NBTA protest

[Phil Ambrose]

T&C's which CRT have been making up as they go along though. The law is pretty simple though, I'll give you that.

Irrespective of CRT altering the T&Cs the license holders do or at least should agree to abide by them, they are not hard to understand nor are they particularly arduous to comply with, the oft quoted 20 miles in a year is hardly a ball breaking target to achieve.

Phil

[bassplayer]

Irrespective of CRT altering the T&Cs the license holders do or at least should agree to abide by them, they are not hard to understand nor are they particularly arduous to comply with, the oft quoted 20 miles in a year is hardly a ball breaking target to achieve.

Phil

...but for some, the goal posts have moved after investing everything they have into a boat.

 

Question for everyone. Do you think the real aim is make these people move further or to constructively force them off the canal system?

[billS]

Question for everyone. Do you think the real aim is make these people move further or to constructively force them off the canal system?

 

Both - I think.. For those who can, the first - for those who can't or won't, the second.

[magnetman]

 

Both - I think.. For those who can, the first - for those who can't or won't, the second.

Yes and a third option could be an attempt to slow down the influx of "new boaters" whose sole aim is to do what some boaters have been "getting away with" over the years.

 

Definitely more moorings are needed but then you come up against the "I don't want to slow down" brigade.

 

One danger I see is that increasing amounts of publicity leads to change.

 

The "our interpretation of the law" quote sounds like an own goal but to me it sounds more like "can we have a new act this one is useless today"

 

I know people say they won't get new legislation but I think they will if they get enough publicity. It could be quite draconian if people don't behave.

[mango]

Yes and a third option could be an attempt to slow down the influx of "new boaters" whose sole aim is to do what some boaters have been "getting away with" over the years.

 

Definitely more moorings are needed but then you come up against the "I don't want to slow down" brigade.

 

One danger I see is that increasing amounts of publicity leads to change.

 

The "our interpretation of the law" quote sounds like an own goal but to me it sounds more like "can we have a new act this one is useless today"

 

I know people say they won't get new legislation but I think they will if they get enough publicity. It could be quite draconian if people don't behave.

I disagree. If people cannot be bothered to move their boat at least once a week they should be in a marina. Let's keep towpath moorings for boats that are used for boating.

[Phil Ambrose]

Yes and a third option could be an attempt to slow down the influx of "new boaters" whose sole aim is to do what some boaters have been "getting away with" over the years.

 

Definitely more moorings are needed but then you come up against the "I don't want to slow down" brigade.

 

One danger I see is that increasing amounts of publicity leads to change.

 

The "our interpretation of the law" quote sounds like an own goal but to me it sounds more like "can we have a new act this one is useless today"

 

I know people say they won't get new legislation but I think they will if they get enough publicity. It could be quite draconian if people don't behave.

Or can we have a new act as the existing one doesn't suit me.

And yes, draconian is something I see looming on the horizon and that can only mean a lot of grief for a lot of people, we would all be in a position of hanging on tenterhooks in case a minor infringement brought down fire and brimstone on our heads.

Remember that the powers that be have always been very good at " it's my ball so play by my rules" those not wishing to do so can leave the field of play.

Phil

[magnetman]

The whole system might end up like the River Wey how awful

 

To be fair I don't know what happens if I just leave my boat there after the one week license is expired (half term holiday)

 

I wonder what their enforcement is like

Edited May 11, 2016 by magnetman

[Arthur Marshall]

The problem is only CRT's in a minor way - the real problem is London itself (and maybe a couple of other high cost cities) and the fact that it needs a lot of low paid labour to keep it going but refuses both to pay them enough or to house them. There's a huge conflict which can only be solved by politics, and it won't be by anything like the politicians we have now.

People have to live somewhere, or sleep under bridges. But it really doesn't take that much to comply with CRT's latest guidelines.

As far as the scruffy bearded person focussed on by the TV, they're going to go for the obvious "interesting" person. Been a while since the news on any channel was really bothered about facts or serious consideration of them.

