Jump to content

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


Tony Dunkley
 Share

Featured Posts

Could I ask you to read what I have said?

 

Why would I need to do so again?

 

You claim that a key piece of evidence is fatally flawed, yet you seem to imagine that the fact that it is flawed means that you need not rebut it.

 

On the contrary, your rebutal is that it is fatally flawed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

But the point I'm making is there is a difference between the raw data (which they are able to access) and the interpretation of the available data which leads to an accusation/action etc. Yes there's reports of people who look at the raw data and say its incorrect, but up until now, these people aren't having action taken against them. So its inconsequential.

And are unlikely to have action taken against them.

 

CRT dont just look at the log sheets and think I know lets take Boat X to court this week.He has been sighted on the same mooring six times frusty.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

But the point I'm making is there is a difference between the raw data (which they are able to access) and the interpretation of the available data which leads to an accusation/action etc. Yes there's reports of people who look at the raw data and say its incorrect, but up until now, these people aren't having action taken against them. So its inconsequential.

 

But the point I'm making is that while it might be inconsequential for them, they are saying the raw sighting data is incorrect.

 

Interpreting valid data is one thing. Interpreting incorrect or invalid data is another.

 

You do see that, don't you?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

But the point I'm making is that while it might be inconsequential for them, they are saying the raw sighting data is incorrect.

 

Interpreting valid data is one thing. Interpreting incorrect or invalid data is another.

 

You do see that, don't you?

 

Yes, that's the point I'm making. They'll interpret incorrect/invalid data, realise it is incorrect/invalid, and not rely on its use in any enforcement action.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Yes, that's the point I'm making. They'll interpret incorrect/invalid data, realise it is incorrect/invalid, and not rely on its use in any enforcement action.

 

I appreciate that some incorrect records will stand out as obvious errors and I would hope, but wouldn't bet on it, that CRT have checks in place to flag up such things as sightings which imply boats being able to travel at warp speed.

 

But what about the ones which though incorrect appear perfectly plausible?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

I appreciate that some incorrect records will stand out as obvious errors and I would hope, but wouldn't bet on it, that CRT have checks in place to flag up such things as sightings which imply boats being able to travel at warp speed.

 

But what about the ones which though incorrect appear perfectly plausible?

 

That's an interesting point, can you cite a case (don't say this one) where CRT have used incorrect although plausible data in enforcement action?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Why would I need to do so again?

 

You claim that a key piece of evidence is fatally flawed, yet you seem to imagine that the fact that it is flawed means that you need not rebut it.

 

On the contrary, your rebutal is that it is fatally flawed.

May I suggest that you apply for membership of the FES. I am sure they would be delighted to have the benefit of your clear thinking and uncanny ability to get hold of the wrong end of every stick that comes along.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Perhaps a touch of be careful what you wish for is in order. Lets assume the C&RT system is discredited in a court. They'd be left with no option but to either employ more people to check, thus spending less on maintenance, or maybe look to a mandatory boat tracking system tied to licence renewal.

 

It would, meanwhile, be an absolute doddle to use Facebook to 'check in' from a smartphone every time you moved and build date stamped GPS linked proof of your movements.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

I appreciate that some incorrect records will stand out as obvious errors and I would hope, but wouldn't bet on it, that CRT have checks in place to flag up such things as sightings which imply boats being able to travel at warp speed.

 

 

Which may actually indicate cloned boats.

 

Buy one licence copy it for your mate's boat at the other end of the country.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

That's an interesting point, can you cite a case (don't say this one) where CRT have used incorrect although plausible data in enforcement action?

 

I have no idea of which cases they might be, for the very obvious reason that without an independent source of information about a boat's movements, we can't know which plausible information is correct and which is incorrect.

 

It is not just reports of errors in raw sightings logs that should be a cause for concern, but that many of the errors are of a particular type, namely; that they record a boat being at a previously logged location. A boat being at a previously logged location is both plausible and indicative of overstaying or not abiding by the the CC rules, so errors of that kind are much more likely to result in enforcement action than a random error.

 

What level of incidence of errors in raw sightings logs do you feel is acceptable?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Perhaps a touch of be careful what you wish for is in order. Lets assume the C&RT system is discredited in a court. They'd be left with no option but to either employ more people to check, thus spending less on maintenance, or maybe look to a mandatory boat tracking system tied to licence renewal.

 

Not necessarily.

 

CRT don't have to show that their interpretation of sightings logs is 100% accurate. What they do have to show is that they have checked how accurate it is and can justify the reliance they place on their interpretations of individual sightings.

 

A successful challenge on the accuracy of the sightings wouldn't necessarily mean that CRT had to get a better system or employ more people to continue to enforce the licence conditions. It would just mean they would have to be more careful how they use the information that they collect.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Its funny in how all the high-profile court cases bringing CCers to justice, not one of them has kept an up-to-date log of their movements and contested that their log is correct while CRTs records aren't. All except TD's upcoming one, possibly.....

Well that might be correct what you are missing is the people who go through the section 8 process produce the required evidence that result in CRT dropping the case I personally know 3 cases like this and I rarely get involved in section 8 stuff

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

That's an interesting point, can you cite a case (don't say this one) where CRT have used incorrect although plausible data in enforcement action?

Yes but can not name the boat or person and because CRT dropped the section 8 it is not in the public domain and for data protection reasons CRT do not name boats and people for every section 8 they issue. It only goes into public if it goes as far as court
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Yes, that's the point I'm making. They'll interpret incorrect/invalid data, realise it is incorrect/invalid, and not rely on its use in any enforcement action.

