George ward eviction taking place

[magnetman]

1 minute ago, nicknorman said:

Well let's face it, if a policeman doesn't have any arms, how would he salute and say "'evenin' all"? Or feel someone's collar?

 

There was a dismembered body found in the canal. Someone asked me if this was a risk to the public so I had to mention that it was 'armless. 

 

 

[LadyG]

5 minutes ago, Jerra said:

Having read back through the Wiltshire Arms web article I see the gentleman has said he would be armed with a garden fork.  That might explain the presence of armed police, just in case.

I would think threatening behaviour would go against the boater's case.

The CRT security bods looked fairly well built 

[magnetman]

4 minutes ago, LadyG said:

So, has he been evicted ?

Will the boats be removed? will the rubbish be removed?

 

 

Surely there must be another couple of yars in this one. Just move the boat to the other side of the canal. Assuming this is a siege and he hasn't got to go back to mother to get the laundry done. 

 

Is there a dinghy?

[MtB]

1 minute ago, magnetman said:

 

Surely there must be another couple of yars in this one. Just move the boat to the other side of the canal. Assuming this is a siege and he hasn't got to go back to mother to get the laundry done. 

 

Is there a dinghy?

 

 

He will never be able to leave the boat again in case CRT swoop in and snaffle it. 

 

What a life he has made for himself, eh! 

 

 

[Bod]

4 hours ago, Paul Biddy said:

Mr George Ward is a good man. Don't confuse his frustration and anger for violence. I can not believe that he has hurt any CRT staff and it seems to me that he threatened to damage his own property withno evidence of assault. In a situation where an individual and supporters are resisting enforced homelessness, the presence of armed police, in truth, is not helpful. CRT can not always be trusted to manage the waterways in ways that are fair or equitable. Unclear guidelines and 'rules' designed by CRT to push vulnerable people around the canal network are brutish, and are routinely challenged by boaties and boating organisations across the country. For example, the 'old continous cruisong' guidelines were found to be Ultra Virus in Law and cancelled. Evictions are sometimes successfully resisted and always non-violently. Negotiation between boaties and CRT are often difficult 1. because individuals lack trust in the relevant authorities 2. vulnerable individuals lack the representation they need. George is a seasoned traveller and his identity is rooted within the landscapes within which he lives and he loves. George is a good human being. Care for all without prejudice. Biddy.

I would like to be shown how and when were the "old continous cruisong" guidelines changed to the system of today?

The wording of the Act has not been changed since it was created.  The distance requirement was never stipulated, however it was the Boaters responsibility to "Satisfy the Board" now the Board (C&RT) require a 20 miles per year minium "Range" to "Satisify the Board", the required distance is now clear.

 

Bod

[magnetman]

"For example, the 'old continuous cruising' guidelines were found to be Ultra Virus in Law and cancelled. 

 

-----

 

 

This needs clarifying. 

The implication from @Paul Biddy is that there was a legal case of some sort. 

Maybe there was. Please tell us about it. 

Ultra Vires is a fun term but you need to know what it means. Windsor rowing lakes? 

 

Be careful assuming the CRT don't have powers to control moorings on their land. Thames is a different story. 

 

 

 

[MtB]

4 minutes ago, magnetman said:

Ultra Vires is a fun term but you need to know what it means.

 

 

I took the "Ultra Virus" phrase to be a typo or the spellchecker intervening, but now I'm not so sure. 

 

 

[Steve Buxton]

1 hour ago, magnetman said:

They really should only use "armed police" if someone is walking around with a gun. I must admit this was my first assumption but I have now been disabused of this. 

 

 

 

To be fair it is a relief that nobody actually is walking around with a gun. 

 

I knew a bloke yars ago on a boat who had a 410 ratting gun. One day he showed it to subhuman scrotes who were annoying him and shortly afterwards his tiny little boat was raided by armed police. Real ones with guns. 

 

If a rumour gets out that someone has firearms on a boat it can rapidly escalate and become quite a serious situation. He got a council house in the local area and sold the boat. 

Don't have guns on boats. Even air rifles. If you discharge an air rifle across a public footpath someone -will- notice it and it could go bad quite quickly. 

