BW vs Davies

[grahoom]

I did get a bit hacked off with the Julia Bradbury programme the other night when she interviewed the liveaboard couple with two young kids permanently moored on the K&A who were waxing eloquent about how they could stay (rent free, natch) right outside the kids' school

 

When did they say they were permanently moored? Not in that interview.

 

here is the link

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b01173hc/Canal_Walks_with_Julia_Bradbury_The_Kennet_and_Avon_Canal/

 

12m 13s. onwards.

Edited May 19, 2011 by grahoom

[Guest]

When did they say they were permanently moored? Not in that interview.

 

here is the link

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b01173hc/Canal_Walks_with_Julia_Bradbury_The_Kennet_and_Avon_Canal/

 

12m 13s. onwards.

 

It doesn't actually say they were but I must admit I did think when I saw that programme they can't be moving very much and/or often-

 

but to be fair to them they may very be keeping within the rules.... it's just our speculation in the end.

[DaveG]

Errr..... So exactly how many different schools are their kids going to, then?

[grahoom]

It doesn't actually say they were but I must admit I did think when I saw that programme they can't be moving very much and/or often-

 

So, you instantly decided to judge them from a tiny interview...

 

Errr..... So exactly how many different schools are their kids going to, then?

 

Re listen to the interview.

[DaveG]

Yes.....so, how many different schools are the kids going to?

[grahoom]

Yes.....so, how many different schools are the kids going to?

 

I don't know, they don't go into details - but they do say that the school run depends on where they moor, and that they share lifts with other boaters who's kids go to school. So I'd say there are not as you put it

 

liveaboard couple with two young kids permanently moored on the K&A

 

Edit

 

actually, I'd neither say much about their mooring status as I don't know anything about them or their cruising habits.

Edited May 19, 2011 by grahoom

[blodger]

It will be in MOST people's best interest though.

 

It's this that I dispute not necessarily the rest of your posting.

 

In my view BW has enough powers without adding to them

[mayalld]

It will be in MOST people's best interest though.

 

It's this that I dispute not necessarily the rest of your posting.

 

In my view BW has enough powers without adding to them

 

 

I would agree that BW has enough powers, based on my view of the powers that they have.

 

If their powers are actually what (say) Chris Pink says they are, they don't.

[Guest]

So, you instantly decided to judge them from a tiny interview...

Get off your high horse and re read my post. I considered it a possibility and then acknowledged that could just bet a perception

[grahoom]

Get off your high horse and re read my post. I considered it a possibility and then acknowledged that could just bet a perception

 

that you did, and acknowledge. I'll try not to fall when dismounting.

[DaveC]

I don't know, they don't go into details - but they do say that the school run depends on where they moor, and that they share lifts with other boaters who's kids go to school. So I'd say there are not as you put it

 

 

 

Edit

 

actually, I'd neither say much about their mooring status as I don't know anything about them or their cruising habits.

 

But is this family doing the same as Mr Davies, just moving up and down the pound between Bath and B-O-A - which is not as the judge said 10 miles, it is just a tad over nine!

[DaveG]

Okay, well I'm not going to argue about it - certainly the impression that came across to me was that they were part of a "community" (their words) who all "look out for each other" and "share the school run" and that they never ventured very far from the school (despite the "depends where we're moored" comment). But if you're happy that's bona fide navigation then that's okay and if the majority are happy to turn the canals into a floating linear caravan park where you have to creep along at tickover all day then that's fine, too. However, it can't be too long before local councils wake up to the fact there is a great untapped source of Council Tax money just waiting to be collected (as they already have in Bedford - £1,000 per liveaboard boat last year) at which point I've no doubt the CMers will argue they are exempt because they are continuously moving. Also, I suspect that once BW run out of cash in their new charitable status it won't be too long before either much of the network becomes unnavigable, anyway or that "honeypot" moorings will become chargeable on a daily or weekly basis - if they can do it at Llangollen I guess they can do it anywhere else.

[grahoom]

But is this family doing the same as Mr Davies, just moving up and down the pound between Bath and B-O-A - which is not as the judge said 10 miles, it is just a tad over nine!

 

I don't know. And neither do you.

 

And from the interview it's impossible to say either way.

[Minos]

The general public don't know anything about cc guidelines, every newspaper article I've ever read about living afloat doesn't talk about them, so unless you read the BW website thoroughly - how are you gonna know?

