CRT evictions of disabled boaters

[GillianOlcay]

There are two threads one in the lounge which you won't see unless you are a member.

Personally I didn't sign and think that its yet another badly worded emotive petition which should be consigned to the bin along with its proposers.

 

That would explain it. Thank you.

[nicknorman]

Absolutely. Emotive, inaccurate, one-sided - what in fact WERE the objectives behind it?

An attempt to derail CRT's attempts to control the increasing number of selfish boaters who have no regard for the rules.

 

In other words, a group of non-compliant CCers or a group of those who feel that paying the licence fee is for others to do, not themselves. Or mayby just a group of commie anarchists who consider that property is theft - except their property of course! Who knows!

[Ronniesonic]

I feel for this Lady as she is obviously very ill.

Having read the thread again & other info on the subject, I still do not really know what my opinion or solution to the problem is other than letting the status quo remain as is?

 

I fully appreciate the ramifications & the setting of a potential precedent, but cannot see any other alternative in this exceptional case.

[gaggle]

An attempt to derail CRT's attempts to control the increasing number of selfish boaters who have no regard for the rules.

 

In other words, a group of non-compliant CCers or a group of those who feel that paying the licence fee is for others to do, not themselves. Or mayby just a group of commie anarchists who consider that property is theft - except their property of course! Who knows!

 

Can a commie be an anarchist as well ?

[nicknorman]

 

Can a commie be an anarchist as well ?

Split personality?

[NigelMoore]

 

Alan has NOT said that there was an offer to provide "such a berth" free of charge.

 

So far as I am aware, there are no nearby marinas where a licence would not be required.

 

Your suggestion that CRT simply remove a boat from its jurisdiction to other people's waters doesn't stand up to scrutiny. What other waters could they move people to? Do the people whose waters they wish to move these people to have any say in the matter?

 

Allan said: "a marina owner actually offered to provide her with a berth free of charge." I don't know where that was, nor whether CaRT demanded that its boats needed licensing. Presumably, supposing unwarranted licence demands were in force there, [and probably optimally under the circumstances] the same person could have allowed them to place the boat on hardstanding within the marina. That would require no licence, would prevent any attempt to slip out of the marina and back into CaRT water, and for so long as CaRT had the court order entitling removal, the owner of the boat would have no say in the matter.

 

I said: "remove from the jurisdiction", not remove to waterways in any other authority's jurisdiction. Referring back to #279, I said: "It might in some circumstances be more economical and practical to simply tow the boat out of CaRT's jurisdiction and/or to a section where no licence is required [providing that it can safely be left there, which will not always be the case on tidal waters]." Alternatively it could be on hardstanding anywhere an appropriate person was willing to accept it together with the potential problems - as with the marina owner Allan refers to.

 

There could have been discussion with adjacent navigation authorities as to their willingness to have the boat somewhere on their waters [because of course they have a say in the matter] - I doubt that would have proved productive, but it would have been worth trying. It isn't necessary though; CaRT have some 250 miles of waterways where public rights of navigation exist still, some modified some not. She could have been placed anywhere suitable outside of the main navigation channel on those.

 

What I have been doing consistently throughout this thread is to point out that there were always alternatives, in answer to those who claimed there were none.

 

Another alternative, even accepting for the sake of argument that the boat should have been seized, would have been to at least put it off until better weather - I have already referred to the relatively recent case where the court refused to adjudicate the issue in mid-winter, and deferred the matter for that very reason alone. I presume the judge subsequently granted CaRT what they wanted, but he made sure it could be enforced only when conditions were better. That was [unusually?] humane thinking on the court's part, a thinking obviously not shared by CaRT, nor by any of their supporters here.

 

Apropos, it should be noted, as others [both supporters and non-supporters] have observed, that CaRT takes such action in large part because they would come under heavy criticism from 'compliant' boaters if they did not. Some responsibility for the actions taken, if that is accepted, must lie with such boaters as keep up the pressure on CaRT in this respect, and who demand the most extreme of unnecessary measures in dealing with those they feel threaten their unrestricted [within the rules] use of the waterways for themselves.

[haggis]

Nigel, you may huff and puff as much as you like about what could have happened but from what we have heard about this lady, it is highly unlikely that she would have accepted any offer to put her boat on hard standing, tow it to a non CRT waterway or any other action which might have helped her.

Re the time of year. Yes, it would be nice if all evictions from boats or houses took place only on sunny days but by carrying out the eviction at the time of year it happened, there was possibly more chance of the lady accepting help from one of the agencies there to help her than if it had been a nice day when going walkabout might have seemed, to her a good idea. The lady did not want help.

