WE CAN now prove beyond any doubt that notwithstanding Canal & River Trust's denial, there was a campaign to 'Get Freeman'.
Ralph Freeman is one of our outspoken contributors, who representing narrowboatworld, has obviously upset—not he believes CaRT itself—but certain of its hierarchy, who resent this site for stating the facts.
Data Protection Act
Concerned not only with that now well known letter to the marina in which he moors during the winter months, but the obvious targeting and photographing of his boat, Ralph took the unusual step of using the Data Protection Act to obtain details of the supposed 'sighting', out came another can of worms!
For his boat was recorded where it wasn't!
On one particular day his boat was logged on the Staffs & Worcs Canal by A Barnett, below Penkridge Lock.
Yet two days later Keith Wright logs an E30 Overstayer Enforcement Notice at location CC-061-002, which appears to be somewhere in the Fradley region on the Coventry Canal!
24 miles away
However, in actual fact the Grey Nomad was moored with friends' boats above Brick Kiln Lock on the Staffs & Worcs on that date. 24 miles away! (See photograph—all of which are date stamped.)
His boat was sighted by CaRT employee E Sollars on the Staffs & Worcs on another particular date, but Ralph's log again shows he was not there, but at Compton, some 31 miles away!
Questions from Ralph
1) What is the overstaying notice doing on my record for a day when the boat was moored for a single day only above Brick Kiln Lock on the Staffs & Worcs and nowhere near the location given?
2) Why was the form sent to my mailbox in Derby when CaRT employees had information at their disposal that clearly showed I was in the Penkridge/Gailey area?
I have to ask if the form was that important why didn't the enforcement officer give me a copy or mention it to me when he logged my boat just three days later?
As I was 'outbound' at the time I didn't know of the form's existence until many weeks later when I returned to my home mooring and went over to Derby, by car, to collect my (snail) mail.
And there is more...
The saga continues
As to the letter to his marina, notwithstanding emails querying this to CaRT, no reason has been forthcoming.
He explained he had moored at Aston Marina for the past four years over the winter months, together with four weeks for 'pit stops', spending seven months out on the system and five months at the Marina, with Ralph remarking:
"Now following the Subject Access Request I made to CaRT I have evidence that the email was received by CaRT and passed over several desks but none of the occupants thought to acknowledge or reply. Why was that I wonder?"
Can provide proof
He provided the proof that the original letter from CaRT asked for, but no acknowledgement has been received, and certainly no reason for the letter being sent.
Ralph believes for some reason he is classed as a continuous cruiser, though her pays marina fees, commenting:"Copies of internal emails provided in the Subject Access Request also show, that despite having a home mooring at Aston Marina, it would appear I'm now classed as a continuous cruiser! Is there anyone else out there that moors five months in a marina and is classed as a continuous cruiser?"
"I have had no notice of the above change of status of my licence or an explanation as to what the original letter was all about, so I'm still none the wiser as to what is going on?"
Implications
Of the implications, Ralph writes:
However, closer inspection of the CaRT data on my boat movements reveals some disturbing problems that may have serious repercussions with regard to licensing.
Is this a problem I hear you say? Well if you are a continuous cruiser (or an 'Extensive' cruiser?) the answer is yes. If CaRT considers you have not moved enough during the period of your license then they may start proceedings which could eventually lead to a section 8 notice being served.
There are several periods during 2012 when my boat was not logged which gives the overall impression I have spent most of the summer cruising a relatively small area. This was not the case.
Lost month
In fact the Grey Nomad was logged at Compton on the 26th April but not logged again until the 25th May, almost a month later, below Star Lock Stone. In the 'lost' month, I did the Wolverhampton 21, the Curley Wurley, Rushall & Tame Valley, Birmingham & Fazeley to Fazeley and back up the Coventry and Trent & Mersey canals. A distance in the region of 81 miles and 67 locks according to canal planning software. Photograph shows the Grey Nomad at Pelsall Common.
My other major cruise was also missed. This was from a sighting at Star Lock Stone on the 22nd June to my return to Stone on the 17th July. A round trip of approximately 44 miles and 56 Locks. (Photograph Bridge 7 Leek Arm.)
More missing
A further period spent on the Birmingham & Fazeley Canal in early September also went unrecorded, the irony was I visited Fazeley several times for supplies and moored just a few hundred yards from the CaRT offices at Peel's Wharf.
The 'log' produced by CaRT for 2012 is far from complete, and could have very serious implications now I am classed as a Continuous Cruiser. CaRT's records makes it look as though I only cruise a relatively short section of the Trent & Mersey with the odd trip up the Staffs & Worcs. The truth I suggest is somewhat different.
Guilty until proved innocent?
Continuous cruisers according to CaRT are guilty of not moving for far enough until proved innocent. Why do I make this statement, well the rules state clearly it is the skipper's job to keep a log and to be able to prove compliance! On the other hand all CaRT has to do is accuse?
This problem may well cause problems in the future for all boaters. CaRT's 'sightings file' shows my boat was sighted in the same location on the Trent & Mersey Canal on the 9th October and two weeks later on the 23rd October. Now one could draw the conclusion that I had used up my 14 days on that mooring. Not so. For a start I had spent five of those days on my home mooring in Aston Marina!
Not reliable evidence
So again the raw data stored on CaRT's computers does not tell the complete story by any means. The data itself may well be accurate, but there is not enough of it to form an accurate picture of a boat's movements in my opinion.
With CaRT starting to take a more restrictive policy regarding boat movements I think it's imperative that all continuous or 'Extensive' cruisers keep a log, preferably backed up by photographs to prove where (and when) you have been.
Perhaps the days of meandering around the system without a care in the world have gone forever thanks to the efforts of some person(s) in Ivory Towers?
Whose orders?
Looking through some of the email it's clear the licensing side of CaRT have not been involved. It's the enforcement side that has been shall we say 'behaving badly'—under whose orders I wonder?