I am beginning to be concerned

[abraxus]

From reading this thread it seems they are requesting boaters to proove their innocence without any given justifyable proof we should proove our places of mooring.

But they didn't ask him to prove anything, he told them they were wrong, and they happily took his word for it.

 

Given the inadequacies in the logging system, along with Dean's own admission that he wasn't sure and that he might have overstayed, and that he would have overstayed while on holiday if they didn't give him permission, then the whole issue of "how" CRT handled it seems to be a bit of a storm in a teacup as, on the face of it, the matter at hand was dealt with swiftly, politely, and amicably, with a positive outcome for the boater concerned.

 

I do accept thought that there's a "why" issue, regarding whether Dean, as a boater with a home mooring, should have been subject to the same rules of movement as a continous cruiser. That seems to be a perfectly valid question, and a genuine concern, which I can understand people wanting clarity on.

 

I think though that in some cases, the "how" and the "why", are getting a little muddled up, which clouds the issues somewhat.

 

At least that's how I see it.

[jenlyn]

But they didn't ask him to prove anything, he told them they were wrong, and they happily took his word for it.

 

Given the inadequacies in the logging system, along with Dean's own admission that he wasn't sure and that he might have overstayed, and that he would have overstayed while on holiday if they didn't give him permission, then the whole issue of "how" CRT handled it seems to be a bit of a storm in a teacup as, on the face of it, the matter at hand was dealt with swiftly, politely, and amicably, with a positive outcome for the boater concerned.

 

I do accept thought that there's a "why" issue, regarding whether Dean, as a boater with a home mooring, should have been subject to the same rules of movement as a continous cruiser. That seems to be a perfectly valid question, and a genuine concern, which I can understand people wanting clarity on.

 

I think though that in some cases, the "how" and the "why", are getting a little muddled up, which clouds the issues somewhat.

 

At least that's how I see it.

This thread was brought to the attention of some at CRT. Consequently, they launched thunderbird save face.

[Midnight]

 

You're right, it is harassment, and if the recipients of it demonstrate to C&RT that it works by responding to threats in a conciliatory manner, then it will continue.

DeanS may be happy for now with the outcome of his 'Neville Chamberlain' moment, but to react as he has to being threatened with 'enforcement action' as a consequence of using his boat as he is entitled to do will only encourage C&RT to persist with more attempts to intimidate others who are doing the same.

 

Oh my god Dean got a polite letter let's form a militant group and tool up!

[abraxus]

This thread was brought to the attention of some at CRT. Consequently, they launched thunderbird save face.

Perhaps, but even before this thread started, the initial letter from CRT was pretty innocuous, merely asking him to get in touch and verify their sightings. There's no evidence to suggest that the outcome would have been any different had the thread not taken place.

 

It's just as likely, that on reading the thread, they launched thunderbird "laugh your arse off", with a payload of tinfoil hats.

[Heffalump]

I would go for that as I would have nothing to hide, but I bet some may question their human rights. :->

 

But it's got nothing to do with human rights. If I opened a waterway and said yep you can come on it but you've got to have a license and carry one of these trackers, you could choose either to use the tracker or boat elsewhere. End the CMer "problem" and reduce cases of people being "harrassed" by letters questioning where they were a couple of weeks ago.

[Southern Star]

Perhaps, but even before this thread started, the initial letter from CRT was pretty innocuous, merely asking him to get in touch and verify their sightings. There's no evidence to suggest that the outcome would have been any different had the thread not taken place.

 

 

Yes, I just can't see where the "unreasonable behaviour" by CRT is here.

 

Earlier this month, I could have been spotted at Wrenbury three times in 16 days, had the data logger only been around on three specific days. However, between those three days I had been to the navigable end of the Montgomery Canal, back to Wrenbury, then to Llangollen and then back to Wrenbury.

 

Had my mooring pattern been questioned, then I would simply have phoned the CRT bod and explained all of this, and no doubt they would have accepted it, as they did in Dean's case. Where's the problem?

[Midnight]

 

But it's got nothing to do with human rights. If I opened a waterway and said yep you can come on it but you've got to have a license and carry one of these trackers, you could choose either to use the tracker or boat elsewhere. End the CMer "problem" and reduce cases of people being "harrassed" by letters questioning where they were a couple of weeks ago.

 

Actually that's not a bad idea perhaps if CaRT offered an optional tracking device many would take up the offer. Those who feel persecuted and harassed or the p*** takers would naturally complain citing human rights and all that stuff.

[cotswoldsman]

 

Actually that's not a bad idea perhaps if CaRT offered an optional tracking device many would take up the offer. Those who feel persecuted and harassed or the p*** takers would naturally complain citing human rights and all that stuff.

I would not cite any of those things just simply say NO but as it will never happen it does not matter

[Midnight]

I would not cite any of those things just simply say NO but as it will never happen it does not matter

 

totally agree John - it does not matter

[tree monkey]

 

Actually that's not a bad idea perhaps if CaRT offered an optional tracking device many would take up the offer. Those who feel persecuted and harassed or the p*** takers would naturally complain citing human rights and all that stuff.

