Jump to content

Boat People in Land Grab


Wiseman

Featured Posts

Apologies if this has been posted before but I thought I would share this article from the Oxford Mail 18/06/2014:

Interesting situation in Oxford where the Council, C&RT and the EA all seem seem to view the boaters as "problems" who need to be eradicated or at best "managed". The last couple of years has seen Oxford Council crack down on boats without home moorings through Unlawfully Moored Boats Enforcement Group (Umbeg). Continuous cruisers on the Oxford Canal are being served patrol notices much more frequently and told to move further away or threatened with section 8 when returning to the canal. The EA has recently taken to evicting boats after only 4-5 days stay, and sometimes with police escort. Oxford Council has tried, and sometimes been successful, in getting local landowners to put up "No Mooring" signs in areas where boats have previously moored.

 

At the same time there are no new moorings being established in Oxford. The last CRT mooring to be auctioned off went for £6005/year. That was an Agenda 21 mooring, which is ironic, since these moorings where established with a policy to promote sustainable development and affordable housing .

 

I think these factors all have contributed to the "Boat people in land grab" situation that is described in the Oxford Mail. Shame that none of it is mentioned in the article.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It does seem a bit ironic that people with some sort of implied alternative lifestyle then claim that land they have been effectively squatting on is now private property and is cordoned off.

 

I can't help but agree with the Council, C&RT and the EA that they are problems who need to be eradicated!

 

Edit: I am equally opposed to landowners along the Thames (above Staines) who grab and fence off the land on the river side of the Thames path - even though they've probably got a bit more legal justification for doing so than these people. It means that on some stretches, people who walk along the river bank walk between two fences and have no access to or views of the river. The river bank on the footpath side should be for common use and should not be fenced off, either by rich landowners or poor boat crusties.

Edited by blackrose
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's 38 years since I lived in Oxford, but the University is still there so I'm sure demand for accommodation in the Jericho area will be quite strong, and hence demand for moorings on the last mile or two of the canal, the Thames and any side channels big enough to get a boat into.



The Oxford Mail report sounds quite balanced by local newspaper standards, although of course I'm not there to verify details; compare and contrast the recent MKweb reporting of the little demo in Milton Keynes. To clarify what 1st ade said, it was a woman objecting to the "land grab" who wanted her daughter to be able to throw stones from riverbanks, so if anyone's lost credibility it would be her as a parent if the Oxford Mail reported her comments accurately, or the Oxford Mail if they didn't.



No doubt these boaters are planning to enjoy the use of the mooring as long as they can, knowing that the various authorities will take a while to work out who the landowner is and then to get a case to court. As the Oxford Mail says, I think it's the case that unregistered land will belong to someone, they've just never bothered to do the paperwork with the Land Registry, or they've forgotten they own it. I think it tends to happen with odd strips of land that no-one in the past has seen a use for, and if this group of boaters get really lucky the council may be unable to identify the real owner and they could legally stay for ages. Whether they can legally bar others from using the land too is another matter; I have a feeling this thing could go on a while, with much litigation to come...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For ownership of land I think you need to have registered interest in ownership for 12 years. I am sure I heard of people putting up signs on plots of land claiming ownership and coming back after 12 years. A right of way ( easement ) is 20 years, I know that to my cost.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It does seem a bit ironic that people with some sort of implied alternative lifestyle then claim that land they have been effectively squatting on is now private property and is cordoned off.

 

I can't help but agree with the Council, C&RT and the EA that they are problems who need to be eradicated!

 

Edit: I am equally opposed to landowners along the Thames (above Staines) who grab and fence off the land on the river side of the Thames path - even though they've probably got a bit more legal justification for doing so than these people. It means that on some stretches, people who walk along the river bank walk between two fences and have no access to or views of the river. The river bank on the footpath side should be for common use and should not be fenced off, either by rich landowners or poor boat crusties.

 

Even more ironic if the rumours that one of the boaters is landlording his boat out to students is true?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The true irony is, I believe, that C&RT have been doing similar in many locations themselves.

Perhaps this group took their lead from them.

 

No doubt the outcome will prove the rule of one law for the powerful and another for the weak.

 

All property this theft anyway.

 

Keith

  • Greenie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The true irony is, I believe, that C&RT have been doing similar in many locations themselves.

Perhaps this group took their lead from them.

