Bradford on Avon boater 'will set fire to boat armed with garden fork'

[magnetman]

It is interesting if he has threatened to immolate the boats and himself and stab at people with a fork. 

 

This shows good planning and attention to detail.

 

Also as suggested previously 40 gallons of petrol is quite a lot. Perhaps there was some confusion as to whether it would be metric or imperial and the correct quantity was 40 litres of petrol. 

 

Like people who think there are ten inches in a foot. 

 

I wonder if it is a pitchfork. Ordinary garden fork would not have much reach and is not very useful as a polearm.

 

 

 

[Guest]

6 minutes ago, Alan de Enfield said:

Here he is 6 years ago (at around the 19 minute mark)

 

 

 

 

Hah..Chris Pink formerly of this parish at 15 mins in.

[Barneyp]

25 minutes ago, doratheexplorer said:

The vast majority of people who are mentally ill are not sectioned.

Apologies, poor wording on my part, I am well aware that the vast majority of people with some form of mental illness are not sectioned.

What I meant to say was that if he is mentally ill,  and it is severe enough to warrant it he would have been sectioned.

 

 

[magnetman]

God what an irritating bunch ! You'd think someone was holding a gun to their heads and forcing them to live on a boat. Too much entitlement ! Go Away !!

[Guest]

2 minutes ago, magnetman said:

Too much entitlement !

 

It does rather smack of that I'm afraid.

 

And the heavy featuring of children having to sell their toys to move off their boat did rather come across as a blatant attempt at emotional manipulation of the audience, many of whom simply wont know about the 'requirement to move'.

[magnetman]

 

 

It is incredibly obvious that the formation of slum housing areas is something which will be examined by authorities and not allowed to get out of control. It isn't rocket science to work this out. 

 

I can see something a whole lot more significant than licence fee tinkering coming around the corner. 

 

1 minute ago, M_JG said:

 

It does rather smack of that I'm afraid.

 

And the heavy featuring of children having to sell their toys to move off their boat did rather come across as a blatant attempt at emotional manipulation of the audience, many of whom simply wont know about the 'requirement to move'.

People who bring their children into publicity like that are arseholes who do not deserve the privilege of being a parent. 

 

 

[dmr]

27 minutes ago, magnetman said:

 

 

It is incredibly obvious that the formation of slum housing areas is something which will be examined by authorities and not allowed to get out of control. It isn't rocket science to work this out. 

 

I can see something a whole lot more significant than licence fee tinkering coming around the corner. 

 

People who bring their children into publicity like that are arseholes who do not deserve the privilege of being a parent. 

 

 

 

There are loads of boaters living almost static lives and not paying council tax, and this can cause huge resentment amongst local land dwellers. This is to some extent exactly what council tax was designed ro do 😀. I am not using local schools or bending any rules but still a local got into such a council tax rage with me that I had to get the police involved.

At some stage life is going to get a lot harder for boaters and I am amazed at how the worst offenders like to publicise themselves.

[IanD]

5 minutes ago, dmr said:

 

There are loads of boaters living almost static lives and not paying council tax, and this can cause huge resentment amongst local land dwellers. This is to some extent exactly what council tax was designed ro do 😀. I am not using local schools or bending any rules but still a local got into such a council tax rage with me that I had to get the police involved.

At some stage life is going to get a lot harder for boaters and I am amazed at how the worst offenders like to publicise themselves.

 

...and not paying for a home mooring while falsely claiming to CC, which can cause huge resentment amongst law-abiding boaters... 😞

 

They're publicising themselves in the hope that tugging on the public's heartstrings will persuade CART to carry on allowing them to essentially ignore the rules, egged on/supported by the NBTA -- and this has worked for them in the past, hence the "schools exemption" that CART unwisely kind-of-agreed-to a few years ago.

 

This may backfire on them in the future, if CART crack down on such abuse -- or increase their license fees...

[magnetman]

10 minutes ago, dmr said:

 

There are loads of boaters living almost static lives and not paying council tax, and this can cause huge resentment amongst local land dwellers. This is to some extent exactly what council tax was designed ro do 😀. I am not using local schools or bending any rules but still a local got into such a council tax rage with me that I had to get the police involved.

At some stage life is going to get a lot harder for boaters and I am amazed at how the worst offenders like to publicise themselves.

With this council tax rage local could you not have just said "yes, I pay council tax" as a way to avoid getting into a conflict. They have no right to know your personal affairs. 

 

Since I moved onto my first boat in 1994 I have always idly wondered what happens if public opinion moves from "oh look what a quaint lifestyle" to "oh no, more {slur word for gypsies)" 

 

Nobody likes this sort of sight or site. 

[David Mack]

Somehow I imagine CRT's attempt to remove his boats is not going to be the end of the matter. Almost 10 years ago CRT obtained a Section 8 order against him for having an unlicensed boat on the K&A, but he foiled that attempt by selling the boat and then buying another, which was in poor condition and he couldn't get a BSC, so that boat remained unlicensed. At that time CRT were seeking to recover costs of £76k from him. And so it has gone on. By now CRT's costs must be much higher, with no prospect of getting any money out of him. And little in practice CRT can do if he goes out and buys another (uninsurable, un BSCable, unlicencable) wreck.

https://www.narrowboatworld.com/6158-continuous-moorer-faces-p76000-loss

Edited March 17, 2023 by David Mack

[Bobbybass]

I've moored and walked that section.

