Jump to content

Big Changes In Milton Keynes


Featured Posts

6 hours ago, CompairHolman said:

It's legislation, CRT cannot do what it likes. 

The legislation says Continuous Cruisers can stay for 14 days in one place as long as they can satisfy the Board that they are on a genuine cruise and as long as there are no other restrictions. It doesn't say anyone else can. That's a concession.

That means they can impose restrictions, remove the concession and redefine what is satisfactory. Selective reading of legislation is unlikely to lead to good results for anyone. Most Acts are written so that the relevant authority can, in fact  more or less do what it likes unless someone with more money than them can bribe better lawyers to come up with something. That, essentially, is what the law is for.

  • Greenie 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

31 minutes ago, Arthur Marshall said:

The legislation says Continuous Cruisers can stay for 14 days in one place as long as they can satisfy the Board that they are on a genuine cruise and as long as there are no other restrictions. It doesn't say anyone else can. That's a concession.

It doesnt say anyone else cant either.

In fact, it doesn't mention CC, at all, just boats without a home mooring.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

48 minutes ago, matty40s said:

It doesnt say anyone else cant either.

In fact, it doesn't mention CC, at all, just boats without a home mooring.

I think, as you say, boats without a home mooring can (I equated those as CCers, possibly wrongly, though I assumed it was just another term for the same thing), but the only other legal obligation is to allow any other boat to stop overnight after which they must move on - obviously referring to working boats.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The trouble is that canals were a very different place in 1995.  Things were on the cusp of changing though, so it's unfortunate the the last waterways act arrived when it did.

 

Liveaboards were much rarer, especially those who didn't have a home mooring.  The changes to the housing market are a big reason for the increases, as people have been further and further priced out of the market, especially in the south-east.  But technological changes are often overlooked.  In 1995, personal mobile phones were rare.  I got my first one in 1998 at college, and most of my fellow students didn't have one.  In 1995 home internet connections were also rare, and a mobile internet connection was virtually unheard of.  I'm not sure the technology even existed for it then, and if it did, it would have been incredibly slow.  Texting didn't become widely available until 1999.  Realistically most continuous cruisers would have had no communication technology except perhaps an emergency pager.

 

TVs were cathode ray and therefore very power hungry.  Computers were the same, unless you have a very early and expensive laptop.  Solar panels were something which you found in pocket calculators and not much else.

 

Now I'm able to be on my boat and work remotely with little difficulty.  I chat to friends and family on video calls.  I watch tv in the evening.  Even 10 years ago that would be fairly tricky.  26 years ago it would have been impossible.  So it's no wonder the canals are getting busier, what was once the preserve of the hardy few is now a mainstream housing option.  The good news is that as more and more people are released from the shackles of the workplace, they may start cruising further and the hotspots around London, Bristol etc may dissipate a little.  The bad news is that as technology progresses further, even more people will move onto boats.  Right now we're on the cusp of a big change in batteries, with the early adopters showing that lithium is viable, and the prices will continue to drop.

 

In my opinion, the 1995 act is not fit for purpose any more.  Those drafting the legislation simply had no concept of what would happen over the next quarter century.

  • Greenie 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, doratheexplorer said:

The trouble is that canals were a very different place in 1995.  Things were on the cusp of changing though, so it's unfortunate the the last waterways act arrived when it did.

 

Liveaboards were much rarer, especially those who didn't have a home mooring.  The changes to the housing market are a big reason for the increases, as people have been further and further priced out of the market, especially in the south-east.  But technological changes are often overlooked.  In 1995, personal mobile phones were rare.  I got my first one in 1998 at college, and most of my fellow students didn't have one.  In 1995 home internet connections were also rare, and a mobile internet connection was virtually unheard of.  I'm not sure the technology even existed for it then, and if it did, it would have been incredibly slow.  Texting didn't become widely available until 1999.  Realistically most continuous cruisers would have had no communication technology except perhaps an emergency pager.

 

TVs were cathode ray and therefore very power hungry.  Computers were the same, unless you have a very early and expensive laptop.  Solar panels were something which you found in pocket calculators and not much else.

 

Now I'm able to be on my boat and work remotely with little difficulty.  I chat to friends and family on video calls.  I watch tv in the evening.  Even 10 years ago that would be fairly tricky.  26 years ago it would have been impossible.  So it's no wonder the canals are getting busier, what was once the preserve of the hardy few is now a mainstream housing option.  The good news is that as more and more people are released from the shackles of the workplace, they may start cruising further and the hotspots around London, Bristol etc may dissipate a little.  The bad news is that as technology progresses further, even more people will move onto boats.  Right now we're on the cusp of a big change in batteries, with the early adopters showing that lithium is viable, and the prices will continue to drop.

