Pearl is for sale on a brokerage website. The photograph used was taken on the day they stole my boat. The two people in the photo are the bailiffs.
You can see that the boat was in a good condition, painted and sign written, (therefore, not a 'traveller' boat as they are neither painted nor sign written. Not part of the 'culture'.). What Pearl has become now is a damaged and sunken boat (not mentioned in the sales information) thanks to the malicious and unlawful intervention of the Canal and River Trust - who 'care about historic boats' (see emails from Steven Holder and Paul Griffin).
I have it on good authority that Pearl cannot be moved by water due to the damage and is beyond economical repair. I could have kept Pearl going for years. It was in a poor state 24 years ago. I rebuilt it and lived on it all over the place ever since and it has never sunk.
I hope those of you reading this are realising what a despicable organisation CRT are. Don't give them any 'donations'. Don't think of living on a boat, or living in a marina (unlawful and not cheap and with restrictions and nothing to do with what is meant by the idea of 'living on a boat'). The days of living on a boat as a way of life on a low income as a refuge from a world you have tired of, are gone thanks to BW/CRT, boat clubs and canal societies and their 'friend' Sally Ash. Add to that hireboat companies and many of those with boats, for leisure use, in marinas.
The canals are not maintained, the locks are dangerous, the towpath vegetation is not cut - so you can't get off your boat and 'liveaboards' are pariahs who are spied upon and pursued like criminals by CRT and 'volunteers' ( many from boat clubs but also actively recruited 'dog walkers). Trust me, you won't believe what it's like.
Let it all fall apart or fight to get rid of those who have destroyed the heritage and the 'way of life'. They should be removed from office and prosecuted or, in any other way violated and suppressed like they do to me and others. (There are not many cases like mine only because people give up at an early stage in the process as they know they can't win. I know several who have had to leave the waterways (actually there are hundreds if not thousands) as a result of the stress and uncertainty inflicted upon us by arbitrary rules, and their arbitrary enforcement, by ignorant bullying individuals whose remit is to harass and threaten people whose way of life they neither understand or appreciate. Lies, false accusations and entrapment are all encouraged in the pursuit of one who dares to challenge them. (July 2016. Witness evidence of two of them - an 'enforcement officer' and 'enforcement supervisor' is under the heading 'Cogs in the Machine'. The article on court transcripts is also interesting).
I carried on the fight so I could tell the story and expose what they do. Thousands of people are affected by this abuse.). Whether anyone takes any notice or not is up to them.
(If I, occasionally, sound like I'm 'ranting' that's because I'm 'ranting'. Nothing wrong with that. It's perfectly reasonable and justifiable - and unavoidable).
I have submitted a Freedom of Information Request on the What do they Know website about the use of Part 8 procedure. It has not been satisfactorily answered and is awaiting an internal review. It doesn't look like, as is usual, they are intending to answer it. I will copy it here.
From: geoff mayers
15 July 2014
Dear Canal & River Trust,
Is it common practice for injunction proceedings to be arranged
under 'Part 8' procedure? This is for a hearing where there is no
dispute of facts and no defence is to be filed. An 'Acknowledgement
of Service' form has to be included in the papers served to the
defendant which has to be submitted to the court within 14 days.
BW/CRT have wrongly served these papers with a view to misleading
the defendant and misleading the court when no agreement has been
reached regarding a 'no defence' response and not enclosing the
'Acknowledgement of Service' form.
This is a corrupt practice and an abuse of process. How many court
proceedings have been initiated in this way?
A defendant misled in this way would find he cannot speak at the
hearing and can offer no defence.
Dear Mr Mayers,
Thank you for your e-mail.
However, having read its contents several time I am still unclear about what information you have requested. You may find it helpful to read the guidance published by the information commissioner on their website here: http://ico.org.uk/for_the_public/officia...
It is designed to assist individuals in making their request for information and includes a useful table of 'Do's and 'Don't's for you to bear in mind when phrasing your request to us.
I look forward to hearing from you.
Customer Service Co-Ordinator
Dear Information Request,
How many court cases for an injunction to remove someone's
boat/home from the waterways have been initiated using a Part 8
procedure, which claims that the case is not disputed?
In how many of these have the required documents not been served
requiring a submission to the court within 14 days if there is a
In how many of these cases has the defendant not been informed at
all of the court action?
Either you, or Shoosmiths, will have a record of this.
I hope this is clearer. I would not want to be in breach of
Dear Mr Mayers,
Thank you for clarifying your request for information.
We have now considered your request for:
1. How many court cases for an injunction to remove someone's boat/home from the waterways have been initiated using a Part 8 procedure, which claims that the case is not disputed?
2. In how many of these have the required documents not been served requiring a submission to the court within 14 days if there is a defence?
3. In how many of these cases has the defendant not been informed at all of the court action?
I am writing to let you know that Canal & River Trust does not hold the information you have requested.
Customer Service Co-Ordinator
Dear Information Request,
So you don't keep important records relating to your use of the
legal process to seize people's boats and make them homeless.
Neither do your, retained, solicitors. That seems very strange,
(actually it's a lie - yet another one) given that you go to great
lengths, and expense, to keep inaccurate records of the boat
movements of all people on the waterways for no good reason other
than to mislead the court in any future court case. You employ boat
checkers and enforcement officers and recruit, so-called,
volunteers from amongst those who think that other people's use of
boats is somehow detrimental to their own use, boat clubs etc., but
you don't have any records of the court process.
There is no such thing as a court action with no accompanying
records. You are lying. You should consider your position and your
I know its common practice to refuse to answer my questions but I
am not the only interested party. Nigel Moore has expressed an
interest and a concern for your integrity. Thank you, Nigel.
Shall we have an internal review , just out of interest ?
And for my records.
I think so. I request an internal review because you are not
providing information that you hold, or is held by your agents, and
is of great importance, and interest, to those who expect
accountability from organisations engaged in enforcement action
against individuals and are a public body, and in your case, also a