 

Before you know it, they've been on the River for a few years, without much trouble - maybe the odd ticket now and then but not much hassle, they've started a family and then BAM! The new proposals come in and they're crying their eyes out at the consultation meeting.

That is regrettable, perhaps even a tragedy. But it is neither unfair nor unreasonable to expect people to inform themselves before making a decision as important as choosing where to live. If they can't be bothered to find out the rules and guidelines, for which they are not charged access, then that is nobody else's fault.

 

That loophole will be closed if the L&S proposals come into effect. Anyone who is away from their mooring for a considerable time (they haven't defined how long this is) has to comply with the same guidelines as a ccer.

Apart from the obvious fact that when challenged they can demonstrate that they are not tied to that area. It could be a very persuasive argument should BW attempt to enforce or even press for a court decision - unless, of course, the overstaying is taking place closer to the licensee's work, school, social life than their mooring.

 

The bottom line is remarkably simple. Work out what you want to do with your boat, and then buy the appropriate mooring/licence. Anyone who can't work that out (or refuses to because they are being bloody minded) doesn't deserve sympathy.

[Spesh]

Oh sod this, I don't want to get into another battle of wits (though it WAS brave of ymu to fight unarmed) this blasted bickering (guilty!) seems to have frightened off the one bloke who seemed to know what he was talking about and could have helped us all understand the ramifications of the judgement. Once again we find ourselves all disappearing up our own fundament.

I don't want to appear presumptious that I'm the bloke you're referring to, but if so I am still here, just more as a slightly baffled observer at the moment. I'm very happy trying to provide vaguely informed explanation/clarification of the legal issues but I'm not sure that's a great deal of help in a discussion which has veered away from rationality. I don't really understand why this can't just be discussed on the basis of the facts available without people chucking out some really very strange claims. How trying to understand a statute could possibly have anything to do with class warfare is entirely beyond me. There's not much point trying to bring rationality to an irrational debate, it's a waste of time and incredibly frustrating. I get more than enough of that from the wife!

[Sir Nibble]

But is this family doing the same as Mr Davies, just moving up and down the pound between Bath and B-O-A - which is not as the judge said 10 miles, it is just a tad over nine!

This family are real people and beyond saying that I disagree with their dress sense there is no evidence upon which to judge further and indeed no moral right to do so.

 

The unattended boat she stopped to look at however, I could tell you where that is. Same place it always is, right next to the "home extension" in the adjecent shrubbery. The only way that ever moves is if you pass it a little quickly. I am at a complete loss to understand how it's not ended up swinging under a crane.

[Sir Nibble]

I don't want to appear presumptious that I'm the bloke you're referring to, but if so I am still here, just more as a slightly baffled observer at the moment. I'm very happy trying to provide vaguely informed explanation/clarification of the legal issues but I'm not sure that's a great deal of help in a discussion which has veered away from rationality. I don't really understand why this can't just be discussed on the basis of the facts available without people chucking out some really very strange claims. How trying to understand a statute could possibly have anything to do with class warfare is entirely beyond me. There's not much point trying to bring rationality to an irrational debate, it's a waste of time and incredibly frustrating. I get more than enough of that from the wife!

Yes it was you I was referring to and I am delighted you are still with us.

The problem is that some of us keep our boats in areas adversely affected by large numbers of static itinerants (oxymoron I know) and others are either amoungst those groups or strongly identify with them. The result is two sides heavily influenced by vested interest who cannot agree. There are hate figures on both sides who have the irritating habit of remaining calmly rational and deliver reasoned and thought out properly sourced debate which invites the proponents of less well supported viewpoints to react with anger.

[DaveG]

I suppose I just get grumpy with those who try and bend the rules or say they don't apply to them to get out of their obligations to society. I don't have any kids but am happy to pay into the system for those who do as my (personal) belief is that education is a right. On the other hand, I start to moither when I see K&A Boating Community protest placards "our kids go to school near here" and talk about "unlawful new policies" when the same folk want free education for their children but aren't prepared to pay into the council tax system to provide it.

 

Then again, when I see how much reaction "Smelly's" post on the new Personal Independence Payments reform received on this forum, something which will negatively impact hundreds of thousands of physically and mentally disabled people (no, not fat alcoholic drug addicts) and in many cases actually put lives at risk I start to have serious doubts about the priorities of the society we live in. 3 replies versus 241 on yet another recycling of the CC debate. And I think to myself, what a wonderful world......

