nick_theboatman2

So there has been some rather rabid comments in this thread and regrettably some hate speech; and some robust responses (from me - please excuse the robustness but if that is what it takes, that is what it takes). The attack on me I'm not concerned by. What I am concerned with are the three aspects of (a) noting that a failure to challenge encourages the hate speech and conversely to challenge, explain and lay out why the comments are so hateful may slowly filter through and things might improve; (b) for everyone else watching this dialogue, for them to be clear that this sort of conduct is not acceptable and the perpetrator will be pulled up by way of challenge, every time; and (c) that for the observer seeing this dialogue thinking to themselves "really, is that how it is?" (seeing what the hate-speakers are saying) need to see not simply "what the other side thinks" but what the law _actually says AND means_. We've seen enough traffic through teh Casework Team to know what the law says, and what it doesn't say, what others would like it to say and what others pretend it says (when it doesn't). Itinerant Live Aboard boaters have very little by way of protection and are inherently vulnerable. So it is not surprising that we rely on what little we do have to the best of our abilities, and we get tough. It has been explained to me by a run-of-the-mill established community person (that's "house dweller" to you) that they are absolutely disgusted by the way that certain people carry on against the itinerant boat-dwelling community. I have replied saying "well in all walks of life there are the "normal" people and the scumbags..." but this is a question of degree. Certainly the Women and Equality Select Committee was scandalised by the way that boat-dwellers are treated by some sectors of society. And to try to protect the itinerant boat-dwellers from the scumbags is what the NBTA does. And I am proud to be one of the founders. Going back to what this thread started as, to conduct a study of how to "improve the towpaths", I hope that this thread casts some light on the rather murky background to towpath life.

No Alan it was when I was presenting a case and he was not cutting meany slack which he might of done (and was obligated to do) if I was an uninformed litigant in person. And since then I have been asked to provide opinions to several very experienced barristers, been peer reviewed on several subjects and complemented on the quality of my work by a number of solicitors. The Professor of Law at one leading uni law school said that I was significantly better equipped than he to do one specific piece of work relating to navigation on inland waterways. The navigation authority was CRT as it happens. Perhaps you had also look up "vexatious" - because when a team (of which I am a member) supports multiple people that isn't "vexatious". I will however point out that you, sir, are highly offensive. But then you always have been.

1. I can thank you. It says "CHAPTER 2 PROHIBITED CONDUCT Discrimination 13 Direct discrimination (1) A person (A) discriminates against another (B) if, because of a protected characteristic, A treats B less favourably than A treats or would treat others." So if the Protected Characteristic is a mental health disability (which it usually is especially when the person has been persecuted by some who frequent this forum - and (without giving the details) this is confirmed in the mental health consultant's report as expert evidence to the Court) the person [here] who is spouting vitriole against such a person is engaging in prohibited conduct. Period. 2. "Mr Brown, you are an accomplished litigant" (Lord Justice Jackson, 23-7-2013). By the way he was the second most senior judge in the judiciary at the time. I've learned a thing or two since then. And in particular where some of the prejudice originates from. This is becoming a little repetitive. Pack it in.

As I said, look at the metadata. The files we got from CRT are datestamped 12-12-2016. Oh and there is this of course (6-1-2017) https://you.38degrees.org.uk/petitions/boat-children-deserve-equal-access-to-education

The general principle resisting the new policy on travellers only being classed as travellers if they are moving, is seen as grossly offensive by anyone in the third sector involved in supporting travellers. Which is why it is presently being challenged in judicial review. CRT didn't go out of its way to accommodate. Richard Party himself was taken to task by Michelle Donolan (essentially summoned to account for the conduct of CRT) that led to the engagement of the EHRC in relation to the equality issues. Please don't mis-represent how that played out: the NBTA was instrumental in that cycle. As for the "illustrative cruising pattern pics", I have to smile because it was I who published those pics in the first place - and we got hold of them through a casework client (maybe you might look at the metadata...) - and CRT then denied that it had produced them. Interesting moment, that was. So the long-and-short is this: how about remembering that these people to whom you cast derision are people none-the-less and one of the things that we as a society claim that we do is look after the less well equipped. Unless one hails from the far right of course. The NBTA is doing just that and the NBTA Casework Team has never been busier. If there were no problems the Casework Team would be quiet.

