Jump to content

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


Tony Dunkley
 Share

Featured Posts

You can tell a lot about what organisations actually think (or thought) from their software. Software is rarely built to to model the complexities of the real world. This seems like a good way to maximise reports of non compliance while being able to cut down on the numbers of people who don't work in an office.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

From the 'Dark Side' but relevant :

 

Paul Griffin of the C&RT Enforcemen team stated :

 

He went on to exlain that the phsical checks were carried out fortnightly on the canals and monthly on the rivers. Here it should be noted that once a physical sighting of a boat's position has been logged by a Data Checker, the computer then replicates that sighting until such time as a Data Checker follows up with a further sighting.

 

So the C&RT system, once a boat has been logged, assumes the boat doesnt move until it is sighted again.

If it is logged on the River (say) 1st July, then one month later, having been down the Witham to Boston and back to the same mooring by the 1st of August - C&RT assume the boat has not moved and will become subject to enforcement.

 

Doesnt sound like a very robust sytem !!

 

http://www.narrowboatworld.com/index.php/news-flash/7189-all-treated-as-continuous-cruisers

 

That is why I wrote CruisinLog. I could get sighted at Gayton Junction.I then overwinter on EA waters for 5-6 months and then if I get sighted at Gayton on the way back I would be on CaRT's hit list as not having moved for 5 months. CaRT don't have dataloggers on EA waters despite issuing Gold licences. This is not theoretical, This is the trip I make 2 years out of 3.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The question I'd be asking before asking about the data is what does the meta data say - by that I mean show me the data dictionary as to what each column of data really means and not what someone thinks it means. We had up to about 3,000 characters to describe what the data in each column meant. On a number of occasions I was an expert witness at trials and whilst the data in the columns was important more often than not the outcome of the trial relied on what that data meant i.e. the meta data and we had to deposit a physical copy of the data dictionary with the court.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is the base data, archived original documents (if they exists) that should be obtained . . .

Good luck with that!

 

In my experience, if they do not wish to disclose archived documentation, then you haven’t a hope in hell of extracting it. There will always be an explanation for why they don’t have it, whether because it never existed, or has since been destroyed/misplaced. You will hardly ever be in a position to contradict their disclaimer, and who could possibly elicit proof of fraud in this respect?

 

I have run up against this obstructionism in the current proceedings against me that Mr Parry insisted were necessary. The effort to elicit the material has uncovered ‘interesting’ paradoxes.

 

In early 2004/5 the Crown Prosecution Service pursued a case of Criminal Damage against an ex-tenant who had cut down our gates and thrown them into the river. The perpetrator referred his solicitors to BW, and they obligingly produced from the Estates Department [ever creative] a couple of maps purporting to outline the extent of BW’s land ownership.

 

[ For those who might be wondering what on earth BW had to do with it, the defence relied on being able to show that the perpetrator had reason to believe that BW consented to his otherwise criminal action.]

 

The local moorings manager wrote to the Estates Department for ‘evidence’ that the perpetrator could use to demonstrate that BW owned the land on which the gates had had been installed –

 

bannistertobwestates_zps6d594f7b.jpg

 

Armed with assurances that BW had deeds to the land, and provided with annotated maps outlining the [alleged] BW borders, the manager sent these off to the perpetrator’s solicitor –

 

bannistertopritchardsolicitor_zps64e0808

 

Bear in mind that these maps were produced as evidence in criminal court, and were backed by Mr Bannister’s sworn testimony that they represented BW holdings as established and verified by the Estates Department.

 

Now it is not that I accord any credence to anything supplied by BW’s Estates Department, especially since their later forged amendation of their ‘Terrier Map’ [now described as “a mistake”, and classed by Mr Parry as “irrelevant”], but the fact is that the northern border position is advantageous to me in the current proceedings. I therefore asked for copies of the colour originals [i only had the B&W faxed copies], and for the backing documentation relied upon to produce the maps.

 

For over a month this request was ignored. Then I wrote to the instructed barrister asking for his assistance in persuading CaRT to comply. He duly wrote concerning this, but still nothing. So I wrote to the Court for an Order for disclosure, which finally elicited - just a few days ago – colour copies of what was sent to the criminal court, and the correspondence posted above. As for the background documentation on which the maps were allegedly based, the accompanying letter claimed –

 

shoosmithstomeextract_zps03d6cb55.jpg

 

Now, I am not sure what to believe in this instance. The most probable situation is that BW [as usual] just concocted the maps with no supporting basis at all, sure in the knowledge that the courts would never think to question their veracity.

