Jump to content

Boat Sinks after being moved by film company.


Featured Posts

On 03/12/2020 at 15:31, magnetman said:

I'd take the narrow boat world article with a pinch of salt to be honest.

 

They imply that the boat has been moored on the Lee Navigation for a long time and owner annoying people.

 

I think this is actually incorrect as up until earlier this year, and for a long time, the boat was moored in Camden which is on the Regents section of the Grand Union of course. 

 

It seems fairly likely that the boat was licensed at least until recently as it is improbable that CRT would take years to remove an unlicensed boat and the housing benefit claim was backdated so presumably in theory involved a refund of previous payments. 

 

 

Or not... 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I can think of another boat moored on the Regent's Canal, which has been in the same prime spot for at least 3 years. No licence displayed, no sign of anyone having been aboard for some time. Of course, I know nothing about the situation, nor of the owner. I wonder, perhaps, if this is another one which has slipped through CaRT's net?

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 04/12/2020 at 21:08, Arthur Marshall said:

Near one of my moorings, on a clapped out unlicensed cruiser lived a seriously dangerous guy who bragged sbout stealing from our boats, and that from local knowledge we knew it was true. He stole coal, diesel, generators and anything else he could get, broke into a few. Police wouldn't do anything, couldn't even be bothered to interview either us or him.

None of us were particularly surprised or saddened when someone set fire to his boat, nor were we bothered that he was asleep drunk at the time. He and his dog (which had bitten enough people for us not to care about that either) got off and survived unhurt, the boat didn't,  he shoved off somewhere and all the thieving stopped.

Trouble is, the law is useless against most antisocial behaviour, however bad it is, and so sometimes you have to treat badly behaved animals  like you do similar nonhuman ones. Rules only work against people who recognise their validity, and pisstakers don't. Thus CRT takes years to get a liveaboard off the water, and everyone suffers for that time.

Sorry but I read this and I felt compelled to reply...

 

Are you suggesting that it's OK to set fire to someone's boat if you think they're a nuisance? While they're onboard?

 

Seriously? 

 

If people follow your advice they could well end up charged with murder, or attempted murder. What a stupid thing to say!

 

  • Greenie 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Speedbird194 said:

Sorry but I read this and I felt compelled to reply...

 

Are you suggesting that it's OK to set fire to someone's boat if you think they're a nuisance? While they're onboard?

 

Seriously? 

 

If people follow your advice they could well end up charged with murder, or attempted murder. What a stupid thing to say!

 

I think a moderately functional society has a reasonable expectation that there will be some apropriate intervention when there is ongoing, and not insignificant antisocial behaviour.

Society is diverse, and some for various reasons, some do not function as well with in it, as others. Criminal sanctions, are so often only required when more proactive early interventions have not been applied. Vigilante actions are,  as you say, are indefensible, but may be seen as a symptom of the non provision of much more moderate and appropriate earlier interventions by our societal authorities. But it is our collective responsibility to ensure that these societal authorities, are adequately resourced.

Austerity measures, do eventually trickle upwards, and the eventual costs probably surpass the costs of resourcing timely community interventions, and compassion, towards those amongst us that are not able to function that well according to our restricted societal constricts.

Bit like maintaining a elderly and in many parts very fragile canal system. Austerity measures, by delaying timely interventions may be much more expensive, even disastrous, as the near failure of the Toddbrook reservoir dam illustrates.

Link to post
Share on other sites
42 minutes ago, DandV said:

I think a moderately functional society has a reasonable expectation that there will be some apropriate intervention when there is ongoing, and not insignificant antisocial behaviour.

Society is diverse, and some for various reasons, some do not function as well with in it, as others. Criminal sanctions, are so often only required when more proactive early interventions have not been applied. Vigilante actions are,  as you say, are indefensible, but may be seen as a symptom of the non provision of much more moderate and appropriate earlier interventions by our societal authorities. But it is our collective responsibility to ensure that these societal authorities, are adequately resourced.

