Wiltshire Voices: Live-aboard boaters.

[nicknorman]

On the whole I feel people should live within the law.

 

That applies whether they are a Duke, an MP, a home owner, a "compliant CC-er", a non-compliant CC-er, a "gypsy", or someone trying to survive on the streets with nothing.

 

If they ought to be paying income tax, then they should.

 

If they ought to be paying National Insurance, then they should.

 

If they ought to be paying council tax, then they should.

 

If they ought to be paying for a CRT boat licence then they should.

 

If the current "rules" of the country say they are entitled to some service or benefit, then they should equally be able to get it without a fight.

 

If you don't like the way Law or "rules" are structured, then by all means campaign to get them changed.

 

If you think certain sectors should be eligible for taxes not currently levied, write to your MP.

 

If you think the NHS or Education is funded in an unfair way, and some pay to much, and some pay to little, again write to your MP.

 

But, if someone has paid all that the law currently requires them to pay, but you are unhappy with that, don't attack the person, campaign to try and get the law changed to more accurately reflect your views.

 

If a boater or someone in a gypsy encampment has broken the law, (or indeed my mythical Duke or MP), then the enforcement of the laws as they currently stand should take their normal course, accepting that those unhappy with the laws may also campaign for change.

 

At the moment most live-aboard boaters not only do not pay council tax, they simply can not. They are not evading anything - they are living by the current "rules" of the country.

Yes that is all fair enough, though I would be interested to know the legal situation, as opposed to the practical situation, regarding council tax and CCers. Is it the case that they should be paying, for example in proportion to the time spent in each county - but that the logistics for that is just too difficult, or is it that they are exempt in law?

 

You gave my gypsies a mention there, but didn't really tackle the fact that in fact their lifestyles are very similar and yet whilst you fully support one group, I suspect you would be less supportive of the latter if they set up in a park near you.

[Chris Pink]

Chris, I and some of the posters on here know about the NBTA, the general public who watch the film don't. I have read the articles on Pamala Smith's website, I have some sympathy for the views she expresses. However she and they do themselves no favours by refusing to compromise. BW made a mess of dealing with the problem from the outset, if they had enforced the rules then we would not be having this debate but they did not. They also allowed, I think it's 10 by now, hire boat companies to operate on a stretch of water with limited mooring between Foxhangers and Bath. Add a new marina to the mix, permanent on line mooring and it's no surprise there are problems.

The film which was the point of the original post addresses none of that it just gives a isn't living on a canal wonderful view of some boaters lives. Nicely shot in the sunshine as well, not the pouring rain or the snow.

I can understand Sally Ash and C&RT wanting to put the other side the last thing they need is even more people deciding that's the life style for them.

 

Ken

 

An answer to the question how many members does NBTA would be useful to put that into context.

 

And why shouldn't the film celebrate the good things about a wonderful lifestyle?

 

By all means make your own film about how hard it is in winter. I'll contribute.

 

I can almost imagine your reaction if someone suggested cutting down the number of hire boats to 'solve the problem'

[KenK]

Yes that is all fair enough, though I would be interested to know the legal situation, as opposed to the practical situation, regarding council tax and CCers. Is it the case that they should be paying, for example in proportion to the time spent in each county - but that the logistics for that is just too difficult, or is it that they are exempt in law?

 

You gave my gypsies a mention there, but didn't really tackle the fact that in fact their lifestyles are very similar and yet whilst you fully support one group, I suspect you would be less supportive of the latter if they set up in a park near you.

Council Tax, normaly at Band A can only be imposed on a residental mooring, not a leisure mooring or on someone who cc's. Boats are not classed as second homes at least not at the moment.

 

Ken

[jenlyn]

No. But I agree solutions are better than arguments. I think you and the others desperate to defend the boaters position are a little blinkered and so are missing the context of my posts, which is to reflect the view of the target audience (the great unwashed public) who might well form a comparison with gypsies, social scrounges etc especially in these tough financial times. Personally I don't care about the council tax because I live in Scotland, but I was attempting to portray how residents of Wiltshire might view it. In other words, the video might be an own goal.

Trust me, I am not blinkered, I am very open minded on the whole issue, I stated in a post earlier "it's obviously a little one sided". However, I don't see your argument based on council tax having any relevance to these debates, it's just an easy, lazy option some choose to use.

