Price rises cause fear of eviction among boaters

[Alan de Enfield]

Just now, Mike Todd said:

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'.

 

 

Did the daughter not admit that 'it was misleading, and they should have been clearer'

 

Putting in print that the money from the book was to go into the 'foundation' but then 'pocketing' it is hardly misleading - is it ?

 

 

 

 

2 minutes ago, Arthur Marshall said:

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.

 

 

The programme did say that 100% of the £39m had reached the NHS.

[Arthur Marshall]

2 minutes ago, Mike Todd said:

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'.

"Why do you distrust estate agents at first sight with no evidence?"

"it saves time". "

Just now, Alan de Enfield said:

 

The programme did say that 100% of the £39m had reached the NHS.

Once you define NHS Charities Together and all their little friends as part of the NHS structure, I'm sure it did . What none of it did was reach the front line, which I suspect is what people wanted. But then, people are easily fooled when they want to be - see all the regular moaning about the CRT not being a real charity because it doesn't behave nicely to people who don't want to pay their way.

[Mike Todd]

19 hours ago, Arthur Marshall said:

"Why do you distrust estate agents at first sight with no evidence?"

"it saves time". "

Once you define NHS Charities Together and all their little friends as part of the NHS structure, I'm sure it did . What none of it did was reach the front line, which I suspect is what people wanted. But then, people are easily fooled when they want to be - see all the regular moaning about the CRT not being a real charity because it doesn't behave nicely to people who don't want to pay their way.

Distrusting inside yourself is one thing, but I was more concerned that no-one infringes the libel laws. (and I realise that nearly everyone seems to think that they do not apply to social media . . .)

[Victor Vectis]

21 hours 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.

FWIW

We though that whole business was dodgy from the off.

20 hours 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.

Yeahbut.....

 

Did any of that cash get into the pockets of the real heroines/heroes of the covid crisis?

I mean the staff on the wards who had to work in full PPE while caring for their patients.

[Arthur Marshall]

7 minutes ago, Victor Vectis said:

FWIW

We though that whole business was dodgy from the off.

Yeahbut.....

 

Did any of that cash get into the pockets of the real heroines/heroes of the covid crisis?

I mean the staff on the wards who had to work in full PPE while caring for their patients.

No.

[mrsmelly]

41 minutes ago, Victor Vectis said:

FWIW

We though that whole business was dodgy from the off.

Yeahbut.....

 

Did any of that cash get into the pockets of the real heroines/heroes of the covid crisis?

I mean the staff on the wards who had to work in full PPE while caring for their patients.

In hard cash terms no cash was paid out but, two of my daughters both got substantial hampers from the money raised and doshed out to NHS staff.

[Arthur Marshall]

27 minutes ago, mrsmelly said:

In hard cash terms no cash was paid out but, two of my daughters both got substantial hampers from the money raised and doshed out to NHS staff.

I'm glad something got filtered through.

[LadyG]

She makes me cringe, her quote about charities being there to help the poor says it all.

The CRT are a registered charitable organisation, which is there to look after navigation.

There are other ways for people who are unable to afford bricks and mortar to find accommodation.

In fact many who own bricks and mortar struggle to live comfortably due to lack of income.

Boaters in need are able to get assistance from various sources. I'm sure she knows all about this. It's not for the CRT to provide cheap housing  for those in need. It may be that they do provide for alternative living, but that is not their raison d'ètre 

 

Edited November 14, 2023 by LadyG

[Victor Vectis]

9 minutes ago, Arthur Marshall said:

I'm glad something got filtered through.

Yes.

[Arthur Marshall]

47 minutes ago, LadyG said:

She makes me cringe, her quote about charities being there to help the poor says it all.

The CRT are a registered charitable organisation, which is there to look after navigation.

There are other ways for people who are unable to afford bricks and mortar to find accommodation.

In fact many who own bricks and mortar struggle to live comfortably due to lack of income.

Boaters in need are able to get assistance from various sources. I'm sure she knows all about this. It's not for the CRT to provide cheap housing  for those in need. It may be that they do provide for alternative living, but that is not their raison d'ètre 

 

It's a deliberate misunderstanding of what a charity is. It's also a known way of trying to win an argument by a statement that you know to be false - does she really think Eton is there to help the poor?

In my experience, it was and still is a lot cheaper to live legally in a boat than in a house - or can be, depending on what extras you want. It does seem that often those claiming to want an alternative lifestyle actually want all the trimmings of a normal one, but for free. Having been more or less alternative for most of my life, it don't work like that!

