bassplayer

Yes, it takes a very rare (and brave) breed of person to prefer a lifestyle which breaks away from the one we have been conditioned to believe is 'normal'.

No, that bit is an opinion. Don't forget most of us are on this forum because we have an interest in canals and boats so the thought of a boat being your only home might seem attractive. Now I'm going to sound like a stuck record but how many people do you think could live on a boat? I know some people who wouldn't step one foot in a boat due to it's unstable nature and fear of water. Space is very limited. Security fears. Lack of convenient utilites (filling up with water, generation of electicity, emptying toilet, no WiFi, etc). On top of that, those who want to make a financial future for themselves could never see a boat aa being as good investment as bricks and mortar.

Or you stop people from being able to buy and leave homes purely for investment purposes. Apparently there are over half a million empty homes in the UK. Over 50000 in London alone. It's greed and lack of sharing again. As regards discussions about how much cheaper it is to live in a boat, there are quite a few reasons for this if you think about it for a few seconds. Very few homeless would prefer a boat over a small studio flat yet it's still used to justify the linear housing estate argument.

As I said...continuous loop...

Sorry Alan but it seems sometimes CWF is on a continuous loop.

Whichever way you or anyone else (or organisation) want's to dress it up, it's an abuse of the word 'charity'. The fact that people do get confused about it just shows how distorted the word's misuse is. Of course people give money to charities, that's not what I am arguing, but how many 'charities' make people homeless and harass customers? Anyway, apparently you beleive everyone agrees with you here so I will leave you to bathe in your smugness before I get banned.

You went down this route a week or two ago. It seems you can't grasp the fact that some organisations misuse the word 'charity'. Charity means what the dictionary says, not some warped version of it to suit an argument. TBH, I'm not sure where you are going with this. Are you saying that it's Ok for a charity to bully some of it's customers if the word 'charity' is redefined to mean something else?

I suspect those in the NBTA don't feel a need to define an interpretation. It's up to CRT to prove that it is illegal for them to stay in a locality so they can bring up a family and go to work. So far as I can see, the only thing they have on them is the 14 maximum mooring stay law and possibly obstruction where appropriate.

True, but it might pay for itself over time. It would certainly be an ethical solution to all this rather than wasting our money on court cases. No, I suspect the real reason it won't happen is because it's all helping to justify a reversal of the 1995 act. But I could be wrong and as I have said before, only time will tell.

I understand some boaters already successfully claim benefits for moorings. CRT should see that as an opportunity not a threat. I'm sure there are a few brown field sites in the area which could be flooded to create a purpose built marina, whether they would like to live in a marina is another issue.

The BBC report....about 14:40 minutes in.... http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b079rw4p/look-east-west-10052016

...but for some, the goal posts have moved after investing everything they have into a boat. Question for everyone. Do you think the real aim is make these people move further or to constructively force them off the canal system?

T&C's which CRT have been making up as they go along though. The law is pretty simple though, I'll give you that.

Well there are far more people from all walks of life who can't afford a home, who couldn't or wouldn't live on a boat. It does come down to whether you feel the waterways should be cleansed of people who do wish to live on a boat and have family commitments and jobs, or not. Who knows, liveaboard CC'ers might be next! Some people of course do live on boats which don't move on some residential moorings. Are we saying you can't be called a boater if you don't move? I'm all for using brown field sites in London to accommodate more of these type of residential moorings. Benefits can be used to help pay for mooring fees where necessary. Where they are not causing a problem in areas outside cities, why not just leave them alone?

How is bringing kids up and trying to hold down a job got anything to do with holidays and having a good time? Come to think about it, what's it got to do with wealthy upper middle class kids? No, but it's interesting to note where people's priorities lie.

Maybe bringing kids up and having a job to do is more important to them...

Why's that then? Not everything you read on Google is right and when one is talking about H&S it is even more important to get it right surely?

To be fair he has removed his rather ironic signature now...

About 70 but it was chucking it down at times... Seemed a very pleasant bunch to me.

The Channel 4 news report on this has just appeared on line... http://www.channel4.com/news/catch-up/display/playlistref/100516/clipid/100516_4ON_CANALS_PAB_1005 Anyone here go today?