NBTA London Legal Rights Meeting

[Alf Roberts]

Again just my opinion but if they weren't having to spend money on enforcement and court case they could get on and make the system better. 3 weeks ago we passed a boat and to quote my mate "if they throw everything on to the bank to join the other stuff there they still couldn't move for a couple of hours."

 

The boat obviously hadn't been there for less than 14 days and couldn't possibly move without leaving a huge pile of things on the bank. The cruiser stern was absolutely full you would need to enter the boat at the front. They are what in forum terms are "piss takers" and yet many seem to be working towards allowing boats to do this willy nilly and find every reason under the sun as to why CRT can't stop them.

 

I am sure John you will correct me if I am wrong but as I understand it the license for no home mooring came in because many (like you) wanted to travel large parts of the system and a home mooring was superfluous.

 

If that is correct them the spirit (not the letter) of the law was intended to allow reasonably long journeys however slowly. The main thrust of the discussions I see is round how short a distance you need to move to be a CCer. If there wasn't the whole trying to define a line at the minimum and it was accepted that the "spirit" of the law was what you followed, time and money would be saved on all these enforcement/legal actions which IMO has to be to the benefit of the canal system as a whole.

 

Of course if the no home mooring was brought in because people who wanted to "bridge hop" (to use another forum phrase) lobbied for it then fair enough.

 

There's three points;

 

1. You seem to assume NBTA would support this behaviour

2. I know dozens of boaters who don't behave like this who are both worried by CRT's threatening stance and need information

3. This boater also has rights. There are already sanctions under byelaw that can be used why throw a whole load of scattergun rules at everybody to try and deal with this rare problem.

[Jerra]

There's three points;

 

1. You seem to assume NBTA would support this behaviour

 

Where did you conjure that from I specifically said I wasn't referring to this thread. Please don't try to put words in my mouth.

2. I know dozens of boaters who don't behave like this who are both worried by CRT's threatening stance and need information

 

Again you are mnaking assumptions. I never said education was wrong in fact I said exactly the opposite. Personally however I don't find CRT stance threatening. What is threatening to those who obey the guidelines?

3. This boater also has rights. There are already sanctions under byelaw that can be used why throw a whole load of scattergun rules at everybody to try and deal with this rare problem.

 

You are assuming I want "scattergun" rules nothing I said implies that. Never even mentioned more rules. I did mention not opposing such current rules as generator running within certain hours.

So basically all your reply to me is either assumption or trying to put words into my mouth. Thanks for the reply.

[NBTA London]

 

I think it was me who pointed out the forum rules, and it certainly wasn't a dig at you as it's an easy mistake to make: if you post an event in the "events" sub-forum it won't appear on the board until a mod approves it. In your case I really can't see why they wouldn't approve this event although I'm not a mod and I'm not sure what the criteria for approval/rejection might be - I also can't think of any event I'd object to that would get past the site crew anyway so I didn't report your post. That's a very long winded way of saying you didn't upset me.

 

However, on the rights and responsibilities I'd raise a question mark. It is a very legalistic view to to say we have a right to absolutely anything we choose so long as it isn't illegal. Put it another way there is a need for responsible behaviour when exercising one's right - away from canals there is often nothing illegal about driving past a school at 30mph but it can be downright irresonsible. I think ACC came onto the scene promoting this concept. I would hope the NBTA would, in some small way, promote the idea of being a good neighbour (which isn't the same thing as being a pushover) and if they do I would applaud it.

Thanks for clarifying the procedure for posting events.

 

To address the second point, yes, it is a legalistic view, but that's because that's the subject of the meeting. Of course we all have responsibilities as citizens beyond what is strictly legally necessary, and the fact that we're not addressing them at this meeting doesn't mean that we don't believe they are important.

 

The number of boaters in the London area has increased massively in the past couple of years and this shows no sign of stopping. As a result the majority of CCers in London have arrived in the past year or two. Many of them have very little idea of what their rights are and what is required of them. Along with this, CRT's approach to guidance and enforcement has hardly clarified matters. If this meeting helps boaters understand what their legal rights are (and, by implication, at least the lower limit of their responsibilities), then that will be a step forward.

[Alf Roberts]

So basically all your reply to me is either assumption or trying to put words into my mouth. Thanks for the reply.

So why append your rant to a thread about boaters' legal rights?

[Jerra]

So why append your rant to a thread about boaters' legal rights?

Because as I pointed out it was a rant and could be counted as off topic.

 

However it was the infantile behaviour of some on the thread and the general tone of lowest level for legality (being aimed for IMO) which triggered the rant.

 

Rants in the middle of threads aren't uncommon on this forum.

[NigelMoore]

 

. . . I hadn't seen or noticed that before

 

You need to look at the top RH box on their home page, and click on the link to “Why CRT lost section 8 case meeting transcripts.”

 

That gets you to here: http://www.bargee-traveller.org.uk/?page_id=128 and you then can choose to open up “WHAT THE JUDGEMENT [sic] MEANS TO BOATERS”, which is what I was quoting from.

[magpie patrick]

Thanks for clarifying the procedure for posting events.

