The Fate Of The Camouflage Boat.....

[Jerra]

Having ploughed my way through 7 pages I am left more than a little gobsmacked. The general point raised about almost everything CRT try to do is "they can't do that, it needs tested in court" this time the take it to court and still a number of people can't accept the result.

 

I assume for some people what ever CRT does will be wrong.

[Delta9]

Yes I understand where it happened but I don't understand the sarcasm given that it is unlikely anybody present at time one the arrest or the arresting officers would be posting on here, everything else is just heresay surely???

A lot of the members seem to have been tracking/keeping an eye on the boat, and many members live aboard their boats. I don't think it is so unlikely that one of them witnessed this incident. I seem to remember someone posting that they had seen the boat being removed some time ago. Maybe they will pop along to this thread at some point.

[Guest]

A lot of the members seem to have been tracking/keeping an eye on the boat, and many members live aboard their boats. I don't think it is so unlikely that one of them witnessed this incident. I seem to remember someone posting that they had seen the boat being removed some time ago. Maybe they will pop along to this thread at some point.

My recollection of that post/thread was that it was along the lines of 'what's occurring 'ere then??'

 

But yes fairy nuff let's see...

Edited July 19, 2013 by The Dog House

[alan_fincher]

If I recall correctly, is not the crew and boat that were accused in a former thread of stealing a boat from Sawley marina by towing it away?

 

Yet, so far as I recall, despite much discussion of the theft, i don't think anyone could produce any evidence that the police had been involved, and hence there was no crime number?

 

Seemed a bit odd at the time, to me.

 

Do we actually know these people are currently detained, and if so what charged with, or is that just an assumption?

 

Edit (for typo)

Edited July 19, 2013 by alan_fincher

[Guest]

Do we actually know these people are currently detained, and if so what charged with, or is that just an assumption?

Not as far as I know, it is a mere assumption.

[alan_fincher]

Not as far as I know, it is a mere assumption.

 

Well I think there may be a lot of those.

 

Unless someone actually knows the facts, I think the earlier suggestion that they were temporarily detained to stop them interfering with the removal of the boat sounds just as likely, (in fact far more so!)

 

You don't tend to get "banged up" for simply not having a CRT licence, or for "anti-social" behaviour on the waterways. If they had actually been arrested for an offence they are going to be prosecuted for, given the tone of that CRT announcement, I think they would have made great play of that fact as well.

 

As the greatest emphasis of the press release seems to me to be on the claimed failure to navigate according to their licence conditions, I certainly wouldn't assume there was further police action without evidence of that claim.

[Ange]

I'm no great fan of the camo boat - having shared their waterways for a while I was uncomfortable when they were around because their actions always seemed suspicious. Arriving in Loughborough Basin at midnight, then leaving at 2am. Following us up the Soar, not communicating with us and then winding paddles to refill the lock before we'd closed the gates. Yep, nothing concrete, just a feeling that all wasn't right.

 

BUT the information provided makes me deeply uncomfortable. If their boat has been removed for non compliance with CC rules I am surprised, because they did move regularly over quite a distance. The statement talks about the shuttling around over a small area - we're talking between Loughborough, Beeston and Fradley Junction - that's not a small distance and a legitimate cruising distance..

 

If they're guilty of thieving then try and convict them for that, but please don't muddy the cc rules by removing undesirables using that as an excuse.

 

I'd be very interested to read the judge's ruling to see why he came to that conclusion - I suspect there's more information than we're party to.

[blodger]

 

Oh really? Do you know what they were charged with in the end? Am I empathetic to the fact I help pay for that? I don't know what they were sent down for, so I don't know how I feel about them being in prison.

Having read the Boaters' Update then having read this thread which I had previously ignored may I commend you for doggedly taking a somewhat alternative stance and balancing the "discussion".

 

I think the Boaters' Update article has been purposely written as a sort of warning that will backfire if it turns out to be misleading etc

[Henhouse]

It would appear that Judge Inglis has made a decision on a previous case for CaRT.

 

http://canalrivertrust.org.uk/media/library/2716.pdf

[Ange]

There are some that say "how can you defend the camo boat when you know they've done wrong" and those that say "if you're defending the camo boat you must be a guilty culprit as well"

 

I say nay to both charges. I am someone who wants fairness and consistency, and from the facts I have available neither appear to be evident. Yes, from my experience and from hearsay the owners of the camo boat should be banished forever from the cut but we have to go through due process.

 

Otherwise we end up a lynch mob.

 

That's what Luctor was getting at (I think) at the beginning of the thread.

 

Next time us for not having a shiny enough boat.

[lynalldisocvery]

Is it a case of getting the "suspects" on what you can get them on, not what you really want to charge them with?

 

Just a thought?

