Live-aboard but no residential moorings.

[carlt]

Any obligation to "do something" would fall on the local council, not BW.

 

If, as you always maintain, BW is a private landowner, then it is merely the Council's responsibility to ensure that the landowner is fulfilling their obligations.

 

If a farmer, for example, has travellers on his land then it is he who is responsible for ensuring their welfare needs are assessed and adressed.

 

A farmer, in South Northants, was prosecuted, by the Local Authority, because he had travellers on his land and didn't follow the correct procedure.

[mayalld]

If, as you always maintain, BW is a private landowner, then it is merely the Council's responsibility to ensure that the landowner is fulfilling their obligations.

 

If a farmer, for example, has travellers on his land then it is he who is responsible for ensuring their welfare needs are assessed and adressed.

 

A farmer, in South Northants, was prosecuted, by the Local Authority, because he had travellers on his land and didn't follow the correct procedure.

 

OK, cite any legislation which might impose an obligation on BW here.

[carlt]

OK, cite any legislation which might impose an obligation on BW here.

Any?

 

Well apart from planning infringements (which is the council's first port of call) the Human Rights Act 1998 springs to mind.

 

It will be interesting to see if, in order to move anyone on (after the appropriate welfare assessments have been made) BW will have to use the Civil Procedure Rules 1998, rather than the BWA 1995.

 

The Acts involved in the licensing of caravan sites may need to be readdressed, too.

[mayalld]

Any?

 

Well apart from planning infringements (which is the council's first port of call) the Human Rights Act 1998 springs to mind.

 

It will be interesting to see if, in order to move anyone on (after the appropriate welfare assessments have been made) BW will have to use the Civil Procedure Rules 1998, rather than the BWA 1995.

 

The Acts involved in the licensing of caravan sites may need to be readdressed, too.

 

Was the question too difficult?

 

can you point me at some legislation that makes it BW's responsibility to provide for the needs of travellers?

[carlt]

Was the question too difficult?

 

can you point me at some legislation that makes it BW's responsibility to provide for the needs of travellers?

Your patronising tone has rendered me disinterested in further comment.

[mayalld]

Your patronising tone has rendered me disinterested in further comment.

 

Indeed so.

 

It is, of course convenient that my tone should render you disinterested at a point in time when you don't actually have an answer to the question.

[FrigateCaptain]

Seems to me, that a newbie ask's a simple question and kicks off a riot between people who couldnt agree on the color of shite.

Though as funny as it looks to a outsider or someone who couldnt care less about the topic (me), to some people who might think about asking a simlar novice

query might think twice after reading though all of this.

 

I do have to say mind, I moor on the "shelf" when i can, not a lot of others about. Its nice

[carlt]

Indeed so.

 

It is, of course convenient that my tone should render you disinterested at a point in time when you don't actually have an answer to the question.

Dave, I spent 5 years working for the County Council helping to establish policy concerning travellers.

 

Personally I, and my colleagues, felt it entirely inappropriate that we (in highway maintenance) should get lumbered with a task that seemed more suited to Social Services or Education but, like most things I've had to do, despite my misgivings, I made sure I did it well.

 

It really depends how the legislation changes to include boat dwellers with caravan dwellers under the same umbrella but rest assured BW, as a public body, will most definitely not miss out.

 

I have plenty of answers, theories and opinions, on the question, but I don't need some desk jockey, who has read a bit but got zero practical experience, telling me I don't know a subject I have had direct influence on, in my professional life.

 

If you read my previous comments, on this thread there is nothing confrontational, in my posts, and your comments were uncalled for.

Edited February 1, 2010 by carlt

[mayalld]

Dave, I spent 5 years working for the County Council helping to establish policy concerning travellers.

 

Personally I, and my colleagues, felt it entirely inappropriate that we (in highway maintenance) should get lumbered with a task that seemed more suited to Social Services or Education but, like most things I've had to do, despite my misgivings, I made sure I did it well.

 

It really depends how the legislation changes to include boat dwellers with caravan dwellers under the same umbrella but rest assured BW, as a public body, will most definitely not miss out.

 

I have plenty of answers, theories and opinions, on the question, but I don't need some desk jockey, who has read a bit but got zero practical experience, telling me I don't know a subject I have had direct influence on, in my professional life.

 

If you read my previous comments, on this thread there is nothing confrontational, in my posts, and your comments were uncalled for.

 

So, on the basis that the highways department of a council got lumbered, you presume that BW will be lumbered.

 

The BW is NOT a department of the council that can have it dumped on them by the council.

 

You may theorise that some change in the law will make BW responsible, but it is just scaremongering to suggest that it will happen without legislation.

 

As for your desk jockey comments, the old "I worked at the next desk to a guy who did this, so I must know more than you" line really doesn't wash.

[carlt]

Snip..............

 

As for your desk jockey comments, the old "I worked at the next desk to a guy who did this, so I must know more than you" line really doesn't wash.

I didn't work next to anyone. I did the job.

 

Sorry Dave but we've had some interesting clashes but you just seem to dole out patronising rubbish, these days, and I'm a bit disappointed you've now started on me.

[mayalld]

I didn't work next to anyone. I did the job.

 

Sorry Dave but we've had some interesting clashes but you just seem to dole out patronising rubbish, these days, and I'm a bit disappointed you've now started on me.

 

You worked in a council department, and that council department was tasked with fulfilling the councils responsibilities.

 

So, you leap from that evidence of how councils delegate responsibility to assuring us that they will dump the responsibility on BW, without apparently being aware of the minor difference that BW isn't a council department, subject to their whims.

 

There isn't one solitary piece of evidence that suggests that BW could become responsible for this problem, but that counts for nothing, because you worked in the field, and you say that they will.

