Enforcement or Harassment

[Gordias]

Sorry are you saying it is ok for CRT to pick on boaters?

 

I can't speak for Loddon, but for me it's not clear from reading this thread what actually happened.

 

To someone reading the thread, it looks like none of the entities involved in this have made 100% correct "moves". Add in the normal communication inefficiency of this kind of situation (a frequent cause of "unfortunate incidents"), and this is just a soap opera for observers.

 

Nothing we say should be interpreted as an opinion for or against any of the many involved parties, because we cannot figure out what really happened.

Edited October 26, 2014 by Gordias

[cotswoldsman]

 

I can't speak for Loddon, but for me it's not clear from reading this thread what actually happened.

 

To someone reading the thread, it looks like none of the entities involved in this have made 100% correct "moves". Add in the normal communication inefficiency of this kind of situation (a frequent cause of "unfortunate incidents"), and this is just a soap opera for observers.

 

Nothing we say should be interpreted as an opinion for or against any of the many involved parties, because we cannot figure out what really happened.

Can not speak for anyone else but as this is I think the fourth thread on the subject I feel I have a quite good understanding during that time Tony and Nigel have provided copies of documents from both CRT and Tony and I personally have come to the conclusion that CRT have wasted a lot of money picking on a boater

[Tony Dunkley]

So in summary you were shuffling around one small area for a considerable period of time on CaRT controlled waters.

Only mitigated by the fact that you had a home mooring elsewhere and the land you tied up to was EA not CaRT owned.

 

You wonder why CaRT picked on you?

No doubt C&RT would applaud and approve of that wording, however, another way of putting it would be to say that I was making very frequent use of my boat over relatively small distances and returning to tie up in the same area, as I and everyone else who has paid for a boat Licence is entitled to do.

It really just depends on whether or not your intention is to misrepresent and imply some sort of wrong doing in completely legitimate activities.

[Timleech]

Can not speak for anyone else but as this is I think the fourth thread on the subject I feel I have a quite good understanding during that time Tony and Nigel have provided copies of documents from both CRT and Tony and I personally have come to the conclusion that CRT have wasted a lot of money picking on a boater

It does look that way, but I do wonder whether TD made any attempt from the outset to discuss with CRT why they were wrong? It doesn't seem to be a straightforward case, and a bit of two-way communication might have saved everybody a lot of trouble. Easy to say from the sidelines, of course.

 

Tim

[Gordias]

Can not speak for anyone else but as this is I think the fourth thread on the subject I feel I have a quite good understanding during that time Tony and Nigel have provided copies of documents from both CRT and Tony and I personally have come to the conclusion that CRT have wasted a lot of money picking on a boater

I'm not suggesting otherwise.

 

But lacking a concise, complete and accurate description of the events, the inevitable laws of forum-based communication tell us that people will consider all possible cause/effect scenarios based on what each (necessarily imperfect) individual understands from the part of the forum they actually read.

 

The result is going to be close to random.

Edited October 26, 2014 by Gordias

[NigelMoore]

So in summary you were shuffling around one small area for a considerable period of time on CaRT controlled waters.

Only mitigated by the fact that you had a home mooring elsewhere and the land you tied up to was EA not CaRT owned.

 

You wonder why CaRT picked on you?

 

I cannot see that Tony harbours any illusions as to why he was ‘picked on’, and has at no time sought to disguise what his cruising/mooring pattern was – which many, including CaRT, take to be playing with the letter of the rule book. The reasons they gave are clearly laid out in the published correspondence and pleadings.

 

The two immediately pertinent questions for onlookers are first, whether any other boaters suffered by reason of his boating pattern, and second, whether the response by CaRT was appropriate, and efficacious in improving management of the waterways for the benefit of others.

 

It should not be forgotten either, that as Johnson made very publicly clear before his ‘departure’, such actions as they took in this situation are allegedly undertaken largely because of boater pressure to be seen doing something about control. Some on this forum are happy that they are seen to take firm action regardless of the legalities. The irony is that the ‘show trials’ such as this, intended to pave the way for legitimising extended powers, do nothing to help the real mooring congestion problems.

