George ward eviction taking place

[kris88]

Lucy Barry and Mathew aymes will have been getting a right rollicking over it. That’s where the action is today. 

[Mike Hurley]

3 hours ago, MtB said:

 

 

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

Welease woderick.

[Arthur Marshall]

7 minutes ago, kris88 said:

Lucy Barry and Mathew aymes will have been getting a right rollicking over it. That’s where the action is today. 

Very true. Either they hadn't considered what to do if he simply refused to leave the boat, or thought the police would go in and physically evict him. The police view seems to be that while the boat was illegally there, and CRT had a court order to remove it , George had not broken any law himself by refusing to leave. Which is a bit of an odd view, really.

You have to remember that coppers are not legal experts, which explains why they so often act illegally, but possibly they don't like risking it with so many cameras about. They have had rather a lot of bad publicity recently.

The police have always said they are there just to keep the peace and maintain public order. Hoicking Ward off the boat should have been the job of Dunkley's "illegal bailiffs", so it's a bit odd that CRT didn't employ them. Bet they do next time.

If I was George, I'd be  very careful during the night hours and have my garden fork handy...

[magnetman]

I think they might be waiting to see if he goes somewhere else then they can take the boat. 

 

 

[David Mack]

8 minutes ago, Arthur Marshall said:

Very true. Either they hadn't considered what to do if he simply refused to leave the boat, or thought the police would go in and physically evict him. The police view seems to be that while the boat was illegally there, and CRT had a court order to remove it , George had not broken any law himself by refusing to leave. Which is a bit of an odd view, really.

You have to remember that coppers are not legal experts, which explains why they so often act illegally, but possibly they don't like risking it with so many cameras about. They have had rather a lot of bad publicity recently.

I would have thought that, armed with a court order requiring the boats to be removed from CRT's waters, CRT would have agreed with the police beforehand exactly what the police would and wouldn't do on the day. As it is they have come out of yesterday looking rather impotent.

[Paul C]

11 minutes ago, magnetman said:

I think they might be waiting to see if he goes somewhere else then they can take the boat. 

 

 

I think George will be able to outsmart them, it seems the CRT enforcement officers etc only work a 9-5 shift.

[kris88]

1 minute ago, David Mack said:

I would have thought that, armed with a court order requiring the boats to be removed from CRT's waters, CRT would have agreed with the police beforehand exactly what the police would and wouldn't do on the day. As it is they have come out of yesterday looking rather impotent.

They just expect the police to do what they ask. Because most of the time that’s what happens. This time they where faced with a police officer who must have read the court documents crt like to wave about and disagreed with crts interpretation of them in some way. 

[Bristolfashion]

7 hours ago, Paul Biddy said:

Interesting. I'd like to see Brutish Waterways provide showers, water, sustainable woodland for fuel and other facilities for boaters. Simply selling a license for people and leaving them with no means to live properly creates poverty. The difference between pleasure boat licencses and houseboat certificates is clearly prejudiced and absolutely crazy. Mr Ward is correct to resist eviction and homelessness.

Bearing in mind that the CRT are suffering a funding crisis, how much would you like them to increase the licence by to pay for your fantasies? Would you expect those in receipt of this largesse to actually pay the licence?

 

And, on a minor correction, the CRT do actually provide water and, in some places, showers within the existing licence fee.

4 hours ago, Arthur Marshall said:

That's about the first thing you've written that makes any sense, though it is of course irrelevant.

I note that you say Ward is a traveller. Can you confirm this is his ethic status - were his parents travellers, or are you just waving this label around like a flag? He certainly isn't a traveller in the travelling sense.

He's essentially a squatter, which on land has been made a criminal offence. I do wonder whether it can apply to the water, too.

Yep, he's not much of a traveller - he hasn't moved in 10 years! 

[magnetman]

Its the first time I have heard of 'traveller' being an ethic status. 

 

I suppose it is always important to be guided by one's moral compass on the journey of life. 

 

[kris88]

5 minutes ago, Bristolfashion said:

Bearing in mind that the CRT are suffering a funding crisis, how much would you like them to increase the licence by to pay for your fantasies? Would you expect those in receipt of this largesse to actually pay the licence?

 

And, on a minor correction, the CRT do actually provide water and, in some places, showers within the existing licence fee.

Why do so many supposedly intelligent people fall for the propaganda that crt are poor. They are not a poor organisation they have assets of 1.1billion and a budget of 200 odd million. There are small countries that don’t have as good accounts. The policy of no preventative maintenance introduced when crt was formed. Has come home to roost. As most organisations realise ths policy at best has short term savings. But causes major problems and exspenes down the line. Especially if your looking after mainly 200 year old infrastructure. Fortunately the fiasco of Toddbrook reservoir has awakened a few in power as to the dangers involved. 

[magnetman]

Yes but other than that the CRT has no money and licence fees etc will be going up. 

 

Reality is a nuisance but it is all we have at least for now. 

It would be nice think things can improve but improbable. 

Edited April 20, 2023 by magnetman

[kris88]

3 minutes ago, magnetman said:

Yes both other than that the CRT has no money and licence fees etc will be going up. 

 

Reality is a nuisance but it is all we have at least for now. 

I agreed with you the other day a one size fits all fee of say £3000 per boat is the best way to go. As long as it comes with greater oversight as to where the money is spent and more investment in maintenance and boaters facilities. Ps crt do have money, they have assets of 1.1 billion. 

Edited April 20, 2023 by kris88

[David Mack]

11 minutes ago, kris88 said:

They are not a poor organisation they have assets of 1.1billion and a budget of 200 odd million. 

Those assets are there to earn an income which forms part of the 200 million turnover. They are not resources which can be spent on running the canals.

