Enforcement

[starman]

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 nub of the problem that it's actually not the law? TV licences, tax, local council parking tickets etc are all specifically legislated whereas the cc-er rules are not. A bit like the difference between being wheel clamped by Westminster Council and by Dodgy Daves Parking Services on a scrap of wasteland.

[nicknorman]

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.

 

The waterways are under the police's jurisdiction for such things as behaviour (assaults, theft etc) but not, I suspect, for beaurocratic issues to do with licencing. You wouldn't, for example, expect a policeman to demand to see your BSS certificate and then recommend you for prosecution if you didn't have one - because no BSS is not a criminal offence in itself, but it is a reason why your licence might be invalid.

Isn't the nub of the problem that it's actually not the law? TV licences, tax, local council parking tickets etc are all specifically legislated whereas the cc-er rules are not. A bit like the difference between being wheel clamped by Westminster Council and by Dodgy Daves Parking Services on a scrap of wasteland.

It is the law in so far as it stands. For boaters without a home mooring the law says you must use the boat bona fide for navigation, and if you don't have a home mooring and don't use your boat as above, you can't have a licence and the law says you need a licence to have your boat on CRT waters (MNC etc arguments perhaps excluded). So yes it is the law, controlled by the statutory authority (CRT), not some boat club that might be analogous to Dodgy Dave's Parking Services.

[Tony Dunkley]

A Dictionary definition of "enforcement" . . . . . 'the act of compelling observance of or compliance with a law, rule, or obligation.'

 

It would seem to be rather perverse and hypocritical of C&RT to base the majority of their 'enforcement' on their own non compliance with the laws, rules and obligations laid upon them by Parliament, Courts and Judges.

Edited June 22, 2015 by Tony Dunkley

[bassplayer]

A Dictionary definition of "enforcement" . . . . . 'the act of compelling observance of or compliance with a law, rule, or obligation.'[/size]

 

It would seem to be rather perverse and hypocritical of C&RT to base the majority of their 'enforcement' on their own non compliance with the laws, rules and obligations laid upon them by Parliament, Courts and Judges.[/size]

Yes, maybe that is the crux of the problem. CRT are acting as though they have police powers. Certainly police were involved (to uphold the peace apparently) when that boat was removed by CRT a while back. That was hardly the same as issuing a parking notice.

[Dave Clinton]

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.

 

Stripped of your noxious and lazy language, here we agree on something. The thing that needs to borne in mind is that it gives rights as well as responsibilities.

 

Once CRT and camp followers really recognise this the issue of responsibility will recede to the fairly small, insignificant and easily-dealt with (by byelaw) problem it is.

[b0atman]

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.

I suppose that Dvla who licence cars for use on the road would be the best example where the police uphold the law of licencing

[starman]

The waterways are under the police's jurisdiction for such things as behaviour (assaults, theft etc) but not, I suspect, for beaurocratic issues to do with licencing. You wouldn't, for example, expect a policeman to demand to see your BSS certificate and then recommend you for prosecution if you didn't have one - because no BSS is not a criminal offence in itself, but it is a reason why your licence might be invalid.

 

It is the law in so far as it stands. For boaters without a home mooring the law says you must use the boat bona fide for navigation, and if you don't have a home mooring and don't use your boat as above, you can't have a licence and the law says you need a licence to have your boat on CRT waters (MNC etc arguments perhaps excluded). So yes it is the law, controlled by the statutory authority (CRT), not some boat club that might be analogous to Dodgy Dave's Parking Services.

What I am trying to say is that local a authorities have very specific powers under law to regulate parking. Someone trying to control illegal parking on their private land does not.

CART does not have similar specific powers as I understand it hence the muddle trying to determine continuous cruising by case law.

But do we want or need all this aggro?

[bassplayer]

But do we want or need all this aggro?

I don't but it appears there are a few who delight in it...

[jenlyn]

What I am trying to say is that local a authorities have very specific powers under law to regulate parking. Someone trying to control illegal parking on their private land does not.

CART does not have similar specific powers as I understand it hence the muddle trying to determine continuous cruising by case law.

But do we want or need all this aggro?

It's a non argument really. I can never understand why people attempt to compare motoring and owning a car, with owning a boat, and boating.

[Dave Clinton]

It's a non argument really. I can never understand why people attempt to compare motoring and owning a car, with owning a boat, and boating.

 

I guess in the world of lazy thinking, it goes something like "it's a transport system so I can grab the arguments to suit my agenda from it". Strangely, they never seem to apply railway law to cars which would be equally absurd.

