NBTA protest

[Lady Muck]

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?

It already has done, Everytime they find a body I wonder if they'll take action now, but the truth is the hostels are completely full. Nobody wants them, plus there is the homeless by choice that I mentioned and they are not just migrants either. People make the choice to sleep somewhere uncomfortable rather than give most of their salary to a landlord. When I moved to the capital. I was on a min wage, I earned about £700 a month. £160 of that was rent in zone 2 Now I guess a min wage would be £900 and a room starts at £500 in zone 4 . Thats £178 a month travelcard. A room in zone 2, youd be looking at forking out most of your wage.,You would not be able to pay your rent and buy a travelcard and be able to afford your bils and eat. Thats how things have changed. I honestly don't know how people do it, but they don't leave home, or they rent a bed. I know people would say, well move, but I don't want to I've been here 25 years, I love it.

Edited May 13, 2016 by Lady Muck

[Wanderer Vagabond]

 

 

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?

 

 

This seems to be the nub of your 'argument', provided a boat moves (no matter how small a distance) it is in some way complying with the requirement of the Act. So if I and six mates each with a 60 foot boat took up mooring on 400 feet of towpath and just change positions with each other are we complying with the Act and should be able to stay there forever. This piece of towpath would be convenient for local services so we would therefore prevent anyone else from similarly benefiting from the mooring. Is this how the canal system should be working?

 

The point is to look at why the dispensation was originally made in the Act. The purpose was so that people who were genuinely navigating the system, and therefore never in one place for very long, shouldn't have to take on a mooring that they are never going to make use of. It is a waste of a marina mooring space as much as anything else. Or perhaps you think the original idea was that the legislators wanted people to moor continously but just for a bit of sport they thought they'd make them have to move every 14 days for no real purpose?

[RLWP]

I know people would say, well move, but I don't want to I've been here 25 years, I love it.

 

It's very hard to understand for people who don't live in London. We have all the things you have but without the 'London' tag and costs, and say 'just move'. And people don't, suggesting there is something very complicated happening

 

Richard

[Allan(nb Albert)]

This seems to be the nub of your 'argument', provided a boat moves (no matter how small a distance) it is in some way complying with the requirement of the Act.

It certainly seems to be the definition that BW gave to the select committee ...

[onionbargee]

This seems to be the nub of your 'argument', provided a boat moves (no matter how small a distance) it is in some way complying with the requirement of the Act. So if I and six mates each with a 60 foot boat took up mooring on 400 feet of towpath and just change positions with each other are we complying with the Act and should be able to stay there forever. This piece of towpath would be convenient for local services so we would therefore prevent anyone else from similarly benefiting from the mooring. Is this how the canal system should be working?

 

The point is to look at why the dispensation was originally made in the Act. The purpose was so that people who were genuinely navigating the system, and therefore never in one place for very long, shouldn't have to take on a mooring that they are never going to make use of. It is a waste of a marina mooring space as much as anything else. Or perhaps you think the original idea was that the legislators wanted people to moor continously but just for a bit of sport they thought they'd make them have to move every 14 days for no real purpose?

Alternatively we could accept that a minority will want to just shuffle about, so what ? If you get a mooring you are paying to not have that agro. Owning a boat on 2000 miles of interesting and varied waterways and never moving it is never going to be a popular option. Let them shuffle I say, its their loss, as long as they don't hog visitor moorings.

[Wanderer Vagabond]

Alternatively we could accept that a minority will want to just shuffle about, so what ? If you get a mooring you are paying to not have that agro. Owning a boat on 2000 miles of interesting and varied waterways and never moving it is never going to be a popular option. Let them shuffle I say, its their loss, as long as they don't hog visitor moorings.

And what would make visitor mooring 'special', they are just another piece of canal towpath, aren't they? . Any charges for overstaying we seem to have come to the conclusion are pretty much unenforceable so if someone want to 'shuffle' why shouldn't they just shuffle backwards and forwards on a visitor mooring? The problem lies from those for whom,"..... Owning a boat ........and never moving it IS.... going to be a popular option....." and it is becoming a sizeable minority in certain areas.

[alan_fincher]

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

 

Yes,

 

As Richard says, she manages to present the case in a rather more reasonable sounding way than others representing the NBTA, and local rags are lapping this up, because the "big boy charity "persecuting innocent people seems to make a good headline.

 

However if yo look, the same person is also behind headlines like "boater says canal wardens spying on bargees", and in some other places comes across far less plausibly.

