Novara Media Report on C&RT.

[David Mack]

Working boatmen lived aboard as part of their job. Very few of the current liveaboards need to do so for their employment.

[magnetman]

9 hours ago, Momac said:

Surely people have lived aboard boats on the canals from the early days of the canals. The change of the canal management to a company that happens to be a charity only occurred relatively recently (C&RT was created in 2012)  I think this may be  significant as the act of living on a boat on the canals has never been challenged for so long it may establish a right to live aboard . 

If C&RT wanted to assert a right to prohibit long term living aboard  boats it should have done so when it was created .

 

I don't think the CRT want to "assert a right to prohibit long term living aboard  boats" but the concern was raised in the report that offering something which people are very likely to use as cheap housing ( a licence with a very relaxing movement requirement) could potentially be dodgy in terms of the private benefit in charity law.

 

The point is that -most- people are inherently settled. Whatever the NBTA use in their nomenclature most of their members are not ethnic travellers. Yes some are but most of them will be people who have discovered how cheap living in the waterways is fairly recently.  There is no long term lifestyle under threat just a cheap housing option.

 

This is where the problem is. If the movement requirements were harder to comply with and enforcement was "do it or we will remove the Boat with reasonable force" at the same time as regional licence fee uplifts it would reduce the problem of too many people in certain areas. 

 

It's not living aboard which is the problem as such it is the lack of movement over a wide are. 

 

I am sure someone has done computer modeling and the machine spat out a prediction that canals will be gridlocked with occupied dwellings within x years

 

It seems plausible that if the CRT as Navigation Authority want more public money from DEFRA they will have to do something about making the amenity value better. 

 

Yes people like seeing boats particularly if they're moving but I very much doubt many people like seeing slums with piles of old crap, gas bottles and sheets of ply on the public footpaths.

 

If it was put to a plebiscite nobody would vote for the slums. 

 

It's undesirable. I actually quite like slums and traveler camps personally but generally society did not tolerate these.

 

 

 

 

 

Edited December 16, 2025 by magnetman

[IanD]

2 minutes ago, magnetman said:

I don't think the CRT want to "assert a right to prohibit long term living aboard  boats" but the curb was raised in the report that offering something which people are very likely to use as cheap housing ( a licence with a very relaxing movement requirement) could potentially be dodgy in terms of the private benefit law.

 

The point is that -most- people are inherently settled. Whatever the NBTA use in their nomenclature most of their members are not ethnic travellers. Yes some are but most of them will be people who have discovered how cheap living in the waterways is fairly recently. 

 

This is where the problem is. If the movement requirements were harder to comply with and enforcement was "do it or we will remove the Boat with reasonable force" at the same time as regional licence fee uplifts it would reduce the problem of too many people in certain areas. 

 

It's not living aboard which is the problem as such it is the lack of movement over a wide are. 

 

I am sure someone has computer modeling and the machine spat out a prediction that canals will be gridlocked with occupied dwellings.

 

It seems plausible that it the CRT as Navigation Authority want more public money from DEFRA they will have to do something about making the amenity value better. 

 

Yes people like seeing boats particularly if they're moving but I very much doubt many people like seeing slums with piles of old crap, gas bottles and sheets of ply on the public footpaths.

 

If it was put to a plebiscite or a referendum nobody would vote for the slums. 

 

 

The problem with a referendum is that people have an unfortunate tendency to vote for something that appeals to their emotions but turns out to be a bad idea in reality which doesn't do what they wanted, because this was never possible. One recent example springs to mind... 😞 

 

Which is why we have elected governments, the idea being that they wouldn't do anything so stupid because they understand the real issues and facts instead of just appealing to populist instincts. Though it has to be said that this hasn't been going so well in recent years either... 😉 

[magnetman]

Indeed. I always ask "if they can have a Brexit plebiscite why can they not have a death penalty plebiscite?"

 

People who don't think much should not be allowed to make this sort of decision which in both cases has or would have severe outcomes which they do not understand.

 

[Ronaldo47]

1 hour ago, Momac said:

That's still going back 150 years or more 

My comment adressed the statement

 

 "Surely people have lived aboard boats on the canals from the early days of the canals. " 

 

Living aboard with your family came in the later days of canals.

Edited December 16, 2025 by Ronaldo47

[robtheplod]

On 12/12/2025 at 08:09, 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!

Interesting read... i need to buy old boats, do up and sell in London...

[MtB]

On 16/12/2025 at 10:32, magnetman said:

Indeed. I always ask "if they can have a Brexit plebiscite why can they not have a death penalty plebiscite?"

 

People who don't think much should not be allowed to make this sort of decision which in both cases has or would have severe outcomes which they do not understand.

 

 

 

The scariest thing about letting the plebs have a vote is 50% of them are of below average intelligence. 

 

 

 

 

 

(As, arguably, we saw in the last general election.) 

 

 

 

 

 

((Actually, in the last two general elections.))

 

 

[Peanut]

9 hours ago, MtB said:

The scariest thing about letting the plebs have a vote is 50% of them are of below average intelligence.

(As, arguably, we saw in the last general election.)

Arguably, 50% of the others also have below average intelligence.

[Tonka]

9 hours ago, MtB said:

 

 

The scariest thing about letting the plebs have a vote is 50% of them are of below average intelligence. 

 

 

 

 

 

(As, arguably, we saw in the last general election.) 

 

 

 

 

 

((Actually, in the last two general elections.))

 

 

But you are gauging them against yourself.

[beerbeerbeerbeerbeer]

 

11 hours ago, MtB said:

 

 

The scariest thing about letting the plebs have a vote is 50% of them are of below average intelligence. 

