IWA Calls For Action On 'Continuous Moorers'

[Biggles]

Just a side thought, and I'm not that familiar with canal facilities accept there seems to be many complains about the lack of them or disrepare of them.

 

How do the CM's dispose of their toilet tanks or cassettes.

 

Certainly on the riverr system I'm on there are very few facilities. And none I can think of on EA moorings.

[Ally]

Certainly in this area it is easy enough to find Elsan points.

[luctor et emergo]

They shit in the woods

[Alan de Enfield]

As has been stated in a number of posts it is NOT CaRT's mandate to provide social housing or 'squats' for those who agree to abide by the rules and then flout them.

 

If I have a mortgage or a bank loan for which I agree to meet certain conditions (monthly payments) and I fail to do so, then the facility / asset is withdrawn, removed or taken from me.

 

 

So - BW /CaRT cannot enforce the CC rules as its too complicated and expensive to monitor and 'fine' people.

 

Looking at a 'similar' land based problem of 'overstaying' in car parks - this has been resolved by private contractors 'wheel-clamping' overstaying cars.

 

Surely it would be cost effective to employ a company on a commission basis to enforce the rules - even if they had to pay 50% (or more) it would generate some additional income for CaRT.

 

True CCers would have nothing to fear,

Marina moorers would have nothing to fear,

Cruisers with a home mooring would have nothing to fear.

 

CMers suffering hardship can claim the entiltled benefits and join one of the above 'groups'

CMers 'taking the mick' who are CMers because it suits their life style / jobs / kids schooling etc can shape up or move on.

[carlt]

Looking at a 'similar' land based problem of 'overstaying' in car parks - this has been resolved by private contractors 'wheel-clamping' overstaying cars.

I can see how a private contractor might see clamping a car as financially advantageous, after all you want to move your car don't you, but clamping a boat whose owner has no need nor desire to move?

 

I have also had my car clamped whilst being legitimately parked in my parking space outside my flat and the clamping company were not interested in releasing it without full payment.

 

They said that they never removed a clamp without payment and they were not interested in whether a mistake had been made or not.

 

Fortunately the matter was quickly resolved with an angle grinder.

 

Is this really the sort of nasty crook we want policing our waterways?

 

 

True CCers would have nothing to fear,

Marina moorers would have nothing to fear,

Cruisers with a home mooring would have nothing to fear.

 

I have somewhere I can legitimately put my boat off CRT waters so CCing rules would not apply.

 

When the thieving clampers come along and disable my boat, and then tell me they are not interested in my story, do I risk being charged with criminal damage, when the angle grinder needs to come out again.

[jenlyn]

As has been stated in a number of posts it is NOT CaRT's mandate to provide social housing or 'squats' for those who agree to abide by the rules and then flout them.

 

If I have a mortgage or a bank loan for which I agree to meet certain conditions (monthly payments) and I fail to do so, then the facility / asset is withdrawn, removed or taken from me.

 

 

So - BW /CaRT cannot enforce the CC rules as its too complicated and expensive to monitor and 'fine' people.

 

Looking at a 'similar' land based problem of 'overstaying' in car parks - this has been resolved by private contractors 'wheel-clamping' overstaying cars.

 

Surely it would be cost effective to employ a company on a commission basis to enforce the rules - even if they had to pay 50% (or more) it would generate some additional income for CaRT.

 

True CCers would have nothing to fear,

Marina moorers would have nothing to fear,

Cruisers with a home mooring would have nothing to fear.

 

CMers suffering hardship can claim the entiltled benefits and join one of the above 'groups'

CMers 'taking the mick' who are CMers because it suits their life style / jobs / kids schooling etc can shape up or move on.

Not even worth a respectable reply!

[matty40s]

They shit in the woods

They also daub it on the trees so they can find their way back to their boats in the dark..........

