Yet more utter bollox from Dunkley.

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.

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.

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

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. 

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.

The more I think about it the clearer it becomes. CRT need a 'straight to prosecution' framework to hand over. Simple as that, really.

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.