NBTA protest

[onionbargee]

 

The wording on the Orders [injunctions] specifically forbids the navigation, mooring or securing [on the canal] of the named vessel by "instructing or encouraging any other person".

I don't doubt that Shoosmiths would be able to concoct an impressive sounding argument intended to convince a Court that selling a boat to someone does in fact amount to 'encouraging' them to use it.

If you sold the boat to your mate for a pound, post a court order, you would be in contempt of court if you set foot onboard it, so not a practical solution.

[Steilsteven]

Does the law also specify that the navigation must be for pleasure?

No

[Steilsteven]

 

To me, the implication of not being asked if you have any other intended purpose for the boat is that CaRT don't care what else you use the boat for, as long as you also use it (bona fide/genuinely) for navigating (throughout the period of your licence). I don't see any reason to think "navigation" somehow has to rank above whatever other uses you make of your boat - which is just as well in the case of liveaboard CCers, because I think anyone would struggle to convince a court that even though they use their boat as somewhere to cook/eat, somewhere to sleep, somewhere to keep warm in winter etc., they principally use it to chug around looking at the scenery!

 

 

.

But that is just it, the principal reason for having the boat is to indulge yourself in cruising, the secondary reason is somewhere to live.

Always wanted a boat to go cruising but couldn't afford a house and a boat, so chose boat, went cruising and lived on it m'lud.

 

Keith

[Steilsteven]

 

 

This is possibly a very illuminating comment. Was the 1995 act not introduced to deal with a persistent problem of 'dumping'?

 

Boaters saw no reason to pay for a mooring when they could just dump their boats on the towpath for free, so 17(3)(c ) i came about:

 

the Board are satisfied that a mooring or other place where the vessel can reasonably be kept and may lawfully be left will be available for the vessel, whether on an inland waterway or elsewhere; or

 

Dumpers nowadays are abusing the intention behind this clause by exploiting the loophole and moving their boats once a fortnight, so eventually the law is bound to be revised and the underlying intention of the 1995 Act redefined but more tightly.

 

When this happens this option to not have a home mooring will be redrafted to make the exemption fit bona fide CCers only, not dumpers or any other 'once a fortnight' movers including faux CCers.

 

All in my opinion.

If CaRT were to seek a new act, it would be to make it compulsory to have a home mooring, just like BW attempted prior to the 1995 act.

We'll then have long threads running about the good old days when you could do as you liked as long as you stayed within the rules

 

Keith

[Laurence Hogg]

The logical answer to these "continious moorers" and fake "cc'ers". overstayers and the like is to MOVE THEM TO THE BCN.

 

Here they could go in circles never being far away from a bus or train stop and as so few people venture these waters would stop bothering most proper boaters.

The odd "Civil war" might break out in Titpton or Rushall and armed resistance might be encountered at Norton Canes but what the heck? it would give the "news" pages in Waterlogged World actually something to write about.

 

Can you imagine the scene, half sunken lifeboats adorned with pots of herbs battling to get at the water tap, women with ribbons in their hair flailing rolled up copies of towpath talk at passers by.... all great stuff, and the London area would be cruisable again.

 

Mind you CRT should be discounting genuine licences for all these areas law abiding boaters cannot use.....

[MtB]

If CaRT were to seek a new act, it would be to make it compulsory to have a home mooring, just like BW attempted prior to the 1995 act.

We'll then have long threads running about the good old days when you could do as you liked as long as you stayed within the rules

 

Keith

 

 

Exactly the point I was trying to make, not very well. But you clarified it, thank you!

 

Given the grief caused last time around by allowing an exemption for CCers, I can't imagine any exemption being inserted second time around.

Edited May 16, 2016 by Mike the Boilerman

[magnetman]

I think it would be impossible for CRT to force people to have a home mooring unless they provide a lot more moorings in places where people want them.

 

Imagine the effect it would have on second hand boat values - the market would be flooded !

 

I think a financial penalty (mooring fees everywhere) is more likely to be the outcome, personally.

[Alan de Enfield]

 

I think a financial penalty (mooring fees everywhere) is more likely to be the outcome, personally.

 

I don't see the problem with that.

Scrap the licence fee and make a mooring fee of £6 per night everywhere - the problem is collecting the money, unless you do it electronically via a tracker and automatic debit card.

