Novara Media Report on C&RT.

[lampini]

https://novaramedia.com/2025/12/11/the-uks-waterways-are-run-by-property-developers/

 

Opinions? I thought it was pretty good but then I'm a lefty!

[IanD]

2 minutes ago, lampini said:

https://novaramedia.com/2025/12/11/the-uks-waterways-are-run-by-property-developers/

 

Opinions? I thought it was pretty good but then I'm a lefty!

It reflects the views of the NBTA very well... 😉

[Tonka]

27 minutes ago, IanD said:

It reflects the views of the NBTA very well... 😉

I agree, the parasitic scum probably paid for it to be written

[magnetman]

"For this, the council (CRT) can prevent you from living in your home, even if you own it..."

 

 

It's no good comparing Boats with houses. There is a reason why residential moorings cost thousands of pounds a year. Even on a residential mooring there is no security of tenure. 

 

For a start there is a byelaw (not enforced but it does exist) saying you must have express permission to use a Boat as a dwelling.

 

Where does it say in the statute that anyone has a right to be living moored against towpaths in the first place? Does this right actually exist? 

 

The land is owned and managed by the navigation authority. They are the body in charge of what happens on their land. 

Deal With It.

Someone may own their Boat as a chattel but that does not come with a right to keep it anywhere in particular. 

I'm sure people are not really so thick that they don't understand this.

 

You don't get security of tenure living on a Boat. It doesn't happen. That is partly why it is so cheap. If you can't deal with the basic insecure lifestyle then leave the domain (polite version) as you do not belong there.

 

 

 

 

CANALS NOT POLITICS. GO AWAY.

 

 

"Despite determining the fates of roughly 10,000 people living aboard boats, there is denial within the CRT about its relationship to boaters. Some of its output suggests the trust sees the boaters as a nuisance rather than its responsibility, stating that itinerant boaters “created challenges” from an “operational, financial and reputational perspective”

 

It is expensive to handle people living on the land owned by the navigation authority. Interferes with the amenity value and use of the waterways and adds an unnecessary cost burden. The operational efficiency and the best move is to get rid of these people. Yesterday. Beginning with the belligerent ones whose only aim is to bring politics and anti-authority views into the domain. These are not needed because without them there is not a problem.

 

There never actually was a problem until all the squatters turned up and started shouting about it and having babies. 

Edited December 12, 2025 by magnetman
Typos

[Alan de Enfield]

 

Certainly written by the NBTA - but - you cannot disagree with much of the comment 'as being valid', the problem is that there is no explanation of the background or reasons behind the decisions or actions.

 

eg :

 

1) where is the explanation that Ward was extracting the urine for more than 10 years before the final action was taken.

 

The same report acknowledges that while the trust cannot “disregard the needs of those living on boats on its waterways”, it “is not and should not be a housing charity, nor a statutory housing provider”.

 

2) it is not explained that C&RT do not have the legal powers to define what movement is required for CCers, and when they have tried, NABTA have taken legal advice and pointed out to C&RT that they cannot do anything not specifically granted to them by law. 

 

3) no mention of C&RTs amending the travel distance rules to accomodate familes with school age children.

 

4) it is not C&RTs fault (or problem) that many boaters are disabled and/or living in poverty - the laws still apply, and, as C&RT pointed out in the article the Government will pay for many of the boating costs (licence, moorings etc) for those in need. If boaters decide to spend their 'licence / moorings' money elsewhere then they must accept the consequences.

 

“Boaters are often on the fringes of society,” itinerant boater Christina Hemsley told Novara Media, and the CRT’s boater surveys support her: according to the trust’s 2023 data, 27% of live-aboard boater households earn below £20,000 (the national median is £36,700). In 2023, Wiltshire council found that 29% of local continuous cruiser boaters had gone hungry due to poverty. Another council found similarly.

33% of boaters are disabled"

 

In a statement to Novara Media, the CRT pointed out that its welfare team “help [boaters] access the support that is available – including Universal Credit and benefits that will cover the cost of the boat licence … We also provide equality adjustments and support for boaters who have shorter-term difficulties.”

 

 

[Arthur Marshall]

6 minutes ago, Alan de Enfield said:

 

Certainly written by the NBTA - but - you cannot disagree with much of the comment 'as being valid', the problem is that there is no explanation of the background or reasons behind the decisions or actions.

