Is C&RT's Boat/Location Logging System Fit for Purpose?

[Naughty Cal]

Tony. Do you know which boat it was that sank at Holme Lock yesterday spilling 2000 litres of diesel into the Trent in the process?

[Tony Dunkley]

Tony. Do you know which boat it was that sank at Holme Lock yesterday spilling 2000 litres of diesel into the Trent in the process?

No . . . I hadn't even heard about it until now.

[NigelMoore]

If you go to google.com in the uk it will automatically redirect you to google.co.uk. If you use the address google.com/ncr it won't redirect you.

 

I tried that helpful advice, but the results were no different. Of course, it is entirely possible that I didn't do it properly.

[NigelMoore]

It is perhaps worth pointing out that the question has been asked twice (quite independently), but still not answered.

 

I presume that you refer to these Allan? -

 

Pam Pickett on 12 August –

 

https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/number_of_part_8_civil_procedure#incoming-549381

 

Number of Part 8 civil procedures used in removing boats from CRT's waters

 

“I note that a figure of 180 boats was recently referred to by CRT

as having been removed from CRT waters.

How many of these boats were removed from CRT waters using a Part 8

Civil Procedure?

How many of these 180 cases of the removal of a boat were attended

by the boat owner?

How many of these 180 cases were defended?”

 

I don’t know where the 180 figure comes from [could well have been total numbers ever], but as I linked to earlier, the numbers removed from the water during CaRT’s time was given as 35.

 

However, strangely enough, an entirely different figure is given in the initial Sarina Young response to this question; she there gives a figure of 69 just in the last year!

 

From the other link we can determine that 18 of those were removed since April 2012 using a Part 8 procedure, 13 were removed without going through the courts at all [based on the 35 figure – a total of 47 were removed sans court action on the other figure], leaving a question mark over the remaining 4 cases. As to the number of hearings attended by the boat owner, the CaRT published figures show that to be 6. Given that a defence was filed in the Mayers case even though unattended, the answer to the final question would be a minimum of 7.

 

The deliberately disingenuous response from Sarina Young, requests [as though the question had not very clearly identified the difference between CPR Part 8 and the ’83 Act s.8] clarification of which Pam meant – claiming that in such court cases “we will always go court under Section 13 procedures”!

 

She further evades the question over court attendances by pretending [?] that attendance at actual removal was meant – and even more absurdly, purports not to understand what Pam meant by “defended”! That was 12 August this year.

 

FoI answers from CaRT seem tailored to the identity of the questioner. Even this miserly squirming around the questions is dispensed with when Mr Mayers asked essentially the same, related question [in rather more caustic fashion it must be admitted] –

 

https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/abuse_of_process_by_bwcrt_and_sh#incoming-552053

 

Abuse of process by BW/CRT (and Shoosmiths)

 

“1. How many court cases for an injunction to remove someone's boat/home from the waterways have been initiated using a Part 8 procedure, which claims that the case is not disputed?

2. In how many of these have the required documents not been served requiring a submission to the court within 14 days if there is a defence?

3. In how many of these cases has the defendant not been informed at all of the court action?”

 

As I quoted before, for Mr Mayers she contented herself with – “I am writing to let you know that Canal & River Trust does not hold the information you have requested.”

 

That was 19 August, a week after the response to Pam Pickett. So the situation is worse than, as you suggest, one where we are "still" waiting for the information – they have effectively flatly refused to disclose it. I genuinely can’t think why. Given the widespread publicising of the “Licence it or Lose it” campaign, one would have thought that revealing all would have the desired salutory effect?

 

It is just possible, I suppose, that Pam will follow up and push for the info; we can but wait and see.

[NigelMoore]

Just looking back at that 35 figure, I should have picked up on the fact that those related to boats that were seized, rather than merely removed from the waterway.

 

So, 69 boats removed in the last year, 35 seized in the last 2 years; the figures are all relating to different time periods and circumstances, making it difficult to arrive at any meaningful correlation, or any idea of the larger picture.

 

The only thing certain is that CaRT hold the information but won't release it. I would have thought it to their benefit to do so, in order that everyone has a clearer picture of just what they have been and are doing to address the unlicensed boats problem.

