100s of revolting boaters

[MtB]

1 minute ago, CanalRetentive said:

Talking of 'tradition', they look the same sort that would throw a fit if you went back to using horses to pull the barges. I remember reading of a woman who still used a horse and packed it in because of the abuse she got from morons. 

 

Presumably being those moored for 14 days at a time along the towpath? 

 

Times move on. Anyone using a horse to tow their boat must pretty think-skinned and know they are being a total PITA to everyone else on the cut, surely. 

[nottheone]

Alan I hope for you and your family to all find happiness one day x 

Edited March 27, 2022 by billso

[CanalRetentive]

Just now, MtB said:

 

Presumably being those moored for 14 days at a time along the towpath? 

 

Times move on. Anyone using a horse to tow their boat must pretty think-skinned and know they are being a total PITA to everyone else on the cut, surely. 

I think it was because they thought it was cruel, animal abuse etc etc

[beerbeerbeerbeerbeer]

I think the bloke has been ‘placed’ by the Guardian.

He looks like a Guardian reader grabbed off the street, given a couple of placards, photographed and then released.

Likely to have borrowed the bike too for added effect. 

 

 

[Tonka]

Somebody who lives on a boat. Doesn't know anything about the canals, stays in one place, is only living there because it is cheap

Is not a boater

[beerbeerbeerbeerbeer]

4 minutes ago, Tonka said:

Somebody who lives on a boat. Doesn't know anything about the canals, stays in one place, is only living there because it is cheap

Is not a boater

Why not? and does it matter?

[Tonka]

3 minutes ago, Goliath said:

Why not? and does it matter?

To me, yes it matters as we all get tarred with the same brush. 

It is like the old fashioned gypsies were tidy and moved. But the new so called gypsies leave a mess when they leave the site. 

[Thomas C King]

17 minutes ago, Goliath said:

I think the bloke has been ‘placed’ by the Guardian.

He looks like a Guardian reader grabbed off the street, given a couple of placards, photographed and then released.

Likely to have borrowed the bike too for added effect. 

 

 

 

Er, I think that's actually how London boaters typically look. Guardian readers, hipsters, and London boaters probably have a lot of overlap.

[BWM]

1 hour ago, Nightwatch said:

Never been South of Stoke Bruerne on the GU so can’t comment, but as so many mention this I would not be surprised to find the situation you describe.

We had a mooring in west London for 17 years and i only relay info i've seen for myself, couldn't stand it in the end and moved away as a weekend away from the mooring became impossible to enjoy - not to mention the abuse of shared facilities making life harder. 

[J R ALSOP]

The thing that I always remember is C&RT, BWB and British Transport Commission are / were Navigation Authorities and NOT Housing Associations.

[BWM]

14 minutes ago, Goliath said:

Why not? and does it matter?

It definitely matters, as many are so ignorant they happily hog the spots where others would like to use occasionally, fly tip old bulkheads and other junk wherever they choose and often manipulate the environment to suit their selfish needs - i last moored in Uxbridge on my sons boat having moved it down for Xmas whilst he was at work, there was a small gap of around 25 ft behind and no less than two boats not only attempted to moor there (at 40' and 50'+), they did so by ramming the stern gear of the craft behind and the second actually jump onto my back deck and began to tie up to a ring leaving the rope crossing half way up the doors! This is everyday behaviour down there, and another grim aspect is human waste disposal - we had one individual moored opposite who did the business in an old cooking pot then tipped turds, etc., over the side - he is not alone in this and the rampant weed growth throughout London very likely receives much of its nutrition from this source as it wasn't there before their arrival. 

[magnetman]

8 minutes ago, J R ALSOP said:

The thing that I always remember is C&RT, BWB and British Transport Commission are / were Navigation Authorities and NOT Housing Associations.

This elephant is rapidly getting a lot bigger than the room it is in

[magnetman]

Housing is the job of a local authority. That is why I think towpaths should become the property of local authorities. 