 

I do actually think that with the public at large, who simply do not understand the complexities involved, beyond any "explanation" given in the current article, that they are very much winning the publicity battle. When CRT spokespeople are put up to counter them, they find it very hard to present the CRT case in a way that seems to justify CRT actions. That is not always a comment on the spokesperson - I just think it is easier to win the press argument from the NBTA side than it is from the CRT side, because on the whole "Joe Public" can easily be left thinking "Why don't CRT just leave them alone".

[Alan de Enfield]

 

 

I totally agree.

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 think you are getting confused between what a 'CCer' signs to say they will do, and what a 'HMer' signs to say they will do.

 

There is no legal requirement for a 'holiday hire' boat to Bona fide navigate.

There is no legal requirement for (approximately 26,000) boats registered as having a home mooring (HM) to Bona fide navigate.

 

There is a legal requirement for (approximately 5000 - 6000) boats registered as having no home mooring (CC) to Bona fide navigate.

 

You - the boat owner - choose which declaration to make, C&RT do not force you either way, whichever option you sign you is a commitment, and should be honoured.

[b0atman]

Me thinketh they do protest too much.

[Tuscan]

 

I do actually think that with the public at large, who simply do not understand the complexities involved, beyond any "explanation" given in the current article, that they are very much winning the publicity battle. When CRT spokespeople are put up to counter them, they find it very hard to present the CRT case in a way that seems to justify CRT actions. That is not always a comment on the spokesperson - I just think it is easier to win the press argument from the NBTA side than it is from the CRT side, because on the whole "Joe Public" can easily be left thinking "Why don't CRT just leave them alone".

This I think is very much the case, I understand that CRTs press office are very frustrated that the media ignore the information they provide and focus on the headline. CRT perhaps need perhaps to address the general public in the same way and keep the detail for the boaters who are more familiar with the background.

[magnetman]

I wonder if crt could hand over the towpath and mooring rights to local authorities ?

 

Keep the cruising license for cruising and if more moorings are needed let the LA do it with proper planning. It would be easier for the LA to do it than CRT and it would be "local moorings for local people"

 

I'm quite sure towns would like to see visitors by boat so there would still be plenty of free short stay moorings for people out boating. Hot spot visitor moornings may attract a small fee. There may be publicly usable barbecues beside some moorings.

 

People say "CRT is not a housing authority" this is true but the fact is that without very draconian powers the cut is going to remain full of residential boats and those draconion powers will have a negative effect on almost every boater.

[RLWP]

I wonder if crt could hand over the towpath and mooring rights to local authorities ?

Keep the cruising license for cruising and if more moorings are needed let the LA do it with proper planning. It would be easier for the LA to do it than CRT and it would be "local moorings for local people"

I'm quite sure towns would like to see visitors by boat so there would still be plenty of free short stay moorings for people out boating. Hot spot visitor moornings may attract a small fee. There may be publicly usable barbecues beside some moorings.

I suspect if they did, local authorities would come under pressure from council tax payers to close residential moorings in towns. The situation in Oxford suggests this

 

Richard

[magnetman]

Even properly planned residential moorings (no generators) ?

 

Do locals really have that much of a problem with residential boats?

 

That's sad

 

But I see what you mean - it might have the opposite effect

[cuthound]

I wonder if crt could hand over the towpath and mooring rights to local authorities ?

Keep the cruising license for cruising and if more moorings are needed let the LA do it with proper planning. It would be easier for the LA to do it than CRT and it would be "local moorings for local people"

I'm quite sure towns would like to see visitors by boat so there would still be plenty of free short stay moorings for people out boating. Hot spot visitor moornings may attract a small fee. There may be publicly usable barbecues beside some moorings.

People say "CRT is not a housing authority" this is true but the fact is that without very draconian powers the cut is going to remain full of residential boats and those draconion powers will have a negative effect on almost every boater.

Like they have in Richmond, Greater London ?

 

There the local authority brought in new bylaws to collect fines for overstayers. It resulted from "the few" overstaying long-term and upsetting the local residents, who demanded that their council did something.

 

Edited to say due to slow typing I have cross posted with RLWP.

Edited May 14, 2016 by cuthound

[MtB]

 

Do locals really have that much of a problem with residential boats?

 

That's sad

 

 

Absolutely they do. As neighbours, boaters are about equally desirable as 'gypsies' (whatever they are) to local people (whatever they are).

[RLWP]

Like they have in Richmond, Greater London ?

