Leaderboard

That's only partly true. The current legal requirements on CCers have been in place since 1995, and the children now in school have all been born some time after that. So families who now have school age children have been obliged to either have a home mooring or CC in accordance with the rules since before the children were born. And all CCers have signed to say that they will do just that. But what has changed, is that the blind eye that had previously been turned to non compliance is now less accommodating. And that is as a result of increasing problems, (or at least an increased perception of problems) caused by those CCers, with and without children, pushing at the boundaries of what is acceptable/permitted. No doubt this is unfair on some of the boaters and families involved, but to my mind a large part of this has been brought down on the CCer community by the "I know my rights" types within their number.

Yes, but we are already moving into things not being quite as clear cut as people would like to make out. There is a tension indeed, but not one that has been resolved in an enforceable way. Bona Fide means (literally translated) "without intention to deceive" which in this context is fairly meaningless. If we start moving towards "in good faith" then it would be fairly easy to argue that moving as far as practicable in the circumstances is "in good faith", especially as the distance would differ depending on the circumstances. Canals bring a largely middle class leisure activity (sorry, but it is - the posh ones go yotting and the working class don't generally go narrow boating) into conflict with other sectors of society in a way that, say, playing golf or watching rugby doesn't. Hence we find ourselves in conflict with stone throwing yobs round the back of industrial estates, amidst glue sniffers in city centres and yes, amongst liveaboards where accomodation is way out of reach (although cost isn't the only reason people live on boats). We don't like it, and we want something done about it. I say we because I regard myself as one of the middle class. But these people can't just not exist, and badgering them off the waterways where to be honest their presence is relatively benign isn't helping anyone. Suppose this badgering is successful, what will it achieve? Short term reduction in demand for moorings and long term resentment among a group of people suddenly disenfranchised and homeless?

I normally agree with most things you say however on this occasion I am afraid I dont. Boats can move, if there are no moorings where they are move to somewhere where there are moorings. Plenty of cheap moorings here up North six weeks school hols to move boat and Bobs your uncle you dont have to move every 14 days. The trouble is with some people its cake and eat it time and we all know the world isnt like that

All well and good but the canals are not a linear housing estate, they are not the cure for the social housing system and they are not to be viewed as an answer to 40 years of deliberate under investment in all of the things you mention. Couple of hundred now, then when they have the right to stay in one place because of kids/schools/work/whatever they double in number or treble or further because there is now a legal precedent and the speculators get in on it and you cant move for 'static caravans on water'.

If they care to live up to their name and travel outside of London.....and it might come as a suprise to a lot of them that the canal system does extend beyond the M25.... They will find that shockingly permanent moorings are available as is rentable housing.....I'm sorry but having children is a "lifestyle" choice.....just like living in a particular area or choosing between being on land or in a house....sometimes you can't have everything..... I would quite like a large house with a mooring and a workshop....so my mother can live in the house while I have the mooring and workshop....surely the powers that be should give me this for nothing....it's my right after all........ Not impressed I'm afraid. Cheers Gareth

Hang on... The actual claim is that they are being compelled to travel further than is compatible with their children attending school They also claim that the 1995 Act requires them to "move every 14 days" - it doesn't say how far The various Education Acts require a local authority to pay for transport if the journey is more than 2 or 3 miles to school (depending on the age of the child and depending on the education authority as to whether this means the nearest school or the one they actually attend). This is based on walking distances The various regulations regarding travellers on land allow that the traveller is prevented from travelling by virtue of having children in education There is therefore a reasonable argument that families with schoolchildren can, in term time, restrict their travelling to within 2/3 miles of the school (note I said reasonable, not necessarily correct) That is before you add how few/many liveaboard households have children (how big an issue is it?) and the fact that heterosexual couples of a certain age tend to end up with them. Is there an element of sitting in judgement on the lives of others here? I really don't think many, if any, fit every element of that stereotype, and it is fairly typical of the hype used to undermine a much bigger section of the community, along with "scroungers in council houses" for example edited to correct ambiguous mileage

