boaters target boaters

[system 4-50]

There was never any point in starting, let alone continuing, this interchange, if the object was to convince the other of a different viewpoint; certainly I was not labouring under any such misapprehension as to that possibility.

 

I expend such effort as I do on addressing certain points because I know that more read these pages than those who contribute, and it may be that my responses provide answers to queries they might have arising from a discussion they would prefer not to engage in for themselves. I read through a lot of threads myself, for the sake of gleaning information with no thought of intervening.

 

If you do to any extent see my motivation in defending myself against eviction from the waterways, and still think I and the others should have let our homes and property be seized, in order that the authority could continue to exercise unlawful power unchecked – then it is useful for others to see and recognise the character underlying the things you say.

 

I do not condemn ignorance per se, but I do condemn those who revel and take refuge in ignorance when pronouncing their judgments on others. I understand that you will not care to think about providing answers to any of the questions I have directly put to you, but others usefully might.

 

Everyone will agree that there are “a small minority of boaters” who “care nothing for anyone but themselves”; the disagreements will centre on how small a minority they are; how far they really do create a “nuisance far outweighing their small number”, and whether such a problem as they present justifies supporting an abusive power such as you feel “is needed to keep them in check”.

 

It is not that I am incapable of seeing your point, I do see it, and would be nauseated by it if I had not become inured to it over the years: the innocent should suffer so that the guilty can be sure to be punished. Better that all should suffer under a totalitarian regime than that a minority should get away with being a perceived nuisance.

 

To repeat myself on the topic of “emasculation” - there quite simply is no legitimate power that has been taken from the authority; your stance is that because the extent of the power they asserted would have been useful to deal with those who upset you, it was wrong to expose them as abusive frauds and that the fictional powers claimed should have been supported as useful to ends you see as desirable. I might well agree with the ends you hope for; I don’t agree with the means you suggest to achieve them.

 

You don’t appear to recognise and/or be willing to face up to the fact that people enamoured of exercising power get somewhat careless of their targets. In placing yourself and friends firmly within the pale of the law-abiding, you believe that no extent of power would therefore ever adversely affect you. You are wrong. The fact that you refuse to get your head around the fact that this is precisely what happened in my case, is indication enough of an ostrich mentality – but others may look on your performance without mistaking your tail feathers waving in the breeze as a natural part of the landscape.

 

It was you who brought the High Court case into this; I had seen no need “to crow about it” and don’t now, in the context of a discussion over the merits of boaters intervening in the process of action against other boaters. Having introduced it, however, as an example of the selfishness of those who "should" have suffered the abuse for your own gratification, you should be prepared to at least re-examine your false pre-conceptions as to what was involved. You won’t do anything of the sort, but others might, and that saga is, after all, a salutary lesson in what happens when inappropriate people hold power, whether the power is held legitimately or not.

 

It can only be hoped that those promoting the idea that it is desirable for boaters to encourage draconian actions against other boaters are in as small a minority as those creating the nuisances complained of. It would be good to think that the majority would rather follow the lead of others on this forum who are striving in a practical way to achieve a consensus between boaters, and between boaters and the authority, on what appropriate behaviour in a more crowded world should consist of.

 

The rest of us will just get on with enjoying the waterways life without letting either other boaters, or the authority, interfere with that any more than we can help.

Amazing. I read this and think, this guy really knows his stuff, and he expresses it with clinical perfection. Yet I am left feeling totally hostile towards him. Very strange.

[Bee]

I don`t think that this is necessarily a moral high ground issue, the guy with the ticket has started jumping through the required hoops and his hit a problem, i.e. a BSS fail, He can`t afford the work so he will be unlicenced until he gets the money to comply. CRT have placed him in an impossible situation, they should issue a licence. There is no SORN option on the canal, I have a car on the drive which is SORN quite legally, there are lots of people whose budget may not cover a big bill and issuing tickets is not helpful, Perhaps he should explain to CRT and perhaps CRT should take a flexible approach and the next pig I see flying past my window gets both barrels.

[Guest]

I don`t think that this is necessarily a moral high ground issue, the guy with the ticket has started jumping through the required hoops and his hit a problem, i.e. a BSS fail, He can`t afford the work so he will be unlicenced until he gets the money to comply. CRT have placed him in an impossible situation, they should issue a licence. There is no SORN option on the canal, I have a car on the drive which is SORN quite legally, there are lots of people whose budget may not cover a big bill and issuing tickets is not helpful, Perhaps he should explain to CRT and perhaps CRT should take a flexible approach and the next pig I see flying past my window gets both barrels.

