canal and river trust stating none sighting

[Paul C]

I can see a niche interest in some boaters wanting to track their boat's movement, nothing really against the use of electronic stuff to do it but at the end of the day CRT need to be satisfied.

[RLWP]

It could be a nice sideline for coal boats, taking trackers for a bit of a ride then dropping them back to a customer

 

Richard

[David Mack]

Perhaps heshe is a responsible sort of dad mum?

 

I have corrected that for you.

 

 

Just seen that MtB got there first.

Edited August 20, 2015 by David Mack

[GreyLady]

I can't see that a location tracker that cannot be tied permanently and sealed to a boat can be taken seriously. First question from lawyer. How can you prove the boat and tracking device are tied.

 

Second question:

 

Mr CaRT, does this tracking info satisfy the board?

 

 

Maybe they should take £50bob or add £50bob to the licence feas and get off everyone's back and they will know exactly who's is taking the mickey and save so much money from tracing proposed misbehaving boat owner's and instead spend it on the Canal and River Maintainance for us all to enjoy the reward of donation's/licence feese payed.

 

Could tracking devices be secuirty stickered/chipped and approved by CRT, now their is your data tagging to a boat.

Edited August 20, 2015 by grumpy146

[Paul C]

 

The extreme difficulty in creating a false log means a court is very likely to accept the data as genuine "On the balance of probabilities", especially if backed up by the boater telling the court under oath the data is genuine.

 

A false log just got a whole hill easier to create. For example, if a false log were to be invented then the "catch" would be that you never know if, and it only needs to occur once, the boat was in fact logged by CRT. And if CRT's single piece of info conflicted with a boater's log, it would bring into question not only that portion of the log but its entire validity (CRT's word vs boater's word). Now that CRT are openly admitting they haven't logged the boat at all, a false log is now laughably easy to invent without fear of its being detected as such. This will also be a massive help to those who choose not to keep a log at all, or object to keeping a log on various grounds.

[ditchcrawler]

 

You can buy a Vehicle Tracking unit from Amazon.uk for around £50, it comes with a sim card fitted inside a small black box, the unit only needs a 12 v supply and it also comes with an external stick on arial that can be placed somewhere discreet on the boat, you can call this little black box up via any mobile phone and you get the boats longitude and latitude sent to the mobile phone which can be entered into google earth giving the location of the boat on a map visually.

 

The GPS data is also stored onto an SD Card stating the boats location day by day, you can then download and send the location of the boat to the CRT and it will assure them we are playing by their 'rules'.

 

Its newish to me technology and i have yet to put it in place but many people use this method on boats.

 

i hope i have explained it well i have had a bottle of red

And what will that prove, you could have it mounted on your bike or even in my boat, it wont prove where your boat was.

[MtB]

And what will that prove, you could have it mounted on your bike or even in my boat, it wont prove where your boat was.

A log which is probably real but *could* (with a whole ton of effort) have been forged, will carry a lot more weight than CRT's own logging system, when scrutinised under oath.

[Tony Dunkley]

This nonsense from C&RT gets more unbelievable day by day.

Those responsible for the administration and running of the 'Enforcement Team' appear to be even more malevolent and stupid than even I thought they were, and their desperation in trying to enforce the unlawful and unenforceable is becoming very evident.

They are going round in ever decreasing circles and must soon disappear up the same orifice that their brains dropped out of some time ago.

Edited August 20, 2015 by Tony Dunkley

[GreyLady]

And what will that prove, you could have it mounted on your bike or even in my boat, it wont prove where your boat was.

 

Has anyone looked into profesional boat tracker's which are insurance approved, i am sure they exists and would presumibly be data tagged to the boat.

[MtB]

This nonsense from C&RT gets more unbelievable day by day.

Those responsible for the administration and running of the 'Enforcement Team' appear to be even more malevolent and stupid than even I thought they were, and their desperation in trying to enforce the unlawful and unenforceable is becoming very evident.

They are going round in ever decreasing circles and must soon disappear up the same orifice that their brains dropped out of some time ago.

 

 

Hopefully the OP finds your comments most constructive and reassuring.

[GreyLady]

I might ask the local farmer if i can moor up in his duck pond.

 

I guess we should all weigh our boats in a burn our kitchen units for the last few weeks left.