 

It makes sense in all sorts of ways when you think about it. 

 

Individual situations and circumstances are irrelevant. At the end of the day towpaths should be an amenity that everyone can enjoy and specifically people who live locally. 

 

It can be argued that amenity value is degraded by residential use of towpaths. Ok so people do like to see boats and in a lot of situations a towpath will look better with boats but nobody wants to see the pikey problem or the slums. 

 

 

[Arthur Marshall]

29 minutes ago, Tonka said:

To me, yes it matters as we all get tarred with the same brush. 

It is like the old fashioned gypsies were tidy and moved. But the new so called gypsies leave a mess when they leave the site. 

Er, no they weren't, any more than the navvies who built our canals were. Nothing wrong with longhaired hippies, either. Bit too much judging by appearances on here, as usual.

It's a housing problem, folks. Make rents affordable and have a house price crash, whip the rates sky high on second homes, tax rental income over a minimum amount at 80%, build quality council houses and you'll clear the canal of all this lot in a week.

Otherwise,  clear them off the boats and they'll just be in tents on the towpath. Might slow down the cyclists, so not all bad.

[magnetman]

Of course another side to it is that it is entirely likely that a lot of people who live on boats on towpaths in high rent areas would not be eligible for social housing anyway.

 

Obviously there will be cases of poverty but overall it is likely that this is not the reason for people being on boats. 

 

I don't know if anyone thinks that this is a poverty/social housing thing but no it isn't. 

[Arthur Marshall]

4 hours ago, magnetman said:

In London it is people previously involved in squatting residential property who have taken to boats. 

 

The former activity became illegal in 2012. Isn't it a funny coincidence that all this noise about the "traditional lifestyle" has got louder in the last ten years. 

 

Lots of politics going on here. 

 

My prediction is that itinerant living on boats will go the same way as squatting did. 

 

It won't be CRT who ban it but someone will. Probably local authorities I expect. They have ways of doing things which are far more effective than anything a navigation authority can ever do. 

 

Maybe if CRT gave towpath management to the LAs it could all become better for local people who want to see the water and the ducks rather than the slums. 

 

 

 

 

Squatting was always illegal; the change switched it from a civil to a criminal offence. It meant you couldn't just evict them and let them find somewhere else to live  but you could now spend a few thousand quid a week housing and feeding them in jail, and then because of their record they couldn't find work or housing. That's progress for you.

[magnetman]

4 minutes ago, Arthur Marshall said:

Er, no they weren't, any more than the navvies who built our canals were. Nothing wrong with longhaired hippies, either. Bit too much judging by appearances on here, as usual.

It's a housing problem, folks. Make rents affordable and have a house price crash, whip the rates sky high on second homes, tax rental income over a minimum amount at 80%, build quality council houses and you'll clear the canal of all this lot in a week.

Otherwise,  clear them off the boats and they'll just be in tents on the towpath. Might slow down the cyclists, so not all bad.

Good idea but it won't happen..

 

 

[Arthur Marshall]

Just now, magnetman said:

Good idea but it won't happen..

 

 

Course it won't. I do enjoy Alan's little bits of clickbait.

[magnetman]

Just now, Arthur Marshall said:

Squatting was always illegal; the change switched it from a civil to a criminal offence. It meant you couldn't just evict them and let them find somewhere else to live  but you could now spend a few thousand quid a week housing and feeding them in jail, and then because of their record they couldn't find work or housing. That's progress for you.

 

I wonder if a squatter in London was offered a council house in their home town would they take it or is the London ting more appealing. 