Firearms officer are police officers like all others at the end of the day. They attend RTC's, burglaries, and any other call they are asked to - they don't sit around waiting for a firearms incident.  Perhaps it is also in the back of their minds about the fairly recent incident where a CRT chap was killed by a boater with mental health issues.

 

[Alan de Enfield]

15 minutes ago, Bod said:

Boaters responsibility to "Satisfy the Board" now the Board (C&RT) require a 20 miles per year minium "Range" to "Satisify the Board", the required distance is now clear.

 

Whilst what you say is how many understand it - that is not what C&RT have said (as legally they do not have the power to define a required distance.

 

What C&RT have said is "it is unlikely that a range of less then 20 miles would satisfy the board"

 

As an example of the actual wording : An Email sent by the London Enforcement Manager to a boater states :

 

“When we are looking at boat movements we are looking for characteristics of bona fide navigation, these fall roughly into four categories:

· Range: by range we mean the furthest points a boat has travelled on the network, not merely the total distance travelled. While the BW act does not stipulate what that distance is the Trust has previously said that anyone travelling a range of less than say 20 miles (32km) would struggle to satisfy the Trust that they are engaged in bona fide navigation and that normally we would expect a greater range.

. For the avoidance of doubt, a small number of long journeys over a short period of time, followed or preceded by cruising in a small are of the network would not generally satisfy the Trust that you are engaged in bona fide navigation.

· Overstaying: we look to see how often boats overstay, either the 14 day limit on the main length of the canal, or shorter periods where local signage dictates, for example short stay visitor moorings.

While we are flexible with the occasional overstay from most boaters due to breakdown, illness or other emergencies, we will look at the overall pattern balanced with range and movement pattern in order to form a view.

Overstay reminders are issued when a boat is seen in the same area for more than 14 days. While we are unable to say how far you need to travel each time you move, we would advise that you normally travel further than a few km each time.

This will prevent you from getting reminders and depending on the length of other trips you make and how many times you turn back on yourself, should increase your overall range over the course of your licence.

· Movement: Continuous Cruiser Licences are intended for bona fide (genuine) navigation around the network, rather than for a boat to remain in one mooring spot, place neighbourhood or area.

We would expect boats on these licences to move around the network such that they don’t gravitate back to favoured areas too often i.e. in a way that it’s clear to us that they’re living in a small area of the waterway.

The basic principle of this is that these licences are not intended for living in an area and if it looks like a boat is habitually returning to a particular part of the waterway then this would not generally satisfy the Trust.

Within an acceptable range we’d expect a genuine movement, so for example it would not satisfy the Trust if a boat went on a 60 mile trip during the course of say two weeks, then returned to cruise in an area of say 5 miles the remainder of the time (figures are examples only).


Generally speaking, the smaller the range the less we’d expect to see boats back at the same locations. Of course people need to turn around and they’re perfectly free to re-visit places they have been to before, it’s living in a small area on this kind of licence that would cause a problem.

 

 

Edited April 20, 2023 by Alan de Enfield

[magnetman]

6 minutes ago, MtB said:

 

 

I took the "Ultra Virus" phrase to be a typo or the spellchecker intervening, but now I'm not so sure. 

 

 

Ultra Vires is where public bodies act outside of the legal framework they have been given by statute. 

 

It is very common.

 

Whether the CRT is in fact a public body is a grey area. 

[IanD]

6 minutes ago, Alan de Enfield said:

 

Whilst what you say is how many understand it - that is not what C&RT have said (as legally they do not have the power to define a required distance.

 

What C&RT have said is "it is unlikely that a range of less then 20 miles would satisfy the board"

 

As an example of the actual wording : An Email sent by the London Enforcement Manager to a boater states :

 

“When we are looking at boat movements we are looking for characteristics of bona fide navigation, these fall roughly into four categories:

· Range: by range we mean the furthest points a boat has travelled on the network, not merely the total distance travelled. While the BW act does not stipulate what that distance is the Trust has previously said that anyone travelling a range of less than say 20 miles (32km) would struggle to satisfy the Trust that they are engaged in bona fide navigation and that normally we would expect a greater range.

