Jump to content

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


Featured Posts

First they came for the wide beam owners and I did not speak out—
     Because I was not a wide beam owner.

Then they came for the continuos cruisers, and I did not speak out—
     Because I was not a continuos cruiser.

Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.

with apologies to Martin Niemöller

  • Greenie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, IanD said:

 Are children going to a nearby school more important than adults going to a nearby job? If so, why?

 

In general it is probably easier for a child to find a new school than a person to find a job.  People are moving both job and school daily all over the country.

 

N.B.   For the pedants I don't mean the person has a new job daily or the child a new school.  Just that changing from one school to another isn't a rare occurrence.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What about if someone owns a house outside London, rents it out, lives on the towpath in inner London and sends their kids to private school on account of no having to pay rent. And closer to work too. And if it all goes pear shaped just go back home. 

 

Seems quite a nice little scheme. And have a boaty holiday during holidays. 

 

Hmm. Nice expensive widebeams everywhere this must be a poverty problem. Not. 

 

This "homeless" term is bandied about too much I reckon. Living on a boat is a choice at the end of the day, and one which a lot of people have made recently. We are not talking about loads and loads of multi generational boat dwellers are we. Being fair. 

 

 

 

 

  • Greenie 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, robtheplod said:

Is the bigger problem here that CRT are a waterways organisation, not a housing one, but are having to implement policy taking into account housing issues?

It is. The alternative would be a government doing something about the housing crisis, and they're not going to, are they? So others have to.

It's why foodbanks are run by churches and charities, because someone has to stop people starving, too.

It does make you wonder a bit what a government is for, doesn't it?

5 hours ago, robtheplod said:

 

 

Edited by Arthur Marshall
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Jerra said:

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

but it is not 20% reserved for widebeam it is shared with narrowbeam but if you like I will change it to derisory

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This shouldn't really have become a debate about liveaboards and boats not moving enough/wanting to stay in Hackney forever. This is about the removal of general towpath moorings for all and any boats. And its a good thing it is getting some publicity as CRT really shouldn't be caving in to demands of rowing club when there is little evidence it's needed. Losing these moorings will make the situation worse for visiting boats as well as london based boats so i dont see how any users of the forum can't be supportive of what London boaters are doing to try and stop the loss of these moorings....?‍♂️?‍♂️?

  • Greenie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Dave123 said:

This shouldn't really have become a debate about liveaboards and boats not moving enough/wanting to stay in Hackney forever. This is about the removal of general towpath moorings for all and any boats. And its a good thing it is getting some publicity as CRT really shouldn't be caving in to demands of rowing club when there is little evidence it's needed. Losing these moorings will make the situation worse for visiting boats as well as london based boats so i dont see how any users of the forum can't be supportive of what London boaters are doing to try and stop the loss of these moorings....?‍♂️?‍♂️?

divide and rule we suck up every time

 

  • Greenie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Phoenix_V said:

but it is not 20% reserved for widebeam it is shared with narrowbeam but if you like I will change it to derisory

Taking the number of boats on the system (canals capable of taking them) do you think there are more or less than 20%?

2 minutes ago, Dave123 said:

This shouldn't really have become a debate about liveaboards and boats not moving enough/wanting to stay in Hackney forever. This is about the removal of general towpath moorings for all and any boats. And its a good thing it is getting some publicity as CRT really shouldn't be caving in to demands of rowing club when there is little evidence it's needed. Losing these moorings will make the situation worse for visiting boats as well as london based boats so i dont see how any users of the forum can't be supportive of what London boaters are doing to try and stop the loss of these moorings....?‍♂️?‍♂️?

Is there evidence this is the case or an assumption?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Jerra said:

Is there evidence this is the case or an assumption?

can you think of any other reason?

4 minutes ago, Jerra said:

Taking the number of boats on the system (canals capable of taking them) do you think there are more or less than 20%?

No idea, rather more than 20 % locally, it's a widebeam river

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Phoenix_V said:

can you think of any other reason?

Any other reason for what?  

 

If you mean the rowing club I have known many forumites make assertions with no evidence other than their own assumption.   Hence the question!

 

However if a simple "there is evidence " or "no it is just my belief" is too difficult fair enough.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It obviously makes it worse for visiting boats as well as the residential boats on the towpath.

 

What it also does if it gets all loud and shouty is starts asking questions about why people are living on boats on towpaths, accessing local amenities but not getting involved in the normal costs associated with living somewhere. 

 

I do wonder who the nbta are really, presumably a militant CRT offspring. 

 

ETA I avoid it like the plague but occasionally look and the London Boaters facebook page had a picture of a boat with a banner "fuck the fucking fuckers" and their tag line is "we are these people". 

 

"Who are these people?" seems more appropriate. 

 

And why don't they do one? 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited by magnetman
Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, Dave123 said:

 And its a good thing it is getting some publicity as CRT really shouldn't be caving in to demands of rowing club when there is little evidence it's needed.