[magnetman]

When the CRT equivalent of Dr Beeching comes along I reckon the K&A will be up near the top of the List. 

 

Nice enough waterway but at the end of the day there are others a lot nicer which did not suffer closure and rebuilding with too much input from eco worriers. 

 

I hope they don't close it as it will screw the Thames but it seems plausible to me. 

 

Part of the problem is that for the majority it is not part of a 'ring'. Its a dead end. 

 

 

 

[Alan de Enfield]

50 minutes ago, magnetman said:

When the CRT equivalent of Dr Beeching comes along I reckon the K&A will be up near the top of the List. 

 

Nice enough waterway but at the end of the day there are others a lot nicer which did not suffer closure and rebuilding with too much input from eco worriers. 

 

Another reason which would ensure it is "at the top of the list" is that it must have the highest number of 'troublesome' boaters of any waterway.

[David Mack]

1 hour ago, Alan de Enfield said:

 

Another reason which would ensure it is "at the top of the list" is that it must have the highest number of 'troublesome' boaters of any waterway.

Who would surely just move elsewhere on the network if the K&A were no longer available.

[cuthound]

1 hour ago, Alan de Enfield said:

 

Another reason which would ensure it is "at the top of the list" is that it must have the highest number of 'troublesome' boaters of any waterway.

 

Those 'troublesome' boater's would probably appreciate it being filled in. It would remove their two biggest worries:

 

1. Having to move every 2 weeks (or as little as you think you can get away with), and,

 

2. Worrying about the boat sinking.

 

   

 

 

[magnetman]

It would be interesting to see what the protocol is if a canal actually did get declassified and / or closed. 

 

I don't know if it is scaremongering but if it did happen presumably there would be a significant effort to expel boats first. 

 

 

Could be rather complicated. 

[David Mack]

1 minute ago, magnetman said:

 

I don't know if it is scaremongering but if it did happen presumably there would be a significant effort to expel boats first. 

There would be a substantial legal battle first! CRT doesn't have the legal power to permanently close any of its waterways. And any government is going to be extremely unwilling to step in and make the necessary legal changes. So yes its scaremongering. But what we might see is an increasing number of until-further-notice stoppages, as happened with several tunnels in the 1980s.

[Tracy D'arth]

11 minutes ago, magnetman said:

It would be interesting to see what the protocol is if a canal actually did get declassified and / or closed. 

 

I don't know if it is scaremongering but if it did happen presumably there would be a significant effort to expel boats first. 

 

 

Could be rather complicated. 

Why bother? if they want to stay there and live cheap, just block the end so that they cannot get out and forget about them. Freeloaders are everywhere. 

[Machpoint005]

13 hours ago, Tracy D'arth said:

Why bother? if they want to stay there and live cheap, just block the end so that they cannot get out and forget about them. Freeloaders are everywhere. 

 

If you think that's a solution, you know much less than you should about waterways infrastructure.

 

 

[Peanut]

13 hours ago, David Mack said:

But what we might see is an increasing number of until-further-notice stoppages, as happened with several tunnels in the 1980s.

Yippee, we don't have to move, they have blocked us in until further notice.

[Arthur Marshall]

26 minutes ago, Machpoint005 said:

 

If you think that's a solution, you know much less than you should about waterways infrastructure.

 

 

A fair few of those boats would be better off without water under them!

[magnetman]

Was there any more news on the Bridgwater and Taunton canal? I seem to recall the CRT were getting rid of boats because it was not big enough to fulfil the cc requirements. 

 

The K&A is larger but if the CRT become less tolerant and more difficult to satisfy they might up the ante at some stage. 

 

 

 

 

12 minutes ago, Arthur Marshall said:

A fair few of those boats would be better off without water under them!

 

Did the CRT get the other wooden one out or is it still there with the bloke saying 'the wife is not happy about this'. 

 

I'm like 'is she not happy about the CRT S8 process or is she displeased with living in a sinking floating shanty shed ?' man. 

