George Ward evicted.

[Peanut]

Were the land not CRT property or within their jurisdiction, they could fence it off to prevent access to it. Though that might result in criminal damage to the fence.

[Arthur Marshall]

The problem lies in the fact that laws are generally enforced by consent. Once that consent is withdrawn, unless there are heavy penalties enforced, any law becomes pointless, and enforcing it piecemeal on a random basis is just a waste of money.

Apart from making a bit of towpath less smelly, what has CRT gained by booting Ward off?

Financially, it's cost them a bomb. Every other towpath dosser has learnt you can take the mick for ten years before you're likely to have any problems, and none at all if you move a bit.

Spending squids to achieve nothing is just silly. Other solutions are available.

[Peanut]

12 minutes ago, Arthur Marshall said:

Spending squids to achieve nothing is just silly. Other solutions are available.

What "solutions" had you in mind, to ensure that boaters pay their licence fee and follow the rules for continuous cruising?

[Heartland]

This post will probably break the Guinness Book Record,

But trying to keep on track at the heart of this is George Ward and how is capable of living in these circumstances and whether they are of his own making, British Waterways (historically) or the CRT. It is also of relevance how other boaters conditions are affected through what has transpired over a lengthy period. It is clear that this thread has revealed a host of divergent views, but in the end how will those who live on their boats be affected?

[Paul C]

16 minutes ago, Heartland said:

This post will probably break the Guinness Book Record,

But trying to keep on track at the heart of this is George Ward and how is capable of living in these circumstances and whether they are of his own making, British Waterways (historically) or the CRT. It is also of relevance how other boaters conditions are affected through what has transpired over a lengthy period. It is clear that this thread has revealed a host of divergent views, but in the end how will those who live on their boats be affected?

 

That's my main fear. George, instead of being some kind of hero, might be the catalyst for some kind of over-reaction where CRT "slash and burn" their existing enforcement process - under the guise of 'cost savings', of course - and we see the disappearance of Equality Act adjustments, discretion by local enforcement officers, generous notice periods, 6 month licences, etc. Instead they lift the boat on (a wild guess, anywhere between 1 day and 60-90 days overstay as is common in the debt recovery industry) using thugs, personal possessions put in a skip, boat split in half then set on fire to dispose of it.

[David Schweizer]

4 hours ago, Higgs said:

 

I think it should be clear as to where CRT has authority, it doesn't seem to have registered that is not on private property. Where there is no statutory authorisation of CRT. But that doesn't seem to matter, to most of the people who want to hammer this one guy.

 

 

 

 

 

As someone who has lived in the area for more than forty years, with some legal knowledge of the K&A Canal, I can assure you that the land currently occupied by George Ward at "Smelly Bridge" between the towpath and the boundary fence of Barton Farm Country Park is owned by C&RT.  It is not private property, so please stop deliberately referring to "Private Property" in an attempt  to throw doubt on the land's legal status.

 

Edited July 22, 2023 by David Schweizer

[haggis]

30 minutes ago, David Schweizer said:

 

As someone who has lived in the area for more than forty years, with some legal knowledge of the K&A Canal, I can assure you that the land currently occupied by George Ward at "Smelly Bridge" between the towpath and the boundary fence of Barton Farm Country Park is owned by C&RT.  It is not private property, so please stop deliberately referring to "Private Property" in an attempt  to throw doubt on the land's legal status.

 

He keeps referring to "private property"  trying to stir up the argument he produces at every opportunity about boats in marinas requiring licences. It is so predictable 🙂 

 

[Guest]

46 minutes ago, David Schweizer said:

 

As someone who has lived in the area for more than forty years, with some legal knowledge of the K&A Canal, I can assure you that the land currently occupied by George Ward at "Smelly Bridge" between the towpath and the boundary fence of Barton Farm Country Park is owned by C&RT.  It is not private property, so please stop deliberately referring to "Private Property" in an attempt  to throw doubt on the land's legal status.

 

 

Can we stop bringing facts to the discussion please.

[beerbeerbeerbeerbeer]

45 minutes ago, M_JG said:

 

Can we stop bringing facts to the discussion please.

Yes it’ll spoil the imaginative flow 

..I want to hear of more slashing and burning, thuggery and wild guessing.

 

 

 

 

[Machpoint005]

6 hours ago, Paul C said:

The onus is on YOU to ensure when you post, you mean what you mean, and don't simply post without thinking things through properly. If your post is not detailed enough or you didn't mean to type what you did, or you want to change its meaning or emphasis, then that must be taken into account BEFORE you originally press the "Submit Reply" button. If you don't, then you are likely going to be ignored or the edit remain unread.

