George ward eviction taking place

[Alan de Enfield]

37 minutes ago, Arthur Marshall said:

The whole thing is a housing problem, though. If people can't afford a legal place to live, what do we expect them to do? It may not be CRT's problem, but sooner or later it's going to be somebody's.

 

It was (believed to be) another 'illegal renting' that had a bad result for the renter.

 

 

 

20 minutes ago, Ewan123 said:

Not their responsibility to resolve, but they do have a responsibility (as do all people) not to cause harm to others as a result of their actions, alongside the need to be a navigation authority and enforce all the relevant rules.

 

At the end of the day, CRT are people doing things for/with/to people, and the people at CRT/contractors etc. shouldn't hide behind "the words in this document mean I'm not responsible for harm caused as a result of my actions".

 

I.e. be a good person, not a good robot.

 

Thats all well and good in theory and is an aspirational target, however in the real world, familes with children, disabled and metally challenged members are evicted every day from their 'bricks and mortar' home, if you haven’t made the relevant payments, even the utility suppliers are allowed to disconnect your electricity under Schedule 6 of the Electricity Act 1989.

 

It is the norm to discuss with the 'bill payer' but if no agreement about a payment plan or compliance can be reached then the Court says "evict them" 

 

Certainly in the case of 'George' I'm sure you'd agree that giving him 10 years to 'sort out his life' is more than 'fair'.

Edited April 29, 2023 by Alan de Enfield

[Bee]

Years ago I lived in Bath, city centre, just round the corner from the Royal Crescent, shared flat, no problem finding the rent and I had a very ordinary job - lorry driving driving. There is no way I or anybody treading a similar path could afford to do that now. It would have to be living in a van, a boat or a tent in the woods. All illegal. Any organisation evicting people from these choices that are often just a fraction better than being homeless seem to me to be acting in the interests of those who are relatively rich and are offended by the sight of people who have next to nothing. If the law only protects the feelings of these  priveleged people (and I am now one) then the law is unfair and I reckon it is perfectly OK to ignore it. Others might not agree.

[Alan de Enfield]

11 minutes ago, Bee said:

Years ago I lived in Bath, city centre, just round the corner from the Royal Crescent, shared flat, no problem finding the rent and I had a very ordinary job - lorry driving driving. There is no way I or anybody treading a similar path could afford to do that now. It would have to be living in a van, a boat or a tent in the woods. All illegal. Any organisation evicting people from these choices that are often just a fraction better than being homeless seem to me to be acting in the interests of those who are relatively rich and are offended by the sight of people who have next to nothing. If the law only protects the feelings of these  priveleged people (and I am now one) then the law is unfair and I reckon it is perfectly OK to ignore it. Others might not agree.

 

Fortunately our laws are not on the 'pick and mix' counter.

You cannot choose which ones you will follow and which ones you will ignore.

[tree monkey]

14 minutes ago, Alan de Enfield said:

 

Fortunately our laws are not on the 'pick and mix' counter.

You cannot choose which ones you will follow and which ones you will ignore.

That's not strictly true is it, OK yes some things may still be illegal but sometimes acts once considered illegal become accepted as normal, homosexuality for example was once illegal but many people ignored that and eventually the law changed, cannabis use is another one that's slowly evolving into legality

[Alan de Enfield]

29 minutes ago, tree monkey said:

That's not strictly true is it, OK yes some things may still be illegal but sometimes acts once considered illegal become accepted as normal, homosexuality for example was once illegal but many people ignored that and eventually the law changed, cannabis use is another one that's slowly evolving into legality

 

But, until it is made legal, it is still illegal however many disagree with it. Look how many were charged and imprisoned under the homosexual laws until they were changed in 1967

[tree monkey]

12 minutes ago, Alan de Enfield said:

 

But, until it is made legal, it is still illegal however many disagree with it. Look how many were charged and imprisoned under the homosexual laws until they were changed in 1967

