C&RT Seize Pensioners Boat 27th March

[WotEver]

26 minutes ago, TheBiscuits said:

They are not new, and they don't travel.  Most of them do seem to have aged though!

So perhaps ‘Ageing Hippy Don’t-Get-Around-Much-These-Days’ might be a more appropriate monicker?

[Alan de Enfield]

35 minutes ago, WotEver said:

Why don’t New Age Travellers actually travel?

Whilst some dictionary definitions indicate the 'do'

New Age travellers are persons who often espouse New Age and hippie beliefs, and travel between music festivals and fairs, in order to live in a community with others who hold similar beliefs.

Others definitions could be considered, by some, to be more accurate :

What exactly is the New Age? Impossible to narrow down, the New Age is actually a vast smorgasbord of beliefs and practices. Each New Ager fills his tray with whatever assortment fits his appetite. All is liberally seasoned with self-centeredness. It's really a Have-It-Your-Way religion – thus its modern appeal.

New Age travellers is a generic term which has been widely used in the media, but rarely among participants, to describe groups of scruffy young people who have apparently dropped out of normal society and have chosen to take to the road in convoys of battered old vehicles. There appears to be an urban variation on this grouping who are commonly involved in squatting in previously unoccupied housing. Eschewing traditional forms of employment, many (by no means all) live off welfare benefits, begging, and petty crime.

[ditchcrawler]

1 hour ago, LadyG said:

Not many people's career choice to be fair: criminality may appear to be the only route for the desperate, but I don't think anyone here would choose prison if they were rendered homeless tomorrow.

http://www.braunstonmarina.co.uk/Portals/0/Images/Finch/Finch - The Remorseful Day - II 20 11 03.pdf 

[NigelMoore]

11 hours ago, Naughty Cal said:

So where is your proof of this?

I recognise that this is a witty regurgitation of a previously used challenge, but taken at face value, proof of what is being sought is a little unclear.

The Human Rights Checklist supposed to be used by CaRT enforcement officers [yes I know they have been re-designated] is published here –

https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/379497/response/919178/attach/html/3/HRA Human Rights Act Check List.doc.html

Nowhere in that document, by the way, is there any query as to whether CaRT are envisaging prosecuting the offence as per the relevant legislation aimed at enforcing the licensing or registration requirements; the flow chart relating to choices to be made prior to serving s.8’s, likewise omits the legislated first response entirely. However, I understand that the “adjustments” criteria are a separate tool again.

As to ‘proof’ of the statement – if that was what is referred to – that court action generally taken “is usually neither expensive nor necessary”, the response must be slightly more complex.

CaRT is bound [whether it chooses to abide by that or not] by more than just the British Waterways legislation. It is true that under s.8 of the 1983 Act, no court action need be taken to justify removal of a “relevant vessel” from the waterway. The situation however, regardless of how miffed many contributors and indeed CaRT themselves might be about this, is that the impact upon all such deprivation of rights must be considered in the light of the HRA 1998.

It is for that reason that CaRT [as BW did before them] acknowledge a need for a court to stamp approval of the proposed exercise of the power – else there could be a possibility of challenge that the power was exercised oblivious to the over-riding demands of the later Act. So the “necessity” of a court action is ‘proven’ by CaRT’s acknowledgement [even if only to cover their backs], and protesting they need not do this is surely pointless.

As to expense, that is very largely a matter of choice. The largest slice of any expense will arise from the refusal to use the salaried professionals on the staff of the relevant departments. BW long ago ago used their in-house solicitor-advocate Greta O’Shea, such that their expenses were purely court fees of a few hundred pounds.

Even using external legal firms, the cost of s.8 court actions ‘only’ usually cost around £1,000 or so unless defended [which the Part 8 procedure used makes difficult to impossible, if not challenged]. Quarter million pound sums such as they spent trying to justify s.8 against my boats are unique, though a few notorious cases had sums around £100,000 spent on them.

