Comment—Dammed if you do...

FOR Canal & River Trust it is most certainly a case of dammed if you do—dammed if you don't, as far as removing unlicenced boats from its waterways are concerned.

Over my past 20 boating years I have known, and known of, many boaters who have virtually made careers of avoiding not only a boat licence but the associated insurance and boat safety certificate too.

Idle way of life

And many have so obviously just chosen it as an idle way of life existing on benefits, usually having hoodwinked a susceptible doctor as being unfit for work.

Here we have the Trust, struggling on very limited funds, whose people realise only too well that should the unlicenced—and of course those who blatantly ignore the rules—be allowed to 'get away with it'—the problem will escalate, further diminishing the Trust's income.

Section 8

And so the Section 8 rule is enforced, giving the boaters notice that should they still continue with their unlawful endeavours, their boats will be removed from the waters, with the possibility of being sold off to pay the debt.  Then come the problems.

The case of 'Maggie' who was the recipient of a Section 8, having ignored all efforts to settle the matter, suddenly hit the headlines as there was doubt as to her mental capacity to handle the situation, with the result that Canal & River Trust was the 'Big Bad Wolf'.

Good story

I admit, it was a damned good story, and with a near lifetime as a newspaper and latterly narrowboatworld editor, I grabbed it with both hands—for alas, to me, the story is the thing.  Yet it was most unfair to the Trust as it was only carrying out its work in attempting to rid the waterways of non-payers.

This week, yet another similar case, and to my mind the boater, seeing the effect of the 'Maggie' situation and resulting publicity had latched on to the 'mental' aspect, though we are told there was no official documentation of this state, but the Trust again is the Big Bad Wolf.

Not the Trust's position

Yet surely it is not the Trust's position to ascertain the health or well-being of such people. This should be handled by local authorities and health trusts. But alas, they are past masters at abdicating their responsibilities, preferring to leave it to others. But they should be brought to task and not leave it to Canal & River Trust to shoulder the responsibilities.

Tom Crossley