Jump to content

National Lottery Fund NBTA Mental Health Support


Featured Posts

1 hour 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.

 

 

As usual, you're misinterpreting what I thought I'd made clear. From the NBTAs own website as well as comments by you and other members/supporters on here and the actions they have taken reported in many places, it's clear what the NBTA approach to CCing is -- and it's that if it's not convenient for boaters to follow the rules ("arbitrary interpretations") because of family/work/school commitments, and they've been getting away with this for years, they should be allowed to continue instead of being "evicted" or "uprooted".

 

Are you seriously claiming that this *isn't* the case, even when *you* mentioned "the K&A school situiation"?

 

(I take as much notice of Alan's posts about this subject as many of the others he posts on -- sometimes he makes a lot of sense, but often not...)

 

When you say "campaigning for moorings is a benefit to all boaters", do you mean the "we can stay here taking up all the prime spots for as long as we want regardless of the rules" boaters/moorings, or something else? I'm sure many boaters would be in favour of more moorings so long as they're fairly available to everyone including visitors and hirers, not monopolised by "towpath squatters" (not my term) -- but there is no way this is going to solve or even make a tiny dent in the housing crisis we have in the UK today where people can't find affordable places to live, the canals are not the solution to this.

 

You're the one who used the word weirdo, as well as other pejoratives -- you might want to note that I only attack your arguments, not you personally 😉

 

I'll be doing some boating very shortly, thank you for the invitation -- and a lot more from next year. Looking forward to it... 🙂

 

P.S. You of course are also "repeating the same angle time and time again" -- and I'm not going to shut up just because you don't like what I say, and neither are other people who disagree with you.

Edited by IanD
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, IanD said:

 

As usual, you're misinterpreting what I thought I'd made clear. From the NBTAs own website as well as comments by you and other members/supporters on here and the actions they have taken reported in many places, it's clear what the NBTA approach to CCing is -- and it's that if it's not convenient for boaters to follow the rules ("arbitrary interpretations") because of family/work/school commitments, and they've been getting away with this for years, they should be allowed to continue instead of being "evicted" or "uprooted".

 

Are you seriously claiming that this *isn't* the case, even when *you* mentioned "the K&A school situiation"?

 

(I take as much notice of Alan's posts about this subject as many of the others he posts on -- sometimes he makes a lot of sense, but often not...)

 

When you say "campaigning for moorings is a benefit to all boaters", do you mean the "we can stay here taking up all the prime spots for as long as we want regardless of the rules" boaters/moorings, or something else? I'm sure many boaters would be in favour of more moorings so long as they're fairly available to everyone including visitors and hirers, not monopolised by "towpath squatters" (not my term) -- but there is no way this is going to solve or even make a tiny dent in the housing crisis we have in the UK today where people can't find affordable places to live, the canals are not the solution to this.

 

You're the one who used the word weirdo, as well as other pejoratives -- you might want to note that I only attack your arguments, not you personally 😉

 

I'll be doing some boating very shortly, thank you for the invitation -- and a lot more from next year. Looking forward to it... 🙂

 

P.S. You of course are also "repeating the same angle time and time again" -- and I'm not going to shut up just because you don't like what I say, and neither are other people who disagree with 

Edited by Goliath
Deleted: I was ranting
Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, Goliath said:

The thing is Ian you will never be open to other ideas. All you posts have that tone whatever you discuss. 
Time and again I ask for opinions and try and find stuff out. 
Talking with you is like talking to a f#####’ tree. 
 

I don’t think I’ve ever read you say “oh, that’s something I’ve never thought of” or “I see what you mean” 

you just plant your roots and remain firm. 
Is there owt you don’t know ?

 

Ive tried to explain to you on other threads what I thought about the increasing restrictions on moorings making things harder. 
And we had a boater (was it DaveP?) who said it weren’t so bad and he didn’t struggle to find a mooring and you still ranted on that that couldn’t be possible because you cycle and you know. 
Is there owt you don’t know?

