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

[mayalld]

So cockup over conspiracy? Rather proves the OP, no?

 

Not really.

 

CRT produced what was almost certainly a standard report, to show financial transactions. That report includes a column that wasn't actually relevant in this case, which shows the CURRENT home mooring. There is nothing to suggest that CRT have ever made the contents of this column a part of the case that they were arguing.

 

Tony interpreted this column as having a different meaning, and has resolutely refused to accept that it means something different to what he thought it means.

 

I advised him to ask the question, and the recent response from CRT shows that their account of the meaning corresponds to my diagnosis.

 

No cock up, just somebody getting his knickers in a twist about something he didn't understand.

[Tony Dunkley]

 

Not really.

 

CRT produced what was almost certainly a standard report, to show financial transactions. That report includes a column that wasn't actually relevant in this case, which shows the CURRENT home mooring. There is nothing to suggest that CRT have ever made the contents of this column a part of the case that they were arguing.

 

Tony interpreted this column as having a different meaning, and has resolutely refused to accept that it means something different to what he thought it means.

 

I advised him to ask the question, and the recent response from CRT shows that their account of the meaning corresponds to my diagnosis.

 

No cock up, just somebody getting his knickers in a twist about something he didn't understand.

 

What do you think they were doing when they submitted a printout of it it to the Court as evidence?

[mayalld]

 

What do you think they were doing when they submitted a printout of it it to the Court as evidence?

 

Submitting a printout, part of which they intended to use in evidence.

 

Would it help if we all clubbed together and bought you a tin-foil hat?

[NigelMoore]

If CRT wanted to take any action against NBW they would have to show that everything they did - every action they took and every word they wrote - was 100% beyond reproach, and it wasn't.

 

Actually it is the other way around – it is the accused in libel cases who must demonstrate that what he says is true, or at least was a reasonable conclusion for him to reach. The claimant does not have to prove the falsity of the statement complained of.

[GUMPY]

Part of the problem is that if you are cruising past a data logger and your index number is logged the system as it currently exists registers you as moored at the point you were logged and not as cruising through and logged at a point you finally moored. Thus it could be much of the data could be incorrect if it is being used as proof of a fixed location.

Is there proof, not annecdotal evidence, of moving boats being logged a stationary?

If you are at a waterpoint taking on water or similar you get logged as being moored because you are.

I know of one boat logged as having no licence whist in a lock but that's not the same as being logged as stationary.

[mayalld]

 

Actually it is the other way around – it is the accused in libel cases who must demonstrate that what he says is true, or at least was a reasonable conclusion for him to reach. The claimant does not have to prove the falsity of the statement complained of.

 

I suppose that NBW could always argue that they have no credibility, so nobody would have believed the story anyway

[Allan(nb Albert)]

 

Actually it is the other way around – it is the accused in libel cases who must demonstrate that what he says is true, or at least was a reasonable conclusion for him to reach. The claimant does not have to prove the falsity of the statement complained of.

Absolutely correct. I found this out years ago when Nigel Johnson threatened to sue me for libel, saying that my comments about him might prevent him getting a job outside BW.

[phill]

 

Submitting a printout, part of which they intended to use in evidence.

 

Would it help if we all clubbed together and bought you a tin-foil hat?

 

I take it this personal abuse is an indication you concede the argument.

 

They intended to present this document in court, it contains misleading information. (which has only been clarified after much questioning - far more than would be allowed in court)

Which part of that do you continue to attempt to argue against?

[Hawkmoth]

 

I suppose that NBW could always argue that they have no credibility, so nobody would have believed the story anyway

Dave,

If the data is there, and CRT are within their rights, why did they not continue with the case?

Bob

[cotswoldsman]

Is there proof, not annecdotal evidence, of moving boats being logged a stationary?

If you are at a waterpoint taking on water or similar you get logged as being moored because you are.

I know of one boat logged as having no licence whist in a lock but that's not the same as being logged as stationary.

If you call CRT saying this at a meeting yesterday proof then yes there is.

Denise Yelland confirmed at the meeting yesterday with the associations that this is the case, she also said they were completely re doing the software and that will be completed next year so they have a system fit for purpose seems a waste of time and money as they just need to call on mayall to show them how to use what they have

Edited September 23, 2014 by cotswoldsman

[Hawkmoth]

If you call CRT saying this at a meeting yesterday proof then yes there is.

Denise Yelland confirmed at the meeting yesterday with the associations that this is the case, she also said they were completely re doing the software and that will be completed next year so they have a system fit for purpose seems a waste of time and money as they just need to call on mayall to show them how to use what they have

Love it, greenie

Bob

[mayalld]

 

I take it this personal abuse is an indication you concede the argument.

 

They intended to present this document in court, it contains misleading information. (which has only been clarified after much questioning - far more than would be allowed in court)

Which part of that do you continue to attempt to argue against?

 

It was hardly personal abuse. Rather it was an aside that suggests that Tony is seeing persecution where there was none.

 

The report doesn't contain misleading information. It contains information that Tony read one way and others read another way.

 

It is also inaccurate to suggest that the meaning of the data has been clarified only after much questioning.

 

In this thread, I offered my analysis of what the data actually conveyed very rapidly (an analysis that is in agreement with what CRT stated), and once CRT were asked about the meaning, they came back with an explanation.

