Jump to content

Jenna Patel

Featured Posts

1 minute ago, nick_theboatman2 said:

There is no threat here, merely a statement of fact.
s.13(1).

Oh and just before you re-mount your high horse, there have been many expressions of gross prejudice against itinerant live-aboard boaters on this forum in the past which is why, every time one of the NBTA Committee spots an instance, or an instance is bought to our attention, we (1) refer the matter to Hertfordshire Gate and (2) make representations to the Sysop that the post be removed. Usually to no effect.
But one doesn't stamp out prejudice by giving up and going home.
So we don't. 
If there was no prejudice there would be nothing to stand up against, would there now? 
 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, nick_theboatman2 said:

Hmm. Seems your memory isn't quite up to scratch then. Because the NBTA was behind the demand for proper consultation. The NBTA represents itinerant boat-dwellers. And as I recall the other key stakeholders were pushing their own constituency (and, on first blush) at the expense of the itinerant live-aboards. The proposals were bad all round which is why the NBTA was objecting to them. Most of all we were objecting to the conduct of Sally Ash. She left shortly afterwards because we made it clear to the SoS what was going on in BW at the time (ie her conduct) and he wanted his "get shot of BW" order. Which he did. And when Parry took over she was out. With her OBE, bless. But her conduct was pretty despicable (per MSSG on the K&A for example). 
You refer to "me" but I was representing the NBTA - its members... you a member? As was Panda Smith (representing the KANDA constituency, affiliated to the NBTA seeing as Panda is was and still is the NBTA Chair). 
As for "ditched" not exactly, because the Safety Zones on the Lee (introduced absent consultation) have been causing great difficulties - unless you are a rower of course and this was all about giving rowers preference over the itinerant boat-dwellers. And since when has recreational use carried preference over "home"?
By the way who do _you_ represent? Because as I understand it NBTA London has approximately 15,000 members.
 

You weren't there at the start, you didnt get the movement going, you werent the ones that got the 5 and a half weeks extended. 

A very loose collective of Stanstead Abbots locals,  the fairly few liveaboard CCers and a fledgling London Boaters started the ball rolling and carried out all the research. 250 of us crammed into church hall to be screeched at, "I shouldnt have to deal with people like you" set the tone.

Working parties were set up to reach out and encompass all the users, whilst you/your NBTA tried to push the traveller aspect.

It wasnt about interant traveller rights- it was about sneaking an environmentally catastrophic plan with no local knowledge or research in with no real need, and no intention of discussing it with any relevant groups.

 

The latest rowing club row is nothing to do with the 7 zones that BW were going to impose unilaterally.

Of course now the goalposts have moved, many more subscribe to your organisation, which I have to say, supports the vulnerable and elderly in a better way now than they used to.

Your rose tinted hindsight wasnt what happened on the ground and you know it.

  • Greenie 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, nick_theboatman2 said:

There is no threat here, merely a statement of fact.
s.13(1).

 

You are suggesting I have violated some of your rights would you be so kind as to detail those violations ?

S13(1) simply says there is an 'effective remedy' so in the context you use it is is meaningless.

 

You would appear to be actually trying to deny me my Human rights :

 

#7. The right to freedom of thought, religion, opinion, and expression

 

In addition “freedom of expression” or “freedom of speech” is considered the most important right.

Are you trying to supress my right to express my opinion of the non-itinerant boaters ?

 

 

 

 

57 minutes ago, nick_theboatman2 said:

every time one of the NBTA Committee spots an instance, or an instance is bought to our attention, we (1) refer the matter to Hertfordshire Gate and (2) make representations to the Sysop that the post be removed. Usually to no effect.

 

Then they obviously agree that there is no case to answer.

Edited by Alan de Enfield
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh, and Nick, this was already being discussed and actioned early Feb 2011 when one of your esteemed locals posted this....