‘Proof’ of the relatively modest costs involved in the standard undefended s.8 cases is available on their own website listings. The very latest costs recorded in a January hearing this year was a rather high £2,008 – again, solely down to the choice to use contracted out representation for a routine process. The defendant did not appear, so any of their minor legal minions could have processed this for CaRT, as for virtually all of the cases. Only in the rare instances where a defendant chose to challenge the part 8 procedure need CaRT consider more competent individuals than they employ in their legal department.

https://canalrivertrust.org.uk/the-publication-scheme/governance/legal-documents/court-action-to-remove-boats-from-our-waterways

 

[Paul C]

21 hours ago, Red Ruth said:

I think my point was that none of us know anything about the circumstances that led this man to lose his boat - one of the (several) reasons I can think of would be severe depression, in which case it would be very easy to let things get this bad without ever talking to anyone about it, and you're right - under those circumstances you'd probably feel that you didn't expect or deserve help. That doesn't mean you wouldn't deserve help. Hopefully you're lucky enough never to have had to deal with something like that, but there are plenty of ways things can go wrong for people without them being personally at fault. it would just be nice to see a bit of empathy. What we do know is that Slow Tony is well enough loved and respected that now he is visibly in trouble, there are people helping him. So we don't know what went wrong for him, but we have some idea what went right. CRT definitely knew throughout this process that there was serious trouble brewing - they have a duty to do everything they can to find out whether he needs reasonable adjustments or help to understand and overcome the problems. I'm glad he's got help now, and I hope that if you ever find yourself in similar circumstances, you will be helped too.  

Incredibly foolish to hypothesise that someone has a mental health condition, moreso if you've not met them, even moreso over the internet, and excuse me if I assume you don't have any/sufficient medical qualifications to do so either. But I'll forgive that you're simply "hypothesising". And if so, we're into the realm of theoretical stuff, so excuse me if my reply does the same. 

Its obvious that CRT DO make equality adjustments, in fact they have historically made quite a number of these, and have a process for doing so. And accepting that mental health is somewhat difficult to obtain NHS help on, there are agencies and bodies in place which can and do, via various means, try to get the relevant help to the relevant people. For example, police would pretty soon involve the medical services if they suspected it (and they are trained to do so and deal with these kinds of things regularly). So would social services if they had any contact; and I imagine CRT's mysterious welfare officer would see it as a primary part of their role. And of course, there are processes (not brilliant but they exist) to get treatment for those who refuse treatment but need it. 

Of course, my reply is an idealised one; but it matches your presumptions in distant diagnosis too. 

In terms of the question "can you be exempt from the section 8 process if you're depressed" - the answer is, yes. Because CRT can and do make equality adjustments; or discontinue enforcement in these cases. Without further actual evidence, we simply don't know the relative severity of any hypothesised condition, vs the scale of the non-compliance with areas of the law.

[Dr Bob]

8 minutes ago, Paul C said:

In terms of the question "can you be exempt from the section 8 process if you're depressed" - the answer is, yes. Because CRT can and do make equality adjustments; or discontinue enforcement in these cases. Without further actual evidence, we simply don't know the relative severity of any hypothesised condition, vs the scale of the non-compliance with areas of the law.

Like I said early, we cannot make a judgement.

[alan_fincher]

10 hours ago, Dr Bob said:

Like I said early, we cannot make a judgement.

It hasn't stopped an awful lot of people doing so, though!

Without making any comment on this particular case, but harking back to some previous discussion, anybody who thinks there is good mental health provision in this country has probably had little experience of either trying to access it themselves, or on behalf of someone else.  It is, in my experience, one of the most broken bits of the system, and already was before the latest cuts have undoubtedly rendered it even more so.  Our own personal experiences were not even as good as "shambolic".

[Red Ruth]

12 hours ago, Paul C said:

Incredibly foolish to hypothesise that someone has a mental health condition,

You're right - i didn't mean to do that. I was, more generally, just picking one of a number of reasons I could think of why someone might get to this position through no fault of their own. I have no reason to think it was the reason in play here at all, and probably should have been more careful to say that explicitly, although I did say (I think repeatedly) that we don't know the circumstances of this case. 

13 hours ago, NigelMoore said:

https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/379497/response/919178/attach/html/3/HRA Human Rights Act Check List.doc.html

Thanks for this Nigel - it certainly helps to resolve the question of whether CRT take these responsibilities seriously. 

As to this - ''the court action is usually neither expensive nor necessary'' - what I actually said was ''unnecessary'' - and I was referring (briefly) to the need to go to court where Human Rights are engaged - as you have now explained more fully. 

Edited April 10, 2018 by Red Ruth

[Alan de Enfield]

6 minutes ago, Red Ruth said:

You're right - i didn't mean to do that. I was, more generally, just picking one of a number of reasons I could think of why someone might get to this position through no fault of their own. I have no reason to think it was the reason in play here at all, and probably should have been more careful to say that explicitly, although I did say (I think repeatedly) that we don't know the circumstances of this case. 

