George ward eviction taking place

[magnetman]

The bloke in question might have been offered council accommodation but refused it. It isn't unknown for these things to happen. Some people really do prefer to live on the boat. 

 

I couldn't deal with going ashore after 29 yars living on boats. The change would be too much. 

 

[mrsmelly]

10 minutes ago, magnetman said:

The bloke in question might have been offered council accommodation but refused it. It isn't unknown for these things to happen. Some people really do prefer to live on the boat. 

 

I couldn't deal with going ashore after 29 yars living on boats. The change would be too much. 

 

There is some truth in this. Living on a boat is indeed far superior to any house. I have not found it so easy after my downgrade to a house. However, after nearly two years now I note there are some, albeit small advantages to living in a house.  I am at present in the throws of buying a proper boat shaped boat to put in the local harbour 

[peterboat]

3 minutes ago, mrsmelly said:

There is some truth in this. Living on a boat is indeed far superior to any house. I have not found it so easy after my downgrade to a house. However, after nearly two years now I note there are some, albeit small advantages to living in a house.  I am at present in the throws of buying a proper boat shaped boat to put in the local harbour 

Hopefully before we visit Wales in July Tim

[MtB]

1 minute ago, mrsmelly said:

There is some truth in this. Living on a boat is indeed far superior to any house.

 

Broadly true, but Mr Ward's boat in particular?

 

I'd have thought most houses were superior to the disaster area of a boat that Mr Ward prefers to live on. 

 

 

[mrsmelly]

3 minutes ago, MtB said:

 

Broadly true, but Mr Ward's boat in particular?

 

I'd have thought most houses were superior to the disaster area of a boat that Mr Ward prefers to live on. 

 

 

Yes, agreed absolutely on that point.

[Paul C]

9 minutes ago, MtB said:

 

Broadly true, but Mr Ward's boat in particular?

 

I'd have thought most houses were superior to the disaster area of a boat that Mr Ward prefers to live on. 

 

 

 

In George's mind, probably still a "yes". I can kinda sympathise with wanting to stay in/on a boat, and the dislike of a normal house. There's something intangible about living on a boat.

[MtB]

2 minutes ago, Paul C said:

 

In George's mind, probably still a "yes". I can kinda sympathise with wanting to stay in/on a boat, and the dislike of a normal house. There's something intangible about living on a boat.

 

Like, the way you can move about and not be stuck in one place (Bradford on Avon) permanently?

 

 

[Paul C]

6 minutes ago, MtB said:

 

Like, the way you can move about and not be stuck in one place (Bradford on Avon) permanently?

 

 

 

You'd need to ask George the detail.

[Nightwatch]

35 minutes ago, mrsmelly said:

There is some truth in this. Living on a boat is indeed far superior to any house. I have not found it so easy after my downgrade to a house. However, after nearly two years now I note there are some, albeit small advantages to living in a house.  I am at present in the throws of buying a proper boat shaped boat to put in the local harbour 

Interesting. Tell me more. (Or moor!👍)

[mrsmelly]

4 minutes ago, Nightwatch said:

Interesting. Tell me more. (Or moor!👍)

Its just a little toy for a laugh with a couple of mates. Little 3 pot inboard Kubota, its a pub thing 

[MtB]

10 minutes ago, mrsmelly said:

Its just a little toy for a laugh with a couple of mates. Little 3 pot inboard Kubota, its a pub thing 

A pub boat. That sounds interesting!

 

 

[Nightwatch]

8 minutes ago, MtB said:

A pub boat. That sounds interesting!

 

 

Doesn’t it? 

[mrsmelly]

9 minutes ago, MtB said:

A pub boat. That sounds interesting!

 

 

Especialy if we get the tides wrong!!

[magnetman]

One of the best boats I had was a 20ft Colvic. Bloody brilliant that was. 

[Nightwatch]

32 minutes ago, mrsmelly said:

Especialy if we get the tides wrong!!