[Guest wanted]

I have an email dating back to 2010 from Geoff Whyatt, stating that BW were concentrating on License evasion rather than overstaying. So, BW now has a problem with overstaying "of their own making". It's not a problem they can blame us for, or expect us to put right. I see nothing wrong with the present system, other than, it needs to be enforced. I feel that anyone meeting CRT representatives should point this out to them. Ideas of charging more money to have special licenses is not going to help someone already struggling!

Affordable moorings are needed. If some of you feel that someone is getting something your not, tough! Go and have a cry somewhere. If this involves means testing, so be it, i dont see that as being unfair. Some people need help, and as human beings, we have an obligation to look after those not doing as well as ourselves. I hear some of you shout loud enough about the rich and the banks not caring, or considering us mere mortals, yet your quite happy to come on here and kick the boater beneath you in the nuts!

 

Good post, maybe means testing regional licenses could be an option, I also agree that we need more affordawell mooring in the capital. It's all vert well people saying that boats should not be part of a housing solution but it already is, as are many other forms of shelter.

For me a big attraction of the waterways is the diversity and comradeship.

So far this thread has demonstrated that however we all choose to live, someone else has something to say about it.

[JDR]

 

Certainly on the riverr system I'm on there are very few facilities. And none I can think of on EA moorings.

 

If you're on the Great Ouse Sea Toilets were certainly legal when I was last there (2009), not that I would recommend the practice on a river.

I'm struggling to think of Elsan points though- is there one on the visitor moorings at Earith? Certainly few and far between.

Edited September 2, 2012 by JDR

[Alan de Enfield]

I can see how a private contractor might see clamping a car as financially advantageous, after all you want to move your car don't you, but clamping a boat whose owner has no need nor desire to move?

 

I have also had my car clamped whilst being legitimately parked in my parking space outside my flat and the clamping company were not interested in releasing it without full payment.

 

They said that they never removed a clamp without payment and they were not interested in whether a mistake had been made or not.

 

Fortunately the matter was quickly resolved with an angle grinder.

 

Is this really the sort of nasty crook we want policing our waterways?

 

 

I have somewhere I can legitimately put my boat off CRT waters so CCing rules would not apply.

 

 

 

When the thieving clampers come along and disable my boat, and then tell me they are not interested in my story, do I risk being charged with criminal damage, when the angle grinder needs to come out again.

 

The principle can be adapted to suit the circumstances - do not 'clamp' the boat just issue a fixed penalty notice of £x, if this is not paid after a suitable period then the boat can be section 8'd or the fine reclaimed by other means, or added to the licence renewal (it has been said that these CMers are licensed, insured and BSS'd so their address is known)

 

I agree (and know of several instances) that clamping mistakes can be made - these would (hopefully) not be made on boats as it it would be simple to prove that they were on CaRT waters and had not moved

[Guest wanted]

The principle can be adapted to suit the circumstances - do not 'clamp' the boat just issue a fixed penalty notice of £x, if this is not paid after a suitable period then the boat can be section 8'd or the fine reclaimed by other means, or added to the licence renewal (it has been said that these CMers are licensed, insured and BSS'd so their address is known)

 

I agree (and know of several instances) that clamping mistakes can be made - these would (hopefully) not be made on boats as it it would be simple to prove that they were on CaRT waters and had not moved

 

 

What are your feelings towards making people homeless Alan? Forget all of the ruels for one minute and see if you can see the humans who live on the boats/homes you wish to sec 8. What would your solution be for those that have been evicted? I can almost guarantee that at least in London they would end up on the streets or in a really grim and often dangerous B&B if 'lucky'

 

Pushing this 'problem' around will do nothing but allow you to moan about something other than people who overstay.

 

As has been said, we need regional solutions to regional problems, these solutions can be discussed and trailed by CRT inviting user groups and communities to share and agree ideas.

As boaters we are already on a back foot as boaters and all live without much sucurity of tenure. I say that we work together to try and make things a little more secure for all of us.

Crushing boats/homes as an option scares me and reminds me of a Thatcherite uk that I was hoping had disappeared.

