Jump to content

London boat dwellers protest against plans they say could leave them homeless


David Mack

Featured Posts

34 minutes ago, Phoenix_V said:

 There is no evidence but if you "follow the money" who else would expect to benefit?

It's funny you should say that word, when BW tries to sneak that plan I mentioned above in mid Feb(with less than 6 weeks notice) in 2011, the main area of concern was that BW could provide NO evidence to substantiate their plans reasons, need for or possible outcomes, other than the fact that a couple of people had sat innan office, decided there was a problem and come up with the solution.

They were forced to extend the consultation to an proper period, forced to admit they hadnt actually got any evidence, and overwhelmingly forced to shelve it as it would have become a disaster environmentally for the river, lost all the fish, made it impossible for rowing to take place(as most boats would have to move on Saturday or Sunday).

In fact, the only research carried out, and a lot was done, was by boaters, going out along the towpaths, speaking to locals, rowers, cyclists, greenies, etc

The classic moment of Sally Ash shrieking at a Stanstead Abbots church hall completely rammed and standing room only" I've never had to deal with people like you before, we are NOT a housing association"...thus completely missing the point is a moment that will last long in the memory of those who attended and forced the climbdown. London Boaters was essentially formed from that.

BW and then CRT's problem was, they never re-looked at it for years, thus missing the chance to stop the influx of new boats, or control anything, until it was too late.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, matty40s said:

It's funny you should say that word, when BW tries to sneak that plan I mentioned above in mid Feb(with less than 6 weeks notice) in 2011, the main area of concern was that BW could provide NO evidence to substantiate their plans reasons, need for or possible outcomes, other than the fact that a couple of people had sat innan office, decided there was a problem and come up with the solution.

They were forced to extend the consultation to an proper period, forced to admit they hadnt actually got any evidence, and overwhelmingly forced to shelve it as it would have become a disaster environmentally for the river, lost all the fish, made it impossible for rowing to take place(as most boats would have to move on Saturday or Sunday).

In fact, the only research carried out, and a lot was done, was by boaters, going out along the towpaths, speaking to locals, rowers, cyclists, greenies, etc

The classic moment of Sally Ash shrieking at a Stanstead Abbots church hall completely rammed and standing room only" I've never had to deal with people like you before, we are NOT a housing association"...thus completely missing the point is a moment that will last long in the memory of those who attended and forced the climbdown. London Boaters was essentially formed from that.

BW and then CRT's problem was, they never re-looked at it for years, thus missing the chance to stop the influx of new boats, or control anything, until it was too late.

 

 

They tried though one of the main speakers on behalf of the boaters was offered a residential mooring a couple of weeks after which he took and was never heard of again, unfortunately for Sally others took his place.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, Jerra said:

I wouldn't call just over 20% minimal (which in my experience is used to imply negligible).

No, it means the least it could be - in this case it could be 0%.

 

In this case it means well below what 'I' want - rather than need.

 

BTW. the last time we came down the Lee Navigation (I forget exactly where without going back over the blogs) and it was perhaps 6 or 7 years ago - we had an incident with a couple of chaps out rowing. They took notice of what was ahead their boat (ie behind them) and I could see that they were a danger to others so I came to a stop. Despite issuing an audible warning, they continued towards us relentlessly. One of them caught their blade on the bow of our narrowboat which tipped him into the water. We assisted with getting him out but he was quite shaken as he had not really appreciated how difficult it can be in places. I have no idea how frequent their are 'incidents' but I do know that at least it can happen.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, magnetman said:

If CRT are actually the riparian owner, presumably verifiable via land registry.gov then the can apply any conditions they see fit to the moorings at the end of the day. Obviously planning consent turns up but for visitors I don't think so. 

 

It's interesting there has been no mention of charging fees for moorings for wide boats. That would get interesting. 

 

Maybe just a short term scheme to weigh up the demand. 

 

Would be quite a funny experiment. 

 

Not so sure as land is only entered on the register when it changes hands and CaRT just inherited from BW via legislation. (SI?)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, Mike Todd said:

No, it means the least it could be - in this case it could be 0%.

 

In this case it means well below what 'I' want - rather than need.

 

BTW. the last time we came down the Lee Navigation (I forget exactly where without going back over the blogs) and it was perhaps 6 or 7 years ago - we had an incident with a couple of chaps out rowing. They took notice of what was ahead their boat (ie behind them) and I could see that they were a danger to others so I came to a stop. Despite issuing an audible warning, they continued towards us relentlessly. One of them caught their blade on the bow of our narrowboat which tipped him into the water. We assisted with getting him out but he was quite shaken as he had not really appreciated how difficult it can be in places. I have no idea how frequent their are 'incidents' but I do know that at least it can happen.

