Leaderboard

"Before you say it, there are no affordable moorings in London; none." "Before you say it, there are no affordable houses in London; none." What's the difference? I agree 100% that the lack of affordable housing is a huge problem, especially in London -- I know, I live there and both my kids are trying to find places to rent, which is only possible by sharing, luckily they both have very nice SOHs. Should my kids be able to move into a flat and then refuse to pay the rent on the grounds that it's too expensive? Bending the rules to let people fill up the canals without paying for moorings (or can't get them) doesn't solve the problem. If CRT turn a blind eye and more and more articles appear saying how much cheaper it is to live on a boat in London (or Bath, or...) than rent (or buy) a house, especially if you buy a cheap wreck and don't pay for a mooring, it will only take a few thousand people to completely jam up the canal system -- and this will be a fraction of a percent of the demand for affordable housing. It won't even make a tiny dent in the housing shortage, but it will bugger up the canals for everybody else -- and a large part of the income that keeps the canals and CRT going comes from "everybody else". And the simple fact is not that the rules have changed substantially, it's been clear for years that the boaters under discussion have been living within neither the spirit or the letter of the law, but have got away with it -- if you want to stay "in one place" you need a permanent mooring, otherwise you have to keep "cruising". Arguing about details like times and distances and what the exact terms are doesn't change the fact that they've been breaking the law (or rules, or regulations, or conditions, or whatever you want to call them) for years and have now been called out on it. I have some sympathy for people who will be badly affected by this, but it's limited because they've been exploiting the fact that the regulations weren't being enforced and now are. They're not cruising, they know they're not, but think they shouldn't have to follow the rules because it will inconvenience them...

Time to throw my hat in the ring. We have a CC boat and a baby (we had the boat first). Thus far, we've had a great time moving every 14 days to a new place. OK, the early days were tough; winter, a newborn and no sleep is not easy. But we've persevered and it's coming together now. I am slightly worried about what happens in 4 years when we need to think about schooling, although TBH, we could still move every 14 days and get the boy to school. There's a suitable, boater friendly, school that we have our eye on. The bit that might be problematic would be the "cruising range" "guideline" that CRT have decided to implement. Yes, I know it's in the T&C, but that doesn't change the fact that it's a unilateral condition that there is no actual legal justification for. What's to stop them from changing it to 30 or 50 miles in the future? That would effectively force us and lots of our friends off the cut, as there's no way we could comply and keep working. Before you say it, there are no affordable moorings in London; none. For all those of you curmudgeons saying "follow the rules", WE DO! But the rules keep changing and it does feel like a dedicated assault on our chosen lifestyle. If the DVLA decided that to own a car you had to have an annual driving range of 300 miles, there'd be a massive ****ing outcry against it. There'd also be smug commenters saying, "That's the rules, you chose to have a car, you have to fulfill the range".

Graham and Chris have been extremely active, not only in physically chasing down leads on the cut but also distributing information to the many marinas, boat clubs, etc that could help. I suspect some despair has crept in, as it has with all of us, but they will not give up and I hope the forum will not either. It could be you next time and it should not be happening.

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'm not sure that Sat TV means she just wants it for Saturdays - I think she means she wants to be able to sit down comfortably to watch rather than having to stand up. Tam

These are 2 different boats. The fender chains on one (Aurora) come off brackets on the deck & on the other (No Name) the brackets are on the rubbing strake. Can we determine what bracket arrangement Rare Bear has? We need the original photo.

If someone gets a good sighting shouldn't they phone the police?

I also think this is a bit harsh. I have not yet seen one jot of evidence of a likely sighting of the boat that ....... 1) Gives any real confidence that it was the actual boat 2) Was recent enough to give any real chance that the boat is still somewhere close by Even if they had nothing else to do, (and clearly they do) one couple on a random search of several thousand miles of rivers and canals isn't particularly likely to find it. In fact you can more or less guarantee they never would. In my view they are far better doing what they are doing - investing huge amounts of time and effort into trying to make as many people (boaters, CRT staff, businesses, etc) know about it. As it could be literally anywhere now, it will only be found by sheer force of numbers, I think, and even that will be difficult after so much time.