 

An alternative might be to write an additional post saying "sorry, my post above was wrong for the following reason(s) and should read ...  xxx".

You are, however, quite correct.

 

 

[Alan de Enfield]

6 hours ago, Higgs said:

 

Never questioned CRT's authority, except on private property. I would question the morality of using the law in one instance to indicate following powers granted by statute, and then, of approving the circumvention of the law in another instance, by the same people. I can't see that any transgression by a boater could be any worse.

 

 

 

 

 

Would you be kind enough to point out what law(s) C&RT have circumvented ?

 

You keep saying this but have so far failed to identify any examples.

 

Either "piss or get off the pot"

 

[Paul C]

15 minutes ago, Goliath said:

Yes it’ll spoil the imaginative flow 

..I want to hear of more slashing and burning, thuggery and wild guessing.

 

 

 

 

 

Didn't they used to have a poster (a real world physical poster, not an internet thing) which had the slogan "Licence it or lose it!" and a picture of a boat being lifted out on a crane, almost splitting in half?

[magnetman]

11 minutes ago, Paul C said:

 

Didn't they used to have a poster (a real world physical poster, not an internet thing) which had the slogan "Licence it or lose it!" and a picture of a boat being lifted out on a crane, almost splitting in half?

It was a picture of a small steel tug boat in a scrapyard crusher. 

 

I remember the boat. It was actually quite old and interesting and rivetted construction. A towing boat not a narrow boat. 

 

 

I think it was an old gravel pit tug from Harefield. Not that this sort of detail is interesting for the thread. 

 

 

Edited July 22, 2023 by magnetman

[Jon57]

18 minutes ago, Alan de Enfield said:

 

Would you be kind enough to point out what law(s) C&RT have circumvented ?

 

You keep saying this but have so far failed to identify any examples.

 

Either "piss or get off the pot"

 

Or keep taking the drugs. 🤔

[magnetman]

@paul c maybe you were thinking of this poster 

 

[Alan de Enfield]

 

 

The records show that C&RT are siezing (section 8 ) between 100 and 170 boats per annum

[MtB]

1 minute ago, Alan de Enfield said:

 

 

The records show that C&RT are siezing (section 8 ) between 100 and 170 boats per annum

 

And how many are proper narrowboats, as opposed to old abandoned GRP skulls of boats? 

 

My guess would be a very, very small proportion. 

 

 

[Arthur Marshall]

3 hours ago, Peanut said:

What "solutions" had you in mind, to ensure that boaters pay their licence fee and follow the rules for continuous cruising?

Some boaters don't want to move. A lot of them are broke, but on benefits that will apparently pay licences & mooring fees. If you can't spot the solution...

You may not want to see a load of cheap tatty boats crowding certain areas. However, as that's what you've got anyway, and you can't do anything about getting rid of them, might as well take their (or the government's) money, just like the rest of the slum landlords do.

Edited July 22, 2023 by Arthur Marshall

[dmr]

There appears to more and more people on the cut who are not that interested in boating and don't want to follow the simple rules.

The cut is a lovely relaxed place with very few rules, and even those are a bit flexible, but when "boaters" push things too far it goes wrong, and is likely to go wrong for all of us. We now have thug looking baliffs strutting the towpath and helping to remove boats. CRT do not have the staff to enforce the rules against serious objectors and have already had a fatality, so if they decide to hand enforcement over to a private parking company, or even a security company, can we really blame them?. People like George and his supporters are going to make things worse for all of us.

[magnetman]

This outcome has been on the cards for ages. Once the public perception of living on boats goes from "oh how quaint it looks" to "what a bloody mess they make" things can change and change fast. 

 

It doesn't take a large percentage to cause major problems.

 

 

 

I am one of the people who predicted before the CRT existed that the function of the CRT was to be a stepping stone between public ownership and full scale privatisation of waterways. 

 

I still think this is a possible outcome and that the CRT are designed, and destined, to fail. 

 

Not sure who would be able to make a profit though. Someone will find a way. 

 

 

 

 

 

[Barneyp]

2 hours ago, Arthur Marshall said:

Some boaters don't want to move. A lot of them are broke, but on benefits that will apparently pay licences & mooring fees. If you can't spot the solution...

You may not want to see a load of cheap tatty boats crowding certain areas. However, as that's what you've got anyway, and you can't do anything about getting rid of them, might as well take their (or the government's) money, just like the rest of the slum landlords do.

