|
Post by dogless on Mar 16, 2024 13:56:45 GMT
On a serious note, don't you think the boat owner knows long before any involvement or consideration by C&RT, whether any enforcement action is possible or likely ? It may be important for a boat owner to understand the steps C&RT may take, but I cannot accept that enforcement action can ever be a complete surprise ... C&RT simply aren't that efficient. Rog I donβt think your understanding the process. Itβs going from no enforcement to being taken to court as the first step. As we all know there is no clarity in the legislation as to how far to cruise. So yes it is completely possible that someone could be happily unaware and then land in court with no warning or guidance given as what constitutes lawful behaviour. I don't think you're understanding that a boat owner choosing not to move his/her boat must expect to attract attention, unless in regular contact with C&RT. Someone cruising several hundred miles a year shouldn't expect attention, provided the boat is licensed, insured and has a BSSC. So I'm suggesting it's entirely impossible to be surprised by C&RT attention. Rog
|
|
|
Post by Aloysius on Mar 16, 2024 14:56:35 GMT
Yebbut...sorry for having a sometimes reliable memory but Vince reported getting an overstay notice despite the fact he'd actually traveled tens of miles from that spot two weeks previously and was on the way back. So under the new rules he would presumably have received a notice of intended prosecution instead. I genuinely see real problems on the way.
Let's assume that at least some, perhaps especially in London, take the piss (not an entirely unreasonable possibility) and will be targeted. But it won't always be the case. Will a phone call still be enough to make CRT call off the hounds?
You take lots of photos and it may not hurt to take one of the many signs I hear CRT spent a ridiculous amount of money on every so often. TBH if I was one of the London bunch I might resort to doing so with a fresh copy of the news in hand until the new pattern of behaviour is clear. I don't think it's scaremongering when folks say CRT are out to get them. Time will tell.
Thinks...the next logical step will be to out-source the process to some third party with a faceless appeal system. Jesus H.
|
|
|
Post by dogless on Mar 16, 2024 15:13:02 GMT
I too have had the e mail mistakingly identifying overstaying when I've actually been on a return journey between sightings ... it happens and is easily resolved with a phone call.
Are you seriously suggesting that a single overstay will in future produce a court appearance ?
Rog
|
|
|
Post by Aloysius on Mar 16, 2024 15:27:41 GMT
I hope not, but CRT seem to be planning on removing the steps between a 'friendly' warning and prosecution. Only time will tell how they intend to play it.
And be honest, outsourcing the process isn't too far-fetched.
It's a bloody shame that outside of London the NABT (did I get it right this time) get so much stick since they're the only organisation with a hope of seriously challenging anything so draconian; everybody else seems to be cheerfully marching to the (don't like the allusion overly much but it seems apt) camp.
|
|
|
Post by Mr Stabby on Mar 16, 2024 16:07:36 GMT
Yebbut...sorry for having a sometimes reliable memory but Vince reported getting an overstay notice despite the fact he'd actually traveled tens of miles from that spot two weeks previously and was on the way back. So under the new rules he would presumably have received a notice of intended prosecution instead. I genuinely see real problems on the way. I can't imagine that would happen. You are correct in that I received an overstay advisory email (not an overstay notice) because I was sighted at Tarleton twice, just over a fortnight apart. In between these two sightings I had crossed the Ribble Link, twice, and travelled to the end of the Lancaster Canal including the Glasson branch. I cannot imagine though that CRT would prosecute based on such an apparent overstay because I'm sure they will be aware that this error is a fairly regular occurrence and that in most cases a boater would easily be able to take apart the Prosecution's case.
|
|
|
Post by dogless on Mar 16, 2024 16:19:57 GMT
I also cannot believe the target of C&RT enforcement is now EVERY boater.
I believe C&RT staff have a fairly sound grasp of those that seek to comply, and those that seek to play the system.
But we're each allowed an opinion.
Rog
|
|
|
Post by Aloysius on Mar 16, 2024 16:23:19 GMT
I sincerely hope the reality is different. But only time will tell. No point saying any more.
