Jump to content

CRT evictions of disabled boaters


Rambling

Featured Posts

Very disappointed to see that one of the 'subjects' discussed under a pseudonym on the petition has had her name published on NBW - just because it was supposedly published on FaceBook doesn't make it right or acceptable that it is published on NBW (hence no link to it here from me) - I just don't understand the journalistic 'integrity' of people who write these things assuming it is OK to do something like that because some other site has seen fit to do so or because it is supposedly 'common knowledge' - it wasn't to me. Two wrongs don't, as I hope we all know, make a right!

 

I accept that I may have brought it to your attention but you don't need a logon to NBW to be able to see it whereas I understand you do on FaceBook.

Kathryn, the information provided in my article relating to 'Maggie' is already in the public domain having been previously published on CaRT's web site. I suspect that if the person who started the petition had been aware of this then her real name would have been used.

 

It does, however, raise the question of why CaRT published details of 'Maggies' real name together with her boat when they now say they are trying to protect her privacy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Kathryn, the information provided in my article relating to 'Maggie' is already in the public domain having been previously published on CaRT's web site. I suspect that if the person who started the petition had been aware of this then her real name would have been used.

 

It does, however, raise the question of why CaRT published details of 'Maggies' real name together with her boat when they now say they are trying to protect her privacy.

 

The answer to that question is easy. Human error, assuming her details have now removed from the CRT site. You seem to be condemning CRT for this. What possible different response to an error do you expect?

 

Or are you asserting her real name and boat name are still clearly identified on the CRT site?

 

MtB

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Kathryn, the information provided in my article relating to 'Maggie' is already in the public domain having been previously published on CaRT's web site. I suspect that if the person who started the petition had been aware of this then her real name would have been used.

It does, however, raise the question of why CaRT published details of 'Maggies' real name together with her boat when they now say they are trying to protect her privacy.

Thanks for the explanation Allan. I still cannot find it in me to accept that it is morally right. Maybe I am just getting older or maybe it is my background in looking after hundreds of millions of passenger flight records. Even if the press had said Joe Bloggs had travelled on Concorde on a particular date I would no more have thought of confirming that, if asked, than I would have thought of jumping off the top of the building! I suppose it is what is ingrained in my thought processes but I still cannot accept that it is right no matter where else it is published.

 

ETA - Just searched CRT website for the name given on NBW and really quite surprised that I was able to view records of a number of people who have had court orders issued against them (my legal terminology is probably incorrect) and that you can, if you wish, see the court order. I would have thought that this was personal between the individual and CRT but I suppose a court is a public place. Very confused but I know where I stand morally!

Edited by Leo No2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The answer to that question is easy. Human error, assuming her details have now removed from the CRT site. You seem to be condemning CRT for this. What possible different response to an error do you expect?

 

Or are you asserting her real name and boat name are still clearly identified on the CRT site?

 

MtB

Are you asserting you didn't try ? Google is your friend it's still there on CRTs site . It was also published in detail on a previous Facebook debate started on this if I recall. I think most names are published after there has been court action.

 

To be fair I think CRT were being more sensitive in their subsequent statement in response to the petition.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

People who are charged with the responsibility to maintain the canal system and control its use. These are not people who work for a charity charged with looking after people who are down on their luck. There are other charities and government organisations that do that.

 

One can certainly have sympathy for those folk affected, but unless the canals are to become a socially down-at-heel dumping ground, CRT's actions were correct. Such one-sided attempt to vilify CRT is just spiteful. Perhaps the friends of these people should have helped them, instead of just standing on the sidelines whinging at CRT.

 

As a point of detail, it's interesting that one boater's prior behaviour was a factor. If one persists in breaching the rules when one is able to comply, it can't be too surprising if CRT lacks sympathy when suddenly there is a more valid reason for non -compliance. Anecdotally, CRT seem very sympathetic and helpful when a previously-compliant boater suddenly has a genuine problem that makes it difficult for them to be compliant.