 

eg :

 

1) where is the explanation that Ward was extracting the urine for more than 10 years before the final action was taken.

 

The same report acknowledges that while the trust cannot “disregard the needs of those living on boats on its waterways”, it “is not and should not be a housing charity, nor a statutory housing provider”.

 

2) it is not explained that C&RT do not have the legal powers to define what movement is required for CCers, and when they have tried, NABTA have taken legal advice and pointed out to C&RT that they cannot do anything not specifically granted to them by law. 

 

3) no mention of C&RTs amending the travel distance rules to accomodate familes with school age children.

 

4) it is not C&RTs fault (or problem) that many boaters are disabled and/or living in poverty - the laws still apply, and, as C&RT pointed out in the article the Government will pay for many of the boating costs (licence, moorings etc) for those in need. If boaters decide to spend their 'licence / moorings' money elsewhere then they must accept the consequences.

 

“Boaters are often on the fringes of society,” itinerant boater Christina Hemsley told Novara Media, and the CRT’s boater surveys support her: according to the trust’s 2023 data, 27% of live-aboard boater households earn below £20,000 (the national median is £36,700). In 2023, Wiltshire council found that 29% of local continuous cruiser boaters had gone hungry due to poverty. Another council found similarly.

33% of boaters are disabled"

 

In a statement to Novara Media, the CRT pointed out that its welfare team “help [boaters] access the support that is available – including Universal Credit and benefits that will cover the cost of the boat licence … We also provide equality adjustments and support for boaters who have shorter-term difficulties.”

 

 

Not necessarily by the NBTA, but the author's bio gives a  clue to his general angle:

"Interested in radical ideas and projects to empower the dispossessed, and to dispossess those who concentrate the people's power for themselves. In our radically unequal and unjust age, only truly radical projects for equality and justice can triumph. Stick around for more, and connect to work together. Forever on the side of the down-trodden, solidarity always!"

Edited December 12, 2025 by Arthur Marshall

[magnetman]

So what has happened here is that people have turned up on the canals specifically with the intention of becoming a 'down-trodden' group and getting into a political movement.

 

I would bet good money that plenty of these so-called downtrodden own property and rent it out while living cheaply on the water and claiming poverty. The point being that if licence costs are squeezed they may have to sell the Boat and go back to the apartment and lose the rental income. 

 

This is not a poverty story. 

 

It's fashionable and edgy to live "on the cut" and it is a convenient alternative to squatting.

 

It explains why there is not much engagement in the theme of getting the licence paid by the state. UC housing element -does- pay for licence and/or mooring but only if you can demonstrate eligibility. 

 

There are a lot of rich younger people on the water and a political bias. If you double the licence fee these people will not suddenly be homeless. This is not the situation on canals. They may need to reassess their property ownership elsewhere but all that would mean is that the CRT would be subsiding private gain which is illegal under charity law.

 

This is precisely why certain groups can push the boundaries. The fact remains that if it does become more arduous they have other options available.

 

Some people don't.

 

 

 

 

Edited December 12, 2025 by magnetman

[cheesegas]

3 hours ago, Alan de Enfield said:

Certainly written by the NBTA - but - you cannot disagree with much of the comment 'as being valid', the problem is that there is no explanation of the background or reasons behind the decisions or actions.

I am by no means a fan of the NBTA, but I am somehow a member of one of their WhatsApp groups - I'm frankly surprised they haven't given me the boot yet though, as I keep on questioning them!

 

Anyway, I can categorically say this was not written by the NBTA at all. Someone posted a link in the group a few hours after Novara put it up, and the NBTA admins were - as you can imagine - pleasantly surprised by it. 

[magnetman]

11 minutes ago, cheesegas said:

 

Anyway, I can categorically say this was not written by the NBTA at all.  

That's interesting. 

 

"Cameron Baillie is editor of New Sociological Perspectives and The Student Intifada and a translator for The Orinoco Tribune. He co-authored Stop The Surcharge"

 

It seems to be related and the NBTA is used in a very colloquial way so it's not surprising some people think it's from them. 

 

 

 

 

What the heck has a 'Sthdent Intifada' got to do with the inland waterways?

People seem to be jumping onto the canals as some terribly unjust persecution system. It was all going perfectly nicely why do people complain about it ? Idiots. 

