills there for 7 years or so as a liveaboard before I had it.

[mayalld]

Passed you this weekend. For some reason or other I thought you were nearer the bridge by the factory. This boat lived at New Mills there for 7 years or so as a liveaboard before I had it.

 

 

Don't recall it there, only on an off-side mooring just this side of Macc.

[Sir Nibble]

I suspect that there may be an error here, and that the "Other" is actually the total. I have asked for clarification.

 

I have also now requested an internal review, because frankly they are going to have to do a LOT better to convince anybody that the information doesn't exist.

Hang on, wasn't that stuff we had a short while ago that according to ymu "proved" all overstaying was mooring holders the result of a FOI request? Since that was categorised by licence type doesn't that prove they do hold that information? I'm not sure here and cannot be arsed to search around to find out, hence the surfeit of question marks but if that is the case is it not also proof that the information exists and is being witheld? Greatest of apologies if my crap memory leads me to malign anyone here.

[blodger]

Hang on, wasn't that stuff we had a short while ago that according to ymu "proved" all overstaying was mooring holders the result of a FOI request? Since that was categorised by licence type doesn't that prove they do hold that information? I'm not sure here and cannot be arsed to search around to find out, hence the surfeit of question marks but if that is the case is it not also proof that the information exists and is being witheld? Greatest of apologies if my crap memory leads me to malign anyone here.

 

The FOI request response from BW to Dave does seem to obfuscate the issue more than it needed to but does appear to give more succour to those who had expressed the view that the problem of overstaying where BW takes action is not down to Cmers, Ccers and/or bridgehoppers but as much at least by those with home moorings.

[RichardN]

Hang on, wasn't that stuff we had a short while ago that according to ymu "proved" all overstaying was mooring holders the result of a FOI request?

 

Paul Davies did a FOI but did not get any further then this latest FOI

 

The FOI request response from BW to Dave does seem to obfuscate the issue more than it needed to but does appear to give more succour to those who had expressed the view that the problem of overstaying where BW takes action is not down to Cmers, Ccers and/or bridgehoppers but as much at least by those with home moorings.

Well no that is one thing that these statistics don't show.

[jelunga]

I have to say that I agree. As a CC, nothing I have read will change my mooring rights. i will still be able to stay in one "place" for up to 14 days, unless a notice imposes a lesser time. The only thing that is up for review now is the definition of "place".

 

[quote name=mayalld'

 

 

 

timestamp='1307617501' post='702658]

We are indeed waiting for the stats. I merely question whether the stats that Simon refers to are the ones that were waved around here last week, which very clearly didn't say what they were claimed to say.

 

As to your second point, I simply don't accept that BW persecutes CCers.

 

I cannot see evidence of a single measure that BW has implemented that would adversely affect genuine CCers differentially from moorers.

 

I have seen measures that would affect those whose use of their boat is not in accordance with their licence.

[Sir Nibble]

The FOI request response from BW to Dave does seem to obfuscate the issue more than it needed to but does appear to give more succour to those who had expressed the view that the problem of overstaying where BW takes action is not down to Cmers, Ccers and/or bridgehoppers but as much at least by those with home moorings.

I must admit I am not particularly bothered by the overstaying issue. I moor on the western K&A and the overstaying issue was resolved by the introduction of the moorings consultation. Having said that, I understand that for many it's central to the debate.

My point was that if BW have indeed replied to a FOI request in the past quoting information broken down as Dave has requested, then clearly it cannot be true to say that they do not keep that information.

Look I'd better check this before I say any more.

[SimonRNABO]

 

There is absolutely nothing in the statistics that says that action in all the other categories is exclusively against boats with home moorings...

 

I don't believe that BW have responded adequately to the request BTW, and will be requesting an internal review on Tuesday.