[nicknorman]

Council Tax, normaly at Band A can only be imposed on a residental mooring, not a leisure mooring or on someone who cc's. Boats are not classed as second homes at least not at the moment.

 

Ken

But are they classed as first homes if the residents have no other?

 

Anyway, getting bored with the same old arguments so off to paint the hall. The real issue for me, I have to say, is the appropriation of public space for personal use without "sharing nicely" like the rest of us do.

 

Trust me, I am not blinkered, I am very open minded on the whole issue, I stated in a post earlier "it's obviously a little one sided". However, I don't see your argument based on council tax having any relevance to these debates, it's just an easy, lazy option some choose to use.

Yes I agree its not the main issue. But is the sort of issue easily latched onto by Wiltshire residents.

Edited January 31, 2013 by nicknorman

[KenK]

An answer to the question how many members does NBTA would be useful to put that into context.

 

And why shouldn't the film celebrate the good things about a wonderful lifestyle?

 

By all means make your own film about how hard it is in winter. I'll contribute.

 

I can almost imagine your reaction if someone suggested cutting down the number of hire boats to 'solve the problem'

 

I do not know how many members they have, does it matter, they are a group who have an opinion and have a right to express it.

 

The film was one sided, that was my point.

 

Actually I would like to see a reduction in the number of hire boats, I think they contribute to the problem.

 

 

Ken

[Chris Pink]

But are they classed as first homes if the residents have no other?

 

I've just done a bit of research to find out how pathetic your argument is.

 

In 2010-11 council tax was 3.3% of total taxation.

 

Serious evasion going on.

[nicknorman]

I've just done a bit of research to find out how pathetic your argument is.

 

In 2010-11 council tax was 3.3% of total taxation.

 

Serious evasion going on.

Yes that about right for me. But a much much bigger percentage of low income households taxation.

 

Paintbrush...

Edited January 31, 2013 by nicknorman

[Black Ibis]

Council Tax, normaly at Band A can only be imposed on a residental mooring, not a leisure mooring or on someone who cc's. Boats are not classed as second homes at least not at the moment.

 

Ken

 

And even then only if the boat has a fixed mooring spot. We have a residential mooring and are exempted from Council Tax because we can choose to moor our boat anywhere along the two mile stretch of river owned by the Council. We pay a mooring licence fee to the Council roughly equivalent to Band A.

[grey wolf]

You can bet they are quite happy to visit the local GP / hospital when they are feeling a bit crook, and the NHS is the highest fund-consuming public body we have. Anyway, my point was that they are putting this video out to the general public, they can expect a response based on the same lack of familiarity, or more so, than I have.

 

I quite liked both films non of the belligerence of many campaigns. The e-mail was a terrible idea and begs the question of what she was worrying about when writing it.

 

as for GP/hospitals they are payed for through taxation and national insurance i was lead to believe.

 

Until there is some sort of statutory distance you have to travel laid down then it will be at the authorities whim how far is far enough never a good situation particularly when that authority has everything to gain by playing its face.

[Chris Pink]

I do not know how many members they have, does it matter, they are a group who have an opinion and have a right to express it.

 

The film was one sided, that was my point.

 

Actually I would like to see a reduction in the number of hire boats, I think they contribute to the problem.

 

 

Ken

 

Of course it matters if you are going to use them, as your first post did, as a bête noire.

 

Yes, the film is one side but so are CRT's press statements.

 

I don't agree with you about hire boats. I think the canal can manage what's there at the moment but the change of use of Bradford wharf from boatyard to hire base was corruption pure and simple.

[jenlyn]

 

 

 

Yes I agree its not the main issue. But is the sort of issue easily latched onto by Wiltshire residents.

In the real world, I doubt that very much.

[churchward]

I've just done a bit of research to find out how pathetic your argument is.

 

In 2010-11 council tax was 3.3% of total taxation.

 

Serious evasion going on.

Like many statistics it depends on how you look at it 3.3% of total taxation or as a percentage of total council budget about 70% is central Gov funded and the remaining 30% from council tax contributions.

[Chris Pink]

Like many statistics it depends on how you look at it 3.3% of total taxation or as a percentage of total council budget about 70% is central Gov funded and the remaining 30% from council tax contributions.

