Declaring a home mooring

[doratheexplorer]

3 minutes ago, Goliath said:

Whatever happened to squatters rights?

Again, back in the 80’s I knew lots who stayed in squats. 
 

Criminal Justice act 1994 gave owners the right to evict squatters.  Then in 2012 it became an offence in itself to be a squatter.

 

The result of that is many empty properties, many people unable to house themselves, and many turning to cheap boats.  Well done Tories!

[Alan de Enfield]

8 minutes ago, Goliath said:

Ok, 

I don’t want to go over old ground or niggle but...where have they (CRT) given a figure?

Can you quote?

It is / was on their website but there is more detail in an email that was published , they have further 'muddied the waters' by publishing (very divisive) acceptable 'reduced mileage requirements' for people with Children at school

 

Anyway - the email.

 

London Enforcement Manager Simon Cadek sent an email to a boater who was warned that they were on course for failing their six month restricted licence, telling them what they would need to do to pass.

The email is on public record as part of advice to boaters in the London Boaters Facebook group and dates from the end of 2016.


“When we are looking at boat movements we are looking for characteristics of bona fide navigation, these fall roughly into four categories:


· Range: by range we mean the furthest points a boat has travelled on the network, not merely the total distance travelled. While the BW act does not stipulate what that distance is the Trust has previously said that anyone travelling a range of less than say 20 miles (32km) would struggle to satisfy the Trust that they are engaged in bona fide navigation and that normally we would expect a greater range.


. For the avoidance of doubt, a small number of long journeys over a short period of time, followed or preceded by cruising in a small are of the network would not generally satisfy the Trust that you are engaged in bona fide navigation.


· Overstaying: we look to see how often boats overstay, either the 14 day limit on the main length of the canal, or shorter periods where local signage dictates, for example short stay visitor moorings.


While we are flexible with the occasional overstay from most boaters due to breakdown, illness or other emergencies, we will look at the overall pattern balanced with range and movement pattern in order to form a view.


Overstay reminders are issued when a boat is seen in the same area for more than 14 days. While we are unable to say how far you need to travel each time you move, we would advise that you normally travel further than a few km each time.


This will prevent you from getting reminders and depending on the length of other trips you make and how many times you turn back on yourself, should increase your overall range over the course of your licence.


· Movement: Continuous Cruiser Licences are intended for bona fide (genuine) navigation around the network, rather than for a boat to remain in one mooring spot, place neighbourhood or area.


We would expect boats on these licences to move around the network such that they don’t gravitate back to favoured areas too often i.e. in a way that it’s clear to us that they’re living in a small area of the waterway.


The basic principle of this is that these licences are not intended for living in an area and if it looks like a boat is habitually returning to a particular part of the waterway then this would not generally satisfy the Trust.


Within an acceptable range we’d expect a genuine movement, so for example it would not satisfy the Trust if a boat went on a 60 mile trip during the course of say two weeks, then returned to cruise in an area of say 5 miles the remainder of the time (figures are examples only).


Generally speaking, the smaller the range the less we’d expect to see boats back at the same locations. Of course people need to turn around and they’re perfectly free to re-visit places they have been to before, it’s living in a small area on this kind of licence that would cause a problem.

[Alan de Enfield]

 

As part of a presentation C&RT explained that they were allowing 'limited' cruising within a 3 mile (5Km) range of a child's school. A convenient distance as that is the distance that school buses are provided.

As long as outside term time they would cruise further afield.

 

 

 

[beerbeerbeerbeerbeer]

2 minutes ago, doratheexplorer said:

Criminal Justice act 1994 gave owners the right to evict squatters.  Then in 2012 it became an offence in itself to be a squatter.

 

The result of that is many empty properties, many people unable to house themselves, and many turning to cheap boats.  Well done Tories!

I’m trying to remember when I last went to a squat party. It must have been early 2000. There was a cracking pub in Falmouth by the docks. Now flats. 

Happy Days 

 

And come to think of it, my introduction to Falmouth was a squat party on the seafront, 1986. 
 

[Alan de Enfield]

12 minutes ago, doratheexplorer said:

Well done Tories!

Agreed

Smashing up private property should have always been against the law.

[beerbeerbeerbeerbeer]

4 minutes ago, Alan de Enfield said:

 

As part of a presentation C&RT explained that they were allowing 'limited' cruising within a 3 mile (5Km) range of a child's school. A convenient distance as that is the distance that school buses are provided.

As long as outside term time they would cruise further afield.

 

 

 

Don’t think I’ve seen that chart before but am aware of the allowance made for families with children at school. 
And I remember reading the letter before.
 

thanks for taking time to dig them out

[beerbeerbeerbeerbeer]

4 minutes ago, Alan de Enfield said:

Agreed

Smashing up private property should have always been against the law.

