NBTA protest

[bassplayer]

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

Why are you trying to shut OB down? He only said they were concerns. Why not just give us your opinion on the subject so we can see how it stands up?

[bassplayer]

 

So you are unable to answer the questions.

Ditto...

[Tam & Di]

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." ................

 

Deserves a big fat greenie - have a virtual one.

[bassplayer]

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"

So why DO we have clearly defined speed limits then?

[adam1uk]

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.

What do you think the reaction would be if CRT acceded to demands for 'clarity', and gave a distance?

 

Here's what I think would happen: most of the people who demanded 'clarity' would say CRT had exceeded their powers, and had no right to give such a distance.

 

So continued demands for 'clarity' are disingenuous at best -- particularly when the people demanding it know it's not possible to get it.

[RLWP]

 

Deserves a big fat greenie - have a virtual one.

 

Have two

 

Richard

[adam1uk]

So why DO we have clearly defined speed limits then?

Because they're in the law.

[bassplayer]

Because they're in the law.

We have law on mooring to. The problem is that I don't think CRT are adhering to it. They invent 48h and 24h moorings and charge boaters to moor up on the tow path side (despite boaters already paying for this in their licence fee).

 

What will they come up with next?

[Alan de Enfield]

We have law on mooring to. The problem is that I don't think CRT are adhering to it. They invent 48h and 24h moorings and charge boaters to moor up on the tow path side (despite boaters already paying for this in their licence fee).

 

What will they come up with next?

 

Would you be kind enough to cite the evidence for this - everything I have read tends to throw doubt on your statement.

[bassplayer]

 

Would you be kind enough to cite the evidence for this - everything I have read tends to throw doubt on your statement.

I'm glad you say 'doubt'. What do you think our licence fee covers then?

[Graham Davis]

Ditto...

 

You made a statement and I asked you to give examples of your accusations. We are still waiting for them.

[Alan de Enfield]

I'm glad you say 'doubt'. What do you think our licence fee covers then?

 

It gives you access to the waterway.

Much as your 'car tax / licence' gives you unlimited access to the roads

 

You made a statement and I asked you to give examples of your accusations. We are still waiting for them.

 

You may well be waiting a long time - he generally throws in statements but then fails to justify or substantiate them.

Edited May 13, 2016 by Alan de Enfield

[tidal]

Many thanks for your informative reply Lady Muck.
It is as I suspected more about a change in interpretation and enforcement and reflects situations I have seen elsewhere where the common sense approach of the people on the ground has been altered by circumstances like the change in popularity.

 

I really don't like the breaking up of such communities, or the threat of evictions but I can't see how CRT can make exceptions without those exceptions being used (and abused) by others.

 

There has to be a compromise somewhere but I can't see a viable one

[Pluto]

 

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 . . .”

 

Nigel, if you go to my downloads page, http://www.mikeclarke.myzen.co.uk/Downloads.html there are several copies of L&LC Byelaws towards the bottom of the page. As you suggest, they don't really appertain to canals today, but can give some historical perspective on many canal-related subjects.

[Allan(nb Albert)]

What do you think the reaction would be if CRT acceded to demands for 'clarity', and gave a distance?

 

Here's what I think would happen: most of the people who demanded 'clarity' would say CRT had exceeded their powers, and had no right to give such a distance.

 

So continued demands for 'clarity' are disingenuous at best -- particularly when the people demanding it know it's not possible to get it.

I believe it is CaRT who are being disingenuous here.

 

Bona fide navigation is a fact according to the 1995 Act. The reason distance is not mentioned in the Act is that it did not form part of the 'Kenneth Dodd test'.

 

What CaRT (and BW before it) have done is tried to make that test more onerous by suggesting, contrary to the test, distance is a requirement. Worse still they claim that they can't say what that distance is because it is not in the Act ...

 

 

 

 

[adam1uk]

I believe it is CaRT who are being disingenuous here.

Bona fide navigation is a fact according to the 1995 Act. The reason distance is not mentioned in the Act is that it did not form part of the 'Kenneth Dodd test'.

What CaRT (and BW before it) have done is tried to make that test more onerous by suggesting, contrary to the test, distance is a requirement. Worse still they claim that they can't say what that distance is because it is not in the Act ...

 

So you can bona fide navigate without going anywhere?

[Witchword]

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

It's not as simple as saying "oh, we're homeless, can we have one of those houses please?" What you might get is a b&b for months or even years until a property becomes available for you. You might also get an offer of a house in an area miles away from where your life actually is- I know a woman who was offered a house 150 miles away from her former life, and another who was offered in the same county but the local geography meant that entailed a 60-mile round trip to her job.

 

 

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.