Austerity measures, do eventually trickle upwards, and the eventual costs probably surpass the costs of resourcing timely community interventions, and compassion, towards those amongst us that are not able to function that well according to our restricted societal constricts.

Bit like maintaining a elderly and in many parts very fragile canal system. Austerity measures, by delaying timely interventions may be much more expensive, even disastrous, as the near failure of the Toddbrook reservoir dam illustrates.

I'm with @Speedbird194 on this one - if I found a homeless man in my garden I might ring police and social services, I might whinge on Facebook (or CWF) but I would draw short of pouring petrol on him and throwing a match. I might politely show him the gate and recommend the local church (who do a hot meal three times a week) but physical violence to those who are in need.... no.

  • Greenie 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Speedbird194 said:

Sorry but I read this and I felt compelled to reply...

 

Are you suggesting that it's OK to set fire to someone's boat if you think they're a nuisance? While they're onboard?

 

Seriously? 

 

If people follow your advice they could well end up charged with murder, or attempted murder. What a stupid thing to say!

 

It has happened (albeit when the person was not on board) on a number of occasions - not so long ago on the outskirts of Lincoln.

Fireworks were thrown into the boat, the boat caught fire, the rather unpleasant owner moved on, the thievery and bad behaviour stopped.

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Speedbird194 said:

Sorry but I read this and I felt compelled to reply...

 

Are you suggesting that it's OK to set fire to someone's boat if you think they're a nuisance? While they're onboard?

 

Seriously? 

 

If people follow your advice they could well end up charged with murder, or attempted murder. What a stupid thing to say!

 

Agreed.  One of the most appalling things I've ever read on here.  Mob justice at it's absolute worst.

  • Greenie 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
40 minutes ago, Tony Brooks said:

I think you are nit picking or trolling. Where did Arthur condone what happened? Where did he recommend it be done to others? The fact is he did not, you read both those into his post. All he said is was "None of us were particularly surprised or saddened when someone set fire to his boat, nor were we bothered that he was asleep drunk at the time." that is a statement of fact and thought, not action.

 

It is people with your views that have let the authorities off the hook for lack of timely action time and time again until sheer desperation causes something horrible to occur. One should not condone it but should understand why it happens. I would even go as far as suggesting that you might change your tune after loosing your third generator, several tanks of fuel and having your boat broken into several times. You might even be grateful when a third party takes steps to solve your ongoing problem even if you don't approve of the method.

Point is, there were many other options available to deal with this problem.  But no, lets commit arson.  Arthur and his buddies were clearly quite happy to sit by and let another human being burn to death. Appalling.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, doratheexplorer said:

Point is, there were many other options available to deal with this problem.  But no, lets commit arson.  Arthur and his buddies were clearly quite happy to sit by and let another human being burn to death. Appalling.

Point is that these other options had been tried and fund to be ineffective as far as I can tell. You too are putting words in Arthur's mouth unless you can show where he said he is happy to sit by and let another human burn to death. He did not say that so please show me exactly were in his post he did. If you can't then its you reading more into his post, presumably to suit your own agenda.

 

I think we can all agree that setting fire to his boat is to be deplored but the lack of effective action to protect the other moorers is also to be deplored and is itself a major contributory factor in what happened. In fact if effective action had been taken it is unlikely the boat would have been fired.

 

Successive governments need to understand that if they do not ensure the laws they enact are enforced some people will      eventually take their own  action to solve problems. Now lest have the way you would have solved the problem and remember people such as the one Arthur talks about are more often than not very aggressive people. What would you do? Ask him round to tea and beg him not to hit you and to stop stealing from you?

 

 

  • Greenie 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, Tony Brooks said:

Point is that these other options had been tried and fund to be ineffective as far as I can tell.  I'm obviously talking about other options which had not been tried.  You too are putting words in Arthur's mouth unless you can show where he said he is happy to sit by and let another human burn to death. He did not say that so please show me exactly were in his post he did. You quoted it yourself "None of us were particularly surprised or saddened when someone set fire to his boat, nor were we bothered that he was asleep drunk at the time" He doesn't make it clear where the boat owner was, but if he was sleeping, it's a reasonable assumption he was on his boat, which had just been set alight. If you can't then its you reading more into his post, presumably to suit your own agenda. I don't have an agenda per se, unless you count objecting to arson and attempted murder as an agenda?