Strangely enough, when Sally Ash and BW were trying to get boats to move a (lot) more in 2011 by creating 7 zones on the Lee and Stort,  max stay 7 days and boats having to move 1,3,5,7,6,4,2 as a minimum, if not out of the area, the rowing clubs joined the environmentalists, cyclists, boat clubs, local councils, Lee Valley Rangers, London Boaters etc in saying a big NO. 

Work with the rowing clubs (and they dont actually want boats moving on certain practice days) and they will support the boaters.

Pi€€ them off and double/triple moor on their practice reaches and they will go the way they have to CRT.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, Jerra said:

However if a simple "there is evidence " or "no it is just my belief" is too difficult fair enough.

Why would I say either they do not reflect my view but to expand as you do not seem to have followed what I said. There is no evidence but if you "follow the money" who else would expect to benefit?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Phoenix_V said:

Why would I say either they do not reflect my view but to expand as you do not seem to have followed what I said. There is no evidence but if you "follow the money" who else would expect to benefit?

I admit I don't know the area, which is why I am asking questions.   However if we look at Matty's paot above and consider the sections of the public who feel they have a right to want things to fit their idea of the way thing should be I can think of a number of people/organisations who may have objections.

 

Environmentalists worried about the amount of grey water being added and the potential for other pollution.

Locals who would prefer a clear view of the water and the chance to get close to the wildlife (ducks).

Cyclists who would like fewer places and people suddenly appearing off boats to get in the way.

Possibly CRT licence checkers who find it difficult to see the outside boats details.

Possibly CRT themselves who feel the infrastructure elsan points etc may be put under strain.

 

There are of course others if you sit and think about it but I am sure you can see where I am coming from. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Jerra said:

I admit I don't know the area, which is why I am asking questions.   However if we look at Matty's paot above and consider the sections of the public who feel they have a right to want things to fit their idea of the way thing should be I can think of a number of people/organisations who may have objections.

 

Environmentalists worried about the amount of grey water being added and the potential for other pollution.

Locals who would prefer a clear view of the water and the chance to get close to the wildlife (ducks).

Cyclists who would like fewer places and people suddenly appearing off boats to get in the way.

Possibly CRT licence checkers who find it difficult to see the outside boats details.

Possibly CRT themselves who feel the infrastructure elsan points etc may be put under strain.

 

There are of course others if you sit and think about it but I am sure you can see where I am coming from. 

The reason given by crt is safety on the water - therefore none of the above apply. The 2 sections chosen for this are both where rowing clubs row. They row on these sections because they are wide.

 

 

 

doesnt help the environmentalists as these are  river sections which flow taking away polution, which much benefits Luton whose efluent goes into the Lee

Doesnt help the locals as nbs still block the view

cyclists, maybe but why here

licence checkers, maybe but why here

elsan points under strain, well there is a boatyard here so not the ideal place to stop mooring

 

Edited by Phoenix_V
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This has very little to do with the safety of waterway users.

 

It's always a handy thing to lean on but the topic is a lot bigger than a few rowers whacking their blades against moored boats. 

 

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

29 minutes ago, matty40s said:

Work with the rowing clubs (and they dont actually want boats moving on certain practice days) and they will support the boaters.

Pi€€ them off and double/triple moor on their practice reaches and they will go the way they have to CRT.

to be fair I don't think the rowing clubs are that bothered, they would like the boats gone but as they havent got that will be content to let crt and nbta battle it out, just banning widebeams isn't going to make much difference to them, I am not aware of much double or triple mooring at Broxbourne

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Has anyone brought up the topic of it being a PRN waterway and up to the land owner who moors against their land? 

 

Obviously there are some regulations in law about being an obstruction but it does seem interesting as it is not actually a waterway subject to CRT licensing. Yes it is subject to registration but not licensing and that completely changes the topic of moorings and consent to moor against land. 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, magnetman said:

Has anyone brought up the topic of it being a PRN waterway and up to the land owner who moors against their land? 

 

Obviously there are some regulations in law about being an obstruction but it does seem interesting as it is not actually a waterway subject to CRT licensing. Yes it is subject to registration but not licensing and that completely changes the topic of moorings and consent to moor against land. 

 

 

Don't go there, Lea Valley Regional Park own the towpath, I think there was a bust up between them and crt a few years ago as to who controlled mooring, crt won, a good result for once LVRP would either have banned mooring entirely (their conservationist arm) or monetised it (their financial arm)

 

.

Edited by Phoenix_V
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ok so that one has already been done. 

 

I remember CRT or was it BW doing a land grab about 12 years ago perhaps a bit more. I think it was BW actually. 

 

They claimed a lot of land which was not obviously theirs but probably would be default. 

 

Seems sensible. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, magnetman said:

Ok so that one has already been done. 

 

I remember CRT or was it BW doing a land grab about 12 years ago perhaps a bit more. I think it was BW actually. 

 

They claimed a lot of land which was not obviously theirs but probably would be default. 

 

Seems sensible. 

Thats what LVRP did but they got there first, originally it would have been like a road and noone should have owned it

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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. 

 

Edited by magnetman
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.