1 hour ago, junior said:

Live and let live. 

 

Everyone has to be somewhere.

Squatting on water points or lock landings?

If someone is incapable of 'boating' (cruising) why not just insist they take a (paid for) mooring

Currently, it appears as if C&RT are just providing 'free of charge' moorings.

2 hours ago, cuthound said:

The point of my original post is that CRT are a navigation authority and if someone has a specific disability that severely restricts or precludes them from boating, then canal life is not for them

CRT are not a navigation authority. They run a big leisure park, which includes a linear boating lake with considerable residential properties on it.

3 hours ago, cuthound said:

Living adjacent to the canal as well as being a boater I see plenty of examples of near misses,

I fully agree that canals and rivers have an intrinsic danger, and any action with boats (moving them, hopping on and off them) increases that danger.

 

The tales on this other thread show that even 'temporary disability' 🍻 can cause a life-threatening dunking.

1 hour ago, Llamedos said:

After seeing what happened to the chap I pulled out of our Marina, I think I agree with you. Apparently he falls in regularly - he’s one of those people who’s naturally clumsy. Probably should be nowhere near a boat at all, but clearly, falling in hasn’t put him off!

 

 

3 hours ago, cuthound said:

so perhaps a licence for skippers would be a good thing.

 

The thin wedge you are inviting is a separate licence for the skipper. The residents of a static CC boat, who you seek to protect against their own will or financial limits, don't even appear in that equation!

 

If a licence for skippers were required then most likely I would not have got interested in narrowboats, as I would have been too young when we took our family holidays on them.

'Licences for skippers' is a tool to speed up the decline of the waterways; after which, what is the role of CaRT anyway? You think those turkeys will vote for Christmas?

 

 

3 hours ago, cuthound said:

The point of my original post is that CRT are a navigation authority and if someone has a specific disability that severely restricts or precludes them from boating, then canal life is not for them.

 

Taken to its logical conclusion too many permanently moored boaters will prevent the canals from being used for navigation.

 

I'm back to somewhat agreeing, but the tool available to CaRT (by statutory um statue) is a boat licence. It is the wrong tool for the job of protecting adults from their poor lifestyle choices.

 

 

2 hours ago, David Mack said:

But CRT does not have the legal power to refuse a licence on the inability of the boater to actually boat. So they have to issue the licence (if the other criteria are met), and are then legally obliged to make reasonable adjustments for the boater's disability.

 

I've spoken to a Grandad whose poor health cause him to accept that his last minutes will probably be in the cold water. He is perfectly lucid and capable of making that choice, so I leave that with his family. Should somebody go and drag him away from his boat and his family, and then stump up the cost of finding him a brickboat to live in?

 

The rest of the family is perfectly capable of skippering. If the immobile CCs would bring some crew from their extended family just once a fortnight, then yellow loitering badges would not be justifiable.

 

IMO many of these problems arise from trying to use a hammer to drive woodscrews. It can be done, with some awkwardness, until you try it with metal.

 

ETA: that CaRT are "then legally obliged" seems to be part of the problem. Is this another situation where some lawyers have made a decision or followed an ideology or won a landmark case, which then puts apparent duties on CaRT that eventually turn out to be unreasonable?

Edited April 16Apr 16 by wakey_wake
+ 'legally obliged'

20 hours ago, Rob-M said:

One that has been at Kings Bromley for about 5 years in the same spot has his yellow badge, must check the expiry date next time I'm passing.

 

If it has occupied that spot for the length of time you say surely CRT should obtain planning consent for such use.

18 hours ago, plato said:

There’s more and more boats with these stickers. 
They’re called window lickers licences round here. 
I know of boats who are gaming the system. 
Playing the mental health card is a winner. 

 

Quote

 

Be kind, for everyone you meet is fighting a harder battle.

 

 

2 hours ago, Alan de Enfield said:

If someone is incapable of 'boating' (cruising) why not just insist they take a (paid for) mooring

Currently, it appears as if C&RT are just providing 'free of charge' moorings.

That is the logic for the No Home Mooring Surcharge which, in five years, will make it almost the same cost.