So more of the same old arguments it seems. 1. There are multiple things that lead to someone staying in one place for extended periods of time. "Kids in School" being a contributing factor... I agree that "being a child" is not a protected characteristic. Children are however protected by the Childrens Act and other stautes that include, for example, an obligation that primary school kids should not travel to school more than 2 miles and if they have to the the council has to provide transport. The issue is that to get the transport what is provided is a bus pass on a fixed route or failing that a "school run" group taxi. So where the fixed route follows the line of the canal or such like then ok (if there actually is a bus). But where the canal goes off in another direction (that the skipper is obligated to take because of the "20-mile" "non-rule" then a problem arises because it is very hard to change a bus pass once issued. 2. CRT and the NBTA put some work into "illustrative cruising patterns" that could accommodate kids in school. This was because CRT was taken to task by the EHRC and the prosecution was suspended allowing CRT to get its house in order, to which CRT promised "illustrative cruising patterns". CRT then resiled. 3. In fact s.17(3)(c)(ii) of the 95 Act was put in to the Bill as a result of lobbying by several itinerant live-aboards on behalf of the wider community (Simon Greer in particular who gave evidence to the Select Committee on behalf of the boaters) in order to _protect_ the live aboards rather than provide a restriction. It is usually forgotten that BWs position was to criminalise living on boats. So where precisely does that connect into Art 8? There is a key word in s.17(3)(c)(ii) which is usually overlooked: "reasonable" - and "reasonable" cannot be established in advance of the facts. Art 8 requires teh law to be interpreted so as to give effect to the right to respect for home and family life. I know that some readers of this forum might find that a difficult pill to swallow but it is precisely there for that reason: to protect (or at least seek to protect) those who would otherwise be persecuted. Sorry guys: peoples' homes are more important than a bit of recreational boating. 4. There is no need to refer to "scruffy" if you don't mind. Bit offensive... And we use the phrase "itinerant boat dweller" as there is nothing established in law that makes the phrase "continuous cruising" acceptable either. 5. I'll leave the "illustrative cruising patterns" here... Nope. There are however some Roma and Irish Travellers who _are_ protected but everyone else are regarded as "New Travellers" who Thatcher decided were scumbags. We are also Masters of our boats. We do have the power of arrest, of course.

Correct and noting that many of the NBTA Casework clients, that we support, have Protected Characteristics this gives them protection from hate speech. I was addressing the comment of "using the children card" in the context of "playing the system [by overstaying]".

Oh and just before you re-mount your high horse, there have been many expressions of gross prejudice against itinerant live-aboard boaters on this forum in the past which is why, every time one of the NBTA Committee spots an instance, or an instance is bought to our attention, we (1) refer the matter to Hertfordshire Gate and (2) make representations to the Sysop that the post be removed. Usually to no effect. But one doesn't stamp out prejudice by giving up and going home. So we don't. If there was no prejudice there would be nothing to stand up against, would there now?

There is no threat here, merely a statement of fact. s.13(1).

Hmm. Seems your memory isn't quite up to scratch then. Because the NBTA was behind the demand for proper consultation. The NBTA represents itinerant boat-dwellers. And as I recall the other key stakeholders were pushing their own constituency (and, on first blush) at the expense of the itinerant live-aboards. The proposals were bad all round which is why the NBTA was objecting to them. Most of all we were objecting to the conduct of Sally Ash. She left shortly afterwards because we made it clear to the SoS what was going on in BW at the time (ie her conduct) and he wanted his "get shot of BW" order. Which he did. And when Parry took over she was out. With her OBE, bless. But her conduct was pretty despicable (per MSSG on the K&A for example). You refer to "me" but I was representing the NBTA - its members... you a member? As was Panda Smith (representing the KANDA constituency, affiliated to the NBTA seeing as Panda is was and still is the NBTA Chair). As for "ditched" not exactly, because the Safety Zones on the Lee (introduced absent consultation) have been causing great difficulties - unless you are a rower of course and this was all about giving rowers preference over the itinerant boat-dwellers. And since when has recreational use carried preference over "home"? By the way who do _you_ represent? Because as I understand it NBTA London has approximately 15,000 members.