 

One of the problems with this sort of mawkish hysteria is that it makes the majority of boaters say "let's just do away with the whole concept of CCing, make everyone have a permanent mooring, then the problems would disappear". Which is most unfortunate for those who genuinely CC.

Well said!

 

CaRT run a waterway system - they are not a part of Social Services, nor should they ever be expected to be. If this unfortunate lady lived in an unlicensed, uninsured camper van would DVLA be expected to look after her?

Edited by WJM
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Anyway, CRT will be able to take some comfort from the majority responses on this thread. The trouble is that the "antis" have the vigour to arrange a petition and get support by means of a bit of emotive writing and hysteria generation, without any need to support it with fact. Whereas the silent majority are just that - they are not motivated to create a petition in support of CRT's actions - there is just no motivation to petition in support of something you agree with. But it must be a little disheartening from CRT's point of view to be constantly on the receiving end of negative petitions created by a tiny minority of antagonists who are at odds with the vast majority.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

....you can, if you wish, see the court order. I would have thought that this was personal between the individual and CRT but I suppose a court is a public place. Very confused but I know where I stand morally!

A court is public place and it's proceedings are public. They must be in order to prevent abuse of the system as occurs in totalitarian states. This principal is part of the bedrock of our democracy. If you you break the rules you stand judged before your peers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A court is public place and it's proceedings are public. They must be in order to prevent abuse of the system as occurs in totalitarian states. This principal is part of the bedrock of our democracy. If you you break the rules you stand judged before your peers.

William - understand that - the difficulty I have is that it is published on the CRT website. How would it have been published, I wonder, before the days of the Internet? Or is it that part of me hasn't moved with the times perhaps?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A court is public place and it's proceedings are public. They must be in order to prevent abuse of the system as occurs in totalitarian states. This principal is part of the bedrock of our democracy. If you you break the rules you stand judged before your peers.

 

Quite so. But that should be 'judged by your peers', surely?

 

MtB

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Obviously I can see the point of a welfare manager, but on the other hand, it could be the thin end of the wedge for CRT becoming that quasi social service that most of us think they should not be. Once you have such a person, there is tacit acceptance that you have some duty in that area, so then if 1 person is not enough, you have to employ more and gradually it spirals into being a significant chunk of CRT's business. Mission creep etc.

It's a tricky one, but on the other hand, an obvious role for volunteer involvement. Isn't that one of the points of the ACC?

If I recall to be a member of the ACC you have to be a bone fide Continous cruiser which this lady wasn't. However I do know that many of their council have been personally assisting boaters in difficulty and we should all be grateful for that, I am.

 

To your point CRT are spending substantial chunks of your licence money on enforcement and their legal costs are substantial. CRT is looking to gain substantial additional income through friends and other donations thus how you promote yourself is key to this. Whether we like it or not when a boater stops moving through any form of incapacity or just through stubbornness CRT has a problem. If this problem can be managed in a way that is both in the best interests of the person involved and in the best interests of CRT - hopefully with a positive outcome this has to be a win - win wheras in this particular case we have a lose lose.

Edited by Tuscan
Link to comment
Share on other sites

William - understand that - the difficulty I have is that it is published on the CRT website. How would it have been published, I wonder, before the days of the Internet? Or is it that part of me hasn't moved with the times perhaps?

 

Court proceedings were usually published in the local newspaper.

 

The CRT site probably has about equal prominence.

 

MtB

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If I recall to be a member of the ACC you have to be a bone fide Continous cruiser which this lady wasn't. However I do know that many of their council have been personally assisting boaters in difficulty and we should all be grateful for that, I am.

To your point CRT are spending substantial chunks of your licence money on enforcement and their legal costs are substantial. CRT is looking to gain substantial additional income through friends and other donations thus how you promote yourself is key to this. Whether we like it or not when a boater stops moving through any form of incapacity or just through stubbornness CRT has a problem. If this problem can be managed in a way that is both in the best interests of the person involved and in the best interests of CRT - hopefully with a positive outcome this has to be a win - win wheras in this particular case we have a lose lose.

