National Lottery Fund NBTA Mental Health Support

[Rambling Boater]

2 minutes ago, frangar said:

A run into london will show how many are quite happy to weld themselves to the towpath rather than pay for a mooring….and one only has to be on the London Boaters fb page for 10 mins to get an idea of what they desire…and if that’s how they want to portray themselves to the public then they are as far removed from myself as a liveaboard as is possible….and I’ve seen how they conduct themselves at public CRT meetings….

Is this what you have read on social media or first hand experience?

 

I don't do fb but I found the NBTA members that I have met quite friendly.

 

As for London, I've already commented on that earlier. Housing probably outweighs navigation when you have such a densely populated area.

 

Personally, I try to stay clear of London and big cities as they do my head in!  😉

[frangar]

2 minutes ago, Rambling Boater said:

Is this what you have read on social media or first hand experience?

 

I don't do fb but I found the NBTA members that I have met quite friendly.

 

As for London, I've already commented on that earlier. Housing probably outweighs navigation when you have such a densely populated area.

 

Personally, I try to stay clear of London and big cities as they do my head in!  😉

As I said in my post I’ve witnessed how they act at CRT user meetings….it’s not how I would wish to be represented. Why should housing outweigh navigation?? 

Edited May 14, 2022 by frangar

[Rambling Boater]

14 minutes ago, frangar said:

As I said in my post I’ve witnessed how they act at CRT user meetings….it’s not how I would wish to be represented. Why should housing outweigh navigation?? 

When you say 'they' do you mean all the NBTA members or the odd isolated member?

 

As to whether housing should outweigh navigation in densely populated areas (London mainly), that is something up for debate. But as I said earlier, I think C&RT would struggle to persuade government that it shouldn't. The NBTA seem to be quite successful at having influence over this.

 

I am worried that any spill over from this will affect the thousands of live aboard boaters who moor outside London where there isn't a problem with population density.

 

 

[frangar]

1 minute ago, Rambling Boater said:

When you say 'they' do you mean all the NBTA members or the odd isolated member?

 

As to whether housing should outweigh navigation in densely populated areas (London mainly), that is something up for debate. But as I said earlier, I think C&RT would struggle to persuade government that it shouldn't. The NBTA seem to be quite successful at having influence over this.

 

I am worried that any spill over from this will affect the thousands of live aboard boaters who moor outside London where there isn't a problem with population density.

 

 

If you are going to a public meeting as a rep for an organisation then you need to think how your behaviour at said meeting will make others think of your organisation…

 

As for “spill over” they are already doing damage to those of us who have been quietly living on the cut obeying the “rules”….living on a mooring which probably doesn’t have planning permission for full residential use etc where councils turned a blind eye….now thanks to the actions of the baton twirlers councils are starting to crack down meaning that even less moorings are available. 

[Rambling Boater]

13 minutes ago, frangar said:

If you are going to a public meeting as a rep for an organisation then you need to think how your behaviour at said meeting will make others think of your organisation…

 

As for “spill over” they are already doing damage to those of us who have been quietly living on the cut obeying the “rules”….living on a mooring which probably doesn’t have planning permission for full residential use etc where councils turned a blind eye….now thanks to the actions of the baton twirlers councils are starting to crack down meaning that even less moorings are available. 

 

I wonder whether the NBTA realise this and are also working in the interests of live aboards who live outside the London area, or is there already another boaters organisation representing their interests?

Edited May 14, 2022 by Rambling Boater

[Tam & Di]

The Residential Boat Owners Association?

 

Tam

[beerbeerbeerbeerbeer]

1 hour ago, frangar said:

If you are going to a public meeting as a rep for an organisation then you need to think how your behaviour at said meeting will make others think of your organisation…

 

As for “spill over” they are already doing damage to those of us who have been quietly living on the cut obeying the “rules”….living on a mooring which probably doesn’t have planning permission for full residential use etc where councils turned a blind eye….now thanks to the actions of the baton twirlers councils are starting to crack down meaning that even less moorings are available. 

That’s true, they are very

‘vocal’. Sometimes that’s what’s needed to make people sit up and listen. 
 

 

As for the rest, I just don’t think that’s true but it’s interesting how you perceive all NBTA members to be rule breakers but have been happy to keep your head down and break rules for years. 
 

 

[frangar]

13 minutes ago, Goliath said:

That’s true, they are very

‘vocal’. Sometimes that’s what’s needed to make people sit up and listen. 
 

