George Ward evicted.

[DandV]

4 minutes ago, Arthur Marshall said:

I agree, not CRTs problem. Not anybody's, really, except his.

Agree, George should no longer be CRT's problem.

Agree, George most likely still has a big problem, himself, as well as now being homeless.

 

Unfortunately, there are tens of thousands of "Georges" and "Georginas"  living on the fringes of our generally affluent societies. 

Some of them   very young.

This is a huge problem that collectively descent into neoliberalism economics is very illequiped to handle.

But not addressing this problem effectively , and it's related problems, is certainly going to cost more later, a threat  to the very coherence of our societies.

 

And these problems are not unique to the UK, in anyway. We all depend on making our societies as coherent, as  possible. 

Living on the edge is fertile ground for extremism. 

 

[Col_T]

48 minutes ago, dogless said:

I'd hope we live in a society that finds the existence of homelessness abhorrent

I suspect that we do already live in such as a society. The trouble is that ‘society’ is comprised of millions of individuals, most of whom haven’t bothered to think about the problem, let alone form an opinion on it.

[1st ade]

9 hours ago, Col_T said:

I suspect that we do already live in such as a society. The trouble is that ‘society’ is comprised of millions of individuals, most of whom haven’t bothered to think about the problem, let alone form an opinion on it.

...or have a quite NIMBY (not in my backyard) attitude to it. As a Local Councillor I'm regularly approached "Can't you do something about John*" who sleeps on a bench near Tesco+. Well yes, we can. We could have him moved on. Then he'd sleep outside ASDA, then the Co-Op... I know he has deep family issues, used to be a property owner, fell on hard times. He has dignity and any 'help' has to be on his terms. But Mum's in Chelsea Tractors# "I don't think my kids should have to see this" doesn't help...

 

[ * - Not his real name - other details also slightly 'modified' ]

 

[ + - Tesco --> Free public toilets and WiFi ]

 

[ # - Apologies; oversized 23 plate four x four to do the half mile shopping run because "It's so unsafe walking anywhere near a road" ]

[David Mack]

11 hours ago, TheBiscuits said:

 

I thought it was managed by the Trust on behalf of the people, not owned by them.

Both.

[peterboat]

12 hours ago, TheBiscuits said:

 

I thought it was managed by the Trust on behalf of the people, not owned by them.

Apparently owned by the trust, it can be removed from their ownership, somebody posted all the details a few months ago

12 hours ago, dogless said:

I'd hope we live in a society that finds the existence of homelessness abhorrent ... maybe one day but probably not today.

 

Rog

In Rotherham everyone who wanted to be housed was allegedly housed, still people wandering around though sleeping rough apparently they don't want to be housed

[magnetman]

It seems to already be a tent village down there. These don't look like temporary campers.

 

View from smelly bridge in 2021 apparently. Are these here all the time?

 

 

22 minutes ago, peterboat said:

Apparently owned by the trust, it can be removed from their ownership, somebody posted all the details a few months ago

In Rotherham everyone who wanted to be housed was allegedly housed, still people wandering around though sleeping rough apparently they don't want to be housed

 

I believe with secretary of state approval the Trust can indeed transfer ownership of land under its control to private enterprises.

 

There was a case where a narrow strip of land alongside the Lee Navigation was transferred to a property developer.

 

 

A quick non-payable land registry search shows that there is the K&A canal in addition to some land which may have a different owner.

 

Unless it is owned by an estate you have to pay £3 to find out registered owner.

 

 

https://search-property-information.service.gov.uk/search/map-search/

Edited May 31, 2023 by magnetman

[DandV]

10 hours ago, magnetman said:

It seems to already be a tent village down there. These don't look like temporary campers.

 

View from smelly bridge in 2021 apparently. Are these here all the time?

 

 

 

 

Spending chosen balmy nights there in a tent in the middle of summer should be delightful.

But being in a situation that spending your entire  winter nights that way, is actually your best option, is truely dire. 