Again, I think this is pretty simplistic. In my own case, for example, I work and my dd goes to school. I've a car which I'm fortunate enough to own outright. But I can't afford to rent or buy in my area and so with the capital I had I bought a boat to live on. I'm lucky enough to have a mooring which suits us, but that's only by chance. There aren't loads of moorings in the area, certainly not within a practical distance of my work and her school. Would you suggest that I'd be better off going into debt in order to support a rental property which would cost all of my earned income* each month, before I paid a single other bill? In areas like the western K&A it isn't as simple as saying it's just a lifestyle choice. For many people it's a fact that they cannot earn enough to live in that area, yet are tied to the area by family, support networks, and the job or work contacts they have. Simply saying the chosen lifestyle has to take second place is to me rather like saying move to another area or get on your bike. Moving to another area isn't straightforward for many reasons and doesn't always solve the issue; I could've bought a house in Neath, for example, but I couldn't have worked there because there isn't the work there. Families rely on each other for care- not just the children but older people as well. Especially with the cuts this dreadful government has imposed...

 

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.

 

I totally agree.

So you can bona fide navigate without going anywhere?

Personally I think that a navigation to a service quay, a purposeful journey, is as bona fide as any other. Why is a holiday cruise more bona fide than a trip to the water point?

 

*I don't steal the rest of my income, by the way

Edited May 13, 2016 by Witchword

[Tam & Di]

I believe it is CaRT who are being disingenuous here.

 

Bona fide navigation is a fact according to the 1995 Act. The reason distance is not mentioned in the Act is that it did not form part of the 'Kenneth Dodd test'.

 

What CaRT (and BW before it) have done is tried to make that test more onerous by suggesting, contrary to the test, distance is a requirement. Worse still they claim that they can't say what that distance is because it is not in the Act ...

 

If only it were that simple. As far as C&RT are concerned many people registering as CCers do not satisfy C&RT's definition of bona fide navigation. Ipse facto they should be able to either force them to take up a home mooring or leave C&RT waters. That has not proved to be viable, hence C&RT have been forced to try to say why they do not find various individual cruising patterns satisfactory and have tried to do so by saying people are not moving far enough as that is all they can do.

 

But you know that of course.

[Witchword]

Oh and I saw this earlier. Thoughts?

[RLWP]

Oh and I saw this earlier. Thoughts?

 

Yes. The author is a member of the NBTA

 

Small regional newspapers are so short staffed they will publish anything that is well written

 

Richard

[Ray T]

Oh and I saw this earlier. Thoughts?

 

From Canal World Facebook:

 

Remove

Graham DavisHow many more times is the same article going to be mentioned on here!!?? Boring!!

Like · Reply · 11 hrs

Remove

Steve GristI'd not seen it before and thought that it explains it very well!! If you've read it before skip it, using Facebook is pretty easy to work out!!

Like · Reply · 2 · 10 hrs

Remove

Aaron Swine PrinceWell said Steve, i to hadnt read it

Like · Reply · 1 · 9 hrs

Remove

Richard PowellThe author, CAROL KREBS, is a member of NBTA

Like · Reply · 8 hrs

Remove

Aaron Swine PrinceDoesnt make a difference

Like · Reply · 8 hrs

Remove

Richard PowellNo, except it isn't unbiased reporting

Like · Reply · 8 hrs

Remove

Aaron Swine PrinceIts a newspaper SHOCK HORROR

Like · Reply · 1 · 7 hrs · Edited

Remove

Richard PowellIt is - and like most regional newspapers probably very short staffed. So they are happy to take submissions and publish them without checking if they are right or wrong. What if the article had been written by Mike Grimes of C&RT?

Edited May 13, 2016 by Ray T

[Claude]

Nothing like playing to a stereotype - narrowboat, ah yes, must be concertinas and accordions! Wandering Vagabond mentioned the old hippie convoy - it's like a time warp.

Late to the discussion, but yes, why do some liveaboards play to that stereotype? I've lived aboard as a CCer and I just wore normal clothes. I find those people a bit cringeworthy and embarrassing and they certainly don't represent liveaboards or CCers as far as I'm concerned.

 

As for their argument I agree to a certain extent, but if you have kids then perhaps you need to find yourself a mooring. Otherwise I just think people need to make a bit more effort to move.

[bassplayer]

 

It gives you access to the waterway.

Much as your 'car tax / licence' gives you unlimited access to the roads

 

 

You may well be waiting a long time - he generally throws in statements but then fails to justify or substantiate them.

You didn't dispute the main bits on my post which you left in black though!

 

You made a statement and I asked you to give examples of your accusations. We are still waiting for them.

What accusations? Do you mean the post OB made?

[peterboat]

 

It gives you access to the waterway.

Much as your 'car tax / licence' gives you unlimited access to the roads

 

 

You may well be waiting a long time - he generally throws in statements but then fails to justify or substantiate them.

Also they have double yellow lines on the roads same as you cant moor here or if you do they fine you or take your car away!!

[Rusty Shackleford]

Intent, especially how the 1995 act was implemented, along with terms and conditions...will be powerfull advantages to win a case if went to court. CRT know this, so do their lawyers. Picking holes in 'bonefide navigation' is pointless (going to waterline or services etc) law does not work like that, and I'm surprised 'experts' don't pick up on that. You can't have countless boats not moving and staying put if CRT lose a court case. In the very unlikely event they lost a court case, they would...eventually...have ammunition to have the law changed...to their advantage. The eventual compromise before we get that far, if any...may be worse than the current situation. In fact...if people don't come up with a decent solution and not trying to have it all, I bet on it.