George Ward evicted.

[Higgs]

Just now, cuthound said:

 

But surely by ignoring the simple rules for a protected period of time and without reason they have been instrumental in making themselves homeless?

 

Like that, it makes it a simple decision. The guy is possibly stubborn. I wouldn't be comfortable with any issues of violence. Difficult for someone sitting at a laptop to be able to understand how it has led to a 10 year stand-off. There does seem to be a lack of empathy for this chap, and too much for the ability of CRT to extract money, when apparently, they have no authority to do so. And I mean legal authority.

 

 

[Paul C]

8 minutes ago, Higgs said:

 

 I don't feel as though what you think on the subject matters. Got it?

 

 

 

Its plainly obvious that you're not aware of, or interested in, anyone else's opinion but your own. It makes for a very dull debate when one side has poor/no listening or comprehension skills. By all means, if you feel another, different topic is worthy, let it stand on its own (thread) and see what happens. 

 

This thread is about George Ward's eviction though.

[Higgs]

1 minute ago, Paul C said:

 

Its plainly obvious that you're not aware of, or interested in, anyone else's opinion but your own. It makes for a very dull debate when one side has poor/no listening or comprehension skills. By all means, if you feel another, different topic is worthy, let it stand on its own (thread) and see what happens. 

 

This thread is about George Ward's eviction though.

 

I've seen your opinion. I can decide that it isn't interested in something I find interesting. A draw.

 

 

[cuthound]

16 minutes ago, Higgs said:

 

Like that, it makes it a simple decision. The guy is possibly stubborn. I wouldn't be comfortable with any issues of violence. Difficult for someone sitting at a laptop to be able to understand how it has led to a 10 year stand-off. There does seem to be a lack of empathy for this chap, and too much for the ability of CRT to extract money, when apparently, they have no authority to do so. And I mean legal authority.

 

 

 

In my opinion it is precisely because CRT did nothing that lead to the situation ultimately becoming a 10 year stand-off. If they had acted after a few months the issues simply wouldn't have arisen.

[beerbeerbeerbeerbeer]

On 13/06/2023 at 22:48, dmr said:

 

I got a lump sum when I got redundant/very early retirement, this has to keep me going for the rest of my life. We tried various investment things but I was very uncomfortable about getting involved in the capitalist stockmarket "gambling" system and did not like or trust the people who were "advising" us. So we now have a couple of houses that we rent out. We charge a fair rent and respond rapidly to all problems. In fact we only put the rent up when the tenants change and they rarely change, so the current rents are ludicrously low.  There is a need for rental accomodation, a lot of people change jobs and locations often and don't want to pin themselves down with home ownership. Some people actually prefer to rent. Its like CC'ers and CM'ers, a number of bad landlords give us all a bad reputation.

 

Its just providing a service thats needed, like car hire or tool hire 😀

 

I accept that cash buyers do have an unfair advantage over youngsters trying to raise a mortgage (my children struggled with this), but thats not my fault and I don't know what the answer is, but we certainly did not intentionally get involved in any competitive bidding type purchasing

Since retiring my mate has gone down the Air B&B route to make money with his house. 
Something I disagree with when there’s a desperate housing/rental shortage in Cornwall 
It’s gonna be an interesting conversation when he comes up from Penzance to stay next weekend and I charge him Air B&B prices. 😂

 

 

1 hour ago, magnetman said:

 

Difficult to wade through the interminably hideously irritating self obsessed entitled persons featured in it but never mind I suppose if one is bored enough..

 

 

A little like on here then?

 

😜

Edited July 21, 2023 by Goliath

[Ronaldo47]

I was listening to "The Bottom Line" last night (8.30PM,  BBC Radio 4, still available via BBC Sounds). It was a discussion including representatives from the water industry about the present  problems with the  industry. One point that was made that I hadn't heard before, is that the main impetus for privatisation was that the UK needed a loan from the IMF (no doubt to support sterling), and that the IMF wouldn't give us one unless we kept public spending down as they considered it was already excessive. At the time, the water industry needed to incur heavy expenditure to maintain/upgrade the netwofk, and by privatising the industry, this expenditure was no longer government spending, so we got our IMF loan.

 

Of course, that doesn't excuse the subsequent behaviour of the water companies'  behaviour in taking out massive loans that were partly used to pay dividends to shareholders rather than carry out the essential maintenance etc. that privatisation eas supposed to have facilitated. 

