Jump to content

London gets tough


NigelMoore

Featured Posts

9 minutes ago, JamesFrance said:

Maybe the brewery wanted their barrels back.

A few years ago (OK decades) I worked in IT for a large London based brewer. The next team to me were working on a stock control system for the barrels which involved bar coding each barrel to track it from brewery to pub and back again - why ?  'cos they were constantly being knicked and sold for scrap - so I can't see how any pub could legitimately 'lend' someone a barrel .. never mind the number that they appear to have there (looks like 40).

  • Greenie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

54 minutes ago, NigelMoore said:

If that is directed at me, I have chosen no battle – in large part, as I have said, because we do not know enough of the background. I am fascinated, however, to learn what powers CaRT claim to have acted under; on the face of it, certainly not s.8.

As to “this one isn’t going to have much support”, I would never expect that it would [supposing, which is never suggested in the article, that a battle was envisaged in the first place], regardless of the facts and/or legalities.

Not particularly directed at you just at people who want to complain about every iota that CRT do and hold it up to legal scrutiny.

  • Greenie 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

26 minutes ago, mrsmelly said:

Nigel

Surely if the " Object " has never been registered as a " Vessel ? " " Boat " then its just a case of more rubbish thrown in the cut that has been removed? If CART didn't keep the cut clear then boaters moan at them. Does section 8 apply to flotsam? I have no idea but would be surprised if it did.

If, contrary to the CaRT spokesperson’s description of it as a “craft”, it had been considered simply as an object, then you are correct: s.8 would not apply; s.9 of the 1983 Act would apply. That authorises CaRT to remove “anything (other than a vessel) which is . . . in the waterway or reservoir without lawful authority.”

As I have noted, that is not an authority to destroy it; s.9(2) requires that if anything so removed is identifiable as the property of any person, suitable notice must be given giving the opportunity for the owners to retrieve it.

It is conceivable that they could have relied upon s.9(3) on the grounds that it was “not so marked as to be readily identifiable as the property of any person”, but in the circumstances as described – if accurate – that would be a very tenuous justification. In any event, if they were accurately quoted as acknowledging it as a craft, then s.9 does not apply anyway. But s.9 is the answer to your query as to what they can do with non-vessels.

Edited by NigelMoore
spelling
  • Greenie 1
  • Happy 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The pubs don't own the barrels- the breweries do.  If the permission was from the breweries ( to me  unlikely as they usually pursue a clear case of having barrels without a beer related purpose) then fine, but nearby pubs can't give the breweries' permission.

N

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, RLWP said:

 

Our Kegs had a micro-chip incorporated into them, the brewery could track them and we were not suppose to allow to let them leave the premises.

We would certainly not have had authority to 'lend' them out, and I'm guessing that even the Manager of a tied-house would not have either.

There looks to be 40 kegs - that's quite a few for pubs to 'lose'.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, nicknorman said:

Was it a vessel? If you can tie a plank to a beer barrel and call it a vessel - or maybe not even bother with the plank - and expect CRT to have to go through an entire S8 procedure to get it removed - to be followed moments later by the same people popping another barrel into the cut - then I think you are being unrealistic.

It was a vessel according to CaRT, supposing they were quoted verbatim. However, as I have said, they have powers to remove unauthorised non-vessels also.

I agree that it has proven unrealistic to expect CaRT to go through legislated procedures, whichever procedure might be appropriate – be those sections 7, 8 or 9, or s.18 of the 1995 Act.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You would have to be an idiot to take the 'facts' presented in the original article at face value. And, in previous cases, CRT don't typically publicise the details of each and every case they deal with, nor are they required to. So its a bit of a non-meaningful debate until actual facts come to light.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, chubby said:

CRT have responsibilities to other people on the canal & adjacent to the canal . . .

Indeed, and if they had urgent concerns over safety, then, as per the legislation quoted by Alan, they ought to have boarded it and noted what was necessary to make it safe – if possible – and then take the mandated actions available.

Maybe, as Alan has also said, they did in fact do so. I would have expected them to have so stated, in their response, but I know that reporting can be selective.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sort of reminds me of a proactive rescue. Rescue person off unfit dingy. Stab and sink dingy to stop others boarding it or others spotting it and calling out a false alarm.

 

Danger to themselves and others. Illegal too. High chance of rehabitation and recourant hazard....... so remove hazard by destroy/remove.

  • Love 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Can I throw another spanner in the works? As the boards from which the structure was made were displaying the name of an Estate Agency, and the area covered was bigger than the permitted dimensions, the structure  was also in breach of Planning Regulations, and as such could be removed by the Planning Authority without any notice at all. Assuming that C&RT inherited the old BW entitlement to award itself Planning Consent in urgent cases, they may well have used those poweres if they considered the structure to be a danger to the public.

