chubby Posted February 5, 2018 Report Share Posted February 5, 2018 1 minute ago, markeymark said: 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 Ive just read the article aswell . Im still convinced CRT were right & the way they went about was right . Harsh but fair . To me , there was no time for dilly dallying . Just tear it down . Once down its no longer a danger . Despite the occupants situation i simply cannot find myself able to feel sorry for them . The project was dangerous & iiresponsible & they thought of no one but themselves . All those comments about how people loved it etc etc are total nonsense - theyd change thier tune if it went up in flames with two occupants on board . If the chaps a gas technician or whatever then i dont understand how hes homeless . Gas bods aren t tied to London . Go elsewhere , earn money ... if you wanna come back then do it , but if your skint & homeless why hang around ? Agreed though , it is despite everything else , a sign o the times . 21st century Britain . Makes one proud doesn t it Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Schweizer Posted February 5, 2018 Report Share Posted February 5, 2018 (edited) 42 minutes ago, NigelMoore said: Thank you David. Can you point me to the relevant legislation for that? I had access to the information when I was Clerk to the Local Council, but that was more than fifteen years ago, and they were passed on to my successor. However, the Town and Country Planning Order seems to come to mind. It may also be referenced in one of the earlier Waterways Acts, but I disposed of all my copies some years ago. Your Local Planning Officer should know. Edited February 5, 2018 by David Schweizer Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alan_fincher Posted February 5, 2018 Report Share Posted February 5, 2018 (edited) 7 minutes ago, RLWP said: I'm wondering what the reaction would be if this had been constructed as a dwelling on the bank Richard There are some temporary dwellings on the canal banks in the London environs that are frankly not a lot smaller than this. Generally I think CRT choose to ignore those, unless someone has experience to the contrary. Edited February 5, 2018 by alan_fincher Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Horace42 Posted February 5, 2018 Report Share Posted February 5, 2018 Strikes me as though a lot of planning has gone into this operation - so there is a bit more to this than meets the eye. It will be interesting to see what happens....if anything...! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sir Nibble Posted February 5, 2018 Report Share Posted February 5, 2018 Perhaps the destruction was consequent upon the thing being structurally unable to cope with being lifted. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alan_fincher Posted February 5, 2018 Report Share Posted February 5, 2018 13 minutes ago, Sir Nibble said: Perhaps the destruction was consequent upon the thing being structurally unable to cope with being lifted. If you try lifting it with what looks like a large grab, I suspect lots of things would be structurally unable to cope. I can't imagine even something like Naughty Cal would react to well to being pulled out using a grab! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bod Posted February 5, 2018 Report Share Posted February 5, 2018 Would the "Houseboat" legislation cover this situation? Bod Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NigelMoore Posted February 5, 2018 Author Report Share Posted February 5, 2018 1 hour ago, Bod said: Would the "Houseboat" legislation cover this situation? That is a bit tricky, though the potential could be there. However in my understanding of the 'houseboat' legislation there would need to be a legitimate approved residential mooring attached to the vessel itself, for the definition to properly apply. The powers relating to houseboats are of course, more draconian than those applying to pleasure boats, s.13(3)( a ) providing that, having given a 28 day minimum notice - "The Board may at any time after the expiration of the period specified in such notice remove or demolish the houseboat referred to in the notice and clear and restore the surface of the inland waterway disturbed by such removal or demolition." [my bold] Even so, the minimum 28 day notice applies, as you can see. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dyertribe Posted February 5, 2018 Report Share Posted February 5, 2018 6 hours ago, Dave123 said: Very badly handled indeed! Crushing it right there in front of other boats and passers by where it could be photographed is not good PR. Don't know why they didn't take it back to Bulls bridge where I think the crane came from... I guess a raft house is the best description I could think of! Seems to me that it is exactly the PR they were aiming for. You put rubbish in the canal, we dispose of it. Next...... 