[MrsM]

https://www.wiltshiretimes.co.uk/news/23567840.evicted-boater-given-new-deadline-leave-bradford-avon-canalside/

[adrianh]

Interesting as last weekend  a new boat was moored by the tent and looks to be loaded with rubbish all ready, so the tent may already be surplus

[MtB]

42 minutes ago, adrianh said:

Interesting as last weekend  a new boat was moored by the tent and looks to be loaded with rubbish all ready, so the tent may already be surplus

 

I predicted way back in the beginning someone would give him another boat once his were removed. No-one in their right mind would moor by his tent so it seems highly likely Mr Ward is now the user, if not actually the owner. 

 

So probably the decade-long circus will start all over again. 

[magnetman]

The CRT might be looking at a different approach. 

 

Legal action directed at the person rather than the boat. 

 

 

“Should the area not be vacated by that date, then the Trust will take further steps to clear the land, by securing possession proceedings forthwith, together with an injunction preventing you from returning to our property and an order for costs.”

 

(from WT)

[MtB]

5 minutes ago, magnetman said:

The CRT might be looking at a different approach. 

 

Legal action directed at the person rather than the boat. 

 

 

“Should the area not be vacated by that date, then the Trust will take further steps to clear the land, by securing possession proceedings forthwith, together with an injunction preventing you from returning to our property and an order for costs.”

 

(from WT)

 

 

That's a good point.

 

Once they get their injunction, the reluctant Fuzz will be obliged to arrest him if he persists in trespassing on CRT property and he will find himself in court for breaching the injunction.

 

And after a few episodes of this, serving a prison sentence. Where he will possibly get some professional help forced onto him.

 

 

[ditchcrawler]

1 hour ago, MtB said:

 

 Where he will possibly get some professional help forced onto him.

 

 

That my be rose glasses thinking, I think the prisons are similar to CRT when it comes to funding 

[MtB]

1 minute ago, ditchcrawler said:

That my be rose glasses thinking, I think the prisons are similar to CRT when it comes to funding 

 

 

You're probably right. I don't think he would present as "ill" enough to get any special treatment.

[DandV]

9 hours ago, MtB said:

 

 

That's a good point.

 

Once they get their injunction, the reluctant Fuzz will be obliged to arrest him if he persists in trespassing on CRT property and he will find himself in court for breaching the injunction.

 

And after a few episodes of this, serving a prison sentence. Where he will possibly get some professional help forced onto him.

 

 

Prisons have got to be the most expensive, and least effective social services solution available.

Prisons should be very largely reserved only for those who a pose a distinct danger to others.

[MtB]

1 hour ago, DandV said:

Prisons have got to be the most expensive, and least effective social services solution available.

Prisons should be very largely reserved only for those who a pose a distinct danger to others.

 

 

Prisons are like democracy. A terrible solution, but all the other options are worse.

 

What would you do instead with a hypothetical Mr Ward who ignores high court injunctions? Just let him carry on living in an unlicensed boat moored for years on end in the same place? 

 

[Arthur Marshall]

1 hour ago, DandV said:

Prisons have got to be the most expensive, and least effective social services solution available.

Prisons should be very largely reserved only for those who a pose a distinct danger to others.

What do you suggest for the rest of the antisocial brigade that make life hell for other people?

But anyway, you are labouring under the common misconception that the law is there primarily to protect people. It's not, it's prime purpose is the protection of property rights. Anything else has been fought for against considerable opposition.

 

[Barneyp]

The only thing to be gained from sending him to prison, will be the opportunity for CRT to remove all of his belongings, detritus, and assorted stuff from the canal and the surrounding land in one go, which may force him to take seriously the need to find somewhere else to live.

[DandV]

21 minutes ago, MtB said:

 

 

Prisons are like democracy. A terrible solution, but all the other options are worse.

 

What would you do instead with a hypothetical Mr Ward who ignores high court injunctions? Just let him carry on living in an unlicensed boat moored for years on end in the same place? 

 

There is a massive difference between incarceration rates between otherwise broadly comparable countries.

The countries with the highest incarceration rates do not have the lowest crime rates, perhaps more the reverse.

So what are those countries most like us doing differently that reduces their penal services costs, and achieve relitively lower crime rates?

I suggest that they are not so dependant on their police service, and penal system to provide the social services of adequate housing and mental health services. 

[magnetman]

How does this work if the geyser in question does actually have other places to live but just likes taking the piss of the system? 

