Jump to content

London boaters fight for moorings


Boaty Jo

Featured Posts

11 minutes ago, MtB said:

 

There is an element of this I think, new boaters angry with the world because they were denied buying a house coming onto the water. This was ME to a tee 45 years ago!

 

I have also on several occasions encountered new boaters surprised to discover/be told there are any rules at all, who think the canals are natural and got put there by God's almighty hand for them to use however they wish. All of whom had assumed it would be fine to pick themselves a secluded spot on the towpath and settle in, and no-one would bother them provided their spot was suitably 'out of the way'. 

 

 

I think this is a lot of peoples blind hope. Deciding to live on a boat is a sort of desperation for many people, maybe not financial desperation, maybe "Jeez I've had enough I just want to get away and chill" sort of desperation. Perhaps during divorce when you realise that half the pie ain't going to buy you a house it looks like a great alternative. That was me anyway. It's quite disappointing when you discover that Doh! tens of thousands of other people had the same idea and there are rules. I think to an extent this comes from the rather cut-off way people live in houses. You buy a house, you pay the bills, nobody bothers you, nobody comes around checking that you're keeping to the rules, you just get on with life in your castle.

 

It's fair to say that the majority of the UK population live nowhere near a canal. I was in my late 50's and had never seen a lock and I'd guess most people would have no idea about canals, rules, infrastructure, licences etc. Why would they? Even for bods like me who sailed all there lives and consider themselves quite boaty - absolutely no idea until I did my research.

 

And what about this - all those folk living in London might very well have perfectly good morals and consider that frankly they aren't hurting anyone so what's the fuss? Entitled? Maybe, but from their point of view perhaps those that bluster that it isn't fair that they can't find a mooring easily while on their holidays or that they can't row their boats without looking where they are going and those "slums" should be cleared to make their comparatively privileged lives more convenient are the ones exhibiting entitlement.

 

Just discussing, no skin in this game, I hate London personally.

 

 

  • Greenie 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The discussion is about a group of people who seem to think that market economy does not or should not apply to them. 

 

Also we have a canal system which -apparently- needs more funding. 

 

It seems the obvious solution to charge money for towpath moorings which are in high demand. 

 

This is what the original topic was about. 

 

Yes people come to London to seek their fortune that's nothing new but why then complain about having to pay some accomodation costs? 

 

What is it about boats that mean they should not be subject to normal market forces? I don't get it. 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, magnetman said:

The discussion is about a group of people who seem to think that market economy does not or should not apply to them. 

 

Also we have a canal system which -apparently- needs more funding. 

 

It seems the obvious solution to charge money for towpath moorings which are in high demand. 

 

This is what the original topic was about. 

 

Yes people come to London to seek their fortune that's nothing new but why then complain about having to pay some accomodation costs? 

 

What is it about boats that mean they should not be subject to normal market forces? I don't get it. 

 

 

 

Market forces don't care about people. It's the neoliberal approach to say, "tough, if you can't afford stuff - become a neoliberal and squeeze them until the pips squeak." 

 

I don't care for market forces. You have the result of market forces. 

 

 

  • Greenie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, magnetman said:

The discussion is about a group of people who seem to think that market economy does not or should not apply to them. 

 

Also we have a canal system which -apparently- needs more funding. 

 

It seems the obvious solution to charge money for towpath moorings which are in high demand. 

 

This is what the original topic was about. 

 

Yes people come to London to seek their fortune that's nothing new but why then complain about having to pay some accomodation costs? 

 

What is it about boats that mean they should not be subject to normal market forces? I don't get it. 

 

 

I agree that it seems obvious to charge for tow-path mooring in LONDON. It's a special case. I can't see a problem doing this either, after all CRT have many towpath moorings that they rent out all over the system.

 

There used to be many ways you could live a simple slow life quite legally. Cheap rent, council houses and low paid jobs actually used to pay enough to live on without going cap in hand to "social security". It's quite insulting to suggest like someone just oop there^ did that there are a million+ unfilled "jobs" so nobody has the excuse. Many of those jobs are part time, most of them do not pay enough to live on and leave you relying on tax credits or whatever the name for social security is nowadays so why the hell would anybody work 40 hours a week when their income would be exactly the same if they didn't work at all? OK, I would because I'm bright enough to rise up to better things but a lot of people are not, that's their level. Feck it, I wouldn't work either. Added to the fact that when that crappy job comes to a halt for whatever reason, there is a huge delay penalty getting back on the old king cole it's a big risk to take a low paid insecure job at all.