From that 'other place' (the Dark-Side) Getting something right : ....................................................................................................................................................................................................... Forgetting something... Thursday, 04 August 2016 09:12 THE 'Bargees' are at it again—complaining that their children cannot go to school as they have to move their boats under the rules of their continuous cruiser licence. Their latest demand now is 'No evictions of Boat Dwellers! Full 12 months boat licences for all! Let boat children go to school!' Misnomer The National Bargee Travellers Association—whose title itself it something of a misnomer, for the last thing they want to do is travel, though all have continuous cruiser licences. The association is organising demonstrations telling people that Canal & River Trust with its punitive and unlawful enforcement policy against boaters without permanent moorings has seen many boat dwellers on the Kennet & Avon Canal having their licences restricted to six months; threatened with losing their homes; being pressured into giving up their homes; boats being seized and boat children's education and welfare suffering due to the long distances they are being forced to travel to school. Permanent mooring As most boaters are aware, if you wish to stay in one place to be able to send your children to school or go to work, then you pay for a permanent mooring. If you wish to cruise the waterways you can do with a continuous cruiser licence, so then don't have to pay for a permanent mooring. But the 'Bargees' want the best of both worlds—wanting to stay in one place yet not pay for a mooring, though of course this is never mentioned in its propaganda. They prevent children attending school They themselves are preventing the children attending school by not having a permanent mooring that will allow them to do so. Surely they can't really believe their own disinformation that they should be able to stay in one place on a licence that clearly states 'continuous cruising'? Their licence is very, very clear. What on earth do they believe 'continuous cruising' means? Any 'boat children's education and welfare suffering due to the long distances they are being forced to travel to school' is caused by the decision of the boaters themselves, by having a continuous cruising licence, and certainly not by the Trust. http://www.narrowboatworld.com/index.php/news-flash/9169-forgetting-something

Surely the problem has been created by former authority turning a 'blind eye' to boaters who move very little, for whatever reason. This set a kind of precedent which is only now being overturned. I have to say I feel very uncomfortable damning young families for wanting to live aboard, and in very many instances there simply aren't moorings available. I hope some long term strategy can be acheived, as I for one love to see young families on the canals, instead of being entirely grey haired dodderers like me. After all, diversity is a good thing isn't it? Rog Greenie for that Oh I can't Rog

I'm really sorry to say this, but trying to decipher facts and information from some of your posts is difficult at best.

Seems to me that the attraction of the canals is the scenery and laid back 'vibe' which attracts people of all walks of life. If the waterways are just linear moorings with nowhere for those of us who, when on the water, like to stop at towns, cities etc to moor the system will have the potential to become a ghetto for the disenfranchised. Not that attractive to the holiday maker or retiree. Which brings me to a question: What happens if I, as a CCing parent of children enrolled in a local school, shuffle off a few miles down the cut and when I shuffle back again some other family in the same position has taken the mooring and now I have no suitable mooring to enable my children to attend school? a) suck it up ask some old or childless boater to sling their hook c) stamp my foot, complain to CRT, the Media, anyone that it's not fair and something should be done about it? Discuss

sorry if I'm simple but surely the solution is obvious. Accept compromise alternative lifestyle or children, you can't have both. Most of my aquaintancies living on boats when we were at a dangerous age on finding biology had upset their lifestyle moved off. Some came back, others lived happily ever after. Life is a compromise

Some of these responses are quite saddening. Rog

The NBW report (if it can be believed) is yet another example of somebody wanting to assert his/her rights without the accompanying responsibilities. The chosen lifestyle is incompatible for legal reasons with having children of school age, although there is nothing to prevent anyone from seeking a permanent mooring. Bread buttered on both sides, anyone?

I like that question. The answer is yes. And no Richard

That's what you believe is it? ...... I know people who believe the world is flat. Their customers only pay huge sums (in your opinion) because it costs a fortune to set up and run a marina. If you park your car in a pay and display slot in a car park and it gets stolen which industry do you suggest needs to wake up? I am irritated by today's attitude "It's not my responsibility" because guess what? Oh yes it is! You decided to buy a boat/car/helicopter/hovercraft/pogo stick ..... its safety and security is down to one person ...YOU! If you can't think of some easy ways to make your boat less nickable than the one next door then you're just not trying. * Put an additional remote and hidden cut off switch between the key and solenoid * Fit a second and hidden fuel tap which remains off when you leave it. * Attach an air tight valve to the exhaust which you leave turned off when not on board. * Fit another length of rope to your front line or off the bottom of a fender which in turn is connected to a chain and an anchor laying under your boat. * Wire your horn, lights and alarm to a hidden switch so they all come on when the engine is started, only you know how to isolate it. All you can ever do is make it more difficult to nick than the one next door. No scrote wants to draw attention to themselves.