Whenever i hear of people who have got the sack for some fairly trivial reason i always think exactly the same thing, in fact some people have gone from my place along the same lines, strange thing was no one seemed that bothered!

Plus of course the boat has gone, BUT they havent, one cheap boat later and they will be back.

 

 

Lynall

Edited July 20, 2013 by lynalldisocvery

[Pykebird]

A lot of the members seem to have been tracking/keeping an eye on the boat, and many members live aboard their boats. I don't think it is so unlikely that one of them witnessed this incident. I seem to remember someone posting that they had seen the boat being removed some time ago. Maybe they will pop along to this thread at some point.

I actually witnessed the boats being removed, but because I was working at the time and have no access to internet on my phone, asked matty to report it for me.

I cannot comment as to exactly what they were arrested for, only that they were forcibly removed from the marina office, having been found with things that did not belong to them.......you can draw your own conclusions

[luctor et emergo]

There are some that say "how can you defend the camo boat when you know they've done wrong" and those that say "if you're defending the camo boat you must be a guilty culprit as well"

 

I say nay to both charges. I am someone who wants fairness and consistency, and from the facts I have available neither appear to be evident. Yes, from my experience and from hearsay the owners of the camo boat should be banished forever from the cut but we have to go through due process.

 

Otherwise we end up a lynch mob.

 

That's what Luctor was getting at (I think) at the beginning of the thread.

 

Next time us for not having a shiny enough boat.

That's right Ange. But the Daily Mail reading lynch mob can't see that.

[jelunga]

"all occupants were arrested enabling us to continue with the removal."

 

Anybody know what the occupants were charged with?

I understand also breaching conditions of release (from prison) may have been invokved.

Judging by the movements reported on previous threads this boat has moved more than many others that have not had there license revoked or even have entered into the enforcement process. So I find the CRT published comments unnecessarily threatening and inconsistent.

 

On the other hand there alleged behaviour would appear to be a police matter and CRT hopefully would have worked with the police to ensure arrests could be made if appropriate. I am not condoning anti social behaviour but they will be lifting a lot of boats if this is the justification.

You are correct in your second paragraph.

[Ronniesonic]

can anyone confirm if the ''camo'' boat had a cassette or pumpout? A pumpout would be reason enough for it to be removed from the cut.

 

I am such a naughty boy on Saturday's.

[Naughty Cal]

I'm sure it was just all one big coincidence that fuel theft rates went through the roof in the areas that this chap was cruising (through the night) in.

 

It will also be a big coincidence that there were big piles of rubbish left next to where his boat had being moored at every mooring he vacated.

 

Also there must be lots of people lying about being intimidated by this chaps aggressive and loud behaviour.

 

I'm sure he is a model citizen who has been wrongly blamed for all of these crimes and CRT are about to publish a full apology.

 

Oh sorry I've woke up now........

[cotswoldsman]

OK I have not worked my way through the complete thread but picked up that maybe some are not sure of the process of removing a boat for Non Compliance. At the end of the day it involves revoking the licence for not keeping to the T&C of Continuous Cruising. The process starts with a letter called a Pre CC1

 

 

Our ref: PreCC1b/

Dear

Re: , Index No:

Under the terms and conditions of your licence, you must either have a home mooring or continuously cruise in line

with the British Waterways Act 1995. The Guidance for Boaters without a home mooring sets out what is required

to comply with the 1995 Act. I am enclosing a copy of this Guidance and would ask you to read it carefully.

We have issued you with a licence for your boat on the understandings that:

(a) you engage in genuine navigation throughout the period of the licence;

( you do not stay moored in the same neighbourhood or locality for more than 14 days; and

© it is your responsibility to satisfy us that you meet these requirements.

Our sightings currently indicate that you have not been moving enough to meet our requirements. They indicate

that since your boat has remained between/at , covering a distance of only km.

We are now asking you to commence genuine navigation as described in the Guidance. We will continue to

monitor your movements and if it appears that you are continuing to ignore the Guidance, we will commence

enforcement proceedings which could result in court action and the potential removal of your boat from our

waterways. In these circumstances, documentary evidence of your boat’s movements would help and I therefore

recommend you begin recording this evidence.

If you need to remain in the same area on a long term basis, we urge you to secure a lawful home mooring. This

will save you considerable frustration and save Canal & River Trust considerable expense – money which could

instead be spent on improving maintenance and facilities.

Please do not hesitate to contact me if you have any questions.

After this letter the CCer will know he is on the Radar and being watched, this is then followed by a CC1 if boat continues to be non compliant. Then a CC2 and that is a final warning. Then the trouble starts with a CC3 at this stage the licence is revoked and a Section 8 is served and in the case of a Liveaboard it is served with a Section 13 from Pre CC1 to CC3 and Section 8 and 13 can be anything up to 12 months. From Section 8 and 13 can be anytime I know one boater that is now in the 2nd year of fighting his Section 8 and 13 luckily he is still able to do this on Legal Aid that is no longer available.