 

Ok. 30% of WCC budget from council tax. Don't know the population of Wiltshire but liveaboards are around 200 people who would be in the lowest band. So as a proportion of their tax burden a hypothetical council tax contribution is pretty small.

 

Or to look at it another way; if it's the greatest argument anyone can level at these people I think the film is a success.

[luctor et emergo]

I understood that a percentage of the licence fee is paid to councils with a canal running through it, as an 'ersatz' council tax?

 

And whilst we are discussing council services, and the mis-use of them, what about those house dwellers who dump their excess rubbish in CRT bins? I expect that has increased since the limit on house collections was impossed, and the bins only get emptied once a forthnight...

[Chris Pink]

 

And whilst we are discussing council services, and the mis-use of them, what about those house dwellers who dump their excess rubbish in CRT bins? I expect that has increased since the limit on house collections was impossed, and the bins only get emptied once a forthnight...

 

Apparently the worst offenders are helicopter pilots.

[nicknorman]

Apparently the worst offenders are helicopter pilots.

No, we hook our huge bags of rubbish from Scotland under our helicopters, fly down do Wiltshire, and drop them into a local ditch. That's why our council tax is so low - there's nothing much to be collected.

 

I'm definitely painting...

 

Trouble is, Jeff has been checking out logged-on forum members to see if I am getting on with my chores, or engaging in pointless banter on the forum...

Edited January 31, 2013 by nicknorman

[sueb]

Surely it's mooring fees Cart are losing out on

[NigelMoore]

Good documentaries show both sides a balanced view would have been much better.

 

But these short films were not intended as documentaries showing a balanced view, quite the opposite. As KenK recognised in #40, they were designed to portray the viewpoint of “a specific group of people” [the Council's description], largely in an effort by the Council to engage in a community involvement exercise. The point would be lost if they each were to be a forum for disparate views; they were designedly mouthpieces for a selected viewpoint. The Boaters film is but one of a dozen identified groups including Gypsies and Travellers; Migrant Workers; Army Wives etc as listed on the website and posted by Leonie in #29.

 

As the Council website explains: the films and articles “will be used in group situations to stimulate discussion and action by schools, organisations and the council’s area boards.”

 

The demand for a voice in the film itself was therefore contrary to the Council’s purpose in making the films. CART’s rather offensively drafted intervention was misconceived; their contributions would have been [and presumably still will be] welcomed in the aforementioned “group situations to stimulate discussion and action” – they have and had no place in the film itself.

 

The website includes, at the top of the page, a “please tell us what you think” link – possibly those with strong views one way or another might be interested to contribute. Beyond straightforward public education, the films are designed to be tools for use by the Council, and perhaps this Forum’s debate might interest them.

 

I personally consider that the overall project is an admirable one for a Council to undertake, demonstrating true commitment to reaching out to all segments of society beyond the minority of people usually involving themselves in local affairs. It is all the more encouraging that boaters, of whatever demographic, have been identified as essential components of the Council’s populace, to be embraced as contributors [at whatever level] to the wider community, and whose concerns are held by the Council itself to be a matter for their attention when formulating policy and action. Would that more followed their example!

[sam pig]

Aye, A bit like Pravda?

 

Some of the people in the clips have my sympathy but it is a bit rich to decry cyclists, hire boaters, the upkeep of the network etc when folk are absolutely kicking the arse out of the CC regulations don't you think?

 

Perhaps I should knock my car tax and insurance on the head and then complain about the potholes in the roads?

[churchward]

But these short films were not intended as documentaries showing a balanced view, quite the opposite. As KenK recognised in #40, they were designed to portray the viewpoint of “a specific group of people” [the Council's description], largely in an effort by the Council to engage in a community involvement exercise. The point would be lost if they each were to be a forum for disparate views; they were designedly mouthpieces for a selected viewpoint. The Boaters film is but one of a dozen identified groups including Gypsies and Travellers; Migrant Workers; Army Wives etc as listed on the website and posted by Leonie in #29.

 

As the Council website explains: the films and articles “will be used in group situations to stimulate discussion and action by schools, organisations and the council’s area boards.”