 

 

 

 

 

(As, arguably, we saw in the last general election.) 

 

 

 

 

 

((Actually, in the last two general elections.))

 

 

I think the correct statement/fact is 50% of the Population is below average intelligence.

 

which would mean the above post regarding plebs is a distorted figure to achieve …🤷‍♀️ what?

 

 

 

[IanD]

21 hours ago, beerbeerbeerbeerbeer said:

I think the correct statement/fact is 50% of the Population is below average intelligence.

 

which would mean the above post regarding plebs is a distorted figure to achieve …🤷‍♀️ what?

 

Though if "average" is the mean (figure normally used), none of the above statements are true anyway... 😉

[MtB]

38 minutes ago, IanD said:

Though if "average" is the mean (figure normally used), none of the above statements are true anyway... 😉

 

I've muddied the waters by using the term "average". 

 

I should have said almost half the population has an IQ of less than 100. 

 

Less scope for the pedants to quibble, there.

 

 

[IanD]

1 hour ago, MtB said:

 

I've muddied the waters by using the term "average". 

 

I should have said almost half the population has an IQ of less than 100. 

 

Less scope for the pedants to quibble, there.

 

 

Though that's not really true either, since "IQ=100" doesn't track differences in intelligence across countries with things like education levels -- for example, the average IQ in Hong Kong is 106... 😉

 

And even without this "IQ=100" is the mean, not the median -- which *would* mean half score less than 100... 🙂

 

(because IQ distribution is close to Gaussian, but not exactly...)

Edited December 22, 2025 by IanD

[beerbeerbeerbeerbeer]

6 hours ago, MtB said:

 

I've muddied the waters by using the term "average". 

 

I should have said almost half the population has an IQ of less than 100. 

 

Less scope for the pedants to quibble, there.

 

 

no you muddled the water by using the derogatory term “pleb”,

you need to say what you mean by pleb and how much of the population you deem to be plebs?

 

 

 

 

[magnetman]

11 minutes ago, beerbeerbeerbeerbeer said:

no you muddled the water by using the derogatory term “pleb”,

you need to say what you mean by pleb and how much of the population you deem to be plebs?

 

 

 

 

It was I who first used this word. It is not in fact derogatory. It is factual. 

 

plebeian

/plĭ-bē′ən/

adjective

1. Of or relating to the common people of ancient Rome.
   a plebeian magistrate.
2. Of, belonging to, or characteristic of commoners.
3. Unrefined or coarse in nature or manner; common or vulgar.
   plebeian tastes.

 

 

 

There are an awful lot of them which is why the correct word for 'referendum' is 'plebiscite' (from the Latin verb 'scio' "I know" via a slightly tortuous route).

 

 

 

 

I don't think there is a recognised number but it's going to be well over 90 percent. I would say probably around 98.7% or 99.7%

 

 

 

 

 

 

It is the coarseness of nature and manner which explains why such people should never be given the choices which occasionally get thrown their way by the low people who creep into positions of power from time to time. 

 

[beerbeerbeerbeerbeer]

4 minutes ago, magnetman said:

It was I who first used this word. It is not in fact derogatory. It is factual. 

 

plebeian

/plĭ-bē′ən/

adjective

1. Of or relating to the common people of ancient Rome.
   a plebeian magistrate.
2. Of, belonging to, or characteristic of commoners.
3. Unrefined or coarse in nature or manner; common or vulgar.
   plebeian tastes.

 

 

 

There are an awful lot of them which is why the correct word for 'referendum' is 'plebiscite' (from the Latin verb 'scio' "I know" via a slightly tortuous route).

 

 

 

 

I don't think there is a recognised number but it's going to be well over 90 percent. I would say probably around 98.7% or 99.7%

 

 

 

 

 

I think anyone calling someone a pleb deserves a punch in the ear,

of course it’s derogatory in a modern day context,

 

 

 

(but I would have guessed 80%)

[magnetman]

34 minutes ago, beerbeerbeerbeerbeer said:

I think anyone calling someone a pleb deserves a punch in the ear,

of course it’s derogatory in a modern day context,

 

 

 

(but I would have guessed 80%)

I have never called anyone a pleb. I was referring to "them".

 

 

 

 

I admit my children do often quietly describe other people as 'too plebby' when speaking to me but they are guarded in the use of such language as I have always advised caution in this area. 

 

 

Edited December 22, 2025 by magnetman

[Arthur Marshall]

9 hours ago, MtB said:

 

I've muddied the waters by using the term "average". 

 

I should have said almost half the population has an IQ of less than 100. 

 

Less scope for the pedants to quibble, there.

 

 

I think it is generally accepted now that IQ tests are so culturally biased that they are essentially rubbish, and have about as much relationship to actual intelligence as AI does. The only way an IQ test can measure intelligence is if you define intelligence as what you measure with an IQ test, which is a bit dodgy.

[Tonka]

2 hours ago, beerbeerbeerbeerbeer said:

no you muddled the water by using the derogatory term “pleb”,

you need to say what you mean by pleb and how much of the population you deem to be plebs?

 

 

 

 

What he actually meant was anyone who disagreed with how he voted for Brexit

[MtB]

1 hour ago, Arthur Marshall said:

I think it is generally accepted now that IQ tests are so culturally biased that they are essentially rubbish, and have about as much relationship to actual intelligence as AI does. The only way an IQ test can measure intelligence is if you define intelligence as what you measure with an IQ test, which is a bit dodgy.

 

It's mostly people with an IQ higher than 100 who think this.

 

Erm.....