Off The Cut - CRT and evictions

[wrigglefingers]

I really don't believe people are been asked to cruise to a different waterway. There is a lot of hysteria and exaggerated claims going on, including ethnic cleansing. (can white middle class boaters be ethnically cleansed?). Maybe a boater asked how best to stay completely out of trouble and got the light hearted reply "cruise to a different waterway". I think Bath to Foxhangers might not safely satisfy the 15 to 20 mile recommendation and so a fair few "Western Enders" are now going up the flight and spending a bit of time on the long pound, sometimes going not much further than Devizes, and some "Long Pounders" are now going over the summit towards Bedwyn, I don't think anybody is going to other waterways, just moving a little further, except of course for a fair few boats who winter on the K&A and go off in the summer (us included).

 

.................Dave

I'm afraid they have ... I did suggest to them that given that their boat name is one of the common ones, that they might be the victims of mistaken identity. Their cruising record doesn't correspond to where they've actually been, which is documented on their newsletters, complete with photographs. They are nice people though and have no wish to be a bother to others or make a fuss, so have decided to move up to the Midlands instead and go into a marina for winter. They're entirely happy with that, so it's not really an issue, just that Mirry doesn't want to volunteer for CRT any more.

[matty40s]

 

I really don't believe people are been asked to cruise to a different waterway.

 

.................Dave

They are indeed, just because you havn't spoken to or know someone who has, doesn't mean its not happening.

I passed a boater who has lived on the Weedon pound for over 20 years at the weekend.

Not only were CRT going to S8 him when he had a broken leg last year (caused by pothole in towpath), they gave him a short term licence for him to prove he was CC-ing and told him to get off the pound. I joked with him about having a nosebleed at the altitude, and he said "you make sure you tell Cart that you've seen me up here because they keep missing me" - he wasnt joking.

Edited April 18, 2016 by matty40s

[dmr]

I'm afraid they have ... I did suggest to them that given that their boat name is one of the common ones, that they might be the victims of mistaken identity. Their cruising record doesn't correspond to where they've actually been, which is documented on their newsletters, complete with photographs. They are nice people though and have no wish to be a bother to others or make a fuss, so have decided to move up to the Midlands instead and go into a marina for winter. They're entirely happy with that, so it's not really an issue, just that Mirry doesn't want to volunteer for CRT any more.

 

Well that is worrying. Can CaRT really suggest that 15 to 20 miles is ok then specify a much greater distance for a few selected boaters?

My own view is that 15 to 20 miles is rather short for anyone wanting a "continuous cruiser" licence, but one thing that I think most of us do want is one set of rules applied fairly. The different rules handed out by individual officers is what has created this mess.

 

On another note, I do suspect that it is indeed the nice people who are getting the stick whilst the hardcore militants are still getting left alone. A few very nice "just about CC'ers" who we know have now moved off the cut.

 

...............Dave

[pearlygeoff]

 

 

Hang on a minute.

 

Here we've got two groups of boaters who are trying to "get away with" something: "non-compliant" boaters without home moorings, whose cruising habits go against CRT guidelines but might or might not be perfectly legal; and people living aboard boats on non-residential moorings, which is, as far as I know, unambiguously against the law. Boaters in both groups would no doubt argue, quite sincerely and quite plausibly, that they're simply trying to enjoy their lifestyle in a way that does does no-one any harm.

 

Why should the former group start "toeing the line" with regard to CRT's guidelines in order than the latter group can go on ignoring the law with regard to planning permission? I don't get it.

 

You are absolutely right. And BW/CRT insist that you take such moorings or risk losing your boat. I've been arguing this for years but the 'continuous whingers' choose to ignore it for reasons of self interest.

Incidentally people living on boats with no 'home mooring' - unlawful marina mooring (and unsafe and unsuitable) or otherwise - are not necessarily 'travellers'. People think/thought I'm a 'traveller' as I have(had) a wooden boat and CRT claimed in court I was a 'member of a certain community' and what many of you have in your heads when you think of the itinerant 'liveaboard' is the worst kind of 'traveller type' you've ever encountered.

 

And, of course, itinerant boaters are regarded in law as 'travellers'. That, and all association of 'traveller' with person living on a boat has been the cause of most of the 'trouble' on the waterways, re enforcement and unreasonable rules, and makes BW'|CRT's abuses of people living on boats easier to justify and gain support.

 

To be a 'traveller' is to subscribe to a 'subculture' which is nothing to do with living on a boat. Unfortunately a lot of people fail to see the distinction.

 

There's more about this on my website which you should read but most of you probably won'.t

[Witchword]

Referring back to a point I think magictime made, if I 'live' in a non residential marina, leaving once every 120 days as specified in the rules- that isn't really in the spirit of the rules, but presumably it is for the marina to police? If I got a long term non residential mooring and spent more days there than not, how is that policed?

 

I don't know about nice vs hardcore people, but the disparities presented here between what people have been told generally, in public vs specifically in private is really worrying. How can anyone be sure that they won't attract the attention of the enforcement people?

