George Ward evicted.

[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.

[Mrs Bearwood Boster]

3 hours ago, dmr said:

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.

Went up the Ashby for the first time in years last month-seemed to be far more long termers without moorings than there were 8 years ago.Lots of the nice mooring spots were full with the same boats both ways.Had a night in Trinity marina to use their laundry & they are having problems at the moment.Their cctv shows boats moored outside using kayaks/row boats to come into the marina in the early hours of the morning.They move around the marina stopping every so often but haven't been seen doing anything apart from taking a boat hook.

[Heartland]

The discussion continues, but perhaps somebody can explain if George Ward has paid anything at any time for mooring fees or contributed in any way to the canal network during his long association with it.

 

[Arthur Marshall]

Just now, Heartland said:

The discussion continues, but perhaps somebody can explain if George Ward has paid anything at any time for mooring fees or contributed in any way to the canal network during his long association with it.

 

According to him and reports, yes. Licence, anyway.

[Heartland]

Thanks for the clarification

 

[Tonka]

10 hours ago, Barneyp said:

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.

So if the boat does not have a safety certificate it is deemed unsafe so CRT should remove it to help protect the public that walk along the towpath.

[Tonka]

4 minutes ago, kris88 said:

If he had a licence then surely it had a safety cert?

you do know that they are separate things? 

[john.k]

The age of the angry agressive arrogant tresspasser ........they call themselves  Non Conformists ,Sovereign Individuals ,Climate activists ,Free people .........free loaders would be more correct...............Go back a few years and society had a sure fire cure for these people ....... a turn in the stocks ,with ears nailed to the wood.

[magnetman]

12 minutes ago, Tonka said:

you do know that they are separate things? 

You do need a BS certificate in order to buy a licence.

They are separate things but connected legally via the 1995 BW Act. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The simple fact in this case is that the boat was moored without legal authority and in this situation the Trust may remove the boat. 

 

This is what happend. 

 

QED. Not a lot of rocket science here. 

 

 

[Tonka]

11 minutes ago, magnetman said:

You do need a BS certificate in order to buy a licence.

They are separate things but connected legally via the 1995 BW Act. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The simple fact in this case is that the boat was moored without legal authority and in this situation the Trust may remove the boat. 

 

This is what happend. 

 

QED. Not a lot of rocket science here. 

 

 

If you do not abide to the rules of the road they remove your car and/or your licence

If you do not abide by the rules of the canal then they should remove the boat.

If the NBTA can not abide by them rules then surely they should go to a place where they do not have rules

[MtB]

22 minutes ago, magnetman said:

 

The simple fact in this case is that the boat was moored without legal authority and in this situation the Trust may remove the boat. 

 

This is what happend. 

 

QED. Not a lot of rocket science here. 

 

Its remarkable that several posters here support Mr Ward in his illegal CMing and spreading of all his shit over the public towpath.

 

I get the feeling they support him because they secretly quite like the idea of doing the same themselves.

 

 

[Tonka]

1 minute ago, kris88 said:

Do you know that you need a safety cert to get a licence? 

yes but the safety cert can run out before the licence ends.

[magnetman]

The trick is to get the BS done after the end of the licence then you get a 5 yar BS certificate. 

 

? Did I get the math wrong ?

 

Example:

 

Licence renewal date 1 January 2023. BS awarded February 2023 valid until February 2027. 

 

Therefore valid for Licences 23,24,25,26,27. 

 

In theory anyway ! 

 

 

10 minutes ago, Tonka said:

yes but the safety cert can run out before the licence ends.

 

Maybe there is a theory that if the boat had passed a BS inspection -at some point- then it basically safe. Of course this could happen if there had been a rogue BS inspector who had later left the job and had a habit of passing boats which were not actually fulfilling all the requirements. 

 

There was the bloke who did them over the phone. 

 

 

[Lady M]

However, if during that 11 months with a licence but no current BSS, an insurance claim becomes necessary.  If the claim was due to something a BSS would have picked up, then it may not be paid.  Indeed some insurers may require a valid BSS at all times.