 

As for the rest, I just don’t think that’s true but it’s interesting how you perceive all NBTA members to be rule breakers but have been happy to keep your head down and break rules for years. 
 

 

There’s a difference between living slightly under the radar of officialdom and shouting from the rooftops that you feel entitled to do as suits you. 

[beerbeerbeerbeerbeer]

1 hour ago, Rambling Boater said:

 

I wonder whether the NBTA realise this and are also working in the interests of live aboards who live outside the London area, or is there already another boaters organisation representing their interests?

Yes they’re a National organisation but they represent boaters living aboard without a home mooring. 

Have a look on their website. 
They’ve grown quite big over last few years and have had some achievements. Not all about mooring but concerning other stuff too such as claims for benefits or accessing health care. Things that can be difficult when moving about with no fixed address. 

And of course there’s the whole issue down on the K&A regarding schooling. 
 

[Arthur Marshall]

3 hours ago, Rambling Boater said:

Post deleted due to irrelevance.

Edited May 14, 2022 by Arthur Marshall

[beerbeerbeerbeerbeer]

3 minutes ago, frangar said:

There’s a difference between living slightly under the radar of officialdom and shouting from the rooftops that you feel entitled to do as suits you. 

Yes, one’s sneaky the other is open. 
 

I understand they are only shouting for what they are entitled to and nothing more. 
 

I don’t think you’ll find it’s the NBTA destroying the lives of those living quietly under the radar but more likely to be the type of folk who don’t like to think someone’s getting something for nothing. Such as local residents (in houses) or certain types of boater

[frangar]

Just now, Goliath said:

Yes, one’s sneaky the other is open. 
 

I understand they are only shouting for what they are entitled to and nothing more. 
 

I don’t think you’ll find it’s the NBTA destroying the lives of those living quietly under the radar but more likely to be the type of folk who don’t like to think someone’s getting something for nothing. Such as local residents (in houses) or certain types of boater

So blatant abuse of the rules & bylaws is ok?? But bridge hopping is fine and trying to move as little as possible using the excuse of a child in school etc is fine? 
 

Maybe if you can’t find/afford a mooring where you desire then living aboard isn’t a suitable choice…the cut isn’t for cheap housing. 

[Arthur Marshall]

1 minute ago, Goliath said:

Yes, one’s sneaky the other is open. 
 

I understand they are only shouting for what they are entitled to and nothing more. 
 

I don’t think you’ll find it’s the NBTA destroying the lives of those living quietly under the radar but more likely to be the type of folk who don’t like to think someone’s getting something for nothing. Such as local residents (in houses) or certain types of boater

You can sort of understand a boater who pays for a mooring gets narky about one who doesn't but in no way can be regarded as a continuous cruiser. It's unfair, but human nature. When I lived on, I was lucky enough to have a pleasant mooring with good facilities that I could afford. This simply isn't available to the majority of the boaters in the areas we are talking about. 

There has to be some sort of solution in the long run. Either affordable permanent moorings have to be found for those that want or need them, alternative housing, or a change in the accepted use of the waterways in certain areas.

You can't just sling everyone onto the street and wash your hands of the problem, which gets us back to politics - and the use or misuse of the term "Traveller" may be annoying, but is really irrelevant.

[beerbeerbeerbeerbeer]

1 minute ago, frangar said:

So blatant abuse of the rules & bylaws is ok?? But bridge hopping is fine and trying to move as little as possible using the excuse of a child in school etc is fine? 
 

Maybe if you can’t find/afford a mooring where you desire then living aboard isn’t a suitable choice…the cut isn’t for cheap housing. 

Yea, I know I’ve heard all this before. 
 

Don’t forget there’ll be a lot of boaters all over the system who have signed up for a continuous cruisers license who don’t affiliate themselves with any ‘bodies’ and are keeping quietly under the radar and shuffling about with minimum travel. 

 

[beerbeerbeerbeerbeer]

10 minutes ago, Arthur Marshall said:

You can sort of understand a boater who pays for a mooring gets narky about one who doesn't but in no way can be regarded as a continuous cruiser. It's unfair, but human nature. When I lived on, I was lucky enough to have a pleasant mooring with good facilities that I could afford. This simply isn't available to the majority of the boaters in the areas we are talking about. 

There has to be some sort of solution in the long run. Either affordable permanent moorings have to be found for those that want or need them, alternative housing, or a change in the accepted use of the waterways in certain areas.

You can't just sling everyone onto the street and wash your hands of the problem, which gets us back to politics - and the use or misuse of the term "Traveller" may be annoying, but is really irrelevant.