 

"Interesting that this seems to be a bit of a 'shared secret' - there's nothing on the BW websites and the Mooring Strategy group on the K and A have not been kept informed"

(Good old Chris Pink, who I know you know)

Edited by matty40s
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, nick_theboatman2 said:

There is no threat here, merely a statement of fact.
s.13(1).

I don't see Alan as having contravened that in any way. S13 applies to discrimination because of a protected characteristic.

 

From Sec. 4 :

The following characteristics are protected characteristics—

  • age;

  • disability;

  • gender reassignment;

  • marriage and civil partnership;

  • pregnancy and maternity;

  • race;

  • religion or belief;

  • sex;

  • sexual orientation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Iain_S said:

I don't see Alan as having contravened that in any way. S13 applies to discrimination because of a protected characteristic.

 

From Sec. 4 :

The following characteristics are protected characteristics—

  • age;

  • disability;

  • gender reassignment;

  • marriage and civil partnership;

  • pregnancy and maternity;

  • race;

  • religion or belief;

  • sex;

  • sexual orientation.

 

Thankyou.

I shall just work on the principal that a little knowlege is dangerous and someone has told him about some legislation that affects Gypsies and intinerants (but not non-itinerants), so he thinks quoting some initials and acronyms will frighten folk off.

 

I still await his answer to my question earlier as to what violations or protected characteristic he thinks I have contravened.

 

Getting late so i'll bid you all adieu.

  • Greenie 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, Iain_S said:

I don't see Alan as having contravened that in any way. S13 applies to discrimination because of a protected characteristic.

 

From Sec. 4 :

The following characteristics are protected characteristics—

  • age;

  • disability;

  • gender reassignment;

  • marriage and civil partnership;

  • pregnancy and maternity;

  • race;

  • religion or belief;

  • sex;

  • sexual orientation.

Correct and noting that many of the NBTA Casework clients, that we support, have Protected Characteristics this gives them protection from hate speech. I was addressing the comment of "using the children card" in the context of "playing the system [by overstaying]".

 

  • Haha 2
  • Unimpressed 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, IanD said:

Perhaps you should read up on the law, as well as the facts?

 

Having children is not a protected characteristic.

 

Actually, I thought the NBTA position was that "itinerant boaters" were a race, and therefore ALL of them have a protected characteristic.

 

Even if it were true, their objective to be allowed to stay in one place and therefore cease being being itinerant seems to undermine this position. 

  • Greenie 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

42 minutes ago, nick_theboatman2 said:

Correct and noting that many of the NBTA Casework clients, that we support, have Protected Characteristics this gives them protection from hate speech. I was addressing the comment of "using the children card" in the context of "playing the system [by overstaying]".

 

 

As you are no doubt aware the Govenment does have policies in place for school children of Itinerants, but unfortuantely for the K&A squatters many / most / all of them do not comply with the requirements as they are not moving.

 

The advice explains what the law says and describes some good ideas about school attendance for Gypsy, Roma and Traveller pupils.

For the purposes of this advice only, the term ‘Gypsy, Roma and Traveller families’ means:

• a) i. Gypsies inc. Romanies, Romanichals, Welsh Gypsies/Kaale, Scottish Gypsies/Travellers;

ii. Irish Travellers, Minceir;

iii. Roma from Eastern and Central Europe;

iv. Showmen (Fairground people);

v. Circus people;

vi. Boat Travellers/Bargees;

vii. New Travellers or New Age Travellers; and

 

• b) the parent/carer is engaged in a trade or business of such a nature that requires them to travel from place to place.