And if it isn't successful - what then? Why should anyone pay for a CRT mooring. As an intelligent middle class person I can see a loophole to exploit a mile wide there This is a horrendous mess that needs a pragmatic solution Richard

Anyway Apparently the weather forecast for this weekend in Englandland is looking promising

Hi Gazza That one is Hank - hes about 5 now.. ....a decent dog ... 8 seems to be a good age nowadays - we have had a 14, and regular 12's over the years...

All of this was taken into account by CaRT and is why they offered grandfather rights in the form of roving mooring permits to be piloted on the k&a. It was the liveaboards themselves who shot this down with their conviction that their interpretation of the law was exact and correct and they can keep doing as they always have. Yes it's tough but ultimately when the licence application is on the desk and it is plain that for whatever reason this person will not move and the board is most certainly not satisfied what then?

Do you need some help with the tree on your shoulder.

You must have a different definition of baby boomer to the one I grew up with! I thought I was a baby boomer and I am well past middle age. Not sure what the rest of the rant means really.

Cake & eat it, blah blah blah. What some don't realise, or want to accept, is that, there is no cake left because a lot of self-rightous, middle-aged baby-boomers, have had it all.

I don't know why the Beeb didn't talk to the man himself. http://www.canalworld.net/forums/index.php?showtopic=85010&hl=james+brindley

yeah this But oh you and your facts and thinking about things - you're spoiling the fun of those that relish in spreading the hate of those less fortunate than themselves (which CWDF does so well)

We're at Coven today and will be turning onto the SU at Autherley tomorrow, so we'll be blocking the southern route from Barbridge.

Am I alone in being suspicious of anything on 38degrees? All I ever see is links to petitions asking me to sign to object to "something". There is never a full description of "something", no reasoned analysis of the pros and cons of "something", no links to other information, just a rather obviously one-sided description of the negative impacts of "something". And as such, I imagine it carries just about zero weight with decision makers, so really rather pointless.

Hi all, I know this isn't the place to introduce oneself under normal circumstances, but... I don't have a canal boat and don't think I've ever been on one either. I'm a dinghy sailor who saw a link to this thread on Facebook and have been following it avidly ever since; with all respect to the owners of the missing boat, it's addictive! After all, it is fascinating how 50 feet of steel boat can disappear so effectively! But I have noticed the little bit at the bottom of the page which shows' xx users are reading this topic; xx members, xx guests, xx anonymous users. I strongly suspect that when it says ' 1 anonymous user', that has been me, so I thought I should register and explain before someone else gets the wrong idea! Chris and Graham, I do hope you get your boat back very soon, and undamaged as well. I'll continue to follow the saga on a daily basis and am only sorry that there is no water local to me that might need checking. But I am also an avid birdwatcher and I do travel a bit, quite frequently to areas with rivers, canals etc, so having made a drawing of the window layout etc to take with me I'll add my eyes and binoculars to the search. When the saga draws to a close as sooner or later it must, I'll log off and leave you all to your peaceful traversing of the nation's inland waterways...

http://www.canalworld.net/forums/index.php?showtopic=86320 ...has all the reports I could find in one place.

It's just a game with each side using the tools available to them? I'll have a little rant anyway though. Personally, I find much of my life has been made worse by a few moaning idiots making a fuss about easily circumvented nonsense leading to clamping down and tightening up. E.g. bank charges. Before banks were forced to set them out and apply them fairly, I wormed my way out of every single charge for decades, now it's computer says no! Peace convoy: These idiots made it impossible to wild camp in England. Bargee travellers I fear are water born equivalent of the peace convoy, probably msome of the same people, still hell bent on fighting authority for it's own sake. If it wasn't this they'd be camped on a grouse moor claiming the right to educate their own children in a community yurt that didn't actually exist. Anything for delay, obfuscation and argument will do, it's a way of life.