 

Traveller has never been a term I’ve used for myself, even though I travel about a lot. So, yes, in a sense I am a traveller. But it’s not a word I’ve adopted to describe myself.

If others want to define themselves as Travellers because they travel then I think that’s fine. And yes that will put them in a bracket which can be seen as a political move. 

Regards continuous cruiser, I hate that term. Yes, I have had continuous cruiser licenses so I have been a continuous cruiser but have never liked referring to myself as such. 
I now have a Roving Traders license again. I quite like that name ‘roving trader’. 
“A roving I will go..”

[Rambling Boater]

2 minutes ago, Goliath said:

 

Traveller has never been a term I’ve used for myself, even though I travel about a lot. So, yes, in a sense I am a traveller. But it’s not a word I’ve adopted to describe myself.

If others want to define themselves as Travellers because they travel then I think that’s fine. And yes that will put them in a bracket which can be seen as a political move. 

Regards continuous cruiser, I hate that term. Yes, I have had continuous cruiser licenses so I have been a continuous cruiser but have never liked referring to myself as such. 
I now have a Roving Traders license again. I quite like that name ‘roving trader’. 
“A roving I will go..”

 

Yes, labels cause all kinds of stress and anxiety. Black/White, Left wing/Right wing, gay/straight, CC'er/CM'er, it's a great way to create division!

 

That's why it's good to chat to people before judging, you get an insight into why they are the way they are.

 

Have a great day everyone.

[Alan de Enfield]

54 minutes ago, Goliath said:

If others want to define themselves as Travellers because they travel then I think that’s fine. And yes that will put them in a bracket which can be seen as a political move. 

 

Personally I (and I think for many others) have no problems at all with those who 'travel' calling themselves 'Travellers'. What is the big issue is those that call themselves 'travellers' and have no intention of travelling in accordance with the 'rules', they are simply using the term 'traveller' to try and promote a minority status & who believe they are above and beyond any rules.

 

If the NBTA actually promoted  'CC compliance' rather than (seemingly) supporting non-compliance then I feel they would have a much higher standing all across the boating comunity - currently they are dividing the CC community into "those who do, and those who don't"

[Arthur Marshall]

1 hour ago, frangar said:

So blatant abuse of the rules & bylaws is ok?? But bridge hopping is fine and trying to move as little as possible using the excuse of a child in school etc is fine? 
 

Maybe if you can’t find/afford a mooring where you desire then living aboard isn’t a suitable choice…the cut isn’t for cheap housing. 

It certainly seems to be ok in the rest of the country. Try driving down the motorway  for a start.

It seems a bit pernickety (a fine word) to treat bridge hopping as a heinous crime when it doesn't actually kill anyone, while being reasonably blase about speeding, cyclists on pavements, scooters on the towpath etc etc, all of which might have much more serious consequences than someone just trying to keep their job or their kids in school in a social environment seriously and deliberately skewed against them.

Civil disobedience, of course, has a long and honourable history anyway. I recommend good old Thoreau on the subject.

[Alan de Enfield]

Select Committee on Office of the Deputy Prime Minister: Housing, Planning, Local Government and the Regions Thirteenth Report

 

DEFINITIONS
 

51. The definition of a Gypsy or Traveller is far from clear-cut. The legal definition of a Gypsy was first set out in the 1968 Caravan Sites Act. This definition, drawn from the case of Mills v Cooper (1967), stated that the term "Gypsy" meant "persons of nomadic habit of life, whatever their race or origin, but does not include members of an organised group of travelling showpeople or persons engaged in travelling circuses travelling together as such".[29] This definition was adopted for planning purposes in 1977 under circular 28/77 which said that Gypsy status was a "material consideration" in planning cases.[30] Circular 1/94 also used this definition, which was seen as a way of defining Gypsies without reference to their ethnicity, but focussing on their way of life.

 

52. However in the case of R v South Hams District Council, ex parte Gibbs at the Court of Appeal in May 1994, Lord Justice Neil found the 1968 Act definition unsatisfactory, and defined Gypsies as; "Persons who wander or travel for the purpose of making or seeking their livelihood (not persons who move from place to place without any connection between their movements and their means of livelihood)".[31] It is this definition which is currently used by Government. It focuses on habitual lifestyle rather than ethnicity and includes both "born" Gypsies and Travellers and "elective" Travellers such as New (Age) Travellers.[32] Lord Neil's judgement that nomadism within the Gypsy and Traveller community had an economic purpose. Gypsies and Travellers moved between settled communities providing a service, traditionally for example repairing crockery or cooking vessels, and more recently tree-cutting or paving.

