Boating petition

[David Schweizer]

I'm getting a bit shaky on my history here but it was not long after families started living on boats that people on the land started to object and the registration numbers started. Perhaps it will turn out we still need registration numbers to live on our boats (what was it called? someone did ring me up out the blue once to tell me all the numbers for my boats but I'm afraid my mind glazed over)

Its not that shaky, basicly what you have said is correct.

 

However it was not really "people" who started to object, but one particular Reverend Gentleman (who's name escapes me) It offended his Victorian sense of propriety for so many children to occupy the same sleeping space as their parents. Consequently he lobbied Parliament for years to introduce legislation empowering Local Authorities to register Boat Cabins as living space with restrictions on the number of children permitted.

 

The registation number preceeded by "Registered at **** " which was painted onto the cabin sides of old working boats refers to this act. As far as I am aware the Act has never been repealed, although it has not been used for many years. So in a nutshell dormant legislation may already exist, albeit designed for a totally different purpose.

Edited January 17, 2008 by David Schweizer

[Sir Nibble]

I think you are right, that some of the arguments have got a bit inflated, but as for a lot of people it is recent history, i can understand why they would feel their lifestyle threatened and insert those comments into the debate.

 

But I agree with you, the distance between most of our viewpoints is encouragingly small.

 

I notice you point out several times that having signed up to something you should stick to it. But it is difficult, the scenario; licence renewal comes in, the choice - sign what you might not agree to or don't apply for a licence. It is a bit like saying 'agree with me or I'll hit you' most of us just say 'yes' because it is expedient.

It is a bit like saying 'agree with me or I'll hit you'

Can't agree, I think it is more like "You want to buy from me, here are my terms and conditions, accept them or no sale"

How about this forums rules and guidelines, you accept them, then start breaking them 'cos you don't agree and had your fingers crossed behind your back. Along comes a mod and slaps a suspension on you. Who is being unreasonable?

In an ideal world there would be moorings for all who want them, but this is not the case, so going CCing instead is fair enough up to a point so long as the boater understands that they are being norty and is sensibly discrete, moving around in a way that at least shows willing. Those who never move, and certainly those on visitor moorings should get "We cut you some slack and you took the piss, get off the water".

What I have said all along is that we do not want over enforcement but a relaxed balance between enforcement and a free for all, I just feel that having got to a point where some people feel confident enough to live on a visitor mooring in clear and obvious contempt of the rules (and the rights of others) the balance has tipped too far and needs to be re-established.

 

Edited to say, it would appear from some of the reactions that I come over as far too draconian. For the record, I voted for the third option on both of the questions in the poll above.

Edited January 17, 2008 by snibble

[Chris Pink]

Can't agree, I think it is more like "You want to buy from me, here are my terms and conditions, accept them or no sale"

 

I would agree with you if it were not for the fact that BW do not the canals or the rights to use them, we do.

 

If a marina said the same thing then no argument, agree with the t and c or go eleswhere. Although the right to navigate has disappeared our right to use the canals has not and BW's t and c s have to, in my opinion, fall within the law.

 

An example i used recently; if we accept BWs right to impose the conditions, what is to stop them charging for the use of busy locks? or putting a barrier across the Llangollen for instance and charging £50 to go through it.

 

btw i as one of the more 'liberal' voices here voted 2nd choice on the 2nd question, no argument; more boat, more money.

 

You apart, a lot of the supporters of the motion here argue from a place of (substantial) wealth. This is morally wrong in my opinion and I understand why people feel threatened by their expression of 'i have a mooring so you should pay more too'.

 

Interestingly we have no contributions from anyone who weekends on their boat and uses the same bit of towpath as a mooring during the week.

Edited January 17, 2008 by Chris Pink

[fender]

canals weren't built as a recreational facility

 

The Grand Junction Canal Company did indeed think of a substantial use as a recreational facility and its Paddington Arm was originally planned with, erm what shall I call it... the country's very first 'marina' in the 1790's

 

(when any brickbats have finished being thrown my way I'll post a jpeg of the original recreational plans)

 

of course people have lived on them from the start which is a different thing anyway

Edited January 17, 2008 by fender

[Sir Nibble]

I would agree with you if it were not for the fact that BW do not the canals or the rights to use them, we do.