 

haggis

[NigelMoore]

. . . from what we have heard about this lady, it is highly unlikely that she would have accepted any offer to put her boat on hard standing, tow it to a non CRT waterway or any other action which might have helped her.

 

Re the time of year. Yes, it would be nice if all evictions from boats or houses took place only on sunny days but by carrying out the eviction at the time of year it happened, there was possibly more chance of the lady accepting help from one of the agencies there to help her than if it had been a nice day when going walkabout might have seemed, to her a good idea.

 

For so long as CaRT had authority to remove the boat, they did not require her acceptance as to where they placed it.

 

Are we to understand that it was actually thoughtful of CaRT to turf her out in the worst possible conditions so that she would have maximum reason to seek help? They should have put that argument to the judge in the previous case I referred to; maybe he would have seen the logic and not adjourned the hearing as he did.

 

You may consider my posts "huff & puff", but they remain valid responses in answer to those who asserted that it was easy to criticise without suggesting alternatives.

[Guest]

For so long as CaRT had authority to remove the boat, they did not require her acceptance as to where they placed it.

 

Are we to understand that it was actually thoughtful of CaRT to turf her out in the worst possible conditions so that she would have maximum reason to seek help? They should have put that argument to the judge in the previous case I referred to; maybe he would have seen the logic and not adjourned the hearing as he did.

 

You may consider my posts "huff & puff", but they remain valid responses in answer to those who asserted that it was easy to criticise without suggesting alternatives.

I just love the way you skip over previous queries without adequately responding but then go on to replicate your propoganda ....

[NigelMoore]

I just love the way you skip over previous queries without adequately responding but then go on to replicate your propoganda ....

 

Enlighten me as to any previous queries I have not adequately responded to, and I will know whether to accept your admiration as deserved.

[Graham Davis]

Admit it Nigel, this is more grist to the mill for your continual diatribe against CaRT?

 

And Dog House is right, you don't bother to answer many questions, because you know you can't answer them.

 

Give it up!!

[NigelMoore]

And Dog House is right, you don't bother to answer many questions, because you know you can't answer them.

 

Hardly the enlightenment I was looking for.

 

As I understood [perhaps inadequately] TDH was referring to queries I apparently answered inadequately rather than those I didn't bother answering at all for reasons of my own. As to your claim to insight into those, it evidences an unwarranted assumption of preternatural penetration.

 

In either case, anyone genuinely interested would have responded accordingly. I could then have decided whether they merited further answering or not, as being a useful contribution to the debate. I'm disinterested otherwise.

[Willber G]

Nigel, do you know, in detail, all the steps taken (possibly in collaboration with other parties/organisations) by CRT prior to the removal of the boat? Perhaps some of the things you have suggested were considered, or even attempted, and turned out not to be feasible.

[Guest]

 

Enlighten me as to any previous queries I have not adequately responded to, and I will know whether to accept your admiration as deserved.

 

I'm afraid if you can't be bothered to go go back over the thread then neither can I.

[Allan(nb Albert)]

 

Allan said: "a marina owner actually offered to provide her with a berth free of charge." I don't know where that was, nor whether CaRT demanded that its boats needed licensing. Presumably, supposing unwarranted licence demands were in force there, [and probably optimally under the circumstances] the same person could have allowed them to place the boat on hardstanding within the marina. That would require no licence, would prevent any attempt to slip out of the marina and back into CaRT water, and for so long as CaRT had the court order entitling removal, the owner of the boat would have no say in the matter.

 

I said: "remove from the jurisdiction", not remove to waterways in any other authority's jurisdiction. Referring back to #279, I said: "It might in some circumstances be more economical and practical to simply tow the boat out of CaRT's jurisdiction and/or to a section where no licence is required [providing that it can safely be left there, which will not always be the case on tidal waters]." Alternatively it could be on hardstanding anywhere an appropriate person was willing to accept it together with the potential problems - as with the marina owner Allan refers to.

 

There could have been discussion with adjacent navigation authorities as to their willingness to have the boat somewhere on their waters [because of course they have a say in the matter] - I doubt that would have proved productive, but it would have been worth trying. It isn't necessary though; CaRT have some 250 miles of waterways where public rights of navigation exist still, some modified some not. She could have been placed anywhere suitable outside of the main navigation channel on those.

 

What I have been doing consistently throughout this thread is to point out that there were always alternatives, in answer to those who claimed there were none.

