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

[Jerra]

 

The last person they would bring is someone with a logical bent, as logic dictates that the information they claim is evidence is actually nothing but garbage.

I wouldn't have thought anybody would be much good at computing (as opposed to just sitting at a computer and using the programs) if they weren't logical thinkers.

[MtB]

Truly logical thinking is a rare skill. Far more difficult than it sounds. Very little logical thinking is ever demonstrated on these boards IMO.

 

We all like to think we are logical beings but we are not. This is because one judges the correctness of one's own logic, and obviously we decide we are right!

 

Who remembers their skool maths lessons in Boolean algebra? This requires truly logical thinking and I really struggled with it, as did most of my classmates.

 

MtB

Edited September 1, 2014 by Mike the Boilerman

[mayalld]

 

That's a pretty big if, don't you think? If that table doesn't exist in the table then all that lovely data is pretty bloody useless for the purpose of enforcement. You'd think someone designing the system might have picked up on it.

 

Yes, it is a big if.

 

I accept that there is an unknown quantity that would mean that the report I envisaged might not work (if there were no boats present on a future occasion.

 

HOWEVER....

 

Even then, the question could be posed "on what occasions between Date A and Date B did you log boats at that location". If they have no logs for a 3 week period, then that casts doubt on any allegation of overstaying,

Hmmmm, and the national health service is in a hell of a state too.......

 

My bit of it isn't :-)

[Bod]

Man I have just finally caught up with this thread!

I agree that TD has to show that C&RT was not correct in revoking his licence.

The rest is hogwash.

It is clear that the boat recording system, is only as good as the sightings entered into it.

Statistics can be made to read almost anything you want to see.

 

Bod

[Alan de Enfield]

Mike the Boilerman, on 01 Sept 2014 - 08:20 AM, said:

 

It has been mentioned in passing the CRT data loggers only record the presence of a boat, not whether it is moored. Do we know this is a fact?

 

 

 

I was logged (whilst moving) on the Fossdyke as I approached Lincoln.

 

Well - I assume I was - it was a guy in a C&RT sweatshirt, who peered at the boat as we went past, then started fiddling with a 'Tablet'.

 

If a licence is checked is it also logged as a movement or a mooring ?

Are the databases combined ?

mayalld, on 01 Sept 2014 - 08:39 AM, said:

 

Even then, the question could be posed "on what occasions between Date A and Date B did you log boats at that location". If they have no logs for a 3 week period, then that casts doubt on any allegation of overstaying,

 

 

See post #616

Edited September 1, 2014 by Alan de Enfield

[cotswoldsman]

Provided the checker did their job properly, the system will have that information. But the system can't provide a report for every day of the year unless the VM is checked every day. So there could be a problem with overcrowding/overstaying on VM's, but it would not be identified on the days they were not checked.

 

The only way to achieve 100% compliance monitoring and accuracy would be to electronically gps tag every boat.

That is why I said produce a report when your checkers were there. Also as I have said befor CRT told us at a meeting that they are unable to do this

Edited September 1, 2014 by cotswoldsman

[alan_fincher]

Provided the checker did their job properly, the system will have that information. But the system can't provide a report for every day of the year unless the VM is checked every day. So there could be a problem with overcrowding/overstaying on VM's, but it would not be identified on the days they were not checked.

 

The only way to achieve 100% compliance monitoring and accuracy would be to electronically gps tag every boat.

 

I am absolutely sure that if they wanted to they could say how many boats were on a location on the date of a check, but I am not sure of the "granularity" of what they consider a location. Does the data held differentiate between the parts of a location that Jeff Whyatt wanted to put restricted moorings on, and the bits where he didn't?

 

I can't see the SEVM argument is particularly relevant here, as they don't record how the boats are moored up, for example - they certainly wouldn't record that there are 60 foot boats with 40 or 50 foot gaps between them.

 

What is critical to the VM debate is not how many boats are moored there, (or not necessarily even how long they have stayed). If there is still generally adequate space for those turning up, you actually don't have a problem, whatever the answer is to those questions. Even overstayers don't actually create a mooring problem, unless the moorings have no available space as a result.

 

What it seems incredibly hard to get some people to grasp, (though of course it is actually dead simple), is when you are trying to make informed decisions about whether new VM restrictions are justified or not, what you need to be recording is not the used spaces, but the amount of available space that is likely to actually be useable. Exactly what Kathryn (Leo No 2) was doing on her own initiative at Stoke Bruerne, but not (unfortunately) what CRT actually ended up doing where they have tried to gather data themselves.

 

I continue to press CRT that what they actually need to be measuring is available space - something I know has not occurred before the new restrictions have gone in at Three Locks. I'm sure CRT could produce lists of what boats they noted at Three Locks on days it was checked, but it wouldn't be useful data in proving the VM restrictions are justified.