 

BUT – relevant to my opening comment – this is an either/or situation. Either the ‘evidence’ supplied to the court under oath was pure fiction, having no basis in historical documentation, or they are lying now, and are deliberately withholding that documentation. [The option of being unable to find what might have once been available is just too absurd to entertain.]

 

I’m not going to push this further; I am going to ask the court to give full credence to the previous BW claim respecting the northern border limit. It sometimes has worked in my favour when the courts have believed certain BW evidence. In the criminal case, it actually worked in my favour that the magistrates could not conceive of BW being anything other than possessed of immaculate probity!

 

In Tony Dunkley’s case, it also seems scarcely necessary to obtain the background data – but then again there is no harm trying; one never knows what might surface in reluctantly disclosed material.

  • Greenie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Surely the simplest way to resolve this would be for TD to show the court his copies of his completed annual license application on which will be his home mooring location(s).

 

As the 'prime document', the original license application form would have greater validity than any computer records produced by CRT.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Surely the simplest way to resolve this . . .

 

No, I am afraid it would resolve nothing. While your suggestion is valid respecting the basis on which his licences had been held – [i.e. (i) not (ii)] - the applications would not establish that the mooring had geographical reality; that it was suitable for the boat, or that it was available for that boat at any time because it was being paid for. Neither, which is the most salient point in this litigation, would it establish any history of use of the mooring.

 

The fairly simple point of this topic is the questionable nature of the documentary records being held and produced in evidence. If it can be demonstrated that there are fundamental flaws in CaRT's generation of documented evidence, then that severely damages the strength of any claims made purely on the basis of such manufactured evidence - which might have nothing to do with moorings, for example, but which might have, in this case and for others, a lot to do with say, boat movements. It speaks to the credibility of the core basis on which enforcement action is taken.

 

In fact, similarly to a point I made in the previous post, this bit of ‘evidence’ actually works in the defendant’s favour – it purports to show that he has been consistently paying for the claimed home mooring for the boat concerned [AND that they have issued his licence for the boat on that basis] from 2003 until the present!

 

Nothing there to harm the defence!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, I am afraid it would resolve nothing. While your suggestion is valid respecting the basis on which his licences had been held – [i.e. (i) not (ii)] - the applications would not establish that the mooring had geographical reality; that it was suitable for the boat, or that it was available for that boat at any time because it was being paid for. Neither, which is the most salient point in this litigation, would it establish any history of use of the mooring.

 

The fairly simple point of this topic is the questionable nature of the documentary records being held and produced in evidence. If it can be demonstrated that there are fundamental flaws in CaRT's generation of documented evidence, then that severely damages the strength of any claims made purely on the basis of such manufactured evidence - which might have nothing to do with moorings, for example, but which might have, in this case and for others, a lot to do with say, boat movements. It speaks to the credibility of the core basis on which enforcement action is taken.

 

In fact, similarly to a point I made in the previous post, this bit of ‘evidence’ actually works in the defendant’s favour – it purports to show that he has been consistently paying for the claimed home mooring for the boat concerned [AND that they have issued his licence for the boat on that basis] from 2003 until the present!

 

Nothing there to harm the defence!

Well I'd be very surprised if the case didn't get thrown out of court...

 

I suppose if anyone is really worried about CRT misinterpreting data they could always fit a GPS logger to their own boat...at least the higher sample rate of data would be regarded as more useful in court...the sample rate CRT are using (weekly/monthly) could only be used to prove you were somewhere...NOT...that you weren't somewhere....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

I could get sighted at Gayton Junction.I then overwinter on EA waters for 5-6 months and then if I get sighted at Gayton on the way back I would be on CaRT's hit list as not having moved for 5 months. CaRT don't have dataloggers on EA waters despite issuing Gold licences. This is not theoretical, This is the trip I make 2 years out of 3.

 

But to accuse you of not moving on, CRT would have to ignore all the times that boats were logged at Gayton Junction for the 5-6 months your boat was not there.

 

It is fair enough for CRT to monitor the known location of a boat. Clearly, that will change each time a boat is sighted at a new location, but it should also change each time the last known location of a boat is checked and that boat is not present. If/when that happens, a boat's known location is unspecified until it turns up somewhere else.