Edited by David Schweizer
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think its a marvellous attempt at cocking-a-snoop at authority. It is harmless fun , nothing more. If there were thousands of these home-made rafts around blocking access then it might be problem but I think its a sign of how authoritarian a society we have become when someone does something for a laugh and gets such a reaction...talk about Big Brother looking over our shoulders..its scary.  The fact that its in front of a No Mooring sign says it all surely?

  • Greenie 1
  • Love 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Also

if you leave it then how long before someone else manages gather together another pile of litter & turn it into " accomodation "

Get in , tear it down , send a message to other would be piss takers , potentially save lives , potentially save the emergency services from having to attend etc etc . Then deal with the repercussions . CRT did the right thing by putting the wider community & thier wellbeing ahead of some dumb muppets 

good

  • Greenie 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, markeymark said:

I think its a marvellous attempt at cocking-a-snoop at authority. It is harmless fun , nothing more. If there were thousands of these home-made rafts around blocking access then it might be problem but I think its a sign of how authoritarian a society we have become when someone does something for a laugh and gets such a reaction...talk about Big Brother looking over our shoulders..its scary.  The fact that its in front of a No Mooring sign says it all surely?

This Sir , with all due respect is complete bollocks 

 

 

but then you know that dont you .....? 

  • Greenie 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's just along by the eastern portal of the Islington tunnel, a dismal spot.  Boats moored opposite.  They shouild have hidden away in it in the tunnel during the day with a riding light on it to warn any boat that should come along, and perhaps paddled it out after dark to take in the nightime air, check the weather, go shopping ect. Their eyes would already be accustomed to the dark.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, bizzard said:

That's just along by the eastern portal of the Islington tunnel, a dismal spot.  Boats moored opposite.  They shouild have hidden away in it in the tunnel during the day with a riding light on it to warn any boat that should come along, and perhaps paddled it out after dark to take in the nightime air, check the weather, go shopping ect. Their eyes would already be accustomed to the dark.

They should have made the roof out of little Triangular Flags ,then could could have claimed Immunity as they would become Members of "The Burgee Travellers Association".

  • Greenie 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, cereal tiller said:

They should have made the roof out of little Triangular Flags ,then could could have claimed Immunity as they would become Members of "The Burgee Travellers Association".

Don't need this house not longer

Don't need this house no more

Not got time to fix the shingles

Not got time to fix the floor.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, mrsmelly said:

Nigel

Surely if the " Object " has never been registered as a " Vessel ? " " Boat " then its just a case of more rubbish thrown in the cut that has been removed? If CART didn't keep the cut clear then boaters moan at them. Does section 8 apply to flotsam? I have no idea but would be surprised if it did.

What the hell in law is a " Raft house " ?

That is exactly what I was thinking, what is a vessel, is an old drum floating in the cut a vessel?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, NigelMoore said:

Can you expand on that David? Are you referring to something other than the ‘permitted development’ rights?

Yes, Permitted Development is something comletely different.

A number of "Public" bodies (including BW) have (had) the legal right to award themselves Planning Consent without reference to the Planning Authority in the event of what they consider to be an emergency or urgent. It is how British Rail managed to demolish uneconomic Victorian Railways Station buildings without Listed Building Consent, because they declared them to be a danger to the public. The usual proceedure was to declare the building unsafe just before midnight on a Saturday, and move the bulldozers in before 1am on the Sunday morning resulting in the building beig tortally demolished by the time the world had awoken from it's slumbers. They did exactly that with Trowbridge Station near me some years ago, and did the same with many more.

For what it is worth, some years ago BW tried to use it's planning powers to make material alterations to the Frome Road Wharf building in Bradford-on-Avon when I worked there as a volunteer for the K&A Trust. Whilst they had moved their equipment onto the site, they were a bit slow, and I contacted the local Planning Officer, who I knew well,before they had started, and she was down there within fifteen minutes to stop them. They subsequently submitted a Listed Building Planning Application which was refused.

Edited by David Schweizer
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I hold my hands up, now that I have actually read the article in ES . whatever people might think, I believe that CRT could have handled it with more decorum and not just ridden roughshod over the dwellers. If any good comes out of this then the 2 guys will be rehomed because of all the publicity but this attempt at finding their own solution to be being homeless shows how ridiculous is the housing situation in the UK...and as sure as eggs are eggs its all gonna come crashing down, the achilles heel of a perpetual growth economy thats unsustainable. Look at Spain in 2008, and they did not even have a housing crisis like in the UK, and now they are really buggered. When it does happen (the crash) , all those in boats might actually be better off not saddled with a mortgage despite the negative equity that comes with the risk of boat ownership

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.