boaters evicted

[carlt]

And there perhaps you put your finger on the sore, jobs and schools are only relevant to those on residential moorings. Will someone clarify a point for me. Are these cruising moorings, residential moorings, or cruising moorings that are being illegaly used as residential? Certainly BW should be targeting unnoficial moorers who simply claim ownership of a space on their own authority, but it seems that their actions are designed to swell those numbers.

Not all the moorers being evicted are liveaboards. If BW are happy to let long term moorings to liveaboards (and the local authorities, in the main, don't want to increase their housing burden, by making a fuss) then we have to assume they are either 'legal' or 'permitted'.

 

Or should we start a new category of 'underclass' ie. "those that pay for their licence and long term mooring permits but are permitted by the authorities to live on their boat, moored on a long term mooring". It's a bit long though, we need to devise a disparaging name to label them with.

[magnetman]

(Life of Brian): 'brothers, we should be struggling together'. 'we are!'. 'no, we should unite against the common enemy!'...'CONTINUOUS CRUISERS!?!-WHERE??'. 'no, British Waterways'.....'okay, apart from the aqueduct, the locks, the towpath, sanitation and public moorings WHAT HAVE BRITISH WATERWAYS EVER DONE FOR US??

[Sir Nibble]

Carl, why must you always think the worst? If you want to find something "Disparaging" to label people with, then go ahead but I don't think anyone but you has considered that point.

If someone poured concrete into the cut to put their boat on permanent foundations, closed off the towpath to grow beans, and put their own lock on a swingbridge to charge a toll, you would leap to the defence of their right to do so.

All I am concerned with is are people loosing their homes, and whether it is actually theirs to loose.

Not all the moorers being evicted are liveaboards. If BW are happy to let long term moorings to liveaboards (Are they, that is part of the answer to the question I posed, you catagorically state then, that at least some of these moorings are official residentials?) (and the local authorities, in the main, don't want to increase their housing burden, by making a fuss) (irrelevant) then we have to assume they are either 'legal' or 'permitted' (Hang on, I thought you KNEW, not assumed.)

[carlt]

(Life of Brian): 'brothers, we should be struggling together'. 'we are!'. 'no, we should unite against the common enemy!'...'CONTINUOUS CRUISERS!?!-WHERE??'. 'no, British Waterways'.....'okay, apart from the aqueduct, the locks, the towpath, sanitation and public moorings WHAT HAVE BRITISH WATERWAYS EVER DONE FOR US??

All on your list predate BW by some time so they can't take credit for creating them. As for maintaining them, that is their job, which they do at vastly inflated prices.Their maintenance responsibilities, per km, are less than the highways authority's but their maintenance cost per km is massively more. Rather than looking for money making scams in the private sector and hiking up the licence fee, they should be looking at reducing the excessive amounts of money spent on maintenance.

If someone poured concrete into the cut to put their boat on permanent foundations, closed off the towpath to grow beans, and put their own lock on a swingbridge to charge a toll, you would leap to the defence of their right to do so.

Snibs why must you think the worst? This is a far bigger exaggeration than the one I used to make a point (and ridiculous).

[KenK]

All on your list predate BW by some time so they can't take credit for creating them. As for maintaining them, that is their job, which they do at vastly inflated prices.

 

Their maintenance responsibilities, per km, are less than the highways authority's but their maintenance cost per km is massively more.

 

Rather than looking for money making scams in the private sector and hiking up the licence fee, they should be looking at reducing the excessive amounts of money spent on maintenance.

 

IMHO its about time the Highways Authority spent a bit more on the roads, as I drive around the country more and more of the road network seems to be falling to pieces.

 

Also given that the canal system was left to rot for many years its not surprising that the costs are much higher to maintain it. You can knock BW all you like but in the main they do a reasonable job under difficult conditions and no I don't work for them.

 

Ken

[carlt]

IMHO its about time the Highways Authority spent a bit more on the roads, as I drive around the country more and more of the road network seems to be falling to pieces.

 

Also given that the canal system was left to rot for many years its not surprising that the costs are much higher to maintain it. You can knock BW all you like but in the main they do a reasonable job under difficult conditions and no I don't work for them.