Edited April 16Apr 16 by Mike Todd

40 minutes ago, Mike Todd said:

That is the logic for the No Home Mooring Surcharge which, in five years, will make it almost the same cost.

 

That may be the logic but not under the same 'rules'

 

"No home mooring" boats are required to move in accordance with the rules, "Yellow Badge" boaters would appear to pay neither the increased "CC" licence fee, or a mooring fee, or, even have to move.

1 hour ago, Mike Todd said:

That is the logic for the No Home Mooring Surcharge which, in five years, will make it almost the same cost.

Really? my licence is about £1100. My mooring (cheap online farm) costs about £1400. I suspect CCing will still be considerably cheaper than that combination in five years.

 

28 minutes ago, Alan de Enfield said:

 

That may be the logic but not under the same 'rules'

 

"No home mooring" boats are required to move in accordance with the rules, "Yellow Badge" boaters would appear to pay neither the increased "CC" licence fee, or a mooring fee, or, even have to move.

Surely a yellow badge boater is classed as a "non home moorer" and so is liable for

the surcharge?

Edited April 16Apr 16 by Arthur Marshall

4 hours ago, Alan de Enfield said:

If someone is incapable of 'boating' (cruising) why not just insist they take a (paid for) mooring

Currently, it appears as if C&RT are just providing 'free of charge' moorings.

I took the boat into a marina when I was very ill. Luckily I was in a position to afford it, as I suspect you could if you had decided to go CC’ing and gone through the same suffering.

 

I like, many others on the cut, chose this lifestyle because we’d had enough of the mainstream bull later in life. Having spent 14 years living mainly on the cut I’ve chatted with boaters who are going through massive struggles health wise (some mentally, which is why they chose this lifestyle). Some served our country and protected people like you, Mtb and others who continually like to have a pop at CC’ers.
 

I can honestly say I’ve not met any liveaboard in our age group who are deliberately taking the piss. Not many in younger age groups either, they are just trying to survive.

 

 

 

7 hours ago, junior said:

Live and let live. 

 

Everyone has to be somewhere.

Not at the expense of others enjoyment of the waterways. 

28 minutes ago, Steve Bassplayer said:

I can honestly say I’ve not met any liveaboard in our age group who are deliberately taking the piss. Not many in younger age groups either, they are just trying to survive.

 

In exactly the same way as a house squatter is, but it doesn't stop it being first illegal and secondly a possible problem for whoever actually owns the property,

The laws and the rules are there for a purpose, which in our case is to try to keep the waterways functioning, and that can't be done without the majority of people both paying their way and following the rules they sign up to. Any system can cope with a few freeloaders, and it should be able to cope with those temporarily struggling.  But "I've got to live somewhere, and I want to live here for free" isn't an argument acceptable to any landlord, especially when support is available - mooring fees and licences can, as we know, be paid by benefits. It is, in fact, deliberately taking the piss, it's just that some people think there is a justification for doing so. In some circumstances, they may be right.

In my personal view, I have a lot less sympathy with those who just park their boat up for weeks at a time while living elsewhere, claiming to CC while doing nothing of the sort in any real sense, than I do for those liveaboards who want to stay around an area where they have friends, relations or medical support but have no chance of getting a mooring they can legally live on.  But it's still a fact that boats are designed to move about, not sit in one place for months at a time while claiming to be cruising.

On 15/04/2026 at 17:27, Rob-M said:

One that has been at Kings Bromley for about 5 years in the same spot has his yellow badge, must check the expiry date next time I'm passing.

Is that the boat that got chucked out of the marina opposite?

7 hours ago, David Mack said:

But CRT does not have the legal power to refuse a licence on the inability of the boater to actually boat. So they have to issue the licence (if the other criteria are met), and are then legally obliged to make reasonable adjustments for the boater's disability.

 

It is rumoured that the recent consultation will result in CRT seeking changes to the legislation applicable to them.

16 minutes ago, J R ALSOP said:

Is that the boat that got chucked out of the marina opposite?

I don't know, they spent quite a bit of time above Shade House lock before moving to their current spot.

On 15/04/2026 at 18:46, wakey_wake said:

A literal answer to your rhetorical question: what worries me is what society is doing to people.