I posted early on and after reading the whole thread nothing has changed. Boats are a moveable object, moorings are cheaper and available up North. The move every 14 days is reasonable and the distance is small so if you cant do that move your boat to where A. You can move every 14 days and still have a child at school B. You can pay for a mooring and your child goes to the local school The problem is of course that people want to live in the overpopulated South well that isnt CRTs problem is it? They arnt a housing association they look after "our" canals and rivers, and overpopulation does cause pollution especially if refuse and waste disposal isnt available? So say these boaters provide us with these facilities so we dont pollute when will it stop? It wont is the answer, so the only solution is enforce the 14 days move harsh but fair

I'm a 1955 model, don't know if that makes me a baby boomer or not. But what I do know is that the older I get the more I realise how lucky I have been in life and I'm certainly not going to vent my spleen on those in a less fortunate position than me.

A 100% increase on 'zero' is still 'zero'.

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.

I have just found this on YouTube and I have not seen it before: I reckon it is 1975, and it is a Birmingham (Old Turn to Selly Oak - and a bit of Lapworth locks) I recognise from my youth. I think there are one or two faces I recognise too, one of which is a member of this Forum. edit = Didn't we look good back then with all that hair, and it sounds like a young Chris Tarrant doing the commentary

Ok, just to slow down and breathe a little. If you look at the video, the body of the missing boat had a burgundy band, then cream coachline, then blue infill. The closeup pic that was just posted has a whitish band then red coachline then blue infill. Surely adding a red coachline would be problematic while on the run. Paainting a big white band to cover the burgundy...yes, but painting a narrow red coachline...not sure.

Perhaps. Having those silly fender eyes in the same place is a good identifier. If the stolen boat has none, this probably isn't it Although, can I just say we need to eliminate this boat rather than assume it is the stolen one Richard

It's a bit hard to tell from NickandAnnes picture but it does look to be a similar style long fender. I think if it was my boat I would be getting someone along to check closer.

You and they are in a public place. Snap away.

I travelled a bit with the so-called peace convoy. More like a marauding horde tbh, arriving at quiet villages and going on a brazen rampage knocking off anything from motorbikes to live chickens and revelling in it. When parked up in an abandoned country house, having parties in the ballroom, they were most aggrieved that the locals would throw petrol bombs at them from a nearby railway embankment because some of them "had children". I got tired of pointing out that that just might be a fair reaction all things considered and left them to their faux outrage. They just wanted to fight cops and any authority and did the rampaging to bring that on. There were a bunch of them with "CC" followed by a number tattood on their arses. CC was at that time Convoy Crazies. Shame to waste a good tattoo. Yes, yes, yes, I know, I don't have a heart of steel, but I wonder how many of these people are pulling the wool in amongst the genuine strugglers, the mindset is all too familiar.

And that was without the aircon and microwave

Great, wish they were as quick with the landslip and breach near Hebden Bridge!

recent changes to the law means most if not all schools are now protected by a 20mph limit, not heard much moaning about it. Unlike CRT clarifying the cc rules. What sort of range do those who are against the CRT crackdown think is acceptable to continuously cruise over outside of their 14 day stays? Do they not accept that to continuously navigate the system wasnt meant to mean you can stay within a 10-15 mile radius of a certain town or even less it seems in some places?

That's the way to do it!

To me it revolves round the words Bona fide and Navigation. Bona fide as in genuine, or without the intention to deceive. Navigation has a number of meanings but one commonly accepted one is to move from place to place as in "naviagte to a website or round a website". Can trying to stay in as small an area as possible be genuine navigation. Personally I don't think so and I don't think the law was drafted with staying in one place in mind.

You missed off "Are the appliances a pile of dingo's kidneys?"

Tut! Edited to add: You set 'em up Max, I'll knock 'em down!

It appears to me that the boat owners are not being very proactive in the search. If it was my boat I would be out on a cycle and checking out the canals myself. I except I am going to get a warning over this but it does seem very strange

Four boats ago I had a BSS failure due to not having an RCD fitted. I pointed out that it was not compulsory and was offered a choice - a ) As you have paid me already I will issue a failure and that's the end of it, or b ) You can nip down to screw fix and get one (they are about 'a fiver') fit it, give me call and I'll come back and give you a 'pass' Rather than have to pay out another £140 I just fitted one, he called into the marina the next day and without checking that it had been installed just issued the new BSS. I have informed Rob@BSS of the name & details

You story shows that there will always be exceptional circumstances, and that whatever system is in place will need to flex to those exceptional circumstances. However, we do need to approach this with a little more realism. Just because SOME people are in truly exceptional circumstances, it does NOT mean that all people living the same lifestyle share the same circumstances. The system can't say "oh, some people are on boats because they have no other choices and it is all beyond their control, so we treat everybody on boats as if this applies to them". There is a solution to be found, but for as long as we see people who have made a lifestyle choice to live on a boat banging on about their RIGHT to not play by the rules, the solution will remain elusive.

