Price rises cause fear of eviction among boaters

[blackrose]

Another one of these suffering liveaboard articles. Not sure if it's already been posted elsewhere?

 

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-wiltshire-67377196

 

Is this really any different from people in land based accommodation who are also having to deal with steep price rises, cost of rent, etc? It's the cost of living crisis, it's not like people on boats are a special case.

 

 

Edited November 13, 2023 by blackrose

[magnetman]

It is different because there is no need to pay council tax. 

 

 

 

By definition this means all cc ers are the poorest of the poor and none of them are renting out their houses. 

 

 

[Ray T]

Panda Smith, enough said.

[beerbeerbeerbeerbeer]

here we go again,

get out the pop corn and get ready for the usual shyte and prejudice  

[magnetman]

I remember back in the day the bloke from Ledgard bridge Gary ? occasionally putting in cc er topics to stir the pot. 

 

Council tax is a Terrible Thing fortunately I won't be paying it ever again from 2024.

Porn of the devil is council tax its even more than my boat licence. 

 

 

Gary Peacock. One for the in memoriam thread maybe. 

 

 

[IanD]

10 minutes ago, beerbeerbeerbeerbeer said:

here we go again,

get out the pop corn and get ready for the usual shyte and prejudice  

From which side of the debate?

 

This one?

"Ms Smith said she can't afford "bricks and mortar" and that the charity responsible for maintaining the waterways, the CRT, should be doing better.

"Canal and River Trust is a charity. Charities are supposed to make their services accessible to the poorest in society," she said.

"The surcharge on boats without a home mooring is going to do the opposite of that."

 

Or this one?

"The Canal and River Trust said looking after ageing canals is getting increasingly costly and government funding is reducing, charging those who use the water most is fair.

A spokesperson said: "We have seen the number of people choosing to boat without a home mooring increase dramatically in the past decade.

"And, while just one fifth of the 35,000 licensed boats on our waterways do not have a home mooring, they accounted for three-quarters of the boats sighted using our waterways in the past year.

"This growth has led to increased costs to manage and meet their needs.

"We therefore feel it is reasonable that the licence cost reflects the utility different boats receive, hence the increase in the surcharges for wide beam boats and the introduction of a surcharge for boats without a home mooring."

Edited November 13, 2023 by IanD

[Jerra]

It seems to me the folk in the article want their cake and eat it.  They don't want prices to go up but want more money spent.

 

They can't have it both ways.

[blackrose]

25 minutes ago, IanD said:

From which side of the debate?

 

 

Why does there have to be two (or any) "sides" to the discussion? 

 

It's setting us all up for the sort of polarised debate that some here seem to thrive on. I think this in itself highlights a form of prejudice. Some people can't help themselves having a knee jerk left or right reaction. I guess that why it's called reactionary - it doesn't matter which political side it comes from.

 

I posted the article simply because it's boat related. My only point for discussion was whether boaters in this situation should see themselves any differently to the rest of society also having to deal with cost of living increases. That wasn't a political point.

Edited November 13, 2023 by blackrose

[IanD]

1 minute ago, Jerra said:

It seems to me the folk in the article want their cake and eat it.  They don't want prices to go up but want more money spent.

 

They can't have it both ways.

 

And if prices do go up they disagree with CARTs reasons why CCers and widebeams should pay more -- presumably because they are CCers, or widebeam owners, or both. The fact that they're outnumbered something like 5:1 by those with home moorings or on narrowboats allows them to claim that they're a persecuted minority and are being discriminated against.

 

At least, that's how it appears every time the NBTA get involved...

[Mike Hurley]

Think that first woman shown was in a video before on the K&A with George Ward, moaning then too. Looks like she has not gone far in her 16 years.

[IanD]

14 minutes ago, blackrose said:

 

Why does there have to be two (or any) "sides" to the discussion? 

 

It's setting us all up for the sort of polarised debate that some here seem to thrive on. I think this in itself highlights a form of prejudice.

 

I posted the article simply because it's boat related. My only point for discussion was whether boaters in this situation should see themselves any differently to the rest of society also having to deal with cost of living increases. That wasn't a political point.