 

There might well have been a lot of hot air about it here, but the explanation didn't require "much questioning"

[Naughty Cal]

 

It was hardly personal abuse. Rather it was an aside that suggests that Tony is seeing persecution where there was none.

 

The report doesn't contain misleading information. It contains information that Tony read one way and others read another way.

 

It is also inaccurate to suggest that the meaning of the data has been clarified only after much questioning.

 

In this thread, I offered my analysis of what the data actually conveyed very rapidly (an analysis that is in agreement with what CRT stated), and once CRT were asked about the meaning, they came back with an explanation.

 

There might well have been a lot of hot air about it here, but the explanation didn't require "much questioning"

Nothing changes

[Tony Dunkley]

 

It was hardly personal abuse. Rather it was an aside that suggests that Tony is seeing persecution where there was none.

 

The report doesn't contain misleading information. It contains information that Tony read one way and others read another way.

 

It is also inaccurate to suggest that the meaning of the data has been clarified only after much questioning.

 

In this thread, I offered my analysis of what the data actually conveyed very rapidly (an analysis that is in agreement with what CRT stated), and once CRT were asked about the meaning, they came back with an explanation.

 

There might well have been a lot of hot air about it here, but the explanation didn't require "much questioning"

 

Don't look now . . . but it seems that C&RT have just pulled the rug out from under you.

[GUMPY]

DP

Edited September 23, 2014 by Loddon

[GUMPY]

If you call CRT saying this at a meeting yesterday proof then yes there is.

Denise Yelland confirmed at the meeting yesterday with the associations that this is the case,

Ill take that as true then, so many of the "reports" from people on here are twisted to suit their agendas.

[cotswoldsman]

Ill take that as true then, so many of the "reports" from people on here are twisted to suit their agendas.

Not saying anything about an agenda just stating that boats logged while moving show on the report as being moored.

[Naughty Cal]

Not saying anything about an agenda just stating that boats logged while moving show on the report as being moored.

As an aside why should it matter whether a boat logged at a certain location is moving or moored?

 

Surely the point of the boat logging is to log boats at a certain location at a set time. Even a moving boat is there at that location at that time.

[alan_fincher]

Is there proof, not annecdotal evidence, of moving boats being logged a stationary?

If you are at a waterpoint taking on water or similar you get logged as being moored because you are.

I know of one boat logged as having no licence whist in a lock but that's not the same as being logged as stationary.

I believe that I have been recorded on more than one occasion whilst actually boating.

 

Call it "anecdotal" if you like, but each time the operative has apparently taken details, and keyed into a hand-held device.

 

I can't "prove" it, because I haven't seen what eventually gets recorded in CRT's saystem as a result of what I have seen, but I certainly believe I have been recorded.

 

The definition of "moored" versus "not moored" is surely a bit tricky anyway. If I'm tied by a centre-line to a bollard, waiting my turn for a lock, is that "moored" or "not moored"?

As an aside why should it matter whether a boat logged at a certain location is moving or moored?

 

Surely the point of the boat logging is to log boats at a certain location at a set time. Even a moving boat is there at that location at that time.

As an aside why should it matter whether a boat logged at a certain location is moving or moored?

 

Surely the point of the boat logging is to log boats at a certain location at a set time. Even a moving boat is there at that location at that time.

Because if I pass throgh Stoke Bruerne (for example), one day, and get recorded waiting for the locks, and then I pass back again, next day, and the same thing happens, I have not actually at any point stayed there. But unless their system can differentiate between "tied up" and "not tied up", I could be recorded wrongly as having used one of the nights I'm allowed to stay there in any month.

 

That's just one example.

 

If they can't differentiate between "tied up" and "not tied up", the use of the resulting data will be suspect in a whole raft of situations that it is not hard to think up.

[GUMPY]

If you ask CaRT for a record of your sightings then you would know.

[cotswoldsman]

As an aside why should it matter whether a boat logged at a certain location is moving or moored?

 

Surely the point of the boat logging is to log boats at a certain location at a set time. Even a moving boat is there at that location at that time.

Well maybe to you it does not matter. I might be on the move and logged then a week later go back to that location and stay for 14 days the system would then show me as having been there for 21 days so yes it is important. You just need to think about it a boat might be logged while moving go into a marina for 3 weeks go back and moor up at that place for 10 days get logged and the system would tell them they had been there for 31 days Edited September 23, 2014 by cotswoldsman

[alan_fincher]

If you ask CaRT for a record of your sightings then you would know.

Yes, I know, but whilst I'm interested, I'm personally not affected by the result, so I have always been not inclined to use up any office time by asking.

[jenlyn]

What some are missing, is the fact that number checkers logging boats "going past" a visitor mooring rather skews the whole project.

[bassplayer]

Has this debate gone full circle? Surely the answer to the OP's original question is 'no' because CRT can't sample boat movements fast enough. Crap in, crap out...

[phill]

Has this debate gone full circle? Surely the answer to the OP's original question is 'no' because CRT can't sample boat movements fast enough. Crap in, crap out...

 

No, no, the answer to the OP' original question is 'yes'.....

 

 

....because the purpose was to shaft Tony Dunkley in court and it was perfect for that.