 

Ken

I agree that the Road network would benefit from actually receiving the money it's supposed to but I also remember when BW proudly claimed that the maintenance backlog had been eliminated, so they have (supposedly) no longer the excuse of what they inherited.

 

It costs much less to maintain a little used waterway than a heavily used county road, but BW are spending far more, per km.

 

Edited to say: sorry, this is wandering off-topic

Edited October 10, 2007 by carlt

[LisaG1]

And there perhaps you put your finger on the sore, jobs and schools are only relevant to those on residential moorings. Will someone clarify a point for me. Are these cruising moorings, residential moorings, or cruising moorings that are being illegaly used as residential? Certainly BW should be targeting unnoficial moorers who simply claim ownership of a space on their own authority, but it seems that their actions are designed to swell those numbers.

 

I'm one of the boaters being threatened with the eviction. Me, my husband and 2 daughters have lived on our boat at sawley cut for the last 20 mths. BW gave us this mooring knowing that we are livaboards. There have been livaboards moored at sawley cut for the last 25yrs +, and some of them boaters still live here and are not affected by the eviction. We have a total of 9 livaboards and 2 moorers. 5 livaboards and the 2 moorers are affected by the eviction.

 

I've spoken to the council planning office and they acknowledge that we live on our boats, it's BW that have the problem with us. We are fully legal moorers and we don't affect navigation and you don't really have to slow down to 1 mph, as sawley cut is over 100ft wide.

 

Lisa

[StoneHenge]

Stoney, I am beginning to find your new avatar rather disturbing, it looks like a bad dream!

 

 

Is it a scene from 'scanners' how about that nice pic you had of floating ships

 

Sorry to be off topic. I've changed the avatar. It was disturbing me too!

 

Hope the tiger eye of space will help relieve the trauma!

[Sir Nibble]

Thank you for that clarification Lisa. I read that to mean that the liveaboard are a semi official "blind eye" arrangement. So I would imagine that after they have happily allowed you to live there with their full knowledge they are now throwing up their hands and saying "We are not taking anyone's home 'cos no one should be living there and they all know it".

Would that be a reasonable assumption?

[Neil.A]

Thank you for that clarification Lisa. I read that to mean that the liveaboard are a semi official "blind eye" arrangement. So I would imagine that after they have happily allowed you to live there with their full knowledge they are now throwing up their hands and saying "We are not taking anyone's home 'cos no one should be living there and they all know it".

Would that be a reasonable assumption?

Yes that is correct. I have lived here for 18 months, rightly or wrongly. When I first spoke to BW I informed them that I needed a mooring as I intended to buy a narrowboat from the proceeds of my house sale and I intend to live on it. I would only get a narrowboat if i I could get a mooring at Beeston, as my family are here and I work just up the road. I told them this and I got a mooring on Beeston roadside.

BW are fully aware that people live aboard and have/are taking the mooring fees. I have proof that people have been living here for over 30 years, with BW taking the mooring fees.

We are not squatters, we are just ordinary folk, who just want to get on with our lives.

 

Bw's argument is that other boaters do not want to cruise by long lines of moored boats; there are only 6 boats here. BW want to change these moorings to 14 day

What is the difference between 6 boats moored long-term along the canal and 20 moored 14 days continuously changing?

None whatsoever.

The only reason is that BW are working hand in hand with the private sector. "You open a marina and we'll make sure you have customers, because we will close on-line moorings within a 30 mile radius of your marina, which will ensure you have desperate customers and you can then charge what you like.

 

Then BW will turn round to you lot and say, and I quote:

"We are required by government to charge a market price for products and services that we provide, including moorings. There is a legal requirement for us to set prices that do not representunfair competition for other moorings operators."

Where are they getting the 'market price' I hear you ask?

 

10 people bid for a mooring 9 bid £100 per metre one bids £120 per metre. The high bidder gets the mooring and the market price for that mooring is £100 per metre (insert any figure you like).

 

So marinas cash in, BW cashes in whilst crying "what can we do its the law".

Everyones a winner, well apart from the actual people that use and pay for the canal that is.

 

Might be time to stick together on this.

[fuzzyduck]

The only reason is that BW are working hand in hand with the private sector. "You open a marina and we'll make sure you have customers, because we will close on-line moorings within a 30 mile radius of your marina, which will ensure you have desperate customers and you can then charge what you like.