My brother in Law got the tides completely wrong in/on the Bristol Channel, had to be embarrassingly rescued. He was in a very small sailing boat. I write boat as I can’t spell Yacht.

Has this gone off topic.

Edited April 29, 2023 by Nightwatch

[Cheese]

17 hours ago, MtB said:

 

Lets imagine then that Mr Ward decides to challenge in the courts the (claimed) CRT cancellation of his license. How would he set about getting a court hearing? 

Haven't CRT already been to court to get permission to remove his boat(s), so the opportunity to challenge that was then?

[ditchcrawler]

The more I think about this process the more I wonder. Maybe CRT can get a court order to remove his boat, but without having him arrested, can they remove him from that boat. Maybe arrested for contempt of court, but what contempt, he isn't stopping CRT towing his boat away or even lifting it out of the water, he is just refusing to leave his boat.

People get evicted from houses because they don't own the house they are being evicted from, someone else does and they would have them evicted. CRT don't own his boat.

Just a thought

[Paul C]

6 minutes ago, ditchcrawler said:

The more I think about this process the more I wonder. Maybe CRT can get a court order to remove his boat, but without having him arrested, can they remove him from that boat. Maybe arrested for contempt of court, but what contempt, he isn't stopping CRT towing his boat away or even lifting it out of the water, he is just refusing to leave his boat.

People get evicted from houses because they don't own the house they are being evicted from, someone else does and they would have them evicted. CRT don't own his boat.

Just a thought

 

Its down to the detail of the court order. We haven't seen the wording of the one(s) against George Ward, but if they follow standardised wording, he is forbidden from doing one thing; and must do 2 other things (summarised):

 

* Forbidden from mooring, navigating and/or securing that boat
* Shall remove it
* Shall pay costs

 

Its nothing to do with blocking CRT from removing the boat, or eviction of him from the boat. They already have that power under section 8 without going to court anyway, to remove it, once* it has no licence. So he can block them and not be in contempt of court. 

 

He IS ALREADY in contempt of court simply by being there, and/or not having already removed the boat, and/or not paying their costs.

 

BUT..........the Police used discretion to not arrest him.......that's the key issue here. Why did the Police do that? Have they done it in previous occasions and then (possibly) de-arrested the boater? Have they been persuaded by CRT to do that? Have they received advice from other groups, or sought wider advice themselves, or are making it up as they go along on this case?

 

AFAIK they've ALWAYS previously persuaded the boater to get off the boat, without arrest, then CRT have towed it. This time, not.

[Alan de Enfield]

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.

 

Edited April 29, 2023 by Alan de Enfield

[magnetman]

If the boat in that photo was being lived on there are some serious questions to be asked here. 

 

Yes a Polish builder with a house in Warsaw could do that as a way to circumvent housing costs while working in the UK but a woman with a health problem? 

 

Bad Shit going on here. 

 

This is a sign of slum housing problems. Not a Good Thing at all. 

 

 

 

 

 

[Alan de Enfield]

9 minutes ago, magnetman said:

This is a sign of slum housing problems. Not a Good Thing at all. 

 

And, NOT C&RTs responsibility to resolve !

[Arthur Marshall]

9 minutes ago, magnetman said:

If the boat in that photo was being lived on there are some serious questions to be asked here. 

 

Yes a Polish builder with a house in Warsaw could do that as a way to circumvent housing costs while working in the UK but a woman with a health problem? 

 

Bad Shit going on here. 

 

This is a sign of slum housing problems. Not a Good Thing at all. 

 

 

 

 

 

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.

[beerbeerbeerbeerbeer]

On 28/04/2023 at 16:47, Dyertribe said:

How perceptive of you

How condescending of you

[Ewan123]

18 minutes ago, Alan de Enfield said:

 

And, NOT C&RTs responsibility to resolve !

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.

Edited April 29, 2023 by Ewan123

[magnetman]

15 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.

This is the question being asked. 

 

It will be interesting to see if any answers are available. 

 

We are getting into dangerous times I think.