 

So far as the court cases listed are concerned, it would be further helpful to understand how many of those were unlicensed by reason of boater default, or by reason of CaRT revocation/refusal to renew for alleged infractions of T&C's as in the Davies, Mayers and Dunkley cases.

 

As a further refinement, at one point I did try to discover whether my boats were the only ones ever to be pursued under s.8 despite being subsequently licensed, but received the usual blanking with Sarina's standard "information not held" response.

[Sabcat]

 

I tried that helpful advice, but the results were no different. Of course, it is entirely possible that I didn't do it properly.

 

It's more likely that you've done it right but you're looking for something that isn't there.

[Naughty Cal]

No . . . I hadn't even heard about it until now.

You didn't know Siwa then?

[Tony Dunkley]

You didn't know Siwa then?

I do know a boat called "Siwa", it's the small cruiser visible between two bigger vessels on the North side of Holme Lock Cut in the first photo in Post 689, but I hadn't heard anything about a sinking until I saw your Post.

Edited September 13, 2014 by tony dunkley

[NigelMoore]

I do know a boat called "Siwa", it's the small cruiser visible between two bigger vessels on the North side of Holme Lock Cut in the first photo in Post 689, but I hadn't heard anything about a sinking until I saw your Post.

 

Because you weren't staying let alone 'overstaying' at that location at the time of the incident?

[Naughty Cal]

Why all the edits?

 

Small cruiser 2000 litres of diesel?

[Tony Dunkley]

Why all the edits?

 

Small cruiser 2000 litres of diesel?

One edit,in fact, done to add more information, namely about the boat being identifiable in the photo on Post 689.

 

The quantity of diesel was specified by you in your original question.

[Tony Dunkley]

 

Because you weren't staying let alone 'overstaying' at that location at the time of the incident?

Steady on Nigel, that's getting a bit over complicated for her.

[Alan de Enfield]

Tony. Do you know which boat it was that sank at Holme Lock yesterday spilling 2000 litres of diesel into the Trent in the process?

 

Are you sure ?

I can find nothing about it on / in the news and the Trent lockies I've spoken to know nothing about it.

 

It must have been a big boat to have lost 2000 litres.

[Alan Saunders]

It's more likely that you've done it right but you're looking for something that isn't there.

Google remembers your preferences. e.g. If you prefer google.co.uk when you type google.com in the address bar you are automatically redirected to google.co.uk. Bottom right of the google home page there is a link that will change your preference.

 

Searching "Greta O'Shea" (including the quotes) on google.co.uk produced 12 'hits', 'some similar omitted' and 'results removed under data protection law in Europe'. This does not imply that further information is available from google; it is appended at the end of every 'European' search result list.

 

I normally use Firefox, I deleted all the google.com cookies in Chrome and it produced 'about 4,540 results'. Their suggested alternative spelling 'Gretta

O'shea': 19,400 results. I do not have sufficient interest to refine my search, sorry.

 

I do not totally understand the relevance of the reason for Ms. O'Shea leaving BW/CRT. With her intimate knowledge of Transport Acts and the internal working of BW/CRT she would be my first choice to represent me or Tony D. We know that all solicitors must represent the best interests of their clients. They have absolutely no desire to defeat their former employer and, particularly, applaud and celebrate every defeat they suffer from unqualified opposition.

 

Not much help, I know, Alan

[Allan(nb Albert)]

Google remembers your preferences. e.g. If you prefer google.co.uk when you type google.com in the address bar you are automatically redirected to google.co.uk. Bottom right of the google home page there is a link that will change your preference.

 

Searching "Greta O'Shea" (including the quotes) on google.co.uk produced 12 'hits', 'some similar omitted' and 'results removed under data protection law in Europe'. This does not imply that further information is available from google; it is appended at the end of every 'European' search result list.

 

I normally use Firefox, I deleted all the google.com cookies in Chrome and it produced 'about 4,540 results'. Their suggested alternative spelling 'Gretta

O'shea': 19,400 results. I do not have sufficient interest to refine my search, sorry.

