Bargees Complain about Schooling Problems

[Alan de Enfield]

From that 'other place' (the Dark-Side)

 

Getting something right :

 

.......................................................................................................................................................................................................

 

Forgetting something...

Thursday, 04 August 2016 09:12

THE 'Bargees' are at it again—complaining that their children cannot go to school as they have to move their boats under the rules of their continuous cruiser licence.

Their latest demand now is 'No evictions of Boat Dwellers! Full 12 months boat licences for all! Let boat children go to school!'

 

Misnomer

The National Bargee Travellers Association—whose title itself it something of a misnomer, for the last thing they want to do is travel, though all have continuous cruiser licences.

The association is organising demonstrations telling people that Canal & River Trust with its punitive and unlawful enforcement policy against boaters without permanent moorings has seen many boat dwellers on the Kennet & Avon Canal having their licences restricted to six months; threatened with losing their homes; being pressured into giving up their homes; boats being seized and boat children's education and welfare suffering due to the long distances they are being forced to travel to school.

 

Permanent mooring

As most boaters are aware, if you wish to stay in one place to be able to send your children to school or go to work, then you pay for a permanent mooring. If you wish to cruise the waterways you can do with a continuous cruiser licence, so then don't have to pay for a permanent mooring.

But the 'Bargees' want the best of both worlds—wanting to stay in one place yet not pay for a mooring, though of course this is never mentioned in its propaganda.

 

They prevent children attending school

They themselves are preventing the children attending school by not having a permanent mooring that will allow them to do so. Surely they can't really believe their own disinformation that they should be able to stay in one place on a licence that clearly states 'continuous cruising'?

Their licence is very, very clear. What on earth do they believe 'continuous cruising' means?

Any 'boat children's education and welfare suffering due to the long distances they are being forced to travel to school' is caused by the decision of the boaters themselves, by having a continuous cruising licence, and certainly not by the Trust.

 

http://www.narrowboatworld.com/index.php/news-flash/9169-forgetting-something

Edited August 4, 2016 by Alan de Enfield

[Flyboy]

A good factual report.

[Stilllearning]

Blimey, that's a bit of a shock, an article from there that I agree with.

[peterboat]

Nicely summed up Alan greenie sir

[frangar]

Good grief.....I agree with NBW......

 

I think I may need to lie down for a while.....

 

Cheers

 

Gareth

[boathunter]

 

It's just a game with each side using the tools available to them? I'll have a little rant anyway though.

 

Personally, I find much of my life has been made worse by a few moaning idiots making a fuss about easily circumvented nonsense leading to clamping down and tightening up.

 

E.g. bank charges. Before banks were forced to set them out and apply them fairly, I wormed my way out of every single charge for decades, now it's computer says no!

 

Peace convoy: These idiots made it impossible to wild camp in England.

 

Bargee travellers I fear are water born equivalent of the peace convoy, probably msome of the same people, still hell bent on fighting authority for it's own sake. If it wasn't this they'd be camped on a grouse moor claiming the right to educate their own children in a community yurt that didn't actually exist. Anything for delay, obfuscation and argument will do, it's a way of life.

[8 Hairy Feet]

oh those poor children growing up

without a state funded education... eh up

i've had an idea ...why not "home educate"!

[Jim Riley]

oh those poor children growing up

without a state funded education... eh up

i've had an idea ...why not "home educate"!

Weaving yoghurt bonnets is hard to teach on a wobbly boat.

[RLWP]

Isn't the world a funny place. Some people move house to make sure they are in the catchment area of a particular school.

 

Richard

[Dave Payne]

I can see where they are coming from, i might start something along the same lines, i cant move because the trees block my solar further down the canal, they should let me stay here and charge my batteries all day..... What will i do without my fix of soaps each night.

[Dyertribe]

Weaving yoghurt bonnets is hard to teach on a wobbly boat.

They don't to that 'nowadays,they knit muesli baskets!

[David Mack]

From CRT's Guidance for Boaters Without a Home Mooring:

"Unacceptable reasons for staying longer than 14 days in a neighbourhood or locality include a need to stay within commuting distance of a place of work or of study (e.g. a school or college). "

[magpie patrick]

Hang on...

 

The actual claim is that they are being compelled to travel further than is compatible with their children attending school

 

They also claim that the 1995 Act requires them to "move every 14 days" - it doesn't say how far

 

The various Education Acts require a local authority to pay for transport if the journey is more than 2 or 3 miles to school (depending on the age of the child and depending on the education authority as to whether this means the nearest school or the one they actually attend). This is based on walking distances

 

The various regulations regarding travellers on land allow that the traveller is prevented from travelling by virtue of having children in education

 

There is therefore a reasonable argument that families with schoolchildren can, in term time, restrict their travelling to within 2/3 miles of the school (note I said reasonable, not necessarily correct)

 

That is before you add how few/many liveaboard households have children (how big an issue is it?) and the fact that heterosexual couples of a certain age tend to end up with them.

 

Is there an element of sitting in judgement on the lives of others here?

I presume these are the same "travelers" who used to drive around in unlicensed, uninsured, unroadworthy vehicles, leaving a crime wave in their wake as they slowly moved around when forced to vacate the private land they commandeered.

Later some of them moved onto un-canal-worthy boats, permanently moored in stupid locations. Dozens of dogs and children running wild, boats covered in all sorts of "re-claimed" items. (Still see some of those!)