 

There are two sides because there are two opposing points of view, just like many debates. Going by the results of the CART consultation, these are the majority (home moorers and narrowboat owners) who think that having CCers and wideboat owners pay more would be a fairer way of CART raising more money, and the minority (CCers and wideboat owners) who think that everyone should pay more equally.

 

Unsurprisingly both are acting in their own (opposing) interests, because that's what people generally do -- however the CCers and wideboat owners got outvoted, so that's what CART did.

 

But comments like "get out the pop corn and get ready for the usual shyte and prejudice" are not conducive to any kind of reasoned debate, are they?   😞

 

And it's not just like the cost of living crisis that everyone is facing, the license fee increases proposed by CART are bigger than those seen on land -- but then they're starting from a lower level than the costs of living on land, and CART desperately need more money (which is why the maintenance is poor, as the article rightly complains about) thanks partly to the insufficient and declining government grant... 😞

Edited November 13, 2023 by IanD

[robtheplod]

about 6 out of 10 for sad face on the BBC article, can do better......

[Hudds Lad]

30 minutes ago, robtheplod said:

about 6 out of 10 for sad face on the BBC article, can do better......

1 out of 10 for the American lady, she looks positively happy.

[magnetman]

I think a lot of people conveniently ignore or discount the costs to the navigation authority of dealing with peoples housing problems. 

 

This is not a trivial cost. It is real and it comes from the same pot that is used to maintain and keep waterways functioning. 

 

This isn't really an acceptable situation. 

 

I don't know the full extent but it was claimed that the Ward geyser on the K&A had already cost BW/CRT £76k in 2013. Ten yars later they got him orf the canal. 

 

 

So the question must be asked. 

 

What are canals and inland waterways for? Are they there to provide bargain basement but not satisfactory housing or are they a public amenity? 

 

This is part of the story but I admit it isn't the whole story as not all cc boats are used as residences. 

 

It is a problem though and one which is likely to get worse. 

 

Someone other than navigation authority needs to take over management of towpaths and sort this shit out. Yesterday.

 

Yes I know ! 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited November 13, 2023 by magnetman
edit to remove rather shocking avian references

[Alan de Enfield]

 

If a boater is in financial difficulties they can get a lot of boating costs paid for by the state.

 

I helped a couple claim and their costs of mooring, licence and insurance we all 100% paid for by the local authority.

 

And still they complain .............................................

[magnetman]

I think the people who complain most are probably those who have adequate financial means but are a bit tight. 

 

Its not unusual. 

 

Think about the scum woman who is a daughter of that Captain Tom geyser. 

 

She was moaning in the interview 'I have to work for a living'. Look at the house. Sell it and live on a boat never work again..

 

Too much attitude and too much entitlement. 

 

It is a societal ill. 

 

I blame Gordon Brown and of course the zuck. 

 

 

[nb Innisfree]

14 minutes ago, magnetman said:

I think the people who complain most are probably those who have adequate financial means but are a bit tight. 

 

Its not unusual. 

 

Think about the scum woman who is a daughter of that Captain Tom geyser. 

 

She was moaning in the interview 'I have to work for a living'. Look at the house. Sell it and live on a boat never work again..

 

Too much attitude and too much entitlement. 

 

It is a societal ill. 

 

I blame Gordon Brown and of course the zuck. 

 

 

How DARE you! 😮

[Alan de Enfield]

25 minutes ago, nb Innisfree said:

How DARE you! 😮

 

 

Did you see the programme last night ?

 

When Cpt. Tom wrote his memoirs the advertising blurb said the profits from the book would go into the charitable foundation in his name, when the book was published the preface in the book said the profits from the book would go into the charitable foundation in his name, In actual fact, the £800,000+ raised from the book sales went directly into the 'families' bank account for their personal use.

 

She is a 'scoundrel' at best.

Edited November 13, 2023 by Alan de Enfield

[magnetman]

1 minute ago, Alan de Enfield said:

 

 

Did you see the programme last night ?