. For the avoidance of doubt, a small number of long journeys over a short period of time, followed or preceded by cruising in a small are of the network would not generally satisfy the Trust that you are engaged in bona fide navigation.

· Overstaying: we look to see how often boats overstay, either the 14 day limit on the main length of the canal, or shorter periods where local signage dictates, for example short stay visitor moorings.

While we are flexible with the occasional overstay from most boaters due to breakdown, illness or other emergencies, we will look at the overall pattern balanced with range and movement pattern in order to form a view.

Overstay reminders are issued when a boat is seen in the same area for more than 14 days. While we are unable to say how far you need to travel each time you move, we would advise that you normally travel further than a few km each time.

This will prevent you from getting reminders and depending on the length of other trips you make and how many times you turn back on yourself, should increase your overall range over the course of your licence.

· Movement: Continuous Cruiser Licences are intended for bona fide (genuine) navigation around the network, rather than for a boat to remain in one mooring spot, place neighbourhood or area.

We would expect boats on these licences to move around the network such that they don’t gravitate back to favoured areas too often i.e. in a way that it’s clear to us that they’re living in a small area of the waterway.

The basic principle of this is that these licences are not intended for living in an area and if it looks like a boat is habitually returning to a particular part of the waterway then this would not generally satisfy the Trust.

Within an acceptable range we’d expect a genuine movement, so for example it would not satisfy the Trust if a boat went on a 60 mile trip during the course of say two weeks, then returned to cruise in an area of say 5 miles the remainder of the time (figures are examples only).


Generally speaking, the smaller the range the less we’d expect to see boats back at the same locations. Of course people need to turn around and they’re perfectly free to re-visit places they have been to before, it’s living in a small area on this kind of licence that would cause a problem.

 

The problem for CART is that though the spirit of the (CC) law is clear, the letter is not, especially when it comes to trying to take enforcement action, and it's almost impossible for them to change the laws.

 

They didn't help their case when a few years they caved in to pressure from the NBTA about the K&A boaters with kids at school, saying that the kind of behaviour *expressly forbidden* under the CC terms in the above text could be allowed in this "special case", thereby opening up a loophole that it seems many are now exploiting... 😞

Edited April 20, 2023 by IanD

[Alan de Enfield]

Just now, magnetman said:

Ultra Vires is where public bodies act outside of the legal framework they have been given by statute. 

 

It is very common.

 

Whether the CRT is in fact a public body is a grey area. 

Is "Ultra Virus" the same as "Ultra Vires" - I thought it was a new breed of Covid !

[MtB]

1 minute ago, magnetman said:

Ultra Vires is where public bodies act outside of the legal framework they have been given by statute. 

 

It is very common.

 

Whether the CRT is in fact a public body is a grey area. 

 

It doesn't just apply to public bodies. Its any organisation including limited companies. I first encountered the term when studying company law. 

[David Mack]

2 minutes ago, magnetman said:

Ultra Vires is where public bodies act outside of the legal framework they have been given by statute. 

It's Latin for beyond the powers'.

[Alan de Enfield]

3 minutes ago, IanD said:

 

The problem for CART is that though the spirit of the law is clear, the letter is not, especially when it comes to trying to take enforcement action -- and they didn't help their case when a few years they caved in to pressure from the NBTA about the K&A boaters with kids at school, saying that the kind of behaviour *expressly forbidden* under the CC terms in the above text could perhaps be allowed in this "special case", thereby opening up a loophole that it seems many are now exploiting... 😞

 

They didn't directly cave into NBTA, until the NBTA got MPs involved, and one MP who wrote to C&RT suggesting that they were showing discrimination and should "think about the children"

Edited April 20, 2023 by Alan de Enfield

[MtB]

Just now, David Mack said:

It's Latin for beyond the powers'.

 

 

Some people imagine it means similar to "Biggus dickus" !

[magnetman]

1 minute ago, MtB said:

 

It doesn't just apply to public bodies. Its any organisation including limited companies. I first encountered the term when studying company law. 