 

A lot more boats ARE simply moved on when obstructing, or suitable action taken against deliberate non-payers etc, than is generally known; CaRT would do a great deal better publicising those actions, and showing consistency in applying them across country, as a means of placating those yearning for a nice firm overlord.

 

For those interested, some pretty graphics and a good overview have been produced illustrating various actions relating to enforcement, by Denise Yelland in June this year: -

 

 

This - and much more - informative material is available from the links provided in CaRT’s response to an FoI request relating to a 9 June 2014 CaRT meeting on enforcement: -

 

https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/meeting_on_enforcement_9th_june#incoming-563617

 

A good example is this Denise Yelland presentation: -

 

https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/226124/response/563617/attach/8/request%20part%203.pdf

[matty40s]

I'm not claiming otherwise.

 

But lacking a concise, complete and accurate description of the events, the inevitable laws of forum-based communication tell us that people will consider all possible cause/effect scenarios based on what each (necessarily imperfect) individual understands from the part of the forum they actually read.

 

The rest is going to be close to random.

Having read both sides if the legal case, and seeing numerous other examples of the CRT boat logging system fall over itself to be inaccurate, I concur with John.

[cotswoldsman]

It does look that way, but I do wonder whether TD made any attempt from the outset to discuss with CRT why they were wrong? It doesn't seem to be a straightforward case, and a bit of two-way communication might have saved everybody a lot of trouble. Easy to say from the sidelines, of course.Tim

Tim what you say is correct but I also know how difficult it can be to talk to CRT once they have set the wheels in motion. This is an organisation obsessed with meetings and meetings about meeting gs and then another meeting for good luck. I feel sure that once they had had all their meetings about this it would have been to late as I am sure they would have already had the meetings about how they were going to use this victory for their benefit. I imagine that in the recent few weeks there will have been lots of meetings about how they are going to spin this one. That is after they have had the meetings about the tea rota

[Alan de Enfield]

According to the presentation C&RT are revoking an average of 34 licences per month (400 ish per year) or about 1.3% of their customers base.

 

We don't seem to hear much about these :

Are they justified.

How many are contested ?

How many are 'reconsidered' and the licence renewed ?

 

There cannot be many 'Tony Dunkleys' (prepared to stand up and be counted) or we would hear about them

Edited October 26, 2014 by Alan de Enfield

[Gordias]

Having read both sides if the legal case, and seeing numerous other examples of the CRT boat logging system fall over itself to be inaccurate, I concur with John.

It's clear that on a "single case" basis money was wasted, since CaRT "lost".

It's also clear that if CaRT intended to "make an example" they failed there too.

 

But as I said earlier, an observer cannot learn much else from this thread, nor expect to learn enough to form an informed opinion without spending an unpredictable (but probably considerable) amount of time researching it.

 

So what's the best outcome? What changes in CaRT principles and behavior might reasonably come out of this, and how? Is there really any point in attacking individual CaRT employees? Is there some measure that "the forum" could take to inform CaRT that a lot of people think they should drop this "costs request" (or the opposite I suppose, if the majority supports CaRT's action)?

[jenlyn]

According to the presentation C&RT are revoking an average of 34 licences per month (400 ish per year) or about 1.3% of their customers base.

 

We don't seem to hear much about these :

Are they justified.

How many are contested ?

How many are 'reconsidered' and the licence renewed ?

 

There cannot be many 'Tony Dunkleys' (prepared to stand up and be counted) or we would hear about them

Bearing in mind this site is representative of a very small minority, it's hard to establish. As has been mentioned before, some don't bother with this site. Also, I suspect some of the licence removals are justified.

[Tony Dunkley]

So in summary you were shuffling around one small area for a considerable period of time on CaRT controlled waters.

Only mitigated by the fact that you had a home mooring elsewhere and the land you tied up to was EA not CaRT owned.

 

You wonder why CaRT picked on you?