Well, because (and I should actually be doing the work that is attempting to address this problem...) 1) If the boaters are dislodged they will become more vulnerable as they will end up in another form of accomodation that will be unsatisfactory - I've worked on major sink estates and, ya know, I'd rather the kids that are on boats are on boats than in some of the estates I've worked on 2) The authorities are not making a special case of boaters, that's just the bits that you see. They are making a special case of all vulnerable children, but if you live a comfortable life in a decent area you won't see those bits and then there is the counter argument as to what is the problem that we are trying to solve, because if the problem is that leisure boaters just don't like it then that doesn't really cut the mustard.

As a retired teacher I am well aware of the situation with regard to children who fall through the net. However nobody is forcing anybody to do anything. People choose to have children. In this day and age there are plenty of ways of ensuring you don't have children if you don't want them, anyone not taking advantage of this is choosing to have children. As responsible parents you make arrangements and change your life to ensure the life of the child is as it should be. That may mean choosing to move from a boat to land, even changing jobs and area if necessary. I know many who have made sweeping changes to their lives with the onset of a family. I can't quite fathom out why CCers and a number of others think CCers should be different.

I really ought to give up YOU are not everybody, so the fact that you would doesn't mean it would become a problem Most marina moorers are leisure boaters, some (many) live a long way from their boats. Nick Norman lives in Aberdeen I think and his boat is near Tamworth, of course he's going to nip down every two weeks to save a mooring fee isn't he? I guess not... If we are going to quote our own actions, my boat is in a marina for five weeks so I don't have move it, otherwise I'd be driving up this weekend to shift her down the cut (two weeks since I last visited) and then skipping a friends wedding in two weeks time to repeat the performance. The fuel, wear and tear on the car etc probably cost more than the mooring for the next few weeks. To actually move your boat every two weeks if you don't live on it is quite onerous - every two weeks, no exceptions unless you want to do it more often. If someone can make that work good luck to them.

good point about the colour and window styles. We are burgundy and it gets exceptionally hot on the roof and the living area/galley has big windows so this part of boat is always warmest

This ^^^^. If the boat has decent insulation (sprayfoam, Thinsulate etc, not polystyrene - and most boats built since the early 90's will have), and a light coloured roof, then they do not get uncomfortably hot in summer. We had share boats from 1992-2013 with sprayfoam insulation and now have our own boat with Thinsulate insulation. In the sharing days we always holidayed in August with dogs, and never had an issue. If you look at boats for sale during hot weather, and ask about the insulation type you will soon see what works. Portholes also keep the heat out (and in during winter) better than big windows, but obviously don't open as far. Edited for a wrong worm.

The simplest answer is for someone to set up a travelling skool to follow them around, innit? (Edit to correct a spelling error.)

:D That's MJG in the doghouse!

CaRT would not have to persuade the local Councils to grant planning permission for simply establishing offside moorings. Use of the banks for mooring is an integral part of the canal’s function, so there is no ‘change of use’ involved. Only if there was serious infrastructure would there be building work possibly requiring consent, as of course would residential or commercial use of the moorings. But mooring itself requires no planning permission; BW fought this point before the Planning Inspectorate back in 2006/7, and won the case. http://kanda.boatingcommunity.org.uk/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/http___www.pcs_.planningportal.gov_.uk_pcsportal_fscdav_READONLY_OBJCOO.2036.300.2.6228648NAME_Decision.pdf Of course, they only fought the issue on that occasion because it was their tenant that was being targeted with enforcement; other times they have ignored this precedent and argued before the Inspectorate that moorings should not be allowed, when they themselves didn’t want particular people to moor against property not in their ownership. But the precedent remains.

Some of these responses are quite saddening. Rog

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

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?