 

When Cpt. Tom wrote his memoirs the advertising blurb said the profits from the book would go into the charitable foundation in his name, when the book was published the preface in the book said the profits from the book would go into the charitable foundation in his name, In actual fact, the £800,000+ raised from the book sales went directly into the 'families' bank account for their personal use.

 

She is a 'scoundrel' at best.

 

Scum the lot of them. 

 

Wailing and whining scum is the same as any other scum. 

 

 

[Arthur Marshall]

12 minutes ago, Alan de Enfield said:

 

 

Did you see the programme last night ?

 

When Cpt. Tom wrote his memoirs the advertising blurb said the profits from the book would go into the charitable foundation in his name, when the book was published the preface in the book said the profits from the book would go into the charitable foundation in his name, In actual fact, the £800,000+ raised from the book sales went directly into the 'families' bank account for their personal use.

 

She is a 'scoundrel' at best.

Anyone know of a national charity where the person who runs it doesn't make a fortune? It's just human nature, same as complaining about price rises.

[magnetman]

I didn't know there was a 'programme' last night as have no telly or 'feeds' but the Captain Tom story was different to a normal charity. 

 

Obviously one expects some charity scumminess it is normal but when terrible arseholes like this hijack something like the covids, which did cause a lot of people significant problems, for their own financial gain they need to be taken out and shot.

 

The old git may have been alright but the family, who are not poverty stricken, took advantage when their education should have indicated  otherwise. If course there is nothing new under the sun with these types and they squeal if found out but no it is not acceptable. 

 

They are Bad News. Nobody wants this sort of scum around. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

People were having a really shit time during the covids and looking for some positives then some arseholes build a swimming pool in their garden using money handed to them during a time of crisis. 

 

Its nasty. 

 

[Alan de Enfield]

Just now, magnetman said:

I didn't know there was a 'programme' last night as have no telly or 'feeds' but the Captain Tom story was different to a normal charity. 

 

Obviously one expects some charity scumminess it is normal but when terrible arseholes like this hijack something like the covids, which did cause a lot of people significant problems, for their own financial gain they need to be taken out and shot.

 

The old git may have been alright but the family, who are not poverty stricken, took advantage when their education should have indicated  otherwise. If course there is nothing new under the sun with these types and they squeal if found out but no it is not acceptable. 

 

They are Bad News. Nobody wants this sort of scum around. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

With reference to the NHS fund raising - every single penny of the £39,000,000 raise DID go to the NHS.

 

The 'questions being asked' relate soley to the 'Foundation' set up to continue the good work and charity giving.

 

They had 'free holidays' provided by British Airways and several other 'personal perks'.

[magnetman]

Like I said the old git was probably alright. Its just a shame he didn't manage to educate his offspring to be reasonable people. Maybe it was a school thing. It does happen.

 

[Mike Todd]

50 minutes ago, Alan de Enfield said:

 

 

Did you see the programme last night ?

 

When Cpt. Tom wrote his memoirs the advertising blurb said the profits from the book would go into the charitable foundation in his name, when the book was published the preface in the book said the profits from the book would go into the charitable foundation in his name, In actual fact, the £800,000+ raised from the book sales went directly into the 'families' bank account for their personal use.

 

She is a 'scoundrel' at best.

You might well say that but it is perhaps best to await the outcome of the Charity Commission investigation into whether there was any 'wrong doing'.

[Arthur Marshall]

20 minutes ago, Alan de Enfield said:

 

 

 

With reference to the NHS fund raising - every single penny of the £39,000,000 raise DID go to the NHS.

 

The 'questions being asked' relate soley to the 'Foundation' set up to continue the good work and charity giving.

 

They had 'free holidays' provided by British Airways and several other 'personal perks'.

Well, not exactly to the NHS itself, but to "NHS Charities Together", which is a charity that, rather like fleas and littler fleas, supports other charities that in turn support the NHS - each one, no doubt , with suitably grateful highly paid executives. None of it went, as most contributors would have naively expected, purely and simply to the NHS itself or to its staff.