Edited December 12, 2025 by magnetman

[Arthur Marshall]

I've just had a look at the "Stop the Surcharge" report. No attempt made at any balanced analysis, just cherrypicked data and any legal issues ignored. Journalism worthy of the Daily Mail, in fact, which is probably where he'll end up. There's very little difference between the far left and the far right, both see themselves as special cases worth special consideration and stuff everyone else.

[beerbeerbeerbeerbeer]

3 hours ago, cheesegas said:

Anyway, I can categorically say this was not written by the NBTA at all. Someone posted a link in the group a few hours after Novara put it up, and the NBTA admins were - as you can imagine - pleasantly surprised by it. 

I think it’s a good article, an interesting read perhaps not written by NBTA but does include interviews with at least two members of the NBTA

 

I’ve always struggled with the idea that CRT is my landlord,

can anyone offer a reason why CrT could be seen as landlords?

 

and there’s a blatant conflict of interest with Stuart Mills appointment, ain’t there?

 

 

[Arthur Marshall]

8 minutes ago, beerbeerbeerbeerbeer said:

I think it’s a good article, an interesting read perhaps not written by NBTA but does include interviews with at least two members of the NBTA

 

I’ve always struggled with the idea that CRT is my landlord,

can anyone offer a reason why CrT could be seen as landlords?

 

and there’s a blatant conflict of interest with Stuart Mills appointment, ain’t there?

 

 

Without casting nasturtiums on anyone in particular, the thought that there might be a vague whiff of corruption around anyone involved in major property dealings does not bring me out in a fit of the vapours and find me reeling round the room in a state of shock...

 

I am sure everything is perfectly fine and above board, and that Mr Mills deserves to be very rich and getting richer.

[Alan de Enfield]

29 minutes ago, beerbeerbeerbeerbeer said:

can anyone offer a reason why CrT could be seen as landlords?

 

 

 

landlord noun [C] (OWNER)

Add to word list 

B2

a person or organization that owns a building or an area of land and is paid by other people for the use of it:

 

 

Who is considered a landlord?

A landlord is the owner of a house, apartment, condominium, land, or real estate which is rented or leased to an individual or business, who is called a tenant (also a lessee or renter).

A landlord is not necessarily the property owner. The owner of a rental property can be involved in every aspect of the rental process, or he can give someone else the power to act in his stead.

Edited December 12, 2025 by Alan de Enfield

[magnetman]

42 minutes ago, beerbeerbeerbeerbeer said:

 

can anyone offer a reason why CrT could be seen as landlords?

 

 

Landlord: 

a person who rents out land, a building, or accommodation.

 

 

I think what is going on is that people are attempting to categorise a canal licence as rent for use of land. To be fair the DwP do pay for the licence including a 'no dedicated mooring' licence under the UC housing allowance.

 

So, bearing mind a canal is land with water artificially placed on top of it then technically in the scenario where someone lives on the vessel, which is currently tolerated, the CRT are a landlord who rents out land. 

 

What the NBTA are basically doing, and I have argued this since 2012 on this forum, is effectively helping the CRT to gain permission via law to make living on canals much more difficult. 

 

. 

Does anyone really think in the bigger picture and discussions with DEFRA that the 'liveavoard gits' will be endowed with some sort of special status?

 

Really? It seems a lot more likely to me that this group will be sidelined and subjected to more control and arduous requirements. I suppose this would have happened anyway in  time even if the NBTA had not been running around with protest banners. What they have done has made it more visible however. 

 

 

 

At the end of the day if the aim is genuinely to house people cheaply in small steel boxes then use government land and build container villages. That would be massively better than using the tiny little thread of land which forms the inland waterways. No conflicts with amenity value or leisure interests, more convenient services, no enforcement on moving around because you can live there and claim from the state if you can demonstrate poverty. 

 

It makes no sense whatsoever to use the canals to solve this problem. It's nonsense. 

 

 

Edited December 12, 2025 by magnetman
Auto incorrect

[beerbeerbeerbeerbeer]

2 minutes ago, magnetman said:

What the NBTA are basically doing, and I have argued this since 2012 on this forum, is effectively helping the CRT to gain permission via law to make living on canals much more difficult. 

yes, your argument hasn’t passed me by,

and I’m partly in agreement. 
 