 

There the local authority brought in new bylaws to collect fines for overstayers. It resulted from "the few" overstaying long-term and upsetting the local residents, who demanded that their council did something.

 

Edited to say due to slow typing I have cross posted with RWLP.

 

And provided another example of the issue

 

Richard

[Alan de Enfield]

 

And provided another example of the issue

 

Richard

 

Makes interesting reading :

 

http://e-voice.org.uk/cara/reclaim-our-riverbank/

 

Local residents monitor arrivals and departures and report back to the 'authorities'

 

‘Riverbank Watch’

Please carry on providing information about departures and arrivals and other incidents. This information is valued by the enforcement agencies and enables them to make the best use of their limited resources. Provide as much detail as possible – date, time, descriptions and maybe a photo – but do not place yourself in personal danger. If you see acts of vandalism - signs being vandalised, damage to trees or the riverbank itself - please call 999 as this is criminal damage.

 

Do continue to ask friends and neighbours to join our contacts list by e mailing reclaimourriverbank@gmail.com The existence of a strong body of support from local people has been vital in backing our representations. You can opt out of receiving e mails from the group at any time – just let us know. We guarantee not to share contact details with anyone and to use your details only in connection with the Reclaim our Riverbank campaign.

[Allan(nb Albert)]

This I think is very much the case, I understand that CRTs press office are very frustrated that the media ignore the information they provide and focus on the headline. CRT perhaps need perhaps to address the general public in the same way and keep the detail for the boaters who are more familiar with the background.

The problem that CaRT have with the media is that they are unable to answer simple questions of the type "why don't you leave them alone?" and "why don't you say how far they have to move?" in a simple manner.

[magnetman]

Like they have in Richmond, Greater London ?

 

There the local authority brought in new bylaws to collect fines for overstayers. It resulted from "the few" overstaying long-term and upsetting the local residents, who demanded that their council did something.

 

Edited to say due to slow typing I have cross posted with RLWP.

I know the situation above Teddington lock.

 

So for example if the council had put the idea out to local residents to install permanent residential moorings on that particular site (do-able but not easy I realise) then the locals would not allow it through the planning process?

[MtB]

The problem that CaRT have with the media is that they are unable to answer simple questions of the type "why don't you leave them alone?" and "why don't you say how far they have to move?" in a simple manner.

 

 

Exactly right.

 

So for starters, how about:

 

 

Q: "Why don't you leave them alone?"

 

A: Because they are in breach of the law requiring them to navigate or take a mooring.

 

 

Q: "Why don't you say how far they have to move?"

 

A: The law says they must navigate throughout the period of their licence, or take a mooring, so distance is not relevant.

[saltysplash]

 

 

Exactly right.

 

So for starters, how about:

 

 

Q: "Why don't you leave them alone?"

 

A: Because they are in breach of the law requiring them to navigate or take a mooring.

 

 

But they are navigating, every 14 days.

 

 

Exactly right.

 

So for starters, how about:

 

 

 

Q: "Why don't you say how far they have to move?"

 

A: The law says they must navigate throughout the period of their licence, or take a mooring, so distance is not relevant.

And they are Navigating, every 14 days

[MtB]

But they are navigating, every 14 days.

 

The law says 'continuously', IIRC.

Not once every 14 days.

[NigelMoore]

 

The law says 'continuously', IIRC.

Not once every 14 days.

 

YDRC MtB [assuming from the post responded to, you related this to 'navigating'].

 

The only context in which the word ‘continuously’ appears is in respect of remaining in any one place – not in respect of cruising.

 

[magictime]

 

The law says 'continuously', IIRC.

Not once every 14 days.

 

No, I think you were right the first time; it says "throughout the period...".

 

And in a perfectly good sense, someone who does something at least once every couple of weeks, from the the start to the end of a 12-month period, does it "throughout the period".

 

If someone told you they used their tent for camping "throughout the year" - or their barbecue for cooking, or their fishing rod for angling, or whatever - you wouldn't take that to mean they were using it all the time. You'd take it to mean they never went long without using it.

 

So if CaRT gave the responses you've just suggested, the next question would be "why should we think 'throughout the period' means something different when applied to using a boat for navigation, than it does when applied to using a tent for camping etc.?".

[Alan de Enfield]

 

YDRC MtB [assuming from the post responded to, you related this to 'navigating'].

 

The only context in which the word ‘continuously’ appears is in respect of remaining in any one place – not in respect of cruising.

 

 

Maybe putting words into MtBs mouth, but, could be there confusion between "will be used bona fide for navigation throughout the period" and "continuously"