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.

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)

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

By way of keeping everyone up to date re. the progress, or lack of it, of C&RT's latest pointless and idiotic attempt to have me abolished, here is the [my] Witness Statement, ordered to be filed prior to the Directions Hearing, which, according to what the Listings Office in Nottingham told me today, will probably be sometime in early September. ____________________________________ Witness Statement of Anthony K. Dunkley Para. 4, from Line 2 : The river bank to which 'Halcyon Daze' Index No.52721[ 'the boat' ] is moored is private property and is not under the management or control of Canal and River Trust [ C&RT ]. From line 6 : It is true that the boat is moored at the stated location without a C&RT boat Licence, but the river Trent at Barton-in-Fabis where the boat is moored is a River Navigation listed in Schedule 1 of the British Waterways Act 1971 [as amended - BW Act 1974] upon which there is a Common Law Public Right of Navigation and vessels thereon do not require a boat Licence issued by the Navigation Authority. Any vessel kept or used within the main navigable channel [MNC] of a Scheduled River Navigation is required under Section 5(1) of the 1971 BW Act to be registered by means of a Pleasure Boat Certificate [PBC] issued by the Navigation Authority. The penalty for keeping or using a vessel within the MNC without such a Certificate in force is prescribed in S.5(2) of the same Act. Extracts from the British Waterways Act 1971 are exhibited by the Claimant, but the page bearing the above mentioned Section 5 has been omitted entirely from the exhibit. The river Trent at Barton-in-Fabis is approximately 150 feet wide and the MNC [as defined in C&RT dredging and maintenance documentation] is less than 40 feet wide on this section of the river. My boat has been moored against the privately owned riverbank at this location since the last PBC expired on 31 August 2015 and is therefore well outside of the MNC. Whilst it remains so, it is exempted from the requirement for a PBC under Section 4(1) of the 1971 Act. Having now fully recovered from a lengthy and debilitating illness, I am presently undertaking repair and refitting work on my boat. On completion of this work it is, as C&RT have been made aware, my intention to apply for a new PBC prior to resuming use of the vessel on the river Trent and other adjoining waterways for which no boat Licence is required. From line 10 : C&RT is not entitled to remove my boat from 'the Property', or the waterway, under Section 8 of the 1983 British Waterways Act as is stated. The statutory powers under the 1983 Act entitle C&RT to remove vessels 'sunk, stranded or abandoned' in any waterway, or to remove any vessel left or moored without 'lawful authority', in a waterway owned or controlled by them. My boat is not 'sunk, stranded or abandoned', and the Common Law PRN applicable on the entire navigable length of the river Trent is the 'lawful authority' for my boat to be on the river Trent, with or without a current PBC. Para.5 : It is stated that my boat is moored on C&RT's 'Property'. This is untrue. The river bank to which the boat is moored is privately owned, and ownership extends to the centre of the river. Para.6 : In as far as this has any relevance to this Claim, this paragraph is a concoction of both distorted and misrepresented truths, half truths and untruths. In January 2014 C&RT informed me that they had 'revoked' my boat Licence. This action was solely in order to facilitate a Claim, identical to the present one, to remove my boat from their waters. At that time my boat, which was not Licensed, and did not need to be, but was registered by means of a current PBC, valid until 30 June 2014, was in constant, almost daily use, on the river Trent mainly between Barton-in Fabis and Holme Pierrepont, downriver from Nottingham, and was frequently and regularly moored overnight near to Holme Lock. The grounds for revoking what C&RT incorrectly referred to as a Licence were variously stated as contraventions of Licence Terms and Conditions by either ''mooring too frequently and for too long whilst cruising'' or "not cruising sufficiently whilst mooring away from the boat's 'home' mooring'', or ''not complying with the C&RT Cruising Guidelines for boats without a 'home' mooring'', none of which makes any kind of sense, or are lawful grounds under Section 17(4) of the 1995 BW Act to terminate either a boat Licence or a PBC. C&RT issued a Claim [No.A00NG769] in June 2014 for the removal of my boat from their waters, a Defence was filed, and I applied to renew my boat's PBC just prior to the normal annual renewal date on 1 July 2014, but C&RT refused the renewal of the PBC on the grounds that, despite having issued the two preceding annual PBC's on the basis of my having a 'home' mooring, a mooring where the boat could be lawfully kept when not in use, at Barton-in-Fabis, they now chose to believe that the mooring didn't really exist. Para.7 : After a further interval and confirmation from the landowner that my mooring really did exist C&RT issued, not a new Licence, but a new PBC for my boat, and Discontinued the Claim, whilst complaining that my use of the mooring that they had questioned the existence of, and my ongoing compliance with the statutory conditions for holding a PBC had rendered their Claim "worthless and academic". Para.9, from lines 2 to 25. C&RT's erroneous beliefs as to the extent of the main navigable channel [MNC] of a river navigation, and the unsupportable assertion that it extends over the full width of the river from bank to bank are shown to be incorrect in the wording of their own General Canal Byelaws. Byelaw 19(1) states :~ Navigation of Pleasure boats: 19. (1) A pleasure boat when meeting, overtaking or being overtaken by a power-driven vessel other than a pleasure boat shall as far as possible keep out of the main navigable channel. If, as C&RT claim, the MNC did extend for the full width of the navigation, then it would not be possible for any conventional vessel to comply with this Byelaw, and the only type of craft capable of compliance when confronted by either an oncoming or overtaking commercial vessel would be an amphibious vessel able to remove itself onto dry land under it's own power, or a canoe or similar craft which could be manhandled out of the water. As either type of craft is in a very small minority of the vessels that customarily use, or have used, C&RT's navigable waterways, it is not conceivable that this Byelaw was drafted with such vessels in mind. Para.19. In making this specious Claim, C&RT are well aware that in the event of my compliance, at any time prior to trial, with their unlawful demands that I obtain that which they misleadingly and wrongly describe as a 'Rivers only Licence' for my boat whilst it is confined to use on a Scheduled, PRN River Navigation, they would be obliged to Discontinue, as they were, in similar circumstances, in July 2014. I believe that, far from being necessary to (quote) - "enable C&RT to comply with it's statutory duty to ensure that the inland waterways controlled by C&RT are safe, well managed and properly conserved", this Claim for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief is both contemptuous of Statute, in that it disregards the distinction made between a boat Licence and a Pleasure Boat Certificate made in Section 5(1) of the 1971 BW Act and Section 17(1) of the 1995 BW Act, and amounts to an attempt to prevent an individual from exercising a Common Law Public Right, and that as such it is asking the Court to act beyond it's powers and jurisdiction. I respectfully ask that the Claim be struck out. Statement of Truth. I believe that the facts stated in this Statement are true. Dated day of 2016 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Anthony Kenneth Dunkley Defendant