 

Presumably any organisation that can not act as a natural person. 

 

I didn't know it included ltd companies. How would this work with ejecting people mooring on land owned by companies? Maybe they can't do it. Public bodies have recourse to byelaws but what could a ltd do about this problem? The CRT is technically a ltd so perhaps this what the issue is. 

 

 

[Hudds Lad]

20 minutes ago, magnetman said:

"For example, the 'old continuous cruising' guidelines were found to be Ultra Virus in Law and cancelled. 

 

-----

 

 

This needs clarifying. 

The implication from @Paul Biddy is that there was a legal case of some sort. 

Maybe there was. Please tell us about it. 

Ultra Vires is a fun term but you need to know what it means. Windsor rowing lakes? 

 

Be careful assuming the CRT don't have powers to control moorings on their land. Thames is a different story. 

 

 

 

A quick bit of Google suggests Mr Biddy may also be Mr Davies, who had a run in with BW i think

[magnetman]

 Along the line has someone spotted that by moving the management of canals from a public body to a ltd company the goal posts have disappeared ?

 

Are byelaws enforceable by ltd companies ? 

 

Could this explain why the CRT do not enforce byelaws ? 

 

 

"

Dear Mr Brooks,

 

Further to your initial request of 29^th November and our subsequent
acknowledgement of 30^th November, I can confirm that the information you
have requested is not held by the Canal and River Trust. However, I have
asked our Legal Team regarding this and they have confirmed that to the
best of their knowledge no such prosecutions have taken place under the
byelaws since the Trust’s creation."

 

https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/prosecutions_for_breach_of_bylaw

 

[MtB]

1 minute ago, magnetman said:

 

Presumably any organisation that can not act as a natural person. 

 

I didn't know it included ltd companies. How would this work with ejecting people mooring on land owned by companies? Maybe they can't do it. Public bodies have recourse to byelaws but what could a ltd do about this problem? The CRT is technically a ltd so perhaps this what the issue is. 

 

 

I don't know. 

 

But IIRC it crops up when drafting The Articles and/or Memorandum of a limited company. A LtdCo can only undertake activities expressly allowed, leading to really vague stuff being said like "The company shall undertake activities which may or may not make a profit" or some such woolly stuff. All IIRC as it was 40 years ago! 

[IanD]

18 minutes ago, Alan de Enfield said:

 

They didn't directly cave into NBTA, until the NBTA got MPs involved, and one MP who wrote to C&RT suggesting that they were showing discrimination and should "think about the children"

So, pressure from the NBTA then? 😉

 

Either way it was a dumb decision which has made it much harder for CART to do anything about the CMers... 😞

Edited April 20, 2023 by IanD

[Alan de Enfield]

26 minutes ago, MtB said:

 

 

I don't know. 

 

But IIRC it crops up when drafting The Articles and/or Memorandum of a limited company. A LtdCo can only undertake activities expressly allowed, leading to really vague stuff being said like "The company shall undertake activities which may or may not make a profit" or some such woolly stuff. All IIRC as it was 40 years ago! 

 

 

Posted by Nigel Moore (RIP)

 

A company can only do what the law says it can do.

 

Looking back, I see that we covered the same ground more than 2 years ago. The case law most specifically addressing the issue that I cited back then was:

Attorney-General v. Great Eastern Railway Co. (1880) 5 App.Cas. 473, Lord Blackburn said, at p. 481: 'where there is an Act of Parliament creating a corporation for a particular purpose, and giving it powers for that particular purpose, what it does not expressly or impliedly authorise is to be taken to be prohibited; ...' [my emphasis]

This was cited with approval by the same House in the 1991 judgment in McCarthy & Stone v Richmond LBC, with all 5 Law Lords in unanimous agreement on the point.

http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKHL/1989/4.html

My use of “amounted to” arose from the “taken to be” wording. You were advancing the common-law distinction then also, in response to that, so I will not get repetitious over this.

