George ward eviction taking place

[dogless]

2 hours 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 would agree.

 

But I have seen no evidence that C&RT  haven't considered his welfare ... indeed part of the reason for this matter dragging on for over ten years is because C&RT have sought to avoid  being seen as 'the big bad wolf'.

 

Sad as it is, there must come a point when removal of the boats is all that's left to be done ... after ten years one would hope all possible alternatives have been tried. Perhaps at that point the local authority need to step in.

 

Rog

[Bee]

So if and when he is evicted from the 'boat' that is his property what happens then?  He becomes the local authority's problem and /or the NHS mental health team. Neither of these organisations are flush with money or resources. It might annoy CRT and some canal users but he has got a home (of sorts) and if the boat could be shunted off to a reed bed somewhere to fall apart in its own time that is probably the best thing to do unless anybody has a better suggestion.

[mrsmelly]

2 minutes ago, Bee said:

So if and when he is evicted from the 'boat' that is his property what happens then?  He becomes the local authority's problem and /or the NHS mental health team. Neither of these organisations are flush with money or resources. It might annoy CRT and some canal users but he has got a home (of sorts) and if the boat could be shunted off to a reed bed somewhere to fall apart in its own time that is probably the best thing to do unless anybody has a better suggestion.

Well, if he rocked up on an inflateable surely he should/would get a hotel room?

[Bee]

8 minutes ago, mrsmelly said:

Well, if he rocked up on an inflateable surely he should/would get a hotel room?

He might also get bunged in an old barracks behind barbed wire for a couple of years

[David Mack]

8 minutes ago, Bee said:

It might annoy CRT and some canal users but he has got a home (of sorts) and if the boat could be shunted off to a reed bed somewhere to fall apart in its own time that is probably the best thing to do unless anybody has a better suggestion.

Which is fine, until the whole canal network becomes a reed bed full of boats which are homes (of sorts) falling apart in their own time, and with none of those boats contributing anything by way of licence and mooring fees to the upkeep of the waterways, and with many of those boats, having no BSC and no insurance, being a risk to their occupants and to those of surrounding boats. Is that a world you want?

[dogless]

Not been on the K&A since 2012 (and the guy was in dispute with C&RT then) so I have no axe to grind with him personally ... nor indeed am I greatly concerned as to whether the man is left unlicensed, unmoving and living in squalor or not.

 

If he is actually disabled , and unemployed I would hope the local authority would be able to rehome him ... I hope that's the type of society we live in.

 

However the question remains if regulations require simple compliance, how should authorities handle determined none compliance ?

 

Rog

 

 

[mrsmelly]

1 minute ago, Bee said:

He might also get bunged in an old barracks behind barbed wire for a couple of years

Still better than a sinking boat and no charge for the use!! Free food thrown in. 

[magnetman]

I would rather live in a floating shed than a hotel. 

[Mike Todd]

3 hours ago, Alan de Enfield said:

 

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.

Not just CaRT but several other agencies both state and charitable have been involved at some point or other.

[kris88]

6 minutes ago, magnetman said:

I would rather live in a floating shed than a hotel. 

You do don’t you? 

[Bee]

2 minutes ago, David Mack said:

Which is fine, until the whole canal network becomes a reed bed full of boats which are homes (of sorts) falling apart in their own time, and with none of those boats contributing anything by way of licence and mooring fees to the upkeep of the waterways, and with many of those boats, having no BSC and no insurance, being a risk to their occupants and to those of surrounding boats. Is that a world you want?

Not at all but the bloke is a bit of a one off. He doesn't fit into any of the usual boxes, Years ago he would have been a mad hermit, nowadays he might end up living in a heap of rags in the middle of a roundabout. As it is he's ended up living in a wreck of a boat. I can't see many others wanting to live like that just to avoid paying licence and mooring fees although some of the boats I have known and the people who have lived on them have been getting close to it - the difference is that they didn't stay on the cut long and didn't have mental health issues

[Pie Eater]

A chap named Tony Dunkley is now explaining the rules.

