100s of revolting boaters

[Thomas C King]

I think "slum" is overdoing it a bit. Slums can be dangerous (susceptible to landslides, many in Brazil are built on old rubbish tips), and are inhabited almost entirely by impoverished people. Boaters, in London, are mostly not impoverished. Some might be less well-off, but starkly better off than those in actual slums.

 

There needs to be balanced reporting, neither like the Guardian's recent article nor labeling London's canals as slums. Because slums, should be eradicated entirely, whereas canal-living should not.

Edited March 28, 2022 by Thomas C King

[BWM]

21 hours ago, magnetman said:

That has been there for at least ten years. 

 

interesting area down there. I think the land owner might actually be giving permission for things like that. 

 

 

Only been there for the last 3 years, and doubt that permission was given considering the location. Aside of that, flooding and draining the pound is outrageous on its own. 

[Alan de Enfield]

17 minutes ago, Thomas C King said:

I think "slum" is overdoing it a bit. Slums can be dangerous (susceptible to landslides, many in Brazil are built on old rubbish tips)

 

The dictionary definition of a slum does seem to cover much of the London boating scene. :

 

"a squalid and overcrowded urban street or district"

 

"a very poor and crowded area, especially of a city"

 

"a densely populated, usually urban, area marked especially by poverty"

 

And the UN definition (where No5 covers all boaters)

 

UN-HABITAT defines a slum household as a group of individuals living under the same roof in an urban area who lack one or more of the following:

1. Durable housing of a permanent nature that protects against extreme climate conditions.

2. Sufficient living space which means not more than three people sharing the same room.

3. Easy access to safe water in sufficient amounts at an affordable price.

4. Access to adequate sanitation in the form of a private or public toilet shared by a reasonable number of people.

5. Security of tenure that prevents forced evictions.

[BWM]

19 minutes ago, Thomas C King said:

I think "slum" is overdoing it a bit. Slums can be dangerous (susceptible to landslides, many in Brazil are built on old rubbish tips), and are inhabited almost entirely by impoverished people. Boaters, in London, are mostly not impoverished. Some might be less well-off, but starkly better off than those in actual slums.

 

There needs to be balanced reporting, neither like the Guardian's recent article nor labeling London's canals as slums. Because slums, should be eradicated entirely, whereas canal-living should not.

You present a very narrow view of what may be considered a slum, many of the large town houses beloved of millionaires in locations such as Hackney and Notting hill were regarded as slums in the not too distant past, along with the tenements in Glasgow. The stretch. Mentioned would definitely qualify visually and has it's dangers (nothing new!).

[Thomas C King]

1 minute ago, Alan de Enfield said:

 

The dictionary definition of a slum does seem to cover much of the London boating scene. :

 

"a squalid and overcrowded urban street or district"

 

"a very poor and crowded area, especially of a city"

 

"a densely populated, usually urban, area marked especially by poverty"

 

And the UN definition (where No5 covers all boaters)

 

UN-HABITAT defines a slum household as a group of individuals living under the same roof in an urban area who lack one or more of the following:

1. Durable housing of a permanent nature that protects against extreme climate conditions.

2. Sufficient living space which means not more than three people sharing the same room.

3. Easy access to safe water in sufficient amounts at an affordable price.

4. Access to adequate sanitation in the form of a private or public toilet shared by a reasonable number of people.

5. Security of tenure that prevents forced evictions.

 

I'd read that before commenting.

 

I don't think the London boating scene fits with "very poor". That's the problem I have with calling them slums. There are certainly boaters who would be homeless were it not for the GRP they found someplace, but they don't seem like the majority.

1 minute ago, BWM said:

You present a very narrow view of what may be considered a slum, many of the large town houses beloved of millionaires in locations such as Hackney and Notting hill were regarded as slums in the not too distant past, along with the tenements in Glasgow. The stretch. Mentioned would definitely qualify visually and has it's dangers (nothing new!).

 

But back then people were actually impoverished in those areas.

[Thomas C King]

Actually Alan, you're probably right. I thought each of those conditions had to be met, but they're probably disjoined? In which case the "overcrowding" one means that it probably is a slum. As you were.

[BWM]

4 minutes ago, Thomas C King said:

 

I'd read that before commenting.

 

I don't think the London boating scene fits with "very poor". That's the problem I have with calling them slums. There are certainly boaters who would be homeless were it not for the GRP they found someplace, but they don't seem like the majority.

 

But back then people were actually impoverished in those areas.