 

The figures offered in response to your FOI seem to broadly agree with figures that NABO are presently looking at (from April 11) except that the 'other' figure has increased by an order of magnitude - suggest you ask BW to reconfirm this. (I suspect, by comparision with the figures NABO has, that a copying error has occurred and that the 2213 quoted as 'others' is in fact the grand total of all enforcement cases: the 'other' count should be the difference between the 2213 and all the cases listed in the other categories? Our figures give 'others' as 107 no. and a total of all enforcement cases as 2204 no.)

 

Like you we did not get as far as I we would have liked getting a definitive response on asking the question:

 

of those in the categories:

 

Overstaying

Continuous Cruising

Other

 

...is it possible to tell how many cases in each category have home moorings registered with yourselves?

 

To be fair to BW we did not originate our enquiries through an FOI request, but did some analysis of figures which BW unilaterally presented to a recent BWAF meeting.

[blodger]

Paul Davies did a FOI but did not get any further then this latest FOI

 

 

Well no that is one thing that these statistics don't show.

 

Well to put it the other way riund they do not show the opposite which was the anticipated expectation

[Allan(nb Albert)]

The figures offered in response to your FOI seem to broadly agree with figures that NABO are presently looking at (from April 11) except that the 'other' figure has increased by an order of magnitude - suggest you ask BW to reconfirm this. (I suspect, by comparision with the figures NABO has, that a copying error has occurred and that the 2213 quoted as 'others' is in fact the grand total of all enforcement cases: the 'other' count should be the difference between the 2213 and all the cases listed in the other categories? Our figures give 'others' as 107 no. and a total of all enforcement cases as 2204 no.)

 

Like you we did not get as far as I we would have liked getting a definitive response on asking the question:

 

of those in the categories:

 

Overstaying

Continuous Cruising

Other

 

...is it possible to tell how many cases in each category have home moorings registered with yourselves?

 

To be fair to BW we did not originate our enquiries through an FOI request, but did some analysis of figures which BW unilaterally presented to a recent BWAF meeting.

 

I did pm Dave suggesting the 'other' figure was wrong and also annotated his FoI request as follows:-

 

May I suggest that the figure for 'other' is queried -

 

C) Statistics relating to the number of active enforcement

proceedings as at the most recent date for which you have data,

broken down in a similar manner.

Information valid as at 14th June 2011:-

Licence Enforcement 1304

Mooring Enforcement 320

Overstay Enforcement 165

Continuous Cruiser Enforcement 327

Other 2213

 

I believe that an error may have occurred and that 2213

should be 97 (or thereabouts)

 

Dave may wish to review his last post on whatdotheyknow.com and comfirm to BW if he is requesting clarification of the response or formally asking for a review.

 

As it stands he has posted on this forum that he is requesting an internal review but his post on whatdotheyknow.com does not ask BW to carry one out.

[mayalld]

Whilst it doesn't say in the text the latest addition went via the request internal review link

[Allan(nb Albert)]

Whilst it doesn't say in the text the latest addition went via the request internal review link

 

That flags it up on whatdotheyknow.com as 'awaiting internal review' but in the past this been ignored (or not seen) by BW.

 

To avoid delay, I suggest you click on 'send follow up' and add something like 'For the avoidance of doubt, I am requesting an internal review'. Then, if you have not had an acknowledgement within a couple of days, chase it.

[sebrof]

Well to put it the other way riund they do not show the opposite which was the anticipated expectation

 

Anticipated expectation???????????

 

I think we are guilty of tautology.

[Grace and Favour]

<br />Anticipated expectation??????????? <img src='http://www.canalworld.net/forums/public/style_emoticons/default/blink.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='' /> <br /><br />I think we are guilty of tautology.<br />

<br /><br /><br />

 

And I wonder if the anticipated expectation is forecast?

[blodger]

<br /><br /><br />

 

And I wonder if the anticipated expectation is forecast?

It was cast irom gold plated copper bottomed:lol:

Edited July 8, 2011 by blodger

[sebrof]

It was cast irom gold plated copper bottomed:lol:

 

Is this what they call a mixed metallor?