 

ffs sake I don’t even know why I care about London. You can keep it and stay there. 
 


yes I did use the word weirdo

look it up

 

if towpath squatter is not your term why use it?

use your noggin to think for yourself

You can’t just use a term and then distance yourself from it by saying “it’s not my term”. 
 

I try hard not to get personal but arrgh you are maddening. 

I rarely if ever agree with Ian but you’ve accused him of many points that could equally apply to yourself. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

58 minutes ago, Goliath said:

The thing is Ian you will never be open to other ideas. All you posts have that tone whatever you discuss. 
Time and again I ask for opinions and try and find stuff out. 
Talking with you is like talking to a f#####’ tree. 
 

I don’t think I’ve ever read you say “oh, that’s something I’ve never thought of” or “I see what you mean” 

you just plant your roots and remain firm. 
Is there owt you don’t know ?

 

Ive tried to explain to you on other threads what I thought about the increasing restrictions on moorings making things harder. 
And we had a boater (was it DaveP?) who said it weren’t so bad and he didn’t struggle to find a mooring and you still ranted on that that couldn’t be possible because you cycle and you know. 
Is there owt you don’t know?

 

ffs sake I don’t even know why I care about London. You can keep it and stay there. 
 


yes I did use the word weirdo

look it up

 

if towpath squatter is not your term why use it?

use your noggin to think for yourself

You can’t just use a term and then distance yourself from it by saying “it’s not my term”. 
 

I try hard not to get personal but arrgh you are maddening. 

So apart from throwing out a load of personal insults as usual, I notice you carefully avoided answering any of the questions you don't want to address. Your defence of the NBTA might be seen as admirable by some, but then so are people who defend Brexit against all the evidence.

 

The position of the NBTA is quite clear, and it annoys many boaters who think that encouraging people to ignore the CCing rules because it suits them for jobs/schools is wrong -- and I note again that you've refused to answer when I asked whether you agreed that this was NBTA policy.

 

I'm perfectly open to other ideas, if they're backed with facts or evidence as opposed to rhetoric. You're providing neither, and taking the politicians approach of ignoring awkward questions and trying to distract from them.

59 minutes ago, Goliath said:

 

Yes you were ranting, and while you do there's no point discussing this any further with you.

Edited by IanD
Link to comment
Share on other sites

All this got started because someone disagreed with the provision of  funding for mental health practitioners, aimed at boaters, being supported by the NBTA.

 

Just thought I'd mention it.

 

Maybe we should start another thread to discuss whether the CC rules should be changed on a de facto basis (as legislation is unlikely) to take into account the current housing crisis.

  • Greenie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

27 minutes ago, IanD said:

So apart from throwing out a load of personal insults as usual, I notice you carefully avoided answering any of the questions you don't want to address. Your defence of the NBTA might be seen as admirable by some, but then so are people who defend Brexit against all the evidence.

 

The position of the NBTA is quite clear, and it annoys many boaters who think that encouraging people to ignore the CCing rules because it suits them for jobs/schools is wrong -- and I note again that you've refused to answer when I asked whether you agreed that this was NBTA policy.

 

I'm perfectly open to other ideas, if they're backed with facts or evidence as opposed to rhetoric. You're providing neither, and taking the politicians approach of ignoring awkward questions and trying to distract from them.

Yes you were ranting, and while you do there's no point discussing this any further with you.

Give me a few minutes to wrap up what I am doing and I will have a very civil discussion.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, Goliath said:

Give me a few minutes to wrap up what I am doing and I will have a very civil discussion.

 

Good. As Arthur said, the original subject has got diverted into an "NBTA good -- NBTA bad" argument, which is going nowhere.

 

I don't think anyone is arguing that there are plenty of people on the canals who have mental health problems and need support, and that -- like on land -- this is far too poorly resourced, and they are not being supported properly.