 

It would be helpful to CRT if their systems did that automatically, but they should certainly be checking their data before citing people for overstaying at a paticular place over a period unless the boat is present during all of their checks of that location, over the entirety of that period.

 

For the situation you describe to arise, it needn't be the case that the boat has to be removed from CRT water. All that has to happen is that the boat is not logged elsewhere between two sightings at the same place. But... it"s only theoretical that a boat would be placed on a hit list if "boat not present" instances are ignored and we don't know whether that is actually the case.

 

So are there any instances of boats being cited for overstaying or not moving on, using sightings from non-consecutive checks of a particular location?

Edited by NilesMI
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

But to accuse you of not moving on, CRT would have to ignore all the times that boats were logged at Gayton Junction for the 5-6 months your boat was not there.

 

It is fair enough for CRT to monitor the known location of a boat. Clearly, that will change each time a boat is sighted at a new location, but it should also change each time the last known location of a boat is checked and that boat is not present. If/when that happens, a boat's known location is unspecified until it turns up somewhere else.

 

It would be helpful to CRT if their systems did that automatically, but they should certainly be checking their data before citing people for overstaying at a paticular place over a period unless the boat is present during all of their checks of that location, over the entirety of that period.

 

For the situation you describe to arise, it needn't be the case that the boat has to be removed from CRT water. All that has to happen is that the boat is not logged elsewhere between two sightings at the same place. But... it"s only theoretical that a boat would be placed on a hit list if "boat not present" instances are ignored and we don't know whether that is actually the case.

 

So are there any instances of boats being cited for overstaying or not moving on, using sightings from non-consecutive checks of a particular location?

 

It does seem to happen that boats are considered to be in the same place unless logged somewhere else. There was a recent report of such an incident on the London Boaters forum. The link provided by Alan de Enfield http://www.narrowboa...inuous-cruisers above would seem to verify that the situation over boat position logging is that a boat is considered to be in the same place unless logged elsewhere.

 

There are many ways that the boat logging system could/should be improved but if the system described in the NBW link is the one in use, then people need to be very aware of it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well I'd be very surprised if the case didn't get thrown out of court...

 

I’d be very surprised if it was.

 

In the first place, the genesis of the complaint – regardless of all consequential claims - is the CaRT claim that the boat was not moored or used in compliance with the terms of its licence.

 

If the relevant officer claims that the boat exceeded the mooring limits, then whether the boat did or did not, unless the boat-owner can produce proof that it is wrong, the court will give credence to the authority’s claim [as I have illustrated from cross-examination transcripts and judgments].

 

The Officer has made that claim – “sightings were gathered that showed the boat was overstaying at the location.” The boat owner has no evidence to contradict the statement, so really, any evidence CaRT brings forward [such as the document under discussion] is actually superfluous to requirement.

 

But even this basis for revoking the licence is a redundancy. The application to the court for an injunction against the boat “is made on the grounds that the Defendant’s boat . . . is moored at the property without a current licence such that CRT is entitled to remove the Boat from the Property pursuant to CRT’s statutory powers.” That is all that the Claim itself asserts [as distinct from the Officer’s evidence]. The background reasons for why the boat is unlicensed are immaterial to the fact of its unlicensed status.

 

If the boat had remained there, waiting for this case to be heard, or continued to cruise betimes, not having the relevant consent - then there could be no defence at all to that application – as per the Mayers case.

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.

That's exactly what I intend to do in conjunction with keeping a log keeping a log

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

It does seem to happen that boats are considered to be in the same place unless logged somewhere else. There was a recent report of such an incident on the London Boaters forum. The link provided by Alan de Enfield http://www.narrowboa...inuous-cruisers above would seem to verify that the situation over boat position logging is that a boat is considered to be in the same place unless logged elsewhere.

 

There are many ways that the boat logging system could/should be improved but if the system described in the NBW link is the one in use, then people need to be very aware of it.

 

 

Thanks for re-posting the link.

 

However, it appears to relate to a case where a boat was logged twice at the same place. it doesn't say whether the two occasions when the boat was logged, relate to consecutive checks of the particular location. If they are then it is suggestive of, but not conclusive evidence that the boat has remained in the same place between the two sightings. However if the sightings don't relate to two consecutive checks of the location and there is an intermediate date on which the site was checked when the boat was not found to be present, it would be just as conclusive evidence that the boat had moved between the two dates, as a sighting somewhere else.