I don't disagree but also look at how many cannabis users are ignored or given a ticking off and left to go on their way, the world evolves and eventually the law catches up, so to original point about "pick and mix" isn't strictly true

[peterboat]

28 minutes ago, tree monkey said:

I don't disagree but also look at how many cannabis users are ignored or given a ticking off and left to go on their way, the world evolves and eventually the law catches up, so to original point about "pick and mix" isn't strictly true

I agree as long as driving under the influence of drugs is still illegal like with alcohol 

[ditchcrawler]

3 hours ago, Alan de Enfield said:

Here are the details of a previous case, and how it was handled :

 

They didn't mess about that time - break the law and pay the penalty.

 

Same location as George, strange how birds of a feather flock together !!

 

 

On 14th September 2016 Canal & River Trust (CRT), together with police, bailiffs and a CRT enforcement officer, seized a boat without a home mooring that was a vulnerable woman’s home while she was asleep inside it. The woman, who suffers from epilepsy, was later rushed to hospital in an ambulance as the stress of the eviction had caused her condition to become critical.

Boat dweller Peter John Wells, who was an eyewitness, filmed the eviction. It is on YouTube here

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RQGSVSGWOsE and

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6TYzW97R5XY

Mr Wells said: “On the morning of September 14th Corrine Rotherham, CRT Enforcement Officer, and a team of seven private contractors set off in a vessel from Bradford on Avon on the Kennet and Avon Canal. They were on a mission to evict a lone woman living on a boat in Bath due to a licence dispute. They arrived as she was still asleep in bed, boarded the boat and proceeded to attach their boat to hers and tow it away. A number of nearby boaters were alerted to the situation and a blockade was formed preventing the removal. The boaters offered to pay any outstanding money due on the spot. This was not accepted”.

“Ms Rotherham decided her plan had gone seriously wrong and called for back-up, in this case four police officers and a police van with an unknown number of officers inside. By this time the woman, who suffers from epilepsy, was so distraught that she was reduced to tears. At one point she was surrounded by CRT, bailiffs and police officers against the railway wall. Despite support from the other boaters she felt she had to escape the situation and she agreed to leave her boat. Her boat was taken to Bradford on Avon, lifted on a lorry and driven away. Two days later she was admitted to hospital as the stress o the eviction had caused her epilepsy to become critical”.

Before being taken to hospital the woman wandered around Bath in a confused and distressed state. According to staff at a drop-in centre for homeless people, she was so ill that she was incoherent and could not explain what had happened. The following day she was found by police and an ambulance was called.

The eviction of this vulnerable boater and its drastic effect on her health raise some very serious questions about CRT’s compliance with the law regarding the safeguarding of vulnerable adults. For example, why was there no welfare officer present? Why were the police called? Why did Enforcement Officer Corrine Rotherham not want to be filmed?

 

 

CRT’s Relationship Manager Matthew Symonds claimed on 22nd September that the Waterways Chaplaincy had been supporting the woman, but the Chaplaincy has confirmed that they were not involved at all prior to the eviction. CRT did refer the case to their Welfare Officer Sean Williams, but unlike social housing, CRT has no measures in place to safeguard vulnerable people in cases where health issues mean that the person at risk of eviction does not engage with the authorities. We have been informed that the boater attempted to claim Housing Benefit.

According to Mr Wells, it was apparent from his conversation with them that the bailiffs, police and Ms Rotherham all wanted to avoid any responsibility for the eviction. He said that one bailiff was clearly uncomfortable and another said that it was ridiculous and tried to distance himself from his job.

CRT currently uses bailiffs from a private company called The Sheriffs Office when they believe that a boat dweller will be resident on a boat at an eviction. Kevin George Thomas of The Sheriffs Office appears to be one of the bailiffs in the first photo. The second photo shows Mr Thomas serving court papers on a boater in 2014. Kevin Thomas used to work for Sherlock, a trading division of Shergroup Limited, which also included Sherforce bailiffs that CRT used until about 2014.

