George Ward evicted.

[Paul C]

2 minutes 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. 

 

 

 

 

Its on the K&A though, CRT are the navigation authority for that waterway. Are you saying the K&A is private property?

[magnetman]

I suppose some people may never have been aware of the 2011 BW K&A Order.

 

Before that it seems possible there were some grey areas down there which people may have spotted and been taking advantage of. 

 

 

 

 

[Higgs]

2 minutes ago, Paul C said:

Its on the K&A though, CRT are the navigation authority for that waterway. Are you saying the K&A is private property?

 

Are you not sure if one is the same as the other, and therefore have problems with differentiation?

 

 

[magnetman]

I would have thought moving to the other side would be wise if the CRT start getting lairy. 

 

Maybe when it actually is private land you get a man with a 12 bore over his shoulder, hunting dogs and a muck spreader on demand. 

 

The CRT are a soft touch. 

[Alan de Enfield]

35 minutes ago, Higgs said:

The system should be equal. Boaters should follow the law. CRT work as the law gives them authority to do, it does extend onto private properly & CRT use a third party that are compelled by contract to apply the conditions. They follow the law. 

 

 

Corrected your post for you.

[Paul C]

4 minutes ago, Higgs said:

 

Are you not sure if one is the same as the other, and therefore have problems with differentiation?

 

 

It doesn't actually matter if K&A is private land or not, because that's not what determines if CRT can remove a boat from there. K&A IS a navigation under the authority of CRT, so they have the authority to operate there including taking enforcement action.

[Higgs]

Just now, Alan de Enfield said:

 

Corrected your post for you.

 

Never bothered to read it. 

 

 

Just now, Paul C said:

It doesn't actually matter if K&A is private land or not, because that's not what determines if CRT can remove a boat from there. K&A IS a navigation under the authority of CRT, so they have the authority to operate there including taking enforcement action.

 

See, you have problems with differentiation. Aren't they lucky that the K&A is a CRT waterway.

 

 

[magnetman]

I can smell a MNC argument here but doubt this would apply in areas that are not river sections. 

 

People who aggressively take the piss of the system should not be tolerated because they put the existence of the waterway at risk. Get rid of these people. 

 

If the K&A fills up with entitled smartphone wielding semi-organised freemen on the land it will cause significant cost implications for the CRT and one can't help thinking someone might consider taking proper action to deal with the problem.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Paul C]

7 minutes ago, Higgs said:

 

Never bothered to read it. 

 

 

 

See, you have problems with differentiation. Aren't they lucky that the K&A is a CRT waterway.

 

 

 

I don't have problems with it; its just that I know the two things aren't equivalent. Being private, doesn't necessarily mean that its not CRT's authority to enforce it. Take the corollary of roads: many footpaths and rights of way go over private land, but it being on private land doesn't mean it doesn't also meet the definition of "road or other public place" for the prosecution of motoring offences, or right of way for the issue of access.

 

There is a list of waterways the CRT have authority over, which includes the K&A. There is no question here, that CRT have the authority in the area George Ward's boats were moored.

[Higgs]

8 minutes ago, Paul C said:

 

I don't have problems with it; its just that I know the two things aren't equivalent. Being private, doesn't necessarily mean that its not CRT's authority to enforce it. Take the corollary of roads: many footpaths and rights of way go over private land, but it being on private land doesn't mean it doesn't also meet the definition of "road or other public place" for the prosecution of motoring offences, or right of way for the issue of access.

 

There is a list of waterways the CRT have authority over, which includes the K&A. There is no question here, that CRT have the authority in the area George Ward's boats were moored.

 

On the one hand, you're asking me to side with CRT, because someone has been an aggravation. On the other hand, you're asking me to ignore CRT, when they are an aggravation. The argument of right and wrong is unbalanced. I know who has the most clout in this issue. And they use it to work within the law of authority, as it suits.

 

 

 

 

Edited July 22, 2023 by Higgs

[Paul C]

12 minutes ago, Higgs said:

 

On the one hand, you're asking me to side with CRT, because someone has been an aggravation. On the other hand, you're asking me to ignore CRT, when they are an aggravation. The argument of right and wrong is unbalanced. I know who has the most clout in this issue. And they use it to work within the law of authority, as it suits.

 

 

 

 

 

I'm not asking you to do anything.

 

Also......why use the word "aggravation" - in the case of George Ward, it is clear that he was breaking the law. By describing it as such, you are almost approving of it. Are you approving of George Ward's actions? Or if you disapprove of CRT's actions in this case, are you also disapproving of George Ward's actions? Because it was clearly illegal, or moral reasons? Or ethical ones? Or do you actually mean aggravation is something illegal? In which case, what has CRT done which is illegal in this case?

[Barneyp]

33 minutes ago, Higgs said:

 

On the one hand, you're asking me to side with CRT, because someone has been an aggravation. On the other hand, you're asking me to ignore CRT, when they are an aggravation. The argument of right and wrong is unbalanced. I know who has the most clout in this issue. And they use it to work within the law of authority, as it suits.

I don't think that is what's being asked of you, but even if it was why would it be so hard, why do you insist on saying that CRT as an entire organisation must be either good or bad, and that you have decided they are bad and therefore refuse to support or agree with anything they've done.

[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