Canal boaters like me face an existential crisis

[Tonka]

34 minutes ago, Steve Bassplayer said:

If they can claim benefits for the moorings then it wouldn’t cost them anything. 

But it's the principal. As has been mentioned on here before. The NBTA grew up after squatting was made illegal. So they moved from living free in other people's houses and think it's their right for them to live free on a boat. If the people in law had of been tough on them at the start we wouldn't be where we are today. Kingston on Thames being a good example .they should of moved the boats on when they started but they left them. Then gave them moorings in town and moved the visitor moorings out of town to both sides upstream of the main road bridge.

[Steve Bassplayer]

45 minutes ago, Tonka said:

But it's the principal. As has been mentioned on here before. The NBTA grew up after squatting was made illegal. So they moved from living free in other people's houses and think it's their right for them to live free on a boat. If the people in law had of been tough on them at the start we wouldn't be where we are today. Kingston on Thames being a good example .they should have suppose moved the boats on when they started but they left them. Then gave them moorings in town and moved the visitor moorings out of town to both sides upstream of the main road bridge.

I suppose it depends on what our principles are.

 

I don’t think many agree that people should be homeless. Is it right to have thousands of properties owned by property investors, vacant, when others are homeless? Especially as by investing in additional properties they are just making financial profit.
 

Not only that, so many properties are owned by foreign investors, some who I doubt care about our social system. That may be part of the reason house prices are out of reach for those on a low income.

 

The real problem is P taking. The few letting down the majority. Sadly that happens at all levels of society. It’s a very fine balance. 

 

 

 

 

 

[Alan de Enfield]

9 minutes ago, Steve Bassplayer said:

I don’t think many agree that people should be homeless.

 

And that's a principal going back to Victorian times - maybe we should re-introduce the "Workhouse", where the poor can live, work and earn a copper or two.

[LadyG]

2 hours ago, Lady M said:

Except that it is possible to claim benefits to cover mooring fees.

Isn't it possible to claim benefits when buying a house?

A house is still a better long term investment 

 

Edited March 26 by LadyG

[Arthur Marshall]

8 minutes ago, Alan de Enfield said:

 

And that's a principal going back to Victorian times - maybe we should re-introduce the "Workhouse", where the poor can live, work and earn a copper or two.

We already have. That's why they changed squatting to a criminal rather than a civil offence. They're called prisons.

[mrsmelly]

2 hours ago, Lady M said:

Perhaps they aren't 'poor enough' to qualify for benefits.

Lock em all up 😜 

The vagrancy act 1824 section 4 makes it illegal to sleep rough and has not yet been fully repealed lol. 

[Mike Todd]

8 hours ago, LadyG said:

I would have thought that they dont need a special licence, just set up more moorings, im not sure if this would be economic, obviously there is a set up cost and they lose the cc surcharge, but there must be a sweet point.

In many urban areas, providing more moorings would be expensive as most of the accessible towpath is already occupied. Any new mooring woud entail expensive works such as signage, dredging and mooring rings, let alone luxuries such as water and refuse. Those costs would take a long time to yield a positive return, more so if they are rented out at a discount 

5 hours ago, mrsmelly said:

Lock em all up 😜 

The vagrancy act 1824 section 4 makes it illegal to sleep rough and has not yet been fully repealed lol. 

I suspect that the cost of locking up, indefinitely?, would be more than the benefits. If it really were a runner for bost saving, I suspect the last government would have tried it long ago. Look at what has happened with small boat arrivals . . .

[Arthur Marshall]

5 minutes ago, Mike Todd said:

In many urban areas, providing more moorings would be expensive as most of the accessible towpath is already occupied. Any new mooring woud entail expensive works such as signage, dredging and mooring rings, let alone luxuries such as water and refuse. Those costs would take a long time to yield a positive return, more so if they are rented out at a discount 

I suspect that the cost of locking up, indefinitely?, would be more than the benefits. If it really were a runner for bost saving, I suspect the last government would have tried it long ago. Look at what has happened with small boat arrivals . . .

New signage doesn't seem to be a problem for CRT , dredging wouldn't be necessary because, as you point out, the boats are already there. And there's no need to provide water and refuse facilities, these must be reasonably accessible already because... the boats are already there.

As it costs over fifty grand a year to keep someone in prison, I think locking people up for breaking boating rules is a bit excessive. Be cheaper to buy them a house. Actually, that might be the solution to a lot of petty crime!

And mass small boat arrivals were a logical result of the Brexit vote and the hugely welcomed cancellation of British-European agreements, so, democratically speaking, we have no right to complain about them. Certainly, no-one who voted leave can; after all, ignorance is no excuse. And the solution to that problem is therefore obvious, too.

 

[Alan de Enfield]

22 minutes ago, Mike Todd said:

Look at what has happened with small boat arrivals . . .

 

They should have learned from Australia!

[Wafi]

Looks like there's masses of room for expansion at Gallions Point Marina, probably enough to accommodate the London liveaboard fleet several times over. The boats are already used to rafting up, which should cut down on expenditure for new pontoons. No dredging required. Excellent transport links into Central London, what's not to like?

[Steve Bassplayer]

5 minutes ago, Arthur Marshall said:

New signage doesn't seem to be a problem for CRT , dredging wouldn't be necessary because, as you point out, the boats are already there. And there's no need to provide water and refuse facilities, these must be reasonably accessible already because... the boats are already there.

 

Thanks Arthur, you said exactly what I was going to say. Especially the bit about the boats already being there…well some (most?)…to be fair, I’ve not been down there for a while….

 

As for the small boat arrivals. They must be pretty desperate to put their lives at risk. Maybe we’d do the same if we were that desperate (and a lot younger)? 
 

Much cosier for some of us sitting in an armchair judging desperate people I guess….  🙄