 

I think we can all agree that setting fire to his boat is to be deplored but the lack of effective action to protect the other moorers is also to be deplored and is itself a major contributory factor in what happened. In fact if effective action had been taken it is unlikely the boat would have been fired.

 

Successive governments need to understand that if they do not ensure the laws they enact are enforced some people will      eventually take their own  action to solve problems. Now lest have the way you would have solved the problem and remember people such as the one Arthur talks about are more often than not very aggressive people. What would you do? Ask him round to tea and beg him not to hit you and to stop stealing from you? Lots of options spring to mind.  Most obviously increase security over my belonging and install surveillance over it, thus gathering evidence should any future incident happen.

 

 

 

  • Greenie 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Tony Brooks said:

I think you are nit picking or trolling. Where did Arthur condone what happened? Where did he recommend it be done to others? The fact is he did not, you read both those into his post. All he said is was "None of us were particularly surprised or saddened when someone set fire to his boat, nor were we bothered that he was asleep drunk at the time."

For me not being bothered or saddened that somebody might have been burnt to death more or less condones the actions.

 

The death penalty was abolished 55 years ago and that was for after somebody had been legally proved guilty.  In this case the death penalty might have been delivered by people without authority and with no proof other than suspicion.   If they had clear factual proof other actions would be possible.   I will almost guarantee that the only reason the police did nothing was because they knew they hadn't the proof to make anything stick.

Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Jerra said:

For me not being bothered or saddened that somebody might have been burnt to death more or less condones the actions.

 

The death penalty was abolished 55 years ago and that was for after somebody had been legally proved guilty.  In this case the death penalty might have been delivered by people without authority and with no proof other than suspicion.   If they had clear factual proof other actions would be possible.   I will almost guarantee that the only reason the police did nothing was because they knew they hadn't the proof to make anything stick.

And:

did not have the resources

could not be bothered

boaters are not important enough

 

to even look for any

 

Its the same all over the country, housing estates terrorised by one or two antisocial families and so on, no effective action taken.

  • Greenie 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Tony Brooks said:

And:

did not have the resources

could not be bothered

boaters are not important enough

 

to even look for any

 

Its the same all over the country, housing estates terrorised by one or two antisocial families and so on, no effective action taken.

You have proof of these assertions or is it just the assumptions of "the bloke in the pub"?

Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, Jerra said:

For me not being bothered or saddened that somebody might have been burnt to death more or less condones the actions.

It’s perfectly possible to disapprove of an action yet still appreciate a positive outcome unless you take a completely utilitarian view

Edited by phantom_iv
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, phantom_iv said:

It’s perfectly possible to disapprove of an action yet still appreciate a positive outcome unless you take a completely utilitarian view

I agree but not being bothered or saddened at the possibility of somebody being killed by such actions does not fall into that category.   There is no sign of disapproval.

  • Greenie 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Jerra said:

You have proof of these assertions or is it just the assumptions of "the bloke in the pub"?

Typical response. I have been told on this forum that the reason police do not investigate crimes is "lack of recources", its been reported in the press that certain police forces no longer make any meaningful action re domestic burglar. Plenty of police to guard certain politicians but none to help those families on the estates as  reported in the press.

 

Naturally if you don't want to accept that ongoing reports in the media as likely to indicate a problem you will just sit there and cry proof. its rather too like an "I am all right Jack" for my liking.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Surely the point is that regardless of how frustrated people were getting at this undoubtedly horrible guy and the authorities not taking any action, setting his boat on fire and potentially killing him is absolutely beyond the pale?

 

Even if you think that vigilante justice a.k.a. the lynch mob is justified, said vigilantes could have taken other less life-threatening actions to make him go elsewhere by making his life as unpleasant as he was making theirs -- untying his boat every night, dropping his generator into the cut, emptying their cassette toilets into his well deck. All still illegal but some people would say justifiable, and not risking murder which is *never* justifiable...