I would complain because I don't want to be tracked, I object to it in the outside world, i don't like it, I object to it, my freedoms are being slowly eroded by idiots who's justification for it is "if your not doing anything wrong" blah

we are talking about a few people who overstay on a canal not a justification for tracking my every movement.

If CRT try to fit a tracker in my boat it will end up in the canal

[Heffalump]

If CRT try to fit a tracker in my boat it will end up in the canal

 

But it already is? Or are you on the river?

[tree monkey]

 

But it already is? Or are you on the river?

[Midnight]

I would complain because I don't want to be tracked, I object to it in the outside world, i don't like it, I object to it, my freedoms are being slowly eroded by idiots who's justification for it is "if your not doing anything wrong" blah

we are talking about a few people who overstay on a canal not a justification for tracking my every movement.

If CRT try to fit a tracker in my boat it will end up in the canal

 

Quite right which is why I said optional

[DeanS]

 

Had my mooring pattern been questioned, then I would simply have phoned the CRT bod and explained all of this, and no doubt they would have accepted it, as they did in Dean's case. Where's the problem?

 

No boater should have to phone the enforcement officer, if they haven't done anything wrong. Simples.

[Heffalump]

So can I confirm, that whilst condeming C&RT for using a boat tracking system which does not log accurately enough and cannot account for movements within the prescribed period, we are saying that using a system which allows them to know where we are once every couple of days is not alright? What is the difference between them logging where we are and us telling them where we are?

[TheBiscuits]

 

No boater should have to phone the enforcement officer, if they haven't done anything wrong. Simples.

So just renaming the post from Enforcement Officer to Boater's Friend would do it.

 

Simplest!

[DeanS]

So can I confirm, that whilst condeming C&RT for using a boat tracking system which does not log accurately enough and cannot account for movements within the prescribed period, we are saying that using a system which allows them to know where we are once every couple of days is not alright? What is the difference between them logging where we are and us telling them where we are?

 

unless you are causing a problem on a VM for other boaters, no one in the world should care where you are.

[Southern Star]

 

No boater should have to phone the enforcement officer, if they haven't done anything wrong. Simples.

But they didn't suggest you had done anything wrong, just asked you about your mooring pattern as their data logger had seen you in the same place whenever he passed that place. As soon as you explained what you had done, CRT accepted this without question.

 

Perhaps, if CRT employed ten times as many data loggers, then this situation would never arise, but then you and I would have have to pay the cost of this through the licence fee.

[Heffalump]

 

unless you are causing a problem on a VM for other boaters, no one in the world should care where you are.

 

So there's entirely no need for C&RT to log the positions of any boats?

[Tony Dunkley]

Perhaps, but even before this thread started, the initial letter from CRT was pretty innocuous, merely asking him to get in touch and verify their sightings. There's no evidence to suggest that the outcome would have been any different had the thread not taken place.

 

 

Some of the contents of the letter :~

 

" respect the movement requirements and cruise to a new place at least once a fortnight."

"We’ve been looking at our sighting records and they suggest that your boat ***** has been moored in the same general area for more than 14 days."

"give your local enforcement officer a ring"

"please continue your journey to avoid action for overstaying."

. . . . . . . . Innocuous ?? . . . . . not in the least, but a warning of impending 'enforcement' for non compliance with that not required by the law.

[DeanS]

But they didn't suggest you had done anything wrong, just asked you about your mooring pattern as their data logger had seen you in the same place whenever he passed that place. As soon as you explained what you had done, CRT accepted this without question.

 

Perhaps, if CRT employed ten times as many data loggers, then this situation would never arise, but then you and I would have have to pay the cost of this through the licence fee.

 

there system doesn't have enough capacity to add the boat direction. I'd say that's slightly silly. If it did, this thread may not exist.

 

So there's entirely no need for C&RT to log the positions of any boats?

 

perhaps ONLY on VMS.?

[Heffalump]

perhaps ONLY on VMS.?

 

Hmm. I think if there were only logging on VMs then there would end up being a lot of people with CC licenses just parking up on a bit of canal near work.

[cotswoldsman]

But they didn't suggest you had done anything wrong,

"please continue your journey to avoid action for overstaying."

[GUMPY]

So what would people rather have?

A letter like this as a gentle nudge

Or

A few weeks or months on the start of enforcement.

Edited August 16, 2015 by Loddon

[cotswoldsman]

So what would people rather have?

A letter like this as a gentle nudge

Or

A few weeks or months on

A CC1 and the start of enforcement.

Firstly no such thing as a cc1. Secondly in the days they issued such things the first was a pre cc1 and thirdly Dean is not a ccer otherwise your post was very good

Oh and enforcement did not start until cc3

Edited August 16, 2015 by cotswoldsman