 

I suppose one can draw whatever parallel one wants with equally fatuous result, personally I compare boating to my rubber ducks in the Bath.

Edited June 22, 2015 by Dave Clinton

[Tony Dunkley]

It's a non argument really. I can never understand why people attempt to compare motoring and owning a car, with owning a boat, and boating.

 

I think that in some respects the comparison is relevant and worthwhile. I can't help wondering how the enthusiastic supporters of C&RT's illegal and draconian antics would feel, and react, if their Local Authority enforced roadside parking restrictions by, in the event of an alleged infringement, arranging with DVLA to revoke their Road Tax, then prosecute them for using an untaxed vehicle on public roads, and finally capping all that off by seizing their car, transporting it to a storage facility at least 100 miles away and refusing to return it until all the costs incurred in the seizure, removal, storage and return of the vehicle were paid in full. Of course, there would be the additional 'penalty' of the DVLA refusing to re-license the vehicle due the owner now having a previous record of offending.

Edited June 22, 2015 by Tony Dunkley

[Dave Clinton]

Well as you are probably aware that's because the people charged with managing the roads almost always obey in the law or are held up to scrutiny.

 

CRT on the other hand are accountable to.......

 

.....nobody.

 

It really is time someone prosecuted them.

 

Get your act together Geoff. We are waiting (patiently).

Edited June 22, 2015 by Dave Clinton

[larkshall]

Stripped of your noxious and lazy language, here we agree on something. The thing that needs to borne in mind is that it gives rights as well as responsibilities.

 

Once CRT and camp followers really recognise this the issue of responsibility will recede to the fairly small, insignificant and easily-dealt with (by byelaw) problem it is.

Have you ever tried to enforce a byelaw insignificant or not? I suspect not, I have as a parish councillor, it's costly, it's the sort of thing that constituents get mightily wound up about, and costs a disproportionate amount of time. The particular byelaw, what else but dog fouling. So until you have been on the sharp end .

You can see from this forum and others the problem of CMers is a constant nagging cancer. If I was on CRT, I'm sure it would begin to get under my skin too.

 

CRT are of course accountable, to the charity commissioners, to HMG and in certain areas to the EA

Edited June 22, 2015 by larkshall

[Dave Clinton]

You can see from this forum and others the problem of CMers is a constant nagging cancer. If I was on CRT, I'm sure it would begin to get under my skin too.

 

 

 

My you appear to be easily led.

 

If I was on CRT the constant whining would certainly get under my skin.

 

 

The main thesis of you argument appears to be "it's too difficult / expensive to enforce the byelaws so it's OK to make up our own laws and break those we want to" - which seems to me remarkably similar to "it's too difficult and expensive to get a mooring so it's OK... etc"

 

As for your claims of accountability, please provide examples of how CRT have been steered by any of those bodies. The Charity Commissioners are only interested in the administration of funds, the governement? Ho many can name the Waterways minister without the help of Google? and the EA aren't involved in any way in the administration of CRT waters (or perhaps you mean Defra?)

[ditchcrawler]

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

That would show you are moving, just from the number of people saying they have been moving but CRT think they haven't, that must be a good thing. To remove more of the errors from the system.

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?

If there was no enforcement no one would buy a license, would you give CRT £900 if it was voluntary?

[Chewbacka]

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.

I was not thinking of someone staying an extra day or two, nor did I say that. As always there is a range, at one extreme there is having no licence, no mooring and no insurance. Would you be happy with say 10% of boaters doing that, and no enforcement action? At the other end there is the staying just an extra day or two, which I don't see as costing anyone any money, and I never said it did. But at the end of the day the canals need money which must come from somewhere.

I would expect and hope that CRT target the extreme end. - What is needed is a legal definition of CC, which does not seem to exist.

[Tony Dunkley]

Have you ever tried to enforce a byelaw insignificant or not? I suspect not, I have as a parish councillor, it's costly, it's the sort of thing that constituents get mightily wound up about, and costs a disproportionate amount of time. The particular byelaw, what else but dog fouling. So until you have been on the sharp end .

You can see from this forum and others the problem of CMers is a constant nagging cancer. If I was on CRT, I'm sure it would begin to get under my skin too.

 

CRT are of course accountable, to the charity commissioners, to HMG and in certain areas to the EA

 

This is not a sensible comparison . . . . . so called CM'ing, by definition, has to be much easier to prove than a particular dog being responsible for a particular pile of turds.

