Off The Cut - CRT and evictions

[Felshampo]

Interesting film here

 

 

 

[Hawkmoth]

I feel very ambivalent about this. On one hand I have experienced the western end of the K&A, there were a lot of scruffy boats there, which didn't appear to have any licence and spilled their belongings onto the towpath which was clear indication (to me anyway) that they had no intention of moving. However, CRT should make clear a distance to move, it should be achievable, and not move the goalposts every so often to suit themselves.

The lady in the film seems to be home educating her son so it isn't immediately apparent to me why she has to stay in one area.

Bob

Edit to remove unnecessary quote.

Edited April 13, 2016 by Hawkmoth

[MtB]

I've just watched it and though on the face of it, it is a very well balanced and well professionally produced film. I think we are likely to see a lot more of this film as clearly, a LOT of effort has gone into producing it.

 

But as Hawkmoth says, it went off the rails towards the end with the implied 'emotional blackmail' of making out CRT to be responsible for the lady home educating her son feeling driven to sell her boat and live in a van.

 

Like Hawkmoth I could see no reason for her not cruising a bit further as requested by CRT, and thereby keeping her boat licence.

(Other than that she doesn't want to, that is!)

[wrigglefingers]

Probably didn't move enough because of the sheer effort of moving a boat under pedal power. I loved the sentiment of not polluting but the reality is that she was considerably stymied by that decision, and I'd say that it made it virtually impossible for her to comply. Why she couldn't get someone to tow her was another matter entirely.

 

It's on public record that when I first moved on to a boat, I lived in the Western K & A community for a while until I found NB Surprise and a mooring in BoA marina. There are some very kind people in that community who looked after us when I wasn't very well and I will always be grateful to them for their care of us. The way of living is perhaps not to everyone's taste and certainly, in some cases, breaks the rules and guidelines on moving.

 

There are huge issues around mental and physical health and some of the dwellers are intransigent in their refusal to conform which makes it hard to have sympathy with them. They are real people though, with real feelings and a need for the same things that we all need. A home, safety, comfort and stability. The problem is, the goalposts are constantly moving. Yes, it's a choice we make when we move aboard, but sometime it just all falls apart and sometimes the dream that is sold is just that, a dream. The truth of the matter is that CRT have been faced with an ongoing problem and have tried to solve it for some very good reasons, but have somehow made a mess of it again and again and again. Yes, for some of the people in the community, nothing that was done would have been right, some have simply got on with it and some have been deliberately antagonised, even when they have complied. I received a patrol notice at BoA when I stopped for some food shopping. I doubt I'd been there for more than 40 minutes on a 48 hour mooring and my home mooring was less than a mile away. Equally, NB Surprise hardly looked like a respectable boat ...

 

I enjoyed the film, it was good to see Panda and Chris still campaigning, I take the point about Bev and her son leaving the boat, but I feel they needed to complete her story.

Edited April 13, 2016 by wrigglefingers

[jenlyn]

Probably didn't move enough because of the sheer effort of moving a boat under pedal power. I loved the sentiment of not polluting but the reality is that she was considerably stymied by that decision, and I'd say that it made it virtually impossible for her to comply. Why she couldn't get someone to tow her was another matter entirely.

It's on public record that when I first moved on to a boat, I lived in the Western K & A community for a while until I found NB Surprise and a mooring in BoA marina. There are some very kind people in that community who looked after us when I wasn't very well and I will always be grateful to them for their care of us. The way of living is perhaps not to everyone's taste and certainly, in some cases, breaks the rules and guidelines on moving.

There are huge issues around mental and physical health and some of the dwellers are intransigent in their refusal to conform which makes it hard to have sympathy with them. They are real people though, with real feelings and a need for the same things that we all need. A home, safety, comfort and stability. The problem is, the goalposts are constantly moving. Yes, it's a choice we make when we move aboard, but sometime it just all falls apart and sometimes the dream that is sold is just that, a dream. The truth of the matter is that CRT have been faced with an ongoing problem and have tried to solve it for some very good reasons, but have somehow made a mess of it again and again and again. Yes, for some of the people in the community, nothing that was done would have been right, some have simply got on with it and some have been deliberately antagonised, even when they have complied. I received a patrol notice at BoA when I stopped for some food shopping. I doubt I'd been there for more than 40 minutes on a 48 hour mooring and my home mooring was less than a mile away. Equally, NB Surprise hardly looked like a respectable boat ...

I enjoyed the film, it was good to see Panda and Chris still campaigning, I take the point about Bev and her son leaving the boat, but I feel they needed to complete her story.

That is a very well reasoned post. Have a virtual greenie.

[MtB]

Probably didn't move enough because of the sheer effort of moving a boat under pedal power. I loved the sentiment of not polluting but the reality is that she was considerably stymied by that decision, and I'd say that it made it virtually impossible for her to comply. Why she couldn't get someone to tow her was another matter entirely.

 

 

Y'know I'd totally overlooked the early bit in the film showing how she'd converted the boat to pedal power. So now I CAN see her reason for not moving very far, but as you say, she could have been towed. I suspect there are a few CCing butties still on the system.

