NBTA protest

[Paul C]

But will the other boating organisations start getting more vocal if CRT start rolling out even more restrictive rules?

 

That's the crux though, that's the big "if". CRT are targeting non-compliant CCers. Other boaters including CCers are able to happily continue boating.

[Alan de Enfield]

 

That's the crux though, that's the big "if". CRT are targeting non-compliant CCers. Other boaters including compliant CCers are able to happily continue boating.

 

Just added a word

[adam1uk]

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'.

Allan: my post was one of a series. It's you that needs to read them all, then they make sense.

 

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.

 

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.

Edited May 13, 2016 by adam1uk

[Graham Davis]

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.

 

I think the problem is that people don't like the sticking 2 fingers up at the Rules about continuously cruising, that the majority accept.

If you need to stay in one place for education or employment then get a legitimate mooring. If you have difficulty paying for it then the welfare system will help, as has been proven numerous times here.

The one outcome I can see happening is that the Rules will be tightened up even more and that they will affect ALL boaters, so the actions of a few will be adverse to the majority.

[magnetman]

Anyway.

 

Nice to see its spring finally !

[onionbargee]

Having been at the protest and actually spoken to the NBTA, I think ( not 100% on this ) their concern is that the rules keep changing, and in fact are not actually the law, but an interpretation of it. As Mr Grimes put his foot in it by pointing out, its CRT's own interpretation, and the interveiwer pointed out the common sense of it that all they need to do is interpret it differently to solve the problem.

 

Whereas my concern is more the illegality, lying, and unacountability of CRT.

[adam1uk]

Having been at the protest and actually spoken to the NBTA, I think ( not 100% on this ) their concern is that the rules keep changing, and in fact are not actually the law, but an interpretation of it. As Mr Grimes put his foot in it by pointing out, its CRT's own interpretation, and the interveiwer pointed out the common sense of it that all they need to do is interpret it differently to solve the problem.

 

Whereas my concern is more the illegality, lying, and unacountability of CRT.

 

As the law also says that the boater has to satisfy the board, whose interpretation do you think a reasonable man would think was more important?

[Allan(nb Albert)]

 

As the law also says that the boater has to satisfy the board, whose interpretation do you think a reasonable man would think was more important?

... but CaRT will not say what satisfies then, only what is unlikely to satisfy them.

 

I wonder what a reasonable man would make of that ...

[onionbargee]

 

As the law also says that the boater has to satisfy the board, whose interpretation do you think a reasonable man would think was more important?

Satisfy the board that they are "navigating" nothing else, which is vaigue and undefined, moving from a to b and back to a every 14 days covers that.

 

Can an organisastion enforce its own interpretation of a bylaw ?

[Lady Muck]

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.

two of those 'actual homeless people' have died in the past two weeks on the stretch where I moor my boat. It never gets reported in the press, I only know because I'm on the river. I do know of one or two homeless people who got boats, a friend of mine donated one of hers to a homeless man. Then there was a couple living in a pop up tent over last summer. My friend taught them to paint boats, they earned enough to buy a van and now they live in that. Accommodation is so pricey in London, now that some people are 'homeless' by choice. There's no way you can save money if you don't earn much and rent a room, I know a bloke who lived in a caravan and has just bought a house, this is how he saved a deposit. I don't blame people for the choices they make, especially when they have kids and the way it is is stacked against them. I don't blame them for being creative.

Edited May 13, 2016 by Lady Muck

[Jerra]

... but CaRT will not say what satisfies then, only what is unlikely to satisfy them.

 

I wonder what a reasonable man would make of that ...

I suspect a reasonable man would look at the law and realise it isn't within CRT's powers/remit to set a distance or even say what wouldn't satisfy them. Then realise that by saying what doesn't/won't satisfy them they are trying to be helpful.

 

At least assuming I am a reasonable man they would.

 

I can provide people (including my wife who will tell you I can be totally unreasonable.

[adam1uk]

Exactly this. It's no more bemusing than an NBTA piece posted on facebook the other day, which at once called for clarity in what was required, while pointing out that it would be illegal for CRT to set a distance.

[Lady Muck]

 

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

for years the EO on our river (there only was one for a long time) said that one or two locks in either direction was ok and people listened to him. I don't know the nitty gritty of it, this is how it was. There were some boats that didn't move at all, for years, I don't know why because CRT refused to share why with the cruising clubs who complained.

 

I suppose you could say that that was how our EO was interpreting the law and that BW was happy with that.

 

No one cared because there were barely any boats on the river and the cruisers you could count on one hand, its the popularity of it that has done for it. If it hadn't got so popular I reckon it would still be the same.

 

 

You have to bear in mind that most of the old timers on the river don't even own a smart phone never mind a laptop, they listen to the guy in the uniform. Many don't have bank accounts, I've paid rather a lot of basic boat and licenses for boaters over the years because of this. I don't think anyone sat down with them and went through the terms and conditions. They have probably got no idea that we are all here behind our keyboards, stroking our chins and poring over the canal acts.

 

As for people 'trying to comply,' everyone is different some obviously don't want to cruise, some can't move enough, most somewhere in the middle. I think if the train wasn't so expensive then people would go a lot further, the trainline that runs up the Lea and Stort is a massive rip off. Boaters really love it further out (because it is idyllic) and the trains are fast and the commute easy, but I've heard that it's over £100 a week for a train pass once you get past Broxbourne. Not everyone can afford £400 a month for travel.

