London boaters fight for moorings

[Arthur Marshall]

13 minutes ago, MtB said:

 

 

Well I suspect waterworks, the NBTA and CMers in general would say YES. Why wouldn't they? The current situation suits them just fine and any attempt to improve it is bound to be met with an avalanche of opposition given they are the beneficiaries of how it is now. 

That's what's going to happen, anyway. No-one in authority is going to bother to alter things until they reach a state of total anarchy, which is when so many people break the rules that it becomes impossible even to pretend that there are any. It's only then that laws get changed either to normalise a situation or outlaw it completely and cart (see what I did there?) the offenders elsewhere, and dump them.

[MtB]

3 minutes ago, Arthur Marshall said:

That's what's going to happen, anyway. No-one in authority is going to bother to alter things until they reach a state of total anarchy, which is when so many people break the rules that it becomes impossible even to pretend that there are any. It's only then that laws get changed either to normalise a situation or outlaw it completely and cart (see what I did there?) the offenders elsewhere, and dump them.

 

The problem will compound up. I never boat in London as I find the situation absurd and untenable. My decision to stay away is invisible along with the same decision by many others. I'd welcome a massive change in the law to get rid of the 'cheap housing' brigade I read about infesting the London navigations. 

[waterworks]

I'm not on the side of the NBTA and I haven't said or implied anyone should overstay on moorings or not CC, I've already said that the canals shouldn't be used for housing.

 

I have only given my opinion on what CRT can and cannot do according to the legislation. 

 

[Arthur Marshall]

10 minutes ago, waterworks said:

I'm not on the side of the NBTA and I haven't said or implied anyone should overstay on moorings or not CC, I've already said that the canals shouldn't be used for housing.

 

Why not? They used to be when they were being used for their original purpose.  They weren't built as a leisure facility.

[MtB]

17 minutes ago, waterworks said:

I'm not on the side of the NBTA and I haven't said or implied anyone should overstay on moorings or not CC, I've already said that the canals shouldn't be used for housing.

 

I have only given my opinion on what CRT can and cannot do according to the legislation. 

 

 

You do crack me up! You support CMing and oppose CRT attempts at imposing sensible rules constantly.

 

 

 

 

[Captain Pegg]

14 hours ago, Arthur Marshall said:

Why not? They used to be when they were being used for their original purpose.  They weren't built as a leisure facility.

 

Are you suggesting that canals were used as housing way back when? That would likely be reinventing history.

[Mike Todd]

14 hours ago, Arthur Marshall said:

Why not? They used to be when they were being used for their original purpose.  They weren't built as a leisure facility.

I thought that the original canal crews were usually day staff returning to their home each night. It was only with the advent of family crews, in the face of price competition, that significant numbers lived aboard permanently.

[David Mack]

1 minute ago, Mike Todd said:

I thought that the original canal crews were usually day staff returning to their home each night. It was only with the advent of family crews, in the face of price competition, that significant numbers lived aboard permanently.

And with longer distance traffics, living aboard was a necessity to do the job, unlike the majority of today's liveaboards.

[Arthur Marshall]

7 minutes ago, Mike Todd said:

I thought that the original canal crews were usually day staff returning to their home each night. It was only with the advent of family crews, in the face of price competition, that significant numbers lived aboard permanently.

True. The fact is that it was, for a time, homes. Though they did move, of course, rsther than sit in the same place.

Edited July 5, 2022 by Arthur Marshall

[Jerra]

The point being about the live aboard families of old, the one thing they didn't do was stay in one tiny area for weeks on end, moving as little as possible.

 

IMO much of the old live aboard situation was akin to the lorry driver living in his cab i.e. they lived in the vehicle they used for work.

[Arthur Marshall]

1 minute ago, Jerra said:

The point being about the live aboard families of old, the one thing they didn't do was stay in one tiny area for weeks on end, moving as little as possible.

 

IMO much of the old live aboard situation was akin to the lorry driver living in his cab i.e. they lived in the vehicle they used for work.

Not quite, as lorry drivers usually have houses to go back to.

Circumstances force change.

