Reasons for not allowing continuous on line mooring.

[bassplayer]

I think Rob, that sentence encapsulates the root problem...(people living on boats who don't give a damn about the system they are on)

 

some people are prepared to drive a coach and horses through the rules in order to follow their own selfish reasons. Completely disregarding any deleterious results for the canal system as a whole.

 

So how do you stop or at least slow down this problem....this goes back to the question I asked umpteen posts ago.

 

Is the prime reason for the canal system to provide housing

or

is the prime reason for the canal system to allow people to travel on it

 

The two do not seem to be mutually compatible, once the numbers involved reach the levels we are beginning to see in the hot spots

It probably depends on the availability of affordable housing in the area concerned. It's already clear that many in London feel the canal is there to live on.

 

How do you feel about live aboard's living on the cut (as many CC'ers do)? Or do you think everyone living on a boat should be kept off the cut and put in a marina?

 

I'm not sure how much space there is in London to build special marinas for housing, so unless the government and councils come up with something we could see boat movement become very restricted there.

 

It could be asked; Is having somewhere to live more important than allowing boats to move around?

[boathunter]

 

 

...Is the prime reason for the canal system to provide housing

or

is the prime reason for the canal system to allow people to travel on it...

 

Not aimed specifically at you John V, but why does there have to be a prime reason for the continued existence of the canal system?

 

The housing angle:

As a landlubber and like many looking at boats, life on the water does look relatively free and easy. The rules are vague and comparing to other apsects of life like driving for instance, barely enforced and leaving you with a large degree of control over your life. It's little wonder it's attractive and giving it a bash requites sub £20K which you can get back if you don't like it. The day to day costs are cheap and you'll be saving on monthly outgoings from almost the day you hit the water. What's not to like? I'm surprised it's not even more popular and strained that it already is.

[bassplayer]

Not aimed specifically at you John V, but why does there have to be a prime reason for the continued existence of the canal system?

 

The housing angle:

I'm surprised it's not even more popular and strained that it already is.

I suspect it's because many people want more space to live on...

 

...regarding prime reasons...I agree.....everyone has a different reason, so there isn't a prime reason. I doubt CRT's motives are the only ones which count either, but they probably count for a lot.

[Sir Nibble]

If ever a policy decision were taken that the prime purpose of the canals is residential then the only course of action that would make any sense would be to get rid of the inconvenient water and establish a long street of "mobile" homes.

[Higgs]

It could be asked; Is having somewhere to live more important than allowing boats to move around?

 

Can't blame people for wanting shelter, but it could lead to some/more radical changes to the CC rules. 'This area is full and cannot cope with any more, you can have this area or that area, but not that one.' 'Sorry it's 100 miles from London, but that's it'.

[John V]

Because (IMHO) If you do not have a defined objective then efforts and finances become diffused through too wide a range of objectives.

 

If travelling is prime then money for the maintenance of the operating system (locks, banks, dredging etc) comes out of the budge first.

 

extra facilities for people living on board, on line, in a restricted area (water points, elsan/pumpout points rubbish points and their clearing., mooring rings etc) then come out only if everything else has been done.

 

If housing is prime then those objectives are reversed then peripheral canals will start falling into total disrepair....and it all starts looking familiar

[Bee]

For many people doing ordinary work these days the ' first rung on the housing ladder' is not going to be a house or even a flat, its going to be a shared tip, squat, boat or something else similar. I spent yesterday in a shed with a friend, that was her home, it was a very nice shed in a field. For many people a house is never going to be what they live in.

[bassplayer]

If ever a policy decision were taken that the prime purpose of the canals is residential then the only course of action that would make any sense would be to get rid of the inconvenient water and establish a long street of "mobile" homes.

.... then they could stack them upon eachother to crate high rise mobile homes...I don't think you can stack boats...or can you?

[bassplayer]

Because (IMHO) If you do not have a defined objective then efforts and finances become diffused through too wide a range of objectives.

 

If travelling is prime then money for the maintenance of the operating system (locks, banks, dredging etc) comes out of the budge first.

 

extra facilities for people living on board, on line, in a restricted area (water points, elsan/pumpout points rubbish points and their clearing., mooring rings etc) then come out only if everything else has been done.

 

If housing is prime then those objectives are reversed then peripheral canals will start falling into total disrepair....and it all starts looking familiar

The objectives are dependant on the demands of the region though. Comes back to only fixing things when (or where) they're broken.

 

In my view, it would be silly to create rules to stop people living on the cut in rural areas because there isn't a problem. It appears London has a problem. More mooring rules don't really help, creating affordable housing does. I know it's easy to blame the government but they are responsible for the bad planning...like everyone else, CRT are taking the flak....