 

If a marina said the same thing then no argument, agree with the t and c or go eleswhere. Although the right to navigate has disappeared our right to use the canals has not and BW's t and c s have to, in my opinion, fall within the law.

 

An example i used recently; if we accept BWs right to impose the conditions, what is to stop them charging for the use of busy locks? or putting a barrier across the Llangollen for instance and charging £50 to go through it.

 

btw i as one of the more 'liberal' voices here voted 2nd choice on the 2nd question, no argument; more boat, more money.

 

You apart, a lot of the supporters of the motion here argue from a place of (substantial) wealth. This is morally wrong in my opinion and I understand why people feel threatened by their expression of 'i have a mooring so you should pay more too'.

 

Interestingly we have no contributions from anyone who weekends on their boat and uses the same bit of towpath as a mooring during the week.

If a marina said the same thing then no argument, agree with the t and c or go eleswhere. Although the right to navigate has disappeared our right to use the canals has not and BW's t and c s have to, in my opinion, fall within the law.

I was under the impression that BW's rules were backed by the law.

You apart, a lot of the supporters of the motion here argue from a place of (substantial) wealth. This is morally wrong in my opinion and I understand why people feel threatened by their expression of 'i have a mooring so you should pay more too'.

Again, any argument on the side of (and I do not mean to imply that you are) folk who sign an agreement and then flout it should avoid the word "moral" Also, if I were rich as Midas my views would not change and I hope that wealth would not invalidate a well articulated argument.

Interestingly we have no contributions from anyone who weekends on their boat and uses the same bit of towpath as a mooring during the week.

Perhaps there are non on the forum, or there are and they realise that it is indefensible.

You apart, a lot of the supporters of the motion

Sorry? what motion am I supporting? I am trying to advocate a reasonable middle way.

[tomsk]

I was under the impression that BW's rules were backed by the law.

Again, any argument on the side of (and I do not mean to imply that you are) folk who sign an agreement and then flout it should avoid the word "moral" Also, if I were rich as Midas my views would not change and I hope that wealth would not invalidate a well articulated argument. Perhaps there are non on the forum, or there are and they realise that it is indefensible.Sorry? what motion am I supporting? I am trying to advocate a reasonable middle way.

 

Snibble, an advocate of The Third Way!! The Womble prepares a massive chillum mix and settles in for the long haul.

[Chris Pink]

I was under the impression that BW's rules were backed by the law.

It would be nice if they were but I for one do not believe that all their terms and conditions fall within the Waterways Act. David Schweiser (gosh i hope I spelt his name right) has details of a NABO ruling about unfair contract practice. I am in the process of preparing a case for the Waterways Ombudswoman not entirely un-related.

 

Though i do believe the point you make about 'pretend CC' does fall within the act, again we are back at the lax enforcement place

Also, if I were rich as Midas my views would not change and I hope that wealth would not invalidate a well articulated argument.

No, but if you were very poor they might.

 

And an argument can be, and frequently is, well articulated and wrong.

 

And no, again I apologise, you did say you weren't a supporter of the petition.

[Sir Nibble]

Snibble, an advocate of The Third Way!! The Womble prepares a massive chillum mix and settles in for the long haul.

That's A third way, not THE third way. Your preparation is however well advised.

[Maffi]

However most of the latest set of funding cuts are as a result of incompetence in paying EU farm subsidies at DEFRA, and I fail to see why cc-ers should be forced to pay for that simply because APCO (*spit*) have decided they don't like cc-ers.

 

And this ladies and gents is the question that needs to be asked. Who was responsible and were they fired?

Edited January 17, 2008 by Maffi

[Sylver Lining]

The issue is simply to stop people claiming a spot of towpath, or even occasionally a visitor mooring as home.

Thats not THE issue. Thats YOUR issue.

I thought it was about charging CCers more money. Which on its own won't solve YOUR issue. It will just force some people out of their homes into government funded homes. Won't nessacerily remove the boats annoying you though.

[Hobbler]

According to figures 300,000,000 (thats 300 million) visits were made to the canals last year.

 

Of the 29,000 boats on the canal 15,000 are lived on permanently, probably only 10% of those are CCers.