[mikevye]

Yesterdays BW revelation about continual moorers has nothing on todays narrowboatworlds announcment on the K & A about imposing restrictions on the hundreds of genuine CCers who will be forced of their moorings where they have lived for years.

[mayalld]

Yesterdays BW revelation about continual moorers has nothing on todays narrowboatworlds announcment on the K & A about imposing restrictions on the hundreds of genuine CCers who will be forced of their moorings where they have lived for years.

 

[Sir Nibble]

The way I see it, ccers are not going to be interested in being herded into specific areas and treated as a welfare case, and the "non compliants" won't qualify 'cos the last thing they are is travellers, (that would involve travelling) so it's a bit of a non issue.

[mayalld]

The way I see it, ccers are not going to be interested in being herded into specific areas and treated as a welfare case, and the "non compliants" won't qualify 'cos the last thing they are is travellers, (that would involve travelling) so it's a bit of a non issue.

 

Very true.

 

However, that isn't going to stop the apologists for the rule breakers from trying to use it as yet another reason why we should all turn a blind eye.

[Naughty Cal]

Yesterdays BW revelation about continual moorers has nothing on todays narrowboatworlds announcment on the K & A about imposing restrictions on the hundreds of genuine CCers who will be forced of their moorings where they have lived for years.

 

The comments made by the lady in the report say it all

[carlt]

You worked in a council department, and that council department was tasked with fulfilling the councils responsibilities.

 

So, you leap from that evidence of how councils delegate responsibility to assuring us that they will dump the responsibility on BW, without apparently being aware of the minor difference that BW isn't a council department, subject to their whims.

 

There isn't one solitary piece of evidence that suggests that BW could become responsible for this problem, but that counts for nothing, because you worked in the field, and you say that they will.

That's complete rubbish and you've completely missed the point I was making.

 

The council do not delegate responsibility to private landowners because it is not their responsibility to delegate.

 

Local Authorities only deal with travellers on Council owned land and the public highway (with the exception of trunk roads).

 

What happens with privately owned land (and publicly owned land managed by another public body) is that the landowners have the responsibility and the council merely advises and, if the landowner does not fulfill his responsibilities, enforces.

 

I advised the Forestry Comission, BT and Dirft (and BW though they were happy to ignore it, until travellers arrived at the Braunston Tunnel cutting) on procedure and policy and, I expect, that BW will receive the same help and advice if these new proposals become law......but it will be their responsibility.

 

 

As to any attempt to set up ghetto marinas, I imagine BW would want that responsibility, rather than allowing

LAs to tread on their turf.

Edited February 2, 2010 by carlt

[mikevye]

For once I'm in agreement with you and I haven't got a clue what mr House is on about.

 

But a word of advice, give up the scatalogical humour Mikey, you're just not very good at it.

 

Oh good we are on first name terms Crispy I like a bit of male bonding now and again. Strange that you should use a big worm like scatalogical not long after divulging your need to dump 40 kilos of crap and then I found the person responsible and you never even thanked me. Still me and Filis couldn't stop laughing and giggling for days afterwards.

[Chris Pink]

Yesterdays BW revelation about continual moorers has nothing on todays narrowboatworlds announcment on the K & A about imposing restrictions on the hundreds of genuine CCers who will be forced of their moorings where they have lived for years.

 

Would you please explain what you're talking about. I can't make head or tail of this.

 

What 'revelation'? 'forced off their moorings'?

 

Dave's cheer at your statement is probably just sheer joy that he has a camp follower rather than comprehension.

 

Anyone...does anyone know what Mikey Buoy is talking about?

 

or is he talking crap again (if you'll excuse the pun)?

[alan_fincher]

Yesterdays BW revelation about continual moorers has nothing on todays narrowboatworlds announcment on the K & A about imposing restrictions on the hundreds of genuine CCers who will be forced of their moorings where they have lived for years.

From his applause, Dave obviously seems to understand this posting.

 

I may have missed something, but I genuinely don't know what's being implied.

 

It's quite a long sentence to have no punctuation though, so perhaps that's why I have failed to interpret ?

[Naughty Cal]

The new article which has been posted on NBW. The writer has been chatting to CCers on the K&A who are horrified that they now wont be allowed to stay in the same place (unless they pay overstaying charges).

 

Good article and good post from Mike

[mayalld]

Would you please explain what you're talking about. I can't make head or tail of this.

 

What 'revelation'? 'forced off their moorings'?

 

Dave's cheer at your statement is probably just sheer joy that he has a camp follower rather than comprehension.

 

Anyone...does anyone know what Mikey Buoy is talking about?

 

Yes, I understand what he is talking about.

 

The irony was bound to be lost on you Chris.

[carlt]

The new article which has been posted on NBW. The writer has been chatting to CCers on the K&A who are horrified that they now wont be allowed to stay in the same place (unless they pay overstaying charges).

But the issues that are raised (such as education and employment) will have to be addressed, if "boat-dwellers without a permanent mooring with residential planning permission", are to be treated the same as other travellers.

[Sir Nibble]

But the issues that are raised (such as education and employment) will have to be addressed, if "boat-dwellers without a permanent mooring with residential planning permission", are to be treated the same as other travellers.

Well they are currently being addressed on the basis of their being residents. So the only real change is moving them from normal provision to temporary. It may be true that childrens education will be fragmentary and challenging but that is a natural result I would suggest, of a travelling lifestyle.

[mayalld]

But the issues that are raised (such as education and employment) will have to be addressed, if "boat-dwellers without a permanent mooring with residential planning permission", are to be treated the same as other travellers.

 

Not by BW they won't.

 

And you neatly sidestepped the issue, which is that people who claim to be CCers are up in arms because "we like to cruise up and down between Trowbridge and Winsley".