Bridgewater Gestapo Tactics

[Arthur Brown]

Taking pictures through a bedroom window... 999 and aim for the sex offenders' register. -again.

 

Nothing moves people faster than possibly becoming on the sex offenders' register. Taking pictures through a person's bedroom window is offensive. on a boat any or all windows could be bedrooms.

 

If this is an individual who has overstepped the mark report him to the police, if he's doing it on behalf of Peel Holdings report them to the police as well. Peel can fail to respond to you, but they will likely not fail to respond to a sex offender enquiry from the police, -well they can try once.

[Señor Chris]

 

• Bridgewater License boaters have probably complained about the number of CRT "freeloaders" on the canal.

 

Presumably not the ones freeloading on CRT waters.

 

How would most BW boaters feel if the canal was sealed at each end? Any impact on licence fees for Peel?

[haggis]

 

Presumably not the ones freeloading on CRT waters.

 

 

I haven't been up there this year yet but there used to be a large number of boats with B licence plates and no sign of a C&Rt licence moored on the top of the T & M for months. They were within the area where Bridgewater registered boats are allowed to be but it is a bit rich if these boaters then complained to Peel about C & RT boaters freeloading on the Bridgewater. A sad situation all round really.

 

Haggis

[jonathanA]

 

 

Presumably not the ones freeloading on CRT waters.

 

How would most BW boaters feel if the canal was sealed at each end? Any impact on licence fees for Peel?[/quote

 

Yep Crt should grow a pair, reckon peel have more to

Lose. If Crt don't cooperate with boaters details sonny is suddenly a toothless tiger....

[ditchcrawler]

The only people who will lose will be boaters, Peel don't care if CRT boaters don't come to their water way and they don't care if CRT don't let their boaters on to other waterways. Not all Peel boaters toss off on CRT waters just like not all boaters Toss off on Peel waters and they are the ones who would suffer if the gate is shut.

[jonathanA]

Agreed but peel is a business and having to maintain an asset with reducing income is not good business

Arguably it would be in carts interest to make the bridge water loss making and then take it off peels hands for a nominal sum or on a management lease at a peppercorn rent

[David Mack]

Is there still a public right of navigation on the Bridgewater?

[Señor Chris]

The only people who will lose will be boaters, Peel don't care if CRT boaters don't come to their water way and they don't care if CRT don't let their boaters on to other waterways.

 

Some boaters would move off the BW costing Peel some income. Businesses would also suffer eg. Midland Chandlers. Preston Brook Marina might not do too well out of it either.

Edited September 19, 2016 by Señor Chris

[Richard10002]

This seems to have progressed from one incident with an over zealous enforcement officer to "All" Bridgewater Boaters having a gripe against some CRT boaters, and vice versa, and a suggestion that the canal be isolated... which is a ridiculous escalation and thread drift.

 

The fact seems to be that Sonny Smith definitely doesn't discriminate between CRT boats and Bridgewater boats. He is as capable of upsetting rule abiding boaters with a Bridgewater licence as he is rule abiding boaters with a CRT licence. It's my perception that he gets a kick out of causing some kind of trouble wherever he is and, if your boat happens to be in the his line of sight when he is out for some kicks, you get it, regardless. I suspect that The Canal Company have employed him for his particular qualities, and are happily turning a blind eye to his various dubious tactics and actions.

[Starcoaster]

What is on the business card?

[Glynn]

Ok update

Received an email yesterday afternoon just saying thank you for your email and they are investigating the incident and will respond in due course.

 

As for reporting it to the police they said if you are on a public right of way anyone could look into a window of anything i.e. a house, boat, car etc. They can also take a picture as long as the picture does not capture a person in a state of undress, on the toilet or in the shower.

But - Article 8 of the Human Rights Act states

Everyone has the right to respect for his private and family life, his home and his correspondence.

 

Just to be clear on the reason why my wife asked for ID

In a normal world if a person who claimed to be an enforcement officer working on behalf of the Bridgewater Canal Company i.e. PEEL Holdings, had been to our boat less than 20 hours before and had took a picture of our license the first time and we informed him of our plans and that we where going to Lymm, why then would you think it was him again.