How will they realise this? Psychic powers?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How will they realise this? Psychic powers?

 

The implausible ones are easy to spot - eg boat spotted in 2 vastly different places at similar times, giving a nonsensical movement speed if they were true. The incorrect but implausible ones are a concern. I thank costwaldman confirming that it could and does occur, and could lead to potential enforcement. However without full details (something which has also been a feature so far of the TD case) I can't really make a judgement on how much of a concern it is to be. But since I respect that boaters may not wish to make this information publically available, I respect this and can't really comment further. I am very wary, and dislike, trying to make a judgement based on "what if" or hypothetical theories which might occur (but are probably exaggerations). This isn't to say I don't welcome a boater coming along and making all the evidence they have of poor data logging followed by inappropriate enforcement publically available, so its possible to see all the evidence and make a proper judgement on it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I wouldn't disagree, PaulC.

 

Though I would suggest that people do check that sightings logged against their boat are correct and that where there are errors they are noted and reported to CRT even if they are inconsequential in terms of enforcement action.

 

I think it's also very reasonable to ask why sightings of boats by CRT lock keepers aren't included in the lists being provided to boaters who request the information.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

The implausible ones are easy to spot - eg boat spotted in 2 vastly different places at similar times, giving a nonsensical movement speed if they were true. The incorrect but implausible ones are a concern. I thank costwaldman confirming that it could and does occur, and could lead to potential enforcement. However without full details (something which has also been a feature so far of the TD case) I can't really make a judgement on how much of a concern it is to be. But since I respect that boaters may not wish to make this information publically available, I respect this and can't really comment further. I am very wary, and dislike, trying to make a judgement based on "what if" or hypothetical theories which might occur (but are probably exaggerations). This isn't to say I don't welcome a boater coming along and making all the evidence they have of poor data logging followed by inappropriate enforcement publically available, so its possible to see all the evidence and make a proper judgement on it.

I know of many who wish to do precisely this, but are reluctant to do so for fear of attracting special attention from the over zealous, vindictive and bullying elements within the C&RT Enforcement Team. The systematic and relentless intimidation of targetted, usually liveaboard, boat owners by BW/C&RT really has worked. The originators of this shameful campaign have now either gone or been moved to where they can do less harm, but,sadly, the evil that men(and some women) do will live on after them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I know of many who wish to do precisely this, but are reluctant to do so for fear of attracting special attention from the over zealous, vindictive and bullying elements within the C&RT Enforcement Team. The systematic and relentless intimidation of targetted, usually liveaboard, boat owners by BW/C&RT really has worked. The originators of this shameful campaign have now either gone or been moved to where they can do less harm, but,sadly, the evil that men(and some women) do will live on after them.

 

But the point is, what can CRT do if the afflicted boaters go public with the info? They've ALREADY had inappropriate enforcement action taken against them etc, and if they're not breaking the rules and clearly able to demonstrate as such, CRT are going to look daft if it ends up in court and they lose.

 

And if, as you say the originators of this type of action within CRT have gone/been moved on, who are the overzealous/vindictive/bullying elements who are going to give the special attention?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

But the point is, what can CRT do if the afflicted boaters go public with the info? They've ALREADY had inappropriate enforcement action taken against them etc, and if they're not breaking the rules and clearly able to demonstrate as such, CRT are going to look daft if it ends up in court and they lose.

 

And if, as you say the originators of this type of action within CRT have gone/been moved on, who are the overzealous/vindictive/bullying elements who are going to give the special attention?

I couldn't agree more, but it's not me that you need to convince, its the frightened boat owners. C&RT's Abolish Tony Dunkley Campaign is probably not doing much to reassure them, but if you or any other Forum members can do or say anything to encourage them to make their fears and concerns known, then please do so. A great many peoples lives will be much the better for it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This from a C&RT E-mail in response to the question I asked in the OP. . .

 

". . . the information held within our corporate systems can be extracted and displayed in many different ways depending on the reason or purpose it is needed."

. . . that's reassuring, isn't it.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

This from a C&RT E-mail in response to the question I asked in the OP. . .

 

". . . the information held within our corporate systems can be extracted and displayed in many different ways depending on the reason or purpose it is needed."

. . . that's reassuring, isn't it.

 

 

I used to work in IT, its perfectly normal to be able to pull up various different types of reports from the raw data. I imagine the raw data, if printed out and given to you, would be so confusing you'd need a computer yourself to interpret it!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

This from a C&RT E-mail in response to the question I asked in the OP. . .

 

". . . the information held within our corporate systems can be extracted and displayed in many different ways depending on the reason or purpose it is needed."

. . . that's reassuring, isn't it.

 

Well yes it is.

 

Thats how data systems work frusty.gif

 

I used to work in IT, its perfectly normal to be able to pull up various different types of reports from the raw data. I imagine the raw data, if printed out and given to you, would be so confusing you'd need a computer yourself to interpret it!

 

You beat me too it rolleyes.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You have to remember that data (as held in a database) is just that - data. By extracting it (there are many different exploitation tools) you can turn it information - I'd be surprised if CRT don't do that.

 

You may need to apply filters to the data - e.g. In BA there's a record for every flight whether it flew or not. I won't go into the semantics but suffice to say there is a 'Flew' Indicator so any data turned into information would, unless there were extenuating circumstances, include the filter 'where FLEW_IND=Y.'

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.