 

The issue is whether people think the NBTA is an appropriate vehicle for doing this or not, because -- as can be seen from the discussions -- they provoke strongly divided opinions, some claim they are doing things for the good of all boaters (like this initiative), others think their actions are actually divisive by backing "rule-bending" CCers, and that this is against the interests of "rule-following" CCers because it's likely to lead to a backlash from CART which will adversely affect everybody, and that they shouldn't therefore be involved in this -- because the funding is "for Bargee Travellers", and there must be suspicion that this means that boaters outside the NBTA (even if they have mental issues) won't be as favourably treated as those inside.

 

 

Edited by IanD
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 11/05/2022 at 22:03, Feeby100 said:

Some of you should be bloody ashamed of your self the comments  

 

mental health is real and is hell to live with so if you don’t know what you chatting about then don’t 

 

👍   Just pretty much par for the course with some of the contributers to this forum.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, pete.i said:

 

👍   Just pretty much par for the course with some of the contributers to this forum.

As I just wrote...

 

"I don't think anyone is arguing that there are plenty of people on the canals who have mental health problems and need support, and that -- like on land -- this is far too poorly resourced, and they are not being supported properly."

 

Though maybe a few do disagree going by the first few comments, many pages ago... 😞

Edited by IanD
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, pete.i said:

 

👍   Just pretty much par for the course with some of the contributers to this forum.

We were discussing the funding of the twirlers to carry out their own agenda with it rather than in general….some of us do have first hand experience either for ourselves or those we care for. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sad, really - NBTA "support" something good, but it must be bad because NBTA support it and NBTA are bad.

Or is it just annoying that NBTA support something good. Drat?

 

If there really are miles of boats that never move (perhaps there are, IDK), either CRT are unofficially playing their part in helping in a small way with the housing crisis or... what? They have the powers to do something about it but evidence suggests choose not to. They also bend over backwards to help liveaboards stay roughly in one area with the 20 mile thing. So while they may fear an escalation of the situation by publicly giving their blessing, their action, or non-action implies that they are at the least sympathetic.

 

A bit like liveaboards in marinas - sure the council could play hard ball and make everyone homeless, but then they'd have to house them so... they don't.

 

Sometimes the law really is an ass when applied to it's letter and thank goodness more reasonable attitudes prevail and those that would upset 1,000s of peoples lives just so they can moor more easily on their holidays, or moan about council tax do not get their way. It's worth remembering that a lot of people (pensioners) living in marinas if required to pay council tax would claim it back anyway so what's the point?

 

This kind of thread really just does nothing but give people the chance to air their prejudices.

 

Carry on. :)

 

  • Greenie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh, and let's not forget the thousands living illegally in motorhomes on non-residential camp sites - kick them out too because... it's illegal. Make them live in bricks and mortar - oh there's a housing shortage - who cares, they are breaking the law and must be dealt with appropriately, that's what's important. Some of them are hogging the best spots on the camp site.

Edited by Slow and Steady
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Slow and Steady said:

Oh, and let's not forget the thousands living illegally in motorhomes on residential camp sites - kick them out too because... it's illegal. Make them live in bricks and mortar - oh there's a housing shortage - who cares, they are breaking the law and must be dealt with appropriately, that's what's important. Some of them are hogging the best spots on the camp site.

 

If they are they are at least paying for them.

 

How is it illeagal BTW? Unless they breach planning regs. complicit with the site owner they are not acting illegally AFAIK.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Whilst it may be illegal to live on a boat on a leisure mooring surely it is not illegal to live in a motorhome (or boat) on a residential site ?

 

Doesn't residential mean you can live there ?

Does the residential Planning Permission on the campsite specify the 'type' of residence allowed (hint - we have a campsite & ours doesn't)

Surely a caravan type of vehicle is expected on a campsite.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ian, sorry for my rant. 
But probably a rant I would have had if we were sitting face to face having a pint. 
You are of course correct, the discussion is divisive to say the least. And now I am sat with a pint I don’t think I want to carry on with it. 
 