[ditchcrawler]

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

I wouldn't if it was voluntary, just like I don't donate to CRT as a friend.

Edit

I do donate voluntarily here because I want to see the site continue to operate, but a lot of people who are members wont. It would be the same on the canals if there was no enforcement.

Edited June 22, 2015 by ditchcrawler

[cotswoldsman]

I was not thinking of someone staying an extra day or two, nor did I say that. As always there is a range, at one extreme there is having no licence, no mooring and no insurance. Would you be happy with say 10% of boaters doing that, and no enforcement action? At the other end there is the staying just an extra day or two, which I don't see as costing anyone any money, and I never said it did. But at the end of the day the canals need money which must come from somewhere.

I would expect and hope that CRT target the extreme end. - What is needed is a legal definition of CC, which does not seem to exist.

You are right no legal definition of a ccer.

The 1995 Act covers boater without a home mooring.

[kris88]

You can see from this forum and others the problem of CMers is a constant nagging cancer. If I was on CRT, I'm sure it would begin to get under my skin too.

CRT are of course accountable, to the charity commissioners, to HMG and in certain areas to the EA

Of course you have evidence other than anecdotal, that there is a"CMer problem." Or are you just regurgitating what others have told you. In my opion the greatest problem facing the waterways is lack of adequate maintenance, not the fact that a small percentage of boats fail to move an arbitrary distance. The "CMer problem" is used as a smoke screen to deflect people's attention from the real issues.

Regards kris

Edited June 22, 2015 by kris88

[Jess--]

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.

the passive RFID tags would be exactly that... passive, they require no power

 

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.

gps tracking I would agree "could" be used to infringe your privacy (or rather your boats privacy as there would be no way of knowing who was on board)

 

the RFID system would be far less of a privacy risk since it is passive, the tag can only be read from around 8 feet away so it would be even less effective than using eyes (it would probably be largely similar to human volunteers taking note of passing boats) since the only records would be when your boat passed an RFID reader or was read by a CRT employee passing your moored boat.

 

If I was designing a system to do this I would make use of natural choke points on the network (places where a boat would have to pass close to a reader like locks or tunnels) and entrances / exits of the network (marina entrances etc), using this premise the tracking details for my boat would read something like below.

 

03/06/2015 14:30 - Passed through entrance to crick marina

03/06/2015 15:15 - Passed through entrance to crick marina

03/06/2015 16:00 - Passed through Crick Tunnel

03/06/2015 17:30 - Passed through Locks at Watford

04/06/2015 10:00 - Passed through Braunston Tunnel

04/06/2015 12:00 - Passed through Locks at braunston

04/06/2015 19:00 - Passed through Locks at Hilmorton

05/06/2015 08:30 - Passed through Newbold Tunnel

05/06/2015 21:00 - Passed through entrance to brinklow marina

No records - 06/06/2015-16/06/2015

16/05/2015 14:00 - Passed through entrance to brinklow marina

16/05/2015 15:30 - Passed through swingbridge at rose narrowboats

16/05/2015 19:00 - passed through hawkesbury stop lock

17/05/2015 15:30 - Logged by volunteer 700yds south of atherstone locks

17/05/2015 20:00 - passed through hawkesbury stop lock

18/05/2015 16:30 - Passed through swingbridge at rose narrowboats

18/05/2015 18:00 - Passed through entrance to brinklow marina

No records - 19/06/2015-present date

as you can see in my case it would give a good idea of how and where the boat is being used. in my case I would generate quite a lot of tracking info since the boat has moved a fair amount in this time, given the current ideas behind what could constitute genuine CC usage a boat might generate less data than this in a year although you would expect to see a fair few more logged by volunteer entries

[Delta9]

 

If I was designing a system to do this I would make use of natural choke points on the network (places where a boat would have to pass close to a reader like locks or tunnels) and entrances / exits of the network (marina entrances etc), using this premise the tracking details for my boat would read something like below.

 

If RFID readers were installed to monitor boats they would soon be removed/destroyed by those that feel strongly about being tracked.

[Chewbacka]

If you keep a boat in one place and travel a couple of miles to work or the shop and back everyday would that constitute bone fide navigation? I think it would. So the question then is do you have a 'right to keep your boat' in one place? In CRT opinion only if you have a mooring. But if you accept the distance argument above constitutes bone fide navigation then why not be allowed to moor in different places if not exceeding the stated mooring period, even if they are near each other.