But George Ward wasn't paying them any money (either his own or the governments), so I'm not sure how you think it is a solution.

[Arthur Marshall]

24 minutes ago, Barneyp said:

But George Ward wasn't paying them any money (either his own or the governments), so I'm not sure how you think it is a solution.

Sorry, I made the mistake of imagining people could think.

He can't claim benefits to pay for the mooring he wants because CRT won't charge him for a mooring where he wants it.

If CRT charged him officially to moor there, he could claim the money off his benefits, so CRT gets money, he still in effect pays nothing, the only difference is that CRT have some dosh, instead of spending a stack of it to get rid of him, leaving all the others dossers laughing.

Canals were a commercial enterprise, they could be again. There's a big demand for cheap housing in towns, and builders aren't going to provide it, so where there's a canal it's a golden opportunity for cheap moorings. You could even restrict them to benefit claimants while the rich have the marinas. No dafter than stuffing refugees into barges.

[Barneyp]

12 minutes ago, Arthur Marshall said:

Sorry, I made the mistake of imagining people could think.

He can't claim benefits to pay for the mooring he wants because CRT won't charge him for a mooring where he wants it.

If CRT charged him officially to moor there, he could claim the money off his benefits, so CRT gets money, he still in effect pays nothing, the only difference is that CRT have some dosh, instead of spending a stack of it to get rid of him, leaving all the others dossers laughing.

Canals were a commercial enterprise, they could be again. There's a big demand for cheap housing in towns, and builders aren't going to provide it, so where there's a canal it's a golden opportunity for cheap moorings. You could even restrict them to benefit claimants while the rich have the marinas. No dafter than stuffing refugees into barges.

Sorry, I made the mistake of imagining people understood the situation.

 

George Ward was not only not paying for a mooring, he was also not paying for a license because he did not have a Boat Safety Certificate.

Over the years he was given quite a lot of money by his so called supporters, and he was entitled to some benefits. He refused to engage with the system or accept offers of help from CRT.

 

Even if CRT got a new Act of Parliament which enabled them to charge mooring fees for boats permanently moored on the towpath they would still require the boats to have BSS. And the people on the boats would need to claim the relevant benefits and pay the money to CRT. It seems unlikely George Ward would do this so your "solution" does not work.

[David Schweizer]

37 minutes ago, Arthur Marshall said:

Sorry, I made the mistake of imagining people could think.

He can't claim benefits to pay for the mooring he wants because CRT won't charge him for a mooring where he wants it.

If CRT charged him officially to moor there, he could claim the money off his benefits, so CRT gets money, he still in effect pays nothing, the only difference is that CRT have some dosh, instead of spending a stack of it to get rid of him, leaving all the others dossers laughing.

Canals were a commercial enterprise, they could be again. There's a big demand for cheap housing in towns, and builders aren't going to provide it, so where there's a canal it's a golden opportunity for cheap moorings. You could even restrict them to benefit claimants while the rich have the marinas. No dafter than stuffing refugees into barges.

 

It isn't as simple as that. Whether C&RT charge or not is irrelevant, they cannot permit anyone to moor residentially on the section between Bradford Wharf and Avoncliffe because previous applications for residential moorings on that stretch of Canal have been refused by the Planning Authority, it is a somewhat contentious issue amongst local residents.

 

 

Edited July 22, 2023 by David Schweizer

[dmr]

46 minutes ago, Arthur Marshall said:

Sorry, I made the mistake of imagining people could think.

He can't claim benefits to pay for the mooring he wants because CRT won't charge him for a mooring where he wants it.

If CRT charged him officially to moor there, he could claim the money off his benefits, so CRT gets money, he still in effect pays nothing, the only difference is that CRT have some dosh, instead of spending a stack of it to get rid of him, leaving all the others dossers laughing.

Canals were a commercial enterprise, they could be again. There's a big demand for cheap housing in towns, and builders aren't going to provide it, so where there's a canal it's a golden opportunity for cheap moorings. You could even restrict them to benefit claimants while the rich have the marinas. No dafter than stuffing refugees into barges.

Its a public towpath mooring in one of the most popular spots on the canal system, its for all boaters to share, not for one bloke to claim as his own. There is also the huge issue of needing planning permission for a residential mooring, plus a bloke running a scrapyard and upsetting the locals. A while ago CRT did convert  a mooring in that area to a permanent mooring for a trade boat and got a lot of stick for doing so. I think this went wrong for many reasons but in part because the boater confused a trading mooring with a residential mooring.