 

55.

Gypsies and Travellers argue that their concept of travelling is different to that understood by members of the settled community. A quote from a Traveller in Dr Colm Power's report on England's Irish Travellers demonstrates this:

 

• "When Travellers speak of Travelling, we mean something different from what country people [sedentary people] usually understand by it […]. For Travellers, the physical fact of moving is just one aspect of a nomadic mind-set that permeates every aspect of our lives. Nomadism entails a way of looking at the world, a different way of perceiving things, a different attitude to accommodation, to work, to life in general."[37]  

But under the definitions currently used by the Government it has been suggested that by remaining static for such long periods, these people cease to be Gypsies and Travellers.

 

 

 

(Government definition is that is you are 'static' you are not a traveller)

 

.

 

Also presenting to the select committee was :

 

 

Phillip Plato, a Chartered Planning Surveyor is similarly dissatisfied with the current situation. He believes the system is open to abuse from people who have no right to be classed as a Gypsy or Traveller:

 

• "Many planning applications or appeals I have researched or been involved with, seem to involve people claiming Traveller status with the same name or remarkably similar claims of hardship involving their personal health circumstances, yet in totally different areas. I have also had experience of a claimant using an adopted name at an appeal inquiry. I make comment on this out of concern that the needs of those with genuine Gypsy background may be prejudiced by others of more questionable status. I have noted that there is rarely any desire to press applicants for corroboration of their Travelling status or association with the locality by means of testimony or verification for fear of being accused of discrimination. This is unhelpful in assessing needs for Gypsy provision and provides opportunities for abuse of the system."

[IanD]

23 minutes ago, Alan de Enfield said:

 

Personally I (and I think for many others) have no problems at all with those who 'travel' calling themselves 'Travellers'. What is the big issue is those that call themselves 'travellers' and have no intention of travelling in accordance with the 'rules', they are simply using the term 'traveller' to try and promote a minority status & who believe they are above and beyond any rules.

 

If the NBTA actually promoted  'CC compliance' rather than (seemingly) supporting non-compliance then I feel they would have a much higher standing all across the boating comunity - currently they are dividing the CC community into "those who do, and those who don't"

 

Which is what I said, and why certain posters -- NBTA members/supporters, IIRC -- are throwing words like "judge" and "wierdo" around, something always guaranteed to lead to reasoned debate 😉

 

Together with the second paragraph this sums up why the NBTA stirs up so many heated arguments on here -- and before anyone protests "But that not what the NBTA is all about!" or "You haven't talked to any of them/us!", try doing a quick Google search -- especially for news/press -- for NBTA. Pretty much every single reference or article that comes back is about "protecting the rights of Bargee Travellers", which invariably turns out to mean boaters who want to stay moored in one place because of work/schools but the nasty CART rules won't let them. And this is borne out by the postings of NBTA members/supporters on here.

 

So if the NBTA are doing other things that are actually to the benefit of all boaters, this is drowned out by the relentless tide of "Think of the families and children!" sob stories which get all the publicity and press attention -- so they can't really complain if many people think that's all the NBTA does and that the main purpose of its existence is to back people who've been breaking the CCing and mooring rules -- sometimes for years -- and have now come to the attention of CART.

 

I expect this will provoke the usual torrent of abuse or "alternative facts" from the usual suspects, but there's no point arguing with them -- see the pigeon comments in the press at the moment... 😉

Edited May 14, 2022 by IanD

[beerbeerbeerbeerbeer]

1 hour ago, IanD said:

 

Which is what I said, and why certain posters -- NBTA members/supporters, IIRC -- are throwing words like "judge" and "wierdo" around, something always guaranteed to lead to reasoned debate 😉

 

Together with the second paragraph this sums up why the NBTA stirs up so many heated arguments on here -- and before anyone protests "But that not what the NBTA is all about!" or "You haven't talked to any of them/us!", try doing a quick Google search -- especially for news/press -- for NBTA. Pretty much every single reference or article that comes back is about "protecting the rights of Bargee Travellers", which invariably turns out to mean boaters who want to stay moored in one place because of work/schools but the nasty CART rules won't let them. And this is borne out by the postings of NBTA members/supporters on here.

