|
Post by on May 14, 2023 7:29:23 GMT
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. Is there any proof they were carrying hardware? There would be no need to enter the boat because they move it with a pusher tug system. Tony has introduced the crowbar into this story. Other than the boat owner. whose story will be biased, is there anyone else who can corroborate this?
|
|
|
Post by thebfg on May 14, 2023 7:30:14 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. But if they had no intention of entering unless to remove items when asked, George could have opened the door for them. Therefore would they still have a reasonable excuse to be carrying offensive weapons?
|
|
|
Post by Murgatroyd on May 14, 2023 7:31:17 GMT
Once the CRT crew had gained access to the boat sans George there was no fucking way they would then allow him back on board.
I'm sure George requested some items; according to Dunk they were 'thrown' out. Perhaps; even in these circumstances it is not lawful to damage (or cause wilful destruction to) property. But given the way in which the action was carried out it seems likely there was a degree of adrenaline involved.
|
|
|
Post by thebfg on May 14, 2023 7:32:06 GMT
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. Is there any proof they were carrying hardware? There would be no need to enter the boat because they move it with a pusher tug system. Tony has introduced the crowbar into this story. Other than the boat owner. whose story will be biased, is there anyone else who can corroborate this? He raised it and asked a question about it. We're only hypothetically discussing it as because as far as I know if it did happen the police were happy and allowed them to continue.
|
|
|
Post by on May 14, 2023 7:32:45 GMT
The doors were probably open already.
The important question here is were they actually carrying tools or is this something made up by a dishonest, ill intentioned vacuous nobody.
|
|
|
Post by thebfg on May 14, 2023 7:34:29 GMT
Once the CRT crew had gained access to the boat sans George there was no fucking way they would then allow him back on board. Ain't that the truth. I can only imagine he wasn't even allowed to step on the outside.
|
|
|
Post by thebfg on May 14, 2023 7:37:55 GMT
The doors were probably open already. The important question here is were they actually carrying tools or is this something made up by a dishonest, ill intentioned vacuous nobody. It doesn't matter if they were or weren't.
|
|
|
Post by on May 14, 2023 7:39:14 GMT
The doors were probably open already. The important question here is were they actually carrying tools or is this something made up by a dishonest, ill intentioned vacuous nobody. It doesn't matter if they were or weren't. It was you who brought up carrying offensive weapons. This is the point I was commenting on rather than the entry to the boat. your post "But if they had no intention of entering unless to remove items when asked, George could have opened the door for them. Therefore would they still have a reasonable excuse to be carrying offensive weapons?"
|
|
|
Post by Murgatroyd on May 14, 2023 7:39:16 GMT
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. So you think the 'offensive weapons' were brought to assault George? Don't think so myself. It's fairly common for people involved in evictions* to turn up with tools which may be useful in achieving the goal. They aren't called 'weapons'. S.8 gives CRT the power to remove a boat; it seems reasonable to assume that it might be necessary to board it. Good luck arguing otherwise. * It wasn't an eviction.
|
|
|
Post by kris on May 14, 2023 7:40:33 GMT
The intriguing aspect from my pov is where they survailing mr ward, so aware of his habits. Or where they just fortunate to arrive whilst he was otherwise engaged?
|
|
|
Post by on May 14, 2023 7:41:32 GMT
The intriguing aspect from my pov is where they survailing mr ward, so aware of his habits. Or where they just fortunate to arrive whilst he was otherwise engaged? This bit really is interesting and leaves a pretty nasty taste in the mouth. Very easy to do of course as it is a public footpath.
|
|
|
Post by Murgatroyd on May 14, 2023 7:42:06 GMT
It seems there was a fair level of advance planning to this action. If someone brought a crowbar is it so surprising? Anyway ask George, he seems to have been the only witness.
|
|
|
Post by Murgatroyd on May 14, 2023 7:44:01 GMT
The intriguing aspect from my pov is where they survailing mr ward, so aware of his habits. Or where they just fortunate to arrive whilst he was otherwise engaged? I suspect they had a spotter, walkie-talkies and everything. Probably someone saying 'strike strike strike' like they do in the cop videos.
|
|
|
Post by on May 14, 2023 7:47:05 GMT
Perhaps someone pretending to be a birder.
With a big Leica spotting scope.
Or a drone. Drones must be a godsend for bailiffs and private dicks.
|
|
|
Post by thebfg on May 14, 2023 7:49:42 GMT
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. So you think the 'offensive weapons' were brought to assault George? Don't think so myself. It's fairly common for people involved in evictions* to turn up with tools which may be useful in achieving the goal. They aren't called 'weapons'. S.8 gives CRT the power to remove a boat; it seems reasonable to assume that it might be necessary to board it. Good luck arguing otherwise. * It wasn't an eviction. Of course they weren't going to batter him with them. I haven't argued that it doesn't or does. But they are required to have power of entry however that power is given. Such as a court order, owner permission or in any legislation if its s7, s8 or any other law that gives it under these circumstances.
|
|