canal and river trust stating none sighting

[cotswoldsman]

 

We thank you for your incisive and useful comment.

 

 

Seems to depend on which CRT waters are involved, then!

But CART sat they cover the complete system every 14 days your not implying they lie are you?

[Guest]

There is some evidence that he is not, since CRT has a boat logging system (albeit flawed) and if said boat has zero sightings over a long period of supposed CCing (3 months) it gives rise to reasonable suspicion that the boat is not moving much.

If indeed it is flawed as you suggest, it is not fit for purpose and as such cannot be relied upon. If the system is flawed, there is no ground for reasonable suspicion.

[abraxus]

No I haven't "satisfy" in this case does not give CART a blank piece of paper just to stop issuing licences based on a hunch or based on the fact that they have not sighted a boat for a few months

Of course it doesn't, but that's not what they've done. They openly acknowledged that they have insufficient data to decide one way or another, and so have asked the boater to fill in the gaps so they can decide.

 

That's not taking a blank piece of paper and acting on it, it's taking the reasonable course of asking the boater to confirm or deny his compliance.

Edited August 21, 2015 by abraxus

[nicknorman]

I don't dispute that, NIck, but 'reasonable suspicion' isn't evidence.

 

It is circumstantial evidence, not categoric evidence, but evidence none the less.

[cotswoldsman]

Of course it doesn't, but that's not what they've done. They openly acknowledged that they have insufficient data to decide one way or another, and so have asked the boater to fill in the gaps so they can decide.

 

That's not taking a blank piece of paper and acting on it, it's taking the reasonable course of asking the boater to confirm or deny his compliance.

Now I wonder how he will answer

[Guest]

It is circumstantial evidence, not categoric evidence, but evidence none the less.

Not when that evidence is produced by a system that you stated is flawed. It is flawed evidence.

[GreyLady]

I dont see why a boat not being sighted should be an issue, surely all the Op's son needs to do is call the Crt by phone and have a quick chat, nothing more.

 

Mole Hill and Mountain come to mind.

[cotswoldsman]

I

We are being invaded by kids and their cartoons

[abraxus]

Now I wonder how he will answer

With common sense one would hope, as if his reply doesn't conflict with the data they have, then they have little choice but to give him the benefit of the doubt.

[GreyLady]

We are being invaded by kids and their cartoons

now now be polite theirs no need to be rude.

[cotswoldsman]

now now be polite theirs no need to be rude.

That one does not look suitable for children

[madcat]

I'm most unimpressed about the way some people seem to assume p taking whenever somebody questions their sighting record. It seems very much to me that the recording system CRT use is not fit for purpose.

 

It isn't rocket science to get somewhere without being recorded, travel late and early and tie up in the middle of nowhere.

 

As a side issue to this I know that persons with home moorings have had to resort to getting their mooring provider to write to CRT and confirm that the boater has a legitimate mooring which the boat uses.

[Dave_P]

What people forget is that CRT have an obligation to state why a boater does not "satisfy"

 

Of course you're right, but that would only happen if they were planning to refuse the boater a license. Giving the benefit of the doubt, would, undoubtedly, lead to the renewal of the licence.

[ditchcrawler]

At a quick glance perhaps 2/3 on CRT waters, so approx. 2500 miles on CRT waters with no sightings.

Maybe they can't type quick enough and before they can enter your number you are gone (Now where is that tongue in cheek smilly)

[Naughty Cal]

Maybe they can't type quick enough and before they can enter your number you are gone (Now where is that tongue in cheek smilly)

[abraxus]

Not when that evidence is produced by a system that you stated is flawed. It is flawed evidence.

Not flawed as such, more incomplete.

 

When I get a gas bill, based on a "estimated" reading, it may not reflect my actual usage, and is simply an assumption based on my past usage. Of course I could feel outraged and write to my MP, and demand that they send a meter reader every day. Alternatively I could take up their offer of taking my own reading and submitting it, so they can adjust their records (and my bill) accordingly. It's the same here.

 

That is the reality of sampling systems, which are based on a balance of cost and effectiveness, and so they ocassionally require a bit of user input/feedback to keep them on track. It's not malicious, it's just a practical reality.

Edited August 21, 2015 by abraxus

[gazza]

We are being invaded by kids and their cartoons

[Dave_P]

That's true, but surely asking the boater to fill in the gaps in their sightings is offering him the benefit of the doubt, by giving him the opportunity to show that he's been compliant, rather than just taking immediate action on an assumption that he hasn't.