 

Question: Do they actually bother to record the many hire boats there anyway? It is quite possible, I suggest, they do not, (but I don't know).

[NigelMoore]

If CRT wanted to have a test case they should have given Tony a nominal fine, knowing that he would contest it. But to try and take away his home, and to use false evidence to do so, should really be cause for anyone at CRT who participates in this abomination to lose their jobs.

 

The offence he is being s.8’d for is contravention of the 1971 Act, s.5(1) which states:

 

“It shall not be lawful to keep, let for hire or use any pleasure boat on a river waterway unless a certificate, in this Act referred to as a ‘pleasure boat certificate’, in relation to the pleasure boat is then in force or unless there is then in force in relation to it a licence issued by the Board allowing the use of all inland waterways without further payment.”

 

The applicable “nominal fine” you speak of then, would be that provided for by s.5(2) as amended, making the offender “liable to a fine not exceeding fifty pounds and a daily fine of 5 pounds” [‘daily fine’ meaning “a fine for each day on which any offence is continued after conviction therefor” [plus the criminal record of course].

 

The requirements of the Human Rights Act 1998 actually makes that sanction compulsory under UK law, to be sued for instead of the more draconian and abusive s.8 process.

 

We should also not lose sight of the fact that, although they did assert contravention of the ’14 day rule’ in their court submission, based on the proffered evidence of these extracted log reports, they were simultaneously arguing that it didn’t really matter whether he kept to the ‘14 day rule’ or not, he was still contravening the T&C’s as they interpret them – i.e that while away from his home mooring he was required to conform to the guidance for boats without home moorings.

 

So the logging system becomes almost an irrelevant side issue, although it is understandable why Tony feels so incensed about the intrinsic dishonesty involved with the way it has been used.

 

So far as people losing their jobs over this, sadly, as I intimated in my last post, that would mean starting at the top, because the CEO has been driving this from the beginning. Tony had emailed him about the Jackie Lewis quotes at the beginning of July, and the response dated 8 July was:

 

“You have misunderstood the position Jackie has set out. She has explained previously to NABO (and others) that whilst there is no statutory requirement under section 17(3)( c ) of the British Waterways Act 1995 for boats with a home mooring to ‘bona fide navigate’, there is, nevertheless, a requirement that boats with a home mooring comply with the Trust’s licence terms and conditions and cruise whilst away from their home mooring, mooring on the waterway in any one place only for short periods whilst cruising.”

 

There could hardly be anything more disingenuous, in circumstances where the enforcement people were so specifically and categorically equating “cruise” with “bona fide navigate”. Idiot or weasel?

 

Difficult to justly sack the underlings for conduct you have insisted on. Not that it doesn’t happen of course, but for so long as the driving force of the organisation is of such character, any replacement staff would be of the same ilk. The new CEO has proved a huge disappointment in this respect.

[jenlyn]

I am absolutely sure that if they wanted to they could say how many boats were on a location on the date of a check, but of the "granularity" of what they consider a location. Does the data held differentiate between the parts of a location that Jeff Whyatt wanted to put restricted moorings on, and the bits where he didn't?

 

I can't see the SEVM argument is particularly relevant here, as they don't record how the boats are moored up, for example - they certainly wouldn't record that there are 60 foot boats with 40 or 50 foot gaps between them.

 

What is critical to the VM debate is not how many boats are moored there, (or not necessarily even how long they have stayed). If there is still generally adequate space for those turning up, you actually don't have a problem, whatever the answer is to those questions. Even overstayers don't actually create a mooring problem, unless the moorings have no available space as a result.

What it seems incredibly hard to get some people to grasp, (though of course it is actually dead simple), is when you are trying to make informed decisions about whether new VM restrictions are justified or not, what you need to be recording is not the used spaces, but the amount of available space that is likely to actually be useable. Exactly what Kathryn (Leo No 2) was doing on her own initiative at Stoke Bruerne, but not (unfortunately) what CRT actually ended up doing where they have tried to gather data themselves.

 

I continue to press CRT that what they actually need to be measuring is available space - something I know has not occurred before the new restrictions have gone in at Three Locks. I'm sure CRT could produce lists of what boats they noted at Three Locks on days it was checked, but it wouldn't be useful data in proving the VM restrictions are justified.

Question: Do they actually bother to record the many hire boats there anyway? It is quite possible, I suggest, they do not, (but I don't know).

"I am not sure"....."but I don't know".

Your beginning to sound like CRT Alan. Making statements with no real evidence.

[NigelMoore]

This is because one judges the correctness of one's own logic, and obviously we decide we are right!

 

"If we would judge ourselves, we would not be judged."

 

You are getting positively biblical MtB.

[Naughty Cal]

When is this case in court again?

