|
Post by Clinton Cool on Oct 25, 2020 12:12:10 GMT
That's the case I was referring to, not sure about Tony though. I see the author was Simon Greer. Those who know him will be aware that he's been a real thorn in CRT's side, to the extent that they eventually gave up on him and allowed him to do exactly what he wants. Anyone know him, know how he is? Last saw him in January, he wasn't very well.
|
|
|
Post by sealover on Oct 25, 2020 12:30:07 GMT
|
|
|
Post by kris on Oct 25, 2020 12:36:42 GMT
No mention has been made of the dainty dog that I understand lived aboard the vessel. I hope the dog wasn't towed away with the boat. If the dog was aboard it must have been a traumatic for the animal. Since full time 24/7 live aboard boat owners do have dogs does C and RT have an animal welfare officer or a vet attending these events when boats are taken with animals aboard. I hope the dog didn't go hungry or suffer the from effects of bad weather after eviction. I do hope the dog doesn't subsequently end up suffering from canine PTSD. I understand C and RT appointed a welfare officer for the humans because of trauma endured by humans. Dogs suffer too. Did they appoint a pets welfare officer too? Was the 'human welfare officer' around when this happened? Welcome sealover from another new(ish) member.just some friendly advice,kris will have questions I suspect, but they won't last for long 😉 😜 Dont be so sure I’ve finished with you yet Ray.
|
|
|
Post by naughtyfox on Oct 25, 2020 12:40:12 GMT
Any interest? "Wake up Project Leigh and the CRIMINALS known as the Canal and River Trust"
|
|
|
Post by sealover on Oct 25, 2020 12:51:17 GMT
|
|
|
Post by naughtyfox on Oct 25, 2020 12:55:55 GMT
This the label of newspaper article regarding woman evicted from Kennet Canal boat and subsequentlyfound in bad state wandering around Bath. Eh? Could you re-read what you have written, and turn it into something that makes sense? Thanks!
|
|
|
Post by naughtyfox on Oct 25, 2020 13:00:59 GMT
Is the chap at 27:43 Stuart Garner?
This is quite bizarre... I don't think Leigh Ravenscroft does himself any favours jumping around and constantly butting in... the Police sergeant seems more than a bit clueless and tactless... old news it is, but I haven't seen this video before. Not sure that I would recommend watching it all...
Quite ridiculous. If Leigh and chums thought the Sergeant Brooks was incompetent (let's face it - he is here!), then they should have asked for other Police to attend and for Brooks to be hauled away; Brooks clearly handles the situation poorly; he at least could have asked for all relevant paperwork, and taken notes of who is who, and contacted his Police station to say he was out of his depth and needed back-up. He could have prevented the seizure of the boat until proof that CRT had the right to remove it was made clear. Brooks argues and gives his opinion - but his job is to uphold the law in a neutral and properly conducted fashion.
|
|
|
Post by rayb on Oct 25, 2020 13:02:37 GMT
Or... more like this: Epileptic woman evicted from her barge by Canal and River Trust The woman was asleep when the CRT, police and bailiffs descended on Darlington Wharf in Bath on September 14, evicted her from her home and towed her boat away. The woman was later found wandering around Bath in a confused and distressed state. According to staff at a homeless drop-in centre she was so ill that she was incoherent and could not explain what had happened. The following day she was found by police and an ambulance was called. “It is clear she had a disability and we have no evidence the CRT followed any procedure under the Equality Act. They have a duty to make reasonable adjustments for disabled people. This raises serious questions about CRT’s compliance with the law regarding the safeguarding of vulnerable adults. Those without home moorings are being targeted, quite the opposite of the CRT’s goal to enrich the lives of boaters." www.wiltshiretimes.co.uk/news/14772405.epileptic-woman-evicted-from-her-barge-by-canal-and-river-trust/But it comes to the old chestnut, over and over again... if you don't have car tax and insurance nor a driving licence, your vehicle will be taken away by DVLC and you'll get a fine or prison sentence. Are boaters expected to get away with not paying for a licence when one is required? CRT have to draw lines somewhere. Sometimes in life you just have to say "No." CRT have had a lot of negative comments directed at them - but they have also had positive thumbs-up reviews. What irks me the most is their rough-handling of delicate situations - sending the gorillas in. And the frivolous waste of money on stupid signage and TV adverts, when CRT claim poverty. Still, it's a catchy tune, isn't it? That story sounds pretty awful.it seems like something like that shouldn't be missed.i agree with likening the licence to cars having insurance and tax etc.love or hatecrt its hard to moan about maintenance if there's money being lost from licenses that should be being bought.