 

I do not totally understand the relevance of the reason for Ms. O'Shea leaving BW/CRT. With her intimate knowledge of Transport Acts and the internal working of BW/CRT she would be my first choice to represent me or Tony D. We know that all solicitors must represent the best interests of their clients. They have absolutely no desire to defeat their former employer and, particularly, applaud and celebrate every defeat they suffer from unqualified opposition.

 

Not much help, I know, Alan

I have searched using a multi-search engine and can confirm that there is very little information concerning Greta O'Shea activities.

 

There is a possibility she went to Ireland and married/remarried. What I am fairly sure of is she is not practising as a solicitor in the UK.

 

One rather sad hit was this blog -

 

http://riparianrightsuk.blogspot.co.uk/

 

With regard to why she left, I will pm Nigel with some information

 

 

 

Edited September 13, 2014 by Allan(nb Albert)

[Alan Saunders]

I have searched using a multi-search engine and can confirm that there is very little information concerning Greta O'Shea activities.

 

There is a possibility she went to Ireland and married/remarried. What I am fairly sure of is she is not practising as a solicitor in the UK.

 

One rather sad hit was this blog -

 

http://riparianrightsuk.blogspot.co.uk/

 

With regard to why she left, I will pm Nigel with some information

Thank you Allan, if nothing else your link demonstrates our gross waste of public money on most Civil Servants and their masters. Every single one rising through the ranks by doing nothing except signing the standard non committal replies generated by their underlings. Anyone who took a stand, dismissed for rocking the 'gravy' boat.

[Naughty Cal]

One edit,in fact, done to add more information, namely about the boat being identifiable in the photo on Post 689.

 

The quantity of diesel was specified by you in your original question.

The quantity of diesel was specified by a member of CRT staff who was tasked with cleaning it up on Friday evening!

 

Are you sure ?

I can find nothing about it on / in the news and the Trent lockies I've spoken to know nothing about it.

 

It must have been a big boat to have lost 2000 litres.

Yes I'm sure. Straight from the horses mouth. Was speaking to the CRT staff who spent their Friday evening cleaning up the mess rather than in the pub where they should have been.

[Tony Dunkley]

The quantity of diesel was specified by a member of CRT staff who was tasked with cleaning it up on Friday evening!

 

Yes I'm sure. Straight from the horses mouth. Was speaking to the CRT staff who spent their Friday evening cleaning up the mess rather than in the pub where they should have been.

Diesel spills on water do generally appear to be a larger quantity than is actually spilled, and 2000 litres does seem to be a lot to come from a small boat.

[jenlyn]

Diesel spills on water do generally appear to be a larger quantity than is actually spilled, and 2000 litres does seem to be a lot to come from a small boat.

I suspect it's an exaggeration of the actual facts. It would take a lot more than an evening, and a couple of CRT staff to clear such an amount.

[Hawkmoth]

Probably more like 20 ltrs.

Bob

[Alan de Enfield]

Well, the lockies I have spoken to today know nothing about a boat sinking at Holme Lock - they said there was a spillage at Holme lock but it was 'picked up' with a few of those diesel absorbing sausages.

 

Doesnt sound like 2000, 200 or even 20 litres.

[MtB]

Well, the lockies I have spoken to today know nothing about a boat sinking at Holme Lock - they said there was a spillage at Holme lock but it was 'picked up' with a few of those diesel absorbing sausages.

 

Doesnt sound like 2000, 200 or even 20 litres.

 

 

Yes, 20 litres would be capable of a slick covering several miles so I doubt it was that much.

 

 

MtB

[Naughty Cal]

 

 

Yes, 20 litres would be capable of a slick covering several miles so I doubt it was that much.

 

 

MtB

It sank the diesel boom there was that much diesel so no not a over exaggeration!

[Sabcat]

It sank the diesel boom there was that much diesel so no not a over exaggeration!

 

Magic sinking diesel?

[Tony Dunkley]

It sank the diesel boom there was that much diesel so no not a over exaggeration!

The S.G. of diesel (gas oil) is around 0.83 .... that's why it floats on water .... the quantity of any substance doesn't make any difference as to whether it floats or not.

 

Are you now saying it was a "diesel boom" that sank rather than a boat.

Edited September 14, 2014 by tony dunkley