Yes certainly CRT are spending a lot of money on these things, however I suspect they hope it is a transitory and diminishing spend, a consequence of recovering from the years of neglect in this area by BW, whilst a new paradigm is established.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

in this particular case we have a lose lose.

Do we? Was the boater who was evicted in this case left destitute on the towpath, as 38 degrees imply, or was she offered accommodation more suited to her needs than a boat that was probably cold, damp and run-down? That accommodation could not have been offered until such time as she was actually homeless, as the rules currently stand, and CRT have told us that there were social workers and other people standing by to help when she was evicted. If, as I suspect, she was offered suitable accommodation, then although it is traumatic being evicted, she is now in a better state than she was before.

 

(Off topic)I personally know of one alcoholic person who was thrown out of their flat as they had drunk the rent and had been doing so for a year or more, but social services and the Salvation Army were powerless to help until he was actually about to start sleeping on the street after being discharged form the local hospital, at which point, the help system kicked in and he got a place in a hostel, and was until recently in a half way house. He now has a home he can call his own again, and the system has been set up so that he *can't* drink the rent, as he never sees the money. He had been in need of help for a long time, but it couldn't be given until the trigger point was reached. I suspect that a lot of the cases quoted by 38 Degrees are similar, in that help can't be provided unless the person is actually homeless.

  • Greenie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Are you asserting you didn't try ? Google is your friend it's still there on CRTs site . It was also published in detail on a previous Facebook debate started on this if I recall. I think most names are published after there has been court action.

 

To be fair I think CRT were being more sensitive in their subsequent statement in response to the petition.

 

Yes I am asserting that I didn't try.

 

I don't know here name and won't be Googling for it. If it is in the list Kathryn mentions of people against whom CRT have obtained judgement, that is entirely different from her being specifically mentioned in a CRT web page narrative, which is what I thought had happened.

 

MtB

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The alternative to enforcement action by CRT is just let everybody moor where they want and for how long they want and for whatever reason.

In not so long a time the canals would then become just a linier "caravan park" and taken to an ultimate conclusion no one bothering to pay their dues.

 

Would the folks who were involved with this petition (assuming many of them are boaters) like the situation which would then develop? I think not.

 

Again as I said in another thread, "Damned if they do, (by some) damned if they don't" (by others). For society to work we must have rules and those rules enforced.

 

Unfortunately there will always be genuine cases affected by those who try to circumnavigate the rules

Edited by Ray T
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes I am asserting that I didn't try.

 

I don't know here name and won't be Googling for it. If it is in the list Kathryn mentions of people against whom CRT have obtained judgement, that is entirely different from her being specifically mentioned in a CRT web page narrative, which is what I thought had happened.

 

MtB

As it really is in the 'public domain' - here's the list - http://canalrivertrust.org.uk/publication-scheme/publication-scheme/court-action-to-remove-boats-from-our-waterways

 

If anyone thinks it inappropriate I'll take the link down on condition that anyone who quotes this link does so as well.

Edited by Leo No2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Yes I am asserting that I didn't try.

 

I don't know here name and won't be Googling for it. If it is in the list Kathryn mentions of people against whom CRT have obtained judgement, that is entirely different from her being specifically mentioned in a CRT web page narrative, which is what I thought had happened.

 

MtB

Having got nosy and looked up the court order relating to Maggie's case, why is it being linked to Bath & East Somerset Council and the Kennet & Avon? She lived near Macclesfield.

 

And another thing. A"friend" watched the eviction and did nothing, not even offering Maggie a cup of tea and sympathy? That's what's stated in the 38 Degrees article. Some friend....