  • Greenie 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, IanD said:

Surely the point is that regardless of how frustrated people were getting at this undoubtedly horrible guy and the authorities not taking any action, setting his boat on fire and potentially killing him is absolutely beyond the pale?

 

Even if you think that vigilante justice a.k.a. the lynch mob is justified, said vigilantes could have taken other less life-threatening actions to make him go elsewhere by making his life as unpleasant as he was making theirs -- untying his boat every night, dropping his generator into the cut, emptying their cassette toilets into his well deck. All still illegal but some people would say justifiable, and not risking murder which is *never* justifiable...

 

The one at Lincoln waited till he had gone out, then they set it alight.

 

So thats all right ?

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Tony Brooks said:

Typical response. I have been told on this forum that the reason police do not investigate crimes is "lack of recources", its been reported in the press that certain police forces no longer make any meaningful action re domestic burglar. Plenty of police to guard certain politicians but none to help those families on the estates as  reported in the press.

 

Naturally if you don't want to accept that ongoing reports in the media as likely to indicate a problem you will just sit there and cry proof. its rather too like an "I am all right Jack" for my liking.

Of course the Police lack resources.  10 years of public service cuts will do that.  How does committing MORE crimes help the Police with their limited resources though?

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, doratheexplorer said:

Of course the Police lack resources.  10 years of public service cuts will do that.  How does committing MORE crimes help the Police with their limited resources though?

Don’t just blame the cuts. Over 30 years ago we had a number of break ins at work. The police never once attended even when we had evidence that pointed to the scrot. They wouldn’t go to his house because he lived in Warwickshire or get the local cops to do so. We had a lorry stolen one weekend that went on to damage dozens of cars because it was dragging chain link fencing along with it, demolished a telegraph pole and finally stopped in a hotel car park were they went in to buy some cigarettes. I had a good description of the culprit from the night porter and recognised him to much bother for the plods whose usual response was you’re insured. We had a windscreen smashed and another unit on the estate broken into response from police at 8 am Monday morning, you’re the first today! I have lost all respect for certainly the local force but hey they consficated a young lads car last week who was delivering burgers for the restaurant he worked for only doing itakeaways because he didn’t have business insurance .

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, doratheexplorer said:

Of course the Police lack resources.  10 years of public service cuts will do that.  How does committing MORE crimes help the Police with their limited resources though?

So you now seem to be trying to twist what I said into something different. No one has condoned firing the boat, I have said I deplored it. No one suggested committing more crime BUT when that crime has been committed in the circumstances  described I can understand Arthur's apparent lack of concern. We all know why the police and a lot of other services' lack resources and we can all see now (if we choose to open out eyes) that was a political decision based on political dogma.

 

More woolly misrepresenting of the facts by those who are made uneasy by them. I bet if it was you in a situation where society had abandoned you to anti-social law breakers over a long period you would be pushed into considering drastic and illegal action, or woudl you happily leave your family to suffer?

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Tony Brooks said:

So you now seem to be trying to twist what I said into something different. No one has condoned firing the boat, I have said I deplored it. No one suggested committing more crime BUT when that crime has been committed in the circumstances  described I can understand Arthur's apparent lack of concern. We all know why the police and a lot of other services' lack resources and we can all see now (if we choose to open out eyes) that was a political decision based on political dogma.

 

More woolly misrepresenting of the facts by those who are made uneasy by them. I bet if it was you in a situation where society had abandoned you to anti-social law breakers over a long period you would be pushed into considering drastic and illegal action, or woudl you happily leave your family to suffer?

Now who's putting words in mouths eh?  You have no idea at all what I've been through in my life, so please keep your ignorant accusations to yourself.

 

I've already made a suggestion of what can be done.  You may not have condoned anything but the original post we refer to did.  FYI - arson is a very serious crime.  Generally considered more serious than theft.

 

But, to be clear, you deplore arson, but then, in your last sentence, you defend law breaking.  Not really a consistent position.  So what would you in the situation?

Edited by doratheexplorer
Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.