[Sir Nibble]

God knows what could be done with locks. De gate them and install ramps I suppose.

[bassplayer]

God knows what could be done with locks. De gate them and install ramps I suppose.

....then put a roof on them and create a garage...

[boathunter]

It's perhaps a pity that living on a boat doesn't require that some "practical good" is done along the way.

 

I also squatted ex-council housing in London in the very early 80's. Squatting in those days was not only acceptable, but welcomed both by the new housing associations and neighbours, both for the same reasons. We were stopping the wholesale ransacking of some potentially very nice housing. The neighbours didn't have to worry that someone would set the place on fire and the housing associations couldn't afford to suddenly make their new housing stock habitable enough to rent out. Everyone was happy for that brief period in time and when it came to pass that the H.A. wanted to do up a house we were living in, we were offered another completed one to rent, or shown a list of similar properties that they wouldn't object to us inhabiting. It worked both ways though - if we spotted a nice place, we'd go to the H.A. to see what plans they had for it. One I remember was a huge house that was earmarked for a womens refuge so we dipped out on that one.

 

If in oder to live on the bankside you had to dredge your own little bit and tidy up the bankside perhaps CM types would get better press.

[John V]

Boathunter ...That ties back to Wanted's post about embracing the lifestyle

[Higgs]

 

If in oder to live on the bankside you had to dredge your own little bit and tidy up the bankside perhaps CM types would get better press.

 

Can't quite see that happening. May as well paint potholes pink.

[boathunter]

Boathunter ...That ties back to Wanted's post about embracing the lifestyle

Yes it does, and if you look back most of my posts have been atempting to put forward the theory that the reason most people move to the cut is to do just that rather than save a few incidental £'s. However the opportunity to express this by doing some good appears to limited to volunteering for some litter picking.

 

Can't quite see that happening. May as well paint potholes pink.

Exactly. The opportunities simply don't exist as they did for us squatters 30 years ago.

[Higgs]

Yes it does, and if you look back most of my posts have been atempting to put forward the theory that the reason most people move to the cut is to do just that rather than save a few incidental £'s. However the opportunity to express this by doing some good appears to limited to volunteering for some litter picking.

 

Why not do both - don't CM, and, pick up litter.

Edited October 5, 2014 by Higgs

[boathunter]

 

Why not do both - not Cm and, pick up litter.

Because housing is not boating? I can quite understand the view of a CMer is probably that shuffling about to stay within the rules is a rather pointless and token excercise if all that's happening is the same boats are swapping places now and again. Might as well atempt to stay put if that's the case and until recently it seems people were getting away with this due to non-existent application of some of the rules.

[Higgs]

Because housing is not boating? I can quite understand the view of a CMer is probably that shuffling about to stay within the rules is a rather pointless and token excercise if all that's happening is the same boats are swapping places now and again. Might as well atempt to stay put if that's the case and until recently it seems people were getting away with this due to non-existent application of some of the rules.

 

 

Time to start applying them. Put it this way - they've had a good run. Self regulation doesn't seem to encourage good practice.

[boathunter]

There is no answer is there?

 

None of this has any effect on me BTW. I have a nice private mooring with a useful plot of land attached, despite having no boat. Oh well, one day soon I'll get there. In the meantime it's fascinating to see just how defensive some people are over the canals which only bolsters the thought that there must be something good about them. It's lifestyle for me all the way despite having only ever slept on one boat for one night while rather pished. It's like camping isn't it and I almost live in my very small camper when the weather's warm. A boat will be luxury in comparison. For myself I want peace and quiet and to be able to chill with a book in a cosy space with a warm fire/stove. It's taken me most of my life to get in a position where I can do this and I reckon 1-2 days work a week on top of "other" income will see me right. Yes cheap housing, but as a means to many ends, not born from desperation. There must be many others like me. No I haven't "earned my canal stripes" any more than someone heading for London, but I do have the common sense not to get myself in a precarious life position that doesn't have viable exit strategies.

 

However, I recognise that not everyone is as organised as I am or prepared to take full responsibilty for their own existance. E.G. there have been many many times that I could have claimed benifits but chose not to for the simple reason that I enjoy working my way out from a pickle. Some peeps can't cope and need some leeway. Some people can and chose not to from what I percieve as selfish laziness, but I also see them as the ultimate loosers. I'd rather be self-sustaining TBH even if it's more difficult.

Edited October 5, 2014 by boathunter

[Higgs]

There is no answer is there?