 

this really cheered me up

Edited August 20, 2015 by grumpy146

[Peter X]

I don't know how precise these GPS trackers are, but if they're so accurate that you can tell whether the tracker was on the boat or the towpath, that would show whether the log was faked. Even if not, as MtB says it would be a lot of effort to create a fake log that would stand up to scrutiny.

 

But it seems rather unfair if someone whose cruising pattern meets the legal requirements has to buy equipment to prove it; is the burden of proof really on the boater here?

I'd have thought a letter along the lines of "I've been moving about all over the place, your logging system appears not to be fit for purpose if you haven't spotted me; see you in court if you disagree" might be sufficient if it's really up to CRT to show you haven't moved much.

 

This leads me on to another aspect of all this which bothers me; if I were Richard Parry, my guiding principles in deciding enforcement policy would be:

(1) Protect income by making sure everyone boating on CRT waters has paid for a licence. I think I read somewhere that about 4% of boats have not, and that CRT consider that acceptable. Why? If they're really walking the entire system every two weeks it shouldn't be difficult to spot anyone who hasn't paid, so long as their IT systems are good.

(2) Don't worry much about someone overstaying if they're doing it in places where there are plenty of spare moorings and not creating any sort of nuisance to other boaters or the general public; this is a waste of resources, just turn a blind eye there and concentrate on making sure the rules are followed in the hotspots. CRT would still need to check boats everywhere to cover principle (1), but could just regard anyone in out of the way places as fi they were moving about. Just because the 14 day rule is in the law, doesn't mean they have to pursue every breach of that law.

[The Lockie]

It bugs the hell out of me when people start bitching and complaining about harrasment and data protection in an all too transparent attempt to whip up an argument. Particularly when its them that are in the wrong they just dont have the integrity to admit it!!

 

Forget the wrong email address this is a small matter

 

Your son is in this predicament because he is SUSPECTED of taking the pi55 regarding the movement of his boat. Why has it not been seen?? Well it could be CRT's inefficient data logging but equally it could be that he had moored it in the middle of nowhere thinking that would enable him to continue taking the pi55.

 

Whatever the reasons, if he had used it in the manner that his license conditions required him to then there would be no 3month license and no need to have the worry that his license would be withdrawn!!

 

The world is full of chancers who think they can get something for nothing. Play by the rules of find something else to do!!

 

Rant over.

Edited August 20, 2015 by The Lockie

[Paul C]

 

 

But it seems rather unfair if someone whose cruising pattern meets the legal requirements has to buy equipment to prove it; is the burden of proof really on the boater here?

 

See post #30, basically the law's written "the boater satisfies the board...."

[jenlyn]

I don't know how precise these GPS trackers are, but if they're so accurate that you can tell whether the tracker was on the boat or the towpath, that would show whether the log was faked. Even if not, as MtB says it would be a lot of effort to create a fake log that would stand up to scrutiny.

 

But it seems rather unfair if someone whose cruising pattern meets the legal requirements has to buy equipment to prove it; is the burden of proof really on the boater here?

I'd have thought a letter along the lines of "I've been moving about all over the place, your logging system appears not to be fit for purpose if you haven't spotted me; see you in court if you disagree" might be sufficient if it's really up to CRT to show you haven't moved much.

 

This leads me on to another aspect of all this which bothers me; if I were Richard Parry, my guiding principles in deciding enforcement policy would be:

(1) Protect income by making sure everyone boating on CRT waters has paid for a licence. I think I read somewhere that about 4% of boats have not, and that CRT consider that acceptable. Why? If they're really walking the entire system every two weeks it shouldn't be difficult to spot anyone who hasn't paid, so long as their IT systems are good.

(2) Don't worry much about someone overstaying if they're doing it in places where there are plenty of spare moorings and not creating any sort of nuisance to other boaters or the general public; this is a waste of resources, just turn a blind eye there and concentrate on making sure the rules are followed in the hotspots. CRT would still need to check boats everywhere to cover principle (1), but could just regard anyone in out of the way places as fi they were moving about. Just because the 14 day rule is in the law, doesn't mean they have to pursue every breach of that law.

Greenie.

[Tony Dunkley]

I suggest that before further debating issues such as trackers, how the OP's son should respond, etc. etc., that some thought should be given to what C&RT are indicating their intentions to be, and the grounds upon which they propose to act.

[jenlyn]

Greenie.

Wouldn't surprise me if it turned out the 4% was their own boats.

