George Ward evicted.

[DandV]

1 hour ago, Arthur Marshall said:

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.

It is a pretty hostile environment out there.

It requires actually quite a lot of competence to adequately house and feed yourself consistently.

Lots of people fall short of those abilities.

And  lots more actually choose ways that  fall foul of generally accepted standards just to maintain some choices in their lives.

Certainly a lot about George's previous behaviour does not endear him, but I think you would be extremely optimistic to think that a spell inside will either reform him or increase his competence. 

But nor will allowing him to continue the way he has been. If CART does not get him, his chosen poor living conditions, and inclement English weather will, but will just take longer. 

He certainly already doesn't look in great shape for his years.

I am just concerned that too often prison is just being used as a convenient, but extraordinarily expensive way, of our societies, temporarily hiding problems out of sight.

Halfway houses too,  are very largely truely dire, halfway to dead, George is probably right in resisting going to such places. 

 

 

 

[LadyG]

22 minutes ago, DandV said:

It is a pretty hostile environment out there.

It requires actually quite a lot of competence to adequately house and feed yourself consistently.

Lots of people fall short of those abilities.

And  lots more actually choose ways that  fall foul of generally accepted standards just to maintain some choices in their lives.

Certainly a lot about George's previous behaviour does not endear him, but I think you would be extremely optimistic to think that a spell inside will either reform him or increase his competence. 

But nor will allowing him to continue the way he has been. If CART does not get him, his chosen poor living conditions, and inclement English weather will, but will just take longer. 

He certainly already doesn't look in great shape for his years.

I am just concerned that too often prison is just being used as a convenient, but extraordinarily expensive way, of our societies, temporarily hiding problems out of sight.

Halfway houses too,  are very largely truely dire, halfway to dead, George is probably right in resisting going to such places. 

 

 

 

I don't think any nor al person would agree to be kept in a men's hostel, and he certainly won't. If or when he ends up in a hospital he will be offered accomodation, but again he won't. On the streets of Huddersfield there are several men begging, it costs £6 to get a bed for a night one told me . Another had some sort of wound. I don't think they choose this life, unlike George.

[Paul C]

Prisons in general, serve two purposes: as punishment, and to keep the general public safe from those that could do harm.

 

They also serve another purpose, in a general sense and in this case: as a disincentive to break the law. If/when George realises the prospect of spending time in jail becomes realistic, he may change his ways to a more legally-compliant, less selfish approach.

 

IF CRT get an injunction to effectively ban George from their waterways and surrounding land, the relationship is effectively over. I believe these type of injunctions are used rarely though.

[magnetman]

1 hour ago, Paul C said:

 

 

IF CRT get an injunction to effectively ban George from their waterways and surrounding land, the relationship is effectively over. I believe these type of injunctions are used rarely though.

To me this is where it starts to get interesting.

 

Does anyone know if the CRT have ever in fact successfully eliminated an individual from their managed land and waterways? 

 

It is an intriguing threat to issue. 

[Tacet]

22 hours 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)

Not sure who is responsible for drafting that sentence, but I would not have much confidence in their legal capabilities.

 

One might commence proceedings or even secure an order, but you don't secure proceedings.

[Machpoint005]

9 minutes ago, Tacet said:

Not sure who is responsible for drafting that sentence, but I would not have much confidence in their legal capabilities.

 

One might commence proceedings or even secure an order, but you don't secure proceedings.

 

I think the "securing possession" part is adjectival: the two words qualify the sort of proceedings, which are the further steps used to clear the land. I agree it's clunky though. 

[Midnight]

9 hours ago, DandV said:

.........................

I think there are better ways,............................

 

 

Euthanasia?
Just saying 🤣

[magnetman]

Maybe a public stoning would be the way ahead. 

 

Beard madam?

[MtB]

10 hours ago, DandV said:

I think there are better ways,

 

I know you do.

 

But in George Ward's case specifically (which is what I asked), what are these 'better ways'?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[GUMPY]

The man is obviously sick.

A secure hospital would be applicable

 

[MtB]

2 minutes ago, GUMPY said:

The man is obviously sick.

 

I don't think so. He comes across in interviews as broadly compos mentis.

 

 

 

4 minutes ago, GUMPY said:

A secure hospital would be applicable

 

I suspect the doctors in a secure hospital would conclude he shouldn't be there. 