 

In what sense? I don't really understand what you mean.

Various conversations with half a dozen 'boaters' who haven't moved from their spots in over a year has led me to strongly believe CRT doesn't have the will to enforce. I'd imagine because of the problems with money and the press...

 

They've all openly told me (and shown me the letters) that they can play the mental health card and avoid any real sanctions. 

 

Hell, one boat is using their mother's health conditions to stay out. She doesn't even live on the boat! They just use her medical info to remain on a visitor mooring.

59 minutes ago, Unicorn Stampede said:

Various conversations with half a dozen 'boaters' who haven't moved from their spots in over a year has led me to strongly believe CRT doesn't have the will to enforce. I'd imagine because of the problems with money and the press...

 

They've all openly told me (and shown me the letters) that they can play the mental health card and avoid any real sanctions. 

 

Hell, one boat is using their mother's health conditions to stay out. She doesn't even live on the boat! They just use her medical info to remain on a visitor mooring.

 

Apparently, in the last 18 months an additional 1.6 million have been added onto the number receiving universal credit.

Some 46% of the total are not required to 'prepare for work',  'look for work, or, actually do any work.

Edited April 16Apr 16 by Alan de Enfield

23 minutes ago, blackrose said:

In what sense? I don't really understand what you mean.

 

You asked

On 15/04/2026 at 17:25, blackrose said:

Why worry about what others are doing unless they're obstructing you, [...]

which I took to mean "don't worry about it", which is a fair starting position; the converse is to busybody, perhaps to the extent that even CaRT has to say "keep your nose out, it's confidential to the licencee".

 

I would characterise that worry as coming from a position of "the yellow badge p!sstaker is stealing something I paid for".

 

I'm trying to present a converse concern, whereby "what we collectively pay for, which is then shared out by people we don't vote for, can have the effect of easing vulnerable people into a state of dependence from which they cannot easily escape".

 

A possible answer to "why worry about it?" from the perspective of caring for them, rather than myself.

 

 

1 hour ago, frangar said:

9 hours ago, junior said:

Everyone has to be somewhere.

Not at the expense of others enjoyment of the waterways. 

These are both polarising views. I believe society has polarised too strongly, and it is more constructive to look for the grey area.
Wings make little sense to me but when I look them up it seems we have... left wing "to each according to his need, and everyone needs a place to live" // right wing "that belongs to me, you can't use it without paying".

 

They are extremes. Going too far right ends up with yer missus deciding to protest your indifference by riding her horse through Coventry without her clothes. Going too far left causes everyone to give up work and be a slacker. (and history shows us, ideologies such as these cause much much worse on both sides)

 

1 hour ago, Arthur Marshall said:

that can't be done without the majority of people both paying their way and following the rules they sign up to. Any system can cope with a few freeloaders, and it should be able to cope with those temporarily struggling.

 

Here's another perspective: CaRT is failing to exercise diligent hygiene practises, and consequently is harbouring parasites. "Gosh it's not very nice to call those people parasites", well maybe that's true and maybe it's relevant, but this 👇 is close enough to draw the analogy and think on what happens to creatures in that position.

42 minutes ago, Unicorn Stampede said:

[...] believe CRT doesn't have the will to enforce. [ yellow p!sstakers ] openly told me [...]  they can play the mental health card and avoid any real sanctions.

 

5 hours ago, Alan de Enfield said:

 

That may be the logic but not under the same 'rules'

 

"No home mooring" boats are required to move in accordance with the rules, "Yellow Badge" boaters would appear to pay neither the increased "CC" licence fee, or a mooring fee, or, even have to move.

There may well people claiming that but I seriously doubt it is an official agreement. A yellow card does not exempt from any other than compliance with movement rules and will include some measure of movement. Should not be confused with a boater who negotiates an overstay for specific,  often health, reasons.

 

AIUI any boater staying in the same place indefinitely, other than on an agreed mooring, us at risk of enforcement including losing their boat, just whenever someone gives CRT enough funds to pursue every defaulter.

 

Just because CRT does not have  the money to pursue every defaulter in no way legitimises such action.

 

.