 

This explanation  also does not make it clear to me why our original water supplier, The Essex Water Company, which was a statutory not-for-profit private company and therefore not according to my understanding,  publicly owned, was also privatised.

[Higgs]

9 minutes ago, Ronaldo47 said:

I was listening to "The Bottom Line" last night (8.30PM,  BBC Radio 4, still available via BBC Sounds). It was a discussion including representatives from the water industry about the present  problems with the  industry. One point that was made that I hadn't heard before, is that the main impetus for privatisation was that the UK needed a loan from the IMF (no doubt to support sterling), and that the IMF wouldn't give us one unless we kept public spending down as they considered it was already excessive. At the time, the water industry needed to incur heavy expenditure to maintain/upgrade the netwofk, and by privatising the industry, this expenditure was no longer government spending, so we got our IMF loan.

 

Of course, that doesn't excuse the subsequent behaviour of the water companies'  behaviour in taking out massive loans that were partly used to pay dividends to shareholders rather than carry out the essential maintenance etc. that privatisation eas supposed to have facilitated. 

 

This explanation  also does not make it clear to me why our original water supplier, The Essex Water Company, which was a statutory not-for-profit private company and therefore not according to my understanding,  publicly owned, was also privatised.

 

Creditors always insist on reducing the use of money for public spending. They are really interested in profit making areas that will create the funds to repay them, with interest. The groups that think they should be given money are business. They really like taxpayers' money. 

 

Anyway, I digest. 

 

 

 

 

Edited July 21, 2023 by Higgs

[Mad Harold]

Just read that Mr.Ward has just been presented with a bill for over £30K by CRT.Also a notice to remove his gazebo from the towpath.

From the Wiltshire Times.

[magnetman]

Interesting they have identified the type of tent as a 'gazebo'. 

 

I wonder if he removes the gazebo and erects a bender or a tee pee will it reset the process for another few weeks. 

 

 

[Graham Davis]

3 minutes ago, Mad Harold said:

Just read that Mr.Ward has just been presented with a bill for over £30K by CRT.Also a notice to remove his gazebo from the towpath.

From the Wiltshire Times.

Also that he has been banned from all of CaRT's waters.
https://www.gazetteandherald.co.uk/news/23668459.boater-served-huge-bill-eviction-notice-canal-rivers-trust/

[MtB]

35 minutes ago, Mad Harold said:

Just read that Mr.Ward has just been presented with a bill for over £30K by CRT.Also a notice to remove his gazebo from the towpath.

From the Wiltshire Times.

 

As the saying goes... "Beware the man with nothing to lose".

 

 

[Midnight]

5 hours ago, Higgs said:

 

Like that, it makes it a simple decision. The guy is possibly stubborn. I wouldn't be comfortable with any issues of violence. Difficult for someone sitting at a laptop to be able to understand how it has led to a 10 year stand-off. There does seem to be a lack of empathy for this chap, and too much for the ability of CRT to extract money, when apparently, they have no authority to do so. And I mean legal authority.

 

 

Not sure where you're coming from. Are you saying Mr Ward should be exempt from paying license fees etc and be allowed to stay as long as he likes in one place?

[magnetman]

Interesting position. 

 

Apart from being able to charge for licensing on canals the CRT are specifically authorised by statute to remove a relevant craft moored without awful authority and following certain procedures around the ownership of the boat being established (or not) they can then make an attempt to claim their costs associated with the removal. 

 

Its all written down in Acts of Parliament. 

 

Obviously some would take the view that it is all bogus but it actually isn't. 

 

 

Something like this 

 

[Barneyp]

8 hours ago, Higgs said:

 

Like that, it makes it a simple decision. The guy is possibly stubborn. I wouldn't be comfortable with any issues of violence. Difficult for someone sitting at a laptop to be able to understand how it has led to a 10 year stand-off. There does seem to be a lack of empathy for this chap, and too much for the ability of CRT to extract money, when apparently, they have no authority to do so. And I mean legal authority.

 

 

Possibly stubborn? He has been refusing to comply with the regulations or to accept offers of support that don't allow him to do exactly what he wants when he wants for the last ten years, I think that goes beyond stubborn.

 

I have empathy for him because clearly he is in some level of distress, that doesn't mean he should be allowed to continue ignoring the rules and doing what he wants.

 

CRT have an obligation as the navigation authority and custodian of the land to maintain the canals and enforce the law as set out in the Acts of Parliament, the only legitimate point about them not following due process is that they have given more warning and second chances than they should have.