 

So, I ask again: Are there any instances of boats being cited for overstaying or not moving on, using sightings from non-consecutive checks of a particular location?

 

Or (just to cover all the bases) are there any instances of a boat being cited based on being sighted once at a particular location and presumed to have remained there because it wasn't sighted anywhere else?

 

Unless there are, I don't see where the claim that a boat is "considered to be in the same place unless logged somewhere else" is being made by CRT. It may well be that until seen somewhere else, the CRT computer records show the boat's last known location as the point it was last sighted, but that's quite a different thing. "Last known location" != "Current location".

 

I appreciate that even two consecuitve sightings at the same place is not conclusive of staying put, but in such circumstances, if there is no evidence provided to the contrary, is it not reasonable that CRT assume that? If they cannot, then there is no point to making checks.

 

This thread started because in a rather convoluted post, someone suggested that a boat's logged location in CRT's records was being overwritten by subsequent sightings. As the discussion has continued and facts drawn out, it seems to me that is far from what CRT's systems are actually doing. It would be a big concern if it was actually happening, but I've seen no evidence that it is.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

It does seem to happen that boats are considered to be in the same place unless logged somewhere else. There was a recent report of such an incident on the London Boaters forum. The link provided by Alan de Enfield http://www.narrowboa...inuous-cruisers above would seem to verify that the situation over boat position logging is that a boat is considered to be in the same place unless logged elsewhere.

 

There are many ways that the boat logging system could/should be improved but if the system described in the NBW link is the one in use, then people need to be very aware of it.

If it is I like it.

 

Our boat has never been logged anywhere bar our home mooring. In which case it never moves!

 

Great selling feature;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In the NBW article it states:

 

Here it should though be noted that once a physical sighting of a boat's position has been logged by a Data Checker, the computer then replicates that sighting until such time as a Data Checker follows up with a further sighting.

 

Whether that covers your point(s) or not I am not sure. It would indicate to me that not having a further sighting would continue to replicate the original sighting, When, some months later, a further sighting takes place in the same area, without intervening sightings the system considers that your boat has not moved.

 

There was a case recently reported on London Boaters facebook page of someone receiving a notice after returning to an area after some months of absence in just these circumstances. Luckily the boater could prove where they had been and when. (London Boaters, July 14th).

 

Unfortunately most of the sparse knowledge of CaRT's boat logging system is gained from how it reacts rather than it's specification, I have asked for a meeting to with CaRT to align CruisinLog's GPS readings with CaRT's dataloggers to enable easier cross checking in the event of disputes but I never received a reply.

 

It should be noted that a GPS position is not an absolute position, a GPS unit gives a position and it's level of accuracy, which is why I refer to an area.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In the NBW article it states:

 

Here it should though be noted that once a physical sighting of a boat's position has been logged by a Data Checker, the computer then replicates that sighting until such time as a Data Checker follows up with a further sighting.

 

Whether that covers your point(s) or not I am not sure. It would indicate to me that not having a further sighting would continue to replicate the original sighting, When, some months later, a further sighting takes place in the same area, without intervening sightings the system considers that your boat has not moved.

 

There was a case recently reported on London Boaters facebook page of someone receiving a notice after returning to an area after some months of absence in just these circumstances. Luckily the boater could prove where they had been and when. (London Boaters, July 14th).

 

Unfortunately most of the sparse knowledge of CaRT's boat logging system is gained from how it reacts rather than it's specification, I have asked for a meeting to with CaRT to align CruisinLog's GPS readings with CaRT's dataloggers to enable easier cross checking in the event of disputes but I never received a reply.

 

It should be noted that a GPS position is not an absolute position, a GPS unit gives a position and it's level of accuracy, which is why I refer to an area.

 

 

My point is that if CRT's computer maintains a record of the "last known location" of a boat, based on sightings, that isn't, in itself, something to concern us. It only becomes a concern if "last known location" is used sloppily as a substitute for "current location", because the non-presence of the boat at the location is ignored. In terms of whether it has moved, non-presence of the boat at the last known location is just as significant as a sighting of the boat elsewhere.

 

In the London Boater example, were the two sightings from consecutive checks of the location concerned? (It seems unlikely if they were months apart) If not, an intermediate check of the location should have shown the boat was not there (if it wasn't) and I'd agree that CRT should rightly be criticised for alleging overstaying when they had ignored their own direct evidence to the contrary.