Threads always take off at different tangents and there’s been some thoughtful input from others who are trying to balance things up, which in turn has given me food for thought. 

I feel you (but not you alone) tend to jump in on the attack of NBTA and don’t budge and in return I’ll jump in on the defense and not budge. 
I’ve followed the NBTA for awhile now, I have only had the odd dealings with them and I don’t know all there ins and outs, but I feel I know enough to want to give them some support. 
I don’t think there’s another organisation that represents itinerant boaters. 

I’d like to talk about the K&A and schooling but it’ll just bring up a lot more argument from old. In short though I thought a good compromise was reached. 
 

I am really one of the least argumentative people you would meet. 
But I have me moments like everyone else. 
 

  • Greenie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, The Happy Nomad said:

 

If they are they are at least paying for them.

 

How is it illeagal BTW? Unless they breach planning regs. complicit with the site owner they are not acting illegally AFAIK.

Absolutely, in breach of planning regs same as leisure marinas. I did it myself for a few months and there were 10-12 full time caravans and motorhomes that had been there for years. People pay to leave their vans on non-residential holiday sites don't they - who polices whether they move in full time?

11 minutes ago, Alan de Enfield said:

 

Whilst it may be illegal to live on a boat on a leisure mooring surely it is not illegal to live in a motorhome (or boat) on a residential site ?

 

Doesn't residential mean you can live there ?

Does the residential Planning Permission on the campsite specify the 'type' of residence allowed (hint - we have a campsite & ours doesn't)

Surely a caravan type of vehicle is expected on a campsite.

Typo - I meant non-residential holiday sites. The site owners are grateful for the out of season income.

14 minutes ago, The Happy Nomad said:

 

If they are they are at least paying for them.

 

How is it illeagal BTW? Unless they breach planning regs. complicit with the site owner they are not acting illegally AFAIK.

Edited now - I meant non-res leisure sites

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's pointless discussing whether an action is legal or illegal unless you're either a politician or a lawyer, as the law can change on the whim of the former or the ruling of the latter.  No-one cares much about the law if it interferes with something they want to do, be it drive too fast or use an electric scooter (or, I suppose, have a party or nine). Most of us don't even know what it is, including the people supposedly enforcing it.

The laws around cruising and mooring were written in an almost unrecognisably different time. We have to live in the world as it is, and banging on about folk breaking outmoded rules doesn't get us anywhere. It might be better to look for pragmatic solutions and then codify them, which I suspect is what both the NBTA and CRT really want. The government care as little for these problems as they do for most of the others relating to poverty, housing or canal navigation so you won't get the legislation changed; it just, rightfully, falls into disuse as being irrelevant. As, largely, CRT seem to have accepted.

  • Greenie 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Goliath said:

I’d like to talk about the K&A and schooling but it’ll just bring up a lot more argument from old. In short though I thought a good compromise was reached. 

 

And, on that subject C&RT have been very accomodating to the 'non-moving' CCers who have school children by amending the rules - this has in turn caused some bitterness that the rules can be adapted / amended for some, but not for others.

 

Despite C&RT guidelines saying that those with school aged children are unlikely to be able to meet CC requirements, they have backed down and actually given acceptable movements which they will not do for people without school age children, regular hospital needs or working in a fixed location.

 

Discrimination is being shouted by CCers against CCers :

 

(I quote a couple of pages from their presentation )

 

You can travel backwards and forwards within 3 mile range (which is the distance for a school bus (apparently) and the outside of term times go a bit further and then in the 'Summer Holidays' go off cruising - the problem here is that most parents with school age children are within the age range of being in work, and because their children are at a fixed location, they have built their working life around the same location (or vice versa).

 

Now - the C&RT enforcement manager is on (written) record as telling CCers  :

 

. For the avoidance of doubt, a small number of long journeys over a short period of time, followed or preceded by cruising in a small are of the network would not generally satisfy the Trust that you are engaged in bona fide navigation.