  • Greenie 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, Slow and Steady said:

Maybe, but from their point of view perhaps those that bluster that it isn't fair that they can't find a mooring easily while on their holidays or that they can't row their boats without looking where they are going and those "slums" should be cleared to make their comparatively privileged lives more convenient are the ones exhibiting entitlement.

 

This is certainly a common theme on the London boaters facebook group, where 'gentrification' comes up frequently (and I've noticed more people are pro-NBTA than on the other groups, even the K&A one).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Higgs said:

 

Market forces don't care about people. It's the neoliberal approach to say, "tough, if you can't afford stuff - become a neoliberal and squeeze them until the pips squeak." 

 

I don't care for market forces. You have the result of market forces. 

 

 

I agree and I am the last person to advocate a market economy but that is what we actually have in reality. 

 

There was a figure of £84 a week for mooring in central London. Towpath side. 

 

That seems like a bargain to me. People pay five times that for pokey little flats in these areas (Camden Islington etc). 

 

I guess all those people paying their £350+ a week to rent flats from parasite BTL scum are all "overprivileged". Oh well there must be a heck of a lot of overprivileged people about then. 

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, magnetman said:

I guess all those people paying their £350+ a week to rent flats from parasite BTL scum are all "overprivileged". Oh well there must be a heck of a lot of overprivileged people about then. 

 

 

Lol there are. 

 

One stat that always surprises me is more houses in the UK are owned outright than have a mortgage on them. 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It would be far better to infill canals in areas of high housing demand and build new social housing units on them. I mean real ones owned by the council not some profit-driven housing association bullshit. 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, magnetman said:

It would be far better to infill canals in areas of high housing demand and build new social housing units on them. I mean real ones owned by the council not some profit-driven housing association bullshit. 

 

 

You would get far more housing on the land if the canal was filled in and developed with mid-rise apartment blocks, than a line of double moored boats. But you would lose a distinctive feature of the urban landscape (and all the 'wellbeing' that flows from that) and it would be a drop in the ocean in terms of solving London's housing issues. And such is the current framework for developing housing, that most of the development would be done by commercial companies out for a fast buck, and not the least interested in wider housing policy.

  • Greenie 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, David Mack said:

You would get far more housing on the land if the canal was filled in and developed with mid-rise apartment blocks, than a line of double moored boats. But you would lose a distinctive feature of the urban landscape (and all the 'wellbeing' that flows from that) and it would be a drop in the ocean in terms of solving London's housing issues. And such is the current framework for developing housing, that most of the development would be done by commercial companies out for a fast buck, and not the least interested in wider housing policy.

I wasn't serious. 

 

The canal through a city is a wonderful amenity. Some people think it should be for residential use with no controls or rent associated with it. 

 

This could be interesting to see but it does seem that it would reduce the amenity value. 

 

And yes I do know the reality when it comes to new builds going up. It's all about the money. 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

36 minutes ago, magnetman said:

I wasn't serious. 

 

The canal through a city is a wonderful amenity. Some people think it should be for residential use with no controls or rent associated with it. 

 

This could be interesting to see but it does seem that it would reduce the amenity value. 

 

And yes I do know the reality when it comes to new builds going up. It's all about the money. 

 

 

 

There are conflicting demands for boaters on the canals -- there are those who just want to live on them, preferably as cheaply as possible and often without moving around much or at all, and there are those who want to be able to move around the canal network and visit different places, either on holiday (hire boats or part-time boatowners) or as liveaboards (continuous cruisers).

 

Generally speaking, the second group who move around (and may also have home moorings) often pay more for the privilege of using the canals and tend to follow the rules on mooring/CCing, and resent the first group (often referred to as "continuous moorers" or "towpath squatters" or other derogatory terms) who they see as not following the rules, and blocking moorings for those who do want to move around. The first group (see Slow and Steady's comments above, which show a certain mindset...) feel they're being unfairly persecuted by CART, after all why should they have to move on so that well-off "entitled" boaters can go on holiday?