If that's how you define 'benefit of the doubt'. I don't. There's no evidence of his guilt, so we should presume his innocence. What you call 'giving him the opportunity', I call 'demanding person information' which they have no right to.

[Paul C]

 

CarlT mentioned the over use of smilieys to emphasis humour early today...

 

I did ask IT guru PaulC for the long awaited tounge in cheek one, still no sign of it.....

 

 

 

OK No worries I don't read all threads these days...............more smileys.....specifically a tongue-in-cheek one........I'll have a quick look into it.

 

I've started another thread relating to emoticons here: http://www.canalworld.net/forums/index.php?showtopic=78686

[Dave_P]

Not flawed as such, more incomplete.

 

When I get a gas bill, based on a "estimated" reading, it may not reflect my actual usage, and is simply an assumption based on my past usage. Of course I could feel outraged and write to my MP, and demand that they send a meter reader every day. Alternatively I could take up their offer of taking my own reading and submitting it, so they can adjust their records (and my bill) accordingly. It's the same here.

 

That is the reality of sampling systems, which are based on a balance of cost and effectiveness, and so they ocassionally require a bit of user input/feedback to keep them on track. It's not malicious, it's just a practical reality.

I'm speechless! Could you explain how an inaccurate meter reading could lead to someone losing their home?

[cotswoldsman]

Not flawed as such, more incomplete.

 

When I get a gas bill, based on a "estimated" reading, it may not reflect my actual usage, and is simply an assumption based on my past usage. Of course I could feel outraged and write to my MP, and demand that they send a meter reader every day. Alternatively I could take up their offer of taking my own reading and submitting it, so they can adjust their records (and my bill) accordingly. It's the same here.

 

That is the reality of sampling systems, which are based on a balance of cost and effectiveness, and so they ocassionally require a bit of user input/feedback to keep them on track. It's not malicious, it's just a practical reality.

Ummm you call that comparing like for like or have things changed since I moved onto my boat. Do they cut you off based on an estimate. When I lived in my house it was benificial to give a correct reading as the estimate was always more than the actual. Or do they now say we don't think you are using enough gas so we are going to cut you off unless you prove otherwise

[abraxus]

If that's how you define 'benefit of the doubt'. I don't. There's no evidence of his guilt, so we should presume his innocence. What you call 'giving him the opportunity', I call 'demanding person information' which they have no right to.

The law seems to disagree, as it requires the boater to satisy CRT that he is eligible for a CC licence.

 

If were to walk into a benefits office and say I was too sick to work, should they just accept that and pay me? If, after a year they asked me to provide evidence of my ongoing illness, would you consider they have no right to ask for such personal information, and should just presume my continued eligibilty? Or do you think they should camp outside my house every day, regularly monitor my activities, and try to collect their own evidence?

[cotswoldsman]

The law seems to disagree, as it requires the boater to satisy CRT that he is eligible for a CC licence.

 

If were to walk into a benefits office and say I was too sick to work, should they just accept that and pay me? If, after a year they asked me to provide evidence of my ongoing illness, would you consider they have no right to ask for such personal information, and should just presume my continued eligibilty? Or do you think they should camp outside my house every day, regularly monitor my activities, and try to collect their own evidence?

You really have lost the plot

[jenlyn]

The law seems to disagree, as it requires the boater to satisy CRT that he is eligible for a CC licence.

 

If were to walk into a benefits office and say I was too sick to work, should they just accept that and pay me? If, after a year they asked me to provide evidence of my ongoing illness, would you consider they have no right to ask for such personal information, and should just presume my continued eligibilty? Or do you think they should camp outside my house every day, regularly monitor my activities, and try to collect their own evidence?

(throws him a life ring)

[Dave_P]

The law seems to disagree, as it requires the boater to satisy CRT that he is eligible for a CC licence.

 

If were to walk into a benefits office and say I was too sick to work, should they just accept that and pay me? If, after a year they asked me to provide evidence of my ongoing illness, would you consider they have no right to ask for such personal information, and should just presume my continued eligibilty? Or do you think they should camp outside my house every day, regularly monitor my activities, and try to collect their own evidence?

I'm despairing now. Another ludicrous comparison. If I went into a benefits office seeking sick pay and it was refused, I wouldn't then end up in court for it!

A better example would be: I apply for sick pay. I have a doctors certificate showing that I'm not fit for work. The benefits office then sends someone to come and spy on me on a daily basis to make sure I don't get any better. That's the principle on which CRT are enforcing.