 

Then why not pick the (possible) reason that he was just "a weirdo, new age, who believed that the law does not apply to him and that C&RT would not follow thru with their 'threats'.

 

[Naughty Cal]

1 minute ago, Alan de Enfield said:

Then why not pick the (possible) reason that he was just "a weirdo, new age, who believed that the law does not apply to him and that C&RT would not follow thru with their 'threats'.

 

Because then they couldn't have another unfounded dig at CRT?

[Arthur Marshall]

27 minutes ago, Alan de Enfield said:

Then why not pick the (possible) reason that he was just "a weirdo, new age, who believed that the law does not apply to him and that C&RT would not follow thru with their 'threats'.

You don't have to be a weirdo, new age, or a nonbeliever in the law to be poor, broke and unable to find anywhere to live in this country these days.  Which doesn't mean that it's a problem CRT can solve, nor can your local council.

Just let everyone keep voting for lower and lower taxes, and for those who sell off industries to them foreign parts so that all the money they take goes overseas (and no taxes get paid there either).  Although, thinking on, these are the real people who believe that the law doesn't apply to them, because of course it doesn't.  Just don't blame the poor for occasionally taking steps to look after themselves, legal or illegal. Sometimes, yes, it's just excuses. More often than not, it's reasons.

[mayalld]

What I find interesting is that the Baton Twirling Association have taken up cudgels against CRT (as is their wont), to tell us that CRT are dreadful, picking on a vulnerable individual, yet I cannot find a single example of them EVER saying that CRT was justified, because the (ex-)boater was just taking the proverbial.

Basically, their standpoint is that anybody who doesn't pay or doesn't play by the rules must have a good reason for it, and should just be allowed to do as they please, with the cost of their licences distributed amongst those who do pay.

I might have SOME respect for them if I felt that they accepted that there must be rules, and expected something different only for genuine cases of NEED (rather than WANT).

I would have even more respect if they chose to do something instead of bleating. If they believe that some people cannot pay for a licence, and need to have it paid for them, can they not stick their hands in their pockets to pay for the licence. It is very easy to demand that all boaters pay for this, less easy to actually contribute to a fund and decide who is actually deserving.

Here is an idea. Let us have a fund, administered by boaters to which we can all make voluntary contributions (yes I would contribute). That fund can be used to pay for licences where boaters (not CRT) accept that there is genuine need. At the same time, CRT adopt a zero-tolerance approach to unlicenced boats.

How would that play out?

Well, CRT would get more income from licences, and could hold the charges lower, which would mean that I actually get my voluntary contribution back in lower licence charges.

The boating organisations would need to decide who was ACTUALLY deserving, to keep within their means, and because if they were seen to buy licences for the undeserving, people would stop contributing.

I actually see NBTA as the bad guys here. They could have helped to ensure that the guy kept his boat, but that didn't suit their purposes. From their point of view the guy being evicted is far more useful to the cause than actually doing something.

 

[roland elsdon]

Ah that mental elf elf up to his tricks again , no doubt the cause of all the worlds malise.

in the past you were foolish bad or mad. If the latter assisted and treated. Mad was the last assumed because its so rare.

now foolishness and feckless are ‘ he’s got the  bad menal elf, ‘ and the seriously mentaly ill sit in the corner getting worse and not being recognised in the noise and smoke caused by those who need a good excuse

 

[Athy]

36 minutes ago, Arthur Marshall said:

 

Just let everyone keep voting for lower and lower taxes,

I may have read you wrongly, but you seem to be suggesting that this is a bad thing. I'm not sure about that at all. For example, the personal tax allowance before income tax need be paid has shot up in recent years; a person can now earn well over £200 a week, a comfortable living wage in many parts of the country, before they need to pay any income tax at all. This means they have more money in the bank and in their pocket, and is thus a good thing. Not so?

[peterboat]

On 4/9/2018 at 09:35, LadyG said:

Not many people's career choice to be fair: criminality may appear to be the only route for the desperate, but I don't think anyone here would choose prison if they were rendered homeless tomorrow.

Actually far more common than you think! My boat was broken into on New years eve along with another in Sheffield basin, the coppers attending said it happens when weather is cold, bad lad gets a couple of months inside and out for summer. In our case he got 42 months so it would appear his plan didnt go well.......................