[mrsmelly]

14 minutes ago, Mike Todd said:

I thought that the original canal crews were usually day staff returning to their home each night. It was only with the advent of family crews, in the face of price competition, that significant numbers lived aboard permanently.

You do have to be careful how far someone pushes the historical aspect of canal boats. After all, so called " Trads " are modern, non traditional craft anyway as traditional, genuine boats were pulled by horses etc

[Captain Pegg]

1 hour ago, Mike Todd said:

I thought that the original canal crews were usually day staff returning to their home each night. It was only with the advent of family crews, in the face of price competition, that significant numbers lived aboard permanently.

 

1 hour ago, David Mack said:

And with longer distance traffics, living aboard was a necessity to do the job, unlike the majority of today's liveaboards.

 

55 minutes ago, Jerra said:

The point being about the live aboard families of old, the one thing they didn't do was stay in one tiny area for weeks on end, moving as little as possible.

 

IMO much of the old live aboard situation was akin to the lorry driver living in his cab i.e. they lived in the vehicle they used for work.

 

53 minutes ago, Arthur Marshall said:

Not quite, as lorry drivers usually have houses to go back to.

Circumstances force change.

 

 

There is properly researched and published academic study into this subject in addition to a lot of readily available family records that give some insight to the reality.

 

I think the situation with working boaters was indeed akin to goods vehicle drivers today. Firstly the majority of boaters were employees who worked by day and went home at night. There were a minority who were long distance carriers and even amongst those the majority were employees and not owner operators (number ones). Hence they didn't necessarily even have primacy on a boat to call their home. Long distance boaters have been shown to generally have access to a land based home be it directly owned, rented or belonging to a family member and were not as isolated a breed as is often supposed.

 

It is common in censuses to find mother and children at home and fathers and elder male siblings at work on the boat. It is also known that families sometimes chose to travel and work together simply as a means of spending time together and there are other instances where parents worked the boat and left the children at (a) home.

 

I actually have census records that list some men as being both at home and on their boat on census day, and therefore are double counted.

 

Yes I'm sure there were families that substantially lived aboard but they still had recourse to land based addresses at least for formal purposes. Marriage records that list a a boat as a dwelling are very much the exception and most births that occurred on boats were registered 'at home' so it's likely that the true number of people born on boats is under recorded. It's often on baptism records that the detail of someone being born on a boat is found and there are accordingly often two versions of the truth as to where some people were born i.e. the location of the boat at the time and the place at which it was later registered.

 

I think history is often distorted by the fact that a lot of what is recorded in print is essentially very modern in canal carrying terms. It's not wrong but it's representative of it's time and not of a time beforehand.

 

[MtB]

1 hour ago, mrsmelly said:

You do have to be careful how far someone pushes the historical aspect of canal boats. After all, so called " Trads " are modern, non traditional craft anyway as traditional, genuine boats were pulled by horses etc

 

 

High tech, modern, newfangled and over-complicated junk, them horse-drawn boats. 

 

A real traditional boat is a hollowed out log. 

 

[D Ash]

On 01/07/2022 at 12:26, IanD said:

Not where 'spoons is concerned -- have you? 😉

 

(yes I've eaten and drunk in 'spoons on numerous occasions, some are OK, some are rubbish especially service, beer quality and choice varies, the unifying feature is they're cheap, and Tim Martin is an a*sehole...)

Tim Martin, thick as a brick, as a (respected) contributor implied a year or so ago

[peterboat]

9 minutes ago, D Ash said:

Tim Martin, thick as a brick, as a (respected) contributor implied a year or so ago

Who is the multi millionaire you are him? Who is the barrister? I have met him thick he isn't, worth over 500 million pounds and started from one pub! I admire self made people well done to him

[ditchcrawler]

17 hours ago, peterboat said:

Who is the multi millionaire you are him? Who is the barrister? I have met him thick he isn't, worth over 500 million pounds and started from one pub! I admire self made people well done to him

Its because he is running pubs and selling beer cheaper than most other pubs. The reason being the others are being ripped off by the pubco. and a single independent owner doesnt have the buying power

[IanD]

20 minutes ago, ditchcrawler said:

Its because he is running pubs and selling beer cheaper than most other pubs. The reason being the others are being ripped off by the pubco. and a single independent owner doesnt have the buying power

 

It's the same reasoning as family-run or quirky/interesting shops get driven out by soulless chains so every high street looks the same. Yes the product is cheaper (and often not as good), and then eventually when they've mostly disappeared people go "Hey, where did xxx and the soul of the town go -- I could be anywhere in the UK!".

