|
Post by Murgatroyd on May 14, 2023 6:30:30 GMT
Are powers of entry required where the structure in question is not, in legal terms, a home / domicile (such as a boat, which is legally a chattel when not kept on a bona fide residential mooring)? This is an interesting question. The NBTA are always going on about 'boats are homes' for obvious reasons but is it actually the case? I think you might be correct that a boat is simply a chattel. Unlike all the vacuous garbage from another poster your comment actually is relevant and interesting. It's always a bit dodgy to claim such-and-such is unequivocally true but I have a high level of confidence in this instance.
|
|
|
Post by on May 14, 2023 6:33:46 GMT
I think it is probably the case.
This is why the NBTA have the line "boats are homes". They are trying to encourage belief that this is the case when it may actually not be.
Interesting tactic.
As for the bailiffs with crowbars presumably someone has a photo somewhere or footage to prove it. I don't doubt it but without proof it could just be made up.
|
|
|
Post by thebfg on May 14, 2023 6:43:52 GMT
If it turns out that their s8 powers in removing a boat does not give them powers of entry then their lawful excuse for carrying a crowbar disappears. Are powers of entry required where the structure in question is not, in legal terms, a home / domicile (such as a boat, which is legally a chattel when not kept on a bona fide residential mooring)? I don't know. There is over 900 separate powers of entry written into legislation not including where it is authorised in a court order. I wouldn't be able to say either way. I was going to add that if they have any power outside of s8 but forgot. If the statute says they can enter then they can enter. I am going to go on the presumption that the police believed they could. Are you saying CRT and/or their agents can enter any boat at any time for any reason when it's not on a mooring?
|
|
|
Post by Murgatroyd on May 14, 2023 6:46:03 GMT
If the boat is your only place to sleep and you spend most or all of your time aboard for such purposes then it is unsurprising to maintain the boat is your home. Just not in the eyes of the law. All a copper would need to do to step on and have a look around would be reasonable suspicion (a strong smell of the gange would do nicely).
|
|
|
Post by Murgatroyd on May 14, 2023 6:49:53 GMT
Are powers of entry required where the structure in question is not, in legal terms, a home / domicile (such as a boat, which is legally a chattel when not kept on a bona fide residential mooring)? I don't know. There is over 900 separate powers of entry written into legislation not including where it is authorised in a court order. I wouldn't be able to say either way. I was going to add that if they have any power outside of s8 but forgot. If the statute says they can enter then they can enter. I am going to go on the presumption that the police believed they could. Are you saying CRT and/or their agents can enter any boat at any time for any reason when it's not on a mooring? Yep, again with the probable exception of genuine residential moorings. I believe there is something in one of the waterways acts which specifically gives authority to board any vessel where it is suspected there may be a safety issue. The canals are not the high seas.
|
|
|
Post by on May 14, 2023 6:50:29 GMT
I'm pretty sure the CRT also have powers of entry in the event of a boat potentially being dangerous.
Having no licence or BS ticket could provide authorisation I think.
|
|
|
Post by thebfg on May 14, 2023 6:56:00 GMT
Have they claimed a saftey issue?
If they have powers right enter a dangerous boat, what does the act say they do once entered?
The police have lots of powers of entry you can't transfer that power to someone else. The police didn't enter the boat.
|
|
|
Post by Murgatroyd on May 14, 2023 7:00:53 GMT
Have they claimed a saftey issue? If they have powers right enter a dangerous boat, what does the act say they do once entered? The police have lots of powers of entry you can't transfer that power to someone else. The police didn't enter the boat. I suspect the 1971 version is the relevant one. You can read it just as well as I can. If you want. The police had no motivation to enter the boat. They were there to stop things getting violent.
|
|
|
Post by on May 14, 2023 7:08:07 GMT
Have they claimed a saftey issue? If they have powers right enter a dangerous boat, what does the act say they do once entered? The police have lots of powers of entry you can't transfer that power to someone else. The police didn't enter the boat. If someone is threatening to set fire to a boat and it has no BS ticket at the time it seems plausible that this could be a safety concern. It is between the CRT and the boat owner so there is no reason for anyone else to know if safety had been discussed in previous communications.
|
|
|
Post by thebfg on May 14, 2023 7:08:13 GMT
I only mentioned the police because you mentioned them and drugs.