[magnetman]

In London I would advocate developing all feasible offside land as residential moorings and advertise them. Housing benefit will help to pay if needed.

 

Trouble is once mooring costs start to approach land dwelling rental people may well prefer to live outside town and commute in anyway because they would prefer to live in houses or flats.

 

So the canal would be full of empty moorings with maintenance required. Oh dear.

 

It is a regional "problem" but quite possible that the whole CRT managed system will be subject to changes due to a few "problem areas"

[alan_fincher]

Why has that destroyed the argument? After all, it is their interpretation of the law, same as someone with a different view has theirs. What matters is which interpretation the courts uphold. And as they usually go with the money, I'd bet on CRT's being upheld rather than the opposite.

 

I'm genuinely surprised that Mike Grimes has chosen to say that CRT's interpretation of the act is a "Continuous Journey".

 

If you check their latest interpretation in "Guidance For Boaters Without A Home Mooring", at no point does the term "Continuous Journey" appear, of course - rather odd if that is truly what he claims to be their interpretation.

 

I can't help thinking NBTA are continuing to be the victors on the publicity battle, but that this is more to do with how CRT are handling it than they are!

[bassplayer]

The BBC report....about 14:40 minutes in....

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b079rw4p/look-east-west-10052016

[Arthur Marshall]

What would be good to see would be a well argued plan by the NBTA (or, in fact, anyone) as to what they would like to see in a new Act, and then campaign for it. It would have to define terms properly and cater for all the various types of boater that exists. Be more productive than a few people yelling in the rain.

[treddieafloat]

I saw the protest on ITV and failed to be persuaded by the protesters that they have been wronged. By their own admission they were failing to abide by the 14 day ruling nor making any attempt at completing 20 miles onward travel a year. They cited having children and local jobs as the reason they chose to ignore the terms they had agreed to on their license.

The vast majority of CCers manage but it does take some effort which these individuals seemed unwilling to make.

Phil

Edited May 11, 2016 by treddieafloat

[magictime]

I'm genuinely surprised that Mike Grimes has chosen to say that CRT's interpretation of the act is a "Continuous Journey".

 

Yes, I thought that was odd. Echoes of the "progressive journey" that I believe was removed from the Ts&Cs some years ago because it was recognised as having no legal basis.

[treddieafloat]

I think CRT are missing out here if people won't move because school, job etc why not create a long term mooring in that area putting up a sign and a couple of arrows isn't hard then those boaters can pay to moor near the school job without the stress of moving 20 miles... Simples

[Athy]

I think CRT are missing out here if people won't move because school, job etc why not create a long term mooring in that area putting up a sign and a couple of arrows isn't hard then those boaters can pay to moor near the school job without the stress of moving 20 miles... Simples

It's such a simple and obvious solution that there has to be a catch - which may, I suspect, be that many liveaboards are not in the upper income bracket, so paying say £1,000 per year for a permanent mooring could be difficult for them.

[magictime]

What would be good to see would be a well argued plan by the NBTA (or, in fact, anyone) as to what they would like to see in a new Act, and then campaign for it. It would have to define terms properly and cater for all the various types of boater that exists. Be more productive than a few people yelling in the rain.

 

I can see two related problems with that from their point of view, though:

 

(1) campaigning for a new Act would give the impression that they want the law to be changed in their favour, when what they actually want (as they see it) is just for the existing law to be interpreted correctly by CRT

 

(2) given that all they want is for CRT to change their interpretation of one sentence in the existing Act - the "bone fide" requirement - campaigning for a whole new Act would be using a sledgehammer to crack a nut

[bassplayer]

It's such a simple and obvious solution that there has to be a catch - which may, I suspect, be that many liveaboards are not in the upper income bracket, so paying say £1,000 per year for a permanent mooring could be difficult for them.

I understand some boaters already successfully claim benefits for moorings. CRT should see that as an opportunity not a threat. I'm sure there are a few brown field sites in the area which could be flooded to create a purpose built marina, whether they would like to live in a marina is another issue.