5 minutes ago, magnetman said:

So, bearing mind a canal is land with water artificially placed on top of it then technically in the scenario where someone lives on the vessel, which is currently tolerated, the CRT are a landlord who rents out land. 

because I own my vessel,

and have sole responsibility for my abode I’ve never really considered myself to be beholden to a landlord in the traditional sense,

 

I feel I simply pay a sum of money to transit/navigate the water way. 
 

maybe I need to broaden my understanding of ‘Landlord’ or Lord of the Land 

[ditchcrawler]

17 minutes ago, magnetman said:

 

Landlord: 

a person who rents out land, a building, or accommodation.

 

 

I think what is going on is that people are attempting to categorise a canal licence as rent for use of land. To be fair the DwP do pay for the licence including a 'no dedicated mooring' licence under the UC housing allowance.

 

So, bearing mind a canal is land with water artificially placed on top of it then technically in the scenario where someone lives on the vessel, which is currently tolerated, the CRT are a landlord who rents out land. 

 

What the NBTA are basically doing, and I have argued this since 2012 on this forum, is effectively helping the CRT to gain permission via law to make living on canals much more difficult. 

 

. 

Does anyone really think in the bigger picture and discussions with DEFRA that the 'liveavoard gits' will be endowed with some sort of special status?

 

Really? It seems a lot more likely to me that this group will be sidelined and subjected to more control and arduous requirements. I suppose this would have happened anyway in  time even if the NBTA had not been running around with protest banners. What they have done has made it more visible however. 

 

 

 

At the end of the day if the aim is genuinely to house people cheaply in small steel boxes then use government land and build container villages. That would be massively better than using the tiny little thread of land which forms the inland waterways. No conflicts with amenity value or leisure interests, more convenient services, no enforcement on moving around because you can live there and claim from the state if you can demonstrate poverty. 

 

It makes no sense whatsoever to use the canals to solve this problem. It's nonsense. 

 

 

What about Van Dwellers who pay road fund licence

[magnetman]

4 minutes ago, ditchcrawler said:

What about Van Dwellers who pay road fund licence

I think there are laws in place which make it illegal to live in vehicles on public land. 

It's an interesting point. It seems that Boats and vans are different. Technically it is legal to live in vehicles but this is subject to lousy authority byelaws. I suppose that's a bit like the CRT byelaw which says no vessel is to be used as a dwelling without consent of the Board/Trust. Someone spotted this a long time ago. 

[beerbeerbeerbeerbeer]

20 minutes ago, magnetman said:

I think there are laws in place which make it illegal to live in vehicles on public land. 

It's an interesting point. It seems that Boats and vans are different. Technically it is legal to live in vehicles but this is subject to lousy authority byelaws. I suppose that's a bit like the CRT byelaw which says no vessel is to be used as a dwelling without consent of the Board/Trust. Someone spotted this a long time ago. 

and the laws (I believe) are making it harder and tougher for van lifers,

but when you read of Bristol I wonder if it’s so 🤷‍♀️

59 minutes ago, magnetman said:

At the end of the day if the aim is genuinely to house people cheaply in small steel boxes then use government land and build container villages. That would be massively better than using the tiny little thread of land which forms the inland waterways. No conflicts with amenity value or leisure interests, more convenient services, no enforcement on moving around because you can live there and claim from the state if you can demonstrate poverty. 

 

It makes no sense whatsoever to use the canals to solve this problem. It's nonsense. 

 

but there is no Governmental (or CRT)aim to house people cheaply which is why some are turning to the waterways as their means to an end. 
 

 

[magnetman]

42 minutes ago, beerbeerbeerbeerbeer said:

but there is no Governmental (or CRT)aim to house people cheaply which is why some are turning to the waterways as their means to an end. 

 

The new CRT geyser with his name the wrong way around is a social housing guy. There is another one if these involved as well. 

 

Whether that is a positive or a negative to be seen. 

 

My suspicion is that if the CRT are advised that people living on the towpath should be claiming benefits rather than complaining about regional or increased fees they might find that very few of these so called poor people are eligible for benefits. 

 

That's how I can see it going. 

 

One a theory but it seems obvious something is going to change quite soon. 

 

At the end of the day if you are saying you cannot afford housing then you will have recourse to state funds. If you live in London UC will pay £12k a year for you housing costs. This includes living on the canal. But you do have to be eligible not someone fraudulently claiming poverty

[matty40s]

3 hours ago, magnetman said:

I think there are laws in place which make it illegal to live in vehicles on public land. 