 

To address the second point, yes, it is a legalistic view, but that's because that's the subject of the meeting. Of course we all have responsibilities as citizens beyond what is strictly legally necessary, and the fact that we're not addressing them at this meeting doesn't mean that we don't believe they are important.

 

The number of boaters in the London area has increased massively in the past couple of years and this shows no sign of stopping. As a result the majority of CCers in London have arrived in the past year or two. Many of them have very little idea of what their rights are and what is required of them. Along with this, CRT's approach to guidance and enforcement has hardly clarified matters. If this meeting helps boaters understand what their legal rights are (and, by implication, at least the lower limit of their responsibilities), then that will be a step forward.

 

I am going to stick my neck out here and say that responses such as this have given me a hugely increased respect for the NBTA, thank you for such a reasoned and articulate post on a thread, and in a forum, that doesn't always manage such high standards.

 

And the respect isn't just for being reasoned and articulate, but also because I can now see the value of what you are trying to do and wish you well. I'm open to persuasion, and I'm being persuaded

Edited October 5, 2014 by magpie patrick

[MtB]

 

I am going to stick my neck out here and say that responses such as this have given me a hugely increased respect for the NBTA, thank you for such a reasoned and articulate post on a thread, and in a forum, that doesn't always manage such high standards.

 

And the respect isn't just for being reasoned and articulate, but also because I can now see the value of what you are trying to do and wish you well. I'm open to persuasion, and I'm being persuaded

 

 

Seconded.

 

MtB

[Wanted]

I think the crux is that there is more than one way to make things better.

 

Using London as an example (coz that's where I live)

We have seen a huge increase in boaters, all different shapes and sizes, all different reasons for being here.

One issue that has arisen is the shear lack of understanding at a time when CRT seem to be adding new conditions and rules into the pot.

If NBTA can go some way to help people understand their legal and by default non legal rights then hopefully some of this can be addressed.

 

I would also like to point out to Dave M that questioning the use of the word travellers by a group he knows little about is in itself pretty offensive. Many of us who have lived on the road and then on boats consider ourselves as travellers and hold a belief way beyond legal definitions.

[RLWP]

I would also like to point out to Dave M that questioning the use of the word travellers by a group he knows little about is in itself pretty offensive. Many of us who have lived on the road and then on boats consider ourselves as travellers and hold a belief way beyond legal definitions.

 

I thought that was a dig based on the popularly held belief that this group of 'travellers' never move.

 

Richard

[BruceinSanity]

I am going to stick my neck out here and say that responses such as this have given me a hugely increased respect for the NBTA, thank you for such a reasoned and articulate post on a thread, and in a forum, that doesn't always manage such high standards.

 

And the respect isn't just for being reasoned and articulate, but also because I can now see the value of what you are trying to do and wish you well. I'm open to persuasion, and I'm being persuaded

Seconded.

 

MtB

Thirded, and a greenie. This thread has gone a long way towards changing my view of the NBTA (though I still think it's a daft name).

[cotswoldsman]

 

I thought that was a dig based on the popularly held belief that this group of 'travellers' never move.

 

Richard

And again that is a wrong belief they do move some might think not far enough or even not to enough places but as we are not judge and jury I guess that makes little difference, or do you happen to know how many of their members are under enforcement for not moving?

[MtB]

 

I thought that was a dig based on the popularly held belief that this group of 'travellers' never move.

 

Richard

 

My thoughts too.

 

In fact the perception that they are not national (K&A based), not bargees (NB owners) and don't travel (CMers support group) is something that works constantly against them.

 

The leadership would do well to focus on dispelling these misconceptions.

 

MtB

[cotswoldsman]

 

My thoughts too.

 

In fact the perception that they are not national (K&A based), not bargees (NB owners) and don't travel (CMers support group) is something that works constantly against them.

 

The leadership would do well to focus on dispelling these misconceptions.

 

MtB

I would think that as long as their members are happy then that is all that matters

[RLWP]

And again that is a wrong belief they do move some might think not far enough or even not to enough places but as we are not judge and jury I guess that makes little difference, or do you happen to know how many of their members are under enforcement for not moving?

 

Yes, I thought this might happen. I tried very hard to word what I said carefully - so now I have to make a declaration

 

I have never visited the K&A

 

I have never knowingly seen a boat belonging to a member of the NBTA

 

I do not know what their cruising patterns are

 

I do know that there is a popular belief that boats do not move on the K&A

 

I do not hold that belief as I have no knowledge to either support or deny it

 

And, I was trying to explain something

 

Richard

 

Sheesh...

Edited October 6, 2014 by RLWP

[Wanted]

And we could all help by not perpetuating it..

 

Yes, I thought this might happen. I tried very hard to word what I said carefully - so now I have to make a declaration

 

I have never visited the K&A

 

I have never knowingly seen a boat belonging to a member of the NBTA

 

I do not know what their cruising patterns are

 

I do know that there is a popular belief that boats do not move on the K&A

 

I do not hold that belief as I have no knowledge to either support or deny it

 

And, I was trying to explain something

 

Richard

 

Sheesh...

As I understood it, you were making a suggestion that may have explained Daves post.