|
|
|
Post by naughtyfox on Oct 25, 2020 13:24:57 GMT
Or... more like this: Epileptic woman evicted from her barge by Canal and River Trust The woman was asleep when the CRT, police and bailiffs descended on Darlington Wharf in Bath on September 14, evicted her from her home and towed her boat away. The woman was later found wandering around Bath in a confused and distressed state. According to staff at a homeless drop-in centre she was so ill that she was incoherent and could not explain what had happened. The following day she was found by police and an ambulance was called. “It is clear she had a disability and we have no evidence the CRT followed any procedure under the Equality Act. They have a duty to make reasonable adjustments for disabled people. This raises serious questions about CRT’s compliance with the law regarding the safeguarding of vulnerable adults. Those without home moorings are being targeted, quite the opposite of the CRT’s goal to enrich the lives of boaters." www.wiltshiretimes.co.uk/news/14772405.epileptic-woman-evicted-from-her-barge-by-canal-and-river-trust/But it comes to the old chestnut, over and over again... if you don't have car tax and insurance nor a driving licence, your vehicle will be taken away by DVLC and you'll get a fine or prison sentence. Are boaters expected to get away with not paying for a licence when one is required? CRT have to draw lines somewhere. Sometimes in life you just have to say "No." CRT have had a lot of negative comments directed at them - but they have also had positive thumbs-up reviews. What irks me the most is their rough-handling of delicate situations - sending the gorillas in. And the frivolous waste of money on stupid signage and TV adverts, when CRT claim poverty. Still, it's a catchy tune, isn't it? That story sounds pretty awful.it seems like something like that shouldn't be missed.i agree with likening the licence to cars having insurance and tax etc.love or hatecrt its hard to moan about maintenance if there's money being lost from licenses that should be being bought. Yes - every boater should have a licence (except for those who don't need them). Yes - CRT should provide transparency into the way they handle their income - this they do not do. Yes - CRT should provide transparency into how they operate - this they do not do (Toddbrook Reservoir, Whaley Bridge - most of the report redacted/hidden). I think I have read the licence fees bring in only around 10% of CRT's income. Clearly, money from central government is needed. The people who make the lock gates, and other CRT staff need decent salaries. But I believe CRT need to be held under public scrutiny (as it is public money they're getting) and their silly signs about making pies out of ducks and woof-woof signs 'for dogs' and their expensive TV ads should be the first things to be culled to stop the waste of funds. Deal with the basics first - canals/waterways are for boating - maintenance such as dredging and lock repair should be the priority ... of course it's good that the public are allowed to use the towpaths (in days of Olde they were private) and nothing wrong with them being maintained either - although not by private contractors whose main interest in is making an easy buck. Expensive law cases, taking boaters to courts, is also probably a huge waste of public money - although public money the solicitors and judges very gratefully stuff their pockets with.
|
|
|
Post by sealover on Oct 25, 2020 13:33:47 GMT
Regarding the previous post regarding the evicted lady found in Bath 2016.
There are many people who have what is referred to as 'hidden disabilities'. This is especially true now the age expectancy is increasing.
People are no longer judged as being middle aged/old when they would have been in the past.
Many people do not broadcast their hidden disabilities or illnesses. Therefore authorities and general public are unaware and make unfair judgements.
It is therefore imperative that people are able to discuss these matters confidentially before action taken and given a chance to state their case. This should be allowed to and listened to be independent non biased experts before the equivalent of a a runaway sledge hammer is sent in to crack a walnut'.
These inhuman actions of one form or another are happening in Britain frequently despite the 2010 Equality Act. These matters then ends up as'diversity issues'.
Here is the Wilkepedia definition of 'hidden disabities'
Invisible disabilities, also known as Hidden Disabilities or Non-visible Disabilities, are disabilities that are not immediately apparent, are typically chronic illnesses and conditions that significantly impair normal activities of daily living.
|
|
|
Post by rayb on Oct 25, 2020 13:37:58 GMT
That story sounds pretty awful.it seems like something like that shouldn't be missed.i agree with likening the licence to cars having insurance and tax etc.love or hatecrt its hard to moan about maintenance if there's money being lost from licenses that should be being bought. Yes - every boater should have a licence (except for those who don't need them). Yes - CRT should provide transparency into the way they handle their income - this they do not do. Yes - CRT should provide transparency into how they operate - this they do not do (Toddbrook Reservoir, Whaley Bridge - most of the report redacted/hidden). I think I have read the licence fees bring in only around 10% of CRT's income. Clearly, money from central government is needed. The people who make the lock gates, and other CRT staff need decent salaries. But I believe CRT need to be held under public scrutiny (as it is public money they're getting) and their silly signs about making pies out of ducks and woof-woof signs 'for dogs' and their expensive TV ads should be the first things to be culled to stop the waste of funds. Deal with the basics first - canals/waterways are for boating - maintenance such as dredging and lock repair should be the priority ... of course it's good that the public are allowed to use the towpaths (in days of Olde they were private) and nothing wrong with them being maintained either - although not by private contractors whose main interest in is making an easy buck. Expensive law cases, taking boaters to courts, is also probably a huge waste of public money - although public money the solicitors and judges very gratefully stuff their pockets with. I retired 2½ years ago and bought my boat just afterwards so I've only ever known the crt as they are now.i knew the Swan logo from before to see but not really anything about how it ran as crt
|
|
|
Post by naughtyfox on Oct 25, 2020 13:42:17 GMT
There are many people who have what is referred to as 'hidden disabilities'. Epilepsy is certainly a non-apparent disability/condition/illness (when the sufferer isn't writhing about all over the towpath in a fit). I also have a hidden psychological disability. Can anybody guess what it is?