Couldn't yew saw straight down the length of a growing tree and get yourself a plank? And tie a plum (or stick it) so it turns into a prune without leafing the tree it grew on? Tam

That makes complete sense. If you've got iCloud photo sharing turned on then any pictures taken will get shared as soon as the phone connects to wifi. However phones are not clever enough (and why should they be?) to differentiate between a wifi network connected to ADSL, etc and a mifi-style wifi network connected to a mobile data source.

Yes. Not a lot of demand for goats in that part of London!

this boat passed me to at braunston, i believe the overlapping initials are CC

So we still have folks wishing cyclists harm. How dreary. It's simple; every tow path user should show respect and consideration for other users. Cycling on the tow path is here to stay. Walkers should step to one side when a cyclist approaches. Cyclists pay for tow path maintenance. Folk should not post on here wishing harm to others.

I'm going to stick my neck out here and say that personally, i think everyone is concentrating too much on one (the wrong?) area. I suspect it is long gone and is up north or down south, or even craned out by now.

We would also like to share a terrible experience that we had with Bluewater Boats ltd (Warwickshire). We wish that we read Staarek’s comments before we ventured into this contract. When we read their story, it was like an exact déjà vu of our own experience. We followed all the advice written about new builds; we read up and researched various boat builders, we visited their yards, and we considered and deliberated all the facts before making a final decision. We accepted that Bluewater was not the most modern boatyard, but David Warner made a good sales pitch and we were happy for a small family team to handle the project. With the build specifications and drawings agreed and the promise of a cancelled build slot immediately available, we signed contracts and everything looked good. The steel arrived and the hull took shape. Then came the first request for extra money, for items which were clearly included in the specifications and shown on the supplied drawings but which were, according to Mr Warner, were not priced in his standard specification (which somehow was not the same as the actual Build Specification!). Please note that despite together working through several modifications to the Specifications prior to signing the contract, and it being included as part of the contract, Bluewater constantly challenged the authenticity of the document afterwards, as they hadn’t produced it themselves and also said that it was produced by someone who doesn’t know about boats (I have been boating all my life). Anyway, after much discussion we reluctantly agreed to pay for some of these “extras” as by then we already parted with nearly half the money and if we didn’t pay, Bluewater threatened to put the build on hold. At that time we found out from other customers that it was typical of Bluewater to add another 10% for “unexpected” extras to each build. However, we tried to stick to the contract, which was a fixed-price contract, and refused to accept charges for other items Bluewater insisted were outside of the contract. Throughout the build, we only made one change to the specifications, where we added a dinette unit, and for this change both sides agreed in writing for the extra cost involved. Even so, we have had this “extra” constantly thrown back in our face that it was provided for free or that we had manipulated it out of Bluewater. We constantly re-iterated to the builder that unless both parties agreed in writing (as per our contract), there should be no changes to the spec nor should there be any extra “hidden” charges. All the way through the build we requested and received confirmation of this. However, we then got our fingers burnt when we found that items listed in the specification were not built into the boat, and then Bluewater tried to insist that we had informed them that we had changed our minds on such fixings. Nevertheless, Bluewater were unable to substantiate their side of the dispute nor could they provide any evidence either in writing or in the form of notes of any meetings where we had made any such changes. Because Bluewater were failing to get their extra “commission” out of us, the atmosphere from them became quite nasty and they were constantly rude and downright insulting with us. Discussions with other customers indicated that when Bluewater got their “little extra”, they were sweet and charming with the customer. But they failed to get their “bonus”, they became extremely difficult. We were repeatedly told that we were the worst customers that they had ever had – however, we were not unique in this matter as other customers had also been told the same! We found that points made and agreed at meetings were being reneged upon a couple of days later. As we live overseas, we had to make special efforts to arrange and fly in to attend such meetings, and for us then to receive emails saying that they had changed their minds about matters discussed made the whole point of having these meetings a complete waste of time. In the Contract and Specifications, International Paints was specified by Bluewater as the type of paint they would use. However, after handover of the boat, we discovered that the paint spec had been downgraded from the agreed “International” paint to a lower-quality paint which (as David Warner stated in an email to us) “is a load of crap”. Apparently this was because Bluewater had “used up the budget” and that there