Jump to content

Enforcement


onionbargee

Featured Posts

I'm hearing some horror stories already about the new constant cruising enforcement. What I will be doing in the future will be getting a written record of whether my movements are acceptable, if I have to overstay for any reason I will get permission, and their opinion on how far i need to travel to satisfy CRT. So I know exactly where I stand. Everything will be copied and filed away just in case.

 

I would encourage every other CC'er to cover themselves by emailing their enforcement officer if they are in any doubt.

 

Asking permission to do something that Parliament specifically gave you the right to do in 1995 is to invite and encourage C&RT to refuse that permission.

Far better to tell them that you will be exceeding the nominal 14 day time limit, and why you will be doing so.

Don't let C&RT grab the initiative, let them see that you're not going to play the game their way, and that you won't go along with any of their nonsense.

Why ask for something that you already have ?

Edited by Tony Dunkley
Link to comment
Share on other sites

To avoid pissing them off and having them take you to court and waste dozens or hundreds of hours of your time on a case you'll eventually win?

So you accept CRT usually get enforcement wrong then? ...and what about the thousands of pounds CRT are wasting on these failed court cases?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But maybe that was the reason for his visit, to check what boats were on their home moorings.

 

If all volunteer lock keepers all reported the boats passed through the locks they were working that would also improve sightings of boats moving.

Am I missing something here? I thought enforcement was about boats not moving.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

John,

If those lock keepers put their sightings onto a central database then when some one has their individual record looked at then it will give a clearer picture of where that boat was on a particular day.

In my case the current record is utterly useless for showing my movements.

I can't see why we aren't given access to that database to look at our own sightings and payments to C&RT from our own computers. A simple register and password would be all that is required.

There is off the shelf software which could easily be used if they don't already have a suitable package.

  • Greenie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I can see pro's and con's for gps trackers (I'm not going to go into the rights or wrongs)

 

but on a technical side there would be a few unanswered questions.

how would a rarely used boat keep one powered?

since they would have to be reporting in via mobile networks how would they handle areas with no coverage

where would you install one on a boat? (outside could be tampered with / inside would struggle for signals)

how would you handle the tin foil hat brigade?

 

if some sort of electronic tracking becomes necessary I would suggest using and RFID based system using long range tags (can be read from around 6-8 feet away)

these could be read by a CRT employee (while taking part in the tour de towpath if needed) or by automatic readers placed at strategic bridges / locks etc.

 

obviously any system would be open to abuse since gps sensors or rfid tags could be removed and moved elsewhere on the network leaving the boat behind

I think I would agree with most of this. Certainly the passive RFID idea. I guess removal of sensors would have to be tamper proof. They are to an extent on trucks, eg removal of tachographs needs all sorts of kit to enable legal removal and replacement or recalibration. That leaves boats that habitually disconnect power, or boats moved by road.

 

Leaving aside the valid arguments about big brother checking up etc. I think the info gained about usage would be fascinating.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There are plenty of trains to spot if that's what turns the mini control freaks on.

 

Enforcement is a waste of time and a waste of OUR money. This obsession is spoiling the fun of all types of boater. GPS trackers on the inland waterways....what next? Implants under our skin?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There are plenty of trains to spot if that's what turns the mini control freaks on.

Enforcement is a waste of time and a waste of OUR money. This obsession is spoiling the fun of all types of boater. GPS trackers on the inland waterways....what next? Implants under our skin?

Is it a waste of money though, I'm sure an economic case could be made when you take all the variables into account

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

No, that isn't so . . . . Parliament makes the rules but C&RT choose to disregard the ones that don't suit them, as did their predecessors.

In pursuit of their unfathomable agenda, they also disregard the findings of the Courts and the directions of Judges, in some instances to the point of contempt. Recent events have demonstrated that even criminal action is included in their repertoire.

Their conduct should be of great concern to the public in general, who are in fact the owners of most of the canals, the Nationalised artificial waterways of this country that C&RT are making such a poor job of caring for.

 

It isn't C&RT's 'show' . . . . . it's your's, and mine, and everyone else's.

Well said Tony its up to parliament to make the rules, crt have to abide by them the same as boaters do. By not challenging the behaviour of crt you are condoning there actions. It is being done in your name, these are our waterways. So please become active in there continued survival, before its to late.

