canal and river trust stating none sighting

[bassplayer]

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.

[GreyLady]

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

Maybe I could find a compremize to a Leasure and Crt protection Vessel.

 

kinda like a LPV - leasure protection vessel.

[Señor Chris]

So CRT have said they won't accept data from tracking devices. Have they given any indication as to what sort of 'evidence' they will accept?

[mayalld]

 

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.

CRT aren't saying that they haven't logged it at all, just that they haven't logged it enough.

 

Basically they want his story, and provided it doesn't conflict with their sightings, they will be happy

[jenlyn]

So CRT have said they won't accept data from tracking devices. Have they given any indication as to what sort of 'evidence' they will accept?

Yes. She said photos of your boat with a recognizable structure or similar.

Given the state of the vegetation in some areas, I found that quite comical.

[Señor Chris]

Yes. She said photos of your boat with a recognizable structure or similar.

Given the state of the vegetation in some areas, I found that quite comical.

 

How does that prove the date? Easy enough to set on a digital camera.

[jenlyn]

 

How does that prove the date? Easy enough to set on a digital camera.

Well, seemingly, we use common sense. I've no idea what they use.

[GreyLady]

 

How does that prove the date? Easy enough to set on a digital camera.

 

haha

 

yes but you would have to have a bottle of fresh milk in the photo clearly displaying the use by date also.

 

PS, if someone types but you could swop the lables i will log off and call it a night.

 

Its redirious this forum.

Edited August 20, 2015 by grumpy146

[MtB]

 

How does that prove the date? Easy enough to set on a digital camera.

 

 

I know which I'd find quicker and less effort to fake...

 

1) A dozen or so digital camera images in different places

 

2) A few months of GPS tracking data showing a boat moving at 3mph for eight or ten hours a week.

[bassplayer]

 

How does that prove the date? Easy enough to set on a digital camera.

Any data can be hacked with the right knowledge. That's where the 'trust' bit comes in. Not a lot of it around these days...

[Señor Chris]

 

haha

 

yes but you would have to have a bottle of fresh milk in the photo clearly displaying the use by date also.

 

PS, if someone types but you could swop the lables i will log off and call it a night.

 

Its redirious this forum.

 

Good point, but the idea of getting a use-by date in focus at the same time as a 'recognisable structure' was proving too much for me.

[GreyLady]

 

 

I know which I'd find quicker and less effort to fake...

 

1) A dozen or so digital camera images in different places

 

2) A few months of GPS tracking data showing a boat moving at 3mph for eight or ten hours a week.

 

Which one ?

 

A GPS box can be altered to give a reading every hour 24/7=720hours of Gpsr on a 30 day month.

[Jerra]

 

 

I know which I'd find quicker and less effort to fake...

 

1) A dozen or so digital camera images in different places

 

2) A few months of GPS tracking data showing a boat moving at 3mph for eight or ten hours a week.

The problem with faking either is surely you don't know that the fake point you mention wasn't actually being logged at the time. Doubtful I know but it is bound to happen to somebody if enough fakes are produced.

[bassplayer]

Nothing stopping CRT cross checking our data to check we're not lying. It's so simple really, I wonder why CRT won't do it?

[jenlyn]

A website and small business venture for exchange index numbers looms ever closer.

Nothing stopping CRT cross checking our data to check we're not lying. It's so simple really, I wonder why CRT won't do it?

Because it would show the huge problem they promote is actually a very very small one.

[bassplayer]

 

Because it would show the huge problem they promote is actually a very very small one.

...and it's a problem you can try to solve sitting on your arse in front of a computer. Much easier than cutting hedges and maintaining locks...

[jenlyn]

I think a lot of this commotion is related to budgets. Enforcement is probably squeezed in that respect, yet is in actual fact quite a large department. They have to convince parry to fund, and to do that, well, how best to promote the need for a large budget.

[Tony Dunkley]

The wording of Para. 3 in the C&RT e-mail is nothing short of priceless : -

 

"We have been monitoring your boat’s cruising pattern since renewal of your licence and presently consider that we have insufficient sightings data to make a decision regarding your recent cruising. If you dispute our conclusions to date, please provide evidence of the frequency of your boat’s movements and mooring locations so that we can consider matters further and if necessary update our records."

 

It gets even better in Para. 6 : -

 

"However, if at the expiry of your current licence we consider that you did not maintain a cruising pattern throughout the period of that licence which was sufficient to meet the requirements of our Guidance, you will, in the absence of any exceptional circumstances, be unable to renew your licence on a continuous cruiser basis when your current licence period expires and will be required to remove your boat from the inland waterways managed by us or alternatively secure a home mooring before a new licence can be issued."

 

Begs an obvious question, doesn't it ?

[abraxus]

So CRT have said they won't accept data from tracking devices. Have they given any indication as to what sort of 'evidence' they will accept?

Well last week they seemed happy to take someone's word for it.

[robert anthony]

Nothing stopping CRT cross checking our data to check we're not lying. It's so simple really, I wonder why CRT won't do it?

 

A website and small business venture for exchange index numbers looms ever closer.

Because it would show the huge problem they promote is actually a very very small one.

Because while we are all fighting each other over CCing, home mooring, overstaying, quiet moorings, residential complaints etc, etc we are not concentrating on fundamental things like maintenance and investment in the canal network.

Edited August 20, 2015 by robert anthony

[bassplayer]

The wording of Para. 3 in the C&RT e-mail is nothing short of priceless : -

 

"We have been monitoring your boats cruising pattern since renewal of your licence and presently consider that we have insufficient sightings data to make a decision regarding your recent cruising. If you dispute our conclusions to date, please provide evidence of the frequency of your boats movements and mooring locations so that we can consider matters further and if necessary update our records."

 

It gets even better in Para. 6 : -

 

"However, if at the expiry of your current licence we consider that you did not maintain a cruising pattern throughout the period of that licence which was sufficient to meet the requirements of our Guidance, you will, in the absence of any exceptional circumstances, be unable to renew your licence on a continuous cruiser basis when your current licence period expires and will be required to remove your boat from the inland waterways managed by us or alternatively secure a home mooring before a new licence can be issued."

 

Begs an obvious question, doesn't it ?

What? Why is there a couple of sentances underlined and highlighted in red?

[jenlyn]

 

Because while we are all fighting each other over CCing, home mooring, overstaying, quiet moorings, residential complaints etc, etc we are not concentrating on fundamental things like maintenance and investment in the canal network.

Yep.

[abraxus]

What? Why is there a couple of sentances underlined and highlighted in red?

I think he's highlighted them to raise the question of how can they conclude his cruising pattern is unacceptable when they've previously stated that they have insufficient data to make any decisions.

 

He has a fair point in that the wording of the email is terrible to the point of being nonsensical.

[bassplayer]

Maybe another approach is to start a mass fornal complaint about funds being wasted on enforcement which would be better used on more important things like maintenence. Get a few MP's involved and the media.

 

We are customers after all..well I thought we were...

[rufus2015]

If CRT have no record of the boats sightings, then surely what ever you tell them as to where you have moved to can't be disproved ?

 

There cannot be a situation where boaters have to provide legally binding proof of where they have been, how would that be practically possible ?

 

Also, if CRT are only issuing 6 month licences to whoever they see fit to are they not forcing customers to pay more ? What's the cost of two 6 month licences, compared to a 12 month one ? If that's the case they are profiting by every licence they restrict, and there is no oversight or proof their sightings are correct.