Not the CaRT norm
1) The article mentions a 'rotten apple' singular not rotten apples, plural. There was no suggestion in the article that over zealousness was the norm within CaRT. Indeed a couple of winters back I sent an email to CaRT's Helen Underhill saying what a good job the patrol officer had done in patrolling the moorings below Star Lock, Stone, on the Trent & Mersey Canal (a popular spot in the past for continuous moorers during the winter), preventing the 48hr mooring from becoming blocked to boaters requiring the local facilities.
2) The boater concerned had not overstayed on the 48hr mooring and had two lock keepers employed by CaRT as witnesses to that fact.
3) Surely in this country you are innocent until proven guilty. Therefore it should have been up to CaRT to prove the boater's guilt before making an accusation, not the boater's job to prove his innocence after?
4) Might I suggest you are setting a very dangerous precedent if you maintain a person's past disqualifies them from a right to fair play. I wonder what Terry's reaction would be to receiving a parking ticket for staying ten minutes in a two hour zone simply because he had had a parking ticket in the past and was therefore 'known' to the traffic warden? Would he just pay up and say nothing? I doubt it somehow.
5) I'm not a lawyer but I understand there is a law that forbids harassment of a person at their home. I hope Terry Ollerton is not suggesting that CaRT personnel are above the law?
6) The officer concerned was the same officer that boaters complained about to Richard Parry at the open meeting in Nottingham. Victor reported this on narrowboatworld and so his name is in the public domain anyway see here (Victor: An Open Meeting). So it would seem this was not just an isolated case.