BW's Waterscape site now has an interesting little tool called the Online Boat Checker that allows you to find out if a boat has an up-to-date paid licence.
You type in a boat's number, press Enter ('submit sighting') and the Checker tells you if it's got a current (paid) licence.
I tried it with my own boat number while on the Lee at Stanstead Abbotts, and it replied:
This boat is licensed. The owner might have forgotten to display it.
Harrumph! I only entered my boat number - they didn't need to insinuate the licence wasn't displayed!
I was trying the checker on my phone, while I was on the boat, and it's not easy to navigate the pages on a phone browser. I suppose BW expect you to be sitting at a conventional desktop computer while you are reporting an unlicensed boat. They really need to address this problem. The system's only going to work properly if it's easy to use by phone.
Later on Sunday afternoon, when I reached Hertford, I spotted a little boat without a visible licence or a name, but with a number. Bingo! It said that this boat did not have a licence, and it then asked me to fill in eight text boxes with assorted information, including my email address.
24 hours later I'd not had an acknowledgement, so I felt a bit of a seedy informer in reporting it.
I did later exchange private emails with the local licence enforcement officer, who told me they already knew about it. I don't know what I was expecting - perhaps some sort of reward or congratulations. Maybe they could offer commission or a prize to the first people to spot a particular unlicensed boat, as an incentive.
The Online Boat Checker only allows you to enter up to six numbers. This is a problem with those boats whose licence number begins with a letter.
I also tried entering my boat name into the box. Interestingly, not only did it say "Our system does not recognise this boat", but it then automatically allocated it the number 991100. I wonder if this number has some sort of significance in the BW boat database?
It's nearly winter, there's a recession and 120 people are losing their homes every day and you find some satisfaction in adding to that number?!
No-one likes being hassled by BW or busy-bodies so I suggest that the vast majority of those not buying licences don't have the money. They can't buy the licence, they can't afford to move much because of diesel prices, they couldn't pay a fine or court costs, so will lose their home. When this happens, they may be put into temporary accomodation which costs tax payers hundreds of thousands of pounds.
Another thing I've noticed about the odd boat that doesn't seem to show a licence - they don't drive a car, they don't run their engines for hours to charge laptops and run fridges, they burn wood rather than coal or diesel in their stoves. In other words, they live quiet, low-carbon lives, hurting nobody, bearing the sneers of wealthier passers-by.
This 'informer' policy won't hurt pleasure boaters who don't pay, it'll make desperately poor people homeless. I actually heard a BW bloke bragging to some-one about which boats had been siezed and sold.
From the comfort of your own two homes (your boat and wherever you live when not aboard), I wonder how you can feel proud of such an action.
Posted by: Carrie | Saturday, 01 November 2008 at 02:59 PM
One chance in a million.
Index '999999' seems to have special significance in the database, however I was particularly impressed that if you're "a No.1", then your boat is always licensed! (or perhaps some lucky person has this).
Posted by: Paul Sladen | Wednesday, 29 October 2008 at 11:13 PM
the posts are still going up on this one and you will may be pleased to note that you have a link put on it.
Posted by: iain smith | Tuesday, 28 October 2008 at 10:30 PM
As usual with these questions it depends on how you read the results
Posted by: iain smith | Tuesday, 28 October 2008 at 08:07 PM
Be careful, Andrew - this can be a touchy subject!
I started a thread about this online checker/report form on the Canal World forum nearly 2 weeks ago:
http://www.canalworld.net/forums/index.php?showtopic=17919
since when it has attracted over 650 responses, sparking a fierce debate about the ethics of reporting wrongdoers.
There really are some surprising views expressed there!
Although it would appear from reading that thread that there is a majority (of posters to that forum) opposed to the online checking/reporting system, there was then a poll on the topic:
http://www.canalworld.net/forums/index.php?showtopic=18067
which shows that more people said they would/might use the online checker/report form than would not/might not.
Posted by: Martin Clark | Tuesday, 28 October 2008 at 06:01 PM