"Dodged a bullet" there methinks.

Daniel Clements whos wife was Elizabeth was born in Buckby had a son Herbert Richard Clements who was baptised sept 28th 1884 also in Buckby wharf fathers occ is listed as Boatman Richard had a younger brother George born about 1910. Daniel died when the boys where young 1911 census shows Herbert as a dock labourer in Brentford Middx & living @ 24 ,Lateware rd with wife maria & 1 year old son George Herbert have the parish record of this child being baptised @ St George church Brentford records are a bit confusing then as I looks as if George is working on the docks from age around 10 saves all his money & takes his mother & brother to a new life in America . There are two Clements buried together in the church yard @ Long Buckby I am not 100% sure if these are your people but they are buried in the newer section next to where most of the Humphries & other boat people are resting A clements & her husband . if you like I can send a message with the full details on the grave . When I speak to my uncle George Humpries who lives in l/buckby I will ask if any Clements still live in the village

Steve Priest built the butty in the mid 90s I think, on his land at long itchington, ( at wfbco) she was built as a large Northwich size even though such boats were never created the town class Northwich motors being paired with large Ricky buttys in the theoretical pairings. (George and Mary has the. Putative pairings listed. Can't remember her name but don't think it's stolen from an extant butty. I believe she was built to go with Stratford and origionaly painted in willow wren type colours, but memory plays games. She was of course built 'converted' and having been moored alongside her at one point on a station boat she is truly massive. You must have been typing at the same time!!! No paul I didn't have her built, we had thaxted ( widgeon) and butty Atalanta in those days. Would have been cheaper to have had Siskin built than what we spent fixing Atalanta but with a five foot tall wife a town class butty was always going to be challenging!!!