 

CART have the unenviable task of trying to balance the needs of both groups of boaters by applying rules and charges to control the fair use of and access to the canals and to try and bring in revenue to maintain them. What's certain is that this isn't really working at the moment, some of the rules make no sense (why shouldn't people moor as long as they want in the middle of nowhere?) and what rules there are are not enforced (overstaying on short-term/visitor moorings, not moving on in crowded areas to let others "have a go").

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, Lady C said:

Some full time boatowners do not live aboard.

That's what I said. The basic conflict is between those who want to live on the canals in essentially one place and not move, and those who do want to travel around the system regardless of whether they hire a boat for a week, own a boat and spend part of the time on it and part on land, or liveaboard and cruise full time. In other words, those who see the canals just as a place to live (a cheaper flat) and those who see them as canals to travel around on.

Edited by IanD
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have seen lots of enclaves this last week, little boating villages that were there 4 years ago when I last came through! Same boats as well, as often is the case they are near bridges so that cars have access, I do wonder how legal some of the boats are?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, IanD said:

That's what I said. The basic conflict is between those who want to live on the canals in essentially one place and not move, and those who do want to travel around the system regardless of whether they hire a boat for a week, own a boat and spend part of the time on it and part on land, or liveaboard and cruise full time. In other words, those who see the canals just as a place to live (a cheaper flat) and those who see them as canals to travel around on.

 

I read it as you only referring to liveaboards, holiday hirers and share boat owners.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Lady C said:

 

I read it as you only referring to liveaboards, holiday hirers and share boat owners.

No, the conflict is between people who *want* to move and people who don't 😉

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, IanD said:

That's what I said. The basic conflict is between those who want to live on the canals in essentially one place and not move, and those who do want to travel around the system regardless of whether they hire a boat for a week, own a boat and spend part of the time on it and part on land, or liveaboard and cruise full time. In other words, those who see the canals just as a place to live (a cheaper flat) and those who see them as canals to travel around on.

I think Lady C meant that there are full time continuous cruisers who don't live aboard, which in any sane reading is a contradiction in terms. You can't be two things continuously at the same time - ie cc while living in a house. That's why the canals are stuffed with apparently abandoned boats. The claim that you are on a continuous cruise, shifting your boat over a weekend every few weeks when you can be bothered, while spending the bulk of your life in a house is nonsense, but it works out nice and cheap as a way to avoid mooring fees.

I know there are some on here who do or have done it, and defend their right under the Act to do so and I'm not picking a quarrel with anyone, but, yes, it's possibly, though not definitely, legal but it's still nonsense. I can see it lets them see more of the system, but stop-start is not continuous.

Liveaboard continuous cruisers are a genuine asset to the system, static liveaboards without legit moorings can be a problem and dumpers are somewhere in the middle.

  • Greenie 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

No I didn't though this is another category, and an approach which I see as different from the 'weekending' boaters might do as part of an extended trip from a home mooring.

 

IanD said this

 

There are conflicting demands for boaters on the canals -- there are those who just want to live on them, preferably as cheaply as possible and often without moving around much or at all, and there are those who want to be able to move around the canal network and visit different places, either on holiday (hire boats or part-time boatowners) or as liveaboards (continuous cruisers).

 

which appeared to only cover holiday hirers, shared boatowners and liveaboards.  My earlier comment was made as a house dwelling, boat owner who uses the boat for leisure purposes and keeps it on a paid for home mooring.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, IanD said:

Generally speaking, the second group who move around (and may also have home moorings) often pay more for the privilege of using the canals and tend to follow the rules on mooring/CCing, and resent the first group (often referred to as "continuous moorers" or "towpath squatters" or other derogatory terms) who they see as not following the rules, and blocking moorings for those who do want to move around. The first group (see Slow and Steady's comments above, which show a certain mindset...) feel they're being unfairly persecuted by CART, after all why should they have to move on so that well-off "entitled" boaters can go on holiday?

Gosh, so many assumptions regarding one "type of boater" resenting another and being in conflict...

2 minutes ago, IanD said:

That's what I said. The basic conflict is between those who basically want to live on the canals in essentially one place and not move, and those who do want to travel around the system regardless of whether they hire a boat for a week, own a boat and spend part of the time on it and part on land, or liveaboard and cruise full time.