So: 1. "itinerant" is just that (and emphasises "no mooring"). Its what we do. 2. the majority of our members really do move itinerantly becuase they get pissed off with land-side prejudice. Unsurprising really. 3. "evade" is an obnoxious term. Meanwhile (and noting that disabilities are regularly hidden) to jump to a conclusion on first blush (without knowing the facts - which you may not know or ever know or indeed have any right to know) is also offensive; almost all of my (at any rate) cases always have a sub-text in which there is a disability of other vulnerability involved (including references to boaters near Bradford on Avon - and its not in my gift to discuss any of that, is it now??) the sub-text usually gives rise to Reasonable Adjustments. So did you know that the CRT Welfare Officer (that'll be the one that the NBTA Chair wrote the job sepc for - that one) is so over worked, over subscribed that in April CRT are taking on a second? What does that say? Quite: that there are lots of problems here - clue: no high horses, no prejudice and no empathy failures, if you don't mind.... 4. You want to prevent children going to school? Line up with the other rabid right-wingers, just over there.... 5. Crustie refers to bread not people. Unless they want to be referred to as crusty hippies. Personally I'm a professional if you don't mind. So next time you are up in front of a judge that (unbeknown to you) is a boat-dweller: you going to call him "crustie"? Didn't think so.... Imaginary scenario? Actually not. 6. "Boat-polishers" - equally derogatory (well we have to get a dig in now and again .. but not without reason) sits in the same place as casting derision at people who drive Rollers of live in big houses. Karma is not far off their heels m'thinks. 7. I've seen some really scruffy houses. Not my business to be critical. Iv'e seen some you could eat your dinner off the kitchen floor ... also not my business. Just as it is none of their business whether I have wood on my roof or not. Tell you what though: when the snow is a foot thick on the ground and there is a power gut that takes out those hydrocarbon fuelled gas boilers so the heating goes down... and I pop out to get some more logs off the roof, bung them in the wood burner and struggle to keep the salon temperature under 28C... so roofs are really useful. "Logs?" you say? Well, I am looking at how the whole thing goes together #PhDzeroCarbonBargeeTraevllers. The bottom line is this: there is no place for prejudice. The itinerant boat-dwelling community has been subjected to prejudice for a long time and more so in the past 10 years. So when the students from Bath say "we're studying how to make the towpath safer" and I reply "by addressing the prejudice" I'm on the money. The last time someone came thundering down the towpath at me wielding a knife and I said "is there a problem here, oh and I'm a boater" and he ran off in the opposite direction I guess it had nothing to do with the felling axe I was holding ready to CHOP HIS HEAD OFF !! Ok I wasn't going to chop his head off. Maybe just his hands ... and maybe I should just report you to the EHRC?

The obligation is to move to anew place every 14 days (or longer if reasonable in the circumstances [and reasonable cannot be laid down in advance]) and "place" is undefined but stems from the evidence: place on the map; local knowledge; either side of a clear obstruction; a village -> outside the village -> next village (3 places); a different borough; and so on. The differences in the needs of itinerant live-aboards and recreational boaters are stark. So for example the NHS worker who needs to get to an early shift isn't going to be best pleased to have to drive 20 miles having walked down the muddy towpath in the dark, are they? But that is what the legislation + the "Ts & Cs" say.... (no amount of banging saucepans mitigates that). and we've got a few of them.... The "services" that we get are paid for out of the licence fees. CRT giving us something for nothing? I don't think so. Yes, it does look like the "home truths" have hit home: that there is a sector of the boating community (that mirrors the established community) that will not rest until the itinerant boat-dwellers are gone. Well, Mr de Enfield, we're here to stay !

Pedal power... ... and there I was thinking that this thread was about street lights !! Actually CRT is asking the NBTA to come up with a draft spec for "how far between facilities" etc. The IWA came up with a spec as well - but more focussed on recreational boaters (as most of their members are). We started work looking at theirs and amending it for the NBTA membership in the late summer. The NBTA's brief is to support itinerant live-aboards... and going 10 miles to empty the bog (even if planned into a boat move) is a bit beyond the pale. So we are looking at 2 hours cruising maybe, but we are also in the process of setting up a questionnaire to ask our members. Also there are geographic differences. Its a bit of a pain to go 1/2 way up Caen Hill for example. And in London it is different again. So it needs some study.

Street lighting? We aspire to facilities. Perhaps a bit more basic than street lighting. Like potable water. Refuse collection that is actually collected. And Elsan points less than 10-miles apart. When was the last time that a house-dweller travelled 10-miles to empty the bog? I see some pretty petty comments here to be frank. We do what we do for the reasons that we do that we don't have to justify: we just do and we DEMAND respect for that. One day we will get electric hook-ups to charge traction batteries. But for today the greatest risk to the safety on the towpath is, in my view, seeing off the rabid anti-itinerant-boat-dwellers. And of course I use the phrase advisedly and on a tempered basis. You want to hear what I _really_ think...?

The research that we have done indicates that the recreational pedestrian traffic on the towpath feels safer when there are plenty of [itinerant boat-dweller] boats moored up instead of an empty towpath. And my first-hand experience is that the scumbag drug-dealing bandits (from the hosues) that sometimes frequent the towpaths (esp in London, Reading, etc etc and dare I suggest Bath) are scared off by the boaters. We chew and spit out scumbags for breakfast. Anyone else want to negotiate? Jenna, try secretariat@bargee-traveller.org.uk - we'll see you straight

Are you aware of the number of vile rabid anti-itinerant-boat-dweller posts that appear on this site? Its ok. We report them all...