Regards kris

Edited by kris88
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just some rambling thoughts

 

1) It costs so much per year to run the waterways, money from boaters and from taxes and from charitable donations. If certain people - not saying this includes anyone here - wish to avoid paying their 'share' then everyone else must pay a little more, or greater savings are required, which means cutting jobs. There is no money tree.

 

2) GPS trackers and RFID tags are a great infringement on my privacy, and if the only reason for applying them is to identify those that do not wish to pay their share, then probably it will not be cost effective. Even more so, I feel this is disproportionate to the rest of us.

 

3) I would love to be a CCer but for various reasons - work, family etc - I can not. But if I were I certainly would not consider just shuffling around a spot, never moving more than walking distance to where I really want to 'live'. That is not my idea of CCing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm hearing some horror stories already about the new constant cruising enforcement. What I will be doing in the future will be getting a written record of whether my movements are acceptable, if I have to overstay for any reason I will get permission, and their opinion on how far i need to travel to satisfy CRT. So I know exactly where I stand. Everything will be copied and filed away just in case.

I would encourage every other CC'er to cover themselves by emailing their enforcement officer if they are in any doubt.

On the one hand I am coming around to being concerned about the way CRT carry on regardless of the law, but then along comes (yet another) thread like this one, 100% lacking in any fact or substance, and 100% plain scaremongering. If there is a genuine concern about an ineffective or unjust enforcement system, this type of vaporous thread is not the way to get the "unbelievers" on side.

  • Greenie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

John,

If those lock keepers put their sightings onto a central database then when some one has their individual record looked at then it will give a clearer picture of where that boat was on a particular day.

In my case the current record is utterly useless for showing my movements.

I can't see why we aren't given access to that database to look at our own sightings and payments to C&RT from our own computers. A simple register and password would be all that is required.

There is off the shelf software which could easily be used if they don't already have a suitable package.

What you state above is of course common sense, and as you rightly state, could be easily addressed with the use of some software.

What's not being factored into the greater scheme of thing's is the fact that CRT are ultimately looking to get liveaboard boats off the system. By that I mean, into marinas, or off the waterways altogether.

So your idea's although sensibly thought out, and reasoned, will not be implemented.

 

I am of the understanding that any data held by CRT for "enforcement" has to be full and complete, this means any gaps CRT has in the system should be updated with our own input, (which at the moment, they refuse to do).

I have asked the DPA commissioner's office to confirm, or deny this. Hopefully, they will give advice to both CRT and customer on the issue.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just some rambling thoughts

 

1) It costs so much per year to run the waterways, money from boaters and from taxes and from charitable donations. If certain people - not saying this includes anyone here - wish to avoid paying their 'share' then everyone else must pay a little more, or greater savings are required, which means cutting jobs. There is no money tree.

 

2) GPS trackers and RFID tags are a great infringement on my privacy, and if the only reason for applying them is to identify those that do not wish to pay their share, then probably it will not be cost effective. Even more so, I feel this is disproportionate to the rest of us.

 

3) I would love to be a CCer but for various reasons - work, family etc - I can not. But if I were I certainly would not consider just shuffling around a spot, never moving more than walking distance to where I really want to 'live'. That is not my idea of CCing.

1. Who is not paying their way?

2.Who does not wish to pay their way?

3. The law is not based on your opinion

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On the one hand I am coming around to being concerned about the way CRT carry on regardless of the law, but then along comes (yet another) thread like this one, 100% lacking in any fact or substance, and 100% plain scaremongering. If there is a genuine concern about an ineffective or unjust enforcement system, this type of vaporous thread is not the way to get the "unbelievers" on side.

Don't you think the whole issue of enforcement is based on little fact in the first place?

 

If it's really about CM'ers then what's the problem?

 

If they aren't moving they are not wearing out the infrastructure or adding to lock queues.

 

If they are paying for boat licences, they are contributing financially like the rest of us.

 

They usually moor out of the way of VM's (well they used to until they were forced to move!).

 

Those backing enforcement are just adding to every boaters misery by wasting money better spent on maintenance and stupid mooring restrictions. And what for? To satisfy the jealousy of a few control freaks.