 

Why are 1,500 boaters being looked at to pay the shortfall for a system used by 300 million visitors.

Source of figures in bold Church Times

 

 

The figure of 15000 liveaboards seems to have come from the Residential Boat Owners Web site information for prospective newcomers . The figure does not actually refer to canals but to all waters including coastal.

The last time I spoke to craft licencing about continuous cruising (admittedly a while ago) I was told there were less than 800 bonefide continuous cruisers on Bw canals and rivers.

[CanalWalker]

I dont see why braod barges should pay more, maybe narrow boats should pay more for wasting water on broad canals? Maybe they could be banned form broad canals...though they used to pay half the toll so maybe they should pay half the fee?

[Sir Nibble]

Thats not THE issue. Thats YOUR issue.

I thought it was about charging CCers more money. Which on its own won't solve YOUR issue. It will just force some people out of their homes into government funded homes. Won't nessacerily remove the boats annoying you though.

I'm sorry, I extrapolated from what I read to conclude that that was ACPO's issue, and the idea of charging more was to disincentivise the pretend CCer. I could be wrong of course, I often am, but it seems a reasonable working hypothesis.

If it should come about that BW do choose to charge CCers for a mooring they don't have mind, it will be my fault won't it, not the nice people who have every right to live on a 24 hour mooring. It will have nothing to do with fraudulently making a declaration with no intention of keeping to it, after all that's not dishonest or anything is it. Even if it were it's ok if they didn't really mean it. No, it will be Snibbles fault, the malicious bastard.

Silence me! Shoot me down in flames! punch my face in! It still won't alter the fact that some people abuse the system cynically and with total disregard for anyone elses right of access to shared facilities, they are dishonest cheats who are only able to do what they do by means of deliberate barefaced lies calculated to obtain services by deception. But that is ok, what is really beyond the pale is not liking it, if I had a shiny new boat then that would make it a hanging offence!

It will just force some people out of their homes into government funded homes

Only if it can be proven in court that they are frauds, and you have to really really push it to get that far, in which case, GOOD!

This was turning into a nice reasoned debate with all sides gently moving towards a consensus. Can't be arsed now, think I'll volunteer as a warden and spend my time gathering evidence to make people homeless, have their kids taken into care and their dogs destroyed; and bill them for it.

[Tomska]

No, it will be Snibbles fault, the malicious bastard.

Silence me! Shoot me down in flames! punch my face in! It still won't alter the fact that some people abuse the system cynically and with total disregard for anyone elses right of access to shared facilities, they are dishonest cheats who are only able to do what they do by means of deliberate barefaced lies calculated to obtain services by deception. But that is ok, what is really beyond the pale is not liking it, if I had a shiny new boat then that would make it a hanging offence!

 

Heh. Good rant. Not at all, ahem, hysterical...

 

 

(Edited to add - thats hysterical as in hysteria, not as in funny)

Edited January 17, 2008 by Tomska

[Sir Nibble]

Heh. Good rant. Not at all, ahem, hysterical...

 

 

(Edited to add - thats hysterical as in hysteria, not as in funny)

Yes it was hysterical

As I said, this was turning into a nice reasoned debate with all sides gently moving towards a consensus, then BINGO! hostility mode on. I've never in my life reported a car as untaxed, but can I not as a taxpaying citizen be concerned if untaxed cars appear to be everywhere? This is the same thing, the problem is me, if I would just shut up then there would be no problem. Shoot the messenger.

 

Oh yea,

It will just force some people out of their homes into government funded homes

Wrong, anyone made homeless as a result of a section 8 would be considered as "Intentionally homeless" under the 1994 housing act the same as anyone evicted for non payment of rent, as such they would not be a priority for social housing and would join the waiting list. Edited January 17, 2008 by snibble

[tomsk]

The Womble chugs down a huge lungful and nods sagely.

[Nige G]

Another piece of fiction!

There are certain marinas and boat clubs that have thir own water supply where what you say is true. However they are very few in number ( less than 10 I believe) most marinas have it in the connection agreement with BW that all boats in the marina are licenced.

 

Its not the same on the Thames where if you do not use your boat on the river you dont have to licence it.