Your remarks have prompted me to ask a question that's had me wondering for some time now . . . it's this . . . How many among the car owning Forum members who regard C&RT's desire to regiment and dictate boat use as justified, would think it fair and reasonable if the DVLA revoked your Road Tax and then towed away your car and sold it, because you had only been using it for short local journeys and then left it parked outside your house every night?

[Paul C]

Your remarks have prompted me to ask a question that's had me wondering for some time now . . . it's this . . . How many among the car owning Forum members who regard C&RT's desire to regiment and dictate boat use as justified, would think it fair and reasonable if the DVLA revoked your Road Tax and then towed away your car and sold it, because you had only been using it for short local journeys and then left it parked outside your house every night?

 

In Japan or the UK?

[NigelMoore]

. . . how difficult it can be to talk to CRT once they have set the wheels in motion.

 

I would have said impossible. Parry approved the action in the first place, and his responses to Tony’s frequent direct emails reflect exactly the sentiment he once expressed to me – the legal process has started, best to let it finish.

 

That is why I am puzzled and ever so slightly hopeful by this case. It is unique, to my knowledge: I have never heard of them backing down before * – which, regardless of the spin, is exactly what they have done [the alleged reason for backing out now has never stopped them before].

 

I just wish they could see past the bureaucratic imperative to justify themselves at all times, and be honest for once; I am certain that it would benefit them far more, to reveal that they ARE prepared to listen to reasoned advice [however belated], and to bring the alleged juggernaut to a halt when appropriate.

 

* It occurs to me that I know of one other instance of them backing out the week before a court hearing, but the circumstances and rationale were entirely different.

[Alan de Enfield]

The difference being the Road Traffic Act doesn't have a section 17(3) C

 

Edit : as now out of sequence - this is a reply to post 262

Edited October 26, 2014 by Alan de Enfield

[Arthur Marshall]

Your remarks have prompted me to ask a question that's had me wondering for some time now . . . it's this . . . How many among the car owning Forum members who regard C&RT's desire to regiment and dictate boat use as justified, would think it fair and reasonable if the DVLA revoked your Road Tax and then towed away your car and sold it, because you had only been using it for short local journeys and then left it parked outside your house every night?

I suppose it depends on whether there were double yellow lines outside your house. If you break the rules in other ways (ie no insurance) then that's exactly what they can do. It still seems to me that this particular argument comes down to definitions of "home" as in home moorings, in that can it be a "home" if you're hardly ever there, but as usual, laws are made by amateurs and are badly phrased and open to misinterpretation and misuse by both sides. My own personal opinion is that there are too many rules anyway, and the more you add the worse things usually get. In an ideal world, people should be able to live wherever they want to and can afford, and if that means on the cut, fair enough. When there's no more room, then they can't. And us leisure boaters can just avoid the clogged up areas.

[cotswoldsman]

I suppose it depends on whether there were double yellow lines outside your house. If you break the rules in other ways (ie no insurance) then that's exactly what they can do. It still seems to me that this particular argument comes down to definitions of "home" as in home moorings, in that can it be a "home" if you're hardly ever there, but as usual, laws are made by amateurs and are badly phrased and open to misinterpretation and misuse by both sides. My own personal opinion is that there are too many rules anyway, and the more you add the worse things usually get. In an ideal world, people should be able to live wherever they want to and can afford, and if that means on the cut, fair enough. When there's no more room, then they can't. And us leisure boaters can just avoid the clogged up areas.

Oh no not another word we have to define!! I have a home but have not lived in it for 8 years but it is there ready and waiting when I give up the boating life. I agree the less rules the better partly because CRT do not have the staff to enforce them and partly because it would make the boating experience more enjoyable. As an example what difference does it really make if a boat does keep returning to the same place week after week (would not suit me but hey we are all different) at the end of the day we all buy boats to enjoy and we all have different ways of enjoying our boating. What we have now is an organisation in CRT that is wishing to control everything we do, how often we can visit a place, when we can next return where will it all end up?