 

I'm possibly being too cynical here, but this confirms my intention not to have anything to do with any campaign by 38 degrees.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As it really is in the 'public domain' - here's the list - http://canalrivertrust.org.uk/publication-scheme/publication-scheme/court-action-to-remove-boats-from-our-waterways

 

If anyone thinks it inappropriate I'll take the link down on condition that anyone who quotes this list does so as well.

 

Personally I don't see a problem with linking to it as it's in the public domain, and presumably if CRT hadn't listed it it would be in the public domain anyway, though possibly harder to find?

Edited by The Dog House
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think that the problem has come about because people who are not boaters,see a boat as a cheap form of housing. When they move on to a boat,they then find they do not have the financial recources to meet their obligations. Sadly,with the pressure on social housing and the cost to private landlords of providing property to rent,housing costs can only rise in relation to income.This problem is not going away and I feel sorry for those people like those in the origional post, Unfortunately CaRT will always be in a lose/lose situation in these cases.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Kathryn, the information provided in my article relating to 'Maggie' is already in the public domain having been previously published on CaRT's web site. I suspect that if the person who started the petition had been aware of this then her real name would have been used.

 

It does, however, raise the question of why CaRT published details of 'Maggies' real name together with her boat when they now say they are trying to protect her privacy.

 

Whether CRT published the name first, or somebody else did, doesn't to me adequately justify blasting details of the whole case across the Internet in a very "public" way, (even if that "public" way is actually very well subscribed "private" "boater" related groups on FaceBook).

 

The reality is that the majority of us will have seen the name by a Facebook route, (or now it appears also an NBW route), in a manner that in my view invaded this persons privacy in a totally unacceptable way. Many of us get continuous new alerts to stuff posted in Facebook groups - very few, I suspect have anything similar set up to alert us to CRT posting stuff on their site.

 

I suppose it is possible that the lady herself has encouraged this publicity, but frankly to me it seems unlikely. Assuming she has not, personally I think it is very poor form that her name has been used in the way it has, as she seems to have enough problems in her life without much of it being made very public to the world at large.

 

People seem very happy now to use her for another bit of CRT bashing, but it doesn't seem anybody was able or prepared to do much to help her before things got to the sorry state they did.

  • Greenie 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

I can only conclude that the eviction was, unfortunately, necessary, and that CRT proceeded with due regard for "Maggie's" fragile mental state.

I agree with all that you posted, but sectioning isn't the only way to get someone into safe accommodation, provided that they agree to it.

 

Unfortunately, I think that maybe Maggie could have been on the borderline of being compos mentis by the legal definition. As she is now presumably homeless, then there are many charities that can offer help that was not available before, but she has to ask.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If I recall to be a member of the ACC you have to be a bone fide Continous cruiser which this lady wasn't. However I do know that many of their council have been personally assisting boaters in difficulty and we should all be grateful for that, I am.

 

To your point CRT are spending substantial chunks of your licence money on enforcement and their legal costs are substantial. CRT is looking to gain substantial additional income through friends and other donations thus how you promote yourself is key to this. Whether we like it or not when a boater stops moving through any form of incapacity or just through stubbornness CRT has a problem. If this problem can be managed in a way that is both in the best interests of the person involved and in the best interests of CRT - hopefully with a positive outcome this has to be a win - win wheras in this particular case we have a lose lose.

 

 

Yes certainly CRT are spending a lot of money on these things, however I suspect they hope it is a transitory and diminishing spend, a consequence of recovering from the years of neglect in this area by BW, whilst a new paradigm is established.

Actually I think Mark's recent posts in this thread are absolutely spot on, and Nick, that although you are at least very prepared to think about things in a constructive way, you are perhaps not aware of the scale of some of the problems facing CRT.

 

I don't think that CRT simply has a "non compliant continuous cruiser" problem that they can ever sort out by a bit of high profile seizing of what some might call "worst offenders" as a warning or deterrent to others.