 

What do you think should happen to people who refuse to follow the rules, should they just be allowed to do whatever they want regardless of the effect on others?

[Higgs]

8 hours ago, Barneyp said:

What do you think should happen to people who refuse to follow the rules, should they just be allowed to do whatever they want regardless of the effect on others?

 

CRT do. I'm not going to support CRT, if they find others doing what they do. Bending rules.

 

 

11 hours ago, Midnight said:

Not sure where you're coming from. Are you saying Mr Ward should be exempt from paying license fees etc and be allowed to stay as long as he likes in one place?

 

I can't be bothered to feel obliged to harass the little guy.

 

 

Edited July 22, 2023 by Higgs

[magnetman]

 

It does seem an interesting subject. 

 

The way things are going the group who is unlicensed and just does whatever they like is increasing in size. 

 

Is it okay if everyone does this? 

 

How many would be a reasonable number? 

 

Shall we have a cap of some sort at ten percent of people on boats need not pay anything or have safety certificates or insurance. 

 

15 percent? 

 

I'm in. Hate the BS scheme and insurance. 

 

 

[Higgs]

1 minute ago, magnetman said:

 

It does seem an interesting subject. 

 

The way things are going the group who is unlicensed and just does whatever they like is increasing in size. 

 

Is it okay if everyone does this? 

 

How many would be a reasonable number? 

 

Shall we have a cap of some sort at ten percent of people on boats need not pay anything or have safety certificates or insurance. 

 

15 percent? 

 

I'm in. Hate the BS scheme and insurance. 

 

 

 

The system isn't straight, to begin with. And boaters have virtually no voice.

 

 

[kris88]

5 minutes ago, magnetman said:

 

It does seem an interesting subject. 

 

The way things are going the group who is unlicensed and just does whatever they like is increasing in size. 

 

Is it okay if everyone does this? 

 

How many would be a reasonable number? 

 

Shall we have a cap of some sort at ten percent of people on boats need not pay anything or have safety certificates or insurance. 

 

15 percent? 

 

I'm in. Hate the BS scheme and insurance. 

 

 

Well just take your boats name and numbers off and paint it grey or red oxide. Then just ignore any letters crt attach to the boat, easy. 

Edited July 22, 2023 by kris88

[dmr]

The canals are in trouble, they are declining at an accelerating rate due to limited finance. We all need to make an increasing contribution in many ways, not just financially. Those who are not willing to contribute, or even worse make a negative contribution, will have to go.

In the short term this will cost a lot of money in evictions and legal costs but that has to be done.

 

If the latest figures on global warming are correct then this is all probably irrelevent.

[Arthur Marshall]

4 minutes ago, kris88 said:

Well just take your boats name and numbers off and paint it grey or red oxide. Then just ignore any letters crt attach to the boat, easy. 

I've just painted mine, so the name's gone. The number plates are just wedged in the windows so that's easy. Hmmm... you've just saved me a fortune.

[kris88]

18 minutes ago, Arthur Marshall said:

I've just painted mine, so the name's gone. The number plates are just wedged in the windows so that's easy. Hmmm... you've just saved me a fortune.

You’ll get ten years, then if you sell it to Mickey Mouse another ten. 

[Higgs]

20 minutes ago, dmr said:

The canals are in trouble, they are declining at an accelerating rate due to limited finance. We all need to make an increasing contribution in many ways, not just financially. Those who are not willing to contribute, or even worse make a negative contribution, will have to go.

In the short term this will cost a lot of money in evictions and legal costs but that has to be done.

 

If the latest figures on global warming are correct then this is all probably irrelevent.

 

The Mafia needs funds, too. But we would not generally condone the less than ethical way they procure those funds.

 

 

[Jon57]

27 minutes ago, Higgs said:

 

The system isn't straight, to begin with. And boaters have virtually no voice.

 

 

How much boating has Mr Ward done. 😡😡

[Higgs]

Just now, Jon57 said:

How much boating has Mr Ward done. 😡😡

 

Ask him, I don't know. 

 

 

[Barneyp]

44 minutes ago, Higgs said:

 

CRT do. I'm not going to support CRT, if they find others doing what they do. Bending rules.

 

In relation to George Ward how have CRT bent the rules?

I know that it's a distressing situation for him, and for others who are personally involved, but are you really saying if someone refuses to comply they should be allowed to do whatever they want?

Even if you don’t like CRT do you not accept that whoever for society to function we need rules and people need to follow them?