Jump to content

George ward eviction taking place

kris88

By kris88
in General Boating

 Share

Featured Posts

kris88 Experienced

kris88

Posted
  • Author
Posted
5 minutes ago, dogless said:

This saga has dragged on for over ten years @kriss88 ... what do you think should be done ?

 

Rog

I’m not sure what the solution is to situations like this. But you would hope the welfare of the boater figures in it somewhere. 

  • Greenie 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • Popular Post
Alan de Enfield Veteran II

Alan de Enfield

Posted
  • Popular Post
Posted
5 minutes ago, kris88 said:

I’m not sure what the solution is to situations like this. But you would hope the welfare of the boater figures in it somewhere. 

 

He's been given 10 years to 'figure out his welfare' C&RT have been very helpful to him, but enough is enough - had he been elsewhere he'd probably have been evicted within weeks.

  • Greenie 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • Popular Post
nicknorman Veteran II

nicknormanDonate to Canal World

Posted
  • Popular Post
Posted (edited)
24 minutes ago, kris88 said:

I’m not sure what the solution is to situations like this. But you would hope the welfare of the boater figures in it somewhere. 

 

I'm not sure why it should really. CRT are not responsible for his welfare. You can't just break the law blatantly and long term and then say "Oh but i can't afford to comply with the law, you should let me off in the interests of my welfare". Well you can try, but it won't get you very far! And if it did get you very far it would be a recipe for anarchy where anyone could do whatever they want if it was of their perceived benefit to their welfare. I doubt you would be too happy if you came back to your boat to find he'd moved in, and declined to leave because of "his welfare".

Edited by nicknorman
  • Greenie 9
Link to comment
Share on other sites
IanD Veteran II

IanDDonate to Canal World

Posted
Posted
2 minutes ago, nicknorman said:

 

I'm not sure why it should really. CRT are not responsible for his welfare. You can't just break the law blatantly and long term and then say "Oh but i can't afford to comply with the law, you should let me off in the interests of my welfare". Well you can try, but it won't get you very far! And if it did get you very far it would be a recipe for anarchy where anyone could do whatever they want if it was of their perceived benefit to their welfare. I doubt you would be too happy if you came back to your boat to find he'd moved in, and declined to leave because of "his welfare".

 

How about if you say "But think of the children" instead? 😉

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Rebotco Rising Star

Rebotco

Posted
Posted

I do wonder if CRT has learned anything from this saga.

This guy has dragged them on for over 10 years.

CRT has rightly tried to get a peaceful resolution, but has then been far too slow to follow up with enforcement.

Apart from all the aggro this guy has been allowed to cause others for all these years, the undue delay has not actually done him any favours.  He may, or may not, be suffering from the problems he claims.  But even if he is, he is now 10 years older and inevitably less able to cope with the situation he has perpetrated.

He would have been far more able to cope with eviction 10 years ago than he is now.

Its very difficult for CRT, but extreme leniency actually makes a bad situation worse, both for themselves, and the perpetrator.

I hope they can learn to rebalance their priorities for the benefit of all concerned.

  • Greenie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • Popular Post
zenataomm Veteran

zenataommDonate to Canal World

Posted
  • Popular Post
Posted

The relevant bits of this story are.

Registered disabled elderly man with mental health issues, living illegally without basic facilities.

 

If someone under those circumstances poled up onto land not belonging to them and ignoring all rules/guidelines/requests/offers refused to accept intervention; what would happen?

That is all that's relevant.

Boats/canals/CRT/individuals passing by etc. are just confusing the issue.

Local Authorities, Mental Health Teams have a responsibility to work with CRT (if necessary) to resolve his issue.

  • Greenie 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites
mrsmelly Veteran II

mrsmellyDonate to Canal World

Posted
Posted
4 minutes ago, zenataomm said:

The relevant bits of this story are.

Registered disabled elderly man with mental health issues, living illegally without basic facilities.

 

If someone under those circumstances poled up onto land not belonging to them and ignoring all rules/guidelines/requests/offers refused to accept intervention; what would happen?

That is all that's relevant.

Boats/canals/CRT/individuals passing by etc. are just confusing the issue.

Local Authorities, Mental Health Teams have a responsibility to work with CRT (if necessary) to resolve his issue.

:o Elderly!!! Hes not even a bloomin pensioner, still a spring chicken.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
David Mack Veteran II

David MackDonate to Canal World

Posted
Posted

"Carla Boardman from Julian House has asked CRT to stay the eviction if George can insure, licence and obtain a boat safety certificate and a mooring for the March Hare."

Priceless!  As if CRT haven't stayed the eviction numerous times already to give him just that opportunity!

  • Greenie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Tonka Veteran

Tonka

Posted
Posted
24 minutes ago, David Mack said:

"Carla Boardman from Julian House has asked CRT to stay the eviction if George can insure, licence and obtain a boat safety certificate and a mooring for the March Hare."

Priceless!  As if CRT haven't stayed the eviction numerous times already to give him just that opportunity!

Get them to take him into care then

Link to comment
Share on other sites
nicknorman Veteran II

nicknormanDonate to Canal World

Posted
Posted
57 minutes ago, kris88 said:

The term is usually reserved for people who have been criminally convicted of something. 
what has he been convicted of? 

Not really, it means he has committed a crime. Keeping his boat on a waterway for which the law prescribes various things (licence, insurance, BSS) without those things, makes him the perpetrator. Well, unless you are going to argue that he didn't in fact keep his boat on the canal without a licence, insurance or BSS? Good luck going down that path!

  • Greenie 3
Link to comment
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
 Share
Go to topic listing

  • 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.