 

When a boat is logged in the same place, without being logged elesewhere in the meanwhile, looking all the intermediate checks of a location for the non-presence of a boat is such an obvious thing to do that I would expect CRT to do it themselves before they issue a notice. Whether they do or not, requesting all the intermediate dates on which the location was checked and the presence of the boat recorded, would be something anyone in the London Boater's position should do. It would mean they wouldn't have to rely on providing their own evidence of the boat being somewhere else.

 

Providing such "boat not present" instances are taken into account, the only problem I see with recording the "last known location" unless and until the boat is sighted somewhere else is when the boat is logged at the same place on consecutive checks. CRT say they will be at two week intervals on canals and one month intervals on rivers. Clearly a boat can have travelled away, without being recorded elsewhere, and returned to the same location between the two sightings, but if CRT are going to use the sighting logs to check on movement I don't see what else they can do other than to assume that the two consecutive sightings indicate that the boat hasn't moved and issue a notice. It would then be for the boater to provide his/her own evidence to the contrary.

 

The lessons I would take away from this discussion are; firstly that if you intend or think it likely that you will return to the same place within the interval at which consecutive sightings are likely to be made, you are especially careful to keep direct evidence of your movements. Secondly, if you recieve a notice based on sightings of the boat at a particular place on two dates, you require CRT to provide you with all the intermediate dates at which that place was checked and confirm that the boat was logged there.

 

Finally, now that the actual printout has been provided, I can't seen anything which supports the OP's suggestion that CRT's system is overwriting the locations of previously logged sightings with later ones, (which would indeed have been a reason for serious concern) or that the logging system isn't fit for purpose.

Edited by NilesMI
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

My point is that if CRT's computer maintains a record of the "last known location" of a boat, based on sightings, that isn't, in itself, something to concern us. It only becomes a concern if "last known location" is used sloppily as a substitute for "current location", because the non-presence of the boat at the location is ignored. In terms of whether it has moved, non-presence of the boat at the last known location is just as significant as a sighting of the boat elsewhere.

 

In the London Boater example, were the two sightings from consecutive checks of the location concerned? (It seems unlikely if they were months apart) If not, an intermediate check of the location should have shown the boat was not there (if it wasn't) and I'd agree that CRT should rightly be criticised for alleging overstaying when they had ignored their own direct evidence to the contrary.

 

When a boat is logged in the same place, without being logged elesewhere in the meanwhile, looking all the intermediate checks of a location for the non-presence of a boat is such an obvious thing to do that I would expect CRT to do it themselves before they issue a notice. Whether they do or not, requesting all the intermediate dates on which the location was checked and the presence of the boat recorded, would be something anyone in the London Boater's position should do. It would mean they wouldn't have to rely on providing their own evidence of the boat being somewhere else.

 

Providing such "boat not present" instances are taken into account, the only problem I see with recording the "last known location" unless and until the boat is sighted somewhere else is when the boat is logged at the same place on consecutive checks. CRT say they will be at two week intervals on canals and one month intervals on rivers. Clearly a boat can have travelled away, without being recorded elsewhere, and returned to the same location between the two sightings, but if CRT are going to use the sighting logs to check on movement I don't see what else they can do other than to assume that the two consecutive sightings indicate that the boat hasn't moved and issue a notice. It would then be for the boater to provide his/her own evidence to the contrary.

 

The lessons I would take away from this discussion are; firstly that if you intend or think it likely that you will return to the same place within the interval at which consecutive sightings are likely to be made, you are especially careful to keep direct evidence of your movements. Secondly, if you recieve a notice based on sightings of the boat at a particular place on two dates, you require CRT to provide you with all the intermediate dates at which that place was checked and confirm that the boat was logged there.

 

Finally, now that the actual printout has been provided, I can't seen anything which supports the OP's suggestion that CRT's system is overwriting the locations of previously logged sightings with later ones, (which would indeed have been a reason for serious concern) or that the logging system isn't fit for purpose.

 

 

The report was for financial transactions in relation to home moorings, nothing to do with boat logging. I have never seen a report from their boat logging system. Somehow the two subjects have got a little mixed up in this thread. The report showed, amongst other things that the home mooring did not reflect the home mooring at the time of the financial transaction and gave the appearance that previous home moorings had been overwritten by the current home mooring.

