Bargees Complain about Schooling Problems

[magnetman]

How common is that nowadays? There must be very, very few people who have lived their entire lives on boats. Is there anyone on this forum who has done so?

My younger daughter but she's not a forum member yet (4 y.o.)

 

Edit to put quote in right place

Edited August 5, 2016 by magnetman

[dogless]

Slightly ironic don't you think.

 

There used to be a problem created by boat children not getting schooling.

 

Now the problem is caused by the parents wanting schooling.

 

I still believe some tolerance could be shown in distances teavelled during term time. It's not a lot to ask.

 

Rog

[Athy]

My younger daughter but she's not a forum member yet (4 y.o.)

 

Edit to put quote in right place

Nice one, MM. Have a greeno.

[Jerra]

I still believe some tolerance could be shown in distances teavelled during term time. It's not a lot to ask.

 

Rog

This is true but where do you draw the line? A child may be in full time education until they are 18 say two kids a couple of years apart and you are talking 20 years for somebody being allowed a slacker interpretation than others.

 

This will automatically (in my view) bring howls of protest from people with CC "licences" who want to stay in one place because of work.

 

It might also encourage more people to use the canal as a permanent place to live leading to congestion in certain areas with boats moving very little.

 

Then of course there is the culture shock when you have to start moving after 20 years and have got settled into a permanent job in the area.

 

While being tolerant isn't a lot to ask it does bring problems. I am afraid I tend to be on the side of you change your life to fit your circumstances. My life changed massively when I had kids, but we had anticipated the need to change and were prepared for it. I am afraid IMO if you live on a boat and plan to have children then you need to have planned as to how you will meet their needs and schooling is one of those needs.

[magpie patrick]

 

 

Maybe badly written, or my bad interpretation, but my 'take' from your post :-

 

"One of the results of this bit of the policy being effectively enforced is that Lutine is in Fenny Compton Marina for 5 weeks because I don't have time to move her at all"

 

is that the reason that Lutine was in a marina was because of the enforcement of the law, and by implication, if there was no effective enforcement she would not be there.

 

Probably badly worded, what I mean is

 

"the policy dictates that I can't leave the boat in any one place for more than 14 days, I need to be away for five weeks so I've put it in a marina. The policy is making me do the sensible thing and I'm happy to do that"

 

Of course it does help that the Fenny Compton Marina had a space exactly 45 foot long that I could go into.

 

On a previous trip I took the boat from Huddlesford to Whittington, all of two miles, mainly so I wasn't in "one place" for 22 days. My example is extreme, but this involved a 260 mile round trip in the car.

 

The point is I don't think people will give up marina or any other long term mooring if the alternative is to have to move the boat every 14 days, even if you only move it round the corner, it's a faff.

[Chewbacka]

...................................................The point is I don't think people will give up marina or any other long term mooring if the alternative is to have to move the boat every 14 days, even if you only move it round the corner, it's a faff.

I would

[magpie patrick]

I would

 

I really ought to give up

 

YOU are not everybody, so the fact that you would doesn't mean it would become a problem

 

Most marina moorers are leisure boaters, some (many) live a long way from their boats. Nick Norman lives in Aberdeen I think and his boat is near Tamworth, of course he's going to nip down every two weeks to save a mooring fee isn't he? I guess not...

 

If we are going to quote our own actions, my boat is in a marina for five weeks so I don't have move it, otherwise I'd be driving up this weekend to shift her down the cut (two weeks since I last visited) and then skipping a friends wedding in two weeks time to repeat the performance. The fuel, wear and tear on the car etc probably cost more than the mooring for the next few weeks.

 

To actually move your boat every two weeks if you don't live on it is quite onerous - every two weeks, no exceptions unless you want to do it more often. If someone can make that work good luck to them.

[wrigglefingers]

I wrote a long post about this, but lost it when I went to find some case history but this ...

 

Children who are not in school regularly are at risk and are considered vulnerable by school authorities. That is it. That trumps everything.

 

If you want to read about what happens when children fall through the safety net that is school, where, in addition to educating the young, we try to make a safe environment, watch for the well-being of children (and despite what you read in the press, largely succeed) and find help for their occasionally bewildered parents, read this ...

 

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2016/jan/22/concerns-raised-about-boy-who-died-of-scurvy-a-year-before-his-death-leaked-report

 

Any measure that encourages parents to keep their children in the same school is to be applauded. The number of boats involved is vanishingly small compared to those the whole system and it is right that there is scope for those who need help, to be offered it. That is a hallmark of a civilised society. Forcing ill-equipped parents to home-educate because they cannot keep them in the same school consistently, is a disaster waiting to happen.

[magnetman]

To put another angle on it :

Boater a has a misses and children and a flat near a station with commuter trains to London for example. They choose to live on the boat and rent the flat out for ££££.

 

Is that OK can they stay in a limited area for a school. They are not vulnerable but taking advantage of cheap canal living.

 

I am pretty sure this happens. I only have boats personally but I can see the logic of doing that!!

 

Typos

Edited August 5, 2016 by magnetman

[Jerra]

Forcing ill-equipped parents to home-educate because they cannot keep them in the same school consistently, is a disaster waiting to happen.