|
|
|
Post by naughtyfox on Oct 25, 2020 13:45:28 GMT
Yes - every boater should have a licence (except for those who don't need them). Yes - CRT should provide transparency into the way they handle their income - this they do not do. Yes - CRT should provide transparency into how they operate - this they do not do (Toddbrook Reservoir, Whaley Bridge - most of the report redacted/hidden). I think I have read the licence fees bring in only around 10% of CRT's income. Clearly, money from central government is needed. The people who make the lock gates, and other CRT staff need decent salaries. But I believe CRT need to be held under public scrutiny (as it is public money they're getting) and their silly signs about making pies out of ducks and woof-woof signs 'for dogs' and their expensive TV ads should be the first things to be culled to stop the waste of funds. Deal with the basics first - canals/waterways are for boating - maintenance such as dredging and lock repair should be the priority ... of course it's good that the public are allowed to use the towpaths (in days of Olde they were private) and nothing wrong with them being maintained either - although not by private contractors whose main interest in is making an easy buck. Expensive law cases, taking boaters to courts, is also probably a huge waste of public money - although public money the solicitors and judges very gratefully stuff their pockets with. I retired 2½ years ago and bought my boat just afterwards so I've only ever known the crt as they are now.i knew the Swan logo from before to see but not really anything about how it ran as crt I thought the swan logo fine - do you not agree that the 'sunken tyre' logo was a complete waste of money - although those who made a packet out of it (such as the wrapping/printing firm / London-based designer) certainly haven't been complaining!
|
|
|
Post by TonyDunkley on Oct 25, 2020 13:50:29 GMT
there aren't any ..... and that's the whole problem , there is no "higher authority" to go to ...... even the ombudsman is appointed by CRT ..... it's a total stich up.
Someone must be giving public money to CRT....? Who are these persons? Anyway, everyone knows where to find CRT representatives, and everyone knows where Commercial Boat Thieves' offices are. 'Revolution is only one meal away'. We still haven't heard the views of Nottinghamshire Police. Do they approve of theft, or what? I doubt that Nottinghamshire Police will be volunteering anything to anybody about the part they played in actively assisting in the committing of two serious criminal offences on the part of each of the total of seven C&RT and Commercial Boat Services employees who participated in the illegal seizure of "Halcyon Daze" from private riverside land outwith the limits of C&RT's jurisdiction as defined under Part II, Section 4(1) of the British Waterways Act 1971. Without the considerable and distinctly biased assistance C&RT had from the Police, they would have ended the day with their tails between their legs, without the boat, but most importantly of all, with a first time ever failure of their beloved Section 8 boat removal process to reflect on and explain away to the Trustees, . . which of course, from the standpoint of convenience, would have been the preferred and best outcome for me personally. Based, however, on the part the Police have played in a great many bygone C&RT boat removals by either standing by and watching whilst non-certificated - in other words, bogus - 'Enforcement Officers', or 'Bailiffs', execute non-existent 'Warrants of Control' (in reality, the Declaratory Relief Orders C&RT obtain from the County Courts), or even on some occasions rendering active assistance, there was always the chance that C&RT would get their way on the day, . . which was the calculated risk that had to be taken if there was ever to be any hope at all of exposing and ending the persistent abuse of misdirected Section 8 powers at which C&RT have become so well rehearsed and adept.
|
|
|
Post by rayb on Oct 25, 2020 14:09:39 GMT
I retired 2½ years ago and bought my boat just afterwards so I've only ever known the crt as they are now.i knew the Swan logo from before to see but not really anything about how it ran as crt I thought the swan logo fine - do you not agree that the 'sunken tyre' logo was a complete waste of money - although those who made a packet out of it (such as the wrapping/printing firm / London-based designer) certainly haven't been complaining! Not for the first time this wasn't something I knew much about. After 15 mins on google and reading a few articles I think if the re-branding means getting the government grant,that seems to be what its about,then I suppose it is looked at as an investment?we've said that the government grant is needed.i suppose the challenge will be proving how the re-branding has helped get it
|
|