 

She also sort of blamed CRT for having to sell the boat for half what she paid for it IIRC. Or might the fall in value have been because she'd removed the engine?

[wrigglefingers]

That is a very well reasoned post. Have a virtual greenie.

Ah, thanks, Steve.

Y'know I'd totally overlooked the early bit in the film showing how she'd converted the boat to pedal power. So now I CAN see her reason for not moving very far, but as you say, she could have been towed. I suspect there are a few CCing butties still on the system.

 

She also sort of blamed CRT for having to sell the boat for half what she paid for it IIRC. Or might the fall in value have been because she'd removed the engine?

Difficult to know really, Mike, I think she was just a bit emotional and probably not able to reason it out dispassionately. Hard in those circumstances.

[Southern Star]

I feel sorry for her in that she faces losing her home, but at the same time owning a boat is similar to driving a car, in that it is not a freedom but something which is done under licence, and the simple fact is that there are terms and conditions which go with the licence which simply are not optional. That may sound harsh, but it's a fact.

[magictime]

It's a good film that puts a human face on some well-worn debates. A bit more clarity would have been nice on just what CRT are demanding of these boaters - a viewer with no knowledge of these issues could be forgiven for missing the point that boaters are being asked to move 15-20 miles or more in a year, and not every 14 days. And in a way I'd have liked a bit more explanation of what's behind people's very different views on what's legally required of boaters without home moorings (i.e. what it means to use a boat "bona fide for navigation throughout the period"). That might have helped viewers come to a more informed view of their own. But it's not supposed to be an exhaustive, forensic analysis of the legal issues, I guess.

[Guest]

Mike the Boilerman, on 13 Apr 2016 - 1:06 PM, said:

She also sort of blamed CRT for having to sell the boat for half what she paid for it IIRC. Or might the fall in value have been because she'd removed the engine?

 

No I believe she actually said she was being forced to sell it for half it's insured value, which is not necessarily the same as what she paid for it.

 

It was an interesting film overall however and it did put more of a 'human face' on some of the stories we read on here and other blogs and sites. Mr. Symonds came across as less than confident though, particularly when asked about the status of the trust as a public authority, but was honest about the Trusts lack of ability to actually stipulate what minimum distances are required though.

 

The bottom line though is that until there is either definitive legal clarification as to what constitutes a required minimum travel distance these scenarios are going to continue to play out time and time again. Either that or the Trust just abandon the enforcement process all together and leave them to it, clearly a result which suits some.

[Bod]

Having seen the film.

All the boaters, filmed knew about the 1995 Waterways Act, and what it required from them. No one filmed was disputing, that they had'nt done enough, or that C&RT had recorded their movements incorrectly.

"New Guidance" was a common theme, sorry, but the requirements havent changed since 1995.(Before some were big enough to reach the tiller.)

C&RT have issued, albeit not to clearly, just how much movement will "Satisfy the Board". Yes, this distance will probably change in years to come, but its what we have now.

 

C&RT on the other hand, who also know about the 1995 Act, do need to start acting absolutely correctly.

You can't start enforceing Houseboat rules, on boats that are not by 1995 Act defination, houseboats!

 

A nice propaganda film, but one that showed the film makers, lack of questioning. Patrol Notices, abound, Section 8/13 letters abound, none investigated to show who was coming up short, or why.

 

Bod

(Who belives more education of all boaters is the only way forward.

As Nigel Moore and Tony Dunkley, and others are trying to do on here.)

[gaggle]

BEV , LOVELY LOOKING AND VERY PLEASANT GIRL

[patty-ann]

I chatted with a man who had fallen foul of CRT over his cruising pattern on the K and A..he admitted to me he';d been lazy and moved every 2 weeks but sometimes only a few hundred yards..he discussed with CRT and came to agreement that 20 miles a year was deemed sufficient.

[Mike Todd]

The lady also said that having sold her boat she was going to move into a van. (Which might have been the one shown)

 

I wonder where she will find to park it permanently without having a permit that costs money?

 

Or whether the local highways authority, or whoever owns the land on which the van is parked, will allow this indefinitely.

 

As another poster has said, none of the people shown contested the fact that they were non-compliant. What they want is not clearly something that is itself within the legal structure, however imprecise that is.

 

All in all it shows just how difficult it is for all concerned to cope with a very inadequate legal framework and how unfortunate it was that the government at the time failed to use the opportunity of creating CaRT to update the legislation. Sadly, they wanted to do the transfer as cheaply as they could (in all senses of cheap).

 

But it also has to borne in mind that any such clarification would have no guarantee that it would yield the context that the people in the film seek.

 

Sadly, people wishing to operate at the margins of what is legal will always find that they are continually fighting to determine whether they are right or wrong. Were these boaters to move,say, a mile a week, not just up to the water tap and back, then they would be in a much better position regarding a defence against enforcement. Of course, they may well be right that in time the rules, whether law or not, will change and that they will affect the way of life of someone. But this is not unique to boaters.