They still are, just less of them and less obvious, and the original comment you answered referred to the appearance of a slum, which with the static, dilapidated craft common to many areas of London and crap covered cabin tops, along with a few sweetcorn encrusted richards bobbing around - it does 

[Thomas C King]

Just now, BWM said:

They still are, just less of them and less obvious, and the original comment you answered referred to the appearance of a slum, which with the static, dilapidated craft common to many areas of London and crap covered cabin tops, along with a few sweetcorn encrusted richards bobbing around - it does 

 

I think that it has to be most people being impoverished. I didn't notice that when living in Hackney ten years ago. But I agree it might meet the other definitions.

[Alan de Enfield]

6 minutes ago, Thomas C King said:

I don't think the London boating scene fits with "very poor". That's the problem I have with calling them slums.

 

I wonder how many boaters in London are living on a boat thru choice - ie because they want to be boaters, not because they have no other choice due to their financial situation.

They choose to live in one of the most expensive cities in the world (for example the cost of living in London is 21% higher than Paris) but cannot afford the cost of living in their chosen location, therefore they are 'poor' or even 'very poor'.

 

If they moved away from the city (yes - there really are 1000s of jobs outside of London) they would probably be able to afford to have a comfortable lifestyle.

[doratheexplorer]

39 minutes ago, Thomas C King said:

I think "slum" is overdoing it a bit. Slums can be dangerous (susceptible to landslides, many in Brazil are built on old rubbish tips), and are inhabited almost entirely by impoverished people. Boaters, in London, are mostly not impoverished. Some might be less well-off, but starkly better off than those in actual slums.

 

There needs to be balanced reporting, neither like the Guardian's recent article nor labeling London's canals as slums. Because slums, should be eradicated entirely, whereas canal-living should not.

The first line of the wikipedia entry for slum:

 

"A slum is a highly populated urban residential area consisting of densely packed housing units of weak build quality and often associated with poverty."

 

It goes on to say:

 

"While slums differ in size and other characteristics, most lack reliable sanitation services, supply of clean water, reliable electricity, law enforcement, and other basic services."

 

Sounds like a very accurate picture of London's canals.

 

Your definition of slum is very narrow and does not include the large slum housing which existed in most major cities of the UK until the mid-20th century, especially in northern England and the central belt of Scotland.  From the 70s-90s these were mostly gradually cleared away but for the last 20 years have been returning in a less obvious way, with 'beds in sheds', substandard bedsit accomodation, and boats.

 

The seeds of this were sown in the early 80s when Thatcher sold of the council housing without building to replace them.  Her solution was the 1988 housing act which introduced Assured Shorthold Tenancies.  This encouraged a lot more property owners to rent but scrapped the protections which tenants needed and left them with no security of tenure.  Combine that with a shortfall in house building, and a move towards small families in big owner occupier houses and you're left with a huge shortage which has pushed rents to unaffordable levels, which no meaningful rent caps, or controls over landlords.  This has driven the huge increase in boat dwellers in London.  They're not there by choice.  They're there, living in mostly squalid conditions, because they have no other choice.  And that's a slum.

[Arthur Marshall]

3 minutes ago, Alan de Enfield said:

 

I wonder how many boaters in London are living on a boat thru choice - ie because they want to be boaters, not because they have no other choice due to their financial situation.

They choose to live in one of the most expensive cities in the world (for example the cost of living in London is 21% higher than Paris) but cannot afford the cost of living in their chosen location, therefore they are 'poor' or even 'very poor'.

 

If they moved away from the city (yes - there really are 1000s of jobs outside of London) they would probably be able to afford to have a comfortable lifestyle.

It has always seemed odd to me how close people stay to where they grow up. I met people in New Brighton who had moved five times and never more than a few streets away. Same here in Macclesfield.

But a lot of these people have jobs in London, and it's almost impossible to do average work there and afford rent - even years back, firemen were commuting in from South Wales.

And if all the cleaners, railwaymen, busdrivers, council workers, nurses cleared out  the town would really be just another slum. In my opinion, they should. But then they've got to find another place to live with a couple of grand they haven't got for the deposit...

It's dead easy to criticise and find easy solutions when you're rich.

[magnetman]

55 minutes ago, BWM said:

Only been there for the last 3 years, and doubt that permission was given considering the location. Aside of that, flooding and draining the pound is outrageous on its own.

That's interesting as there was a narrow boat in exactly the same place over ten years ago, raised on blocks. 

 

I moored at Batchworth in the mid 00s and regularly went past there. Looks like the same boat but could be a different one. 