 

Many of the live aboard population, (at least in areas I'm most familiar with), tend to be people who are either ageing, with mounting health problems, with, or both. It is simply not possible in many of these cases, even if people might like it to be, for these people to suddenly cast off their ropes and instantly become model "continuous cruisers". (OK, yes, there are many people who perhaps could, but I'm persuaded that there are also many who are now at a point in their life where they simply can not, and maybe never will be able to again).

 

In such cases the solution may be for that person to take a mooring, if it is sensible and practical for them to do so, or, in some cases, it may simply be inappropriate for them to still be trying to live on a boat. However, if either is the case, and they are unable to sort it out for themselves, then someone needs to work with them to achieve the best possible outcome, (maybe they need help in accessing benefits to which they are entitled, but without which they cannot met the costs of a mooring). Just seizing their boat, and rendering them homeless does nobody any favours - not the person, not anybody who has to try and pick up the responsibility for that person, and (in my view) not society generally.

 

I actually think that far from being a problem that will start to die down as a result of stepped up enforcement regimes, this may well be a problem that CRT will have to at least live alongside for many years, however directly involved they choose to get in it (or not).

Edited by alan_fincher
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Actually I think Mark's recent posts in this thread are absolutely spot on, and Nick, that although you are at least very prepared to think about things in a constructive way, you are perhaps not aware of the scale of some of the problems facing CRT.

I don't think that CRT simply has a "non compliant continuous cruiser" problem that they can ever sort out by a bit of high profile seizing of what some might call "worst offenders" as a warning or deterrent to others.

Many of the live aboard population, (at least in areas I'm most familiar with), tend to be people who are either ageing, with mounting health problems, with, or both. It is simply not possible in many of these cases, even if people might like it to be, for these people to suddenly cast off their ropes and instantly become model "continuous cruisers". (OK, yes, there are many people who perhaps could, but I'm persuaded that there are also many who are now at a point in their life where they simply can not, and maybe never will be able to again).

 

In such cases the solution may be for that person to take a mooring, if it is sensible and practical for them to do so, or, in some cases, it may simply be inappropriate for them to still be trying to live on a boat. However, if either is the case, and they are unable to sort it out for themselves, then someone needs to work with them to achieve the best possible outcome, (maybe they need help in accessing benefits to which they are entitled, but without which they cannot met the costs of a mooring). Just seizing their boat, and rendering them homeless does nobody any favours - not the person, not anybody who has to try and pick up the responsibility for that person, and (in my view) not society generally.

 

I actually think that far from being a problem that will start to die down as a result of stepped up enforcement regimes, this may well be a problem that CRT will have to at least live alongside for many years, however directly involved they choose to get in it (or not).

I don't have particularly strong feelings about it either way. Yes, certainly there is an entrenched problem that needs a solution (other than seizing and rendering homeless) but I am less sure whether it should be CRT's remit to sort that out, rather than another body's. As I said, my concern is one of mission creep and, in your comments about the magnitude of the problem, you are to some extent supporting that point. When land-based people have these sort of problems, there seem to be plenty of official and unofficial bodies to help (although of course there is never enough funding to maintain a perfect system) and so I don't see why these same processes can't be used for water-dwelling people in difficulty.

 

Presumably CRT has some sort of mission statement, minutes of incorporation or what ever the correct term is. Is there any mention of providing social services to boaters with personal difficulties? If not, they could be criticised for inappropriate use of funds in setting up a scheme such as you are suggesting.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Presumably CRT has some sort of mission statement, minutes of incorporation or what ever the correct term is. Is there any mention of providing social services to boaters with personal difficulties? If not, they could be criticised for inappropriate use of funds in setting up a scheme such as you are suggesting.

The articles are here:-

 

http://canalrivertrust.org.uk/media/library/1338.pdf

 

Section 2 is the one you want, and no, there no mention of providing social services to boaters other than the obligatory catchall phrase "to further any purpose which is exclusively charitable under the law of England and Wales connected with Inland Waterways;

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.