[beerbeerbeerbeerbeer]

19 minutes ago, BWM said:

It definitely matters, as many are so ignorant they happily hog the spots where others would like to use occasionally, fly tip old bulkheads and other junk wherever they choose and often manipulate the environment to suit their selfish needs - i last moored in Uxbridge on my sons boat having moved it down for Xmas whilst he was at work, there was a small gap of around 25 ft behind and no less than two boats not only attempted to moor there (at 40' and 50'+), they did so by ramming the stern gear of the craft behind and the second actually jump onto my back deck and began to tie up to a ring leaving the rope crossing half way up the doors! This is everyday behaviour down there, and another grim aspect is human waste disposal - we had one individual moored opposite who did the business in an old cooking pot then tipped turds, etc., over the side - he is not alone in this and the rampant weed growth throughout London very likely receives much of its nutrition from this source as it wasn't there before their arrival. 

That’s horrible, shitty antisocial behaviour.
 

But there’ll be plenty of ‘non boaters’ leading a very quiet life not bothering anyone and getting on the best they can.

Matters not if they have little interest in the canals and have no idea who James Brindley was.  

1 minute ago, magnetman said:

 

I wonder if a squatter in London was offered a council house in their home town would they take it or is the London ting more appealing. 

A mate of mine spent a couple of years in London.

He found accommodation for free, at the time there were a few companies who would rather have people living in the buildings rather than them being empty and vandalised or having illegal squatters.

[magnetman]

That's terrible !

[Thomas C King]

3 minutes ago, magnetman said:

 

I wonder if a squatter in London was offered a council house in their home town would they take it or is the London ting more appealing. 

 

Do other big cities that have canals not have this problem? Genuinely don't know, thought Bath and Bristol were a bit busy, and Oxford, but not to the extent of being un-cruisable.

 

I've lived in London, my workplace is there, and I don't see why people are hooked on being in London specifically. For work, all of the big cities seem to have plenty to offer. For culture, London is nothing special. I understand why people have moved to boats, but I don't understand why their boats have to be in the capital, they'd have a much nicer time if they spread out a bit.

[magnetman]

I suppose £12,500 for this mooring in inner east London is a Bit Bad but it's still less than renting a flat and if you actually like living on a boat it could work ? 

 

https://www.watersidemooring.com/462-andersons-wharf-l1/Vacancies

Being a proper residential mooring one would be able to claim housing benefit in the event of being eligible. 

 

 

 

4 minutes ago, Thomas C King said:

 

Do other big cities that have canals not have this problem? Genuinely don't know, thought Bath and Bristol were a bit busy, and Oxford, but not to the extent of being un-cruisable.

 

I've lived in London, my workplace is there, and I don't see why people are hooked on being in London specifically. For work, all of the big cities seem to have plenty to offer. For culture, London is nothing special. I understand why people have moved to boats, but I don't understand why their boats have to be in the capital, they'd have a much nicer time if they spread out a bit.

Any self respecting person will maintain a residence in the capital and also have a residence outside, preferably in the home counties. 

 

One must not be too judgemental but let's just say that the boat is not the only accomodation solution ? 

 

It's a class thing.

[BWM]

3 minutes ago, Thomas C King said:

 

Do other big cities that have canals not have this problem? Genuinely don't know, thought Bath and Bristol were a bit busy, and Oxford, but not to the extent of being un-cruisable.

 

I've lived in London, my workplace is there, and I don't see why people are hooked on being in London specifically. For work, all of the big cities seem to have plenty to offer. For culture, London is nothing special. I understand why people have moved to boats, but I don't understand why their boats have to be in the capital, they'd have a much nicer time if they spread out a bit.

Unfortunately they already have spread out a bit, Bulborne, Berkampstead and anywhere else near a rail station are problematic for mooring anywhere decent. There are several more or less permanent at Rickmansworth tesco - including some that have tied up to the landscaping between car park and canal.

 One of the aspects that saddened me most was not seeing the many friends we had that travelled the system as they gradually gave up visiting the area. 

[magnetman]

Of course housing is more important in the greater scheme of things so perhaps canals should be drained and the land used for residential units. 

 

You could get loads of quite nice blocks of flats. Eco homes. Cycle route just outside the door. 

 

What's not to like.