It's an interesting point. It seems that Boats and vans are different. Technically it is legal to live in vehicles but this is subject to lousy authority byelaws. I suppose that's a bit like the CRT byelaw which says no vessel is to be used as a dwelling without consent of the Board/Trust. Someone spotted this a long time ago. 

There has in the last 2 years been a Transitvanhome living in a lay by off the A5 near the Crick DIRFT. It hasnt moved, has a solar panel inside the front windscreen and has two wheels on the lay by verge.

He/they have obviously been living nearby to save money and with a 4 minute walk home and no enforcement...why not. 

 

3 weeks ago on a Saturday night, 2 racers in high powered cars were racing on the A5...the stretch by the lay by is straight for 1/4 mile both sides...however, the rope range black  AMG Merc and Porsche met, with the Merc in the ditch backwards and the Porsche without a front end having hit the Transitcamper at serious speed, pushing it 20 yards and caving in the back end...

I came past 20 min after it happened...the police were there,,camper front doors open and ambulance waiting.

The cars were removed next day, no idea what happened to the resident ( who may have been asleep) but the van is still there now.

There is no enforcement of living in vans at present unless they are causing a nuisance.

 

 

[Arthur Marshall]

5 hours ago, magnetman said:

I think there are laws in place which make it illegal to live in vehicles on public land. 

It's an interesting point. It seems that Boats and vans are different. Technically it is legal to live in vehicles but this is subject to lousy authority byelaws. I suppose that's a bit like the CRT byelaw which says no vessel is to be used as a dwelling without consent of the Board/Trust. Someone spotted this a long time ago. 

Laws are irrelevant if they are unenforced, unenforceable or ignored. Whether something is legal or illegal doesn't make it morally right or wrong, nor does it make a law's application sensible. In discussing any course of action, or somebody else's actions, behaviour or situation, it's best to leave  the law out if it as far as possible. Then you have a chance of reaching a rational solution to whatever problem you are looking at.

When you've achieved this, that's when it's time to draft your law. Otherwise, you're just applying prejudice.

[Peanut]

21 hours ago, magnetman said:

At the end of the day if the aim is genuinely to house people cheaply in small steel boxes then use government land and build container villages. That would be massively better than using the tiny little thread of land which forms the inland waterways. No conflicts with amenity value or leisure interests, more convenient services, no enforcement on moving around because you can live there and claim from the state if you can demonstrate poverty. 

 

It makes no sense whatsoever to use the canals to solve this problem. It's nonsense. 

 

 

Of course, if you provide genuinely afordable housing, you have to consider what that might that do to housing and land values.

Those renting out housing at unafordable  rates, subsidised by social payments, supporting buy to let, make me rich, mortgages. Those speculating on land, hoping to make a kiling from a developer.

It will never be allowed to happen, landlords, found in government, and also on here, developers, and the strugglers and strivers, with large mortgages, doing the right thing, would all hate it if affordable housing was available, and the bottom of the market collapsed. Then there are those who like now, who can pay, but don't, who would fiddle the sysyem. No chance, even under Labour.

[Arthur Marshall]

35 minutes ago, Peanut said:

Of course, if you provide genuinely afordable housing, you have to consider what that might that do to housing and land values.

Those renting out housing at unafordable  rates, subsidised by social payments, supporting buy to let, make me rich, mortgages. Those speculating on land, hoping to make a kiling from a developer.

It will never be allowed to happen, landlords, found in government, and also on here, developers, and the strugglers and strivers, with large mortgages, doing the right thing, would all hate it if affordable housing was available, and the bottom of the market collapsed. Then there are those who like now, who can pay, but don't, who would fiddle the sysyem. No chance, even under Labour.

Of course the real solution would be to scrap housing benefit in all its forms, as I'm sure the free marketeers would agree. There might be a bit of turmoil to start with and a riot or two, with a few streets of buy to let houses and empty tower blocks going up in flames, plus a few dead dossers on the streets, but that's a small price to pay. Rents would automatically drop to something sensible, though a few landlords might have to go and get a proper job. Logically, too, unearned income (both dividends and rents) would then be taxed entirely at the higher rates so that genuinely productive people doing necessary jobs could have their taxes cut. A win all round.

[ditchcrawler]

I had never heard of Novara Media so let Google be my friend 

 

 

Novara Media is an independent, non-profit, left-wing UK media organization, co-founded in 2011 by Aaron Bastani and James Butler, known for its socialist political commentary,

[Peanut]

Arthur, you are so hartless. 😉