 

Another alternative, even accepting for the sake of argument that the boat should have been seized, would have been to at least put it off until better weather - I have already referred to the relatively recent case where the court refused to adjudicate the issue in mid-winter, and deferred the matter for that very reason alone. I presume the judge subsequently granted CaRT what they wanted, but he made sure it could be enforced only when conditions were better. That was [unusually?] humane thinking on the court's part, a thinking obviously not shared by CaRT, nor by any of their supporters here.

 

Apropos, it should be noted, as others [both supporters and non-supporters] have observed, that CaRT takes such action in large part because they would come under heavy criticism from 'compliant' boaters if they did not. Some responsibility for the actions taken, if that is accepted, must lie with such boaters as keep up the pressure on CaRT in this respect, and who demand the most extreme of unnecessary measures in dealing with those they feel threaten their unrestricted [within the rules] use of the waterways for themselves.

On learning that CaRT had made a mentally ill boater homeless, a marina owner did offer "Maggie" a free berth in his marina. This was done as a simple act of human kindness without realising that Maggie was not contactable or knowledge of the court order that CaRT had obtained which effectively prevents this.

 

 

On Tuesday evenings, I teach disadvantaged people martial arts and had the opportunity to speak to a mental health professional about the way in which CaRT has dealt with "Maggie" and other vulnerable people. He stressed his area of expertise was specifically mental health but stated that CaRT should have a published policy that ensures that vulnerable people have access to the help they need and are treated fairly and in accordance with current legislation.

 

He also made the point that the Mental Health Act recognises that, in certain circumstances, decisions have to be made for an individual either to protect them or the public (or both).

 

With regard to outcomes for Maggie as an alternative to being made homeless (Section 8) or being imprisoned (Section 5), he suggested that a Community Treatment Order may have have been the appropriate way forward but would have required the active co-operation of CaRT and other authorities.

 

He stressed that this did not automatically mean that she would be allowed to stay on her boat even with CaRT's active co-operation.

 

Edited January 15, 2014 by Allan(nb Albert)

[blodger]

On learning that CaRT had made a mentally ill boater homeless, a marina owner did offer "Maggie" a free berth in his marina. This was done as a simple act of human kindness without realising that Maggie was not contactable or knowledge of the court order that CaRT had obtained which effectively prevents this.

 

 

On Tuesday evenings, I teach disadvantaged people martial arts and had the opportunity to speak to a mental health professional about the way in which CaRT has dealt with "Maggie" and other vulnerable people. He stressed his area of expertise was specifically mental health but stated that CaRT should have a published policy that ensures that vulnerable people have access to the help they need and are treated fairly and in accordance with current legislation.

 

He also made the point that the Mental Health Act recognises that, in certain circumstances, decisions have to be made for an individual either to protect them or the public (or both).

 

With regard to outcomes for Maggie as an alternative to being made homeless (Section 8) or being imprisoned (Section 5), he suggested that a Community Treatment Order may have have been the appropriate way forward but would have required the active co-operation of CaRT and other authorities.

 

He stressed that this did not automatically mean that she would be allowed to stay on her boat even with CaRT's active co-operation.

 

I do not know when and whence came the offer of a free mooring but doubt that would have fitted "Maggie"s aims.

 

Maggie was not 'under the mental health services' and would resent it being implied she was mental sufficient to warrant the attention of mental health services. Concerned parties had engaged with mental health services exploring possibilities and they in turn had also spoken with/assessed Maggie.

 

Maggie continued to pursue her own aims and objectives and endeavoured to use the legal system to fulfil them

[NigelMoore]

Nigel, do you know, in detail, all the steps taken (possibly in collaboration with other parties/organisations) by CRT prior to the removal of the boat? Perhaps some of the things you have suggested were considered, or even attempted, and turned out not to be feasible.

 

Of course I do not know, especially in detail, all the steps taken. I can know only what CaRT have chosen to reveal as per the quoted statement in Jenlyn's #15. They claim there, only that they tried to discuss things with the boater concerned, and with support agencies who were supposedly supportive of the eviction.

 

It is a safe assumption that if they had had any detail to reveal about considering or attempting alternatives such as I have suggested, they would have disclosed them in that 'press release'. If they have explored alternatives and unaccountably forborne to disclose that mitigating fact, then let them do so for public reassurance, and I will commend them for that much at least.

 

What they have said is only that having spent 15 months trying fruitlessly to persuade her, engaging with a mental health organisation, and obtaining court sanction, they executed the seizure as compassionately as possible. There was no mention at all of any consideration of alternative measures to seizing the boat, nor even any explanation of why it was deemed appropriate to execute that in mid-winter.