 

People such as this do exist. 

 

 

[MtB]

28 minutes ago, DandV said:

There is a massive difference between incarceration rates between otherwise broadly comparable countries.

The countries with the highest incarceration rates do not have the lowest crime rates, perhaps more the reverse.

So what are those countries most like us doing differently that reduces their penal services costs, and achieve relitively lower crime rates?

I suggest that they are not so dependant on their police service, and penal system to provide the social services of adequate housing and mental health services. 

 

 

I notice you skilfully swerved my question with this load of waffle.

 

 

 

 

[DandV]

54 minutes ago, MtB said:

 

 

I notice you skilfully swerved my question with this load of waffle.

 

 

 

 

It is imprisoning people that is for most part swerving problems. Putting him away only temporarily defers the problem.

It is not a solution. 

How long a sentence will Geoge get?

Ok, for the period of that sentence George won't have a housing problem, and CART, and everyone else won't have a problem with George's choice of where to live.

But do you think a period of imprisoment, followed by throwing him back out into the streets will in anyway better equip him to find his way in the world without pissing people off?

I think the opposite is more likely. 

I think there are better ways, and countries other then Britain and NZ are actually getting better results, with less recourse to parking so many  problem people, for the most part, temporarily in prison. 

Collectively, we are neither making enough effort to keep people out of prison, andwe are  not dealing effectively with those in prison, given that for the very large majority, sentences are finite. 

They are coming back into our outside society, whether we, or they are ready for that  or not.

 

I think in Britain, and NZ, at the moment there is abundant evidence that both housing and mental health assistance is currently very difficult to access for those that need it most.

 

Edited June 8, 2023 by DandV

[Barneyp]

15 minutes ago, DandV said:

It is imprisoning people that is for most part swerving problems. Putting him away only temporarily defers the problem.

It is not a solution. 

How long a sentence will Geoge get?

Ok, for the period of that sentence George won't have a housing problem, and CART, and everyone else won't have a problem with George's choice of where to live.

But do you think a period of imprisoment, followed by throwing him back out into the streets will in anyway better equip him to find his way in the world without pissing people off?

I think the opposite is more likely. 

I think there are better ways, and countries other then Britain and NZ are actually getting better results, with less recourse to parking so many  problem people, for the most part, temporarily in prison. 

Collectively, we are neither making enough effort to keep people out of prison, andwe are  not dealing effectively with those in prison, given that for the very large majority, sentences are finite. 

They are coming back into our outside society, whether we, or they are ready for that  or not.

 

I think in Britain, and NZ, at the moment there is abundant evidence that both housing and mental health assistance is currently very difficult to access for those that need it most.

 

I don't disagree with what you write, but I don't think it applies in this situation. 

 

The person concerned has point blank refused all offers of help to find alternative housing, and if he doesn't voluntarily seek help for any mental health problems he may or may not have they can't be forced on him.

 

How do you think this specific situation should be dealt with?

[DandV]

Conceded, George is very  problematic. But jailing him? Is that really the best solution given that it will at most be temporary.

Certainly evict his belongings from his current site.

Then see where he turns up next, and deal to that.

He might then start becoming more amenable to dealing with those that are trying to reach out towards him.

 

Edited June 9, 2023 by DandV

[Arthur Marshall]

2 hours ago, DandV said:

Conceded, George is very  problematic. But jailing him? Is that really the best solution given that it will at most be temporary.

Certainly evict his belongings from his current site.

Then see where he turns up next, and deal to that.

He might then start becoming more amenable to dealing with those that are trying to reach out towards him.

 

You are making the error of removing Ward's responsibility to look after himself and putting it onto... well, almost everybody else. Thrre are obviously some people who with some form of physical or mental illness who need caring for, but there are also those who, like him, are perfectly capable of fending for themselves in a legitimate manner but refuse to do so, simply because it's cheaper or more convenient for themselves.

The latter are the parasites on a society, and it's not society's job to pander to them. We all have the right to be homeless if that's what we want, and we all have the right to reject our society's values, rules and laws - as long as we accept the consequences. It's those who do the first but not the latter who are a pain in the arse. There are a lot of them about.