Jump to content

NBTA protest


bassplayer

Featured Posts

Yes and yes. Now shut up and bugger off.

Now now, no need to be rude.

 

From your web site link, camping in a field 'for a bit' and living on a boat looks more like a hippy choice? Which is great and a route I could easily have gone down myself.

 

Some people don't have the luxury of a choice and deserve some respect.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

charging for such use would be commercially counter-productive; they made their income from the efficient carriage of goods.

 

If charging for the use of the canal would be counter productive what do you suppose the Toll House at Bratch on the Staffs & Worcs was for?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Everyone always did what the EO demanded. But its been drastically changed. Everyone still tries hard to comply, we just suspect the goalposts will continue to move.

 

I suspect that we will run out of second hand boats for people to buy, pretty soon. That might put the kybosh on things.

Please excuse me for taking things back a lot of pages and also for trying to look at separate points by use of colour highlights.

(I have been reminded in the past that snipping is not popular with some)

 

  1. Are you saying here that EOs used their personal discretion in the past and that discretion has now been removed?
  2. Or are you saying that the actual rules have changed?
  3. Or are you saying that they are being interpreted differently

Does everyone try to comply fully or only as far as they think they can get away with. I always worked somewhere between the two myself

 

I'm not entirely sure that the official goalposts have changed significantly but I am sure that (unlike most football) goal line technology is being fully implemented now whereas before it was more down to the officials on the pitch.

 

And before anyone thinks I'm biased against the poorer members of the boating community, I should point out that

  1. I have been homeless
  2. I have had to live and CC on a boat because I had no other option
  3. I don't have a boat at the current time because I'm too flaming poor to do so. (I rely on the generosity of richer friends with boats to continue my passion for boating)
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's good to have sone people on here who have had experience of being homeless. They are probably more qualified to comment on what the NBTA are protesting against.

 

So is it Ok for CRT to evict a family because they can't move 20 miles away from a school or workplace, if they have nowhere else to live?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's good to have sone people on here who have had experience of being homeless. They are probably more qualified to comment on what the NBTA are protesting against.

 

So is it Ok for CRT to evict a family because they can't move 20 miles away from a school or workplace, if they have nowhere else to live?

Surely a family with children would be at the top of the councils list for Housing ?

  • Greenie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's good to have sone people on here who have had experience of being homeless. They are probably more qualified to comment on what the NBTA are protesting against.

 

So is it Ok for CRT to evict a family because they can't move 20 miles away from a school or workplace, if they have nowhere else to live?

OK? No it isn't

It's never OK to evict a family

But it is done regularly away from the canal system where families don't or can't comply with other rules.

 

And as I have pointed out in my first post on this thread other couples with families I know do manage, sometimes with great difficulty, to comply with the requirements for CCing.

What, in your opinion , are C&RT's options here?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Surely a family with children would be at the top of the councils list for Housing ?

Interesting point. I suppose another factor here is whether those who live on a boat do it because they like the lifestyle or do out of desperation for somewhere to live. Could be both in some cases.

 

Maybe those who are just desperate for somewhere to live would bite the councils arm off if they were offered a land home.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's good to have sone people on here who have had experience of being homeless. They are probably more qualified to comment on what the NBTA are protesting against.

 

So is it Ok for CRT to evict a family because they can't move 20 miles away from a school or workplace, if they have nowhere else to live?

 

If, because of family commitments, they cannot move, then surely a mooring is the answer.

If they cannot finance a mooring then let the social security pay it (mooring, licence and maybe insurance and BSS)

If they don't want to live in a marina then get a house / flat.

If they cannot finance a house / flat then let the council home them, or, let the social security pay the rent etc.

 

Despite the 'headlines' todays society is a caring society and generally (apart from a few instances) all it takes is for the person to ask for help - it may not provide what they would 'like' but in many instances provides what they 'need'.

  • Greenie 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's good to have sone people on here who have had experience of being homeless. They are probably more qualified to comment on what the NBTA are protesting against.

So is it Ok for CRT to evict a family because they can't move 20 miles away from a school or workplace, if they have nowhere else to live?

Surely it's for the boater and C&RT to work together to identify a cruising range that is manageable in their individual circumstances.

The effort would be better spent in this way, than fighting a war that no side can win.

 

This would require both sides to sit down, put aside prejudices, and find a new working system. Easy innit ;)

 

Rog

Link to comment
Share on other sites

. . . what do you suppose the Toll House at Bratch on the Staffs & Worcs was for?