 

Let's just go out and enjoy boating rather than sit around judging others.

  • Greenie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just some rambling thoughts

 

1) It costs so much per year to run the waterways, money from boaters and from taxes and from charitable donations. If certain people - not saying this includes anyone here - wish to avoid paying their 'share' then everyone else must pay a little more, or greater savings are required, which means cutting jobs. There is no money tree.

 

2) GPS trackers and RFID tags are a great infringement on my privacy, and if the only reason for applying them is to identify those that do not wish to pay their share, then probably it will not be cost effective. Even more so, I feel this is disproportionate to the rest of us.

 

3) I would love to be a CCer but for various reasons - work, family etc - I can not. But if I were I certainly would not consider just shuffling around a spot, never moving more than walking distance to where I really want to 'live'. That is not my idea of CCing.

What rubbish. How does someone staying 15,16 days anywhere cost you anything? Apart from the increasing proportion spent on 'enforcement' ( such an ugly term).

As for your assumption that everyone must use the waterways exactly as you want to use them of face financial penalty....simple arrogance.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If there is a genuine concern about an ineffective or unjust enforcement system, this type of vaporous thread is not the way to get the "unbelievers" on side.

"If" being the primary word of the post. It shows clearly that you do not know.

"Vaporous thread" showing quite clearly what you really mean.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Don't you think the whole issue of enforcement is based on little fact in the first place?

If it's really about CM'ers then what's the problem?

If they aren't moving they are not wearing out the infrastructure or adding to lock queues.

If they are paying for boat licences, they are contributing financially like the rest of us.

They usually moor out of the way of VM's (well they used to until they were forced to move!).

Those backing enforcement are just adding to every boaters misery by wasting money better spent on maintenance and stupid mooring restrictions. And what for? To satisfy the jealousy of a few control freaks.

Let's just go out and enjoy boating rather than sit around judging others.

Certainly the whole issue of enforcement is based on little fact, this being the consequence of very vague legislation.

 

The remainder of your points are not really relevant, the fact is that the law doesn't allow CMers. The "anti CMer" law is a good thing IMO, because without it not only do you get issues like the Western K&A and London, but you also get folk taking up residence on the towpath, ie claiming that bit of public space for their personal use only. That is very unfair.

 

But anyway what I think about the "anti-CMer" law is not relevant either, it is the law and thus liable to be enforced.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I read a lot from various posters about what CART should not be doing but rather less about their preferred means of regulating the system - maybe it's simply possession of a licence and that's it.

I ask because, in all truth, I have very mixed opinions - I'm on a stretch of canal right now with many so-called 'CMs' and by and large they moor out of the way where only the most hardy visitor would choose to stop (and can still find space if they do). I'm happy they are there and not on the limited 'proper' visitor moorings near towns, with water depth etc.

All the same if I was paying CART rates for a long term mooring with no facilities bar a mooring ring and sometimes not even depth to get near the edge I guess I'd be cheesed off. Hence perhaps the increasing number of empty spaces in these I've seen over the last couple of years.

Maybe CART could formalise stretches of the present CM moorings to limit the fear of ever growing numbers and reduce their prices to sensible levels?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

...and it's the job of the police to deal with breaches of the law, not CRT.

No it isn't, though I can't think of the right words to explain why. But for example if you don't have a TV licence, it is the TV licencing authority who prosecutes you, not the police. If you don't put your tax return in timeously, it is HMRC who fine you. In fact the police never prosecute anyone (AFAIK) they merely report you to the Crown Prosecution Service who decide whether or not to prosecute.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No it isn't, though I can't think of the right words to explain why. But for example if you don't have a TV licence, it is the TV licencing authority who prosecutes you, not the police. If you don't put your tax return in timeously, it is HMRC who fine you. In fact the police never prosecute anyone (AFAIK) they merely report you to the Crown Prosecution Service who decide whether or not to prosecute.

Isn't the the analogy more like moving vagrants on and moving overnight campers on? I don't think the TV licence analogy is close enough. Surely the waterways are under the police's jurisdiction as it is public space.

 

Actually, on a side issue, and security point of view, it would be good to see more bobbies on the beat on the towpath...

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
  • 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.