 

He empties his toilet down the bank....and makes the whole area awful.

 

It is because if people like him that CART waste a fortune in legal fees.....that money coming from your license. Your fees...your license is paying for him.

 

The cheapest and best thing is that he burns these boats out so they can be swept away.

[magnetman]

I'm sure the CRT and BW before them have powers to deal with antisocial idiots. There must be something in there.

 

There definitely is a byelaw it would come up within seconds of searching for it.

 

You can't do this on public land. Get rid of this person.

The NBTA jumping on it just shows how low they are.

 

Get rid of them too !

[MtB]

43 minutes ago, Bobbybass said:

The cheapest and best thing is that he burns these boats out so they can be swept away.

 

In what way will that get rid of him?

 

He will simply buy (or be given) another boat which he has been taught by CRT that he need not licence. 

 

 

[magnetman]

One wonders if at some stage the CRT might think it useful to rigorously enforce byelaws.

 

Someone said the problem is they don't get any money out of it. But they also don't get any money out of people blatantly infringing byelaws so there must be some sort of balance where enforcing byelaws would be useful.

 

Maybe not?
 

 

Is it all going to hell in a hand cart?

[David Mack]

19 minutes ago, magnetman said:

One wonders if at some stage the CRT might think it useful to rigorously enforce byelaws.

Because it wouldn't achieve anything. He'd be fined 40 shillings or whatever the going rate is now, then be free to carry on as before.

[dmr]

19 minutes ago, magnetman said:

One wonders if at some stage the CRT might think it useful to rigorously enforce byelaws.

 

Someone said the problem is they don't get any money out of it. But they also don't get any money out of people blatantly infringing byelaws so there must be some sort of balance where enforcing byelaws would be useful.

 

Maybe not?
 

 

Is it all going to hell in a hand cart?

 

Its all very difficult once money becomes a factor, the fines raised from small infringements, or even big ones, are never going to cover the direct costs of enforcement. Laws are really only enforced to create something approaching a fair and civilised society.

 

CRT must know that George is very likely to get off the hook, and whatever happens his friends and supporters (not always the same thing) are going to cause a lot of trouble, cost and bad PR. The best thing they can do financially is to turn a blind eye...and go for some softer targets......but would that be right

[magnetman]

It definitely isn't right if he is causing a nuisance to people using the towpath. At the end of the day this is a local amenity and anyone messing with that should be dealt with.

It isn't easy to sort it out and perhaps he is not a nuisance to random passers by with children or whatever but I personally think a zero tolerance stance on antisocial behaviour in public areas is necessary. This is an available option and you have to hit hard.

 

 

[Orwellian]

28 minutes ago, magnetman said:

One wonders if at some stage the CRT might think it useful to rigorously enforce byelaws.

The fine is very small but it does give the offender a criminal record. I was once told that CRT took a policy decision not to criminalise their customers so relied on Sec 8 powers instead where the boat is eventually seized.

[magnetman]

And section 13 of the 1971 act.

[ditchcrawler]

2 minutes ago, magnetman said:

It definitely isn't right if he is causing a nuisance to people using the towpath. At the end of the day this is a local amenity and anyone messing with that should be dealt with.

 

 

 

Maybe the local authorities should step in, environmental health, planning.

 

[magnetman]

If the geyser has a restraining order on him then there must be something going on somewhere other than in the CRT admin department.

 

Someone else must have authorised this.

 

 

 

 

[Graham Davis]

Looking at the wording of the Restaint Order against him, it would appear that his current threat of using the fork to stab people goes against that Order, so he could be held in contempt. It is not unusual for Contempt cases to be imprisoned, even for a short time. That could remove part of the problem

[Iain_S]

23 hours ago, midnight cowboy said:

If anyone is in a place the public have access and in immediate need of assessment by mental health services - i.e. on the cut (but not inside his boat) then the police should intervene under s136 of the Mental Health Act.  If he's that well known in the area, the fact they haven't yet suggests that, whilst he may be someone with personal difficulties, he is not significantly mentally ill.

That may not be effective. In my experience with similar legislation, the detainee was often just released from hospital immediately. "He's been drinking: we can't assess him" being the usual excuse. 

[MtB]

1 minute ago, Iain_S said:

That may not be effective. In my experience with similar legislation, the detainee was often just released from hospital immediately. "He's been drinking: we can't assess him" being the usual excuse. 

 

A friend of mine retired from the police force a decade or two ago and says he got out just at the right time. The job was less and less about policing and turning into more and more about being a social worker. 

 

 

[howardang]

1 hour ago, MtB said:

 

A friend of mine retired from the police force a decade or two ago and says he got out just at the right time. The job was less and less about policing and turning into more and more about being a social worker. 

 

 

We sometimes watch the tv programmes about policing and we often comment about how most of the work shown seems to be predominantly social work and also frequently demonstrates how the public have little or no respect for the police which to my mind is a real contrast to my memories of how the police were regarded when I was younger. I can speak with some knowledge because my father was a reasonably senior police officer until he retired and I spent most of my formative years living at or very near to police stations until I left home to go to sea.

 

The modern police contrast greatly to my experiences of them in earlier times, and if some of the TV programmes showing them on duty are representative I am saddened by  how they are disrespected by some members of the public, especially by younger people.

 

Howard