[GUMPY]

5 minutes ago, Pie Eater said:

A chap named Tony Dunkley is now explaining the rules.

That's it then, if TD's past record is anything to go by, George will be out soon and the boats on their way to Chester 😂😉

[LadyG]

1 hour ago, nicknorman said:

Yes, however it seems a bit unlikely to me. Don't believe everything you read in a local rag. Or a national newspaper for that matter!

I would think he has self certificated as it's unlikely any BSS Examiner would go near his boats.

Edited April 19, 2023 by LadyG

[Bee]

20 minutes ago, dogless said:

 

 

However the question remains if regulations require simple compliance, how should authorities handle determined none compliance ?

 

Rog

 

 

And that is the problem. CRT has a range of sanctions for people who fail to comply and most of us are relatively honest and able to pay and seldom cross swords with CRT. If someone has mental or physical problems and just refuses to engage with any rules then there is not a lot anyone can do. If I wake up tomorrow and find him on my front lawn with all his stuff I could very likely get rid of him but CRT and anyone who has to do things properly and legally have a real problem.

[LadyG]

1 minute ago, Loddon said:

That's it then, if TD's past record is anything to go by, George will be out soon and the boats on their way to Chester 😂😉

Just so.

 Dunkley Is notorious barge owner very adversarial

[Pie Eater]

4.06pm armed police now on site!

[LadyG]

1 hour ago, dogless said:

I would agree.

 

But I have seen no evidence that C&RT  haven't considered his welfare ... indeed part of the reason for this matter dragging on for over ten years is because C&RT have sought to avoid  being seen as 'the big bad wolf'.

 

Sad as it is, there must come a point when removal of the boats is all that's left to be done ... after ten years one would hope all possible alternatives have been tried. Perhaps at that point the local authority need to step in.

 

Rog

But is the LA responsible for anything at this moment in time

 

[dogless]

Well he's lived in the L.A. area for over 10 years  and is about to be made homeless.

 

I would hope they would be able to provide some refuge for the guy.

 

Rog

[Arthur Marshall]

17 minutes ago, Pie Eater said:

A chap named Tony Dunkley is now explaining the rules.

I thought so.

"George has sent our reporter a message, which reads: "Canal River Trust Ltd seeking adverse possession of my home. CRT have no warrant of entry, and no possession order relating to the boats, they do however have the BOGUS order confirming their right to remove sunk or abandoned boats." "

Vintage Tony....

[David Mack]

1 minute ago, dogless said:

Well he's lived in the L.A. area for over 10 years  and is about to be made homeless.

 

I would hope they would be able to provide some refuge for the guy.

But local authorities don't have any obligation to anyone who is deemed to have made themselves intentionally homeless. And since Ward has been given plenty of time (and crowd-sourced money) to regularise his position and has failed to do so, I can't see the LA offering him anything.

[LadyG]

5 minutes ago, dogless said:

Well he's lived in the L.A. area for over 10 years  and is about to be made homeless.

 

I would hope they would be able to provide some refuge for the guy.

 

Rog

I don't think it works like that. his threatening behaviour does not mean he can be housed near normal people .

Edited April 19, 2023 by LadyG

[mrsmelly]

3 minutes ago, dogless said:

Well he's lived in the L.A. area for over 10 years  and is about to be made homeless.

 

I would hope they would be able to provide some refuge for the guy.

 

Rog

Yep, agreed. Hes obviously a sandwich short of a picnic though, so probably will not want " rehoming? "

[LadyG]

Deleted 

Edited April 19, 2023 by LadyG

[Tonka]

9 minutes ago, dogless said:

Well he's lived in the L.A. area for over 10 years  and is about to be made homeless.

 

I would hope they would be able to provide some refuge for the guy.

 

Rog

And paid how much council tax in those 10 years.