46 minutes ago, Alan de Enfield said:

Apparently, in the last 18 months an additional 1.6 million have been added onto the number receiving universal credit.

Some 46% of the total are not required to 'prepare for work',  'look for work, or, actually do any work.

I suspect that is something else entirely, although it's possible that the ethos trickling down to CaRT management.

(I've seen the ideological trickle-down effect and it's as ugly as the pure ideology)

 

That looks like WP: Cloward–Piven strategy and I believe we would discuss it in the vpub.

3 hours ago, Arthur Marshall said:

In exactly the same way as a house squatter is, but it doesn't stop it being first illegal and secondly a possible problem for whoever actually owns the property,

The laws and the rules are there for a purpose, which in our case is to try to keep the waterways functioning, and that can't be done without the majority of people both paying their way and following the rules they sign up to. Any system can cope with a few freeloaders, and it should be able to cope with those temporarily struggling.  But "I've got to live somewhere, and I want to live here for free" isn't an argument acceptable to any landlord, especially when support is available - mooring fees and licences can, as we know, be paid by benefits. It is, in fact, deliberately taking the piss, it's just that some people think there is a justification for doing so. In some circumstances, they may be right.

In my personal view, I have a lot less sympathy with those who just park their boat up for weeks at a time while living elsewhere, claiming to CC while doing nothing of the sort in any real sense, than I do for those liveaboards who want to stay around an area where they have friends, relations or medical support but have no chance of getting a mooring they can legally live on.  But it's still a fact that boats are designed to move about, not sit in one place for months at a time while claiming to be cruising.

Depends which way you look at it. It could be argued that those who buy properties purely for financial gain and leave the property vacant, are taking the piss out of those in our society who are homeless. Perhaps the law should address that better? Do you know how many properties are vacant in this country? 
 

As for ‘dumpers’, yes I agree that can be annoying, but we all have to leave our boat from time to time. CC’ing doesn’t mean you are inside the boat 24/7. 

 

As for ‘paying your way’ in society. As I said, some of these people have already paid their way by risking their lives for the country so others can sit in their armchair judging others. 

 

 

 

11 hours ago, Alan de Enfield said:

 

Apparently, in the last 18 months an additional 1.6 million have been added onto the number receiving universal credit.

Some 46% of the total are not required to 'prepare for work',  'look for work, or, actually do any work.

You've been reading the Mail again. I'm glad you started with "Apparently". 

4 minutes ago, Arthur Marshall said:

You've been reading the Mail again. I'm glad you started with "Apparently". 

 

I'll respond to your accusation, but I'll leave it now as it will be getting 'political' and I have made my point.

 

 

Or you could simply look at the Government website "universal credit statistics" if you want more detail 

 

The figures I quoted are the latest 'provisional' figures, but, are in line with the 2025 figures

 

 

1. Main stories

• there were 7.9 million people on Universal Credit in June 2025, up from 6.8 million people on Universal Credit in June 2024

• of people on Universal Credit in June 2025, 76.4% were from the white ethnic group. The Asian/Asian British ethnicity group accounts for 10.3%. The Black/African/Caribbean/Black British ethnicity group accounts for 6.0%. The Mixed/Multiple Ethnic groups accounts for 2.9%, while the Other ethnic group accounts for 4.4%

• the proportion of people in the ‘no work requirements’ conditionality regime (42%) continues to increase

• In June 2025, 83.6% of people on UC belonged to the immigration status group “CTA – UK, Ireland, Right of Abode”

• In June 2025, 9.7% of people on UC were in the “EU Settlement Scheme” group. 2.7% of people on UC were in the “Indefinite Leave to Remain (not EU Settlement Scheme)” group. 1.5% of people on UC were in the “Refugee” group. 1.0% of people on UC were in the “Limited Leave to Remain (not EU Settlement Scheme) including family reunion” group. 0.7% of people on UC were in the “Humanitarian” group. 0.4% of people on UC were in the “Other” group

 

13 minutes ago, Arthur Marshall said:

You've been reading the Mail again. I'm glad you started with "Apparently". 

To be fair, the Mail has got us out of trouble when we’ve run out of newspaper for the fire….