 

In my opinion, the 1995 act is not fit for purpose any more.  Those drafting the legislation simply had no concept of what would happen over the next quarter century.

The 1995  British Waterways Act was drafted by British Waterways ...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you believe CRT when they claim the 1962 Transport act allows them to set any conditions for licences they see fit then how do you explain the fact that they engaged in years of work getting the 1995 act through parliament to set out the conditions for licences? 

 

It makes no sense if they already had the power, it also makes no sense they never used this power from 1962 to 1995.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, doratheexplorer said:

The trouble is that canals were a very different place in 1995.  Things were on the cusp of changing though, so it's unfortunate the the last waterways act arrived when it did.

 

Liveaboards were much rarer, especially those who didn't have a home mooring.  The changes to the housing market are a big reason for the increases, as people have been further and further priced out of the market, especially in the south-east.  But technological changes are often overlooked.  In 1995, personal mobile phones were rare.  I got my first one in 1998 at college, and most of my fellow students didn't have one.  In 1995 home internet connections were also rare, and a mobile internet connection was virtually unheard of.  I'm not sure the technology even existed for it then, and if it did, it would have been incredibly slow.  Texting didn't become widely available until 1999.  Realistically most continuous cruisers would have had no communication technology except perhaps an emergency pager.

 

TVs were cathode ray and therefore very power hungry.  Computers were the same, unless you have a very early and expensive laptop.  Solar panels were something which you found in pocket calculators and not much else.

 

Now I'm able to be on my boat and work remotely with little difficulty.  I chat to friends and family on video calls.  I watch tv in the evening.  Even 10 years ago that would be fairly tricky.  26 years ago it would have been impossible.  So it's no wonder the canals are getting busier, what was once the preserve of the hardy few is now a mainstream housing option.  The good news is that as more and more people are released from the shackles of the workplace, they may start cruising further and the hotspots around London, Bristol etc may dissipate a little.  The bad news is that as technology progresses further, even more people will move onto boats.  Right now we're on the cusp of a big change in batteries, with the early adopters showing that lithium is viable, and the prices will continue to drop.

 

In my opinion, the 1995 act is not fit for purpose any more.  Those drafting the legislation simply had no concept of what would happen over the next quarter century.

Coincidentally 1995 was the first full year I lived on a boat, having started in April 94. I've been on boats ever since and never owned any property. 

Done the cc covered a lot of the system had moorings and I have observed all the things you refer to specially the communication thing. I remember the analog mobile phone and dodgy signals but wasn't bothered really as not that important. 

 

The other thing that happened was the "sailaway" and the "widebeam". These things brought living on boats to a wider audience. Then were the TV programmes.  Lots of houses rented out buy a boat that's a bit of a lark. 

 

New primary legislation is badly needed but it won't happen will it. 

 

Or maybe it will, or CRT will fail (my pet theory) followed by breaking up and proper privatisation and profit seeking. 

 

It's interesting to see how it all goes anyway. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'd love to know how many boats fall into the different categories -- liveaboards, home moorers, CCers who actually CC, CCers who don't.

 

How many rule-bending boaters would actually be inconvenienced if CART did crack down on CCing and enforce the rules?

 

Is it a large fraction of the boats on the system, or are they a small but very vocal minority like bag'n'bin composting toileteers?

 

This is a genuine question... ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, IanD said:

I'd love to know how many boats fall into the different categories -- liveaboards, home moorers, CCers who actually CC, CCers who don't.

 

How many rule-bending boaters would actually be inconvenienced if CART did crack down on CCing and enforce the rules?

 

Is it a large fraction of the boats on the system, or are they a small but very vocal minority like bag'n'bin composting toileteers?

 

This is a genuine question... ?

If it helps, there are at least 8 dumpers that I know of moores empty on the Weedon pound alone, moved every 2 weeks most of the year, maybe a couple of miles or less, then away for holidays.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Machpoint005 said:

 

That's the key. In other words, it's up to CRT how they interpret the rules.

 

And the people protesting (via NBTA and the press) about how CART are "taking their homes away" (how can they possibly move that far CCing when their kids have to get to a local school?) are 100% (well, maybe only 99%...) guaranteed to be not CCing, according to either the letter or the spirit of the rules, and would certainly not "satisfy the board" if push came to shove.