 

None of this has any effect on me BTW. I have a nice private mooring with a useful plot of land attached, despite having no boat. Oh well, one day soon I'll get there. In the meantime it's fascinating to see just how defensive some people are over the canals which only bolsters the thought that there must be something good about them. It's lifestyle for me all the way despite having only ever slept on one boat for one night while rather pished. It's like camping isn't it and I almost live in my very small camper when the weather's warm. A boat will be luxury in comparison. For myself I want peace and quiet and to be able to chill with a book in a cosy space with a warm fire/stove. It's taken me most of my life to get in a position where I can do this and I reckon 1-2 days work a week on top of "other" income will see me right. Yes cheap housing, but as a means to many ends, not born from desperation. There must be many others like me. No I haven't "earned my canal stripes" any more than someone heading for London, but I do have the common sense not to get myself in a precarious life position that doesn't have viable exit strategies.

 

However, I recognise that not everyone is as organised as I am or prepared to take full responsibilty for their own existance. E.G. there have been many many times that I could have claimed benifits but chose not to for the simple reason that I enjoy working my way out from a pickle. Some peeps can't cope and need some leeway. Some people can and chose not to from what percieve as selfish laziness, but I also see them as the ultimate loosers. I'd rather be self-sustaining TBH even if it's more difficult.

 

 

It is not for the want of trying to apply a bit of common sense to these matters. Nothing is ever going to be perfect for everyone. If people are going to opt for living on a boat, they cannot be all in a few places. The canal system does matter, as well.

[boathunter]

 

 

It is not for the want of trying to apply a bit of common sense to these matters. Nothing is ever going to be perfect for everyone. If people are going to opt for living on a boat, they cannot be all in a few places. The canal system does matter, as well.

The canal system matters not a jot to someone living in a boat as cheap housing though. I doubt many are even more than vaguely aware of it's existance and why should they be? What's to gain for them if the locks are broken. Local waterpoint, local elsan disposal, myopic view ends. A bit pointless in the rest of "us" finding that sad. They would be baffled and bemused at that I would imagine.

 

A bit of realism is called for in order to keep all canal users happy and that must start with accepting the fact that it's cheap to live on a boat and people will do just that for that reason.

Edited October 5, 2014 by boathunter

[Higgs]

The canal system matters not a jot to someone living in a boat as cheap housing though. I doubt many are even more than vaguely aware of it's existance and why should they be? What's to gain for them if the locks are broken. Local waterpoint, local elsan disposal, myopic view ends. A bit pointless in the rest of "us" finding that sad. They would be baffled and bemused at that I would imagine.

 

A bit of realism is called for in order to keep all canal users happy and that must start with accepting the fact that it's cheap to live on a boat and people will do just that for that reason.

 

For people who move onto the canal without giving it a thought - I can only tell them, don't be disappointed if rules are found not to be to your liking.

Edited October 5, 2014 by Higgs

[bargemast]

A presumption that I am obliged to provide an answer to any questions posed could also be seen as arrogant.

 

If I decide that answering is interesting to me I might yet do so. If I decide not (and particularly if there is any demand that I must answer) I may not.

 

I still don't see what your recent post was about but I respect your right not to explain.

 

Have a pleasant evening

 

This isn't just any question, it a question that I would like to be answered by you, after I posted on the Continual cruising post #274, and it was you who thought you had to pick only one line of what I wrote in your post # 275 and write something underneath it for which I asked you to explain what you wanted to say there, as I don't understand it, surely because of my lack of the finer use of the language.

 

Maybe now you understand what my repeated questions to you where about, and I have no difficulty to explain that, if you don't want to explain clearly what you were meaning, I think that I have the right to call that arrogant.

 

What I appreciate most on CWDF is that members are giving their best answer to questions to explain and help others understand certain things better, and it makes me sad to notice that you not like that.

 

To make it easier to understand for you how I feel, I just copied here part of a line of your post above, which has lost what you wrote, a bit like what you did to mine, like this:

 

" I am obliged to provide an answer"

 

 

Peter.

 

 

[Wanted]

 

 

I think Rob, that sentence encapsulates the root problem...(people living on boats who don't give a damn about the system they are on)

 

some people are prepared to drive a coach and horses through the rules in order to follow their own selfish reasons. Completely disregarding any deleterious results for the canal system as a whole.

 

So how do you stop or at least slow down this problem....this goes back to the question I asked umpteen posts ago.

 

Is the prime reason for the canal system to provide housing

or

is the prime reason for the canal system to allow people to travel on it

 

The two do not seem to be mutually compatible, once the numbers involved reach the levels we are beginning to see in the hot spots

Maybe the route problem but I don't agree that all of it is intentional by individuals but more as a product of society.

 

Ranting at CCs and even CMs will do nothing to address the issue.

[Alf Roberts]

Especially as John V himself is a CMer, albeit one who pays for the privilege. So it seems once more the issue is simply one of 'who pays what'