 

I'd rather have good characterful local pubs/restaurants run by people who are often keen and knowledgeable (about beer, and often food) than cut-and-paste 'spoons run by people who are just handle-turners and warmer-uppers.

 

Other people prefer 'spoons (or McD) cheap prices and uniformity -- you could say they know the price of everything and the value of nothing, they would of course disagree... 😞

[ditchcrawler]

1 hour ago, IanD said:

 

It's the same reasoning as family-run or quirky/interesting shops get driven out by soulless chains so every high street looks the same. Yes the product is cheaper (and often not as good), and then eventually when they've mostly disappeared people go "Hey, where did xxx and the soul of the town go -- I could be anywhere in the UK!".

 

I'd rather have good characterful local pubs/restaurants run by people who are often keen and knowledgeable (about beer, and often food) than cut-and-paste 'spoons run by people who are just handle-turners and warmer-uppers.

 

Other people prefer 'spoons (or McD) cheap prices and uniformity -- you could say they know the price of everything and the value of nothing, they would of course disagree... 😞

So other pub chains that sell all the same beer are fine and they charge high prices because the chain is wringing every last penny out of them, but thats worth it?
Answer if you like, my last work on it

[peterboat]

2 hours ago, ditchcrawler said:

Its because he is running pubs and selling beer cheaper than most other pubs. The reason being the others are being ripped off by the pubco. and a single independent owner doesnt have the buying power

I use a variety of pubs, unfortunately people are short of money so will vote with their feet and pocket! Not everyone is like Ian with deep full pockets that can afford to choose.

Yesterday I was in a Punch taverns it was expensive and no nicer than Wetherspoons, food was excellent but that's because Punch have no hand in it for some reason 

Edited August 19, 2022 by peterboat

[IanD]

55 minutes ago, ditchcrawler said:

So other pub chains that sell all the same beer are fine and they charge high prices because the chain is wringing every last penny out of them, but thats worth it?
Answer if you like, my last work on it

No, pub chains -- including 'spoons -- are what is killing off decent pubs by ripping off their tenants, customers, or both.

14 minutes ago, peterboat said:

I use a variety of pubs, unfortunately people are short of money so will vote with their feet and pocket! Not everyone is like Ian with deep full pockets that can afford to choose.

Yesterday I was in a Punch taverns it was expensive and no nicer than Wetherspoons, food was excellent but that's because Punch have no hand in it for some reason 

Punch (or other pubcos) are worse than 'spoons if anything, no better and more expensive...

 

I did say that 'spoons were cheap and that's why many people like them, so don't try making out that I think everyone can afford to pay more for a decent local... 😉

[peterboat]

58 minutes ago, IanD said:

No, pub chains -- including 'spoons -- are what is killing off decent pubs by ripping off their tenants, customers, or both.

Punch (or other pubcos) are worse than 'spoons if anything, no better and more expensive...

 

I did say that 'spoons were cheap and that's why many people like them, so don't try making out that I think everyone can afford to pay more for a decent local... 😉

Spoons isn't ripping off its customers it gives them good cheap beer! It's all the others doing the ripping off

[MtB]

1 hour ago, peterboat said:

Spoons isn't ripping off its customers it gives them good cheap beer! It's all the others doing the ripping off

 

FTFY.

 

 

[peterboat]

13 minutes ago, MtB said:

 

FTFY.

 

 

Never had any issues with their beer, had a fantastic stout in Castleford the other month 

[MtB]

1 minute ago, peterboat said:

Never had any issues with their beer, had a fantastic stout in Castleford the other month 

 

 

New landlords in the local pub here, the change in the standard of cellaring was AMAZING!

 

Out of five of us, I was the only one noticing any difference in the beer. Desperately disappointing, how willing so many are to put up with shyte ale.