Bargees Complain about Schooling Problems

[LoneWolf]

 

 

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.

 

yeah this

 

 

But oh you and your facts and thinking about things - you're spoiling the fun of those that relish in spreading the hate of those less fortunate than themselves (which CWDF does so well)

[AMModels]

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?

 

All well and good but the canals are not a linear housing estate, they are not the cure for the social housing system and they are not to be viewed as an answer to 40 years of deliberate under investment in all of the things you mention.

Couple of hundred now, then when they have the right to stay in one place because of kids/schools/work/whatever they double in number or treble or further because there is now a legal precedent and the speculators get in on it and you cant move for 'static caravans on water'.

[frangar]

If they care to live up to their name and travel outside of London.....and it might come as a suprise to a lot of them that the canal system does extend beyond the M25.... They will find that shockingly permanent moorings are available as is rentable housing.....I'm sorry but having children is a "lifestyle" choice.....just like living in a particular area or choosing between being on land or in a house....sometimes you can't have everything.....

 

I would quite like a large house with a mooring and a workshop....so my mother can live in the house while I have the mooring and workshop....surely the powers that be should give me this for nothing....it's my right after all........

 

Not impressed I'm afraid.

 

Cheers

 

Gareth

[AMModels]

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

 

what you mean they spent their whole lives on the water?? People actually do that? If only there'd been people who did that years ago and could have been seen as an example of what happens when you live on the canals....

 

again... Oh wait.

 

(17laties's - 1920's canal dwelling family)

[peterboat]

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?

I normally agree with most things you say however on this occasion I am afraid I dont. Boats can move, if there are no moorings where they are move to somewhere where there are moorings. Plenty of cheap moorings here up North six weeks school hols to move boat and Bobs your uncle you dont have to move every 14 days. The trouble is with some people its cake and eat it time and we all know the world isnt like that

[spadefoot]

Cake & eat it, blah blah blah. What some don't realise, or want to accept, is that, there is no cake left because a lot of self-rightous, middle-aged baby-boomers, have had it all.

[Jerra]

Cake & eat it, blah blah blah. What some don't realise, or want to accept, is that, there is no cake left because a lot of self-rightous, middle-aged baby-boomers, have had it all.

You must have a different definition of baby boomer to the one I grew up with! I thought I was a baby boomer and I am well past middle age.

 

Not sure what the rest of the rant means really.

[GUMPY]

Cake & eat it, blah blah blah. What some don't realise, or want to accept, is that, there is no cake left because a lot of self-rightous, middle-aged baby-boomers, have had it all.

Do you need some help with the tree on your shoulder.

[Sir Nibble]

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?

All of this was taken into account by CaRT and is why they offered grandfather rights in the form of roving mooring permits to be piloted on the k&a. It was the liveaboards themselves who shot this down with their conviction that their interpretation of the law was exact and correct and they can keep doing as they always have. Yes it's tough but ultimately when the licence application is on the desk and it is plain that for whatever reason this person will not move and the board is most certainly not satisfied what then?

[spadefoot]

You must have a different definition of baby boomer to the one I grew up with! I thought I was a baby boomer and I am well past middle age.

 

Not sure what the rest of the rant means really.

Do you really think that was a rant? Seriously?

Or was that your best attempt at debate?

Do you need some help with the tree on your shoulder.

No more than you do with that log in your eye.

[David Mack]

 

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

 

That's only partly true. The current legal requirements on CCers have been in place since 1995, and the children now in school have all been born some time after that. So families who now have school age children have been obliged to either have a home mooring or CC in accordance with the rules since before the children were born. And all CCers have signed to say that they will do just that.

 

But what has changed, is that the blind eye that had previously been turned to non compliance is now less accommodating. And that is as a result of increasing problems, (or at least an increased perception of problems) caused by those CCers, with and without children, pushing at the boundaries of what is acceptable/permitted.

 

No doubt this is unfair on some of the boaters and families involved, but to my mind a large part of this has been brought down on the CCer community by the "I know my rights" types within their number.

[Paul C]

"I can't believe you've stopped me for speeding, doing 37 in a 30. I've been speeding for ages along this stretch of road and haven't been stopped before".

[magpie patrick]

 

That's only partly true. The current legal requirements on CCers have been in place since 1995, and the children now in school have all been born some time after that. So families who now have school age children have been obliged to either have a home mooring or CC in accordance with the rules since before the children were born. And all CCers have signed to say that they will do just that.

 

But what has changed, is that the blind eye that had previously been turned to non compliance is now less accommodating. And that is as a result of increasing problems, (or at least an increased perception of problems) caused by those CCers, with and without children, pushing at the boundaries of what is acceptable/permitted.

 

No doubt this is unfair on some of the boaters and families involved, but to my mind a large part of this has been brought down on the CCer community by the "I know my rights" types within their number.

 

And the law is that thou shall move every 14 days, everything else is interpretation

 

No one is seriously defending people who don't move at all, and there are very few in that category anyway.

All of this was taken into account by CaRT and is why they offered grandfather rights in the form of roving mooring permits to be piloted on the k&a. It was the liveaboards themselves who shot this down with their conviction that their interpretation of the law was exact and correct and they can keep doing as they always have. Yes it's tough but ultimately when the licence application is on the desk and it is plain that for whatever reason this person will not move and the board is most certainly not satisfied what then?

 

The problem was actually that CRT couldn't grant these rights even if the community had accepted them - they had to offer roving mooring permits to all or to none.

[Sir Nibble]

 

The problem was actually that CRT couldn't grant these rights even if the community had accepted them - they had to offer roving mooring permits to all or to none.