 

Cheers

[RLWP]

And we could all help by not perpetuating it..

 

Please can you explain how I am perpetuating it? For clarity, I was trying to explain that the post in question might be referring to a popularly held belief rather than the origins of the group involved. The belief is popular and widely held, even if it is inaccurate

 

Richard

Edited October 6, 2014 by RLWP

[Jambo]

 

Mr NBTA - here is a link to the revised webpage for the "maps and places" that you refer to - it may help if yo have a look at it

 

https://places.crtrust.org.uk/places#lat:52.95096250690584,lng:-1.073774243594352,zoom:14

This was a development site that the Canal & River Trust were using to consult with national boating organisations over the concept of places and their associated maps. This consultation is continuing, but we no longer need to have the development site running and so it has been removed. We will, of course, share more information with our customers, and be happy to accept feedback, once our discussions with national boating organisations have concluded

 

 

I find that a slightly odd statement. That was a pretty much fully developed, customer-facing webpage including a fully functioning system to package up your selection of maps into a pdf and email it to you as well as new guidance. A fair amount of effort and cost would have gone in to that site, more than if it was just for a consultation exercise. Maps haven't gone away.

Edited October 6, 2014 by Jambo

[MtB]

I would think that as long as their members are happy then that is all that matters

 

Not if the leadership seek a bigger membership, as most organisations do. But I don't know about the NBTA. I know very little about them beyond the commonly held misconceptions I listed, and the flavour of their website which frankly, doesn't help.

 

MtB

[Lady Muck]

The maps haven't gone away and it seems as if they are being used as a basis for enforcement already. Surely better to be proactive than reactive? Lets be prepared and ready for the future rather than be sent into a tailspin by any changes.

It was always a complaint of London boaters way of doing things. NBTA London are trying to be proactive - I'm not a member, but quite a few people who I respect have joined.

[Wanted]

 

Please can you explain how I am perpetuating it? For clarity, I was trying to explain that the post in question might be referring to a popularly held belief rather than the origins of the group involved. The belief is popular and widely held, even if it is inaccurate

 

Richard

Ha! I knew this would happen, we are at cross posts, my fault. I don't think you are. I understood your post answering mine as it was intended. I disagree with Johns interpretation.

 

I genuinely believe that whilst Mike is right, there is a rep that the NBTA have to address, I see a lot of folk trying to trip them up before the off. Maybe we can all do our bit to help them change this perception.

 

Phew!

[mayalld]

I would also like to point out to Dave M that questioning the use of the word travellers by a group he knows little about is in itself pretty offensive. Many of us who have lived on the road and then on boats consider ourselves as travellers and hold a belief way beyond legal definitions.

 

Traveller is a catch-all term for a number of ethnic groups, such as Irish Travellers, and Romani People.

 

One cannot simply decide to become a member of an ethnic group, on the basis that you choose to follow their lifestyle.

 

NBTA has appropriated the name, so as to lay claim to the protections that the law affords to the customs of travellers for themselves.

 

Naturally, I exclude from my criticism those Members of NBTA who have actual Traveller or Romani heritage (although I would be surprised that they would wish to associate with those who usurp theor identity)

[RLWP]

Ha! I knew this would happen, we are at cross posts, my fault. I don't think you are. I understood your post answering mine as it was intended. I disagree with Johns interpretation.

 

I genuinely believe that whilst Mike is right, there is a rep that the NBTA have to address, I see a lot of folk trying to trip them up before the off. Maybe we can all do our bit to help them change this perception.

 

Phew!

 

I'm genuinely pleased that the NBTA are being more open and apparently less combative. This seems to me to be a good way to change reputations

 

And, judging by Dave's latest post, I was wrong anyway

 

Richard

[cotswoldsman]

 

Traveller is a catch-all term for a number of ethnic groups, such as Irish Travellers, and Romani People.

 

One cannot simply decide to become a member of an ethnic group, on the basis that you choose to follow their lifestyle.

 

NBTA has appropriated the name, so as to lay claim to the protections that the law affords to the customs of travellers for themselves.

 

Naturally, I exclude from my criticism those Members of NBTA who have actual Traveller or Romani heritage (although I would be surprised that they would wish to associate with those who usurp theor identity)

I think you will find that NABTA are affiliated to the National Travelers (whatever they are called) might be wrong but they certainly have used the same solicitors in Birmingham that represent The National Travelers

The maps haven't gone away and it seems as if they are being used as a basis for enforcement already.

 

In London?

[Alf Roberts]

 

Traveller is a catch-all term for a number of ethnic groups, such as Irish Travellers, and Romani People.

 

One cannot simply decide to become a member of an ethnic group, on the basis that you choose to follow their lifestyle.

 

NBTA has appropriated the name, so as to lay claim to the protections that the law affords to the customs of travellers for themselves.

 

Naturally, I exclude from my criticism those Members of NBTA who have actual Traveller or Romani heritage (although I would be surprised that they would wish to associate with those who usurp theor identity)

Dave Mayall says NBTA's definition of 'traveller' differs from his understanding of the word so they shouldn't use it.

 

The over-weening arrogance of the man.