 

· Movement: Continuous Cruiser Licences are intended for bona fide (genuine) navigation around the network, rather than for a boat to remain in one mooring spot, place neighbourhood or area.

 

The basic principle of this is that these licences are not intended for living in an area and if it looks like a boat is habitually returning to a particular part of the waterway then this would not generally satisfy the Trust.


Within an acceptable range we’d expect a genuine movement, so for example it would not satisfy the Trust if a boat went on a 60 mile trip during the course of say two weeks, then returned to cruise in an area of say 5 miles the remainder of the time (figures are examples only).

 

I'm sure you can see that C&RT can be seen as its own worse enemy.

 

If it enforces the rules it is discrmination against children, if it relaxes the rules it is discrimating against every CCer without children.

 

The whole thing is a total Pigs-Ear.

 

 



 

 

 

 

 

 

Screenshot (1215).png

Screenshot (1214).png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, Slow and Steady said:

Absolutely, in breach of planning regs same as leisure marinas.

 

Are you aware that you said :

 

49 minutes ago, Slow and Steady said:

.............living illegally in motorhomes on residential camp sites

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Slow and Steady said:

Are you aware I answered that point, I even quoted you. :)

 

No I am not - have looked and now see you have amended it.

 

It is important - even in the heat of a discussion to get the information correct otherwise you will just be repeatedly 'pulled up' for saying something that is diametrically opposite to what you actually mean.

 

It was not amended when I last looked, nor did I receive any notification I had been quoted - otherwise I would not have made the point again.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, Alan de Enfield said:

 

No I am not - have looked and now see you have amended it.

 

It is important - even in the heat of a discussion to get the information correct otherwise you will just be repeatedly 'pulled up' for saying something that is diametrically opposite to what you actually mean.

 

It was not amended when I last looked, nor did I receive any notification I had been quoted - otherwise I would not have made the point again.

 

Thankyou. You saved me the bother.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Alan de Enfield said:

 

And, on that subject C&RT have been very accomodating to the 'non-moving' CCers who have school children by amending the rules - this has in turn caused some bitterness that the rules can be adapted / amended for some, but not for others.

 

Despite C&RT guidelines saying that those with school aged children are unlikely to be able to meet CC requirements, they have backed down and actually given acceptable movements which they will not do for people without school age children, regular hospital needs or working in a fixed location.

 

Discrimination is being shouted by CCers against CCers :

 

(I quote a couple of pages from their presentation )

 

You can travel backwards and forwards within 3 mile range (which is the distance for a school bus (apparently) and the outside of term times go a bit further and then in the 'Summer Holidays' go off cruising - the problem here is that most parents with school age children are within the age range of being in work, and because their children are at a fixed location, they have built their working life around the same location (or vice versa).

 

Now - the C&RT enforcement manager is on (written) record as telling CCers  :

 

. For the avoidance of doubt, a small number of long journeys over a short period of time, followed or preceded by cruising in a small are of the network would not generally satisfy the Trust that you are engaged in bona fide navigation.

 

· Movement: Continuous Cruiser Licences are intended for bona fide (genuine) navigation around the network, rather than for a boat to remain in one mooring spot, place neighbourhood or area.

 

The basic principle of this is that these licences are not intended for living in an area and if it looks like a boat is habitually returning to a particular part of the waterway then this would not generally satisfy the Trust.


Within an acceptable range we’d expect a genuine movement, so for example it would not satisfy the Trust if a boat went on a 60 mile trip during the course of say two weeks, then returned to cruise in an area of say 5 miles the remainder of the time (figures are examples only).

 

I'm sure you can see that C&RT can be seen as its own worse enemy.

 

If it enforces the rules it is discrmination against children, if it relaxes the rules it is discrimating against every CCer without children.

 

The whole thing is a total Pigs-Ear.

 

 



 

 

 

 

 

 

Screenshot (1215).png

Screenshot (1214).png

It doesn’t bother me

Why should I feel bitter?

I don’t have children and it don’t worry me that some boaters are getting something I ain’t. 
 