And what difference would

1 moored narrowboats

2 moored widebeamboats

made/would have made

7 minutes ago, Mike Todd said:

Not so sure as land is only entered on the register when it changes hands and CaRT just inherited from BW via legislation. (SI?)

It was never on the register BW were the navigation authority they did not own the track, as you say it was assumed to belong to the riparian owners in the same way that house owners often own up to the mid point of their road, when it becam crt they started registering such land without telling the riparian owners. In this cae LVRP were the riparian owner and got in before them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Phoenix_V said:

And what difference would

1 moored narrowboats

2 moored widebeamboats

made/would have made

Perhaps I misunderstand the CaRT argument but I thought it went sort of: Too many rowers collide with navigating boats because the available width has been reduced so much by moored boaters.

 

That, of course, is quite a complicated argument to defend scientifically (if, indeed, it is the argument) as it requires some quite complex statistical modelling to put numbers to it which would sit alongside actual data from the current situation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, Mike Todd said:

Perhaps I misunderstand the CaRT argument but I thought it went sort of: Too many rowers collide with navigating boats because the available width has been reduced so much by moored boaters.

 

Maybe, but in your real world example what in your opinion did/would moored boats  contribute and what difference whether if narrow or wide.

Which section did it occur in, the only part to be allowed for widebeam is bizarrely one of the narrower stretches

 

imho this sort of thing often involves new rowers and reflects incompetant training rather than presence of moored boats

Link to comment
Share on other sites

42 minutes ago, Mike Todd said:

No, it means the least it could be - in this case it could be 0%.

 

In this case it means well below what 'I' want - rather than need.

 

BTW. the last time we came down the Lee Navigation (I forget exactly where without going back over the blogs) and it was perhaps 6 or 7 years ago - we had an incident with a couple of chaps out rowing. They took notice of what was ahead their boat (ie behind them) and I could see that they were a danger to others so I came to a stop. Despite issuing an audible warning, they continued towards us relentlessly. One of them caught their blade on the bow of our narrowboat which tipped him into the water. We assisted with getting him out but he was quite shaken as he had not really appreciated how difficult it can be in places. I have no idea how frequent their are 'incidents' but I do know that at least it can happen.

In answer to how many reports of incidents at the two locations over the last ten years, CRT say seven. Four of these were near misses.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Allan(nb Albert) said:

In answer to how many reports of incidents at the two locations over the last ten years, CRT say seven. Four of these were near misses.

They have not made any analysis of how many where  moored boats were a factor let alone wide v narrow, many incidents are rower on rower or noddy boat on noddy boat

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, Phoenix_V said:

Maybe, but in your real world example what in your opinion did/would moored boats  contribute and what difference whether if narrow or wide.

Which section did it occur in, the only part to be allowed for widebeam is bizarrely one of the narrower stretches

 

imho this sort of thing often involves new rowers and reflects incompetant training rather than presence of moored boats

To point out the obvious, boats with sticky-out oars need a lot more channel width than narrowboats (or wideboats), and it's undoubtedly true that the rowing clubs were there long before the recent explosion of moored boats on the Lee.

 

Whether this is genuinely seen as a safety issue or is an excuse by CART to persecute boaters and make them move on to somewhere else -- or at least, spread out -- is a matter of debate.

 

But before invoking the CART "drive 'em off the canals!" conspiracy theory promoted by the NBTA, it's worth asking the obvious question -- why would CART do this when it would reduce their revenue from licenses without replacing it with anything else?

Edited by IanD
  • Greenie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, IanD said:

To point out the obvious, boats with sticky-out oars need a lot more channel width than narrowboats (or wideboats), and it's undoubtedy true that the rowing clubs were there long before the recent explosion of moored boats on the Lee.

 

Whether this is genuinely seen as a safety issue or is an excuse by CART to persecute boaters and make them move on to somewhere else -- or at least, spread out -- is a matter of debate.

 

But before invoking the CART "drive 'em off the canals!" conspiracy theory promoted by the NBTA, it's worth asking the obvious question -- why would CART do this when it would reduce their revenue from licenses without replacing it with anything else?

I think it is just a case of someone in head office with little to do satisfying some moaning rowers, the restriction on mooring is not that dreadful there is not much double mooring on this stretch at the moment so requiring single mooring only is not dreadful either, what is unacceptable is the discrimination agains widebeams but imho, why would we support any reduction in mooring space.