As a retired teacher I am well aware of the situation with regard to children who fall through the net. However nobody is forcing anybody to do anything.

 

People choose to have children. In this day and age there are plenty of ways of ensuring you don't have children if you don't want them, anyone not taking advantage of this is choosing to have children. As responsible parents you make arrangements and change your life to ensure the life of the child is as it should be.

 

That may mean choosing to move from a boat to land, even changing jobs and area if necessary. I know many who have made sweeping changes to their lives with the onset of a family. I can't quite fathom out why CCers and a number of others think CCers should be different.

[Machpoint005]

... People choose to have children. In this day and age there are plenty of ways of ensuring you don't have children if you don't want them, anyone not taking advantage of this is choosing to have children. As responsible parents you make arrangements and change your life to ensure the life of the child is as it should be.

 

That may mean choosing to move from a boat to land, even changing jobs and area if necessary. I know many who have made sweeping changes to their lives with the onset of a family. I can't quite fathom out why CCers and a number of others think CCers should be different.

 

For once I find myself in compete agreement with you. It's not a lack of compassion, it's about accepting responsibilities (as I said umpteen pages ago). Plenty of families are in far worse circumstances -- what is the justification for making any exception just because boats happen to be involved?

[Lady Muck]

That may mean choosing to move from a boat to land, even changing jobs and area if necessary. I know many who have made sweeping changes to their lives with the onset of a family. I can't quite fathom out why CCers and a number of others think CCers should be different.

this bit sounds dead easy when it's written down. Good luck if you're on a zero hours contract. Good luck if you can't provide proof of a salary. (I wouldn't be able to). Good luck if, like most letting agents they demand references from your past landlord. (I couldn't provide this either, having lived onboard for such a long time).

You can try to be as responsible as the next person but if the computer says no, the computer says no.

How common is that nowadays? There must be very, very few people who have lived their entire lives on boats. Is there anyone on this forum who has done so?

Most of my mooring was irish travellers when I took it. I know quite a lot more, not lived on boats, but trailers etc. Yes theres someone on this forum who has never lived in a house, is it Kez? And some of the 1980's hippy convoy travellers kids are now in their thirties and have families. Some are now on boats. When we moved onboard this was basically the London boating community in a nutshell, it was for weirdo hippies, in the main. What has made it busier is middle classes, graduates, yuppies who want a party posing boat, young couples getting boats. It is now not only for weirdos, it's cool. It's sprung up overnight like the warehouse communities have done. But no one moans about them as they aren't getting in the way on what someone thought was their trainset.

Edited August 5, 2016 by Lady Muck

[Machpoint005]

this bit sounds dead easy when it's written down. Good luck if you're on a zero hours contract. Good luck if you can't provide proof of a salary. (I wouldn't be able to). Good luck if, like most letting agents they demand references from your past landlord. (I couldn't provide this either, having lived onboard for such a long time).

You can try to be as responsible as the next person but if the computer says no, the computer says no.

 

None of this singles out boaters as a special case, though. Yes, gross underinvestment in housing, and the erosion of employment right, cause all sorts of problems but personalising just a tiny part of the big problem does no good at all.

[Lady Muck]

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?

Like this you mean? Planning department said no. Ihttp://hackneycitizen.co.uk/2014/12/15/hackney-boating-families-set-up-community-moorings-river-lea/

[Jerra]

 

None of this singles out boaters as a special case, though. Yes, gross underinvestment in housing, and the erosion of employment right, cause all sorts of problems but personalising just a tiny part of the big problem does no good at all.

This^^^^ You beat me to it.

[Machpoint005]

This^^^^ You beat me to it.

 

Call it 15-all!

[Lady Muck]

 

None of this singles out boaters as a special case, though. Yes, gross underinvestment in housing, and the erosion of employment right, cause all sorts of problems but personalising just a tiny part of the big problem does no good at all.

No, but we should ensure that their kids are educated, as i said before this is a tiny fraction of the population of the UK, it's insignificant, only a very few people want to live like this because it is very hard, if they are able to, then many families who can do so move back to land before the kids start school. (one of the families in the article I posted up has done so). It's not at all common to bring kids up on a boat. i can't see how it's hurting any of us, only that usual something for nothing argument which I don't subscribe to. Rather that than stick them in a horrific b&b surely?

 

I note that in my area of London, local authorities certainly don't want them evicted.

Edited August 5, 2016 by Lady Muck

[Machpoint005]

No, but we should ensure that their kids are educated, as i said before this is a tiny fraction of the population of the UK, it's insignificant, only a very few people want to live like this because it is very hard, if they are able to, then many families who can do so move back to land before the kids start school. (one of the families in the article I posted up has done so). It's not at all common to bring kids up on a boat. i can't see how it's hurting any of us, only that usual something for nothing argument which I don't subscribe to.

 

I think this is where we came in. Last time I looked it was a legal requirement on the parent(s) or guardian(s). .

No hurt at present, but possibly a dangerous legal precedent?

[magpie patrick]

 

None of this singles out boaters as a special case, though. Yes, gross underinvestment in housing, and the erosion of employment right, cause all sorts of problems but personalising just a tiny part of the big problem does no good at all.