On the second time we where inside our boat when she turned around and saw an ipad with a camera placed against the glass not at the license, she panicked and ran to stop them, when he came back to our boat, she wanted to see his proper ID proof of who he was. He was not wearing any kind of uniform or anything which would tell you he worked for the Bridgewater Canal Company, the way it happened did not seem professional.

All she got was a business card, which to be fair you can get printed easy and put what ever you like on it.

 

I also find it strange at his refusal to show ID and to then give us 24 hours to get off the Bridgewater because she asked for ID.

 

In my opion he followed us on purpose, he wanted to upset us and give him a reason to ban us.

He could of took the picture from the tow path NOT up against the glass (by the way when see saw the ipad with camera on it he could not of been taking a picture of our license as the license was to the right of the lens) We also have our index number painted on both sides of our boat and our name is also painted in BIG letters on the back. Again a picture could have been taken of that, no need to upset anyone.

 

I find it all very odd, that an asset like the Bridgewater Canal is being destroyed like this, I believe anyone visiting this canal is keeping it alive & bringing money to local trades along its banks and beyond, I feel that they are doing it on purpose, as if they what to upset CRT boats because they want CRT to take the Bridgewater off them, before long that canal will need a lot of money spending on it and Peel don’t want to do that. If you look at Leigh end of the Bridgewater they have installed a new stop lock? Is that to keep us out on the LL side or is it to stop water if a big hole opens up.

 

 

 

 

[widebeamboy]

Peel are a law unto themselves. They are also notorious ex-cowboy clampers with little or no morals and have a game plan for it somewhere, I doubt it is of any benefit to anyone except for them and the ability to impose penalties that they will use their goons to try and enforce.

[Up-Side-Down]

Being Devils advocate, is Peel not getting what it wants (no visiting boats) by allowing an employee to use the tactics described here? I gather they have made no secret of the fact that they don't want visiting boats and if their enforcement officer is reducing the number of boats by using these tactics then I don't think Peel will be very concerned and will just keep a low profile. I know hearing about his tactics has put us off going to Manchester later this year after we visit the Weaver and I don't think we will be the only ones. Peels objective achieved!

A Police matter in my opinion.

 

haggis

 

It's interesting that at least one person who should know what they are talking about has compared Scottish Canals approach to administering their waterways with the way that Peel Holdings are going about things! (as in waterways being run with property development at the fore)

[Jerra]

Ok update

Received an email yesterday afternoon just saying thank you for your email and they are investigating the incident and will respond in due course.

 

As for reporting it to the police they said if you are on a public right of way anyone could look into a window of anything i.e. a house, boat, car etc. They can also take a picture as long as the picture does not capture a person in a state of undress, on the toilet or in the shower.

 

Peel holdings don't have any connection with America do they/ There has been a case in USA (New York) where a JUdge ruled it was acceptable to take shots through windows.

 

For the UK as far as I know the UK website expertphotography.com has got the law correct when they say:

 

You don’t need a person’s consent to take their photo if they are in a public place. They do, however, have a reasonable right to privacy, so you can’t be intrusive if they’re in a private place, such as their own home.

This means that, if they’re walking down the street, you can take their photo but you can’t peer through their living room window and start snapping.

My Bold.

I would be tempted to ask them which law allows it.

[DandV]

We were moored at Lymm a month ago when there was a knock on the cabin and a gent said he was the enforcement officer for the bridgewater canal and he was just about to photograph our plate in the window. This he did and as he turned and left, he showed us the image in which our plate nearly filled the frame. I thought it was all fair enough, location date and time recorded electronically. The canal is well maintained. God knows how they could actually make money out of it though.

Don

[magictime]

I wonder if there's any mileage in complaining to the Bridgewater Canal Trust, rather than Peel? As several people have noted, Peel are looking at things from the narrow perspective of their own day-to-day financial interests (licence fees etc.). But the BCT includes representatives of the relevant Local Authorities, whose involvement in supporting and funding the Bridgewater Canal is presumably predicated on its value to local people and businesses, which in turn depends (partly) on its status as a thriving navigation attracting visiting boats. While it might, on the face of it, suit Peel to scare visiting boaters away, it certainly doesn't suit these Local Authorities. And as I understand it, Peel does rely in part on their support (financial and otherwise).