 

Alternatively you could book a years 'worth' of moorings and pay in advance - maybe £1000 - you could call it a 'licence'

[Dharl]

 

I don't see the problem with that.

Scrap the licence fee and make a mooring fee of £6 per night everywhere - the problem is collecting the money, unless you do it electronically via a tracker and automatic debit card.

 

Alternatively you could book a years 'worth' of moorings and pay in advance - maybe £1000 - you could call it a 'licence'

or even a slight reversal of that policy:

 

Pay a one of Yearly Mooring fee to CRT, then every time your boat goes through lock (electronic tagging device?) it is recorded and you get a % discount of next years license?

[Alan Taylor]

I am sorry, maybe I should read the whole of this thread but life is, frankly, too short. Would someone be so good as to point me in the direction of the NBTA's response in this thread to the views expressed?

[Jerra]

 

What I wrote was "why single out unattended, moored boats?" (i.e., "why focus only on boats that are unattended and moored, and ignore boats that are moored but not unattended, or boats that are moving?").

Because in my experience the average criminal has more sense than to try to burgle/vandalise/rob/sink/set light to (add any other criminal acts you wish) when somebody is able to see them. An attended boat and a moving boat are not attractive targets for that reason and because the "observer" may make forcible objection to the act.

 

Sorry I have had to explain that as I thought it was fairly obvious and sensible but apparently not obvious enough.

[Detling]

 

I don't see the problem with that.

Scrap the licence fee and make a mooring fee of £6 per night everywhere - the problem is collecting the money, unless you do it electronically via a tracker and automatic debit card.

 

Alternatively you could book a years 'worth' of moorings and pay in advance - maybe £1000 - you could call it a 'licence'

Wouldn't happen

Some places would be free some £5 some £10 and plumb spots like Little Venice £50 per night. So the rich win as they can afford to pay.

 

More likely if we have a new parliamentary law then IMHO the mooring policy and enforcement would be given to local authorities, like car parking and we know how that has risen over the years, as well as enforceable tickets at £70 + so beware

[Graham Davis]

I am sorry, maybe I should read the whole of this thread but life is, frankly, too short. Would someone be so good as to point me in the direction of the NBTA's response in this thread to the views expressed?

 

There hasn't been one.

[magictime]

Because in my experience the average criminal has more sense than to try to burgle/vandalise/rob/sink/set light to (add any other criminal acts you wish) when somebody is able to see them. An attended boat and a moving boat are not attractive targets for that reason and because the "observer" may make forcible objection to the act.

 

Sorry I have had to explain that as I thought it was fairly obvious and sensible but apparently not obvious enough.

 

It's good deal less obvious than the meaning of "why single out unattended, moored boats?", but you seem to have managed to miss that.

 

In fact you seem to have managed to miss the whole section of my previous reply in which I talked about perfectly real problems boaters might face while out cruising, while returning to their boat at night, or while sleeping on their boat - e.g. having rocks thrown at them, being mugged/assaulted on the towpath, being set adrift as a 'prank'.

 

Not every sort of crime is typically perpetrated in the absence of the victim, after all.

 

Sorry I have had to explain that as I thought is was fairly obvious.

 

Now can we stop this rather silly game of "let's talk down to people and try to make them look stupid" please?

[magnetman]

I think that "criminal behaviour targeted at moored boats" would probably be a topic in itself to be honest - maybe worthy of a new thread.

[Witchword]

I think it would be impossible for CRT to force people to have a home mooring unless they provide a lot more moorings in places where people want them.

Imagine the effect it would have on second hand boat values - the market would be flooded !

I think a financial penalty (mooring fees everywhere) is more likely to be the outcome, personally.

The housing situation in this country is so dire that any workable solution to this problem (or these problems) is going to have to take a lot of thought and no knee jerk reactions. People might, as with renewable power, need to stop their nimbyism and accept that changes are going to have to be made, because none of it is sustainable as it is.

 

I've now got "A change is gonna come" by Sam Cook in my head... *wanders off humming*

[Athy]

 

 

 

Now can we stop this rather silly game of "let's talk down to people and try to make them look stupid" please?

Quit while you're ahead.

[Wanderer Vagabond]

The housing situation in this country is so dire that any workable solution to this problem (or these problems) is going to have to take a lot of thought and no knee jerk reactions. People might, as with renewable power, need to stop their nimbyism and accept that changes are going to have to be made, because none of it is sustainable as it is.