44 minutes ago, Arthur Marshall said:

You don't have to be a weirdo, new age, or a nonbeliever in the law to be poor, broke and unable to find anywhere to live in this country these days.  Which doesn't mean that it's a problem CRT can solve, nor can your local council.

Just let everyone keep voting for lower and lower taxes, and for those who sell off industries to them foreign parts so that all the money they take goes overseas (and no taxes get paid there either).  Although, thinking on, these are the real people who believe that the law doesn't apply to them, because of course it doesn't.  Just don't blame the poor for occasionally taking steps to look after themselves, legal or illegal. Sometimes, yes, it's just excuses. More often than not, it's reasons.

Was there no homeless under other governments?......................................

[Alan de Enfield]

45 minutes ago, Arthur Marshall said:

You don't have to be a weirdo, new age, or a nonbeliever in the law to be poor, broke and unable to find anywhere to live in this country these days.  Which doesn't mean that it's a problem CRT can solve, nor can your local council.

My hypothesis was as valid as any other - until facts come to light (if ever) then that is all they will be.

Poor, broke etc etc is another valid suggestion.

[NigelMoore]

1 hour ago, Red Ruth said:

As to this - ''the court action is usually neither expensive nor necessary'' - what I actually said was ''unnecessary'' - and I was referring (briefly) to the need to go to court where Human Rights are engaged - as you have now explained more fully. 

Yes, thanks [too late to edit] - my typo - as you have seen, I replied in support of what you said rather than my careless quoting of what you said.

[Dr Bob]

2 hours ago, alan_fincher said:

Without making any comment on this particular case, but harking back to some previous discussion, anybody who thinks there is good mental health provision in this country has probably had little experience of either trying to access it themselves, or on behalf of someone else.  It is, in my experience, one of the most broken bits of the system, and already was before the latest cuts have undoubtedly rendered it even more so.  Our own personal experiences were not even as good as "shambolic".

I have to agree with Alan. Mental health treatment is woeful in this country. I have first hand experience from a close relative. The problem however stems from our capabilities for treatment.

If you have a serious infection, you are taken into hospital, put on medication and treated/observed 24/7 until sorted. Great.

If you have a serious mental health issue, you are seen in A&E and sent home...to the local GP who prescribes some tablets. Not great! Many serious mental health issues are treatable with medication but not the sort (or amount) you get from your local quack. My relative was taken to A&E 3 times in 3 years and released to the local quack and then the day consultant who gave him tablets which made him worse. In the end we had to resort to private treatment....taken into a private clinic....put on a strong and complex cocktail of medication to stabilise and then gradually reduced to a much lower sustaining level. This has to be monitored 24/7 for a few weeks and maybe more. Total success.

The key here is that the levels of medication needed are often far too high for a GP to administer and 24/7 observation is needed which is just not available on the NHS. They reckon 10% of the population have mental health issues. The most serious 1% of them are almost certainly not on the optimum medication and by my calculation that is 60,000 people in the UK. Pushing pills at people is not the answer. Proper assessment of medication (so the right levels can be given) is needed but the resources are just not there. A serious mental health problem is serious. Unfortunately our society does not see it that way.

[Red Ruth]

3 minutes ago, NigelMoore said:

Yes, thanks [too late to edit] - my typo - as you have seen, I replied in support of what you said rather than my careless quoting of what you said.

Ah good - thanks for clearing that up - it did seem that way but i was confused.. The use of the Part 8 procedure does seem to undermine the good intention somewhat but I hadn't seen the link you posted before, and it's at least something..

 

[ditchcrawler]

2 hours ago, alan_fincher said:

It hasn't stopped an awful lot of people doing so, though!

Without making any comment on this particular case, but harking back to some previous discussion, anybody who thinks there is good mental health provision in this country has probably had little experience of either trying to access it themselves, or on behalf of someone else.  It is, in my experience, one of the most broken bits of the system, and already was before the latest cuts have undoubtedly rendered it even more so.  Our own personal experiences were not even as good as "shambolic".

And I think that goes all the way back through history.

[Murflynn]

“Of all tyrannies, one sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies, for those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience...”

To be "cured" against one's will and cured of states which we may not regard as disease is to be put on a level of those who have not yet reached the age of reason or those who never will; to be classed with infants, imbeciles, and domestic animals.”

(paraphrased C.S. Lewis.)

................  never seen that before - I like it.  

[Alan de Enfield]

9 minutes ago, Murflynn said:

 

................  never seen that before - I like it.  

Just do it / accept it, it is good for you.