 

I have lots of sympathy for people who can't find or afford a place to live in the UK today (mostly the government's fault...), but that doesn't extend to letting them plonk a caravan on the village green (or our car park at work...) and then say "but I can't afford anywhere else, anyway I can't move, my job's here and/or my kids go to school here" -- which is essentially what these boaters are doing, if you replace "caravan" with "boat" and "village green" with "canal".

 

[I'm not in any way anti-Traveller, they deserve proper sites to live on not car parks -- and that's the government's fault too...]

 

The canals can't ever be a solution to the UK need for low-cost housing, because the demand for this is 100x higher than the capacity of the canals -- and probably 1000x higher than the capacity of the canal services...

Edited by IanD
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, IanD said:

And the people protesting (via NBTA and the press) about how CART are "taking their homes away" (how can they possibly move that far CCing when their kids have to get to a local school?) are 100% (well, maybe only 99%...) guaranteed to be not CCing, according to either the letter or the spirit of the rules, and would certainly not "satisfy the board" if push came to shove.

 

I have lots of sympathy for people who can't find or afford a place to live in the UK today (mostly the government's fault...), but that doesn't extend to letting them plonk a caravan on the village green (or our car park at work...) and then say "but I can't afford anywhere else, anyway I can't move, my job's here and/or my kids go to school here" -- which is essentially what these boaters are doing, if you replace "caravan" with "boat" and "village green" with "canal".

 

[I'm not in any way anti-Traveller, they deserve proper sites to live on not car parks -- and that's the government's fault too...]

 

The canals can't ever be a solution to the UK need for low-cost housing, because the demand for this is 100x higher than the capacity of the canals -- and probably 1000x higher than the capacity of the canal services...

Why are you not anti Traveller? they are basically a giant criminal gang that live off the proceeds of crime, their own code says you are a "Gorger" and anything you possess is fair game to steal.

  • Greenie 2
  • Angry 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, CompairHolman said:

Why are you not anti Traveller? they are basically a giant criminal gang that live off the proceeds of crime, their own code says you are a "Gorger" and anything you possess is fair game to steal.

I think you've mistaken them for the Tory party, or at least the current cabinet.

If not, that must qualify as one of the contenders for cretinous post of the year, and shows the stupidity and generalisation  of someone with slightly less than the intelligence of a paving slab. Remarkable. Well done.

ETA don't bother to reply as you're obviously not worth bothering with, so I won't again. Cheers.

Edited by Arthur Marshall
  • Greenie 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 hours ago, IanD said:

And the people protesting (via NBTA and the press) about how CART are "taking their homes away" (how can they possibly move that far CCing when their kids have to get to a local school?) are 100% (well, maybe only 99%...) guaranteed to be not CCing, according to either the letter or the spirit of the rules, and would certainly not "satisfy the board" if push came to shove.

 

I have lots of sympathy for people who can't find or afford a place to live in the UK today (mostly the government's fault...), but that doesn't extend to letting them plonk a caravan on the village green (or our car park at work...) and then say "but I can't afford anywhere else, anyway I can't move, my job's here and/or my kids go to school here" -- which is essentially what these boaters are doing, if you replace "caravan" with "boat" and "village green" with "canal".

 

[I'm not in any way anti-Traveller, they deserve proper sites to live on not car parks -- and that's the government's fault too...]

 

The canals can't ever be a solution to the UK need for low-cost housing, because the demand for this is 100x higher than the capacity of the canals -- and probably 1000x higher than the capacity of the canal services...

There were loads of rest stops across the country until relatively recently, many in beautiful locations. These were shut due to the constant abuse of relentless fly tipping and the intimidation of those living nearby or passing. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, Arthur Marshall said:

I think you've mistaken them for the Tory party, or at least the current cabinet.

If not, that must qualify as one of the contenders for cretinous post of the year, and shows the stupidity and generalisation  of someone with slightly less than the intelligence of a paving slab. Remarkable. Well done.

ETA don't bother to reply as you're obviously not worth bothering with, so I won't again. Cheers.

Arthur runs away screaming from the truth, his only reply is ad hominem, he knows nothing about Travellers but still demands he's right.

 

What I posted was explained to me by Travellers themselves and the police agree with my other points because I've discussed the matter with them on a national level, the huge disproportion of them in prison also proves my point.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 01/07/2021 at 14:14, Allan(nb Albert) said:

The 1995  British Waterways Act was drafted by British Waterways ...

I don't know what happened with that Act, but when I was working at the Patent Office in the late 1980's, one of my colleagues was in the departnent that was responsible for the Copyright & Designs Act 1989. He said that the procedure was that the office prepared its version of a draft of the legislation, which was then sent to the Parliamentary Draftsmen. They prepared their own version, which was presented to Parliament without asking for feedback first.  The Parliamentary Draftsmen do seem to delight in making what should be simple things as complex as possible, and they don't always get it right. 