That's true but the liveaboard community were up in arms in opposition before that came to light and it was they in fact who ferreted that out and trumped CaRT with it.

[David Mack]

 

And the law is that thou shall move every 14 days, everything else is interpretation

 

But there is also a "bona fide for navigation" requirement. Whilst that is not precisely defined (or perhaps definable), there is a pretty obvious tension between that requirement and a desire to stay within a relatively small distance of school, that surely should give pause for thought to anyone contemplating 'CCing' within range of a single place.

[magnetman]

Anyway

 

Apparently the weather forecast for this weekend in Englandland is looking promising

[magpie patrick]

 

But there is also a "bona fide for navigation" requirement. Whilst that is not precisely defined (or perhaps definable), there is a pretty obvious tension between that requirement and a desire to stay within a relatively small distance of school, that surely should give pause for thought to anyone contemplating 'CCing' within range of a single place.

 

Yes, but we are already moving into things not being quite as clear cut as people would like to make out. There is a tension indeed, but not one that has been resolved in an enforceable way. Bona Fide means (literally translated) "without intention to deceive" which in this context is fairly meaningless. If we start moving towards "in good faith" then it would be fairly easy to argue that moving as far as practicable in the circumstances is "in good faith", especially as the distance would differ depending on the circumstances.

 

Canals bring a largely middle class leisure activity (sorry, but it is - the posh ones go yotting and the working class don't generally go narrow boating) into conflict with other sectors of society in a way that, say, playing golf or watching rugby doesn't. Hence we find ourselves in conflict with stone throwing yobs round the back of industrial estates, amidst glue sniffers in city centres and yes, amongst liveaboards where accomodation is way out of reach (although cost isn't the only reason people live on boats). We don't like it, and we want something done about it. I say we because I regard myself as one of the middle class.

 

But these people can't just not exist, and badgering them off the waterways where to be honest their presence is relatively benign isn't helping anyone. Suppose this badgering is successful, what will it achieve? Short term reduction in demand for moorings and long term resentment among a group of people suddenly disenfranchised and homeless?

[dogless]

^^^^

Well said again that man and greenied.

 

Rog

[RLWP]

 

But these people can't just not exist, and badgering them off the waterways where to be honest their presence is relatively benign isn't helping anyone. Suppose this badgering is successful, what will it achieve? Short term reduction in demand for moorings and long term resentment among a group of people suddenly disenfranchised and homeless?

 

And if it isn't successful - what then? Why should anyone pay for a CRT mooring. As an intelligent middle class person I can see a loophole to exploit a mile wide there

 

This is a horrendous mess that needs a pragmatic solution

 

Richard

[Dyertribe]

Yes, but we are already moving into things not being quite as clear cut as people would like to make out. There is a tension indeed, but not one that has been resolved in an enforceable way. Bona Fide means (literally translated) "without intention to deceive" which in this context is fairly meaningless. If we start moving towards "in good faith" then it would be fairly easy to argue that moving as far as practicable in the circumstances is "in good faith", especially as the distance would differ depending on the circumstances.

http://www.dictionary.com/browse/bonafide

Seems that depending upon the dictionary bona fide means exactly what you wish it to

[Jerra]

 

But these people can't just not exist, and badgering them off the waterways where to be honest their presence is relatively benign isn't helping anyone.

 

This is true. However what is the end result if a free for all develops with anyone who can get their hands on a boat grabs a length of towpath and stays there endlessly.

 

The situation is relatively benign now apart from (some would suggest) some inner city and close to city areas.

 

How long would this situation remain benign if there were no restrictions and/or enforcement?

[AMModels]

Why dont CRT grant mooring rights on the offside to these Barge dwellers? They can then get their kids at school, get to jobs etc etc. The mooring rights will be just that with no services beyond what they have on the towpath but it gives them the right to stay in that area. Say 50% of regular moorings or so in that area?

[Jrtm]

Dear crt

 

I have a 12 month cc licance and no mooring.

 

Ive just decided that i may or may not have or want children but incase i do i want them to go to a local state school. Also if i move the trees will block my solar panels and I wont be able to watch tv or play on my xbox like criminals can in there cells and there for your forcing me and my past present & future childern to having a lower level of life than a criminal and there for its my human right that you cant force me to move due to the above argument if you try and come back with any argument ill just pop my fingers in my ears and shut my eyes while going la la la and there for automatically over powering you responces.

Why dont CRT grant mooring rights on the offside to these Barge dwellers? They can then get their kids at school, get to jobs etc etc. The mooring rights will be just that with no services beyond what they have on the towpath but it gives them the right to stay in that area. Say 50% of regular moorings or so in that area?

Why should they get away with it and we all keep by the rules and pay or pay extra.

 

Simple live by the rules or face being forced to move on. They can always home school except exams and just plan in advance to go to a local school for exams.

[adam1uk]

Why dont CRT grant mooring rights on the offside to these Barge dwellers? They can then get their kids at school, get to jobs etc etc. The mooring rights will be just that with no services beyond what they have on the towpath but it gives them the right to stay in that area. Say 50% of regular moorings or so in that area?

 

Probably because CRT may not own the offside, and even if they did they'd probably need to get planning permission for permanent moorings.

[magnetman]

Maybe just fill in urban canals and build houses or blocks of flats on the rather valuable land and perhaps some strategic enviromwentally friendly 2 wheel transport routes.

 

Why would anyone want to live on a boat in a high rent / property price area other than it being a cheap housing option anyway