 

Removing the last logged position if the boat is not logged in the same area, nor logged elsewhere, is technically difficult, but far from impossible, which is why I suspect it is not being done. All of the pointers however point in that direction.

 

I do not know whether you could obtain information from CaRT as to the "intermediate" date sightings taken in the same area which do not show your craft. It would depend on their data upload protocols.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So, in other words, C&RT's computer system has produced a printout which is just a load of misleading tripe. If it can do the same job on boat sightings then it may go some way towards explaining why some people are being wrongly accused of overstaying.

No, it has produced what it was asked for.

 

Without knowing the original purpose of the report it is impossible to draw that conclusion.

 

The system will have a number of reports for specific purposes.

 

The usual way with systems design is that shortly after a system goes live the users realise they failed to specify what they really wanted.

 

Getting it fixed will cost money, so they manage with the reports they have and a clear understanding that certain fields in that report don't actually have any meaning in that context.

 

Worse still, some systems allow users to build reports. The content may well be crap, but the underlying data is fine.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Somehow the two subjects have got a little mixed up in this thread.

 

I suspect that was the OP's intention.

 

 

I do not know whether you could obtain information from CaRT as to the "intermediate" date sightings taken in the same area which do not show your craft. It would depend on their data upload protocols.

 

All intermediate sightings need to be examined before two non-consecutive sightings have any relevance, so CRT have to be able to show they have checked them and that the boat was present. If they can't, for whatever reason, the boater is entitled to say that their "evidence" is not indicative of not having moved, without even having to resort to providing their own evidence that they were elsewhere.

 

If CRT has a system which cant recall checks of places to see that a boat wasn't there, it wouldn't be fit for purpose. The purpose being to collect evidence consistent with a boat not having moved.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The usual way with systems design is that shortly after a system goes live the users realise they failed to specify what they really wanted.

 

Lol, how true!

 

 

 

Worse still, some systems allow users to build reports. The content may well be crap, but the underlying data is fine.

 

Lol, how true!

 

 

MtB

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Tony, if this thread proves anything, it proves that your communication skills and your understanding of court proceedings need to be improved, tremendously.

 

If you have never been to court, the first time you go you will feel like Alice having just gone down the rabbit hole. The entire process is surreal, and those who are experienced in the alternate reality of court proceedings will take full advantage of your naivete to totally trash whatever defense you have prepared, regardless of how factual, true or reality-based your defense might be.

 

This thread is a good example of that. Try as you might, there are some people here that simply refuse to accept, or refuse to understand, the point you are trying to make. The same thing is going to happen in court, except the people who are twisting your words and their meanings are going to be lawyers working for a quasi-governmental agency and the court is simply going to accept what they say over what you say.

 

You will say that CRT computer records are crap because they have no relation to reality.

 

CRT lawyers will say that the records are for internal use and are not intended to have any relation to reality as those unknowledgeable about and unsophisticated with the purpose of CRT's internal records define reality - i.e. as most people define reality to be. In other words, they will agree with you completely that the records are inaccurate and meaningless - to anyone but the bodhisattvas at CRT - and are therefore meaningless to the case at hand.

 

The judge will agree with CRT's attorneys and that will be the end of whatever point you are trying to make. You will have made your point but lost the argument.

 

What you really need to do is to hire an attorney to represent you. However, if you are intent upon representing yourself then you need to improve your communication skills so that even the most simple-minded idiot can understand the point you are trying to make. Firstly, you need to base everything you say/prepare on the premise that the judge knows absolutely nothing about your case. Whenever you want to make a point you need to lay a foundation for your point, show that your point is relevant to the issue at hand, discuss the point that CRT is trying to make then show, by virtue of law, statute or precedence that CRT's point is invalid. One example is that the issue of CC'er vs. boater with a home mooring is going to come into play in your trial. You need to prepare a very simplistic but very good explanation of the difference between the two classifications, along with references to the specific statues that define those classifications. You need to make the argument that the rules for the classifications are not interchangeable and you have to insist that CRT show specifically, by statute or precedence, how the rules are interchangeable.

 

For the hearing that you have coming up, you don't need to present a defense, and putting your efforts into doing so would be a big mistake. What you need to do is to set the ground rules for what and how the trial should be conducted. What you want to accomplish at that hearing, as I understand it, is to decide on the issues that the judge will consider and decide at trial. Your issues should probably be jurisdiction and interpretation of the law. Does CRT have the authority to do what it is trying to do - sanction you for staying on a mooring that is not theirs to control? Do the statutes allow CRT to interpret the law to suit its convenience, or were the laws written specifically to prevent CRT from doing what it is doing? Have you done anything that is in specific contravention of the statutes as they are written?