Edited May 13, 2016 by Lady Muck

[Sir Percy]

two of those 'actual homeless people' have died in the past two weeks on the stretch where I moor my boat. It never gets reported in the press, I only know because I'm on the river. I do know of one or two homeless people who got boats, a friend of mine donated one of hers to a homeless man. Then there was a couple living in a pop up tent over last summer. My friend taught them to paint boats, they earned enough to buy a van and now they live in that.

 

Unfortunately, any homeless death just wouldn't be news.

 

There were a load of migrant workers (call them what you will, that's a whole nother internet forum dingdong) under a bridge up Tottenham way as well, wasn't there?

 

That was very generous of your friend. Even more so, considering prices of boats in London.

Edited May 13, 2016 by Sir Percy

[Lady Muck]

 

Unfortunately, any homeless death just wouldn't be news.

 

There were a load of migrant workers (call them what you will, that's a whole nother internet forum dingdong) under a bridge up Tottenham way as well, wasn't there?

 

That was very generous of your friend. Even more so, considering prices of boats in London.

Yes its the same lot, there are about 100, we reckon, they get evicted and moved on but they don't ever leave. Look on the latest Google Earth and you can see the camps, they have been there that long. The boat was a bit of a state tbh, the bloke moved off and someone else had it, she was craned out and fell apart on the crane. But, it helped him get off the street so it served a purpose.

[magictime]

I despair at the housing situation in London, I really do. If people are living in vans or on boats as a positive lifestyle choice, that's one thing, but when you consider the overall picture that seems to be developing, I honestly wonder how far we are from Hoovervilles springing up in public spaces. Surely there comes a point where the problem can't any longer be contained in 'beds in sheds' and houses full of bunk rooms, and starts spilling out into public spaces in a big way?

[Graham Davis]

Whereas my concern is more the illegality, lying, and unacountability of CRT.

 

EXACTLY why are they illegal, since the Law is imprecise?

EXACTLY what lies have they said?

... but CaRT will not say what satisfies then, only what is unlikely to satisfy them.

 

Nothing wrong with that.

[bassplayer]

 

EXACTLY why are they illegal, since the Law is imprecise?

EXACTLY what lies have they said?

 

 

Nothing wrong with that.

 

How would you like a speed limit where the authorities won't tell you what the limit actually is? Only that if you exceed this secret limit you might lose your car.

[Mike Todd]

Not for charging for mooring, which was I believe Nigel's point.

Let's suppose that CaRT could charge for overnight mooring (or any other length of stay). It would then be an expectation that the licence fee (which currently permits such stays) should be reduced by the average amount that a boater would pay. But then CaRT would be at the mercy of the ability to collect daily tolls and to find an economic way of doing so.The fees would have to be pretty high to take into account all those uncollected ones. Then someone would spot that it was costing a large proportion of the mooring fees just to monitor and collect so would it not be better to roll them all up with the navigation licence fee and just make a lump sum charge.

 

Rings are for mooring to - not going round in.

[Jerra]

... but CaRT will not say what satisfies then, only what is unlikely to satisfy them.

If CRT did say what satisfied them it would only be based on their interpretation of the law and two things come to mind.

 

1) They have had a lot of criticism for interpreting the law so why should they do it again.

 

2) If it wasn't to peoples liking they would still not accept it saying it was only CRT's interpretation of the law.

 

Sounds like a lose lose situation to me.

[Mike Todd]

(snip)

Whereas my concern is more the illegality, lying, and unacountability of CRT.

I would think that the Mods need to be concerned about defamation claims . . .

[Bod]

It now got to the point where nothing other than High Court case, will settle the matter.

From comments made by C&RT along the lines of " thats our interpretation" even they would appreciate a clear answer.

But can't take themselves to Court!

 

Bod

[Mike Todd]

How would you like a speed limit where the authorities won't tell you what the limit actually is? Only that if you exceed this secret limit you might lose your car.

I wouldn't mind a rule that said, "Over 70 and you are definitely speeding and we will take you to court. Under 50 and we will normally be happy. Anything in between will depend on the circumstances and we will only prosecute if your speed, given the road conditions, was - to any reasonable person - dangerous driving."

[Graham Davis]

How would you like a speed limit where the authorities won't tell you what the limit actually is? Only that if you exceed this secret limit you might lose your car.

 

So you are unable to answer the questions.

[FadeToScarlet]

How would you like a speed limit where the authorities won't tell you what the limit actually is? Only that if you exceed this secret limit you might lose your car.

Not won't tell you- can't.

 

To use the speed limit analogy:

 

"We cannot tell you how fast to go, but you cannot drive your car in a dangerous manner."

 

"No, no, be clear, tell us how fast we can drive!"

 

"We can't give you an exact number, because there isn't one in law, but don't drive dangerously."

 

"But what is dangerously?"

 

"Before you drive your car, you sign up to these Terms and Conditions- we think driving dangerously includes things like overtaking on blind corners, going at three times the speed of other traffic, or stopping for a picnic in the fast lane on a motorway."

 

"Still not fair, I should be able to stop for a picnic in the fast lane, that's against my rights because there's no picnic spots available."

 

"There are"

 

"I can't drive to them, I must picnic on the motorway"