 

I've now got "A change is gonna come" by Sam Cook in my head... *wanders off humming*

Whilst I would agree totally with you concerning the housing situation, I find it difficult to see how canals are anything of a solution. The only way that they would become a solution (but not one I am recommending) is if the one's in London were filled in, concreted over and multi-level blocks of genuinely affordable apartments were built on them. If you build a block 10 stories high you can house 10 times the people compared to how many you'd get in a canal boat moored on the cut in the same space, but it isn't about getting as many people as possible into a given space, is it?

 

Whilst housing is left to market forces (and I don't see anyone in government wanting to change things) there will always be a housing shortage since that works to the total benefit of the house builders

[Athy]

Are people afraid of using the word "cheap"? I have noticed this expression "affordable housing" being bandied about a fair bit recently, and it's a meaningless one, in that every house or flat is affordable for someone, but equally there are some people for whom buying even the cheapest dwelling will not be within their means, so nothing's "affordable" to them even if it's cheap.

[magictime]

Quit while you're ahead.

 

Best advice I've had all year!

[Lady Muck]

Whilst I would agree totally with you concerning the housing situation, I find it difficult to see how canals are anything of a solution. The only way that they would become a solution (but not one I am recommending) is if the one's in London were filled in, concreted over and multi-level blocks of genuinely affordable apartments were built on them. If you build a block 10 stories high you can house 10 times the people compared to how many you'd get in a canal boat moored on the cut in the same space, but it isn't about getting as many people as possible into a given space, is it?

 

Whilst housing is left to market forces (and I don't see anyone in government wanting to change things) there will always be a housing shortage since that works to the total benefit of the house builders

its not a housing solution and it never can be, it's just way too small a space. When you see how busy just 4000 boats has made it (that's incl boats on moorings) - the canals are full here, now, if you ask me and if we had one liveaboard per boat that would be only 0.04% of Londons entire population on the canal. I support the NBTA campaign but I've said it elsewhere there does seem to be a collective denial that London is now full and a faliure to understand that you can't have every inch of towpath moored as you are't the only users.

[peterboat]

its not a housing solution and it never can be, it's just way too small a space. When you see how busy just 4000 boats has made it (that's incl boats on moorings) - the canals are full here, now, if you ask me and if we had one liveaboard per boat that would be only 0.04% of Londons entire population on the canal. I support the NBTA campaign but I've said it elsewhere there does seem to be a collective denial that London is now full and a faliure to understand that you can't have every inch of towpath moored as you are't the only users.

Again virtual greenie for talking sense and making the point

[Wanderer Vagabond]

Are people afraid of using the word "cheap"? I have noticed this expression "affordable housing" being bandied about a fair bit recently, and it's a meaningless one, in that every house or flat is affordable for someone, but equally there are some people for whom buying even the cheapest dwelling will not be within their means, so nothing's "affordable" to them even if it's cheap.

The reason that 'affordable' is used instead of 'cheap' is because cheap equates to crap, whereas affordable does allow the prospect of the place being reasonably pleasant. I see no reason why, when looking for somewhere to live, people should be expected to live in a hovel just to 'get themselves on the ladder'. I didn't, and wouldn't have done so, I don't expect anyone else to.

 

You are also taking the narrow view of actually buying somewhere to live whereas in London, for a sizeable percentage, that option is no longer on the cards and all that they can expect to for their working lives is to rent somewhere. Since the cost of maintaining a property isn't directly related to it's cost, there is no reason that more affordable rents could not be imposed if there was a will to do so. That will is unfortunately lacking (from whatever political party you care to name).

[magnetman]

... Since the cost of maintaining a property isn't directly related to it's cost, there is no reason that more affordable rents could not be imposed if there was a will to do so.

 

.....

 

True

But

 

turkeys voting for Christmas?

[Mike Todd]

Are people afraid of using the word "cheap"? I have noticed this expression "affordable housing" being bandied about a fair bit recently, and it's a meaningless one, in that every house or flat is affordable for someone, but equally there are some people for whom buying even the cheapest dwelling will not be within their means, so nothing's "affordable" to them even if it's cheap.

it is not 'affordable housing' but 'Affordable Housing'. That is it is a technical term which is precisely defined and used in such as planning rules. But yes, it has long since meant something that is affordable.