For the sake of clarity I am not saying I agree with any of this just trying to explain the process.

Edited July 20, 2013 by cotswoldsman

[GUMPY]

Yes. The owner of the boat is human, I am also human. I have empathy with people that are made homeless.

 

Also, I am not defending them, I am simply questioning the situation.

 

Maybe you should start trying to help those on Tyneside threatened with eviction from social housing for antisocial behaviour. Same sort of case.....

http://tyneandwear.sky.com/news/article/74015/rude-awakening-for-nightmare-neighbours-on-north-tyneside

[cotswoldsman]

I should just add that the Pre CC1 has changed in the wording following meetings with CRT. The Pre CC1 is also now delivered personally by Enforcement Officer (where possible) to establish the circumstances of the boater (Sickness etc.) and where possible if Financial reasons CRT will help in the process of Housing Benefits etc if the boater qualifies (via The Canal Chaplaincy)

[Guest]

The site's not infallible.

 

IONA II Built by Doug Moore - Length 17 metres (55 feet 9 inches ) - Beam 2 metres (6 feet 7 inches ) Diesel . Registered with EA Thames Region number F009766. Last registration recorded on 02/03/2006.

 

However if you search by our index number you do get the current information

 

IONA Built by OTHER - Length 17.06 metres (56 feet ) - Beam 1.82 metres (6 feet ) - Draft 0.01 metres ( ) Metal hull, power of 999 BHP. Registered with Canal & River Trust number 49724 as a Powered. Last registration recorded on 22-May-2013.

 

I really do need to get in touch with Jim Shead and let him know the two boats are one. Hmm now I'm wondering - is our boat 55 feet 9 inches or 56 feet? Is it 6 feet 7 inches beam of 6 feet? Jim Shead's site is a marvellous, invaluable site for information but never take it as gospel.

 

Just pointing out that if you just searched by boat name and boat builder you'd think our boat hadn't been licenced since 2006.

 

I bet it can't half shift....

[Doorman]

I don't even know what they are supposed to have done, and apparently neither does anyone else here.

 

Please see post #44

 

One of many reported sightings of this boat and its occupants creating disturbances along their way.

 

If anyone should be looking over their shoulder it should be the irresponsible hire boat companies that allow groups of alcohol fuelled youths to cause mayhem throughout their journeys.

 

They're next............with a bit of luck!

Edited July 20, 2013 by Doorman

[Doorman]

The site's not infallible.

 

I really do need to get in touch with Jim Shead and let him know the two boats are one. Hmm now I'm wondering - is our boat 55 feet 9 inches or 56 feet? Is it 6 feet 7 inches beam of 6 feet? Jim Shead's site is a marvellous, invaluable site for information but never take it as gospel.

 

Just pointing out that if you just searched by boat name and boat builder you'd think our boat hadn't been licenced since 2006.

I think the most important update for Jim Shead is your air draft!. It's increased by about a foot or two since you and Dave started collecting canal antiquities on the roof. Lol.

[blackrose]

Maybe you should start trying to help those on Tyneside threatened with eviction from social housing for antisocial behaviour. Same sort of case.....

http://tyneandwear.sky.com/news/article/74015/rude-awakening-for-nightmare-neighbours-on-north-tyneside

 

Yes, I wonder why some people always seem to automatically side with the villains in these situations and try to portray them as "vulnerable groups" who are being picked on by the authorities? Perhaps they think they're on the side of the oppressed, but If we truly believe in community and social justice then society cannot allow a minority of anti-social elements to impact on the local community. The rights of the majority not to suffer from such people must take precedence.

Edited July 20, 2013 by blackrose

[luctor et emergo]

I like how the discussion has moved, and is once again turned into a halfarsed namecalling brawl, completely passing by the original point that I raised.

 

The issue is not what the boat owners did, their (ill)repute, or even wether the boat removal was just.

 

The issue is the wording of the statement, which is more of a thinly veiled threat, than a communication of facts.

 

Combine that with the Roving Mooring Permit, and you are at the thin end of the wedge.

[Doorman]

 

If they're guilty of thieving then try and convict them for that, but please don't muddy the cc rules by removing undesirables using that as an excuse.

 

I'd be very interested to read the judge's ruling to see why he came to that conclusion - I suspect there's more information than we're party to.

I suspect that CART are taking advantage of the unpopularity of this crew and its boat, together with their unsavory conduct, to make an example to others of what action can be taken on boaters acting in a similar manner.

 

Also, by suggesting that they flouted the T&C'S of CC, they are probably hoping that this too will act as a warning to non compliant continuous cruisers.