[magnetman]

The Billion pounds is presumably pension fund money for the management staff. 

[Paul C]

15 minutes ago, kris88 said:

Why do so many supposedly intelligent people fall for the propaganda that crt are poor. 

Why did you use the word "poor", it wasn't used in the quoted - it was "suffering a funding crisis". 

 

They are suffering a funding crisis in that the outgoings exceed the incomings. In other words, they are not financially sustainable. It is the topic of another thread though.

[Paul Biddy]

3 hours ago, Tonka said:

Not if their wide beams

😂

[Bristolfashion]

7 minutes ago, David Mack said:

Those assets are there to earn an income which forms part of the 200 million turnover. They are not resources which can be spent on running the canals.

Yep, people who have no idea about how these things work still feel competent to comment. If you spend all the capital, that's the end of it.

 

As you and I realise, the running costs of the canal system exceed the trust's own income. 

[kris88]

Capital makes capital. What about their budget of 200 odd million. That’s not a poor third sector organisation. They just hemorage money into a top heavy management structure. 

[Allan(nb Albert)]

17 minutes ago, David Mack said:

Those assets are there to earn an income which forms part of the 200 million turnover. They are not resources which can be spent on running the canals.

It is untrue that CRT's £1.14 billion can not be used to maintain its waterways. Indeed, CRT had a plan to use part of these assets to tackle its £200 million backlog in safety critical maintenance. 

 

This appears to have been abandoned due to a fall in the value of CRT's non property  assets (aka diversified fund).

 

[kris88]

24 minutes ago, Paul C said:

Why did you use the word "poor", it wasn't used in the quoted - it was "suffering a funding crisis". 

 

They are suffering a funding crisis in that the outgoings exceed the incomings. In other words, they are not financially sustainable. It is the topic of another thread though.

I used the word poor because I wanted to is that okay with you? “Suffering a funding crisis,” is straight out of crt propaganda. So why did you choose to use that phrase? 

[Paul C]

10 minutes ago, kris88 said:

So why did you choose to use that phrase? 

Because I looked back at the thread and ensured I'd used the actual words you'd quoted. (ie they are not my words). Maybe you're confusing me with the poster "Bristolfashion" (the one you quoted, but re-interpreted). Please go back and re-read the posts you are addressing.

[Allan(nb Albert)]

56 minutes ago, Paul C said:

Why did you use the word "poor", it wasn't used in the quoted - it was "suffering a funding crisis". 

 

They are suffering a funding crisis in that the outgoings exceed the incomings. In other words, they are not financially sustainable. It is the topic of another thread though.

CRT have been suffering a funding crisis since 2012  ...

 

It is not to do with outgoings exceeding incomings, although that is an indicator.

 

Rather, it has to do with CRT's funding gap - the difference between what CRT needs to spend to keep its waterways in a condition that is neither improving or degrading vs what it actually spends.

 

You may wish to start another thread.

=======================================================

 

Back on topic, would it be true to say that the court order -

 

- Does not give CRT the power to evict George from his boat.

 

-Does not give CRT the power to seize the boat.

Edited April 20, 2023 by Allan(nb Albert)

[Paul C]

19 minutes ago, Allan(nb Albert) said:

 

 

You may wish to start another thread.

 

LOL no thanks! There's about a million other, similar threads, its just a case of finding them.

 

19 minutes ago, Allan(nb Albert) said:

 

 

=======================================================

 

Back on topic, would it be true to say that the court order -

 

- Does not give CRT the power to evict George from his boat.

 

-Does not give CRT the power to seize the boat.

 

We don't know, because the court order hasn't been published. BUT there is a list of them, and it appears the wording is standardised. Example (of latest): https://canalrivertrust.org.uk/refresh/media/thumbnail/46301-court-order-sarah-louise-51741.pdf

 

If the wording is the same then

 

- No (BUT the Police could arrest for contempt of court (but they have discretion and are not CRT's puppets))
- Yes*

 

* I suspect it didn't go ahead because seizure is of only the boat and was effectively blocked by there being a person on the boat. Also, it would not cover personal possessions, they would need to either be removed from the boat beforehand or free access allowed to them at a later date).

[Jerra]

10 minutes ago, Paul C said:

 

LOL no thanks! There's about a million other, similar threads, its just a case of finding them.

 

 

We don't know, because the court order hasn't been published. BUT there is a list of them, and it appears the wording is standardised. Example (of latest): https://canalrivertrust.org.uk/refresh/media/thumbnail/46301-court-order-sarah-louise-51741.pdf

 

If the wording is the same then

 

- No (BUT the Police could arrest for contempt of court (but they have discretion and are not CRT's puppets))
- Yes*

 

* I suspect it didn't go ahead because seizure is of only the boat and was effectively blocked by there being a person on the boat. Also, it would not cover personal possessions, they would need to either be removed from the boat beforehand or free access allowed to them at a later date).

Where will that leave CRT if Mr. Ward's claim as to what was on the boat that has been removed turns out to be correct?

[magnetman]

The possessions on the boat are a really interesting topic.

 

I know the S8 does allow for this but given that a lot of boats will be worth less than the possessions stored on them one can't help but wonder if the CRT does actually check what there is in the boat itself when they remove it.

 

Things like gold ballast, drug hoards and of course the rhino horns.

 

If someone had a stash of gold on a boat and was later able to show that the CRT took 500 grands worth of gear away when removing the vessel how would this play out in a court ?

 

Boats are serious chattels. One of the boats I bought had several thousand pounds worth of gold stored in an unexpected and rather difficult to access location. It was more than the value of the boat. I asked the seller if it was his gold and he said wasn't, which was nice.