We have unconfirmed reports that the woman was renting the boat but the “landlord” failed to licence it. Anyone in this situation should make sure that the boat is licensed and should also be aware that they have very few rights.

 

But surly in this case she left the boat and it was not her boat

[Arthur Marshall]

3 hours ago, Alan de Enfield said:

 

Fortunately our laws are not on the 'pick and mix' counter.

You cannot choose which ones you will follow and which ones you will ignore.

What a typically odd thing to say. As I've said time and again, everyone does just that. Are you seriously telling me you've never broken the speed limit? Or are you the arbiter who decides which laws matter and which don't?

I think it was settled a long time ago that bad laws should be broken, and that following them blindly was no defence.

Every day, it's your responsibility to decide which laws to obey or break. What you do have to accept is that there are penalties if you get caught. That's a bit different from stating that you should obey every law.

[Alan de Enfield]

1 minute ago, Arthur Marshall said:

What a typically odd thing to say. As I've said time and again, everyone does just that. Are you seriously telling me you've never broken the speed limit? Or are you the arbiter who decides which laws matter and which don't?

 

I'm not sure that you are in the real world - yes I have been speeding, and broke the law, I was caught, and paid the penalty.

 

If you break the law you should take the punishment, which I 'willingly' have done.

You would appear to say that if you break the law you should not pay the penalty if you think it is a 'bad law' that makes it look as if you are one of these 'freeman of the land' weirdos, who are only bound by statute law if they agree with it.

[Guest]

6 minutes ago, Arthur Marshall said:

What a typically odd thing to say. As I've said time and again, everyone does just that. Are you seriously telling me you've never broken the speed limit? Or are you the arbiter who decides which laws matter and which don't?

I think it was settled a long time ago that bad laws should be broken, and that following them blindly was no defence.

Every day, it's your responsibility to decide which laws to obey or break. What you do have to accept is that there are penalties if you get caught. That's a bit different from stating that you should obey every law.

 

Isnt the difference regarding speed limits is that you inadvertently break them? If you ever do.

 

If you deliberately break them and get caught....... tough.

[Paul C]

2 minutes ago, M_JG said:

 

Isnt the difference regarding speed limits is that you inadvertently break them? If you ever do.

 

If you deliberately break them and get caught....... tough.

 

Eh? You press the accelerator pedal on a car and it goes faster. You don't press it and it doesn't go faster. If you're inadvertently speeding, who's actually driving the thing?

[Guest]

6 minutes ago, Paul C said:

 

Eh? You press the accelerator pedal on a car and it goes faster. You don't press it and it doesn't go faster. If you're inadvertently speeding, who's actually driving the thing?

 

OMG a clever clogs that has never missed a speed limit sign hidden by vegitation or has been spun around the other way by the local 'yoof'.

 

Just 'do one' Paul....and grow up.

 

If you are really going to claim you have never ever exceeded the speed limit deliberately or other wise you are a liar pure and simple.

 

As in a liar.

 

Did you get that, a liar.

 

Edited April 29, 2023 by M_JG

[David Mack]

1 hour ago, M_JG said:

Isn't the difference regarding speed limits is that you inadvertently break them? If you ever do.

 

If you deliberately break them and get caught....... tough.

The penalty if you are caught is the same, whether you were speeding inadvertently or deliberately.

[Guest]

4 minutes ago, David Mack said:

The penalty if you are caught is the same, whether you were speeding inadvertently or deliberately.

 

Correct. 

[Dyertribe]

6 hours ago, Goliath said:

How condescending of you

How perceptive of you 

[Richard10002]

1 hour ago, Alan de Enfield said:

 

I'm not sure that you are in the real world - yes I have been speeding, and broke the law, I was caught, and paid the penalty.

 

If you break the law you should take the punishment, which I 'willingly' have done.