 

I suppose that the Toll House at Bratch on the Staffs & Worcs was for the same purpose as such toll houses all over the system – to determine the amount and nature of the goods being carried by a boat, so that the applicable formula could be applied for levying the appropriate charge as provided under the relevant Act, to allow those goods to be transported to their destination.

 

Have I got that right?

 

The charges were the same however long it took to transport the goods; it was better for both canal company and the carrier if those could be transported as swiftly and efficiently as possible.

 

If the Toll House at Bratch [with which I am confessedly unfamiliar] was for charging boats for mooring to the towpath for various times instead, then I will grateful to learn of such a delightfully anomalous example.

 

Edited by NigelMoore
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Not to my knowledge. I would be surprised if any of them ever considered that needful or desirable – the towpaths were to be kept clear at all times for the commercial vessels to make the best time they could in getting from a to b. The very idea that they would want to countenance allowing anyone to block towpath use seems unbelievable; charging for such use would be commercially counter-productive; they made their income from the efficient carriage of goods.

 

Overnight towpath mooring during long passages would have been inevitable, anything else would have been unthinkable - in fact, as I have noted previously, on the Grand Junction Canal pleasure boats were very swiftly banned from using the towpath at all!

 

Nothing is impossible of course; I would be most curious to learn of any such provisions anywhere.

 

In the 1786 L&LC Byelaws, it states:

That no boat or vessel which shall not be loading, or unloading goods intended to be deposited in any warehouse, belonging to this company, be permitted to be moored, or stationed alongside the said warehouse, upon any pretence whatsoever; nor shall any vessel, loading or unloading such goods, be moored or stationed alongside any warehouse, longer than shall be reasonably necessary for loading or unloading the same from or into such warehouse, under the penalty, by the person or persons so offending, not exceeding Twenty Shillings, nor less than Ten Schillings for each and every offence.

 

So there were financial penalties for mooring incorrectly, though obviously appertaining to the use of the canal at the time. The 1932 Byelaws also prohibited using a boat as a dwelling. Changes and additions to Byelaws are an interesting reflection on what management perceived as the problems of the time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So is it Ok for CRT to evict a family because they can't move 20 miles away from a school or workplace, if they have nowhere else to live?

What is this "can't move" of which you speak? Or do you mean "won't move" or "don't want to move"?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In the 1786 L&LC Byelaws, it states:

That no boat or vessel which shall not be loading, or unloading goods intended to be deposited in any warehouse, belonging to this company, be permitted to be moored, or stationed alongside the said warehouse, upon any pretence whatsoever; nor shall any vessel, loading or unloading such goods, be moored or stationed alongside any warehouse, longer than shall be reasonably necessary for loading or unloading the same from or into such warehouse, under the penalty, by the person or persons so offending, not exceeding Twenty Shillings, nor less than Ten Schillings for each and every offence.

 

So there were financial penalties for mooring incorrectly, though obviously appertaining to the use of the canal at the time. The 1932 Byelaws also prohibited using a boat as a dwelling. Changes and additions to Byelaws are an interesting reflection on what management perceived as the problems of the time.

 

That is interesting information, thanks; it rather emphasises my point, even though not applying to general towpath use.

 

The byelaws there provide for a penalty for overstaying at loading points; there would appear [rather naturally] to be no provision for charging to allow such stays or overstays – were there any, or indeed any penalties, for general towpath mooring?

 

Of course, as the 1965 BW Byelaws provided: “all existing Byelaws” [inclusive, naturally, of those providing for penalties such as those quoted] “applicable to the canals and inland navigations to which these Bye-laws apply (other than those made under the Explosives Act 1875, and the Petroleum (Consolidation) Act 1928) shall cease to have effect . . .”

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's good to have sone people on here who have had experience of being homeless. They are probably more qualified to comment on what the NBTA are protesting against.

 

So is it Ok for CRT to evict a family because they can't move 20 miles away from a school or workplace, if they have nowhere else to live?

 

But why can't they move?

Are they physically incapable of doing so?

Is there boat not capable of being moved?

Or is it that they cannot be bothered?

Other families in similar situations manage to do it.

  • Greenie 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

But why can't they move?

Are they physically incapable of doing so?

Is there boat not capable of being moved?

Or is it that they cannot be bothered?

Other families in similar situations manage to do it.

I assume it's because they would have problems travelling 20 miles to school/work. This could be due to there being no practical way of getting there or not being able to afford transport.

 

TBH you'd have to ask them rather than seek assumptions from an internet forum.

  • Greenie 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I assume it's because they would have problems travelling 20 miles to school/work. This could be due to there being no practical way of getting there or not being able to afford transport.