The degree of thought that went into this is illustrated by the fact that they forgot to show any lock landing lengths in the Broxbourne plan.

Edited by Phoenix_V
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Phoenix_V said:

I think it is just a case of someone in head office with little to do satisfying some moaning rowers, the restriction on mooring is not that dreadful there is not much double mooring on this stretch at the moment so requiring single mooring only is not dreadful either, what is unacceptable is the discrimination agains widebeams but imho, why would we support any reduction in mooring space.

The degree of thought that went into this is illustrated by the fact that they forgot to show any lock landing lengths in the plan.

I'd have thought that if anyone in CART head office said "Hey, we've got some moaning rowers on the Lee, why don't we restrict mooring so our income goes down?" this would not be well recieved.

 

If the problem is restricted channel width due to moored boats (as CART claim), then wideboats and double-moored narrowboats are likely to be the main target of restrictions, because they're wider.

 

It's difficult to see how this amounts to "discrimination"...

 

Do you by any chance have a widebeam boat? It's always helpful to know what might be influencing somebody's point of view ?

Edited by IanD
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I venture to suggest that the channel is not narrow and 2m wide or 4m wide would make little difference I do not currently have my widebeam here but many friends do, they will no longer be able to moor

 

brc.JPG

lee.JPG

Edited by Phoenix_V
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, IanD said:

Are these photos of the stretches where CART plan to restrict mooring, or just random photos of nice wide bits of the Lee?

The top picture show opposite the rowing club where all mooring will be banned, narrow will be allowed where the widebeam is in the photo. The bottom picture is a no mooring part in the distance (presumably as it is on a bend) narrow only in foreground

 

Edited by Phoenix_V
Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, IanD said:

To point out the obvious, boats with sticky-out oars need a lot more channel width than narrowboats (or wideboats), and it's undoubtedly true that the rowing clubs were there long before the recent explosion of moored boats on the Lee.

 

Whether this is genuinely seen as a safety issue or is an excuse by CART to persecute boaters and make them move on to somewhere else -- or at least, spread out -- is a matter of debate.

 

But before invoking the CART "drive 'em off the canals!" conspiracy theory promoted by the NBTA, it's worth asking the obvious question -- why would CART do this when it would reduce their revenue from licenses without replacing it with anything else?

How much do the rowers/rowing clubs pay?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Google says that these sculls have 4 metre oars so about 8mts total beam.

Two side by side not quite touching - 2 metre gap)  would be (say) 18 metres.

 

 

Under FISA rules, all races take place over a 2,000-metre (6,560-foot) straight course on still water, each crew or sculler racing in a separate, buoy-marked lane. Racing shells range in overall length from 18.9 metres (62 feet) for an eight, 13.4 metres (44 feet) for a four, and 10.4 metres (34 feet) for a pair, to 8.2 metres (27 feet) for a single scull. There are no specifications for weight, which varies according to materials used and ranges from 14 kilograms (30.8 pounds) for a scull to 96 kg (212 pounds) or more for a shell for eights. The size, shape, and weights of oars are also not specified, but they are generally about 4 metres (13 feet) in length and weigh about 3.6 kg (8 pounds).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, Phoenix_V said:

The top picture show opposite the rowing club where all mooring will be banned, narrow will be allowed where the widebeam is in the photo. The bottom picture is a no mooring part in the distance (presumably as it is on a bend) narrow only in foreground

 

We practised for many years next to Corinthians rowing club on the Thames, and the amount of river space a rowing eight needs is huge, so I'm not surprised they don't want boats mooring opposite. Without knowing how wide the actual channel is (and how wide angle a lens was used) I wouldn't comment on whether restrictions in the other photo make sense or not -- CART think they do, you (and NBTA) think they don't.

 

Since you didn't answer my "Have you got any skin in the game?" question about "discrimination against widebeams"...

 

There is 1 record that matches your query


Le Sega Built by Mms Ship Repair - Length : 13.106 metres ( 43 feet ) - Beam : 3.124 metres ( 10 feet 3 inches ) N/A power of 57 HP. Registered with Canal & River Trust number 520292 as a Powered Motor Boat.  ( Last updated on Wednesday 22nd May 2013 )

 

I could also ask if perchance you're a member of the NBTA or if it's coincidence that your views and arguments agree very closely with theirs ?

11 minutes ago, Mike Todd said:

How much do the rowers/rowing clubs pay?

Presumably doesn't matter -- they won't pay more if CART remove boat moorings, so CART lose money.

 

If the boats just move somehwere else than nobody has "lost their home" and CART don't lose any money, which is what I guess they think will happen.

