Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 28, 2018 18:26:45 GMT
Have to say, that's it in a nutshell.
Is it worth making a 67 year old man homeless for bureacratic reasons, when options are available.
Haven't we enough homeless?
Rog
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 28, 2018 18:27:47 GMT
Your gonna say it was your son? I don't know because I haven't seen the thread you are talking about. I haven't posted on CWDF for some two years though. My son's user name there is FirstRateFirstMate. Perhaps you could point me in the direction of this thread? Lol. Whatever.
|
|
|
Post by JohnV on Mar 28, 2018 18:36:39 GMT
It really does not come into it discussing his financial situation or wrongdoings. The facts are this, it's 2018, people are homeless, this 67 year old was brutally thrown onto the towpath, with only what he could grab on the way out. This was carried out by people advertising themselves as a charitable organisation. It's not remotely acceptable, and is disgusting. This could also be completely false ...... trouble is we have so few facts to go on. Most of us are well aware that it is possible to live a legal, frugal lifestyle living on the water. Was the person concerned unable to for some reason of health, addiction, mental problems etc. I suspect a lot of this kind of case comes down to lack of good advice to the person concerned or assistance from various authorities/groups. There are many groups such as Age UK that can provide help and advice. As Tony frequently points out, CRT and their predecessors are too fond of the S8. I don't think they should be responsible for supporting anyone with an unlisenced/uninsured/non-BSS boat on the waterways but I do believe that if there is any indication that a vulnerable person is involved they should notify relevant authorities first before S8 If the person concerned is just being a bloody idiot then they deserve to have the law used against them ..... however that is no excuse for some of the blatant bullying, draconian and possibly unlawful actions we have witnessed from CRT over the few years of it's existence However CRT is not a housing authority nor is it a stand in for social services nor IMHO should it ever be one ....... I believe it's prime function is to be a navigation authority
|
|
|
Post by Telemachus on Mar 28, 2018 18:52:07 GMT
It reminds me of a similar crowd funding thing last year. Someone living on a boat in London had it sink due to chronic lack of maintenance, and it transpired that the person hadn't bothered to insure it either. So the crowd was expected to give him lots of money so he could easily recover from his stupidity. Personally I think people need to take responsibility for their own situation and crowdfunded recoveries should only happen if the person took reasonable steps to prevent their loss but was nevertheless really unlucky with some unforeseeable event. But a fool and his money...
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 28, 2018 18:54:37 GMT
It really does not come into it discussing his financial situation or wrongdoings. The facts are this, it's 2018, people are homeless, this 67 year old was brutally thrown onto the towpath, with only what he could grab on the way out. This was carried out by people advertising themselves as a charitable organisation. It's not remotely acceptable, and is disgusting. boat on the waterways but I do believe that if there is any indication that a vulnerable person is involved they should notify relevant authorities first before S8 Much of what you have said I agree with. One of the significant problems is that the relevant authorities will not react until they absolutely have to. I have a nephew who needs support, landlord needed to sell up (fair enough), system says we will not help rehouse you until you are officially homeless so suggest you refuse to leave your home until the final eviction notice is served - no one thought that was the right thing to do but everyone played along with the system because there didn't seem to be another option.
|
|
|
Post by Telemachus on Mar 28, 2018 18:55:36 GMT
Have to say, that's it in a nutshell. Is it worth making a 67 year old man homeless for bureacratic reasons, when options are available. Haven't we enough homeless? Rog We have too many homeless, but dissolving laws so that folk can, say, take up residence in public buildings like libraries and museums, isn't a good solution. Or allowing them to live in caravans in our parks. Or live on the waterways with disregard for the regulations. And certainly a solution that wouldn't win many votes. We either have laws, or we don't. Just because someone is 67 doesn't mean they don't need to concern themselves with the laws that apply to them.
|
|
|
Post by Telemachus on Mar 28, 2018 18:58:53 GMT
It really does not come into it discussing his financial situation or wrongdoings. The facts are this, it's 2018, people are homeless, this 67 year old was brutally thrown onto the towpath, with only what he could grab on the way out. This was carried out by people advertising themselves as a charitable organisation. It's not remotely acceptable, and is disgusting. This could also be completely false ...... trouble is we have so few facts to go on. Most of us are well aware that it is possible to live a legal, frugal lifestyle living on the water. Was the person concerned unable to for some reason of health, addiction, mental problems etc. I suspect a lot of this kind of case comes down to lack of good advice to the person concerned or assistance from various authorities/groups. There are many groups such as Age UK that can provide help and advice. As Tony frequently points out, CRT and their predecessors are too fond of the S8. I don't think they should be responsible for supporting anyone with an unlisenced/uninsured/non-BSS boat on the waterways but I do believe that if there is any indication that a vulnerable person is involved they should notify relevant authorities first before S8 If the person concerned is just being a bloody idiot then they deserve to have the law used against them ..... however that is no excuse for some of the blatant bullying, draconian and possibly unlawful actions we have witnessed from CRT over the few years of it's existence However CRT is not a housing authority nor is it a stand in for social services nor IMHO should it ever be one ....... I believe it's prime function is to be a navigation authority If someone moves onto a boat they know they have less security than if they were land based. It is a matter of the law of the land. If they don't know it, they are foolish, didn't do their homework and probably the same sort of people who step out into a busy main road without considering that traffic might be passing. So it is no good deliberately moving onto the less secure water, failing to comply with the regulations despite being chased by the authorities, and then whining on how it is SO UNFAIR when the boat is removed for non-compliance.