The act authorises an officer of the board to enter any vessel for the purpose of an inspection if they give 24 hours notice or they believe its so unsafe an immediate inspection is required.
Does the law then allow then to do anything else other than for the purpose that is written into statutory legislation?
What saftey issue did they claim that allowed them power under this section?
P.s I'm not arguing but asking.
|
|
|
Post by on May 14, 2023 7:14:20 GMT
It is interesting.
Do we have any witnesses to confirm that the boat was entered by the bailiffs without consent?
One possible scenario is that they went to get the boat, the owner mentioned there were certain personal possessions he needed so the bailiffs removed the possessions and placed on towpath before taking the boat.
If the boat owner is in fact the only witness then it would obviously be rather tricky to get an unbiased version of events.
I'm not saying it didn't happen.
|
|
|
Post by Murgatroyd on May 14, 2023 7:19:40 GMT
I only mentioned the police because you mentioned them and drugs. The act authorises an officer of the board to enter any vessel for the purpose of an inspection if they give 24 hours notice or they believe its so unsafe an immediate inspection is required. Does the law then allow then to do anything else other than for the purpose that is written into statutory legislation? What saftey issue did they claim that allowed them power under this section? P.s I'm not arguing but asking. Just had a glance, it's 1983/s.7/part 1. Yes, it's all about safety but the latitude for deciding such things is seemingly quite wide. In any case, the reasons for boarding the boat were in connection with s.8 powers of removal. The difficulty in the first attempt was George being on the boat, having locked the doors and refusing to leave while threating bad things if anybody attempted to remove him. The sneak approach on attempt no.2 was to avoid a repeat. I did wonder if they had a spotter somewhere to alert the rest of the group that George was not on the boat. Seems likely.
|
|
|
Post by thebfg on May 14, 2023 7:19:45 GMT
There are presumptions, yes. But I would have to presume at no point did george just give them permission to enter.
I would guess he asked to enter after they had, to retrieve items. Probably and once more a guess to enter the boat himself and stay on board.
|
|
|
Post by on May 14, 2023 7:24:19 GMT
There are presumptions, yes. But I would have to presume at no point did george just give them permission to enter. I would guess he asked to enter after they had, to retrieve items. Probably and once more a guess to enter the boat himself and stay on board. I could see a situation where the bailiffs arrived, started the process of connecting the boat to the pusher tug dinghy then he asked them if he could get things. They refused and said they would get the things for him so he agreed. I would be unsurprised to find they have body worn cameras and could prove this if necessary. As for someone watching this is a slightly unsettling aspect but yes possibly. In this situation of duress I think you would give permission for the bailiffs to enter in order to get things rather than take them away. Phone is a good example. He has a big smartphone. If this was in the boat and he was on towpath what would you do ? Let them take the boat or allow them to enter boat in order to give you your phone? He was waving the phone around during the interview so it is obviously a critical item.
|
|
|
Post by thebfg on May 14, 2023 7:26:57 GMT
I only mentioned the police because you mentioned them and drugs. The act authorises an officer of the board to enter any vessel for the purpose of an inspection if they give 24 hours notice or they believe its so unsafe an immediate inspection is required. Does the law then allow then to do anything else other than for the purpose that is written into statutory legislation? What saftey issue did they claim that allowed them power under this section? P.s I'm not arguing but asking. Just had a glance, it's 1983/s.7/part 1. Yes, it's all about safety but the latitude for deciding such things is seemingly quite wide. In any case, the reasons for boarding the boat were in connection with s.8 powers of removal. The difficulty in the first attempt was George being on the boat, having locked the doors and refusing to leave while threating bad things if anybody attempted to remove him. The sneak approach on attempt no.2 was to avoid a repeat. I did wonder if they had a spotter somewhere to alert the rest of the group that George was not on the boat. Seems likely. Interestingly if they had cited s7 they then have the power to move the boat to a named place and in a manner the decide. But yes they cited s8 instead.which brings us back to my point of if it doesn't give them powers of entry. If it does they they do have the lawful defence of carrying an offensive weapon.
|
|