[Athy]

I understand some boaters already successfully claim benefits for moorings. CRT should see that as an opportunity not a threat. I'm sure there are a few brown field sites in the area which could be flooded to create a purpose built marina, whether they would like to live in a marina is another issue.

Indeed it is - and whether CART would wish to spend lots of money creating these marinas is yet another (look at Barby, for example, and you'll see that there is much more to creating a marina than just putting water into a hole).

[mayalld]

...but for some, the goal posts have moved after investing everything they have into a boat.

 

Question for everyone. Do you think the real aim is make these people move further or to constructively force them off the canal system?

 

But have the goal posts actually moved?

 

Enforcement may have increased, but in many ways, the actual target to hit is easier than it used to be.

 

Certainly, some people invested everything on the basis of others telling them "it is OK, BW will never actually enforce the rules", but tackling this issue isn't new!

 

From a post to uk.rec.waterways in 2004;

 

 

 

 

Transcript follows.

"Here's our West of England Correspondent, John Kay [JK]"

 

(FX: nb engine)

 

JK: "It's getting dark on the Kennet and Avon Canal, and James and Joyce

Edmunds are looking for somewhere to moor their narrowboat".

 

(FX: Boater "small talk" about dinner).

 

JK: "The Edmunds have hired their boat for a week's cruising around Bath.

With her shiny paintwork and winter pansies on the roof, she's a picture

postcard vessel -

unlike some of the other boats, [Fade FX] illegally moored along this

stretch."

 

Joyce: "The paintwork's terrible on them, and they just look like a load of

junk."

 

James: "If they've not paid, they shouldn't be 'ere. It's like 'aving

squatters in a house, isn't it! They've moved into somebody's pitch, and not

payin' for it!"

 

JK: "High house prices in the Bath area have persuaded dozens of people to

leave bricks and mortar, and head for the water; and it's the same in other

parts of the UK. But it seems some of these new arrivals are refusing to

follow the rules - so like a lock gate, those rules are being tightened."

 

[FX: Paddle Gear operation]

 

JK: "Narrowboat owners have always had to move after two weeks, unless they

have a permanent mooring. [Fade FX] "

 

But until now they were only expected to move a token few yards. Now,

British Waterways warns that a boat must move to the next locality, or

neighbourhood."

 

[FX: footsteps on gravel path]

 

Eugene: "This is exactly the type of boat, you can see it's not well looked

after - it's listing slightly, it's clearly been moored here for perhaps two

to three months."

 

[FX: Fade Eugene, Dub over with JK]

 

[Eugene (fading): "Now we will be serving papers.actually]

 

JK: "Eugene Baston from British Waterways showed me the extent of the

problem".

 

Eugene: "Now we will be serving papers on this boat at the moment, and

between nine to twelve months from now you can expect that actually, they

will have moved or we'll have taken the boat out of the water."

 

JK: "But if you move this boat on, it'll just go somewhere else for more

than fourteen days, won't it - then you'll just have moved the problem along

elsewhere."

 

Eugene: "Well the beauty is we've got a centralised computer system these

days, so if, this boat, for example, moves and it spends three to four

months on another part of the network, we'll know its history. The clock

will start ticking all over again. We are, maybe, we are moving the problem

along, but we're dealing with it each time it occurs.

 

[FX: Boater talking about wildlife]

 

[New voice, Jodie]: "Resident woodpeckers round here, and owls obviously,

and deer."

 

[Fade FX, over-dub with JK]

 

JK: "It means boat-dwellers like Jodie face a twenty-five pound fine [End

Fade] for every day they over-stay beyond the two week limit. She does have

a licence, and likes to move around - but says she shouldn't be forced to do

so. She claims British Waterways are putting holidaymakers before permanent

residents - and that could change the view from her window, forever."