It's a step up that they are now worried about children's education. I hope they are still able to claim their Government hand-outs

 

I really don't think many, if any, fit every element of that stereotype, and it is fairly typical of the hype used to undermine a much bigger section of the community, along with "scroungers in council houses" for example

 

edited to correct ambiguous mileage

Edited August 4, 2016 by magpie patrick

[IanD]

If local authorities have to pay for transport for children further than 2/3 of a mile from school, why aren't all the LAs bankrupt (as opposed to just some...) and why are the roads clogged with 4x4s twice a day?

[Machpoint005]

The NBW report (if it can be believed) is yet another example of somebody wanting to assert his/her rights without the accompanying responsibilities. The chosen lifestyle is incompatible for legal reasons with having children of school age, although there is nothing to prevent anyone from seeking a permanent mooring.

 

Bread buttered on both sides, anyone?

[IanM]

[magpie patrick]

If local authorities have to pay for transport for children further than 2/3 of a mile from school, why aren't all the LAs bankrupt (as opposed to just some...) and why are the roads clogged with 4x4s twice a day?

 

sorry, my mistake 2 OR 3 miles from school depending on age

[AMModels]

If only someone had raised children on boats years ago and could have explained to these poor poor barge dwellers the difficulties it brings, maybe they could have made a different choice in their lifestyle.

 

oh hang on...

[Lady Muck]

If only someone had raised children on boats years ago and could have explained to these poor poor barge dwellers the difficulties it brings, maybe they could have made a different choice in their lifestyle.

 

oh hang on...

Yeah oh hang on, some have never lived in houses, you do know that don't you?

[dogless]

Surely the problem has been created by former authority turning a 'blind eye' to boaters who move very little, for whatever reason.

 

This set a kind of precedent which is only now being overturned.

 

I have to say I feel very uncomfortable damning young families for wanting to live aboard, and in very many instances there simply aren't moorings available.

 

I hope some long term strategy can be acheived, as I for one love to see young families on the canals, instead of being entirely grey haired dodderers like me. After all, diversity is a good thing isn't it?

 

Rog

Yeah oh hang on, some have never lived in houses, you do know that don't you?

 

Greenie for that

Oh I can't

Rog

[Lady Muck]

Dogless, yes.

 

we are where we are because as you say,

 

CRT have moved the goalposts, there are families who never had any trouble and now they get threatened with section 8

 

And:
They can't just 'get a mooring' please show me some moorings in these areas that they can just go and 'get' ones which are residential and will welcome kids.
Social housing shortage.

ban on squatting - yes I know a lot of land based travellers are now on boats too, i know families where the parents are registered as travellers and therefore the kids are too. If you reduce peoples options you will get to the point that they are sleeping in tents.
Unaffordable or no/little public transport to work in some places. Have you seen how much some season tickets are?
Funding cuts for charities - I know two single parent families who fled violence and are on boats, have you seen how many womens refuges have closed? And the ones that are left have no spaces. Same as homeless shelters, no spaces.
Because there is no social housing available you have to rent private sector. There is a shortage of suitable properties in some areas - eg all of the building near me is executive flats and the social housing has all been cancelled from the stadium development. Where will these people go?
Landlords can pick and choose who they rent to - executives get priority over messy families with kids and pets.
I don't blame anyone for taking to the water, especially if they are poor as the bankside choices are so grim in some places.

We're taking about a couple of hundred families at the most, though, here, its not ever going to be a lifestyle most people will ever think about is it? And surely we should not hold children responsible for their parents decisions? we have a duty to educate them don't we?

Edited August 4, 2016 by Lady Muck

[David Schweizer]

If local authorities have to pay for transport for children further than 2/3 of a mile from school, why aren't all the LAs bankrupt (as opposed to just some...) and why are the roads clogged with 4x4s twice a day?

 

I suspect that may be because the School being attended is not the nearest available one to their home, and therefore not eligible for free school transport, The School in our Village routinely gets good SATS results, which has led to amost half the children attending not living anywhere near the School. We live five doors down from the School and the road outside is clogged with big vehicles at both ends of the School day.

Edited August 4, 2016 by David Schweizer

[dogless]

Ladymuck.

 

Wow, you're on a roll. I don't profess to know the answer but I'm sure people aren't choosing to put themselves in this situation.

 

I think we sometimes forget how fortunate we are.

 

Rog

Edited August 4, 2016 by dogless

[Lady Muck]

Ladymuck.

 

Wow, you're on a roll. I don't profess to know the answer but I'm sure people aren't choosing to put themselves in this situation.

 

I think we sometimes forget how fortunate we are.

 

Rog

It does tend to push my buttons a bit !

 

But they might choose the situation because the alternative is grim, or because they've always travelled, because they fall pregnant and don't want to lose their home all sorts of reasons. I say, best of luck to them.

[Jerra]

If local authorities have to pay for transport for children further than 2/3 of a mile from school, why aren't all the LAs bankrupt (as opposed to just some...) and why are the roads clogged with 4x4s twice a day?

Most urban schools (and that is the majority of kids) don't have a catchment area so large transport is needed( nobody outside the 2 or 3 mile limit). The roads are full of people doing the school run because either they are so scared of modern life they won't let the kids out on their own or the little dears can't face the walk to school.