 

From everything that I have read, the facts are not really at question here. You have a mooring pattern that you claim is perfectly legal. CRT claims that it is not legal. That is the battle that you have to win. The judge isn't necessarily going to care that CRT has a lousy system of record keeping, that issue is well beyond the scope of your trial.

 

You really do want to keep the focus of your trial on as narrow a scope as possible, and then to keep your defense focused on the issues. The judge doesn't really care that CRT are staffed by heartless, incompetent nincompoops for whom you have no respect. The judge does care whether or not CRT is following the law and not exceeding the powers granted to it by Parliament.

 

One other tidbit of advice is that you need to learn about "objections", how to use them, the main basis for objections and how to argue for or against objections. CRT's lawyers will try to throw all kinds of crap into their arguments against you. You need to learn how to challenge the BS and keep it out so that the judge does not consider it in making his/her decision.

 

Don't be afraid to remind the judge of his/her power in deciding what is legal. I remember sitting in bankruptcy court one time where a big boisterous creditor's attorney was arguing that a proposed settlement was unfair. The judge, in apparent agreement with that attorney, said to the BK person's attorney, a rather diminutive Indian gentleman, "I can't approve paying these creditors only ten cents on the dollar." to which the Indian attorney, in a very Mohandas Gandhi manner replied, "Quite the contrary, Your Honor. You have the statutory authority to do absolutely anything you want in regards to this debt." The judge went on to accept the ten cents on the dollar. The point is, if the judge says that CRT is in the best position to interpret the law, you might need to remind him/her that indeed it is the court's job to interpret the law, not CRT's. And you can't be afraid to tell the judge that, if Parliament wanted CRT to have the powers they claim they have, Parliament would have given them those powers, but it did not. If CRT claims to have certain powers, make them show it in black and white. Object to anything else as "hearsay".

 

Make sure you pay particular attention to notice and discovery rules. Your best evidence/argument could be thrown out if proper procedures are not followed.

 

I've probably rambled on much more than I should, and you'd be much better off with someone familiar with British courts explaining this stuff to you. But all this discussion of your case has become so entwined in linguistic gymnastics that it appears you are on a collision course with a major defeat and you really do need to focus on the process you face a lot more than you do on arguments that aren't really germane to what is going to happen in court.

 

Good luck!!!

  • Greenie 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Tony, if this thread proves anything, it proves that your communication skills and your understanding of court proceedings need to be improved, tremendously.

 

If you have never been to court, the first time you go you will feel like Alice having just gone down the rabbit hole. The entire process is surreal, and those who are experienced in the alternate reality of court proceedings will take full advantage of your naivete to totally trash whatever defense you have prepared, regardless of how factual, true or reality-based your defense might be.

 

This thread is a good example of that. Try as you might, there are some people here that simply refuse to accept, or refuse to understand, the point you are trying to make. The same thing is going to happen in court, except the people who are twisting your words and their meanings are going to be lawyers working for a quasi-governmental agency and the court is simply going to accept what they say over what you say.

 

You will say that CRT computer records are crap because they have no relation to reality.

 

CRT lawyers will say that the records are for internal use and are not intended to have any relation to reality as those unknowledgeable about and unsophisticated with the purpose of CRT's internal records define reality - i.e. as most people define reality to be. In other words, they will agree with you completely that the records are inaccurate and meaningless - to anyone but the bodhisattvas at CRT - and are therefore meaningless to the case at hand.

 

The judge will agree with CRT's attorneys and that will be the end of whatever point you are trying to make. You will have made your point but lost the argument.

 

What you really need to do is to hire an attorney to represent you. However, if you are intent upon representing yourself then you need to improve your communication skills so that even the most simple-minded idiot can understand the point you are trying to make. Firstly, you need to base everything you say/prepare on the premise that the judge knows absolutely nothing about your case. Whenever you want to make a point you need to lay a foundation for your point, show that your point is relevant to the issue at hand, discuss the point that CRT is trying to make then show, by virtue of law, statute or precedence that CRT's point is invalid. One example is that the issue of CC'er vs. boater with a home mooring is going to come into play in your trial. You need to prepare a very simplistic but very good explanation of the difference between the two classifications, along with references to the specific statues that define those classifications. You need to make the argument that the rules for the classifications are not interchangeable and you have to insist that CRT show specifically, by statute or precedence, how the rules are interchangeable.