 

Cant be long now.

[mayalld]

That is why I said produce a report when your checkers were there. Also as I have said befor CRT told us at a meeting that they are unable to do this

 

The fact that the end user says he cannot do this is not evidence that either the facility is missing, or that the data to support such a query doesn't exist.

[cotswoldsman]

 

The fact that the end user says he cannot do this is not evidence that either the facility is missing, or that the data to support such a query doesn't exist.

Fine. So what you are saying is that it is not the system that is not fit for purpose but the end user that is not fit for purpose?

[NigelMoore]

CRT's attorneys would probably be dumbfounded and wouldn't know what to say.

 

I have only ever once observed their QC at a loss for words [most uncharacteristic].

 

One of the Lord Justices of Appeal asked the direct question – “what identifiable wrong has he done”?

 

That elicited quite the most interesting few minutes of total, desperate silence I have ever ‘heard’ in court.

 

You are correct, it is a question to be asked in this case also.

[mayalld]

Fine. So what you are saying is that it is not the system that is not fit for purpose but the end user that is not fit for purpose?

 

No, if I meant that, you may be assured that I would have said that!

 

The end user will have a suite of reports at his disposal.

 

When asked for information that is not in his suite of reports, he will say "we can't provide that information".

 

When he considers later that actually that would be useful informations, he can go to his IT department and ask the same question, and they will say "yeah, cost about a grand to develop that guv".

 

There is a world of difference between a system that has inadequate data (a situation that cannot be rectified down the line) and a system that has inadequate reporting of the data that it has (a situation that CAN be rectified down the line)

[jenlyn]

No, if I meant that, you may be assured that I would have said that!

 

The end user will have a suite of reports at his disposal.

 

When asked for information that is not in his suite of reports, he will say "we can't provide that information".

 

 

"There is a world of difference between a system that has inadequate data (a situation that cannot be rectified down the line) and a system that has inadequate reporting of the data that it has (a situation that CAN be rectified down the line)

Another Mayall riddle?

 

The fact that the end user says he cannot do this is not evidence that either the facility is missing, or that the data to support such a query doesn't exist."

 

 

 

When he considers later that actually that would be useful informations, he can go to his IT department and ask the same question, and they will say "yeah, cost about a grand to develop that guv".

[mayalld]

Another Mayall riddle?

 

 

 

 

The fact that you don't likle it doesn't make it wrong, or a riddle.

 

It simply means that you don't understand technology well enough to pass an informed judgement on what is and is not fit for purpose.

[jenlyn]

The fact that you don't likle it doesn't make it wrong, or a riddle.

 

It simply means that you don't understand technology well enough to pass an informed judgement on what is and is not fit for purpose.

Stick to counting beds Dave.

[alan_fincher]

"I am not sure"....."but I don't know".

Your beginning to sound like CRT Alan. Making statements with no real evidence.

 

But I'm not, am I?

 

If you go back and read it again, both those very clearly have a question associated with them.

 

The clue is in the use of the question mark symbol, or even the explicit use of the word "question".

 

A question is emphatically not a statement, is it?

 

If I don't know the answer to something for definite, I don't try to pretend I do.

 

Also, if I'm speculating that something may be the case, I also always try to make make that clear. I believe it it shouldn't be hard to differentiate between where I make what I believe to be a statement of fact, or where I'm raising a possible explanation, or a question - other people don't seem to struggle with the difference in quite the same way as you are - or at least they are not telling me they do.

[Naughty Cal]

Stick to counting beds Dave.

 

In the same way that you stick to making cheap digs?

[Tuscan]

 

What is critical to the VM debate is not how many boats are moored there, (or not necessarily even how long they have stayed). If there is still generally adequate space for those turning up, you actually don't have a problem, whatever the answer is to those questions. Even overstayers don't actually create a mooring problem, unless the moorings have no available space as a result.

What it seems incredibly hard to get some people to grasp, (though of course it is actually dead simple), is when you are trying to make informed decisions about whether new VM restrictions are justified or not, what you need to be recording is not the used spaces, but the amount of available space that is likely to actually be useable. Exactly what Kathryn (Leo No 2) was doing on her own initiative at Stoke Bruerne, but not (unfortunately) what CRT actually ended up doing where they have tried to gather data themselves.

 

I continue to press CRT that what they actually need to be measuring is available space w).

Belongs in a different topic but I really agree with you here, instead I've heard it said that the fact that there is now plenty of space at Stoke Breune and Foxton is evidence that the new restrictions are working rather than demonstrating that perhaps there was not really much of a problem in the first place.

[cotswoldsman]

 

But I'm not, am I?

 

If you go back and read it again, both those very clearly have a question associated with them.

 

The clue is in the use of the question mark symbol, or even the explicit use of the word "question".

