Saying sorry is not enough

THE Canal and River Trust (CaRT) apology to Tony Dunkley is not enough (The law of unexpected consequence), writes Allan Richards.

It needs to take a long hard look at why it has allowed and perhaps even encouraged an enforcement officer to bully boaters.

Stuart Garner

Stuart Garner was the enforcement officer named twice at a open boater meeting in February. Whilst the CaRT ‘write up' of the meeting rather glosses over what was said and does not repeat the officers name, an extract is provided:

Question—Darren, used to be a live aboard—in some instances found the enforcement team have lied and have been confrontational. I'm wondering how that fits with the Trust's objectives, when even the job title is confrontational.

Answer—Richard Parry—I have a lot of respect for our enforcement team. The best of them are sympathetic and try and find a way forward with boaters who get into difficulties. The worst case—of costly legal action—is a lose-lose situation for the boater and the Trust. But, need to look at each individual—they are human, may make mistakes, may need more support. As an organisation we need to have the highest standards and the Trust needs to be even-handed and fair. Welcome more discussion around this afterwards. The job title may be worth looking at again.

Question. Mark—regarding your high regard for your enforcement team, I was told I was too old/too sick to be on a boat etc. etc. [name]. He is ignorant and arrogant. You get a note on the boat even if you stop for a cup of tea.

Answer—Richard Parry—Need to work together. Generally people are positive about the enforcement team. If there are issues of individual conduct then complaints will be followed up. I'm looking at cases in the final stage and generally think things are handled well. If there is a problem with an individual make a complaint—email me.

Complaint?

Whilst it is not known if Mark pursued a complaint, Tony Dunkley certainly did. He complained ‘that he was being unfairly pursued and victimised by the Enforcement Officer' only to be told by the sham Waterways Ombudsman (after checking his draft response with CaRT) ‘I have not found evidence of maladministration on the part of the Trust'.

Of course, the fact that CaRT has returned Tony's licence and its admissions regarding some of Mr Garners evidence tend to suggest that he was being harassed just as the other two boaters were.

..... and then we have Patrick and Elaine, who the enforcement officer insisted should move despite the Trent being in flood and the harassment of Tony regarding his work boat.

Higher and wider?

However, the harassment problem goes higher and wider than one rogue enforcement officer. As has been seen with the Ombudsman scandal, dishonesty pervades the Trust. What action is being taken?

Saying sorry is not enough.