[Tony Dunkley]

The difference being the Road Traffic Act doesn't have a section 17(3) C

 

Edit : as now out of sequence - this is a reply to post 262

I wasn't really considering specific Laws or regulations governing the issuing of licences, but more of the general principle that a Licensing Authority should be dictating the amount and frequency of usage and distances to be travelled on pain of losing your boat/car for perceived non compliance.

Loddon seemed to be suggesting in his Post that constant and frequent use of the same few miles of waterway and the same, otherwise unused moorings is something that the Authorities should come down hard on, whereas I'm sure neither he nor anyone else would take the same view if the DVLA tried to impose similar rules on the use of cars.

Edited October 26, 2014 by Tony Dunkley

[NigelMoore]

So what's the best outcome? What changes in CaRT principles and behavior might reasonably come out of this, and how? Is there really any point in attacking individual CaRT employees? Is there some measure that "the forum" could take to inform CaRT that a lot of people think they should drop this "costs request" (or the opposite I suppose, if the majority supports CaRT's action)?

 

Appropriate changes would involve a paradigm shift throughout the organisation, starting from the top. Adhering to the simple governmental remit as expressed both in the BW legislation and the Trust Settlement would be a good start. There is also much good advice to be found in the two ‘Monopolies & Mergers’ reports into BW, plus the content of the last Select Committee report.

 

As many others here have called for: the emphasis should be more on maintenance and improvement of the infrastructure, and less on controlling user behaviour patterns. [Not suggesting that the latter should not be controlled, simply that the control should be centred on use patterns that genuinely interfere with others, as provided for in statute]. So far as enforcement itself is concerned, proper education and oversight of the individual officers is way overdue.

 

A very large part of the blame must be laid at the door of government. It was always their emphasis on relieving ‘the burden on the public purse’ that dictated the type of personality they appointed to controlling positions. It is not that I quarrel with the requirement for the organisation to conduct itself as a fiscally efficient business, but the too narrowly focused appointees needed far more DEFRA control and oversight than that body was ever prepared to contribute.

 

There is always a very good point in attacking rogue individuals – not excepting those at the top. The problem with bureaucracies is the invariable immunity of individuals acting on behalf of the bureaucracy; they are too often protected regardless of wrong-doing, with that self-justification imperative I mentioned earlier. There has been a move in recent years to strip away some of that lack of individual accountability within companies for example, such that Directors of companies can now be held personally liable for criminal actions of their company [as can relevant decision-making employees]. The same goes for the provisions within the Fraud Act.

 

Only when individual employees from top to bottom realise that they will be held accountable for anything they do in their company’s name, will they start to take their responsibilities more seriously. That has yet to happen within BW/CaRT, and law aside, that approach of personal accountability needs to become part of the paradigm shift. It is possibly the single most important necessity for a better management policy.

 

There are no formal measures that can be taken by members of this forum. However, the very existence of it as a publicly accessible source of expressed opinion is in itself part of the ‘groundswell’ of boater opinion that CaRT take note of. In that respect, any who wish their views to be counted will express them here [and elsewhere of course].

 

Edit to add: Change doesn’t come about until the need for change is recognised. That is why the refusal to acknowledge, and face up to the ramifications of, improper enforcement, will continue to bedevil any efforts to improve proper enforcement. The implacable determination to uphold the actions of the officer in the instant case [not to mention those of the relevant individuals in the legal department] is a demonstration that reform is not [publicly at least] on the agenda. As I said, the one glint of light at the end of this tunnel is that someone, somewhere, has managed to persuade the organisation to pull back despite Parry’s determination to push it through.

Edited October 26, 2014 by NigelMoore

[Gordias]

Thanks for the response Nigel.

 

Hopefully I'll be able to come back to it as a whole at some point, but it won't be in this thread.

 

Full disclosure:

As a prospective "genuine summer CCer", I've found some of the comments from "liveaboards" dismaying. So far the thought of being forced to compete with such people for moorings is the factor most likely to make me give up the dream rather than live it.