 

A question is emphatically not a statement, is it?

 

If I don't know the answer to something for definite, I don't try to pretend I do.

 

Also, if I'm speculating that something may be the case, I also always try to make make that clear. I believe it it shouldn't be hard to differentiate between where I make what I believe to be a statement of fact, or where I'm raising a possible explanation, or a question - other people don't seem to struggle with the difference in quite the same way as you are - or at least they are not telling me they do.

Just so I understand (as a non IT petson) you are saying that CRT do have the information they require on the G&S and they said they didn't because they do not understand the system. So i will email them now and ask for the number of boats on the 14 day mooring that they want to change to 48 hours I just need to say I need the figures for the days the boats were checked on that stretch? Edited September 1, 2014 by cotswoldsman

[Leo No2]

I don't think anyone can possibly say that the data is incorrect (garbage in = garbage out has been used) when no one knows (and couldn't possibly know) the extent of the data CRT hold or the processes it goes through for validation, only basing comments, it seems to me, on a very small samples and comments that someone has posted on the internet, the comments may or may not be correct.

A database should have comprehensive meta data (data about data) i.e. What do the columns of data in the table really mean, where are they sourced, what transformation (ETL in techie speak - Extract, Transform, Load) do they go through to be loaded, what format is the data (especially around dates and times e.g. are the times held in GMT or local) held in and how is it displayed. There is absolutely no value in saying a report is of no value unless one understands what processes data goes through, what the challenges with the data are (especially where input is from a human - we all have frailties and make mistakes from time-to-time) and what it really means, by those that understand the business use of that data (note not the techie people but those who understand the business use of the data). Invariably, in my experience, the real techies will not understand the business use of the data - there have been, in my experience, notable exceptions to this but in the main a techie role is to do the technical things and leave the interpretation and understanding to 'the business',

Ideally extracting of the data to turn it into information should be done by using one of the current desktop products (e.g Business Objects - other applications are available to suit differing underlying databases) where filters can be used and all the 'joins' between tables are tried and tested - writing freehand SQL each time is fraught with possibilities for error in my view. There should be standard reports available which prompt for variable data - e.g. dates, locations etc etc.

And my 'qualification' for what I say - well I did run and manage a very large airline database full of operational data of all kinds. I think some of comments expressed here are disingenuous to CRT unless one has a detailed knowledge of how CRT processes and databases work. I have had the privilege (and it was that) of being an expert witness in criminal courts explaining to judge, jury, defence and prosecution what 'my' data was saying and what it meant; on every occasion (and on two specific occasions despite defence counsel choosing to disbelieve what I was saying) the information and the background to the reports I supplied was believed. Was I a techie - yes a bit; but my main role was to understand the business I was in - and I did - 100% (I think!). That's why I have said what I have about some of comments expressed here.

The operational systems (i.e. those that they use to record the data) are not (and in my view should not be) used to produce reports - they are not designed for that - the off-line 'back office' systems are there to report historical information.

Edited September 1, 2014 by Leo No2

[mayalld]

Just so I understand (as a non IT petson) you are saying that CRT do have the information they require on the G&S and they said they didn't because they do not understand the system. So i will email them now and ask for the number of boats on the 14 day mooring that they want to change to 48 hours I just need to say I need the figures for the days the boats were checked on that stretch?

 

As one of the resident geeks, can I offer an answer?

 

From the information that we have, it is clear that CRT's systems contain the data that is required to provide that information.

 

It is not clear whether;

a) The information can be extracted by the end user, but the particular person asked didn't understand how.

Extracting the information is not a part of the user-facing functionality, and requires either an IT person to extract the data or an IT person to add that functionality.

 

What is clear is that if the functionality exists or is now added the underlying data would support the extract of that information for historic data as well as new sightings.

[cotswoldsman]

 

As one of the resident geeks, can I offer an answer?

 

From the information that we have, it is clear that CRT's systems contain the data that is required to provide that information.

 

It is not clear whether;

a) The information can be extracted by the end user, but the particular person asked didn't understand how.

Extracting the information is not a part of the user-facing functionality, and requires either an IT person to extract the data or an IT person to add that functionality.

 

What is clear is that if the functionality exists or is now added the underlying data would support the extract of that information for historic data as well as new sightings.

So we are back to what I posted earlier and what the thread is about "is the system fit for purpose?" And I would say in its present form the answer is "no" but like any system with time and investment could be made fit for purpose. The system at present can not confirm if a boat has moved from a mooring where it was previously logged it can only do this when the boat is logged somewhere else. In my own case I was logged at Platts Bridge and then 7 weeks later the next logging was again at Platts Bridge. The first time I was logged there I did not stay overnight and was having some work done on the boat the second time I was moored for 14 days but the next time I was logged was 5 weeks later at a different location.