36 minutes ago, Thomas C King said:

Actually Alan, you're probably right. I thought each of those conditions had to be met, but they're probably disjoined? In which case the "overcrowding" one means that it probably is a slum. As you were.

It is a slum. Not because of poverty. I would wager that most people on boats in London are perfectly able to find other accomodation. Who knows they might even be property owners taking advantage of the high demand for rental properties

 

It's still a slum because of the density and inappropriate things such as relying on a diesel engine to generate your electricity. 

[David Mack]

48 minutes ago, Alan de Enfield said:

UN-HABITAT defines a slum household as a group of individuals living under the same roof in an urban area who lack one or more of the following:

1. Durable housing of a permanent nature that protects against extreme climate conditions.

2. Sufficient living space which means not more than three people sharing the same room.

3. Easy access to safe water in sufficient amounts at an affordable price.

4. Access to adequate sanitation in the form of a private or public toilet shared by a reasonable number of people.

5. Security of tenure that prevents forced evictions.

And there are plenty of liveaboards, even CCers in London, who don't live in slum households by that definition:

1. A steel narrowboat lasts long enough to be considered permanent in nature and can protect against extreme climatic conditions.

2. Most are occupied by single people or couples so not 3 or more sharing the same (bed)room.

3. Boats are equipped with sizeable tanks to store several days worth of water. Refilling points are available, albeit not as widely as some would wish, and there is no charge for filling up.

4. Boats have their own private toilets, with waste storage. Emptying facilites are available, albeit not as widely as some would wish, and there is no charge for emptying portable waste containers. Larger tanks can be pumped out at modest cost.

5. Boaters cannot be evicted from their boats as long as they comply with basic rules. Rented moorings have no security of tenure, but boaters are able to relocate to another rented mooring or to cruise continuously (within reasonable rules).

[magnetman]

Easy access to safe water could be an interesting one.

 

If you are iced in, engine / gearbox broken or blocked by stoppages you don't have easy access to safe water "in sufficient amounts". 

 

Boats do have tanks on them but they are rarely large enough to provide the "sufficient amounts" needed without regular access to a land based water outlet. 

 

I find the fresh water an interesting topic when it comes to boats. 

 

Seems to be a bit of a weak link. 

Edited March 28, 2022 by magnetman
Edit to remove racist sex reference

[Thomas C King]

5 minutes ago, magnetman said:

Boats do have tanks on them but they are rarely large enough to provide the "sufficient amounts" needed without regular access to a land based water outlet.

 

How regular? Ours is 550 litres, which fitoutpontoon states is typical. It lasts the two of us, showering every day, two weeks. That's quite a long time, I think. You have to move at least every two weeks anyway.

[magnetman]

I wonder what the sufficient amounts are. 

 

There will probably be some sort of average figure for this but of course most boats don't have flushing toilets so that part of the equation would not count. 

 

I know about making water last a long time on a boat and I am prepared to live on a boat in any given conditions but I think society has standards in this regard.

 

Definitely interesting to know what "sufficient amounts" means. 

 

[Alan de Enfield]

30 minutes ago, David Mack said:

And there are plenty of liveaboards, even CCers in London, who don't live in slum households by that definition:

1. A steel narrowboat lasts long enough to be considered permanent in nature and can protect against extreme climatic conditions.

2. Most are occupied by single people or couples so not 3 or more sharing the same (bed)room.

3. Boats are equipped with sizeable tanks to store several days worth of water. Refilling points are available, albeit not as widely as some would wish, and there is no charge for filling up.

4. Boats have their own private toilets, with waste storage. Emptying facilites are available, albeit not as widely as some would wish, and there is no charge for emptying portable waste containers. Larger tanks can be pumped out at modest cost.

5. Boaters cannot be evicted from their boats as long as they comply with basic rules. Rented moorings have no security of tenure, but boaters are able to relocate to another rented mooring or to cruise continuously (within reasonable rules).

 

But you have chosed the defintion of a slum-household.

 

Do you disagree with the definition (from 3 different dictionaries) of a 'slum' which to my mind does match up to much of Londons boating

 

"a squalid and overcrowded urban street or district"

 

"a very poor and crowded area, especially of a city"

 

"a densely populated, usually urban, area marked especially by poverty"

[magnetman]

The original subject of this thread was about some people doing a protest about their "rights". 

 

What seems to be happening is that some people would like the laws, which are currently rather vague and awkward to enforce, firmed up at some stage. 