[bassplayer]

...if he had used it in the manner that his license conditions required him to then there would be no 3month license and no need to have the worry that his license would be withdrawn!!

 

The world is full of chancers who think they can get something for nothing. Play by the rules of find something else to do!!

 

Rant over.

What makes you so sure he hasn't complied? You've already accepted CRT can't manage data properly.

[robert anthony]

 

Maybe they should take £50bob or add £50bob to the licence feas and get off everyone's back and they will know exactly who's is taking the mickey and save so much money from tracing proposed misbehaving boat owner's and instead spend it on the Canal and River Maintainance for us all to enjoy the reward of donation's/licence feese payed.

 

Could tracking devices be secuirty stickered/chipped and approved by CRT, now their is your data tagging to a boat.

Nice idea but I think it could open the floodgates to other revenue raising schemes. A quick change to the T&C's and letters/emails would be appearing saying - Dear Mr X We noticed on our tracking system that while you were travelling up the GU that your boat exceeded the 4mph speed limit and so we now have to issue a fixed penalty notice of a £60 fine and 3 penalty points. Please be aware if you accumulate more than 12 points in a 12 month period you will incur a further fine of £400 and will have your licence eligibility reviewed. .

I say this tongue in cheek but surely it's not that far fetched in this day and age?

[GreyLady]

It bugs the hell out of me when people start bitching and complaining about harrasment and data protection in an all too transparent attempt to whip up an argument. Particularly when its them that are in the wrong they just dont have the integrity to admit it!!

 

Forget the wrong email address this is a small matter

 

Your son is in this predicament because he is SUSPECTED of taking the pi55 regarding the movement of his boat. Why has it not been seen?? Well it could be CRT's inefficient data logging but equally it could be that he had moored it in the middle of nowhere thinking that would enable him to continue taking the pi55.

 

Whatever the reasons, if he had used it in the manner that his license conditions required him to then there would be no 3month license and no need to have the worry that his license would be withdrawn!!

 

The world is full of chancers who think they can get something for nothing. Play by the rules of find something else to do!!

 

Rant over.

 

That was not a very freindly post to the OP, infact a little unrespectable in my opinion considering you dont know the full details or their situation.

 

People have life issues and health issues its not for us to judge why or what.

 

Very Rude and i dont mind saying so.

[The Lockie]

What makes you so sure he hasn't complied? You've already accepted CRT can't manage data properly.

 

Obviously the use of capitalisation for the word "SUSPECTED" still managed to get past you

 

Very Rude and i dont mind saying so.

I don't mind you saying so either!! I believe that's what free speech is all about

[GreyLady]

Nice idea but I think it could open the floodgates to other revenue raising schemes. A quick change to the T&C's and letters/emails would be appearing saying - Dear Mr X We noticed on our tracking system that while you were travelling up the GU that your boat exceeded the 4mph speed limit and so we now have to issue a fixed penalty notice of a £60 fine and 3 penalty points. Please be aware if you accumulate more than 12 points in a 12 month period you will incur a further fine of £400 and will have your licence eligibility reviewed. .

I say this tongue in cheek but surely it's not that far fetched in this day and age?

 

Yer i see your point, you may have to downsize to a smaller engine and remove that monster of a Merlin V12 you hide under your stern, its a beast.

 

I get what you mean though, the worlds gone all potty with rules.

 

I might buy a jet ski instead of a Narrowboat thats what i am thinking tonight.

Edited August 20, 2015 by grumpy146

[bassplayer]

Obviously the use of capitalisation for the word "SUSPECTED" still managed to get past you

 

 

Not at all and neither did the next 2 paragraphs where you condemn someone without all the facts...

[robert anthony]

 

Yer i see your point, you may have to downsize to a smaller engine and remove that monster of a Merlin V12 you hide under your stern, its a beast.

 

I get what you mean though, the worlds gone all potty with rules.

 

I might buy a jet ski instead of a Narrowboat thats what i am thinking tonight.

Nah, stick to the narrowboat. Enjoy your time out on the cut. Anyone would think you are venturing out on a bureaucratic battlefield given some of the posts you read on here

[The Lockie]

Not at all and neither did the next 2 paragraphs where you condemn someone without all the facts...

Oh so you just decided what bit to pick then. Perhaps that's what you have to do when you can't construct a proper argument.

 

Fell free to have the last word if it makes you feel better. I shan't continue to reply, I've seen too many of your posts to think that we are in the same library never mind on the same page.