What conflict? I suggest to you that the vast majority of boaters are not in conflict with one another in any way. It's only the entitled on both sides that are in any sort of conflict and even then, conflict is rather over-egging it isn't it? It's not a war, it's people finding it difficult to find a mooring in exceptionally high use areas whether they be liveaboard locals or on holiday. Frustrating perhaps but it's nobody's fault really, we all have equal right to moor on the towpath. If people were taking p1ss as much as claimed, CRT would be doing something about it but they're not are they? Even when it's a continuous line of boats that would be cheap and easy to police. You have to conclude that they are quite happy and just pay lip service to those that complain about it. The nearest they get is describing it as a "challenge".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

33 minutes ago, Slow and Steady said:

Gosh, so many assumptions regarding one "type of boater" resenting another and being in conflict...

What conflict? I suggest to you that the vast majority of boaters are not in conflict with one another in any way. It's only the entitled on both sides that are in any sort of conflict and even then, conflict is rather over-egging it isn't it? It's not a war, it's people finding it difficult to find a mooring in exceptionally high use areas whether they be liveaboard locals or on holiday. Frustrating perhaps but it's nobody's fault really, we all have equal right to moor on the towpath. If people were taking p1ss as much as claimed, CRT would be doing something about it but they're not are they? Even when it's a continuous line of boats that would be cheap and easy to police. You have to conclude that they are quite happy and just pay lip service to those that complain about it. The nearest they get is describing it as a "challenge".

What I meant is that the interests of the two groups -- let's call them "stayers" and "movers" -- conflict with each other, as should have been obvious if you actually read what I wrote...

 

All you have to do is walk (or bike) regularly along the towpath in "honeypot areas" and see which boats are there and for how long to realise that there are a lot of people "taking the p*ss" and that CART are not doing anything about it -- if you deny this is true, you're denying reality.

 

Everyone does have an equal right to moor on the towpath, but not for weeks or months at a time in busy areas without moving. In the middle of nowhere this would be no problem, but that's not where they want to moor.

 

As usual, you using derogatory terms like "entitled" for people you don't agree with doesn't help -- unless you're doing it deliberately in the hope that I'll respond in kind and the ensuing flame war will distract from the real issue. But I'm not going to stoop to your level... 😉

Edited by IanD
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think the CRT are that interested in dealing with housing issues. 

 

It's possible, but not certain, that the overall policy is to just get on with it and see what happens. 

 

At some stage another authority will get involved and things will change. It will probably take a long time for this to happen. 

 

There is also of course the way that existing boat dwellers talk to people who are thinking about living on a boat. 

 

If the talk becomes more negative "they are out to get you" rather than "it's a wonderful life" then it could reduce the numbers coming in. 

 

It's an interesting situation to watch evolving. The NBTA do have a point in that it would useful to check if the existing regulations are fit for purpose. The issue I could see is that they themselves prove that what they want is not fit for purpose and the resulting change will actually bite them on the bum. 

 

I don't think there really is all that much conflict. Yes there will be rower twats but everyone knows they are brimming with issues anyway. For a start going backwards in a boat which is technically very wide is a basically unsafe way to navigate in the modern day, especially on narrow waterways. 

 

And try not to cut off the egress ladders with the DeWalt cordless pikey grinder Mr Rower. Please. 

 

Equally Mr Boater please don't tie your boat to egress ladders or other safety hardware thanks. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited by magnetman
Edit to remove awful racism
Link to comment
Share on other sites

My experience of boating to London - admittedly down the GU to Brentford and back rather than across London - was that despite places with moored boats on both sides and plenty of double moored boats the visitor moorings were largely empty. Hence I had no conflict with thousands of boats that didn’t really want to move.

 

It didn’t slow me up too much either because on a deep and wide canal such as those round London it’s possible to move at the same speed you can cruise many Midlands canals without any appreciable bow wave.
 

The only time I was in inconvenienced was when large under-crewed vessels needed to move for services, including when two wide beams conspired to block the navigation below Batchworth lock.

 

So I say there is no real conflict between those who want to move and those who don’t providing there are moorings available for visitors.

 

Canals don’t belong to any group of boater but the ability to cruise takes precedence over the ability to moor for more than one night in the same place.

 

On that subject mooring for one night is deemed to be an integral part of navigation (I know this from my own bespoke licensing conditions).

 

Oh, and I’m also a non-liveaboard without a home mooring, so a nonsense boater according to @Arthur Marshall.

 

 

Edited by Captain Pegg
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.