 

This advice on school attendance only applies to families who meet the criteria at both a) and b) above. In this advice the term ‘travelling’ means travelling as part of the parents’/carers’ trade or business. It does not mean travelling as part of a holiday or extended holiday

 

In addition to this C&RT have gone out of their way to accomodate the non-itinerant boaters even putting themselves at risk of action by boaters who do not have children seeing preferential status being given when none is deserved or legally required. But again, the Non-itinerant boaters are not happy because the requirement for longer distances to be travelled during school holidays is inconvenient to them, especially if they have fixed location employment (such as your hypothetical NHS Nurse)

 

 

 

 

Screenshot (394).png

Screenshot (405).png

School Acceptable Movements.pdf

Edited by Alan de Enfield
  • Greenie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

So more of the same old arguments it seems.
1. There are multiple things that lead to someone staying in one place for extended periods of time. "Kids in School" being a contributing factor... I agree that "being a child" is not a protected characteristic. Children are however protected by the Childrens Act and other stautes that include, for example, an obligation that primary school kids should not travel to school more than 2 miles and if they have to the the council has to provide transport. The issue is that to get the transport what is provided is a bus pass on a fixed route or failing that a "school run" group taxi. So where the fixed route follows the line of the canal or such like  then ok (if there actually is a bus). But where the canal goes off in another direction (that the skipper is obligated to take because of the "20-mile" "non-rule" then a problem arises because it is very hard to change a bus pass once issued.
2. CRT and the NBTA put some work into "illustrative cruising patterns" that could accommodate kids in school. This was because CRT was taken to task by the EHRC and the prosecution was suspended allowing CRT to get its house in order, to which CRT promised "illustrative cruising patterns". CRT then resiled.
3. In fact s.17(3)(c)(ii) of the 95 Act was put in to the Bill as a result of lobbying by several itinerant live-aboards on behalf of the wider community (Simon Greer in particular who gave evidence to the Select Committee on behalf of the boaters) in order to _protect_ the live aboards rather than provide a restriction. It is usually forgotten that BWs position was to criminalise living on boats. So where precisely does that connect into Art 8? There is a key word in s.17(3)(c)(ii) which is usually overlooked: "reasonable" - and "reasonable" cannot be established in advance of the facts. Art 8 requires teh law to be interpreted so as to give effect to the right to respect for home and family life. I know that some readers of this forum might find that a difficult pill to swallow but it is precisely there for that reason: to protect (or at least seek to protect) those who would otherwise be persecuted. Sorry guys: peoples' homes are more important than a bit of recreational boating.
4. There is no need to refer to "scruffy" if you don't mind. Bit offensive... And we use the phrase "itinerant boat dweller" as there is nothing established in law that makes the phrase "continuous cruising" acceptable either. 
5. I'll leave the "illustrative cruising patterns" here...

2016-12-12_Term_time_cruising_example_Grand_Union_p2.jpg

2016-12-12_Term_time_cruising_example_Grand_Union_p1.jpg

8 minutes ago, MtB said:

 

Actually, I thought the NBTA position was that "itinerant boaters" were a race, and therefore ALL of them have a protected characteristic.

 

Even if it were true, their objective to be allowed to stay in one place and therefore cease being being itinerant seems to undermine this position. 

Nope. There are however some Roma and Irish Travellers who _are_ protected but everyone else are regarded as "New Travellers" who Thatcher decided were scumbags.
We are also Masters of our boats. We do have the power of arrest, of course. 

  • Greenie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, nick_theboatman2 said:

There are however some Roma and Irish Travellers who _are_ protected but everyone else are regarded as "New Travellers" who Thatcher decided were scumbags.

 

Did she? Do you have a reference for that please?

Or did you just make that up?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you don't like "scruffy", what adjective would you like me to use to describe cheap down-at-heel boats covered in logs/wheelbarrows/cassettes/tarpaulins/algae/peeling paint? "Distressed" perhaps, to use one from the antiques world?

 

I've already said I have absolutely no objection to them being on the canals so long as -- like shiny boats, or do you object to that term too? -- they follow the rules. I've also said that the people who live on them are often nice, and in fact they can contribute more to the canal than the "shiny boaters", so I'd really like to know how to refer to their boats without causing offence.