The Stourbridge case needs to be read in full, to understand the context. The canal company wanted to rely on the common law right of a landowner to charge for the use of their property, although their enabling Acts only gave powers to charge tolls for passage through locks on the original section, whereas an upper section had no locks at all. Not even commercial boats had to pay tolls on their cargoes if they stayed on the lock-free sections, and some carriers did just that. For awhile they paid demanded tolls anyway, but when the prices were arbitrarily increased inordinately [in their opinion], they baulked, and refused to pay anything at all anymore. The court agreed that they did not need to. The full judgment is online –

http://www.commonlii.org/uk/cases/EngR/1831/276.pdf

 

 

 

 

And again from Nigel :

 

 

In response to a question as to why C&RT do not use the byelaws :

 

Nigel Moore 8/2/20

 

It was HH Judge Denyer QC in the judgment against George Ward of 20 December 2012 on the Bristol County Court :-

 

“Other than the removal of the boat the only sanction provided for in the legislation in respect of a contravention of the Rules by a person such as the Claimant is that of a derisory fine.  I think it has now reached the sum of £50.  If they are not entitled to take these steps i.e. removal of the boat from the river they are in truth substantially powerless to enforce the obligations of those who use the waterways.  I do not regard the ability to take debt recovery proceedings as being a sufficient alternative remedy.  Aside from anything else they would face problems of enforcement.  No doubt if they did obtain a money judgment the judgment debtor would seek to or could seek to pay at some derisory sum per week or per month.”

 

He overlooked, of course, the fact that the same would apply to any County Court judgment as to costs etc, and also that the seizure of the boat even if leading to a sale could never be used to pay off the debt, because the relevant statute specifically bars that. They can only (legally) retain from the profits of a boat sale, the costs of seizing, storing and selling it. However it may be that this judge (and others) was misled into believing that BW could use possession of the seized boat as a lien on monies owed to them. This was pre-Ravenscroft after all.

 

He was mistaken as to the level of fine which is £100 (plus, of course, costs, and nowadays ‘victim surcharges’). He was also off the mark about “problems of enforcement”. Having obtained a court order for fines and costs and charges, the collection could be left to court bailiffs, or payment could be sought for from central funds as respects costs at least. The judge also seems to be confusing pursuit of money judgments with prosecutions (pursuit of merely a money claim being a third option NOT, as the 1983 Act provides, preclusive of parallel criminal action.

 

If the convicted boater proved evasive and in breach of a court order, then a warrant for their arrest could be issued, and once caught they could be sent to prison for contempt of court. There is nothing “derisory” about such implications as attached to the prosecution process. If this judge was correct, then the EA could be considered “powerless to enforce the obligations of those who use” - their – waterways” – and clearly, that is very far from the truth.

 

 

 

 

 

18 minutes ago, IanD said:

So, pressure from the NBTA then?

 

 

Indirectly - yes you are correct.

They withstood all of the direct action from the NBTA but crumbled when MPs became involved and suggested that they were 'maybe' breaking the law by discriminating against parents with Children of school age.

 

C&RT wrote back saymg they could not relax the legal requirements, but then they did by saying they had worked out how to meet the requirements by just shuffling up and down 3 miles of canal in term time

 

 

 

Slightly larger

 

 

Edited April 20, 2023 by Alan de Enfield

[Victor Vectis]

1 hour ago, Paul Biddy said:

There are many peole in Bath and Bradford non Avon who love the boats and enjoy walking the towing path chatting to boaties (&CRT staff). Most are not prejudiced although a few individuals stir tropuble on www chat sites. 

And there are many sic 'peole' with boats who would like to moor in Bath and Bradford sic 'non' Avon but can't due to CMers and boats that never move.

[Paul Biddy]

Double mooring is a traditional boating past-time. There's plenty of space on the waterways for everyone. No mooring can ever be continuous, in the same way that no cruise can ever be continuous. 

[thebfg]

3 hours ago, Iain_S said:

The Wiltshire news mentioned one armed officer: probably one qualified on a Taser, who always carries one. Although technically "armed", the same could be said of any officer. Baton and (nowadays) CS spray are also "arms".

It should also be noted that any decision to send an "armed" officer was made by Wiltshire constabulary and by them alone.