 

There can, in fact, be no circumstance capable of precluding some of the suggestions I have made; so far as CaRT's pronouncements are concerned, it was s.8 or nothing, and ensuring that relevant agencies backed them up.

 

I'm afraid if you can't be bothered to go go back over the thread then neither can I.

 

I go back over past comments in the thread routinely, and see nothing to substantiate your observation. You, on the other hand need not do so, because either some specific omission has stuck in your mind provoking the remark, or else it was a semantically null stock retort plucked from your standard repertoire.

 

The latter appearing to be the case, I must conclude that your expression of love for my ways was likewise insincere, which is wounding. My newly emerging touchy-feely self is now hurt and in retreat - just as nicknorman was beginning to warm to me too!

Edited January 15, 2014 by NigelMoore

[ditchcrawler]

A very similar case on the news yesterday, mother and daughter made homeless because they claimed they didn't need to pay council tax and lost the case. They were ordered to pay the arrears at £12 per month which they failed to do so were made bankrupt. Now that didn't all happen overnight.

[Guest]

I go back over past comments in the thread routinely, and see nothing to substantiate your observation. You, on the other hand need not do so, because either some specific omission has stuck in your mind provoking the remark, or else it was a semantically null stock retort plucked from your standard repertoire.

 

The latter appearing to be the case, I must conclude that your expression of love for my ways was likewise insincere, which is wounding. My newly emerging touchy-feely self is now hurt and in retreat - just as nicknorman was beginning to warm to me too!

 

I will leave you to it Nigel - it is clear that a good number on here have sussed your agenda both from this and other threads and whilst some have referred to you as 'knowing what you are talking about' it is patently clear to me you actually do not. Other wise you would have understood and properly responded to my criticism of you accepting the wording of the petition pre-amble upon much of all this is based. It was nothing more than emotive biased tosh, it's as plain as the nose on your face it was and any fool could see it.

 

The simple fact that you give that petition any credence both in terms of the numbers that signed it along with what the pre-amble alleges happened regards the three boaters concerned speaks volumes about what motivates you in what seems to be your endless war with CRT.

[haggis]

We don't need to look very far for Nigels agenda.

 

He said earlier (post 253 or thereabouts) that as CRT won't speak with him, he was using this thread to get his points to them as they read CWDF. I think you can probably give up now, Nigel, they probably stopped reading a long time ago :-)

 

haggis

[NigelMoore]

 

I will leave you to it Nigel - it is clear that a good number on here have sussed your agenda both from this and other threads and whilst some have referred to you as 'knowing what you are talking about' it is patently clear to me you actually do not. Other wise you would have understood and properly responded to my criticism of you accepting the wording of the petition pre-amble upon much of all this is based. It was nothing more than emotive biased tosh, it's as plain as the nose on your face it was and any fool could see it.

 

The simple fact that you give that petition any credence both in terms of the numbers that signed it along with what the pre-amble alleges happened regards the three boaters concerned speaks volumes about what motivates you in what seems to be your endless war with CRT.

 

I do not have to accept the emotive wording of the petition; I need only give credence to the cold facts as presented in CaRT's statement. As to the numbers of signatures on the petition, whether they prove effectual is key to that aspect; time will tell. CaRT will not care about the numbers per se, they will only analyse the potential impact on them. Doubtless your arguments as to their being meaningless will be seen as helpful.

 

As to your last, it is equally valid to question the motives for CaRT's "endless war with" me. I'd leave them alone if they left me alone, I'm not as altruistic as so many of you.

 

Then again, why so much angst over my criticisms? CaRT are big enough to stand up for themselves, and they have the reassurance of knowing how many leap to passionate defence of their policies and actions. They have the further reassurance that "a good number on here have sussed - my - agenda" and consider that I do not know what I talk about.

 

So there should be no need to get too excited over a few suggestions from me as to how they should go about things better.

I think you can probably give up now, Nigel, they probably stopped reading a long time ago :-)

 

If that is indeed the case, then there is no need for you to worry about whatever I say here. Simply refrain from dignifying my comments with a response.

[Graham Davis]

Perhaps, Nigel, some of us are fed up with you using this Forum as the method for your diatribe against CaRT!!

[NigelMoore]

Perhaps, Nigel, some of us are fed up with you using this Forum as the method for your diatribe against CaRT!!

 

So don't encourage me by participating in the relevant dialogue.

[Jerra]

 

So don't encourage me by participating in the relevant dialogue.

Unfortunately I think you would still make posts in threads you felt you could squeeze them into.

[matty40s]

Unfortunately I think you would still make posts in threads you felt you could squeeze them into.

There is always the ignore button if you feel that way.