 

As far as I can tell has a grossly inflated sense of entitlement and no concern for others. That's not an illness. although I suppose it could be argued its one of the recognised personality disorders.

[magnetman]

15 minutes ago, GUMPY said:

The man is obviously sick.

A secure hospital would be applicable

 

I know that area is a bit of an open air loony bin but if he actually was properly ill it will have been picked up by the services. 

 

I think he is probably much more organised than he looks and is quite simply pushing the system. 

 

Entitlement problems which have probably been inflated by the fact he has got away with what most people would think is unacceptable behaviour for a long time. 

 

 

 

 

[Jerra]

I notice that in most (all?) the newspaper reports he is described as disabled.   Does anyone know what the disability is?

[magnetman]

Blind in one eye apparently. 

From a workplace accident I think they said. 

[MtB]

Just now, magnetman said:

Entitlement problems which have probably been inflated by the fact he has got away with what most people would think is unacceptable behaviour for a long time. 

 

 

Indeed. CRT have been training him for a decade that all they do is give him bits of paper to read, then go away and leave him to get on with his self-centered and unacceptable behaviour.

 

So their recent actual action in removing his boats must have come to him as one helluva shock.

[Jerra]

4 minutes ago, magnetman said:

Blind in one eye apparently. 

From a workplace accident I think they said. 

Thank you.

[Graham Davis]

"Securing possession proceedings" is a legal term and has nothing to do with Ward's possessions, but is a way of describing, in this case, land belonging to CaRT. It is a term commonly used in legal documents to remove travellers who are occupying Council land, playing field, car parks, and similar areas.

[MtB]

 

 

So far, the ideas put forward for dealing with the Mr Ward situation are as follows.

 

1) Leave him be, let him carry on living on a boat and CMing on the towpath rent/license-free

2) Serve an injunction banning him from CRT property (the preferred CRT solution) and hope he complies

3) Imprison him in a secure hospital

4) Make him accept (somehow) 'homeless person' accommodation from the local authority

 

 

Any other solutions? 

 

 

[Tacet]

2 hours ago, Machpoint005 said:

 

I think the "securing possession" part is adjectival: the two words qualify the sort of proceedings, which are the further steps used to clear the land. I agree it's clunky though. 

Just about, maybe but even we're left with "by proceedings forthwith" which really needs a commencing or taking to turn it into English.

[magnetman]

16 minutes ago, MtB said:

 

 

So far, the ideas put forward for dealing with the Mr Ward situation are as follows.

 

1) Leave him be, let him carry on living on a boat and CMing on the towpath rent/license-free

2) Serve an injunction banning him from CRT property (the preferred CRT solution) and hope he complies

3) Imprison him in a secure hospital

4) Make him accept (somehow) 'homeless person' accommodation from the local authority

 

 

Any other solutions? 

 

 

 

Firing squad? 

[MtB]

10 minutes ago, magnetman said:

 

Firing squad? 

 

If its a CRT firing squad, they'd probably miss. 

 

I'll add it to the list for you.

 

[Jerra]

1 minute ago, MtB said:

 

If its a CRT firing squad, they'd probably miss. 

 

I'll add it to the list for you.

 

What about deporting him to Rwanda?  Much more humane.

[magnetman]

3 minutes ago, Jerra said:

What about deporting him to Rwanda?  Much more humane.

Can British citizens be deported?

[Jerra]

1 minute ago, magnetman said:

Can British citizens be deported?

I doubt it but it seemed more humane than a firing squad and seems to be the governments prefered option for those they find a problem.

[dmr]

1 hour ago, MtB said:

 

 

So far, the ideas put forward for dealing with the Mr Ward situation are as follows.

 

1) Leave him be, let him carry on living on a boat and CMing on the towpath rent/license-free

2) Serve an injunction banning him from CRT property (the preferred CRT solution) and hope he complies

3) Imprison him in a secure hospital

4) Make him accept (somehow) 'homeless person' accommodation from the local authority

 

 

Any other solutions? 

 

 

 

Let it be known that CRT are going to do a major crackdown on rule breaking boats unless things improve then peer group pressure (his supporters) might realise that George is doing harm to all boaters and stop supporting him/help him to behave. Trouble is NBTA would mount a good campaign and this tactic only works if CRT have the will and resources to follow it through. 

Met another boater today (a proper boater, not a moaning type) who said the K&A is now not a good place.