[ymu]

On council tax, I'm sure most overstayers and bridgehoppers (OSBHers, as they shall henceforth be known ) would be only too happy to pay for it, plus a small fee to BW to account for the additional facilities usage year round compared to most leisure moorers (some of whom should be paying council tax too). They're not trying to take the piss, they're trying to live near where the jobs are. Money isn't an issue because the benefits system will kick in before they run out of cash.

 

It's a very simple solution to a problem that need not exist. Most CCers steer clear of the best visitor (ie sign-limited) moorings precisely because we don't want to get in anyone's way. A reasonable charge to council services (possibly split between councils) is not a problem at all, but we're not asked for it.

 

If we had kids we'd have no problem anyway. We can easily find a year's term-time moorings by stopping near stations on the train-lines to Banbury and we have strong local connections; all my long-term contracts are based in that council area. We'd send them to school by train and have some great holidays. If we ever got a mooring, it would only be to let the teens have a butty and local peer-group.

 

But, that will probably never happen for us. But we'd still be happy to have a system that charged us more to make such a solution more plausible for more people. We're a million short on houses with contractors going bust because no one's building anything. All the unobtrusive housing we can get is a good thing.

Edited May 19, 2011 by ymu

[Sir Nibble]

The inland waterways of Britain, just another brown field site.

[DaveG]

The inland waterways of Britain, just another brown field site.

And to judge from another thread, soon to be even browner if many more facilities close down.

[Chris Pink]

 

I did get a bit hacked off with the Julia Bradbury programme the other night when she interviewed the liveaboard couple with two young kids permanently moored on the K&A who were waxing eloquent about how they could stay (rent free, natch) right outside the kids' school........which, by avoiding council tax, they aren't exactly contributing towards anyway.

 

That's not what they said.

 

I realise from the tone of your post that you have as much respect for the truth as the Daily Mail, of which your words are an uncanny echo. "Why let the truth get in the way of a good story".

 

They said "the canal is right outside the school" they didn't say that they moor outside the school. Also I think you'll find that primary schools are funded mainly from central government and thus, as they both work and presumably pay tax they contribute to the cost of this. And as 'avoiding' council tax is somewhat off-topic I will simply point out that it would be impossible for them to pay council tax should they wish to do so, making 'avoiding' a somewhat loaded expression.

 

But as I say, why let the truth get in the way of your chosen vision of the world.

[DaveG]

Well, you have a right to your interpretation and I shall retain my right to mine but as you seem to be the on-demand advocate for the continous moorer I shall take the rest of your typically abusive comments with the proverbial pinch of salt.

Edited May 19, 2011 by DaveG

[ymu]

That's not what they said.

 

I realise from the tone of your post that you have as much respect for the truth as the Daily Mail, of which your words are an uncanny echo. "Why let the truth get in the way of a good story".

 

They said "the canal is right outside the school" they didn't say that they moor outside the school. Also I think you'll find that primary schools are funded mainly from central government and thus, as they both work and presumably pay tax they contribute to the cost of this. And as 'avoiding' council tax is somewhat off-topic I will simply point out that it would be impossible for them to pay council tax should they wish to do so, making 'avoiding' a somewhat loaded expression.

 

But as I say, why let the truth get in the way of your chosen vision of the world.

Travellers are certainly entitled to get schooling for their kids, and we often cannot access normal council per capita-provided services, like rubbish collections and pest control (we have rats setting up home in our bow ).

 

It all works out fair enough, and if the facilities were there to cater for us, we'd use them. But we're a self-employed partnership working mainly via the internet, and our clients could be anywhere in the country. So as long as we're in striking distance of my main contracts in Oxford and my most numerous appointments in London, we can be anywhere we like. Call it an early working retirement.

 

And quit messing with my paradise on earth.

[Lady Muck]

That is regrettable, perhaps even a tragedy. But it is neither unfair nor unreasonable to expect people to inform themselves before making a decision as important as choosing where to live. If they can't be bothered to find out the rules and guidelines, for which they are not charged access, then that is nobody else's fault.

 

Yes but if you've never boated before, you don't know any cruising boaters, you don't read the canal mags, you don't use the internet and there's no paperwork, patrol officers or other boaters saying 'you can't' why would you go deliberately looking for it? It doesn't occur to people.

 

THIS is the problem to me, just the same as all BW leisure mooring paperwork says absolutely NOTHING about moorings not being residential, it says nowhere that you can't live there. Only to check with the local authority for specific site rules. I think it could all be much better managed by BW.