|
|
|
Post by lollygagger on Mar 28, 2018 19:11:48 GMT
It reminds me of a similar crowd funding thing last year. Someone living on a boat in London had it sink due to chronic lack of maintenance, and it transpired that the person hadn't bothered to insure it either. So the crowd was expected to give him lots of money so he could easily recover from his stupidity. Personally I think people need to take responsibility for their own situation and crowdfunded recoveries should only happen if the person took reasonable steps to prevent their loss but was nevertheless really unlucky with some unforeseeable event. But a fool and his money... The crowd funding situation is pointless, if he ends up back aboard because of it, it's argueable that the same pattern will repeat. Fool is a bit harsh. Incapable of making rational decisions perhaps. The fact he allowed this to happen points to that, after all he's now homeless and I doubt that was his intention. It's nice that people are belatedly trying to help him, I'm guessing he got in this mess not because he was an idiot, but because he was too proud to ask for help and his situation only came to light because someone witnessed him being thrown out. Maybe he even moved every 14 days so didn't really know anyone. Only he knows the real situation.
|
|
|
Post by kris on Mar 28, 2018 19:14:52 GMT
Magnetman has a reason for not showing any empathy, I wonder what micks reason is.
|
|
|
Post by lollygagger on Mar 28, 2018 19:16:00 GMT
This could also be completely false ...... trouble is we have so few facts to go on. Most of us are well aware that it is possible to live a legal, frugal lifestyle living on the water. Was the person concerned unable to for some reason of health, addiction, mental problems etc. I suspect a lot of this kind of case comes down to lack of good advice to the person concerned or assistance from various authorities/groups. There are many groups such as Age UK that can provide help and advice. As Tony frequently points out, CRT and their predecessors are too fond of the S8. I don't think they should be responsible for supporting anyone with an unlisenced/uninsured/non-BSS boat on the waterways but I do believe that if there is any indication that a vulnerable person is involved they should notify relevant authorities first before S8 If the person concerned is just being a bloody idiot then they deserve to have the law used against them ..... however that is no excuse for some of the blatant bullying, draconian and possibly unlawful actions we have witnessed from CRT over the few years of it's existence However CRT is not a housing authority nor is it a stand in for social services nor IMHO should it ever be one ....... I believe it's prime function is to be a navigation authority If someone moves onto a boat they know they have less security than if they were land based. It is a matter of the law of the land. If they don't know it, they are foolish, didn't do their homework and probably the same sort of people who step out into a busy main road without considering that traffic might be passing. So it is no good deliberately moving onto the less secure water, failing to comply with the regulations despite being chased by the authorities, and then whining on how it is SO UNFAIR when the boat is removed for non-compliance. Could you point to where the evicted boater has uttered even a peep let alone whined like a petulant girl. For all you know he's highly embaressed about the crowd funding and would rather crawl under a hedge. I don't think you've ever been anywhere close to rock bottom, being a bit poor as a student doesn't count.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 28, 2018 19:22:05 GMT
If someone moves onto a boat they know they have less security than if they were land based. It is a matter of the law of the land. If they don't know it, they are foolish, didn't do their homework and probably the same sort of people who step out into a busy main road without considering that traffic might be passing. So it is no good deliberately moving onto the less secure water, failing to comply with the regulations despite being chased by the authorities, and then whining on how it is SO UNFAIR when the boat is removed for non-compliance. Could you point to where the evicted boater has uttered even a peep let alone whined like a petulant girl. For all you know he's highly embaressed about the crowd funding and would rather crawl under a hedge. I don't think you've ever been anywhere close to rock bottom, being a bit poor as a student doesn't count. I'd suggest Nick is possibly the poorest person I've ever come across. (It's not just lack of money that can make you poor).