 

If you are using the SORN analogy though - this would only be the same if the boat was removed from the highway (waterway) in the same way you have removed your vehicle.

 

For CRT to issue the licence without a BSS cert. will only open the flood gates and lead to similar claims, and lead to lot's of potentially unsafe boats on the waterways. Whilst I feel sorry for the guy to a degree issuing a licence without a BSSC is not the answer.

 

There is actually a 'SORN' option and that is to take the boat of CRT waters but with a boat that will cost more than it would to do the equivalent with a car and not of course particularly practical if you live aboard.

[mayalld]

I don`t think that this is necessarily a moral high ground issue, the guy with the ticket has started jumping through the required hoops and his hit a problem, i.e. a BSS fail, He can`t afford the work so he will be unlicenced until he gets the money to comply. CRT have placed him in an impossible situation, they should issue a licence.

Why on earth should they do that.

 

If his boat has failed a BSS examination and he is unable to afford to rectify that situation, then it would make a nonsense of the process to issue him with a licence.

 

If the boat can't pass a BSS examination, and the owner is unable to rectify that situation, it should be removed from the waterway.

[sam pig]

System 4-50.

 

Completely agree.

Edited May 1, 2013 by sam pig

[carlt]

If his boat has failed a BSS examination and he is unable to afford to rectify that situation, then it would make a nonsense of the process to issue him with a licence.

I agree, however, it seems to me that if the guy ismaking a genuine effort to get legal then some time could be given for him to raise the necessary money to get a BSC and then issue a licence.

 

If it is the bloke's home then it would be both the humane and financially sensible thing to do.

 

Completely agree.

How strange.

 

I have had extremely robust debates on this forum with people who hold diametrically opposed views and beliefs to me yet I have never felt hostile towards anyone.

 

Has Nigel harmed you or System 4-50 personally, in some way?

[nicknorman]

I agree, however, it seems to me that if the guy ismaking a genuine effort to get legal then some time could be given for him to raise the necessary money to get a BSC and then issue a licence.

 

If it is the bloke's home then it would be both the humane and financially sensible thing to do.

 

Do we know that isn't happening, and maybe it depends on the definition of "some time"?

[carlt]

Do we know that isn't happening, and maybe it depends on the definition of "some time"?

I don't know if that is happening but I do know that BW used to give considerable leeway to people genuinely trying to get a boat legal as they did it for me several times between rescuing a wooden boat and getting it in a condition fit for a BSC examination.

[Guest]

I agree, however, it seems to me that if the guy ismaking a genuine effort to get legal then some time could be given for him to raise the necessary money to get a BSC and then issue a licence.

 

If it is the bloke's home then it would be both the humane and financially sensible thing to do.

 

I have a family member who once was 100% dependent on her car for work. She couldn't afford her MOT one year and hence her road fund licence she had to scrap the car and lost her job.

 

As a result of losing her job she lost her home.

 

All true.

 

Should the DOT have waved her requirement for an MOT and the DVLA waived the requirement for a road fund licence? Shit happens - she went back to square one and started all over again and in the mean time found somewhere she could afford to live while on what little the state offered her in the mean time.

[carlt]

Should the DOT have waved her requirement for an MOT and the DVLA waived the requirement for a road fund licence?

No but if the car had been her home then some leeway would have been given.

[sam pig]

Hi carlt,

 

No, not harmed me at all. I don't even know him or all the ins and outs of the case (nor do I want to).

 

Nigel just comes across as someone who has undoubtedly ran rings round BW and CaRT for some time in so far as paying his way and complying (or not) with regulations which the vast majority thankfully comply with.

 

I can't explain why I feel that way reading his post.

 

Perhaps it is the feeling one gets when someone takes the piss out of a system that the rest of us pay into fair and square. At least I am being honest. The suggestion that perhaps we all should do the same does not really wash as then there would be no system at all, which I suppose is what Nigel wants.

 

Each to their own

Edited May 1, 2013 by sam pig

[nicknorman]

There was never any point in starting, let alone continuing, this interchange, if the object was to convince the other of a different viewpoint; certainly I was not labouring under any such misapprehension as to that possibility.

 

I expend such effort as I do on addressing certain points because I know that more read these pages than those who contribute, and it may be that my responses provide answers to queries they might have arising from a discussion they would prefer not to engage in for themselves. I read through a lot of threads myself, for the sake of gleaning information with no thought of intervening.

 

If you do to any extent see my motivation in defending myself against eviction from the waterways, and still think I and the others should have let our homes and property be seized, in order that the authority could continue to exercise unlawful power unchecked – then it is useful for others to see and recognise the character underlying the things you say.