 

This is probably a reason why obscurely-worded stuff sometimes ends up on the statute book, given the pressure on parliament to rush things through without thorough scrutiny. A judge once described an almost  incomprehensible and self-contradictory part of the Patents Act as "a paradigm of anfractuosity and unclarity" when it fell to his lot to decide what it actually meant.  

 

++++++++++++++++++++++++

 

I feel sure that there must be some socially-responsible travellers. I can only observe that the ones who occupied the playing field of my son's school a decade or so ago were not. It wasn't just the non-availablity of the school's own sports facilities until they could be evicted, or the old cars and general rubbish they left behind, it was the amount of broken glass that had to be dealt with before the football and cricket pitches could be used again. 

 

 

Edited by Ronaldo47
typos
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've always wondered what the outcome will be when itinerant boat dwellers are viewed through the same eyes as most people view pikeys. 

 

Piles of rubbish on the towpaths is not helpful in this regard. It will take time but I reckon that's where it will go quite soon at which stage things will have to change. 

 

Wellbeing doesn't involve having your view of the waterway blocked by continuous lines of slum housing boats. 

 

 

 

  • Greenie 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 01/07/2021 at 16:17, IanD said:

And the people protesting (via NBTA and the press) about how CART are "taking their homes away" (how can they possibly move that far CCing when their kids have to get to a local school?) are 100% (well, maybe only 99%...) guaranteed to be not CCing, according to either the letter or the spirit of the rules, and would certainly not "satisfy the board" if push came to shove. 

I've lived aboard full time for nearly 5 years now. For the first few years, I had to stay in one place for work and so paid for permanent moorings. I've since changed jobs primarily to enable me to work remotely and enable CC'ing. I've already gone as far North as Liverpool, East to Peterborough and South to Devizes all while working from the boat. If I have to travel to an office, I jump on the train.

 

I know it's easy for me to say but this is what I consider 'Continuous Cruising', ie bona fide cruising the system and moving around the country, not endlessly circling the same town. If you need to stay in one area then by definition you can't cruise continuously. Really, you need to decide whether the elements of your lifestyle that are keeping you in one place are more important than your desire to live on a boat without a home mooring. My previous job was tying me to one area, so I left it and found a different one.

 

I support most of what the NBTA do because they're one of the few organisations that genuinely recognise the value of having people living on the waterways. What I don't agree with is people who really need a permanent mooring abusing the system, but they are a very small minority compared to the 10,000s boats on the system.

  • Greenie 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Have CRT actually done the proper research and consultation to show there was actually a need for mooring restrictions? Didn't they try to do this in Berko a while back and it was shown there isn't a need as there wasnt a shortage or enough demand or something like that?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 hours ago, magnetman said:

I've always wondered what the outcome will be when itinerant boat dwellers are viewed through the same eyes as most people view pikeys. 

 

Piles of rubbish on the towpaths is not helpful in this regard. It will take time but I reckon that's where it will go quite soon at which stage things will have to change. 

 

Wellbeing doesn't involve having your view of the waterway blocked by continuous lines of slum housing boats. 

 

 

 

I've never seen " continuous lines of slum housing boats" that may have occurred in specific places at some times but it's not the norm. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 29/06/2021 at 09:54, blackrose said:

in 1980 I just rode around the block and did an emergency stop when the examiner jumped out into the road from the pavement.

In 1961 used my Dads` mobelette a french thing- one of those you had to pedal when at very low speeds. I  came round a corner off  a main road pedalling due to the speed. Examiner stepped into the road like you some 20 yards ahead. I was going so slow I just put my foot down and waited for him to walk up to me. The ridiculous thing was that 3 months later I was on a Aerial Arrow. A mate likewise passed on a borrowed mobilette and then bought a 1000cc machine.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Can someone explain what the penalty is for overstatying on a reduced time mooring?

 

Fine?   CRT cannot issue fines.

 

( CRT has never pursued the stated £25 per day in court and the only ones paid were because the payee was not told it was voluntary ) 

 

Charge?  A charge has to be set out under specific conditions to be a charge. 

 

Revoke licence?  Nope, a PBL can only be revoked by breaching any of the three conditions of the 1995 BW act section 17(3) nothing else.

 

Breach of terms and conditions of " licence contract "? Nope, no contract can override statute ( the statute above) 

 

Add charge to your licence fee? Nope, illegal. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 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.