I know an example where squatters moved into an abandoned house and did the place up. Even established  a veg garden.  
The owners compromised when they eventually discovered. Rather than a longwinded battle to get them out and see the place go to ruin again they leased out the building. Some sort of peppercorn rate. 
 

never understood moving in and smashing up.
More likely smash up when leaving as some sort of statement. 
And more likely builders to smash up the place to make it inhabitable. I’ve known that to happen. 

[Arthur Marshall]

33 minutes ago, Alan de Enfield said:

Agreed

Smashing up private property should have always been against the law.

Generally, if you broke in to a property you could be evicted. Most squats got in through an open window or collapsed or unlocked door, without damage.

Most of the law is there specifically to protect property and property owners. It only ever gets changed to protect or help people without it under pressure, usually obviously of an illegal nature. There's nothing intrinsically wrong with breaking the law - legal and illegal, just and unjust, right and wrong are different things.

Edited June 3, 2020 by Arthur Marshall

[cuthound]

3 hours ago, doratheexplorer said:

I don't agree with a lot of what the NBTA say either.  They have a habit of twisting the rules to suit themselves, but at least they are speaking up for those who need it the most.  In many cases the root cause of liveaboards who never move is our broken society and can be attributed to a lack of affordable housing and a lack of mental health care.  I'd prefer to try and help those people, rather than demonise them.  If that means that a few people intentionally get away with breaking the rules, then that's a small price to pay, and those people can be dealt with by CRT under existing legislation anyway.  Introducing a minimum 100 mile range and a 300 mile annual distance is a disgrace.  Bona fide navigation has nothing to do with distance anyway, and CRTs 20-25 mile range is just a suggestion.  The Woowich Ferry exercises bona fide navigation over a quarter mile range.

 

I didnt realise people actually lived on the Woolwich Ferry? ???

[doratheexplorer]

1 hour ago, Alan de Enfield said:

Agreed

Smashing up private property should have always been against the law.

Well yes, criminal damage has always been against the law.  But we were discussing squatting.

[Sir Nibble]

2 hours ago, Mac of Cygnet said:

 

This is a fairly important and game changing statement which I find unlikely at best.  Have you a source for this and has any research been done?  Or is it just the government telling us what we want to hear to justify the easing of lockdown?   I certainly won't be acting on it without further evidence.

 

 

You know, I have no idea. I don't think I just pulled it out of my arse but I might have ?

At the beginning of this I remember one of the justifications for asking people not to travel was the idea that the virus would be left all over handrails and whatnot and that fear seems, in the light of current relaxing of restrictions to have vanished. I think I heard it somewhere but now you mention it I am doubtful.

[Sir Nibble]

4 hours ago, doratheexplorer said:

I didn't say it was the same.  I was pointing out that it is bona fide navigating.  Distance is immaterial to that.  If there was a ferry on CRT waters (maybe on the Trent?) going from visitor pontoon on one bank, to visitor pontoon on the other bank, would it need a home mooring?  It would be complying to the guidance.  I suspect CRT would attempt to deny it a commercial licence though.

 

I think you have a perfectly valid point. There is no distance mentioned in the act, everything is temporal, "throughout the period of the licence" "fourteen days". I don't think it's unreasonable to suggest that "throughout the period of the licence" implies a fair amount of tiller time though and how far a boat has moved is the only metric CaRT has to judge that. I doubt the Woolwich ferry would be such a good example if it ran on a timetable of one sailing every 14 days.

[doratheexplorer]

Just now, Sir Nibble said:

I think you have a perfectly valid point. There is no distance mentioned in the act, everything is temporal, "throughout the period of the licence" "fourteen days". I don't think it's unreasonable to suggest that "throughout the period of the licence" implies a fair amount of tiller time though and how far a boat has moved is the only metric CaRT has to judge that. I doubt the Woolwich ferry would be such a good example if it ran on a timetable of one sailing every 14 days.

I still think it would meet the guidance.

[Sir Nibble]

1 minute ago, doratheexplorer said:

I still think it would meet the guidance.

I don't think so purely on the A to B to A to B. It's a poor example because it's a commercial operation and would need a commercial licence. The intent test is the crux of the matter. Why rather than how far. Cruising around a few favoured spots close to where you want/need to be every 14 days is difficult to argue is what you WANT to do rather than what you feel you have to which is the crux of the Davies judgement.

[Alan de Enfield]

22 minutes ago, Sir Nibble said:

You know, I have no idea. I don't think I just pulled it out of my arse but I might have ?

At the beginning of this I remember one of the justifications for asking people not to travel was the idea that the virus would be left all over handrails and whatnot and that fear seems, in the light of current relaxing of restrictions to have vanished. I think I heard it somewhere but now you mention it I am doubtful.

You are correct and there was a list published of different materials and the contagion time - 'hard plastic' was 3 days whilst cardboard was 'a few hours'.