You would appear to say that if you break the law you should not pay the penalty if you think it is a 'bad law' that makes it look as if you are one of these 'freeman of the land' weirdos, who are only bound by statute law if they agree with it.

You seem to be saying that you pay the penalty if you are caught.

 

I'd guess you don't "willingly" roll up at the police station if you have been speeding, but not caught.

 

I.e. you are only bound by statute law if you are caught.

[Paul C]

The offence of speeding is often used as a comparison but its a poor example to use, because like many other motoring offences, it is "absolute". As in, so long as the signage is there* and the car is doing over that speed limit, the offence is complete. On most other criminal offences it is also necessary to prove the crime was knowingly committed.

 

* Poor, turned, dirty or obscured signage is a defence. There are also a number of other defences and valid exemptions, eg police purpose.

[Arthur Marshall]

10 hours ago, Alan de Enfield said:

 

I'm not sure that you are in the real world - yes I have been speeding, and broke the law, I was caught, and paid the penalty.

 

If you break the law you should take the punishment, which I 'willingly' have done.

You would appear to say that if you break the law you should not pay the penalty if you think it is a 'bad law' that makes it look as if you are one of these 'freeman of the land' weirdos, who are only bound by statute law if they agree with it.

You are adept at ignoring bits of posts, then selectively quoting to knock down a target you set up yourself. Read the end of my post.

If you break a law (good, bad, just or unjust) and get caught, then there's a penalty to pay. It's the risk you accept when you do it.

You're like one if these weirdos who believes every law pased is for your personal good by a benevolent government that only ever has your interest at heart, and that every good citizen (presumably everywhere from Russia to Saudi) should obey every law unthinkingly. Oh, and who only ever broke the speed limit that time they got caught.

In some countries, you can be judically killed for adultery. Or jailed for driving a car. Or going out with your face uncovered. Various new laws in our own country could be mentioned, but in another section.

We are all only bound by laws with our consent. They don't work otherwise, unlike gravity.

 

2 hours ago, Paul C said:

The offence of speeding is often used as a comparison but its a poor example to use, because like many other motoring offences, it is "absolute". As in, so long as the signage is there* and the car is doing over that speed limit, the offence is complete. On most other criminal offences it is also necessary to prove the crime was knowingly committed.

 

* Poor, turned, dirty or obscured signage is a defence. There are also a number of other defences and valid exemptions, eg police purpose.

That's why it's a good example. Or are you saying some laws should be obeyed unthinkingly,and others only after deliberation?

Anyway, I thought "ignorance of the law is no excuse"?

[Paul C]

3 minutes ago, Arthur Marshall said:

That's why it's a good example. Or are you saying some laws should be obeyed unthinkingly,and others only after deliberation?

Anyway, I thought "ignorance of the law is no excuse"?

 

There's definitely some truth in the advice "if you can't do the time, don't do the crime".

 

Every law has been put in place for a reason, and somewhere along the line there is a "victim of crime", although it might appear indirect or convoluted. I'd say generally being a law-abiding person is a good thing; and routinely breaking or challenging laws, not so much. There's legitimate routes to challenging laws; and other routes which are driven by selfishness rather than a greater good.

 

Anyway, its all a bit theoretical. In this country, The Police police laws, and they aren't that great at it - but that's a whole another topic!

 

I admire your stance on "laws must be challenged" but it needs to be for the (morally) right reason.

[Cheshire cat]

Interesting statements made by Tony Dunkley on Thunderboat.

 

In summary, he is stating that the police were tipped off that the court order did not give C&RT the authority to seperate the owner from his boat and therefore declined to aid C&RT sieze the boat. Presumably whoever was in charge on the ground read a copy of the order and realised the necessary authority had not been granted.

 

I think this has got some time to run yet.

[MtB]

1 minute ago, Cheshire cat said:

Interesting statements made by Tony Dunkley on Thunderboat.