[Higgs]

Some people need help, and as human beings, we have an obligation to look after those not doing as well as ourselves. I hear some of you shout loud enough about the rich and the banks not caring, or considering us mere mortals, yet your quite happy to come on here and kick the boater beneath you in the nuts!

 

You seem to be confusing the rich and poor, with CM'ing. It's not exclusive to either.

 

You are also making the mistake, that those against CM'ing are also against care in the community.

[Alan de Enfield]

What are your feelings towards making people homeless Alan? Forget all of the rules for one minute

 

Making people homeless is of course undesirable & I would not condone it.

 

The 'problem' we have is that 'we' are trying to link two totally seperate issues 'CMers' and 'Homelessness'/ those less fortunate than others.

 

It is society as a whole (or their Government representatives) who should be addressing the homeless issue and CaRT addressing the management of the waterways.

 

It is not CaRT's responsibilty, to be a charity with responsibility to provide low-cost social housing.

 

This and previous (and no doubt successive) Governments appear to be out to feather their own nests and do not have the well being of the populace in mind. Concentrated efforts SHOULD be made to look after the unfortunate in our society, The whole 'system' is topsy-turvey.

 

Totally off the subject :-

As just one (local) example of stupidity - the Lincs & Notts Air Ambulance must pay VAT on the fuel they use. The Yorkshire Air Ambulance do not pay VAT on their fuel - why ?

 

Lincs & Notts lease their helicopter (so that if it goes in for service etc the provider gives them another helicopter so they have 24/7 coverage), Yorkshire 'own' their helicopter and have coverage whilst it is servicable.

Because Yorkshire own their helicopter they do not pay VAT - because Lincs & Notts lease their helicopter they do pay VAT.

 

It cannot be beyond the wit of any sensible 'polititian' to see how to resolve this - but - NO !!!

[Joshua]

Everything in life is finite and comes at a 'cost'.

 

When a resource gets close to being exhausted some means of restricting its use to select groups of people will be found, this is not the product of philosophical or political ideals but of physics.

 

The simplest method (in the 'developed' world) is to give it to those who pay for it (this is not necessarily the 'rich'). Only so called 'basic right s' like shelter and food are generally treated differently but even these would not be provided if it were not for social measures like compulsory tax.

 

Philosophical feelings about how the finite facilities of our waterways should be used are in this regard irrelevant, either those who pay for them will get them or some means of forcing that group to fund the waterways for some other group, must be found.

 

I doubt an argument could be raised to show that living on a boat on the UK's inland waterways is a basic human right and even if it could, now that the UK Government have washed their hands of the 'problem', forcing the wealthy to pay for it through taxes will be impossible.

 

I can see a day when the relatively wealthy owners of boats kept in marinas will be referring to the 'free loading' CMers out on the cut, as 'comrades-in-arms' as they fight a mutually beneficial rear-guard defence against the millions of ramblers, cyclists and birdwatchers who if they suddenly decide to pay a £10 annual licence fee for their pleasures will very quickly, turn 2000 miles of water into a very long, unusually wide and cheap to run, public grass road?

 

Poetic justice that it happened to the railways first!

 

 

Joshua

[jenlyn]

You seem to be confusing the rich and poor, with CM'ing. It's not exclusive to either.

 

You are also making the mistake, that those against CM'ing are also against care in the community.

I suspect the only mistake i made, was not realising that this site could possibly have people with similar views and mindsets (pompous and arrogant) that are in line with the IWA.

[Alan de Enfield]

 

I can see a day when the relatively wealthy owners of boats kept in marinas will be referring to the 'free loading' CMers out on the cut, as 'comrades-in-arms' as they fight a mutually beneficial rear-guard defence against the millions of ramblers, cyclists and birdwatchers who if they suddenly decide to pay a £10 annual licence fee for their pleasures will very quickly, turn 2000 miles of water into a very long, unusually wide and cheap to run, public grass road?

 

Poetic justice that it happened to the railways first!