 

So if the NBTA are doing other things that are actually to the benefit of all boaters, this is drowned out by the relentless tide of "Think of the families and children!" sob stories which get all the publicity and press attention -- so they can't really complain if many people think that's all the NBTA does and that the main purpose of its existence is to back people who've been breaking the CCing and mooring rules -- sometimes for years -- and have now come to the attention of CART.

 

I expect this will provoke the usual torrent of abuse or "alternative facts" from the usual suspects, but there's no point arguing with them -- see the pigeon comments in the press at the moment... 😉

But it’s you doing the ‘drowning out’ because you keep repeating the same angle time and time again with no real basis or understanding what’s happening.

The NBTA do not promote misuse of the 14 day rule,

you take too much notice of Alan’s baton twirling girls.

Its about protecting the rules and not letting CRT make their arbitrary interpretations which make life very difficult for some.

They haven’t been afraid to take on some very contentious issues 

And campaigning for moorings is a benefit to all boaters.

I’ll throw the word weirdo in while you keep using pejoratives. 
It really is too much of a nice day to waste here.

Go do some boating..

 

..oh, you haven’t got a boat.

Thats a shame.

 

[frangar]

2 minutes ago, Goliath said:

But it’s you doing the ‘drowning out’ because you keep repeating the same angle time and time again with no real basis or understanding what’s happening.

The NBTA do not promote misuse of the 14 day rule,

you take too much notice of Alan’s baton twirling girls.

Its about protecting the rules and not letting CRT make their arbitrary interpretations which make life very difficult for some.

They haven’t been afraid to take on some very contentious issues 

And campaigning for moorings is a benefit to all boaters.

I’ll throw the word weirdo in while you keep using pejoratives. 
It really is too much of a nice day to waste here.

Go do some boating..

 

..oh, you haven’t got a boat.

Thats a shame.

 

Maybe you should open your eyes/ears/mind at little and realise what contempt the twirlers are held in by a vast majority of boaters….both liveaboard and leisure. 

[Arthur Marshall]

Relying on either social media or the press for accurate information as to what anyone is up to is a recipe for disaster these days. Most of the press and all social media is just about clickbait to encourage advertising revenue, so the more controversial the better. The end result is that we hardly know anything, really, these days unless it's happened to us or someone we know and trust.

What we do know,  reverting to the origins of this thread, is that in certain areas there is a serious housing shortage while still a demand that people live there to work. That's politically daft, for a start, but there it is. Booming house prices and sky high rents are apparently what the country wants.

Someone has to look out for those in difficult circumstances, including their mental health, and an association of such individuals is a useful thing. If one doesn't like some of its apparent attitudes, it might be worth asking firstly, if it really has them, and, if so why, and why one is neither interested in, nor putting any effort into, sorting out the reasons for them (if they really do have them) rather than just taking the easy option of slagging them off en masse.

[beerbeerbeerbeerbeer]

21 minutes ago, frangar said:

Maybe you should open your eyes/ears/mind at little and realise what contempt the twirlers are held in by a vast majority of boaters….both liveaboard and leisure. 

I can live with your contempt, I hope you’re not expecting a return of feelings? I can’t be arsed. 

11 minutes ago, Arthur Marshall said:

Relying on either social media or the press for accurate information as to what anyone is up to is a recipe for disaster these days. Most of the press and all social media is just about clickbait to encourage advertising revenue, so the more controversial the better. The end result is that we hardly know anything, really, these days unless it's happened to us or someone we know and trust.

What we do know,  reverting to the origins of this thread, is that in certain areas there is a serious housing shortage while still a demand that people live there to work. That's politically daft, for a start, but there it is. Booming house prices and sky high rents are apparently what the country wants.

Someone has to look out for those in difficult circumstances, including their mental health, and an association of such individuals is a useful thing. If one doesn't like some of its apparent attitudes, it might be worth asking firstly, if it really has them, and, if so why, and why one is neither interested in, nor putting any effort into, sorting out the reasons for them (if they really do have them) rather than just taking the easy option of slagging them off en masse.

That’s just it some people are not interested in finding out the whys  but prefer to make their conclusions from a distance. 

[Iain_S]

6 hours ago, Rambling Boater said:

When you say 'they' do you mean all the NBTA members or the odd isolated member?

 

As to whether housing should outweigh navigation in densely populated areas (London mainly), that is something up for debate. But as I said earlier, I think C&RT would struggle to persuade government that it shouldn't. The NBTA seem to be quite successful at having influence over this.

(snip)

If that debate decides that housing should outweigh navigation, the obvious solution is to fill in the canal. You could house a lot more people that way, and give each person more space.

 

Be careful what you wish for!