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 28, 2018 19:28:20 GMT
It really does not come into it discussing his financial situation or wrongdoings. The facts are this, it's 2018, people are homeless, this 67 year old was brutally thrown onto the towpath, with only what he could grab on the way out. This was carried out by people advertising themselves as a charitable organisation. It's not remotely acceptable, and is disgusting. This could also be completely false ...... trouble is we have so few facts to go on. Most of us are well aware that it is possible to live a legal, frugal lifestyle living on the water. Was the person concerned unable to for some reason of health, addiction, mental problems etc. I suspect a lot of this kind of case comes down to lack of good advice to the person concerned or assistance from various authorities/groups. There are many groups such as Age UK that can provide help and advice. As Tony frequently points out, CRT and their predecessors are too fond of the S8. I don't think they should be responsible for supporting anyone with an unlisenced/uninsured/non-BSS boat on the waterways but I do believe that if there is any indication that a vulnerable person is involved they should notify relevant authorities first before S8 If the person concerned is just being a bloody idiot then they deserve to have the law used against them ..... however that is no excuse for some of the blatant bullying, draconian and possibly unlawful actions we have witnessed from CRT over the few years of it's existence However CRT is not a housing authority nor is it a stand in for social services nor IMHO should it ever be one ....... I believe it's prime function is to be a navigation authority Having attended three section 8 removals, I can assure you that not all is as it seems. It's bullying, punishment, vindictive and sickening. The whole process from start to finish is made as difficult as possible for the recipient. I can honestly say that several s8's are deserved by some, but the barbaric way it's carried out is simply not acceptable in this day and age.
|
|
|
Post by Telemachus on Mar 28, 2018 19:34:27 GMT
If someone moves onto a boat they know they have less security than if they were land based. It is a matter of the law of the land. If they don't know it, they are foolish, didn't do their homework and probably the same sort of people who step out into a busy main road without considering that traffic might be passing. So it is no good deliberately moving onto the less secure water, failing to comply with the regulations despite being chased by the authorities, and then whining on how it is SO UNFAIR when the boat is removed for non-compliance. Could you point to where the evicted boater has uttered even a peep let alone whined like a petulant girl. For all you know he's highly embaressed about the crowd funding and would rather crawl under a hedge. I don't think you've ever been anywhere close to rock bottom, being a bit poor as a student doesn't count. Maybe he didn't peep. Maybe he did. Maybe he is ill and needs help. Maybe he is just a chancer who doesn't give a shit about societies values. Maybe he has several houses in Chelsea. We don't know.
But if he is ill and needs help, then CRT are not the body to sort him out. They should concentrate on their remit of operating and maintaining the canals, and leave persons in distress to the correct authority which is the local council/social services.
|
|
|
Post by TonyDunkley on Mar 28, 2018 19:35:30 GMT
This could also be completely false ...... trouble is we have so few facts to go on. Most of us are well aware that it is possible to live a legal, frugal lifestyle living on the water. Was the person concerned unable to for some reason of health, addiction, mental problems etc. I suspect a lot of this kind of case comes down to lack of good advice to the person concerned or assistance from various authorities/groups. There are many groups such as Age UK that can provide help and advice. As Tony frequently points out, CRT and their predecessors are too fond of the S8. I don't think they should be responsible for supporting anyone with an unlisenced/uninsured/non-BSS boat on the waterways but I do believe that if there is any indication that a vulnerable person is involved they should notify relevant authorities first before S8 If the person concerned is just being a bloody idiot then they deserve to have the law used against them ..... however that is no excuse for some of the blatant bullying, draconian and possibly unlawful actions we have witnessed from CRT over the few years of it's existence However CRT is not a housing authority nor is it a stand in for social services nor IMHO should it ever be one ....... I believe it's prime function is to be a navigation authority Having attended three section 8 removals, I can assure you that not all is as it seems. It's bullying, punishment, vindictive and sickening. The whole process from start to finish is made as difficult as possible for the recipient. I can honestly say that several s8's are deserved by some, but the barbaric way it's carried out is simply not acceptable in this day and age. Can you recall any details as to the extent to which any Plod that were attending involved themselves in the process by removing the owner or occupier from the target boat ?
|
|
|
Post by thebfg on Mar 28, 2018 19:40:06 GMT
boat on the waterways but I do believe that if there is any indication that a vulnerable person is involved they should notify relevant authorities first before S8 Much of what you have said I agree with. One of the significant problems is that the relevant authorities will not react until they absolutely have to. I have a nephew who needs support, landlord needed to sell up (fair enough), system says we will not help rehouse you until you are officially homeless so suggest you refuse to leave your home until the final eviction notice is served - no one thought that was the right thing to do but everyone played along with the system because there didn't seem to be another option. Thank you for putting a comment of experience to my earlier post. Local councils will not do a thing untill you rock up at their office actually homeless. However if it's a money thing then perhaps get should work with boaters to help them get the correct benefits and help to prevent an s8
|
|