C&RT Seize Pensioners Boat 27th March

[Athy]

Perhaps an unsympathetic view of liveaboard boaters; have you any figures or evidence to substantiate your assertions?

[Bee]

8 minutes ago, Alan de Enfield said:

C&RT have appointed staff in 'London area' whose role it is to help those 'just about managing' to get help and support - NBTA are fully aware of this (and if I remember correctly claimed that it was because of their interventions that C&RT implemented this) and could have helped him out earlier, but that wouldn't have made such a good story would it ?

Must admit the NBTA are not a group I know much about, what I do know though is that some folks are damned hard to help.

[PD1964]

1 minute ago, Athy said:

Perhaps an unsympathetic view of liveaboard boaters; have you any figures or evidence to substantiate your assertions?

Where did I paint the picture of being unsympathetic to livaboards? as I'm one myself and I see all the types of livaboards on the canal, including those that pay and those that don't.

[Athy]

7 minutes ago, PD1964 said:

Where did I paint the picture of being unsympathetic to livaboards? as I'm one myself and I see all the types of livaboards on the canal, including those that pay and those that don't.

In your post no. 25.

I note that you have not answered my question.

[PD1964]

2 minutes ago, Athy said:

In your post no. 25.

I note that you have not answered my question.

I said boats and boaters like this, no mention of categorizing livaboards, as I said as a livaboard on the canals I've seen all types of boaters including livaboards so just have my own experience, sorry no statistics, just life experiences as a full time livaboard on the canals. I take it you have not seen these type of run down boats and boaters then?

[Athy]

7 minutes ago, PD1964 said:

I said boats and boaters like this, no mention of categorizing livaboards, as I said as a livaboard on the canals I've seen all types of boaters including livaboards so just have my own experience, sorry no statistics, just life experiences as a full time livaboard on the canals. I take it you have not seen these type of run down boats and boaters then?

Yes, I have seen old Springers, Harboroughs etc. which are obviously liveaboard boats (the roof's load is usually a clue) but it has not occurred to me that just because the boat is not glossily painted and immaculately polished, the owner doesn't pay for his licence  or insurance.

So I'll ask you a third time: have you got evidence to back up your allegations?  If not, how can we take them seriously?

 

 

 

 

Edited April 1, 2018 by Athy

[JamesFrance]

I couldn't help smiling when I saw that the same Facebook group are also campaigning for C&RT to supply barges moored on the offside to contain boater trash.

[Athy]

10 minutes ago, JamesFrance said:

I couldn't help smiling when I saw that the same Facebook group are also campaigning for C&RT to supply barges moored on the offside to contain boater trash.

I assume that you mean "boaters' rubbish"? Your emboldened phrase sounds like "trailer trash", a somewhat pejorative American expression meaning "poor people living in caravans". I'm sure that some of these "boater trash" would welcome a nice offside-moored barge to live on.

Edited April 1, 2018 by Athy

[PD1964]

2 minutes ago, Athy said:

Yes, I have seen old Springers, Harboroughs etc. which are obviously liveaboard boats (the roof's load is usually a clue) but it has not occurred to me that just because the boat isnot glossily painted and immaculately polished, the owner doesn't pay for his licence o or insurance.

 

So I'll ask you a third time: have you got evidence to back up your allegations?  If not, how can we take them seriously?

 

 

 

 

What allegations, come on what are you getting at, what's your beef? I take it your a livaboard? Come on get it off your chest

[alan_fincher]

58 minutes ago, Alan de Enfield said:

C&RT have appointed staff in 'London area' whose role it is to help those 'just about managing' to get help and support - NBTA are fully aware of this (and if I remember correctly claimed that it was because of their interventions that C&RT implemented this) and could have helped him out earlier, but that wouldn't have made such a good story would it ?

 

Staff?

AFAIK, CRT have at best appointed one Welfare Officer, but he was to cover issues country-wide, and certainly not just based in London.

I have been disappointed that after the press that greeted his arrival, nothing more has been heard of his active involvement.

I assume he is still in role, (or at least I have never heard that he is not), but he has seemed to be suitably invisible.

I don't think he ever had "staff", so I wonder what your basis is for suggesting the above?

 

 

Edited April 1, 2018 by alan_fincher

[Athy]

2 minutes ago, PD1964 said:

What allegations, come on what are you getting at, what's your beef? I take it your a livaboard? 

Don't be evasive, please. For the severalth time, the allegations which you made earlier in this thread.

No, I am not a liveaboard. My favourite beef would be sirloin.

You see, it is quite easy to answer questions directly. Will you please do so, or cease making injurious and (as yet) unfounded comments about fellow boaters.

[Alan de Enfield]

3 minutes ago, alan_fincher said:

 

I don't think he ever had "staff", so I wonder what your basis is for suggesting the above?

Fair comment - I used the wrong words.

In addition to Sean there are other avenues available including the Waterways Chaplaincy and Waterways Licence Support Officers of which part of their roles are to guide the 'vulnerable' to the available help.

[rusty69]

Can of worms definitely opened.

[JamesFrance]

6 minutes ago, Athy said:

I assume that you mean "boaters' rubbish"? Your emboldened phrase sounds like "trailer trash", an American expression meaning "poor people living in caravans". I'm sure that some of these "boater trash" would welcome a nice offside-moored barge to live on.