Maybe it should be like cars, where you pay the road fund duty and this then gives you the right to park anywhere subject to restrictions - yellow lines etc. In busy places, this is further limited by no return within xx hours or even residents parking permits only, though residents parking permits don't guarantee a space, just a right to park if one is available.

Those that do not want to keep moving the boat can still have a mooring.

The law I think refers to bone fide navigation which CRT would like to interpret as cruising, which is not really the same thing at all, and until the law is made clear, there can only be friction.

[larkshall]

Of course you have evidence other than anecdotal, that there is a"CMer problem." Or are you just regurgitating what others have told you. In my opion the greatest problem facing the waterways is lack of adequate maintenance, not the fact that a small percentage of boats fail to move an arbitrary distance. The "CMer problem" is used as a smoke screen to deflect people's attention from the real issues.

Regards kris

Does this not bring back the circular nature of the problem.

 

The only practical solution is to quantify the problem. By audit. This brings back the question how which again brings up the subject gps/RFID. Fitted as a condition of having that type of licence. Doesn't cure the completely illegal element who have no licence, but what does?. There might only be one in a fifty mile stretch of canal. Or ten? Nobody knows. I know scrap the licence type, no CM type licence. Now there's an idea.

I would agree maintenance, and indeed improvements and expansion is much more vital. But I can assure you any applications for funding will certainly raise the questions about maximising income from existing sources.

the passive RFID tags would be exactly that... passive, they require no power

 

 

gps tracking I would agree "could" be used to infringe your privacy (or rather your boats privacy as there would be no way of knowing who was on board)

No but might inform someone the boat has been nicked.

the RFID system would be far less of a privacy risk since it is passive, the tag can only be read from around 8 feet away so it would be even less effective than using eyes (it would probably be largely similar to human volunteers taking note of passing boats) since the only records would be when your boat passed an RFID reader or was read by a CRT employee passing your moored boat.

 

If I was designing a system to do this I would make use of natural choke points on the network (places where a boat would have to pass close to a reader like locks or tunnels) and entrances / exits of the network (marina entrances etc), using this premise the tracking details for my boat would read something like below.

 

03/06/2015 14:30 - Passed through entrance to crick marina

 

03/06/2015 15:15 - Passed through entrance to crick marina

03/06/2015 16:00 - Passed through Crick Tunnel

03/06/2015 17:30 - Passed through Locks at Watford

04/06/2015 10:00 - Passed through Braunston Tunnel

04/06/2015 12:00 - Passed through Locks at braunston

04/06/2015 19:00 - Passed through Locks at Hilmorton

05/06/2015 08:30 - Passed through Newbold Tunnel

05/06/2015 21:00 - Passed through entrance to brinklow marina

 

No records - 06/06/2015-16/06/2015

 

16/05/2015 14:00 - Passed through entrance to brinklow marina

16/05/2015 15:30 - Passed through swingbridge at rose narrowboats

16/05/2015 19:00 - passed through hawkesbury stop lock

17/05/2015 15:30 - Logged by volunteer 700yds south of atherstone locks

17/05/2015 20:00 - passed through hawkesbury stop lock

18/05/2015 16:30 - Passed through swingbridge at rose narrowboats

18/05/2015 18:00 - Passed through entrance to brinklow marina

 

No records - 19/06/2015-present date

 

as you can see in my case it would give a good idea of how and where the boat is being used. in my case I would generate quite a lot of tracking info since the boat has moved a fair amount in this time, given the current ideas behind what could constitute genuine CC usage a boat might generate less data than this in a year although you would expect to see a fair few more logged by volunteer entries

 

I like that post, it would also show unauthorised use of boat eg been nicked. Oh and a fitted device might be useful in negotiations with insurers

[Dave Clinton]

I was not thinking of someone staying an extra day or two, nor did I say that. As always there is a range, at one extreme there is having no licence, no mooring and no insurance. Would you be happy with say 10% of boaters doing that, and no enforcement action? At the other end there is the staying just an extra day or two, which I don't see as costing anyone any money, and I never said it did. But at the end of the day the canals need money which must come from somewhere.

I would expect and hope that CRT target the extreme end. - What is needed is a legal definition of CC, which does not seem to exist.

 

I have nothing against licence enforcement which appears to be a very small part of their current remit.

 

There is a legal definition of what you call "CC" - the 1995 Act.

 

Funding cannot come from making a certain type of behaviour illegal and then raising money by penalty charges, however attractive it might be to Westminster Council.