 

Absolutely!

 

Might be time to stick together on this.

 

Absolutely!

[saltysplash]

Everyones a winner, well apart from the actual people that use and pay for the canal that is.

 

Might be time to stick together on this.

 

 

Yep. agree

[redfastlad]

John, you really need to either do a spot of reading before making statements of historical 'fact' or leave it to those that can be bothered to research their subject. There were many people living aboard during the 'working days' (whatever vague time period you mean by that) who weren't in the carrying trade. Let's see if we can pick a name out of the ether.....Tom Rolt! Ever heard of him? As far as I know, he never visited Australia, either by his choice or HMG's

Oh thanks Headmaster carlt! your knowledge is so far reaching i sit here wondering why i never see you on Eggheads?

[Jim Batty]

Response to:

>I'm one of the boaters being threatened with the eviction. Me, my husband and 2 daughters have lived on our boat at sawley cut for the last 20 mths.

>BW gave us this mooring knowing that we are livaboards. There have been livaboards moored at sawley cut for the last 25yrs +, and some of them

>boaters still live here and are not affected by the eviction. We have a total of 9 livaboards and 2 moorers. 5 livaboards and the 2 moorers are

>affected by the eviction.

 

It seems to me that a certain prejudice against liveaboard boaters HAS recently flared at BW (and amongst some part-time boaters). And clearly money (through funding squeezes, etc.) is fanning that prejudice. Many BW people, being non-boaters, really do seem to believe that simply bullying liveaboards into marinas will: i) turn the canals into 'uncluttered' scenic Disneylands with efficient boating lay-bys; ii) attract a well-heeled clientele with 'gin-palace-on-the-cut' attitudes and spending patterns; and iii) squeeze some dosh out of those 'freeloading' and 'nonconformist' liveaboards (Dosh at least for marina developers if not for themselves, as most marina developers, like most BW people, are also non-boaters and share similar aspirations).

 

Put this against the liveaboard boater. Anyone who decides to live on a boat pretty well decides to turn their back on the mass-consumption lifestyle — the notion that the good life increases in fairly direct proportion to the acquisition and display of consumer goods, foreign holidays and what not. Some of the main POINTS to living on a boat, it seems to me, are to simplify things, live closer to nature, achieve/retain a certain independence of thought, and be part of a loosely knit community that judges others by who they are/how they act rather than what they own. N'est pas?

 

I'll take liveaboard neighbours — bonafide or 'free-floating' — anytime over the alternative. Sorry, I think BW are seriously misguided on this one.

 

Jim

[Patterdale]

Julian is correct. It was a very cleverly worded questionnaire and I believe a lot of people were not aware of the implications of their answers. So everyone who said they would like to be able to cruise at a constant speed and not keep slowing down and that anymore than 40ft of online moorings per mile was too much ... you only have yourselves to blame.

There are some very clever peeps out there in the questionnaire and interpretation department.

Debbi ;-)

Or so not very clever people who ticked the box.

You know when they say "Gillette xrf63 shaves you closer than ever".....? It fekkin doesn't.

[carlt]

Oh thanks Headmaster carlt! your knowledge is so far reaching i sit here wondering why i never see you on Eggheads?

Probably because you're too busy struggling with Cbeebies redfarcelad.

[Neil.A]

Oh thanks Headmaster carlt! your knowledge is so far reaching i sit here wondering why i never see you on Eggheads?

Any chance of you contributing anything constructive to this subject?

[redfastlad]

John, you really need to either do a spot of reading before making statements of historical 'fact' or leave it to those that can be bothered to research their subject. There were many people living aboard during the 'working days' (whatever vague time period you mean by that) who weren't in the carrying trade. Let's see if we can pick a name out of the ether.....Tom Rolt! Ever heard of him? As far as I know, he never visited Australia, either by his choice or HMG's

Its that Egg Head moment time

[carlt]

Oh thanks Headmaster carlt! your knowledge is so far reaching i sit here wondering why i never see you on Eggheads?

At least I'm capable of remembering my own posts. You're out of your league, stick to the thuggish threats, they're more your style.

[123]

So have all the boats now been moved from the site mentioned in the title?