 

It has been estimated that there are 5000 boats that are on the fringes of BW water who have never had a licence but this IS speculation.

 

Julian

 

 

Well it may well be in the connection agreement but my eyes and the reality tell me different.

 

I've looked at over a hundred boats for sale in marinas all over the country and dozens of them have expired licences on them.

[Malarky]

It may not seem so to you, bit I'm sure it seems relevant to anyone who was forced off the roads in the late eighties and early nineties only to find 20 years later that there appears to be a movement underway to force them off the cut.

 

I enjoyed the comeradery inspired by "Thatcher" in those days, but now we have an organised group of ex police and their contacts forcing us off the road and the canals, mainly because they want the "tow path telegraph" in the case of the canal, and any property we aquire for storage in the case of the vehicles. As far as housing is concerned, land owners who work who don't have property that is accomodation, well were not entitled to anything except what we know. And all this residential mooring that B.W.B. have claimed, is abuse of their permissory access. Hence why they resort to attacking people, theft, and slander to get it. We cannot have reasonable debate over mooring issues while B.W.B. are involved, they are criminals.

Get experience, get learning, B.W.B. need to be replaced.

[tired old pirate]

Oh yea, Wrong, anyone made homeless as a result of a section 8 would be considered as "Intentionally homeless" under the 1994 housing act the same as anyone evicted for non payment of rent, as such they would not be a priority for social housing and would join the waiting list.

Small point, a section 8 would only apply to termination of an assured shorthold tenancy, a family made homeless by affordability issues would most likely be deemed to be in priority need, descision would depend on multiple factors, is complex and would be decided on individual merits. They would be placed in temporary accomodation whilst the case was decided. Used to be my job to make those decisions. Priority would be dependant on family status and vulnerability . Families and individuals who loose accomodation thru affordability (ie mortgage repossesions) are usually picked up and rehoused. Intentionality is a very complex area.

The Womble chugs down a huge lungful and nods sagely.

I love you. Please breathe my way after that

 

edited to say drugs are v bad and naughty

Edited January 17, 2008 by tired old pirate

[tired old pirate]

Whats the end result of all this discussion then? has this thread been printed and sent to BW to join the ACPOO one?

[NB Alnwick]

Whats the end result of all this discussion then? has this thread been printed and sent to BW to join the ACPOO one?

 

Well, from this point of view, all three threads have been extremely enlightening. It just goes to show that, although we all enjoy our life on the canals, we are not all the same - just as well really . . .

[sueb]

Well it may well be in the connection agreement but my eyes and the reality tell me different.

 

I've looked at over a hundred boats for sale in marinas all over the country and dozens of them have expired licences on them.

That means they are not displaying licences, not that they haven't got one. If you live miles away you may not get to the boat very often.

Sue who was in this position when daughter broke her leg.

[Chris Pink]

pssssst.... Dicky Barton here, extra-special agent in training.

 

I have decided to investigate (in ad-hoc fashion) Snibble's assertion about 'abandoned' moored boats in this area.

 

Watch this space.

 

A preliminary shufty at the length Bradford Lock to Smelly Bridge reveals 2 such 'abandoned' boats, both look like they belong to people with a bob or two (if you really tell) one is new. These are both not on visitor moorings.

 

There are a fair number of liveaboards on the visitor moorings but as BW has let them as winter moorings it is not clear whether they overstay or pay. And Caen Hill is closed to March so i would expect lax interpretation of the rules until then.

 

By 'abandoned' i mean not liveaboards but those (to my mind) stupid people who leave several £1,000s of their possessions in the middle of nowhere.

 

BTW if they are listening there was an attempted break-in at Ben's boatyard day before yesterday so there are low-lifes on the prowl.

 

And section 8 can be applied to licenced craft too.

[GUMPY]

There are a fair number of liveaboards on the visitor moorings but as BW has let them as winter moorings it is not clear whether they overstay or pay. And Caen Hill is closed to March so i would expect lax interpretation of the rules until then.

 

If they have a BW winter mooring then they should be displaying a mooring permit dated 03/08.

[Chris Pink]

If they have a BW winter mooring then they should be displaying a mooring permit dated 03/08.

 

Really? Gosh, never knew that.

 

I would still be cautious (as i was) before making assumptions.