Edited by IanD
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think I did answer your question, my main boat is currently elsewhere many members of my club have widebeams I am not a member of NBTA or a supporter. I just think that any reduction of mooring space is against the interests of all boaters and those who are happy for them to discriminate against one sector of the boating community should reflect on whether that is just the thin end of the wedge and maybe they will come for them later. What is your interest since you seem to be so keen to stalk me?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, Phoenix_V said:

I think I did answer your question, my main boat is currently elsewhere many members of my club have widebeams I am not a member of NBTA or a supporter. I just think that any reduction of mooring space is against the interests of all boaters and those who are happy for them to discriminate against one sector of the boating community should reflect on whether that is just the thin end of the wedge and maybe they will come for them later. What is your interest since you seem to be so keen to stalk me?

 

I'm not stalking you, just that you're pretty much the only person on the forum protesting so strongly and repeatedly about this and using phrases like "discrimination", and this suggests you have an axe to grind.

 

I don't, apart from perhaps not seeing CART as the devilish boater-persecuting organisation that some make them out to be, and that maybe they try and do their best under difficult circumstances -- hampered by poor management, as is unfortunately not uncommon, but not deliberately malicious. SInce this is a forum about the canal network that they run, this is a point of view just as valid as yours ?

 

The "thin end of the wedge" argument ("First they came for...") is nearly always put forward when CART try and make any changes -- composting toilets, CC rules, widebeam supplements, home mooring rules -- where there are bound to be some people negatively affected, even if the result of the change overall is positive or removing unfairness. Conspiracy theories rule the internet, and the one that CART are trying to destroy boaters lifestyles one small step at a time (the "boiling a frog" argument) seems to me to be just another one.

Edited by IanD
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 14/06/2021 at 11:02, IanD said:

"Boaters say that if the new plans go ahead, moorings will be restricted in popular areas such as a stretch in Hackney where many families live in boats. Their children have places in local schools and they are networked in with health and other community services."

 

 

Ah, so rather than making them "homeless" what they actually mean is that they might not be able to live where it's most convenient for them? 

 

I'm afraid them's the perils of slumming it.

  • Greenie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Mike Todd said:

No, it means the least it could be - in this case it could be 0%.

 

In this case it means well below what 'I' want - rather than need.

 

BTW. the last time we came down the Lee Navigation (I forget exactly where without going back over the blogs) and it was perhaps 6 or 7 years ago - we had an incident with a couple of chaps out rowing. They took notice of what was ahead their boat (ie behind them) and I could see that they were a danger to others so I came to a stop. Despite issuing an audible warning, they continued towards us relentlessly. One of them caught their blade on the bow of our narrowboat which tipped him into the water. We assisted with getting him out but he was quite shaken as he had not really appreciated how difficult it can be in places. I have no idea how frequent their are 'incidents' but I do know that at least it can happen.

I have now tracked down the post  and the rowers were from Broxbourne Club.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, IanD said:

I'm not stalking you, just that you're pretty much the only person on the forum protesting so strongly and repeatedly about this and using phrases like "discrimination", and this suggests you have an axe to grind.

 

I don't, apart from perhaps not seeing CART as the devilish boater-persecuting organisation that some make them out to be, and that maybe they try and do their best under difficult circumstances -- hampered by poor management, as is unfortunately not uncommon, but not deliberately malicious. SInce this is a forum about the canal network that they run, this is a point of view just as valid as yours ?

 

The "thin end of the wedge" argument ("First they came for...") is nearly always put forward when CART try and make any changes -- composting toilets, CC rules, widebeam supplements, home mooring rules -- where there are bound to be some people negatively affected, even if the result of the change overall is positive or removing unfairness. Conspiracy theories rule the internet, and the one that CART are trying to destroy boaters lifestyles one small step at a time (the "boiling a frog" argument) seems to me to be just another one.

Like I said I do not support NBTA, my club have their moorings on the Broxbourne pound and the restrictions will affect us albeit indirectly. I don't hold to the conspiracy or any other theory about crt, I do believe they propose restrictng widebeams as it will show they have done something albeit ineffective and there are too few widebeam owners to object rather than because they have any evidence that it will serve any effective purpose. Supposing there is a problem then they will start removing narrowbeams. Any removal of moorings will affect all boaters what is there to like about it.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, Mike Todd said:

I have now tracked down the post  and the rowers were from Broxbourne Club.

hmm thanks, can't quite see how moored boats would have made a difference whatever the width they seem to have been cutting the corner, never mind

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.