 

It seems a real shame as well to antagonise people who are evidently real genuine canal fans, if they have volunteered with CRT! And threatening people with injuries smacks of the DWP under the IDS regime. Not nice at all.

You are absolutely right. And BW/CRT insist that you take such moorings or risk losing your boat. I've been arguing this for years but the 'continuous whingers' choose to ignore it for reasons of self interest.

Incidentally people living on boats with no 'home mooring' - unlawful marina mooring (and unsafe and unsuitable) or otherwise - are not necessarily 'travellers'. People think/thought I'm a 'traveller' as I have(had) a wooden boat and CRT claimed in court I was a 'member of a certain community' and what many of you have in your heads when you think of the itinerant 'liveaboard' is the worst kind of 'traveller type' you've ever encountered.

 

And, of course, itinerant boaters are regarded in law as 'travellers'. That, and all association of 'traveller' with person living on a boat has been the cause of most of the 'trouble' on the waterways, re enforcement and unreasonable rules, and makes BW'|CRT's abuses of people living on boats easier to justify and gain support.

 

To be a 'traveller' is to subscribe to a 'subculture' which is nothing to do with living on a boat. Unfortunately a lot of people fail to see the distinction.

 

There's more about this on my website which you should read but most of you probably won'.t

 

Geoff could you link to your website please?

[onionbargee]

It is very unfortunate the NBTA chose to put 'traveller' in the name. Boaters have nothing to do with travellers, which are a group of people no one wants within 100 miles of, nor does anyone know what a bargee is.

[FadeToScarlet]

 

You are absolutely right. And BW/CRT insist that you take such moorings or risk losing your boat. I've been arguing this for years but the 'continuous whingers' choose to ignore it for reasons of self interest.

Incidentally people living on boats with no 'home mooring' - unlawful marina mooring (and unsafe and unsuitable) or otherwise - are not necessarily 'travellers'. People think/thought I'm a 'traveller' as I have(had) a wooden boat and CRT claimed in court I was a 'member of a certain community' and what many of you have in your heads when you think of the itinerant 'liveaboard' is the worst kind of 'traveller type' you've ever encountered.

 

And, of course, itinerant boaters are regarded in law as 'travellers'. That, and all association of 'traveller' with person living on a boat has been the cause of most of the 'trouble' on the waterways, re enforcement and unreasonable rules, and makes BW'|CRT's abuses of people living on boats easier to justify and gain support.

 

To be a 'traveller' is to subscribe to a 'subculture' which is nothing to do with living on a boat. Unfortunately a lot of people fail to see the distinction.

 

There's more about this on my website which you should read but most of you probably won'.t

According to the NBTA, I can join with full membership as a "Bargee Traveller" despite having a full residential mooring.

[dmr]

It is very unfortunate the NBTA chose to put 'traveller' in the name. Boaters have nothing to do with travellers, which are a group of people no one wants within 100 miles of, nor does anyone know what a bargee is.

 

It might well be true but you really are not supposed to say stuff like that these days.

I think there is possibly some historic justification for Bargee.

 

................Dave

[MtB]

It is very unfortunate the NBTA chose to put 'traveller' in the name. Boaters have nothing to do with travellers, which are a group of people no one wants within 100 miles of, nor does anyone know what a bargee is.

 

 

Well not NBTA members I imagine, given the effort NBTA appears to put into supporting and encouraging members to remain stationary instead of traveling.

[jenlyn]

Well not NBTA members I imagine, given the effort NBTA appears to put into supporting and encouraging members to remain stationary instead of traveling.

You have obviously never been to any of their meetings. They in fact encourage people to move, and yes, I do expect you to state you would never attend one, which makes your statement even more comical.

(Your imagination often let's you down).

[smileypete]

But people move on, don't they, and move off the canals. Why couldn't the mooring then be let out to people in order on a waiting list if there is a queue?

 

Sure. But if the mooring is to target a social need, eg families near to schools, then the resources need to be targeted accordingly.

 

Eg have medium term moorings that need to be freed up for visitors over summer (when the schools are on holiday anyway), and when the kids have left school they can be used for others with the same need.

 

On another note, I do suspect that it is indeed the nice people who are getting the stick whilst the hardcore militants are still getting left alone. A few very nice "just about CC'ers" who we know have now moved off the cut.

 

Seems to be a numbers game, pick on the 'soft targets' instead of concentrating on the p*ss takers with no license and never moving (though some may have major problems they need help with).

 

ETA: Excellent post by Wrigglefingers earlier, seems that boaters who helped keep the canal open are now being pushed off it.

 

Just gave Jenlyn a greenie so I need to lie down for a bit.

Edited April 18, 2016 by smileypete

[Allan(nb Albert)]

You have obviously never been to any of their meetings. They in fact encourage people to move, and yes, I do expect you to state you would never attend one, which makes your statement even more comical.

(Your imagination often let's you down).

This is true.

 

NBTA actively encourage boaters to demonstrate that craft are being used 'bona fide for navigation' by moving. This is in keeping with what was suggested to parliament in the early 1990's with regard to what BW expected boaters to do regarding compliance.