 

TBH you'd have to ask them rather than seek assumptions from an internet forum.

 

To be fair, that's not 'can't', that's 'find it inconvenient'.

 

In all walks of life, people have to make choices between doing what they want and doing what's necessary. Plenty of people would prefer to live a certain lifestyle but circumstances won't allow it. If important things like getting to school get in the way of a chosen lifestyle, then surely the chosen lifestyle has to take second place.

  • Greenie 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

To be fair, that's not 'can't', that's 'find it inconvenient'.

 

In all walks of life, people have to make choices between doing what they want and doing what's necessary. Plenty of people would prefer to live a certain lifestyle but circumstances won't allow it. If important things like getting to school get in the way of a chosen lifestyle, then surely the chosen lifestyle has to take second place.

As I said, you'd need to talk to some of them to know the real reasons.

 

I went along with a few others to the protest to hear what they were saying. The problem with sitting in an internet bubble is that you don't get the full picture.

 

Believe it or not, I do see the threat to what some call 'genuine' CC'ers. On one hand that threat is enforcement spilling over onto those who are not only compliant with the law but also with CRT's made up rules.

 

But I also see this being used as one step in the tide towards justifying a reversal of the 1995 act and force everyone to have a home mooring.

 

The NBTA seem the only organsation who seem to be standing up to CRT vocally and I applaud them for that.

  • Greenie 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

To be fair, that's not 'can't', that's 'find it inconvenient'.

 

In all walks of life, people have to make choices between doing what they want and doing what's necessary. Plenty of people would prefer to live a certain lifestyle but circumstances won't allow it. If important things like getting to school get in the way of a chosen lifestyle, then surely the chosen lifestyle has to take second place.

To be fair again, I don't think bassplayer said 'can't'. He said 'would have problems' which is very close to what you are saying.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's good to have sone people on here who have had experience of being homeless. They are probably more qualified to comment on what the NBTA are protesting against.

 

So is it Ok for CRT to evict a family because they can't move 20 miles away from a school or workplace, if they have nowhere else to live?

 

 

To be fair again, I don't think bassplayer said 'can't'. He said 'would have problems' which is very close to what you are saying.

 

 

Highlighted it for you.

Edited by adam1uk
  • Greenie 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I see a lot of posts on London Boaters Facebook page about buying first boats, always loved the idea, love the lifestyle, etc., never anything about being forced onto the water through being skint/homeless. I have seen actual homeless people under bridges and in tents on the towpath.

Edited by Sir Percy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

As I said, you'd need to talk to some of them to know the real reasons.

 

I went along with a few others to the protest to hear what they were saying. The problem with sitting in an internet bubble is that you don't get the full picture.

 

Believe it or not, I do see the threat to what some call 'genuine' CC'ers. On one hand that threat is enforcement spilling over onto those who are not only compliant with the law but also with CRT's made up rules.

 

But I also see this being used as one step in the tide towards justifying a reversal of the 1995 act and force everyone to have a home mooring.

 

The NBTA seem the only organsation who seem to be standing up to CRT vocally and I applaud them for that.

Don't you think there is a reason RBOA & Nabo aren't supporting boaters who don't comply with CRT guidelines?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I see a lot of posts on London Boaters Facebook page about buying first boats, always loved the idea, love the lifestyle, etc., never anything about being forced onto the water through being skint/homeless. I have seen actual homeless people under bridges and in tents on the towpath.

This is what I'm beginning to wonder that most of them actually do it because they just enjoy the lifestyle. Maybe spreading them out over 20 miles breaks down that community spirit.

 

I've personally never had any problems with them during my time cruising. I have a kind of let live attitude to them really. It all adds to the variety on the canals.

 

What I don't get is all the negativity about them. At the protest their body language all looked peaceful and fun loving. Maybe that's the problem? They are just getting on with their lives and enjoying it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I assume it's because they would have problems travelling 20 miles to school/work. This could be due to there being no practical way of getting there or not being able to afford transport.

 

TBH you'd have to ask them rather than seek assumptions from an internet forum.

 

 

 

To be fair, that's not 'can't', that's 'find it inconvenient'.

 

In all walks of life, people have to make choices between doing what they want and doing what's necessary. Plenty of people would prefer to live a certain lifestyle but circumstances won't allow it. If important things like getting to school get in the way of a chosen lifestyle, then surely the chosen lifestyle has to take second place.

 

The above is your post which I commented on.

 

It seems you did not read it properly and were commenting on an earlier post.

 

I find little difference from him saying 'would have problems' and you saying 'find it inconvenient'.

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.