You already know what I'm like... I usually like to take a "well meaning" if Victor Meldrew in style "I don't believe it" swipe at whatever I come across. As It says on the front page "If you take this blog seriously, then you are on your own."On Wednesday, I wrote a bit about the governments snoopers charter. I postulated in a roundabout way that CART might want to take advantage of such a charter. My blog reader replied with a considered opinion. One that I take on board at face value. However, this stimulated your scribe into a reply (banging on) at great length.
Quote: Whilst I share your concerns about the Governments intentions re the Communications Data Bill, I'm not sure how you can link that to C&RT's work in maintaining its income stream (similar I might suggest to parking wardens 'snooping' on parked cars). I would also like to know what is wrong with C&RT asking a marina for information? I'm not sure why C&RT have to quote S 35(2) of the DPA to justify their questions, because as far as I know it is not illegal to ask questions, what may be illegal is supplying the information requested. On the point of people giving money to a charity that uses it to monitor boats to make sure everyone pays the correct licence fee - I think the answer is probably yes.
Dear
John.
I
agree that asking questions is not in itself illegal, but does asking
such questions have a moral dimension. If the questions were not
intended to be covert and hidden from the boater in question - why
were they not addressed to the boater concerned. If the questions
were intended to be covert and hidden from the boater in question -
why is there the need for CART to be covert about what CART already have on
record. (A more up-to-date version of the chicken, egg - egg, chicken conundrum)
If
as a landlord, (Marina owner) I was in receipt of a letter asking
questions about one of my tenants. (Boat Owner) I would weigh up the
letter content and make a decision as to whether I considered the questions
to be a legal and valid enquiry. I would also look and make a
judgement on the morality aspect of asking such a question. Our opinions may differ, but I am minded that legality or morality certainly have a roll to play. (Leaving out any issues centred around transparency)
Why
would CART feel the need to include a reference to a bit of
legislation. Unless they themselves thought that the questions might
be considered by the recipient as being - well, questionable in
themselves. Further more the quoted piece of legislation does not
give any compulsion or requirement to me to reply or to keep covert
the correspondence. (However, it would appear at first sight to a lay person to
actually suggest differently. It certainly did to me.)
In
such a case I would feel a business and moral responsibility to look
after the interest and welfare of my tenant. This would certainly
include not compromising their privacy. This is after all, the very least anyone as a
tenant should expect from me as their landlord. My suspicions being
raised about the way this communication has been been conducted. I
would feel bound to alert my tenant to the letter and its content. I
would also feel aggrieved that the letter might in itself put me in
some legal or moral discomfort with my tenant. Discomfort that the
writer does not (in this instance) apparently feel.
Our
Civil Liberties seem to be something that the general public feels a need to be protected. It's a sad but evident truth for the general public to feel the need to
collectively protect themselves in such a way. Charities such as The
National Council for Civil Liberties are in business to keep the
public aware of such issues. When you are made aware of the gradual erosion, you do tend see the issues from a whole new perspective.
Sometimes
such matters may raise doubts in your mind about whether they are accidental or deliberate infringements of our Liberties. One such instance for me was the cart letter. Whilst such a matter does not
directly concern me. I am one of the public collective and so I have some concerns as a fellow boater.
Recently
I have seen a more litigious side of the new charity come to the
forefront. This in itself begs the debatable question “is this the
way we want our inland waterways to be run.” That debate on the running of the inland waterways started long
before the creation of CART and will continue for the foreseeable
future.
There
have been some inherited Health and Safety infringements where certain employees
actions or lack of action are called into question. There will be
significant sums of our licence, mooring and charitable donations
expended on such matters.
Questionable judgement calls on other
piffling issues that are now involving threats of litigation do nothing to further
the cause of the inland waterways. In my opinion they only give fuel to the fires of dissent amongst some boaters.
I accept that not
all of the litigation is of CART's own making. People can and do sometimes
feel the need to challenge interpretation and perceived discrimination. In such
cases if CART is right - then costs will be awarded as appropriate.
However, the public face of a charity (measured in the public’s
perception) will guide how deep into their pockets their hands
will go. Sometimes proving a point of principal in the courts, might eventually cost the inland waterways considerably
more in other ways. It seems to me, to be so inept, demonstrates an apparent lack of forethought. Piling up even more fuel for the detractors to get in a bit more CART bashing.
In
the public mind we collectively remember bad news and forget the good news. We then formulate an opinion on our remembered instance creating a perception. At university my tutor once gave me a bit of advice. He said
“Engineers are renowned for their failures.” What he meant was
build a good bridge and its builder is soon forgotten. However, if your bridge
falls down you will never be forgiven or forgot. I am not aware of
any successful engineering failures other than in the notoriety gained for the engineer.
We
are back to perspectives and perceptions. I live in a northern town
where money is in short supply for hospitals, police, fire service,
schools, libraries, the roads and a myriad of other more essential
causes. Jobs are disappearing (900 this week at Tata) and austerity rules our
lives. Common sense needs to prevail. Spending money (at this time
of financial meltdown) no matter how much it might be - on lock
gate poetry when it is considered by many as being best spent
elsewhere on the system – such as repairing lock gates for
instance. Spending thousands on balloons and bunting will never be
considered a better investment than a bit of spot dredging. Boating
trees round the canals will never be considered a better investment
than money spent on towpath repair. Good waterways managers like a
good engineer will soon be forgotten. However, if your canal bridge
falls down you will never be forgiven or forgot.
Then there was your parking wardens 'snooping' on parked cars comment. Rather than answer this directly I refer you back to NBW. The matter has moved on a little in the last few days. See here on Narrowboat World.
Quote: Just suppose you had an expensive car worth say £40,000 and it was parked on your drive. Someone approached it stealthily, photographed it at close quarters and walked off quickly before you could question them. On another occasion, when your car was parked in your works car park, a different person walked up to it and photographed it. Later still, when it was parked in a local supermarket car park, yet another person photographed it. This time you asked what they were doing but they refused to answer, jumped on a bike, and rode off at speed. None of these people wore any uniform, carried any obvious I.D. and refused to answer when challenged. Now what would you do? Ring the police would be my guess? Maybe that is what I should do next time? As regards Damien Kemp's recent complete denial in narrowboatworld I feel I can't do better than repeat the now famous Mandy Rice-Davies quote: "Well, he would, wouldn't he?"
As I said, I am not aware of any successful failures.
Errr.... Well apart from the royal family, I dig deep enough in my pocket there – so don't get me started on them.....
Errr.... There is the “Fat Cat” salary syndrome for CEO's of poorly performing charities...…
Errr... The Bankers salary and bonuses scandal...
Errr.... MP's fiddles and house flipping.....
Errr.... Nurse my tablets please!
Later....