Jump to content

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


Featured Posts

35 minutes ago, Phoenix_V said:

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.

 

I don't believe the "narrow end of the wedge" idea that restricting widebeams will somehow lead to CART removing narrowbeams in the future, any more than the times the same argument has been made on many other subjects, often by AdE.

 

CART are a sadly underfunded organisation which to try and get more government income and revenue have to try and balance out the interests of everyone who uses the canals, and this doesn't just mean boaters. They don't have enough money to properly maintain the system, but blaming them for this is like blaming the NHS for long waiting lists, when we all know where the fault really lies -- the canals are both part of the UK infrastructure and a popular tourist/leisure activity for many as well as a place where some people choose to live, and the government doesn't provide enough funding to allow CART to do a proper job, and CART can't double the license fees because there would be uproar from *all* boaters, not just a few.

 

In many places (e.g. Northern Oxford) widebeams are definitely inappropriate and CART are rightly putting restictions in place to control them. In other places like the Lea the case is not so clear, CART claim they have a valid reason for adding restrictions but those who will be inconvenienced by this obviously disagree -- which doesn't mean CART are wrong or misguided or vindictive, any more than when they changed the rules on composting toilets recently which many people who had installed them vociferously disagreed with.

 

The simple problem they're faced with is that in recent years far more people have decided to live on boats, either because it's cheap or they're attracted by the lifestyle (or the many press articles saying how great it is), and in some areas (not all!) this is causing problems with overcrowding, facilities, channel constriction and so on, never mind CMers bending/breaking the rules. So CART are having to take measures to try and control this, and some of the the boaters who have taken advantage of cheap/easy canal living object to this (especially the NBTA).

 

And the unfortunate consequence is that some "proper" boaters will get caught in the backlash of rule changes aimed at roping in the cowboys. This doesn't make CART wrong or the NBTA right...

Edited by IanD
  • Greenie 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, IanD said:

ome "proper" boaters will get caught in the backlash of rule changes aimed at roping in the cowboys. This doesn't make CART wrong or the NBTA right...

What doesn't make crt right is the lack of evidence base for their proposal so why shouldn't those caught in the backlash complain and look to fellow boaters for support?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Phoenix_V said:

What doesn't make crt right is the lack of evidence base for their proposal so why shouldn't those caught in the backlash complain and look to fellow boaters for support?

I didn't say they were right, I was just pointing out that there are two sides to every argument, CART think their proposal is valid, and I think that this isn't some huge anti-boater conspiracy.

 

CART claim that the evidence is (at least partly) number of collisions and incidents. If you disagree then of course you can complain and look to fellow boaters for support, but you'll need evidence of your own to show why CART are wrong.

 

Appealing to other boaters on the "First they came for..." argument is unlikely to work, especially given that many boaters do see the proliferation of widebeams (and double-mooring) on the system as a problem -- in inappropriate places, not where there's plenty of space.

Edited by IanD
  • Greenie 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, IanD said:

I don't believe the "narrow end of the wedge" idea that restricting widebeams will somehow lead to CART removing narrowbeams in the future, any more than the times the same argument has been made on many other subjects, often by AdE.

 

CART are a sadly underfunded organisation which to try and get more government income and revenue have to try and balance out the interests of everyone who uses the canals, and this doesn't just mean boaters. They don't have enough money to properly maintain the system, but blaming them for this is like blaming the NHS for long waiting lists, when we all know where the fault really lies -- the canals are both part of the UK infrastructure and a popular tourist/leisure activity for many as well as a place where some people choose to live, and the government doesn't provide enough funding to allow CART to do a proper job, and CART can't double the license fees because there would be uproar from *all* boaters, not just a few.

 

In many places (e.g. Northern Oxford) widebeams are definitely inappropriate and CART are rightly putting restictions in place to control them. In other places like the Lea the case is not so clear, CART claim they have a valid reason for adding restrictions but those who will be inconvenienced by this obviously disagree -- which doesn't mean CART are wrong or misguided or vindictive, any more than when they changed the rules on composting toilets recently which many people who had installed them vociferously disagreed with.

 

The simple problem they're faced with is that in recent years far more people have decided to live on boats, either because it's cheap or they're attracted by the lifestyle (or the many press articles saying how great it is), and in some areas (not all!) this is causing problems with overcrowding, facilities, channel constriction and so on, never mind CMers bending/breaking the rules. So CART are having to take measures to try and control this, and some of the the boaters who have taken advantage of cheap/easy canal living object to this (especially the NBTA).

 

And the unfortunate consequence is that some "proper" boaters will get caught in the backlash of rule changes aimed at roping in the cowboys. This doesn't make CART wrong or the NBTA right...

Not unlike the response when recently CaRT concluded that 'composting' toilets could not be emptied into their bins.

5 hours ago, IanD said:

I didn't say they were right, I was just pointing out that there are two sides to every argument, CART think their proposal is valid, and I think that this isn't some huge anti-boater conspiracy.

 

CART claim that the evidence is (at least partly) number of collisions and incidents. If you disagree then of course you can complain and look to fellow boaters for support, but you'll need evidence of your own to show why CART are wrong.

 

Appealing to other boaters on the "First they came for..." argument is unlikely to work, especially given that many boaters do see the proliferation of widebeams (and double-mooring) on the system as a problem -- in inappropriate places, not where there's plenty of space.

And while they are at it, perhaps they could tackle those moorers who build rickety structures out from the bank in a way that significantly narrows the available channel!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, IanD said:

I didn't say they were right, I was just pointing out that there are two sides to every argument, CART think their proposal is valid, and I think that this isn't some huge anti-boater conspiracy.

 

CART claim that the evidence is (at least partly) number of collisions and incidents. If you disagree then of course you can complain and look to fellow boaters for support, but you'll need evidence of your own to show why CART are wrong.

 

Appealing to other boaters on the "First they came for..." argument is unlikely to work, especially given that many boaters do see the proliferation of widebeams (and double-mooring) on the system as a problem -- in inappropriate places, not where there's plenty of space.

I think you need to wind your neck in, Ian. CRT's actions are based on seven incidents in ten years. Four of those incidents were near misses.

 

On a lighter note, if those in rowing boats looked where they were going rather than where they had been, I suspect the figure would be lower.

  • Greenie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Allan(nb Albert) said:

On a lighter note, if those in rowing boats looked where they were going rather than where they had been, I suspect the figure would be lower.

Is that possible when rowing?   Alternatively insist all boats have a cox they should be able to watch the "road ahead".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Some of the rowers on the Thames have finally worked out what mirrors are for. 

 

Obviously as they are product of moneyed males and dumb blondes they have quite a lot of evolution to get on with but the recognition of mirrors after however many years it is now since the invention must be a Good Thing overall. 

 

Installing brains and removal of the attitude problems will take a bit longer me thinks. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

47 minutes ago, magnetman said:

Some of the rowers on the Thames have finally worked out what mirrors are for. 

 

Obviously as they are product of moneyed males and dumb blondes they have quite a lot of evolution to get on with but the recognition of mirrors after however many years it is now since the invention must be a Good Thing overall. 

 

Installing brains and removal of the attitude problems will take a bit longer me thinks. 

it is in living memory that they were persuaded to carry a light when out at night

 

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.