 

I do not condemn ignorance per se, but I do condemn those who revel and take refuge in ignorance when pronouncing their judgments on others. I understand that you will not care to think about providing answers to any of the questions I have directly put to you, but others usefully might.

 

Everyone will agree that there are “a small minority of boaters” who “care nothing for anyone but themselves”; the disagreements will centre on how small a minority they are; how far they really do create a “nuisance far outweighing their small number”, and whether such a problem as they present justifies supporting an abusive power such as you feel “is needed to keep them in check”.

 

It is not that I am incapable of seeing your point, I do see it, and would be nauseated by it if I had not become inured to it over the years: the innocent should suffer so that the guilty can be sure to be punished. Better that all should suffer under a totalitarian regime than that a minority should get away with being a perceived nuisance.

 

To repeat myself on the topic of “emasculation” - there quite simply is no legitimate power that has been taken from the authority; your stance is that because the extent of the power they asserted would have been useful to deal with those who upset you, it was wrong to expose them as abusive frauds and that the fictional powers claimed should have been supported as useful to ends you see as desirable. I might well agree with the ends you hope for; I don’t agree with the means you suggest to achieve them.

 

You don’t appear to recognise and/or be willing to face up to the fact that people enamoured of exercising power get somewhat careless of their targets. In placing yourself and friends firmly within the pale of the law-abiding, you believe that no extent of power would therefore ever adversely affect you. You are wrong. The fact that you refuse to get your head around the fact that this is precisely what happened in my case, is indication enough of an ostrich mentality – but others may look on your performance without mistaking your tail feathers waving in the breeze as a natural part of the landscape.

 

It was you who brought the High Court case into this; I had seen no need “to crow about it” and don’t now, in the context of a discussion over the merits of boaters intervening in the process of action against other boaters. Having introduced it, however, as an example of the selfishness of those who "should" have suffered the abuse for your own gratification, you should be prepared to at least re-examine your false pre-conceptions as to what was involved. You won’t do anything of the sort, but others might, and that saga is, after all, a salutary lesson in what happens when inappropriate people hold power, whether the power is held legitimately or not.

 

It can only be hoped that those promoting the idea that it is desirable for boaters to encourage draconian actions against other boaters are in as small a minority as those creating the nuisances complained of. It would be good to think that the majority would rather follow the lead of others on this forum who are striving in a practical way to achieve a consensus between boaters, and between boaters and the authority, on what appropriate behaviour in a more crowded world should consist of.

 

The rest of us will just get on with enjoying the waterways life without letting either other boaters, or the authority, interfere with that any more than we can help.

I'm interested to know a bit more about the man behind the rhetoric - in particular, are you actually a boater? By that, I mean do you live in a houseboat that never moves - not really a boater in my book, just living in a floating house - or do you cruise the system. If so, roughly how much time do you spend cruising the system per year? If you do cruise the system, is it in the boat you live in or do you have another one that moves?

 

The point being that I like to see the system used for its designed purpose - ie as the historic and fascinating transport system that it is. I don't like to see it being abused by people seeing a patch of water/bank and a cheap boat as a cheap way of living in or near London or other expensive cities, turning the cut into a glorified housing estate populated by people not really interested in boating.

 

Earlier you commented on how the system should not be "sterilised" just leaving shiny pleasure boats (I'm paraphrasing) however I would say that eliminating or at least controlling and probably reducing the occupiers of the waterways who have no interest in boating, is not sterilising it, more returning it to its intended purpose and way of life. There is nothing wrong with living on your boat - in fact I hope to do it one day - and absolutely nothing wrong with being a CCer, which reflects the orignal useage of the system as well as we could expect, but if you are not a boater then the character of the system risks being degraded towards a glorified housing estate.

[carlt]

Perhaps it is the feeling one gets when someone takes the piss out of a system that the rest of us pay into fair and square. At least I am being honest.

Surely by going to court and winning Nigel has proved that it is not he who was taking the piss out of the system but the system was taking the piss out of him?

 

and I still don't understand why any hostility should be felt...

 

...Perhaps a Chamomile Tea would help...

[sam pig]

Surely, you don't need reminding that the law is undoubtedly an ass.

 

Winning in court...Jeez.

 

I am not that arsed but am glad that there are not too many folk with similar agendas round our way. Would take the fun out of it.

[carlt]

Surely, you don't need reminding that the law is undoubtedly an ass.

 

Winning in court...Jeez.