 

No doubt the outcome will prove the rule of one law for the powerful and another for the weak.

 

All property this theft anyway.

 

Keith

 

Tosh!!

Edited by Graham Davis
  • Greenie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The true irony is, I believe, that C&RT have been doing similar in many locations themselves.

Perhaps this group took their lead from them.

 

No doubt the outcome will prove the rule of one law for the powerful and another for the weak.

 

All property this theft anyway.

 

Keith

So true...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

How does that work then?

 

It doesn't work, it's a mis-quote.

 

The correct quote comes from USA history, where during the 'Boston tea party' rebels empties chests of tea into the sea, shouting:

 

"All proper tea is theft"

 

 

Hope that helps.

 

 

MtB

(One of my favourite puns. Pleased to have shoe-horned it in!)

  • Greenie 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

It doesn't work, it's a mis-quote.

 

The correct quote comes from USA history, where during the 'Boston tea party' rebels empties chests of tea into the sea, shouting:

 

"All proper tea is theft"

 

ok Ta - I thought it was maybe a Marxist type reference however, interestingly:

 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/property/newhomes/3303619/Not-all-property-is-theft.html

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think I am right in saying it is only the Crown that actually owns land in this country. Everyone else merely owns the freehold rights to the property. Which is why if oil is found on your land you have no rights to it, but you could get an extraction license from the Government. Different in the US, which is why they refer to REAL estate.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think I am right in saying it is only the Crown that actually owns land in this country. Everyone else merely owns the freehold rights to the property. Which is why if oil is found on your land you have no rights to it, but you could get an extraction license from the Government. Different in the US, which is why they refer to REAL estate.

Does anyone actually 'own' anything? Aren't we just paying for protection of our property via law and enforcement?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

It doesn't work, it's a mis-quote.

 

The correct quote comes from USA history, where during the 'Boston tea party' rebels empties chests of tea into the sea, shouting:

 

"All proper tea is theft"

 

 

Hope that helps.

 

 

MtB

(One of my favourite puns. Pleased to have shoe-horned it in!)

Well bang goes my clever answer about tea leaves and the like ...mad.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think I am right in saying it is only the Crown that actually owns land in this country. Everyone else merely owns the freehold rights to the property. Which is why if oil is found on your land you have no rights to it, but you could get an extraction license from the Government.

I was aware that owning the land didn't necessarily give you ownership of the mineral rights. However if your suggestion is correct why are they having a problem with fracking I think there needs to be a change in the law to prevent some people stopping things by not allowing it below their property.

 

Getting planning permission to extract anything would also be another problem.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was aware that owning the land didn't necessarily give you ownership of the mineral rights. However if your suggestion is correct why are they having a problem with fracking I think there needs to be a change in the law to prevent some people stopping things by not allowing it below their property.

 

Getting planning permission to extract anything would also be another problem.

 

I thought that you own the land but no-one owns the water nor the air (as these are managed by th State Risk Management bodies).

 

I also thought you owned the minerals unless the land was sold to you without mineral rights.

 

So who owns the earths heat?

Edited by mark99
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I believe the heat emanating from the earth is not owned by anyone in the same way sun light and wind are not owned. they are free natural resources. having said that the area of land (or sea!) where the heat comes up would be owned, so presumably the heat in that spot could also be argued to be owned by the land owner much as a spring might be....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is interesting that South Cheshire has just been identified as a potential source of geothermal energy. I'm a geologist by training and I didn't think that Cheshire has any special geothermal properties compared to other more likely areas that haven't been earmarked. However Cheshire has also been identified as a high potential fracking site. Interesting that the technology used to collect low-grade geothermal energy (i.e. what we have in this country as opposed to Iceland say) is not dissimilar to fracking. A more cynical person than me might just find this a little suspicious.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Its probably true to say that one never fully "owns" land, but if you break the law in crimes such as those in Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 Part V, the court one stands in is very real; and the jail you go to will have real bars and locks which prevent you from getting out easily. There will also be plenty of time to ponder over the finer points of the law on trespass, I'd imagine.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Who owned any land before man first walked upon the Earth?

The first person to lay claim to any land, in effect, stole it and the first person to buy land was, in effect, receiving stolen goods and the same applies to anyone who has bought land since.

 

We are all indoctrinated to accept the status quo and are quick to condemn anyone who challenges it.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Property_is_theft!

 

Keith

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.