[redfastlad]

Your problem tho Carl is that where others will disagree with a topic in general and rightly or wrongly have their two penneth worth for wot its worth, you always take the high ground and have a go at individuals instead of sticking to the topic and voicing yr views on that.

 

Any topic is intended to invite views from members and you are entitled to add yours, but if you are going to target individuals for daring to have an opinion then dont cry when it comes back to bite you in the arse. Playing god and always assuming that yr right and your always going to have the last word is whats made you so unpopular on the forum in the past.

 

Have your say by all meens but stop the personal attacks and snide comments unless your prepared to accept them in return.

I'm very sarcastic, a huge wind up merchant and like nothing more than being confrontational at times in an attempt to liven up the forum a bit. But I cant remember personally having ago at any individual for their views (apart from you of course)

 

Now go on you have the last word then leave it because this topic is far more important than 2 grown men having a petty squabble.

Maverick youre treading very worn ground there boy! i agree with your views entirely and the Carl club will quickly come back at you not for your opion but to take the high ground as you rightly say, The topic of Beeston is something that Carl has no experience of and yet he will be god for a day and voice is Egg Head opions my advice CARL take your beloved tree derived boat and try and navigate thro the BEESTON estate, BW have been very very patient with the limpets that have clung onto the area bringing it so low that the residents overlooking it did something and complained about the boaters.So before you start your next university challenge tirade visit the scene either by water or by foot its the worst section i have ever travelled in my life, comming off the Trent and needing water to find several liveaboards had taken residence on all the visitor and lock moorings and guess what i tried and tried to find a licence amongst the gathering but i failed, so i didnt think asking politley over the loud music blarring out would have got me anywhere.

[carlt]

Maverick youre treading very worn ground there boy! i agree with your views entirely and the Carl club will quickly come back at you not for your opion but to take the high ground as you rightly say, The topic of Beeston is something that Carl has no experience of and yet he will be god for a day and voice is Egg Head opions my advice CARL take your beloved tree derived boat and try and navigate thro the BEESTON estate, BW have been very very patient with the limpets that have clung onto the area bringing it so low that the residents overlooking it did something and complained about the boaters.So before you start your next university challenge tirade visit the scene either by water or by foot its the worst section i have ever travelled in my life, comming off the Trent and needing water to find several liveaboards had taken residence on all the visitor and lock moorings and guess what i tried and tried to find a licence amongst the gathering but i failed, so i didnt think asking politley over the loud music blarring out would have got me anywhere.

Well I did have a boat at Castle marina for many years, I still visit friends who moor on beeston cut and I'm not afraid to venture beyond the safety of my home turf.

 

I'm surprised you feel so insecure, though. When you chuck about threats of violence so easily, I'd have thought you'd be the hard man of the cut.

 

Oh and taking the piss out of the fact that you are not as intelligent as me is a bit stupid, don't you think.

Edited November 25, 2007 by carlt

[Neil.A]

Maverick youre treading very worn ground there boy! i agree with your views entirely and the Carl club will quickly come back at you not for your opion but to take the high ground as you rightly say, The topic of Beeston is something that Carl has no experience of and yet he will be god for a day and voice is Egg Head opions my advice CARL take your beloved tree derived boat and try and navigate thro the BEESTON estate, BW have been very very patient with the limpets that have clung onto the area bringing it so low that the residents overlooking it did something and complained about the boaters.So before you start your next university challenge tirade visit the scene either by water or by foot its the worst section i have ever travelled in my life, comming off the Trent and needing water to find several liveaboards had taken residence on all the visitor and lock moorings and guess what i tried and tried to find a licence amongst the gathering but i failed, so i didnt think asking politley over the loud music blarring out would have got me anywhere.

It's better to let someone think you are an idiot, than to open your mouth and remove all doubt.

[carlt]

So have all the boats now been moved from the site mentioned in the title?

Back on topic, though.

 

What is the situation at the moment, Neil?

[Neil.A]

Back on topic, though.

 

What is the situation at the moment, Neil?

Another draw has taken place to allocate another mooring that has become vacant on the offside pontoon. This draw was done in secret at Newark! So we are now down to 3 boats whose moorings are under threat. To be fair to BW in this region they do seem to be bending over backwards to accomodate us. Having said that none of this action by BW would have taken place is we did not protest at the level we did.