 

I personally think that if and when this happens those people who were shouting about their "rights" will find they actually did not have any, and any leniency previously shown will be got rid of. 

 

At the end of the day this sort of thing will bite you on the arse.

 

To be fair we all know that it's a politics story and nothing to do with living on boats. 

 

If it all gets too complicated just move on to something else. 

 

Annoying for people who actually do want to live on boats but then there are more annoying things in life ! 

 

3 minutes ago, Alan de Enfield said:

 

But you have chosed the defintion of a slum-household.

 

Do you disagree with the definition (from 3 different dictionaries) of a 'slum' which to my mind does match up to much of Londons boating

 

"a squalid and overcrowded urban street or district"

 

"a very poor and crowded area, especially of a city"

 

"a densely populated, usually urban, area marked especially by poverty"

I don't believe the poverty side of it but crowded and squalid is certainly the case in some areas. Not all but some areas. 

 

Things like double (or triple) mooring of boats definitely gets into the definition of crowded. 

[doratheexplorer]

23 minutes ago, magnetman said:

 

I don't believe the poverty side of it but crowded and squalid is certainly the case in some areas. Not all but some areas. 

 

Things like double (or triple) mooring of boats definitely gets into the definition of crowded. 

Poverty is absolutely a factor in this.  Otherwise the canals of London would have always been full of liveaboards.  A large proportion have been pushed onto boats because they've run out of other options.

[MtB]

57 minutes ago, magnetman said:

I find the fresh water an interesting topic when it comes to boats. 

 

And once it's been in the tank for  couple of days, is it still classed as 'fresh'? 

(I know boaters still regard it as fresh, but its the local authority's view that counts when using it as part of the definition of a slum.)

[magnetman]

7 minutes ago, doratheexplorer said:

Poverty is absolutely a factor in this.  Otherwise the canals of London would have always been full of liveaboards.  A large proportion have been pushed onto boats because they've run out of other options.

So it's not people from other parts of the country who have been attracted by the low cost of living then? 

 

I think you might have this wrong. I don't talk to all that many people as am too aloof but I have lived on a boat in London since 2009. 

 

It's not a poverty thing. It isn't

[magnetman]

11 minutes ago, doratheexplorer said:

Poverty is absolutely a factor in this.  Otherwise the canals of London would have always been full of liveaboards.  A large proportion have been pushed onto boats because they've run out of other options.

Non sequitur in the second sentence. If it was a poverty thing canals would always have been full. Regardless of current property prices there have always been poor people in London and there always will be. They are not on boats

 

When you say "otherwise the canals of London would have always been full" this is clearly not the case because people like their comforts. 

 

Things like mobile phones make living on a boat a lot less scary for some people, then you get all the TV programmes saying how wonderful it is etc. 

 

 

[Arthur Marshall]

3 minutes ago, magnetman said:

So it's not people from other parts of the country who have been attracted by the low cost of living then? 

 

I think you might have this wrong. I don't talk to all that many people as am too aloof but I have lived on a boat in London since 2009. 

 

It's not a poverty thing. It isn't

I think the definition of poverty might matter here, and London cost of living poverty is different from elsewhere.

Apart from that, all the people on my mooring who lived on boats when I did were there because they couldn't afford housing. All were employed or retired. None of us would have been described as being in poverty, but we still couldn't afford to live elsewhere.

When you need two grand to put a  deposit down for a damp grotty flat even in Birkenhead, liable to be kicked out at the landlord's whim, you are going to find a lot of people looking for something more sensible, like a boat. Poverty is relative.

[Thomas C King]

5 minutes ago, Arthur Marshall said:

Poverty is relative.

 

Using a relative definition or not, the level of poverty associated with slums (according to wikipedia etc.) is "very poor". I don't think a very poor person could afford the average London boat (granted, some aren't "owned" but rather found abandoned and done-up, and some are floating sheds). That is, whether "very poor" is relative to London or the UK as a whole.

Edited March 28, 2022 by Thomas C King

[magnetman]

Yes of course poverty is relative. 

 

It's an interesting question about the housing alternatives. I do know that the Tower Hamlets housing list is around 20,000 people for 2,000 properties so certainly takes a while to get something. My other half and our children live in a Tower Hamlets owned council flat near Mile End so I know how the system works. 

 

What I am not entirely sure about is why people are driven to the more central and trendy parts of London if they are simply driven to boats by poverty.

Could there be another story here ? 

 

Good to discuss these things. 

 

Edited March 28, 2022 by magnetman