I don't need reminding because I disagree.

 

If there was no need for laws then we wouldn't have them.

 

I actually believe that there should be more people challenging the system like Nigel has.

 

It keeps them on their toes and forces laws to be improved and clarified.

[Guest]

No but if the car had been her home then some leeway would have been given.

 

What evidence is there to support this?

 

The DVLA would surely have expected it to be removed (SORN's) while it was sorted surely, in order it was not a risk to other road users. The analogy I'm inferring being clear I think.

[carlt]

What evidence is there to support this?

Part of my job with the County Council was to visit travellers' sites and the police accompanying me would check all the vehicles that were homes and then tell the travellers that they wouldn't be reporting any dodgy ones to the DVLA on that visit but they'd be along again in a month's time to check that they had got legal.

 

Any cars without tax were reported immediately.

 

Your analogy doesn't take into consideration that the vehicle is someone's home.

Edited May 1, 2013 by carlt

[Guest]

Part of my job with the County Council was to visit travellers' sites and the police accompanying me would check all the vehicles that were homes and then tell the travellers that they wouldn't be reporting any dodgy ones to the DVLA on that visit but they'd be along again in a month's time to check that they had got legal.

 

Any cars without tax were reported immediately.

 

Your analogy doesn't take into consideration that the vehicle is someone's home.

The analogy is that somebody lost their home as a result of being unable to meet their legal obligations.

 

I don't understand the relevance of your post, if untaxed vehicles were reported this is the same as dealing with an unlicensed boat and presumably where not in use on the public highway hence were of no risk to others and insurance would not be an issue.

 

The analogy is that somebody lost their home as a result of being unable to meet their legal obligations.

I don't understand the relevance of your post, if untaxed vehicles were reported this is the same as dealing with an unlicensed boat and presumably they where not in use on the public highway hence were of no risk to others and any lack of insurance would not be an issue.

[carlt]

The analogy is that somebody lost their home as a result of being unable to meet their legal obligations.

 

I don't understand the relevance of your post, if untaxed vehicles were reported this is the same as dealing with an unlicensed boat and presumably where not in use on the public highway hence were of no risk to others and insurance would not be an issue.

I was a highways engineer so, apart from on a consultative level, my only concerns were encampments on the public highway.

 

Travellers anywhere else were someone else's problem.

 

My post is relevant because untaxed cars on travellers' sites were acted on immediately whereas someone's home was given time to be got legal...just like the different ways that CRT deal with leisure boats and liveaboards.

 

This is far more relevant than the knock on effect of not taxing one's car.

Edited May 1, 2013 by carlt

[Guest]

Ultimately though the consequences are the same.

 

And it wasn't a case of 'not' rather 'being unable', distinctly different.

[carlt]

Ultimately though the consequences are the same.

 

And it wasn't a case of 'not' rather 'being unable', distinctly different.

That is beside the point.

 

There is a huge difference between an "ultimate" consequence and a "direct" consequence.

 

The police did not take your relative's home off them, nor can they be expected to foresee the "ultimate consequence" of confiscating the vehicle.

[Guest]

That is beside the point.

 

There is a huge difference between an "ultimate" consequence and a "direct" consequence.

 

The police did not take your relative's home off them, nor can they be expected to foresee the "ultimate consequence" of confiscating the vehicle.

To be clear nothing was confiscated from any body.

 

My point, real point is that shit happens to people when they are on their uppers and often means a fundamental life changing decision has to be made, it may mean that you can't afford to retain your home of choice and have to take up something you can actually afford.

 

There must be thousands of people who would like to live in a certain way or location but they simply can't afford it any longer, why should boaters be any different?

[carlt]

 

 

There must be thousands of people who would like to live in a certain way or location but they simply can't afford it any longer, why should boaters be any different?

They are no different and land dwellers have just as much opportunity to seek sympathetic handling of any precarious position they may find themselves in as boat dwellers.

 

and often means a fundamental life changing decision has to be made,

and just as often doesn't have to be made, if you have a sympathetic landlord/building society/waterways authority.

 

Why shouldn't CRT choose to take a sympathetic view of someone "on their uppers" if they are able to?

[Paul C]

Why shouldn't CRT choose to take a sympathetic view of someone "on their uppers" if they are able to?

 

Are they able to though? As in, do they have the necessary resources for it.

[carlt]

Are they able to though? As in, do they have the necessary resources for it.

If the options are to give the boater time to get their affairs in order before, possibly, taking enforcement action, if he fails...or taking immediate enforcement action, I'd say the holding fire option is the least drain on resources.