--- In [email protected], "Allan Cazaly" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote a lot of things and finished with (reference BW staff): YOU SHOULD BE > CONCERNED ABOUT THE BAD FEELING YOU ARE CREATING BETWEEN ORDINARY > CANAL USERS AND YOURSELVES
Allan I'm very concerned indeed. If you'd like to write me separately about your recent experiences as detailed in the thread I'll be very pleased to see that they are properly investigated, not just because you've written publicly what you've written but because I think it's really important to do this. I'll leave that with you, my email address should be easy enough to work out. Two things to comment on immediately (or maybe three, thinking about it!): Scenario one: boat is noticied unlicensed, and one month later I pass it again and see it's still unlicensed. I automatically assume BW aren't doing anything. And I'd be very wrong. The fact is that BW will be doing lots of things, but we won't be erecting flashing lights and banners above each boat informing you that things are in hand. And the even simpler fact is we can't just get the boat off the water the day it's licence runs out, unlike the DVLA and police who can with cars. Sometimes experiences from other walks of life confuse what happens on the canal network. It's not because BW aren't bothered, it's because we don't have the powers to do it this way. When it comes to liveaboards we are talking at least 18 months to successful prosecution, by the way. Non liveaboard cn be up to 12 months. But rest assured, the non licensed boater will either pay (plus back dating) or the boat will eventually be removed. But not overnight and not within a couple of months either. Point two: I'm really sorry to hear of the attitudes that appear to be being adopted by colleagues. This is wrong and doesn;t do any of us any favours. Point three (yes, I thought there might be a third one!): I am still around, but if you imagine an elastic band strecteh to extreme you might get a feeling for my current predicaments! Eugene