I thought it was a good compromise with a difficult issue. 
Remember a lot of boaters had been living under the radar or BW never bothered them and they had adopted a life style that was turned a blind eye to. 
Then with CRT they get told “you gotta move.”

but hang on they got kids in school. 

So I think it’s a good compromise. 
They still have to move every 14 days during term time. Yep, a small distance in some books. 
But during the Holidays when moorings are more in demand they must move to further areas. Again probably a small distance in others views but movement all the same. 
 

I don’t see a problem with that. 
How many boats are we talking on the K&A with kids?

 Not 100’s. 


I’m not bitter. 
I guess if I did have children I would move the boat to an area with a good school and get on with it and move the minimum. 
 

 

  • Greenie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 hours ago, Goliath said:

Ian, sorry for my rant. 
But probably a rant I would have had if we were sitting face to face having a pint. 
You are of course correct, the discussion is divisive to say the least. And now I am sat with a pint I don’t think I want to carry on with it. 
 

Threads always take off at different tangents and there’s been some thoughtful input from others who are trying to balance things up, which in turn has given me food for thought. 

I feel you (but not you alone) tend to jump in on the attack of NBTA and don’t budge and in return I’ll jump in on the defense and not budge. 
I’ve followed the NBTA for awhile now, I have only had the odd dealings with them and I don’t know all there ins and outs, but I feel I know enough to want to give them some support. 
I don’t think there’s another organisation that represents itinerant boaters. 

I’d like to talk about the K&A and schooling but it’ll just bring up a lot more argument from old. In short though I thought a good compromise was reached. 
 

I am really one of the least argumentative people you would meet. 
But I have me moments like everyone else. 
 

@Goliath Apology graciously given and received.

 

I'm sure if we'd had the discussion in a pub it would have been less heated, hopefully cooled down by plenty of lovely beer... 😉

 

You're right that getting information from online and the press is not always the best method (as I said earlier), but most or all of the NBTA mentions there do seem to be defending the kind of rule-bending that some people on here really don't like, and this is all many people (including me) see. The NBTA probably is the only organisation claiming to defend the interests of itinerant boaters, but the perception of many people (especially on CWDF, see below...) is that they're defending the short-term interests of CCers who break the rules to the long-term detiment of CCers who follow the rules. This "unfairness" is also behind the objections to the mental health money going via the NBTA.

 

Your suggestion that opinions might change -- or at least, soften a bit -- with face-to-face meetings with NBTA members/supporters might well be true, but unless I'm wrong most of the NBTA members/supporters seem to be concentrated in a few honeypot areas in the South where CMing is most prevalent, and few people on CWDF live there or even cruise there much (including me), so this isn't going to happen -- certainly all the confrontational press and publicity seems to be coming from these areas, not the whole national system.

 

If the NBTA are doing things which are genuinely for the benefit of boaters as a whole across the system there's little visible evidence of this, or maybe just the press aren't interested because good news doesn't make headlines like a good old argument... 😞

 

The whole CART policy on CCing is now a complete dog's dinner; to try and placate the complaints especially on the K&A they came up with the "if you have childern at school you can cruise like this" policy, which is clearly not what was intended when the CC license exception was devised, but times have changed so maybe this was the least bad option. The problem they now have is that if anyone challenges CART on discrimination grounds ("why can they do this 'cos they have kids but I can't even though I need it for my job?") they'd very likely either have to go back to the original rule (big fight with the NBTA again, which they caved on last time) or allow anybody to use the "school cruising" pattern (which would make overcrowding in popular mooring places worse still) -- either way, they're screwed.

 

Maybe the NBTA should be renamed the KALBA (Kennet Avon and London Bargees Association), at least this might be more accurate than "National" and stop people complaining about using the term "Traveller" where they don't think it's justified, raising the suspicion that it's only there to garner sympathy by association with a genuinely persecuted (and legally protected) ethnic group... 😉

Edited by IanD
  • Greenie 1
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.