 

The first and most obvious problem there is that I'm damned if I can find any contact details for the Bridgewater Canal Trust. It seems to be a rather shadowy organisation without so much as a website to its name! Can anyone help?

[Midnight]

Reading this and other threads this Sonny guy seems to be deliberately provocative and very officious to the point of aggression. However I don't think knocking his teeth out or throwing him in the canal would help reduce the problem. If faced with this fellow's aggressive approach I would try to stay calm (wouldn't be easy) smile, take my camera and video him in action, post on here and other social media pages.

 

If that produced an even more aggressive response from Mr Sonny then the teeth and canal options might be considered worthwhile even when weighed up against the inevitable lengthy spell in jail.

[Jerra]

It would appear (according to democratictrafford.gov.uk) that a Mr Rob Chilton is their representative on the Trust which may be a place to start. He should know how to contact the Trust.

[Athy]

.

 

If that produced an even more aggressive response from Mr Sonny then the teeth and canal options might be considered worthwhile even when weighed up against the inevitable lengthy spell in jail.

For him, perhaps; not for you, if you were defending yourself against an attack.

[Arthur Brown]

Anything that involves lead, teeth, baseball bat, canal water puts you in a bad position where an offensive action by him becomes a serious offence by you. Involving the police should get the individual investigated under "peeping tom" guidelines or directly towards the sex offenders' register. On a small boat ANY window could be the bedroom or bathroom.

[Señor Chris]

God knows how they could actually make money out of it though.

 

 

Licence fees.

[Paul C]

Anything that involves lead, teeth, baseball bat, canal water puts you in a bad position where an offensive action by him becomes a serious offence by you. Involving the police should get the individual investigated under "peeping tom" guidelines or directly towards the sex offenders' register. On a small boat ANY window could be the bedroom or bathroom.

 

Sorry to say but suggesting this rubbish about getting him onto the sex offenders register is a load of tosh. The boat is in a public place, your curtains are open (otherwise you'd not see him taking a pic, right?), its not a bedroom or bathroom clearly, so its a step too far to suggest he's trying to get dodgy pics - and if he does you must be some kind of exhibitionist.

 

By all means its not acceptable to be sticking a camera to photograph the interior of a boat but it seems like its just an intimidation tactic. Let's keep a sense of proportion here otherwise there's a danger you won't be taken seriously (cry wolf etc).

[Jerra]

 

The first and most obvious problem there is that I'm damned if I can find any contact details for the Bridgewater Canal Trust. It seems to be a rather shadowy organisation without so much as a website to its name! Can anyone help?

According to addressesandpostcodes.co.uk The Bridgewater Canal Trust exist at:

 

Bridgewater Canal Trust

Unit 13

The Bridgewater Centre

Robson Avenue

Urmston

MANCHESTER

M41 7TE

[billh]

Ok update

Received an email yesterday afternoon just saying thank you for your email and they are investigating the incident and will respond in due course.

 

As for reporting it to the police they said if you are on a public right of way anyone could look into a window of anything i.e. a house, boat, car etc. They can also take a picture as long as the picture does not capture a person in a state of undress, on the toilet or in the shower.

 

I don't think the Bridgewater towpath is a public right of way- most towpaths are not. It is a place where the public normally have access but have no right to be there. If the owners, in this case Peel, want to close it for any reason they can do, but will incur the wrath of local authorities, cyclists etc. So how the law stands on an official of the owners looking into private property from the owners property I don't know.

[Jerra]

I don't think the Bridgewater towpath is a public right of way- most towpaths are not. It is a place where the public normally have access but have no right to be there. If the owners, in this case Peel, want to close it for any reason they can do, but will incur the wrath of local authorities, cyclists etc. So how the law stands on an official of the owners looking into private property from the owners property I don't know.

I think the law on photography is places to which the public have access rather than rights of way. I suspect a towpath would count as a place to which the public have access. However you are still not allowed to take photos intrusively through windows.

 

EDIT:

 

Photography on private land is not restricted if the land owner has given permission. So assuming the guy was employed by Peel he had the right to take photos but not invade privacy.

Edited September 20, 2016 by Jerra