 

 

One comment:

As you pointed out, bureaucracies tend to protect their employees. They'll also appear to defend employees even when there is some genuine internal disciplinary process. But there are other possible situations. An employee may deserve a second chance (something most people have asked for or hoped for at least once). They may have acted in good faith towards their employer, and according to their understanding of their tasks, but still induced a bad result.

 

It's not possible for me to assess the actions of any of the parties, but I think it's safe to say that "hunting" individuals is likely to reduce the possibility of achieving any broadly useful objectives.

Edited October 26, 2014 by Gordias

[NilesMI]

As an example what difference does it really make if a boat does keep returning to the same place week after week (would not suit me but hey we are all different) at the end of the day we all buy boats to enjoy and we all have different ways of enjoying our boating. What we have now is an organisation in CRT that is wishing to control everything we do, how often we can visit a place, when we can next return where will it all end up?

 

There is an argument which says; given a certain number of boats without a home mooring, what does it matter where they are moored.

 

I would say that it doesn't really matter. The number of occupied mooring places remains the same, with or without the requirement for continuous shuffling. But that's not the same as saying that the cc rules are redundant. The need to observe cc rules and continually move from place to place effectively controls the number of boats with no home mooring. Relaxing or removing the rule, would lead to more boats without a home mooring, moored semi-permanently on the towpath.

 

I have no idea to what extent removing or relaxing the cc rules would affect the exact number of boats moored on the towpath. I can only speak personally, as a leisure user, and say that a canal network where the towpath was clogged with moored boats would be far less attractive to me. On the other hand, I would be disappointed if others who wanted to use the canals as a place to live or a place to work were restricted from doing so.

 

It may be that the existing cc rules are difficult to enforce and the definition of "bona fide, for navigation" is not the clearest in the world. But is there a better way of managing things?

Edited October 26, 2014 by NilesMI

[Alf Roberts]

It may be that the existing cc rules are difficult to enforce and the definition of "bona fide, for navigation" is not the clearest in the world. But is there a better way of managing things?

Something that was the intention of Parliament when they passed the 1995 Act. The rules were made intentionally vague and to serve as a backstop to behaviour. They were never intended to provide a prescriptive (or proscriptive) framework - this has become self-evident in every attempt of BW/CRT to make them fit their agenda.

[cotswoldsman]

 

There is an argument which says; given a certain number of boats without a home mooring, what does it matter where they are moored.

 

I would say that it doesn't really matter. The number of occupied mooring places remains the same, with or without the requirement for continuous shuffling. But that's not the same as saying that the cc rules are redundant. The need to observe cc rules and continually move from place to place effectively controls the number of boats with no home mooring. Relaxing or removing the rule, would lead to more boats without a home mooring, moored semi-permanently on the towpath.

 

I have no idea to what extent removing or relaxing the cc rules would affect the exact number of boats moored on the towpath. I can only speak personally, as a leisure user, and say that a canal network where the towpath was clogged with moored boats would be far less attractive to me. On the other hand, I would be disappointed if others who wanted to use the canals as a place to live or a place to work were restricted from doing so.

 

It may be that the existing cc rules are difficult to enforce and the definition of "bona fide, for navigation" is not the clearest in the world. But is there a better way of managing things?

Not sure if I have lost the plot here?

Tony Dunkley has a home mooring what did my post that you quoted have to do with CCing?

[Iain_S]

Something that was the intention of Parliament when they passed the 1995 Act. The rules were made intentionally vague and to serve as a backstop to behaviour. They were never intended to provide a prescriptive (or proscriptive) framework - this has become self-evident in every attempt of BW/CRT to make them fit their agenda.

 

... and attempts by a small minority to make them fit THEIR agenda by abiding to the letter but not the spirit of the law.

 

Iain

[Alf Roberts]

 

... and attempts by a small minority to make them fit THEIR agenda by abiding to the letter but not the spirit of the law.

 

Iain

It would be nice if CRT abided by the letter of the law.

It's one thing to say there is a minority who attempt to use the law for their own purpose ( don't you do that every time you fill in your tax return?) and another for the body entrusted with the management of the waterways who have power over all boaters.