 

If you think "the same old arguments" means something other than "people should obey the law -- or CART rules, if these are not laws", please explain what you think it means...

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

3 minutes ago, Alan de Enfield said:

This advice on school attendance only applies to families who meet the criteria at both a) and b) above. In this advice the term ‘travelling’ means travelling as part of the parents’/carers’ trade or business. It does not mean travelling as part of a holiday or extended holiday

 

In addition to this C&RT have gone out of their way to accomodate the non-itinerant boaters even putting themselves at risk of action by boaters who do not have children seeing preferential status being given when none is deserved or legally required. But again, the Non-itinerant boaters are not happy because the requirement for longer distances to be travelled during school holidays is inconvenient to them, especially if they have fxed location employment (such as your hypothetical NHS Nurse)

 

The general principle resisting the new policy on travellers only being classed as travellers if they are moving, is seen as grossly offensive by anyone in the third sector involved in supporting travellers. Which is why it is presently being challenged in judicial review. 
CRT didn't go out of its way to accommodate. Richard Party himself was taken to task by Michelle Donolan (essentially summoned to account for the conduct of CRT) that led to the engagement of the EHRC in relation to the equality issues. Please don't mis-represent how that played out: the NBTA was instrumental in that cycle.
As for the "illustrative cruising pattern pics", I have to smile because it was I who published those pics in the first place - and we got hold of them through a casework client (maybe you might look at the metadata...) - and CRT then denied that it had produced them. Interesting moment, that was.
So the long-and-short is this: how about remembering that these people to whom you cast derision are people none-the-less and one of the things that we as a society claim that we do is look after the less well equipped.
Unless one hails from the far right of course.

The NBTA is doing just that and the NBTA Casework Team has never been busier. If there were no problems the Casework Team would be quiet.

  • Greenie 1
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, nick_theboatman2 said:

the NBTA Casework Team has never been busier. If there were no problems the Casework Team would be quiet.

 

I'm sure they are busy and getting busier as more and more boaters see the squatter camps setting up and think they will join them, cheap way of living, no rules & when they are then taken to task / enter enforcement and start to squeal "I'm an itinerant" when they most plainly are not.

 

You seem to be increasingly trying to defend the undefendable.

 

law abiding itinerants (be they scruffy or shiny) are welcome on the canals, the CMers / non-itinerants / squatters who are pushing the boundaries and claiming 'human rights' "freeman of the land" etc  have no place on the canals. The actions of the few impact severley on the many.

  • Greenie 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, IanD said:

If you don't like "scruffy", what adjective would you like me to use to describe cheap down-at-heel boats covered in logs/wheelbarrows/cassettes/tarpaulins/algae/peeling paint? "Distressed" perhaps, to use one from the antiques world?

 

 

Old toilet cassettes on boat roofs seem to me to take the whole 'scruffy boat' thing to a higher level than logs and general junk. 

 

I have been accused of being both a scruffy boater and a shiny boater on the same day, on the same boat, by two different people. So it is all a matter of perception!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, MtB said:

 

Old toilet cassettes on boat roofs seem to me to take the whole 'scruffy boat' thing to a higher level than logs and general junk. 

 

I have been accused of being both a scruffy boater and a shiny boater on the same day, on the same boat, by two different people. So it is all a matter of perception!

 

At the Eastern end we were the "could be quite a nice boat if you did a bit of work on it", at the Western End (ok the long pound) we were the "people from the shiny boat"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Alan de Enfield said:

 

Maybe its just a comparison to the other boats around you ?

 

Well I think that was the point, yes.

 

Also, I have boats covering the full range from "dead scruffy" to "very shiny". What sort of boater does that make me? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

33 minutes ago, MtB said:

 

Well I think that was the point, yes.

 

Also, I have boats covering the full range from "dead scruffy" to "very shiny". What sort of boater does that make me? 

If you follow the rules -- a good law-abiding one.... 😉

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.