was no money left to do a good job unless we paid more money, over and above the contractually agreed price. They also skimped on primers and basecoats, and put a miserly amount of topcoat on. Bluewater were unable to get a decent finish nor a decent shine to the paint, and wrote in an email to us “if the paint is not good enough to get a top quality finish and shine …. we can’t be expected to keep putting more and more on” . He also stated that he wasn’t trained to put this sort of paint on. Bluewater actually put on three different shades of our chosen topcoat, spraying the front and back cabins in one shade, and the wheelhouse in another obviously different shade. They then touched in damaged areas of the wheelhouse paint with the paint used on the front and back cabin, so the touched-in areas stood out quite noticeably. To cap things off, they then tried to cancel the handover of the boat 12 hours before our crane / haulage company was due to pick up the boat, refusing to offer any compensation for the £2500 we had spent with the haulage company. The reason they gave was that we had complained about the quality of the paint finish (which we hadn’t at that time), whereas we subsequently found out that they had tried to pull the wool over our eyes by not informing us of this error, and then had panicked after discussing the matter with the paint supplier. We also had the boat delivered to us with wet paint on the decks, and with footprints in this wet paint. For factual reference, the delivery date was two weeks after we had signed off the boat, so we wonder why they were still working on the boat two weeks later. Bluewater also built into our boat a second-hand heater they had taken off another boat because it did not work. Needless to say, it didn’t work on our boat either. But after first of all accusing us of having broken it somehow, then after six warranty callouts from the manufacturer / supplier, we finally had a brand new heater fitted by the manufacturer (at no hassle to Bluewater). This is a typical event that we have been involved with first hand, and have heard happen to other customers. Bluewater’s warranty is all but non-existent. They rely on the goodwill of their suppliers to put right their faults; you will unlikely get Bluewater to come out to fix issues, at least not until you have completely exhausted all chances of the supplier fixing it on their behalf, and then only after numerous accusations to the customer that they must have caused the problem somehow and thus trying to render it outside of the warranty. We have since discovered (too late for us) many other dissatisfied Bluewater customers, some with current outstanding issues, some with past court proceedings, and some who gave up the court fight because of delay tactics, lies and false accusations by Bluewater. Just like us, anyone taking legal steps has to consider not just the legal cost but whether, if they win, they would actually get things put right and/or whether compensation would actually be paid out. Here are some of the faults on our boat: Boat handed over 3 months late (not bad, really!) Items agreed on the original spec not included in the build Bluewater unable to supply the steering system as specified in the Contract Heater that did not work from day one (we found out later this was a second hand faulty heater) Dangerous electrical wiring Wrong paint colour applied in certain areas of the boat Excessive rust on welds and exposed (unpainted) steel on some areas Very thin paint coat over most of boat, which failed an independent paint survey Wet paint on boat two weeks after the boat’s signoff, with footprints in the paint Bluewater blame us for these problems by taking the boat away too soon (ie 3 months after contractual handover date). This was after Bluewater had taken the final payment from us, handed us the Bill of Sale, VAT documents, and keys, but then later tried to claim that the boat wasn’t ready for collection. No doubt Bluewater will reply with counter-accusations and denials (Bluewater’s favourite quote is “it’s not our fault”), but we have written and photographic evidence to support each and every one of our claims. One point we will make is that the yard workers themselves are generally excellent and polite and their workmanship is good. However, they are employed by the company and have to follow the rules imposed by the management / office team, who let the side down with arrogance, complacency and overall inefficiency. Did we learn something over the last couple of years? Yes we did. 1. Never trust people with a limp handshake 2. Judge their build quality by the way they maintain the toilets in their office 3. Judge their organisational skills by the way the keep their office organised and tidy (not!) 4. Don’t confuse the smell from the farmyard with the bullshit you are constantly given ( you will only understand this if you visit Bluewater’s boatyard) 5. Accept that you will never win an argument with a stupid person 6. There can only be one truth but there can be many lies 7. Warn other potential buyers to save them from making the same mistake 8. Don’t let the bad experience ruin the flavour of your Champagne Don’t get me wrong, they probably do have some happy customers , although we haven’t actually come across any yet. But if you do not want to pay more than your contractually agreed price), if you expect good quality (and new) materials, if you expect professionals standards and a courteous manner to customers, if you expect your builder not to cut corners , lie or cover up then I suggest you just walk away from Bluewater Boats.