[Witchword]

Sure. But if the mooring is to target a social need, eg families near to schools, then the resources need to be targeted accordingly.

 

Eg have medium term moorings that need to be freed up for visitors over summer (when the schools are on holiday anyway), and when the kids have left school they can be used for others with the same need.

)

Yes true. Something, anyway, to stop these threats of taking people's boats.

 

The goalposts need to stop being moved regarding the movement required.

[Bod]

Yes true. Something, anyway, to stop these threats of taking people's boats.

 

The goalposts need to stop being moved regarding the movement required.

Can you give examples of where the goalposts moved please.

 

Bod

[Steilsteven]

 

The NBTA are a bunch of selfrighteous busybodies - instead of encouraging people to move a bit, they cite human rights and invent a new ethnic minority of "nonmovingboater".

Panda spouts so much monotone crap she runs out of examples, her Radio4 one this weekend was a classic, window cleaning a house compared with moving a narrowboat.

When the Lee and Stort Moorings proposals were launched by BW, London boaters sought evidence, NBTA and Nick Brown wanted human rights, Judicial reviews and other rubbish.

I like my lifestyle, enjoy moving around, love the canals, never leave more than a footprint when I move on and don't want it ruined by NBTA thankyou.

Totally agree, have a greenie.

 

Keith

[MtB]

You have obviously never been to any of their meetings. They in fact encourage people to move, and yes, I do expect you to state you would never attend one, which makes your statement even more comical.

(Your imagination often let's you down).

 

 

I call you out on your 'straw man' logical fallacy.

 

Make a monumental assumption about what someone thinks, then criticise them for thinking it...

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man

[jenlyn]

I call you out on your 'straw man' logical fallacy.

 

Make a monumental assumption about what someone thinks, then criticise them for thinking it...

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man

Your posts (and content within them) are often very predictable. Such is life.

[MtB]

Your posts (and content within them) are often very predictable. Such is life.

 

 

A bit like yours really then!

 

Worrying we have so much in common...

[pearlygeoff]

For 'Witchword'.

 

My website is 'canal and river tyranny'.

[Jerra]

I call you out on your 'straw man' logical fallacy.

Straw man appears (on this forum at least) to be used very much like the R word was being used in days gone by when free discussion of politics and current affairs was allowed.

 

I.e. I need something to undermine this argument and I can't really come up with anything I will use the R word (substitute the S word and you might see what I mean).

 

Just my opinion other opinions are available.

[Steilsteven]

Straw man appears (on this forum at least) to be used very much like the R word was being used in days gone by when free discussion of politics and current affairs was allowed.

 

I.e. I need something to undermine this argument and I can't really come up with anything I will use the R word (substitute the S word and you might see what I mean).

 

Just my opinion other opinions are available.

I think that's total R word and I'd even goes as far as saying that it's S word!

 

Keith

[Witchword]

Can you give examples of where the goalposts moved please.

 

Bod

Wrigglefingers mentioned a couple, as did I think dmr. I can't check as I'm on the phone. One was the case of someone who'd cruised for years on one waterway and then were told they had to visit a different one, even though their cruising range was 90 miles or so- far more than the 20ish miles suggested as an acceptable range by CRT themselves. At least, that's what I understood.

[MtB]

Wrigglefingers mentioned a couple, as did I think dmr. I can't check as I'm on the phone. One was the case of someone who'd cruised for years on one waterway and then were told they had to visit a different one, even though their cruising range was 90 miles or so- far more than the 20ish miles suggested as an acceptable range by CRT themselves. At least, that's what I understood.

 

 

Yes I read that too, but it is extremely rare. It's always hearsay too, so not proplery reliable. I'll be surprised if a poster rocks up here claiming personally to have been told this, and willing to answer questions about what happened, exactly.

[Paul C]

Of course, boaters are free to decline the advice of a CRT EO who says "you must cruise onto a different waterway" just as they were free to decline historical advice such as "you can stay here for ages and shuffle up and down this small patch with no worries". At the end of the day, they are judged upon the wording of the legislation, not whether they have done what a low-ranking official in CRT (or BW in the past) told them to do. It might have been a guideline of convenience in the past to justify remaining in a small area; just as now, it might be a guideline of convenience or a complete fiction, rather than strictly relating to the actual legislation, or even following CRT's current policy/guidelines.

 

If you press and press someone for an answer on something, they will eventually give you an answer, but its quality may be poor.

[boathunter]

Bak in the 70's or was it early 80's a bunch of "me, me,me" types instead of living under the radar in their vehicles decided to go on a random rampage, taking any objection as further excuse to up the stakes. At the heart were a bunch known as the convoy crazies, they had numbered tatoos on there bums. There were maybe 20 of them, the rest were well meaning human shields. Thanks to them living in a vehicle got a lot more difficult. I knew a few of the crazies personally, fighting "authority'for it's own sake was the name of the game, a disappointing lack of cunning. I lived a more outrageous life without making a fuss about it.

 

I think mtb has a good point. Why do people have to push when it's not needed, it's pure selfishness.