 

 

Joshua

 

Maybe you are right - there are previous examples :

 

"First They Came for the Jews"

By Pastor Niemoller

 

 

First they came for the Jews and I did not speak out because I was not a Jew.

 

Then they came for the Communists and I did not speak out because I was not a Communist.

 

Then they came for the trade unionists and I did not speak out because I was not a trade unionist.

 

Then they came for me and there was no one left to speak out for me

[carlt]

 

It is not CaRT's responsibilty, to be a charity with responsibility to provide low-cost social housing.

But, as a body that provides high-cost housing, perhaps they should.

 

Perhaps when accepting the revenue of a high cost marina (and moorings) they should also be obliged to provide some low-cost alternatives too, just like the obligation most housing developers have to provide affordable housing alongside their 5 bedroom detached cash cows.

 

Why should a private estate developer have such a responsibility when the custodian of our waterways doesn't?

Edited September 2, 2012 by carlt

[Higgs]

I suspect the only mistake i made, was not realising that this site could possibly have people with similar views and mindsets (pompous and arrogant) that are in line with the IWA.

 

Making wrong assumptions is habit of yours.

[jenlyn]

Making wrong assumptions is habit of yours.

Ditto.

[Higgs]

Ditto.

 

Not ditto.

[Alan de Enfield]

But, as a body that provides high-cost housing, perhaps they should.

 

Perhaps when accepting the revenue of a high cost marina (and moorings) they should also be obliged to provide some low-cost alternatives too, just like the obligation most housing developers have to provide affordable housing alongside their 5 bedroom detached cash cows.

 

Why should a private estate developer have such a responsibility when the custodian of our waterways doesn't?

 

Developers are 'commercial' organisations.

 

CaRT being a charity is more aligned to the National Trust.

 

From limited research it seems that the NT provide leased accomodation at 'market rates'

 

From the NT "House Letting Policy"

 

As a charity we are obliged to make the best use of the Trust’s assets for the furtherance of

our core purpose – to provide public benefit through our conservation work. We must

therefore start from a presumption of a full market rent for all our lettings.Any discount from market rents must be justified in terms of a clear benefit it brings to meeting the Trusts purposes and must be proportionate to that benefit.

 

The Trust will consider lettings at less than open market rents (‘non-market lettings’) in the

following circumstances:

 Where it is in the Trust’s interests to let to someone who brings skills needed for our

work and for whom local accommodation would otherwise be unaffordable rental

levels will be set locally to reflect the value of the benefit provided to the Trust; or in

accordance with the Trust’s staff housing policy as appropriate.

 

Maybe - if some of these 'CMers' have something to offer CaRT they can be offered 'cheap' moorings - just a thought !

[carlt]

Maybe - if some of these 'CMers' have something to offer CaRT they can be offered 'cheap' moorings - just a thought !

"Cheap" moorings, just like "affordable housing" is still a revenue earner.

 

CRT is more closely aligned to a private developer or landlord than the NT because it actively seeks out people to live on the property it manages and has a closer relationship with the private enterprises that inhabit its waters.

 

It is also a fact that the NT often lets out its properties at peppercorn rents, when it suits.

 

Having a "roaming licence" may well suit CRT, if it means it has some more control over boat movements.

[dancers]

Rubbish.

"got a problem with people who have different opinions to yours?"

 

Why would that be then?? They own them and pay for them, if they want to leave them in marinas I cant see that it affects you in any way at all.

Because they are the ultimate CMers and don't help keep the channels in use. My opinion, dont think others will agree, or mind if they don't.

Mrsmelly thanks for the greenie, I treasure it.

[Higgs]

"got a problem with people who have different opinions to yours?"

 

 

Because they are the ultimate CMers and don't help keep the channels in use. My opinion, dont think others will agree, or mind if they don't.

Mrsmelly thanks for the greenie, I treasure it.

 

 

No. But, yours was just stupid in anyone's language.

 

 

I'm poor, I live in a marina. I've decided to give my boat to me. That's my answer to your bright idea.

[dancers]

No, it was my opinion. Valid as yours but different.