[Jerra]

5 hours ago, Sir Nibble said:

 now that it's been decided that external surfaces don't hold the virus 

Can you give a reference or link to that please I have missed it and it would make a big difference as to how I behave and where I go.

[Richard10002]

3 hours ago, Goliath said:

it’s the arbitrary mileage that organisations spout with no rhyme or reason to suit their own agenda that makes me laff. ? 

 

where did you just get the 7 from? is 8 ok?

 

 

 

 I think I am a traveller

Therefore....?

 

 

I got 7 from using the ridiculously small distance of 1 mile per day, which would equate to 365 miles a year, which is significantly more than the IWA seem to be wanting.

 

It is hard to see that 8 miles a week would ever be “not OK”, now that we are where we are, and CRT have painted themselves into a corner.

 

If the IWA got their way, a bit less than 7 miles a week would be OK, yet the “travellers” organisation seem to think having to “travel” a ridiculously small distance per day/week/month/year is somewhat onerous.

 

 

[Arthur Marshall]

3 minutes ago, Jerra said:

Can you give a reference or link to that please I have missed it and it would make a big difference as to how I behave and where I go.

https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20200317-covid-19-how-long-does-the-coronavirus-last-on-surfaces

There's some info about it there.

[Jerra]

1 minute ago, Arthur Marshall said:

https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20200317-covid-19-how-long-does-the-coronavirus-last-on-surfaces

There's some info about it there.

Thank you.

[Richard10002]

1 hour ago, Sir Nibble said:

You know, I have no idea. I don't think I just pulled it out of my arse but I might have ?

At the beginning of this I remember one of the justifications for asking people not to travel was the idea that the virus would be left all over handrails and whatnot and that fear seems, in the light of current relaxing of restrictions to have vanished. I think I heard it somewhere but now you mention it I am doubtful.

I think you have pulled it out of your arse, as you so eloquently put it.

 

Everything I am still seeing from a variety of medical sources, (YouTube vids mainly), still say that it can live for days in hard surfaces, and 3 days seems to be the minimum suggested. In fact, where places are opening up, there is much use of the words, “deep clean”, “sanitising “, and the like. If what you are saying is correct, there would be none of this.

 

Fear may have diminished, but that doesn’t mean that this particular risk has.

 

You might, of course, be correct, but I haven’t seen anything to suggest so.

8 minutes ago, Jerra said:

Can you give a reference or link to that please I have missed it and it would make a big difference as to how I behave and where I go.

There isn’t one. You should carry on as you were  

Edited June 3, 2020 by Richard10002

[Jerra]

3 minutes ago, Richard10002 said:

There isn’t one. You should carry on as you were  

I was hoping it would be true but I can't find anything which suggests anything other than the original times, so will not be changing anything until I find concrete evidence.    Basically that is why I was looking for a reference.

[Arthur Marshall]

3 hours ago, Alan de Enfield said:

You are correct and there was a list published of different materials and the contagion time - 'hard plastic' was 3 days whilst cardboard was 'a few hours'.

You have to remember that there's a half-life effect too. All the time it's exposed without a host it's dying off, so as time goes by there's less and less of it on a surface to infect you. Every single virus doesn't live (or whatever it is they do) exactly 72 hours and then drop dead, most will have long gone before then. Which doesn't mean you shouldn't mind out for the last remaining one.

As far as the conspiracy theories go, I think you need to follow the money. I reckon it was created by Chinese soap manufacturers who were being put out of business by fancy hand sanitiser companies.

[beerbeerbeerbeerbeer]

3 hours ago, Richard10002 said:

I got 7 from using the ridiculously small distance of 1 mile per day, which would equate to 365 miles a year, which is significantly more than the IWA seem to be wanting.

 

It is hard to see that 8 miles a week would ever be “not OK”, now that we are where we are, and CRT have painted themselves into a corner.

 

If the IWA got their way, a bit less than 7 miles a week would be OK, yet the “travellers” organisation seem to think having to “travel” a ridiculously small distance per day/week/month/year is somewhat onerous.

 

 

Yea but yea

If one were to move and do 365 miles a year, then each time they moved (every 14 days) it’d be  a 25 mile move. Which is great ? sounds much better than 1 mile a day. 

 

it all depends how the statistics are presented 

 

or data 

 

follow the data 

[Arthur Marshall]

There are plenty living as CC on the Macc, which is a fairly short chunk of wet. But you can travel from Stoke to Congleton to Macc, to Bollington and Marple so no-one can argue it isn't a valid navigation. Up and down a few times a year and the mileage is in and so are the places.

[TheBiscuits]

43 minutes ago, Goliath said:

Yea but yea

If one were to move and do 365 miles a year, then each time they moved (every 14 days) it’d be  a 25 mile move. Which is great ? sounds much better than 1 mile a day. 

 

it all depends how the statistics are presented 

 

or data 

 

follow the data 

How do you get 1 mile per day X 14 days to be 25 miles please?