 

In summary, he is stating that the police were tipped off that the court order did not give C&RT the authority to seperate the owner from his boat and therefore declined to aid C&RT sieze the boat. Presumably whoever was in charge on the ground read a copy of the order and realised the necessary authority had not been granted.

 

I think this has got some time to run yet.

 

 

Yes I agree, this is interesting. 

 

The legalities of separating the boater from the boat prior to lifting and removal from the canal is something not yet explored as far as I have seen.

 

I guess CRT will have to go back and get some sort of court order instructing Mr Ward to vacate his boat. I can see that taking another ten years to reach a conclusion.

[magnetman]

I asked TD to verify by publishing name and number of the officer in charge. He didn't. 

 

Don't forget TD has a large portion of chips on both shoulders about the CRT so whatever he posts there will never be anything positive. Even if the CRT were to give him a cheque for 50 grand he would still moan. 

 

It could be right but there are other possibilities such as the reports of the boat owner threatening to start a fire. If this was taken seriously I don't think having an audience alongside is very wise from an elfin safety point of view. 

 

 

Interesting one to watch. If it gets too popular this could mark a significant turning point in the viability of living off grid without moving on land you don't own. 

 

Either it will be proved to be okay or it will get closed down as an option. I think I know which will happen.

 

 

 

 

[Alan de Enfield]

32 minutes ago, magnetman said:

Interesting one to watch. If it gets too popular this could mark a significant turning point in the viability of living off grid without moving on land you don't own. 

 

All of these problems are due to Sally Ash deciding to 'overrule' the Byelaws.

 

The licence conditions and the byelaws stated (and still do so today) that boats could only be used as a residence (liveaboard) if the board gave its permission

 

Byelaw No30 :

No vessel on any canal shall without the permission of the Board be used as a club, shop, store, workshop, dwelling or houseboat.

 

The understanding was that if you did not have a residential mooring etc but were living on your boat, you were not legal.

That did not stop people but it did make everyone more aware of the position. You were in most cases in direct breach of your licence conditions if you admitted to living on your boat. A consequence of that was that you kept your heads down and took steps not to draw huge attention to yourselves. Issues like overstaying or in any way drawing adverse attention to yourself were almost completely taboo. In that sense there was a strong sense of self policing and in many ways the situation was much more satisfactory than now. In short  people who lived on boats some twenty years ago ,rightly or wrongly came with very different expectations than those I see from many today.
 

The start of the 'trouble' was with one of Sally Ash's first decisions when she was put in charge of boating, to remove the general Licence requirement not to use your boat as a dwelling. That in effect gave blanket permission to all licence holders to live on their boats; Unsurprisingly many have taken up the offer.

 

Those different expectations have led to a different type of boater now living on the waterways and, are of course not unreasonable given Sally's decision to open that particular door. Now that the door is open and given how long it has been left open, CRT need to finally grasp the nettle rather than trying to shut the stable door after 20+ years.

Maybe it really is time to start to enforce the byelaws !

 

 

Edited April 30, 2023 by Alan de Enfield

[MtB]

12 minutes ago, Alan de Enfield said:

Byelaw No30 :

No vessel on any canal shall without the permission of the Board be used as a club, shop, store, workshop, dwelling or houseboat.

 

 

 

I think you're right and MM is correct too. It will eventually shake down into this bylaw being used to lever Mr Ward out of his boat, and by extension everyone else too who cannot nominate another place where they "live".  This will however, shine a torch on what it means to "live" on your boat. A line will have to be drawn defining the difference between "living" on your boat and "spending a lot of time" on your warm comfy boat whilst actually "living" in say, your van or a tent in the woods somewhere. 

 

Is Byelaw infringement a criminal matter rather than civil? I think it is, in which case it would be appropriate for the police to be involved.

 

Can someone be arrested and taken into custody for a byelaw infringement? Just wondering. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited April 30, 2023 by MtB
Finesse the point.