[captain flint]

I think it probably depends a bit from region to region. I don't pretend to know what is "right" here. But speaking as a Londoner who CC's around the South East and has been looking for a mooring for ages, they're really scarce here and when they do come up, incredibly expensive. 3-4K for a leisure mooring is good, and 5-6k far from unheard of, and I'm not talking inside the M25 here (or only just inside if you're talking the GU up watford way). And those are leisure mooring prices! (Most mooring owners and operators - including the CRT - say you should spend enough nights off your boat and then everything else is fine and that they don't really check in any case. So there are plenty of people who, in effect, live on their leisure moorings, while the owners and authorities, in effect, turn a blind eye).  

 

For better or worse, like it or not, in London and the SE living on a boat can represent a more financially achievable way of living. That is not the main reason I chose to live on a boat - it's just something I longed to do ever since boat-sitting for a friend 20+ years ago,  but it is for many.

 

I'm very glad after 5 years CCing (which I have enjoyed) I have (just) got myself a mooring, but there are loads of CCers around London who would struggle to afford one.

CRT is not a housing association of course, and shouldn't be held accountable for housing issues. But, taking a broader perspective, whilst of course boaters in general and CCers in particular represent a tiny proportion of people needing housing in London & SE, it is still a significant number. And I know lots of CCers who have very little money. Without going into whether or not they should have a "right" to this that and the other, the fact is that the housing situation in London is poor. It is conceivable that , in the bigger picture, raising licence fees for CCers might be hitting the hardest off the most, down here in London, and contribute to the housing picture further deteriorating. Hard to say for sure, and this whole debate leaves me scratching my head a bit. But I wouldn't discount that possibility too quickly, and if that is the case, it doesn't seem the smartest from a broader policy perspective. Maybe it's wrong to think in terms of policy, in that CRT is a NGO not a govt department. I don't know. 

I guess it'll be easier to say more as we see how things unfold with the new pricing structures, but I don't find it hard to see why people are making the noises that they are.

[magnetman]

Important to note that IF you live on the boat and IF you can demonstrate impecuniosity the DwP WILL pay your housing costs which includes a mooring and the boat licence. This is a FACT. IF you can not demonstrate impecuniosity then by definition you can afford your own housing costs.

 

If the CRT were to triple the cost of a boat licence then people with no money would get it paid for by the DwP.  It how the system works. They will pay for your housing costs. If on the other hand you are renting your own house out and living on a boat because it is cheap then you can't claim which is entirely reasonable and you should pay your way.

 

People who are too disorganised to get involved in claims for state assistance when they are eligible should not be living on boats in the first place because if that is their true status (no money and no organisational skills) then the boat is going to sink or be taken by the CRT via S8. This type of person should be looked after by the state rather than being the responsibility of the navigation authority.

 

 

[captain flint]

12 minutes ago, magnetman said:

Important to note that IF you live on the boat and IF you can demonstrate impecuniosity the DwP WILL pay your housing costs which includes a mooring and the boat licence. This is a FACT. IF you can not demonstrate impecuniosity then by definition you can afford your own housing costs.

 

If the CRT were to triple the cost of a boat licence then people with no money would get it paid for by the DwP.  It how the system works. 

 

Thanks, I did not know this, makes sense and good to know..

You also said: "People who are too disorganised to get involved in claims for state assistance when they are eligible should not be living on boats in the first [...]. This type of person should be looked after by the state rather than being the responsibility of the navigation authority.

I do not disagree with this but I think I am right in saying that people suffering ADHD do not qualify for disability allowance, so there might be a question mark over whether that actually happens in reality. Really acute sufferers can really struggle, although it may be that the right diagnosis and meds can help them, enough, I don't know

[Barneyp]

31 minutes ago, captain flint said:

I do not disagree with this but I think I am right in saying that people suffering ADHD do not qualify for disability allowance, so there might be a question mark over whether that actually happens in reality. Really acute sufferers can really struggle, although it may be that the right diagnosis and meds can help them, enough, I don't know

People with ADHD can receive disability allowance ( now called PIP - Personal Independence Payment).

The claims are assessed on the symptoms and  effects of the illness/condition/disability that the person has, not on which particular illness/condition/disability they have. If taking medication or other treatment removes all the symptoms and effects they would no longer be able to claim.

 

ADHD is a spectrum, which effects people differently, different symptoms to different degrees in each case. So while some ADHD people can function without support, others will still struggle even with support and medication, it is these people who are entitled to PIP, and at least some of them actually get it.

On 13/11/2023 at 16:15, Arthur Marshall said:

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.

There is a difference between being paid to run a charity, where your wage is set by trustees (who cannot be paid). And setting up your own charity and taking all the money for yourself.