 

Jodie: "God, it'll look like some big corporate, horrible, business. My

boats a hundred and twelve years old, you know, she was made for the canals,

to do - to work them. My ancestors actually were boat-builders, and they all

lived on the boats - they wouldn't want to be kicked off their homes."

 

JK: "Twenty yards further down the canal lives Sam and her young son. She

thinks British Waterways are trying to force narrowboaters to buy permanent

moorings - but that would cost her around two thousand pounds a year,

forcing her back on to dry land."

 

Sam: "I work, I pay my way, my boy's happy and healthy and clean - we're not

Pikeys. I went to school locally and I want to stay local."

 

[FX: Fade Eugene, over-dub with JK]

 

Eugene: "You see here, as we're entering this tunnel, it's two hundred years

old."

 

 

JK: "Back on the towpath, Eugene Baston from British Waterways insists

permanent dwellers won't be forced out - but he says the clamp-down is still

necessary."

 

Eugene: "If we had a bigger canal network, then perhaps there'd be more

space for everyone - but we've got two thousand miles of network, we've got

twenty five thousand boats. We've got wo percent increase in those boat

numbers every single year - and the problem is, it's got to be a fair thing

for everybody. It's not just for those individuals who want to set up camp."

 

[FX: nb engine, fading].

 

 

[bassplayer]

Indeed it is - and whether CART would wish to spend lots of money creating these marinas is yet another (look at Barby, for example, and you'll see that there is much more to creating a marina than just putting water into a hole).

True, but it might pay for itself over time. It would certainly be an ethical solution to all this rather than wasting our money on court cases.

 

No, I suspect the real reason it won't happen is because it's all helping to justify a reversal of the 1995 act. But I could be wrong and as I have said before, only time will tell.

[tidal]

I have mixed feelings on this one.
I have a deal of sympathy with those affected by increased enforcement (and that HAS changed) but I also know of 2 couples with young families and jobs who are managing to CC effectively enough to satisfy C&RT (and they aren't in exactly well-paid jobs)

 

They make the not inconsiderable effort to comply and have not, as yet, had any problems with enforcement and have been supported by C&RT when one of the kids was ill enough to require a hospital stay.

 

So whilst it isn't easy, and is getting harder, it is still possible wit the right attitude and some effort. And a bit of common-sense (often lacking) from C&RT

[magictime]

 

But have the goal posts actually moved?

 

 

That transcript you quote certainly suggests so. Goalposts pre-2004 - move a token distance at least once every 14 days. Goalposts in 2004 - move to a new locality or neighbourhood at least once every 14 days. Goalposts in 2016 - move to a new locality or neighbourhood at least once every 14 days and have an annual cruising range of at least 15-20 miles.

[Rambling]

CRT don't come across well I don't think. They admit to 'their own' interpretation of the law. It is inferred that this is unacceptable. They look like minority bullies.

[Arthur Marshall]

 

That transcript you quote certainly suggests so. Goalposts pre-2004 - move a token distance at least once every 14 days. Goalposts in 2004 - move to a new locality or neighbourhood at least once every 14 days. Goalposts in 2016 - move to a new locality or neighbourhood at least once every 14 days and have an annual cruising range of at least 15-20 miles.

Not sure they have moved . A cruising range of 20 miles over a year is still only a token distance - even the old concept of shiting from parish to parish would more or less have managed that.

The argument about what the wording of the Act actually means will go on for ever (as we know). If changing that is sledgehammer/nut territory, perhaps a NBTA rewrite of the terms and conditions that would satisfy them would be interesting. They have to put up some kind of legal solution - perhaps those on here with an interest could suggest something?

CRT don't come across well I don't think. They admit to 'their own' interpretation of the law. It is inferred that this is unacceptable. They look like minority bullies.

Everybody interprets laws in their own way. It's only unacceptable if someone stronger than the interpreter says it is. That's why CRT win most of the time - not much competition between their lawyers and a bloke with a boat and a low paid job. It's not bullying, it may not be nice, but it's just the way the world works.