Ok one more thing. CRT re-emphasised the importance of maintaining a cruising log in a recent communiquΓ©...I find it difficult to accept that the general attitude is "I don't mind so long as it isn't me".
|
|
|
Post by Tony Dunkley on Mar 16, 2024 17:29:18 GMT
On a serious note, don't you think the boat owner knows long before any involvement or consideration by C&RT, whether any enforcement action is possible or likely ? It may be important for a boat owner to understand the steps C&RT may take, but I cannot accept that enforcement action can ever be a complete surprise ... C&RT simply aren't that efficient. Rog I donβt think your understanding the process. Itβs going from no enforcement to being taken to court as the first step. As we all know there is no clarity in the legislation as to how far to cruise. So yes it is completely possible that someone could be happily unaware and then land in court with no warning or guidance given as what constitutes lawful behaviour. The very first sentence of the above quoted reply is every bit as applicable to the mindless turd who wrote it, as it is to the specified recipient, and for that matter, to every one of the primary participants in this ill-informed and pointless topic.
|
|
|
Post by β on Mar 16, 2024 17:30:48 GMT
The sinister side of it all is that the CRT -will- bring in contractors for enforcement. This will happen and change the status of itinerant living on canals. The people who have forced this change will go and do other things as they have no interest in Boats.
Interesting one to watch from the comfort of one's house.
|
|
|
Post by Tony Dunkley on Mar 16, 2024 18:04:44 GMT
The sinister side of it all is that the CRT -will- bring in contractors for enforcement. This will happen and change the status of itinerant living on canals. The people who have forced this change will go and do other things as they have no interest in Boats. Interesting one to watch from the comfort of one's house. Contractors were brought in to the sham so-called 'enforcement' process long ago - they're called Commercial Boat Services [CBS], and the owner and MD, Brian Clarke, together with C&RT's crooked lawyers, have been doing very well, and lining their pockets, out of it ever since.
|
|
|
Post by Aloysius on Mar 16, 2024 18:18:22 GMT
The sinister side of it all is that the CRT -will- bring in contractors for enforcement. This will happen and change the status of itinerant living on canals. The people who have forced this change will go and do other things as they have no interest in Boats. Interesting one to watch from the comfort of one's house. Contractors were brought in to the sham so-called 'enforcement' process long ago - they're called Commercial Boat Services [CBS], and the owner and MD, Brian Clarke, together with C&RT's crooked lawyers, have been doing very well, and lining their pockets, out of it ever since. You have never said anything worth saying; you will never contribute anything of value. Fuck off. Die. You useless, worthless, irrelevant twat.
|
|
|
Post by Aloysius on Mar 16, 2024 18:28:38 GMT
The sinister side of it all is that the CRT -will- bring in contractors for enforcement. This will happen and change the status of itinerant living on canals. The more I think about it the clearer it becomes. CRT need a 'straight to prosecution' framework to hand over. Simple as that, really.
|
|
|
Post by Mr Stabby on Mar 16, 2024 18:33:31 GMT
The sinister side of it all is that the CRT -will- bring in contractors for enforcement. This will happen and change the status of itinerant living on canals. The people who have forced this change will go and do other things as they have no interest in Boats. Interesting one to watch from the comfort of one's house. Contractors were brought in to the sham so-called 'enforcement' process long ago - they're called Commercial Boat Services [CBS], and the owner and MD, Brian Clarke, together with C&RT's crooked lawyers, have been doing very well, and lining their pockets, out of it ever since. They've never made any money out of me.
|
|
|
Post by β on Mar 16, 2024 18:48:10 GMT
Also I was talking about contracted out enforcement not the bit which happens afterwards.
The current monitoring of Boats by the CRT is not particularly effective. If someone sees a potential profit in this it could become a lot more organised.
Charging money for towpath moorings seems to be a way to generate profit required to enable real enforcement.
at some point if too many people start using canal towpaths for residential use something will have to change. It is sort of obvious in a way.
|
|
|
Post by dogless on Mar 16, 2024 18:56:04 GMT
Contractors were brought in to the sham so-called 'enforcement' process long ago - they're called Commercial Boat Services [CBS], and the owner and MD, Brian Clarke, together with C&RT's crooked lawyers, have been doing very well, and lining their pockets, out of it ever since. They've never made any money out of me. Nor me , nor any other boat owner on here. You have to choose to join the dance π Rog
|
|