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ditchcrawler Posted February 5, 2018 Report Share Posted February 5, 2018 10 minutes ago, Dyertribe said: Seems to me that it is exactly the PR they were aiming for. You put rubbish in the canal, we dispose of it. Next...... You think it could be bit of a signal to others who consider putting a floating shed on the cut Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nbfiresprite Posted February 5, 2018 Report Share Posted February 5, 2018 (edited) That floating pile of **** was moored the other end of the tunnel a few weeks ago close to Kings Cross. Noted how unstable it was when a boat passed. Brewers have always made it clear that they ALWAYS retain ownership of their beer kegs and casks. All containers are clearly identified with ownership details -conditions of trade place onus on the customer to ensure that empties are returned. Edited February 5, 2018 by nbfiresprite Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dyertribe Posted February 5, 2018 Report Share Posted February 5, 2018 9 minutes ago, ditchcrawler said: You think it could be bit of a signal to others who consider putting a floating shed on the cut Exactly Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheBiscuits Posted February 5, 2018 Report Share Posted February 5, 2018 16 minutes ago, nbfiresprite said: Brewers have always made it clear that they ALWAYS retain ownership of their beer kegs and casks. All containers are clearly identified with ownership details -conditions of trade place onus on the customer to ensure that empties are returned. Which is going to be fun when the pub(s) that let them borrow those kegs have to pay for losing them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NigelMoore Posted February 5, 2018 Author Report Share Posted February 5, 2018 4 minutes ago, TheBiscuits said: Which is going to be fun when the pub(s) that let them borrow those kegs have to pay for losing them. But they are not lost - CaRT has taken possession of them. I wonder what position that places them in - should they so inform the owners of that property, perhaps even offer to return them? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zenataomm Posted February 5, 2018 Report Share Posted February 5, 2018 8 hours ago, LEO said: Beat me to it! probably the best use I have seen for Foxtons signs, go to it Crt, it has no licence or BSC. Wot he just said^^^^^^ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheBiscuits Posted February 5, 2018 Report Share Posted February 5, 2018 4 minutes ago, NigelMoore said: But they are not lost - CaRT has taken possession of them. I wonder what position that places them in - should they so inform the owners of that property, perhaps even offer to return them? Receiving stolen goods at a guess Not like they were stolen - "A bloke who I don't know down the pub said it was OK if I took them" ... 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nbfiresprite Posted February 5, 2018 Report Share Posted February 5, 2018 2 minutes ago, NigelMoore said: But they are not lost - CaRT has taken possession of them. I wonder what position that places them in - should they so inform the owners of that property, perhaps even offer to return them? All they have to do is give Kegwatch call on 0808 1001945. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheBiscuits Posted February 5, 2018 Report Share Posted February 5, 2018 Quote Keg Watch pays rewards for information leading to the arrest and conviction of those responsible for the theft or unauthorized destruction of containers. I don't know who was driving the van but the bloke in charge of the gang is called Richard ... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NigelMoore Posted February 5, 2018 Author Report Share Posted February 5, 2018 8 minutes ago, nbfiresprite said: All they have to do is give Kegwatch call on 0808 1001945. That could prove interesting. What if CaRT told Kegwatch they could have their barrels, but they first needed to pay CaRT's costs of snaffling them? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bizzard Posted February 5, 2018 Report Share Posted February 5, 2018 29 minutes ago, nbfiresprite said: All they have to do is give Kegwatch call on 0808 1001945. Kegworth ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alan de Enfield Posted February 5, 2018 Report Share Posted February 5, 2018 13 minutes ago, bizzard said: Kegworth ? Used to be such a nice little village. Lying along the Soar, its probably best known for 'hosting' the Boeing 737 crash Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nbfiresprite Posted February 5, 2018 Report Share Posted February 5, 2018 51 minutes ago, NigelMoore said: That could prove interesting. What if CaRT told Kegwatch they could have their barrels, but they first needed to pay CaRT's costs of snaffling them? What C&RT should have done is phoned Kegwatch in the first place and let them recover the kegs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bizzard Posted February 5, 2018 Report Share Posted February 5, 2018 I doubt if C&RT will be firkin bothered. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MtB Posted February 6, 2018 Report Share Posted February 6, 2018 They would have had CRT over a barrel... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mac of Cygnet Posted February 6, 2018 Report Share Posted February 6, 2018 1 hour ago, Mike the Boilerman said: They would have had CRT over a barrel... I won a small bet with myself there...... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Featured Posts
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 accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now