I am sure you are correct but I am just quoting what they said.  

[Paul C]

12 minutes ago, alan_fincher said:

 

Staff?

AFAIK, CRT have at best appointed one Welfare Officer, but he was to cover issues country-wide, and certainly not just based in London.

I have been disappointed that after the press that greeted his arrival, nothing more has been heard of his active involvement.

I assume he is still in role, (or at least I have never heard that he is not), but he has seemed to be suitably invisible.

I don't think he ever had "staff", so I wonder what your basis is for suggesting the above?

 

 

Incredibly naive to assume that because something's not publicised, it doesn't occur. Also, the very nature of his/her role, I would imagine, doesn't really lend itself to any more than the basic overview of the cases they take on etc.

[Athy]

4 minutes ago, JamesFrance said:

I am sure you are correct but I am just quoting what they said.  

As I fully realise, yes. Whoever wrote the original article was perhaps not of a literary bent.

[alan_fincher]

1 minute ago, Paul C said:

Incredibly naive to assume that because something's not publicised, it doesn't occur. Also, the very nature of his/her role, I would imagine, doesn't really lend itself to any more than the basic overview of the cases they take on etc.

I have actually assumed nothing.

However do you not think that given the amount of criticism CRT attract every time they carry out an eviction such as the one being discussed here, that it would be a good idea for them to self publicise in an anonymous way the successes they have managed to achieve without acquiring a lot more bad press.

Such reports need not go into any detail that identifies those being helped, but it would in my view do CRT themselves no harm at all to establish that they are able to sort out some cases satisfactorily without heavy handedness, (assuming that does sometimes happen).

[X Alan W]

Could the people who donated funds fo to get him a different boat not have put the money towards getting the required things he needs for the boat he had to comply To me it seems a bit of "Never do today what you can put off "til" tomorrow" & time caught up with him I doubt if it was a case of C&rt just turning up & taking his boat re the "Sheriffs"there must have been beforehand notification Calls,Visits, or paper work Perhaps he thought if he ignored the problem it would go away Not nice to be homeless but seems to be self inflicted

[Old Son]

I wonder how long he has been on that mooring? I just get the feeling it might be longer than 14 days.

[PD1964]

19 minutes ago, Athy said:

Don't be evasive, please. For the severalth time, the allegations which you made earlier in this thread.

No, I am not a liveaboard. My favourite beef would be sirloin.

You see, it is quite easy to answer questions directly. Will you please do so, or cease making injurious and (as yet) unfounded comments about fellow boaters.

I would say they are more observations then allegations and being a livaboard on the canals unlike you I'm in a better position to observe.

Now get over it and concentrate on the subject of this Thread and not me.

[rgreg]

I wonder what exactly the NBTA expect CRT to do in this situation. Turn a blind eye? Pay for the repairs themselves? Re-house him? If they did any of these then the flood- gates would be well and truly opened.

[Paul C]

2 minutes ago, alan_fincher said:

I have actually assumed nothing.

However do you not think that given the amount of criticism CRT attract every time they carry out an eviction such as the one being discussed here, that it would be a good idea for them to self publicise in an anonymous way the successes they have managed to achieve without acquiring a lot more bad press.

Such reports need not go into any detail that identifies those being helped, but it would in my view do CRT themselves no harm at all to establish that they are able to sort out some cases satisfactorily without heavy handedness, (assuming that does sometimes happen).

I don't see a significant correlation between the actions of CRT, and the criticism they attract. It seems to be a minority of "CRT haters" who exaggerate stories to try and support their weak arguments. For example someone is suggesting s.8 was illegal in this case because the guy moored on a river, outside of the MNC - yet this has been to court and CRT won on this issue; also they won on the proportionality issue too (pending an appeal....of course).

This case, just like many others, is short of "facts" and I can fully understand why neither side would want to present the facts. For the haters, it would considerably weaken their case; and for CRT they have an obligation to respect the privacy of its customers. Some people will never understand that though.

[Richard10002]

One thing that we can be absolutely certain of is that the initial approach to the boater regarding his lack of licence, BSS, and insurance, will have been made a relatively long time ago. If his supporters are trying to buy him a replacement boat, what makes any of them think that he will insure and licence it? In addition, had they clubbed together at the start of all of this, they could have paid for his licence and insurance, and helped him to pass his BSS.

I would also be amazed if there have not been some attempts to help him in a variety of ways, possibly by CRT, as well as others.

So there has been a significant amount of burying of heads in the sand, or arrogance, or both.

I feel sorry for the guy, but have little sympathy.

[WotEver]

24 minutes ago, Athy said:

As I fully realise, yes. Whoever wrote the original article was perhaps not of a literary bent.

Neither are the local councillors round here who have erected a gaggle of signs advising the public that a major roundabout is about to be ‘signalised’. Oooh, a new verb...

[Mike on the Wey]

8 minutes ago, rgreg said:

I wonder what exactly the NBTA expect CRT to do in this situation. Turn a blind eye? Pay for the repairs themselves? Re-house him? If they did any of these then the flood- gates would be well and truly opened.

Probably all of the above. The London Boaters FB people seem to be looking only at the outcome but ignoring the cause. And ignoring the very real risk that crowdfunding for another boat is likely to place S.T. in the same position. The aim is to buy him a cheap fibreglass cruiser. What could possibly go wrong?