 

Well, because (and I should actually be doing the work that is attempting to address this problem...)

 

1) If the boaters are dislodged they will become more vulnerable as they will end up in another form of accomodation that will be unsatisfactory - I've worked on major sink estates and, ya know, I'd rather the kids that are on boats are on boats than in some of the estates I've worked on

 

2) The authorities are not making a special case of boaters, that's just the bits that you see. They are making a special case of all vulnerable children, but if you live a comfortable life in a decent area you won't see those bits

 

and then there is the counter argument as to what is the problem that we are trying to solve, because if the problem is that leisure boaters just don't like it then that doesn't really cut the mustard.

[the barnacle]

abide by the rules or move off the boat in my opinion.

 

travelers nr us got permission to have a few static vans on a plot of land as they needed to house thier family - they built a bungalow as a wash / day house - now building another in the next field and putting more and more vans on the site which they advertise and rent out,

[Machpoint005]

 

>>gross underinvestment in housing, and the erosion of employment rights <<

 

 

 

>> what is the problem that we are trying to solve,<<

 

See above. Trouble is, nobody is prepared to build truly affordable housing.

[mayalld]

No, but we should ensure that their kids are educated, as i said before this is a tiny fraction of the population of the UK, it's insignificant, only a very few people want to live like this because it is very hard,

 

I would agree with that.

 

However, one of the things that makes it hard is the need to move every 2 weeks and not stay in a tiny part of the canal for ever.

 

Take that away, and it becomes easier, and more people see it as an option.

 

Clearly a solution is needed that goes beyond "rules are rules", but that solution can't just be "yes, of course you can CC on a 2 mile stretch for the next 20 years"

[the barnacle]

 

 

 

See above. Trouble is, nobody is prepared to build truly affordable housing.

problem is housing isnt capped - my brother bought a council house for about £25k then sold it a while later for £155k one less council house and no longer affordable - it should of been capped so he had to sell it for purchase price plus inflation only.

 

affordable housing is only affordable for the furst purchaser then they hike to prices on re-sale as high as they like.

[wrigglefingers]

As a retired teacher I am well aware of the situation with regard to children who fall through the net. However nobody is forcing anybody to do anything.

 

People choose to have children. In this day and age there are plenty of ways of ensuring you don't have children if you don't want them, anyone not taking advantage of this is choosing to have children. As responsible parents you make arrangements and change your life to ensure the life of the child is as it should be.

 

That may mean choosing to move from a boat to land, even changing jobs and area if necessary. I know many who have made sweeping changes to their lives with the onset of a family. I can't quite fathom out why CCers and a number of others think CCers should be different.

Yes, people choose to have children, sometimes, not always. Second, not all children start life with irresponsible parents; sometimes parents end up in situations that are not of their own making. I'll give you a personal example. I lived with my long-term partner who I now know, was seriously mentally ill. His behaviour changed and he became very abusive, and so, one day we were forced to leave in minutes. Everything was left behind because I needed to keep Ellen safe.

 

With help from my family and advice from the Women's Refuge and the police, I found a boat and we moved aboard because I didn't want Ellen to leave her school. It was hard work, but with some help from BW (I was allowed not to show my boat name or licence) and the boating community at BoA, we survived and Ellen went on to be Head Girl at school in Bath and thence to university and adulthood. For a while, we had to move every day, then when M was sectioned and went into long-term psychiatric care, we were able to move into BoA Marina and live there.

 

I had help from everyone, some even broke the rules for me, they just helped and it meant the world to me. I get very angry when people sit on the sidelines with no idea how being in those circumstances feels. Yes, we make poor choices but sometimes it simply lies beyond your control. I left a house worth an absolute fortune with the clothes on our backs because I couldn't stay any longer and ensure Ellen's safety. Living on a boat, no matter what the problems were, was a lifeline and people helped, not judged. It's easy to make generalised assumptions about people's lives, but truthfully you don't know what lies behind the decisions they make.

Edited August 5, 2016 by wrigglefingers

[Lady Muck]

 

and then there is the counter argument as to what is the problem that we are trying to solve, because if the problem is that leisure boaters just don't like it then that doesn't really cut the mustard.

We get the scowls too, until they see the M in our window. We are on their personal trainset that they thought they'd be able to play at boats on without anyone else getting in their way.

 

Can't we celebrate that there is a new generation that is actually interested in the canals? I read a CRT report where they outline serious concerns about younger generation not being interested in the canals and no young leisure boaters. I think they need to recognise that they have a lot of people who are engaged with the canals, now.

 

And that leisure boating is for the main not affordable for this generation.

 

Some of what is going on around me is exciting. The village butty, our floating community hall on an old joey boat, that tours London putting on film nights, bands, has a choir, does workshops (foraging this week), joins in canal events up and down the waterways. Young boaters are running a trading boat that delivers veg boxes and groceries. There is allsorts going on. I think it's brilliant. Yes its got very popular and there are problems as you would expect with anything that has got popular, but to just stop the whole thing dead after making it come alive, don't throw the baby out with the bathwater.