 

The demand for a voice in the film itself was therefore contrary to the Council’s purpose in making the films. CART’s rather offensively drafted intervention was misconceived; their contributions would have been [and presumably still will be] welcomed in the aforementioned “group situations to stimulate discussion and action” – they have and had no place in the film itself.

 

The website includes, at the top of the page, a “please tell us what you think” link – possibly those with strong views one way or another might be interested to contribute. Beyond straightforward public education, the films are designed to be tools for use by the Council, and perhaps this Forum’s debate might interest them.

 

I personally consider that the overall project is an admirable one for a Council to undertake, demonstrating true commitment to reaching out to all segments of society beyond the minority of people usually involving themselves in local affairs. It is all the more encouraging that boaters, of whatever demographic, have been identified as essential components of the Council’s populace, to be embraced as contributors [at whatever level] to the wider community, and whose concerns are held by the Council itself to be a matter for their attention when formulating policy and action. Would that more followed their example!

You make a good point. I have no issue with the film being biased in telling their own point of view. It is useful as an outsider to know about what they think and what they are trying to do. I enjoyed watching the films when I watched them a while back.

 

As to the issues of the rights and wrongs of the situation that is less clear for me. I still go back to the idea that if anyone wants to stop in an area then they should get a mooring and if they want to CC then be welcome to do that but you need to move to get that status.

 

I agree with Alan's point of we can't complain they don't pay council tax if there isn't a means to do so. I do though believe in equitable contributions should be made by all if one has the means to do so. It is awkward to think that in presently announced circumstances that less well off people in houses will now have to pay 10% of council tax rather than get 100% exemptions. This will hit some unfortunate people hard when you don't have any spare money. When comparing that to some of the folk who appear to be employed and enjoying a good lifestyle so may indeed be in a position to contribute more it does not seem so fair. I accept though on the K&A another 200 folk (on the boats)paying A band council tax doesn't help that much but it could avoid some of those people who may now have to pay 10% of the tax they can't afford being put in greater debt.

[Chris Pink]

Two wrongs don't make a right. It is the 10% that is wrong. And I heard a tory politician on the radio saying - I paraphrase, but only slightly - 'the poorer we make them the more incentive there is to work'

 

As long as there was some support mechanism for the poorest I can't imagine many of those people would object to paying more to live on the canal.

 

You, and many others, just don't get it. These boaters don't live on the canal because it's cheap, if you still believe that I suggest you go back and watch the film again.

 

There is nobody, at any point, who makes that statement. They live on the canal because, quite simply, it's a lovely place to live.

 

Aye, A bit like Pravda?

 

Some of the people in the clips have my sympathy but it is a bit rich to decry cyclists, hire boaters, the upkeep of the network etc when folk are absolutely kicking the arse out of the CC regulations don't you think?

 

Perhaps I should knock my car tax and insurance on the head and then complain about the potholes in the roads?

 

Were they asking for the sympathy of someone with views like yours? I certainly don't think so.

 

Perhaps you should stop paying car tax and insurance if that's what you want to do. What it has to do with this film escapes me though.

[churchward]

Two wrongs don't make a right. It is the 10% that is wrong. And I heard a tory politician on the radio saying - I paraphrase, but only slightly - 'the poorer we make them the more incentive there is to work'

 

As long as there was some support mechanism for the poorest I can't imagine many of those people would object to paying more to live on the canal.

 

You, and many others, just don't get it. These boaters don't live on the canal because it's cheap, if you still believe that I suggest you go back and watch the film again.

 

There is nobody, at any point, who makes that statement. They live on the canal because, quite simply, it's a lovely place to live.

 

I am just putting my thoughts into the thread and I did not say they were living on the canal because it was cheaper.

[Guest]

 

You, and many others, just don't get it. These boaters don't live on the canal because it's cheap, if you still believe that I suggest you go back and watch the film again.

 

 

There was at least one reference to a lack of affordable housing being behind a families decision to live aboard though? - so no not in as it being cheap as such but for them cheaper than living on land.

[bowten]

As to the issues of the rights and wrongs of the situation that is less clear for me. I still go back to the idea that if anyone wants to stop in an area then they should get a mooring and if they want to CC then be welcome to do that but you need to move to get that status.

And if there are no moorings?They can't afford a mooring?They want a choice between a mooring or moving every 14 days within an area.What do you suggest.