[ditchcrawler]

There is a thread on Facebook where a boater has only done 15 miles in 8 years on the K&A and has only just done their first lock

[CDS]

It's a good film that puts a human face on some well-worn debates. A bit more clarity would have been nice on just what CRT are demanding of these boaters - a viewer with no knowledge of these issues could be forgiven for missing the point that boaters are being asked to move 15-20 miles or more in a year, and not every 14 days. And in a way I'd have liked a bit more explanation of what's behind people's very different views on what's legally required of boaters without home moorings (i.e. what it means to use a boat "bona fide for navigation throughout the period"). That might have helped viewers come to a more informed view of their own. But it's not supposed to be an exhaustive, forensic analysis of the legal issues, I guess.

The issue of whats legally required is one thing and the CRT recommendation another,the real concern

is where this is all leading,this fear of ethnic cleansing of boaters without a home mooring.

The fear of the moving goalpost.

[CDS]

The lady also said that having sold her boat she was going to move into a van. (Which might have been the one shown)

 

I wonder where she will find to park it permanently without having a permit that costs money?

 

Or whether the local highways authority, or whoever owns the land on which the van is parked, will allow this indefinitely.

 

As another poster has said, none of the people shown contested the fact that they were non-compliant. What they want is not clearly something that is itself within the legal structure, however imprecise that is.

 

All in all it shows just how difficult it is for all concerned to cope with a very inadequate legal framework and how unfortunate it was that the government at the time failed to use the opportunity of creating CaRT to update the legislation. Sadly, they wanted to do the transfer as cheaply as they could (in all senses of cheap).

 

But it also has to borne in mind that any such clarification would have no guarantee that it would yield the context that the people in the film seek.

 

Sadly, people wishing to operate at the margins of what is legal will always find that they are continually fighting to determine whether they are right or wrong. Were these boaters to move,say, a mile a week, not just up to the water tap and back, then they would be in a much better position regarding a defence against enforcement. Of course, they may well be right that in time the rules, whether law or not, will change and that they will affect the way of life of someone. But this is not unique to boaters.

I suspect there is more of a problem with interpretation of the Framework than the Framework itself

and that misinterpretation is on both sides of the argument.As regards money to park her van,what

validity has that to any points raised?

[John V]

The lady also said that having sold her boat she was going to move into a van. (Which might have been the one shown)

 

I wonder where she will find to park it permanently without having a permit that costs money?

 

Or whether the local highways authority, or whoever owns the land on which the van is parked, will allow this indefinitely.

 

As another poster has said, none of the people shown contested the fact that they were non-compliant. What they want is not clearly something that is itself within the legal structure, however imprecise that is.

 

All in all it shows just how difficult it is for all concerned to cope with a very inadequate legal framework and how unfortunate it was that the government at the time failed to use the opportunity of creating CaRT to update the legislation. Sadly, they wanted to do the transfer as cheaply as they could (in all senses of cheap).

 

But it also has to borne in mind that any such clarification would have no guarantee that it would yield the context that the people in the film seek.

 

Sadly, people wishing to operate at the margins of what is legal will always find that they are continually fighting to determine whether they are right or wrong. Were these boaters to move,say, a mile a week, not just up to the water tap and back, then they would be in a much better position regarding a defence against enforcement. Of course, they may well be right that in time the rules, whether law or not, will change and that they will affect the way of life of someone. But this is not unique to boaters.

 

an excellent post and I think the highlighted section particularly pertinent, not just of the cases referred to in the film but in many other situations.

[The Lockie]

Original music by Chris Pink..... Sure there are plenty on here remember that name!!

[wrigglefingers]

Original music by Chris Pink..... Sure there are plenty on here remember that name!!

Chris Pink is in it!

[Ray T]

Chris Pink is in it!

 

I thought it was Alenafour or was it Dave Clinton or was it Alf Roberts - I'm totally confused now.

 

Or perhaps Dr Who regenerating?

Edited April 14, 2016 by Ray T

[BMC problems]

Removed post.

Edited April 14, 2016 by BMC problems

[Felshampo]

The mother on the film seemed able to leave her boat very easily at the end for a van! Very strange. Also odd that the couple who went to explore the canals were disappointed because they found no itinerant communities, nothing about the beauty of the scenery, freedom, nature or the joy of living on a boat. It seems these people were more interested in their "homes" (never boats?) than living on the canals.

[RufusR]

bit off discussion but I am curious what how did bev generate electric ? didnt see any solars and with no engine and certainly no mains hook up , how ? or doesnt she have any electric lights or anyrthing ? surely that is not peddle power too ? surely not a gennie as that would be the mother of hypocracy . Also as a thought about why she didnt get towed .. If she has turned her back on all polluting diesel power by removing her engine and embracing peddle power ( a noble sentiment if rather impratical ) then having someone else burn diesel to tow her would also be hypocritical hence probably why she didnt .

 

Just a couple of thoughts

 

 

 

[wrigglefingers]

Solar charged torches and lamps in the main. I know Bev's boat from a while back and she did have limited solar panels then. Much of the life on the Street in BoA was timed around daylight.