 

For the hearing that you have coming up, you don't need to present a defense, and putting your efforts into doing so would be a big mistake. What you need to do is to set the ground rules for what and how the trial should be conducted. What you want to accomplish at that hearing, as I understand it, is to decide on the issues that the judge will consider and decide at trial. Your issues should probably be jurisdiction and interpretation of the law. Does CRT have the authority to do what it is trying to do - sanction you for staying on a mooring that is not theirs to control? Do the statutes allow CRT to interpret the law to suit its convenience, or were the laws written specifically to prevent CRT from doing what it is doing? Have you done anything that is in specific contravention of the statutes as they are written?

 

From everything that I have read, the facts are not really at question here. You have a mooring pattern that you claim is perfectly legal. CRT claims that it is not legal. That is the battle that you have to win. The judge isn't necessarily going to care that CRT has a lousy system of record keeping, that issue is well beyond the scope of your trial.

 

You really do want to keep the focus of your trial on as narrow a scope as possible, and then to keep your defense focused on the issues. The judge doesn't really care that CRT are staffed by heartless, incompetent nincompoops for whom you have no respect. The judge does care whether or not CRT is following the law and not exceeding the powers granted to it by Parliament.

 

One other tidbit of advice is that you need to learn about "objections", how to use them, the main basis for objections and how to argue for or against objections. CRT's lawyers will try to throw all kinds of crap into their arguments against you. You need to learn how to challenge the BS and keep it out so that the judge does not consider it in making his/her decision.

 

Don't be afraid to remind the judge of his/her power in deciding what is legal. I remember sitting in bankruptcy court one time where a big boisterous creditor's attorney was arguing that a proposed settlement was unfair. The judge, in apparent agreement with that attorney, said to the BK person's attorney, a rather diminutive Indian gentleman, "I can't approve paying these creditors only ten cents on the dollar." to which the Indian attorney, in a very Mohandas Gandhi manner replied, "Quite the contrary, Your Honor. You have the statutory authority to do absolutely anything you want in regards to this debt." The judge went on to accept the ten cents on the dollar. The point is, if the judge says that CRT is in the best position to interpret the law, you might need to remind him/her that indeed it is the court's job to interpret the law, not CRT's. And you can't be afraid to tell the judge that, if Parliament wanted CRT to have the powers they claim they have, Parliament would have given them those powers, but it did not. If CRT claims to have certain powers, make them show it in black and white. Object to anything else as "hearsay".

 

Make sure you pay particular attention to notice and discovery rules. Your best evidence/argument could be thrown out if proper procedures are not followed.

 

I've probably rambled on much more than I should, and you'd be much better off with someone familiar with British courts explaining this stuff to you. But all this discussion of your case has become so entwined in linguistic gymnastics that it appears you are on a collision course with a major defeat and you really do need to focus on the process you face a lot more than you do on arguments that aren't really germane to what is going to happen in court.

 

Good luck!!!

 

My goodness, what a well thought out contribution!!!!!

 

I have the most horrible feeling that Mr D thinks he knows better though.

 

We'll see. Maybe Nigey is helping behind the scenes...

 

MtB

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Perhaps these pages from a report from their boat logging system will help then?

 

Please can you explain why these pages from a report show that the CRT boat logging system is not fit for purpose?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Perhaps these pages from a report from their boat logging system will help then?

 

boatsightings1_zpsaff0fd13.jpg

 

Boatsightings_zpsc1c037c8.jpg

 

Sound advice preceding those wishes.

 

 

Perhaps these pages from a report from their boat logging system will help then?

 

boatsightings1_zpsaff0fd13.jpg

 

Boatsightings_zpsc1c037c8.jpg

 

Sound advice preceding those wishes.

For anyone having difficulty understanding some of the columns -

 

Equipment is the boats index number.

Floc. Affected is where the boat was sighted.

Functional Loc. is the 'home mooring'.

 

Interestingly, I have just been sent a response to a request for information that maintains on this query or report (as I would call it - CaRT calls it a 'transaction') which states categorically that 'home mooring' will always reflect the last 'home mooring' recorded.

 

However, as can be see from the document posted this is not true.

 

 

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.