Bargees Complain about Schooling Problems

[Lady Muck]

 

 

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"

But nobody does, no one ever has in the ten years I've been aboard - this isn't about such small movement as that, even five years ago, if you moved two miles, or five miles, you'd get a section 8.

 

Boaters are being enforced for way more than that. My friend, who is a mother got a section 8 as they didn't take into account that she went up the Thames for a few months, last year, they only counted her 15 mile range on the canal. this type of thing is really common, because the counting isn't accurate. If you come out at a yard, you can guarantee you'll get a letter and possibly a shortened license as the system doesn't account for that.

 

I'm waiting to see what happens when another mate, a London ccer comes back from France, I think hes in paris at the moment.

[IanD]

It seems to me there are two sides to this argument which will never agree with each other:

 

1. Stick to the rules -- not everyone can be given a CC get-out so nobody should have one

2. Think of the children -- better for them if rule-bending parents are given a get-out

 

The problem with the first one is that the families in question may have to suffer one way or another compared to the situation they're in now.

 

The problem with the second one is that loopholes inevitably grow until they're closed -- and then a lot more people get will caught out and suffer.

 

You could also say it depends whether you think a short-term bodge is better than the right long-term solution. Personally I'd say that the rules as they stand (let's not get into a debate about whether they're "fair" or not) should be enforced for the sake of the vast majority who abide by them, and that maybe some assistance should be given to help the families concerned get around the problems this may cause them in the short term because a blind eye is no longer being turned.

 

This is no different to any other law (or rule, if you don't think it's a law) which some people don't like -- for example being fined for speeding or not paying your taxes. If enough people don't like it then try and get the law changed -- yes, good luck with that -- but in the meantime the correct response to being caught is "It's a fair cop guv, you've got me bang to rights", not to toss your toys out of the pram and say "It's not fair, the law shouldn't apply to me, I'm a *good* driver".

 

The fact that a few people have got away with it for years doesn't set a precedent, there's no law that says that if you've got away with something currently illegal in the past and now been found out you should be allowed to carry on doing it...

[wrigglefingers]

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.

 

Yes, this for me, is it. It's exciting and it's a new way (although in fact, a very old way) of using a river or canal. In many ways, leisure boating is the upstart cuckoo, not the way that waterways are beginning to be used. I think the development of waterways communities is a vital part of re-organising our lives in changing times. We just have to change our thinking, that's the hard part.

[mayalld]

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.

 

You story shows that there will always be exceptional circumstances, and that whatever system is in place will need to flex to those exceptional circumstances.

 

However, we do need to approach this with a little more realism.

 

Just because SOME people are in truly exceptional circumstances, it does NOT mean that all people living the same lifestyle share the same circumstances.

 

The system can't say "oh, some people are on boats because they have no other choices and it is all beyond their control, so we treat everybody on boats as if this applies to them".

 

There is a solution to be found, but for as long as we see people who have made a lifestyle choice to live on a boat banging on about their RIGHT to not play by the rules, the solution will remain elusive.

[AMModels]

Nice try. But you yourself defined the original as zero.

try for what? If they are still paying zero they have increased their payment by zero not 100%, sorry if maths is a bit taxing for you.

[AMModels]

My issue is this

1. your sat there paying say 3k a year to moor on a towpath or even opposite side with access so you can get your children to school and go to work then when you can you go boating for a few weeks come back carry on (no problem)

2. Your sat ther for 14 days move off and tie up leave the boat go to work travel or what ever at your own expense. Come back or move 14 days later and slowly travel round the system. (No problem)

3. No fam 3 turn up stat ranting that they cant afford to buy a mooring so are forced to have a cc licance make such a complaint and start throwing laws and rights at crt so they grant them a mooring just behind fam 1 for free or for a very low fee say 500 a year.

 

Now the solution is solved is it not? Except how angry would you be. Unfortunately its the same as what happens with houses you pay full wack and the person 2 doors down coz they know the system and cant be assed to get a job get the house for next to nothing drives me mad! (I know there can be propper circumstances for houses as well.)

 

Ah I didnt realise you had a problem with poor people sorry.

 

 

 

Now, to me, 'Traveller' has a very specific meaning. Probably due to my age

 

Richard

And me

 

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.

 

But the parents have the option of moving, the numbers are a complete red herring. As soon as you create a legal precedent then the numbers can and will increase accordingly because they have law on their side.

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

No not like that, I explained my point in a later posting involving trade offs with developers in exchange for planning permission.

 

To me that seemed like one long plea to turn CRT into a housing association, that is exactly what many of the 'traveller associations' seem to want and it should be exactly what every right minded canal user fights against tooth and nail.

[Dyertribe]

Problem is, if you allow the concession to the few it will be seen as an answer to the problems of the many.

Then we have a waterway where any suitable town , city, village will become inaccessable to other canal users.

This will mean that other canal users will see the waterways as a less attractive place and cease to use them.

CRT then have the dilemma of falling revenues with which to maintain the system, so less people can use it.

Vicious cycle really.

 

I haven't attempted to second guess what the local authorities will have to say on the subject but I can't see them s enthusiastic

[David Mack]

The simplest answer is for someone to set up a travelling skool to follow them around, innit?

 

 

 

(Edit to correct a spelling error.)

 

[Lady Muck]

Funnily enough this popped up on the BBC website

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-36794222

[Lady Muck]

Yes, this for me, is it. It's exciting and it's a new way (although in fact, a very old way) of using a river or canal. In many ways, leisure boating is the upstart cuckoo, not the way that waterways are beginning to be used. I think the development of waterways communities is a vital part of re-organising our lives in changing times. We just have to change our thinking, that's the hard part.

Spraypainted on a bridge in Hackney Wick is, 'change is the only certain thing.' People hate change. The canals have not been used as they were originally intended for at least half a century have they?

I spent last summer on the upper Thames, I was surprised to get offered permanent moorings in more than one place. There were complaints about there being less boaters. We saw barely any cabin cruisers moving, more narrowboats and liveaboards. Thames is all about leisure boating so this was interesting.

[RLWP]

I was surprised to get offered permanent moorings in more than one place

 

I'm not. Looking at the canal scene around here you see a lot more moored, locked up boats about. Now, it is possible there has been a boom in people going out on their boats, however I think it is more likely that in the face of the recession people have moved off moorings in favour of CCing their boat to save thousands a year

 

Richard

Edited August 5, 2016 by RLWP

[wrigglefingers]

You story shows that there will always be exceptional circumstances, and that whatever system is in place will need to flex to those exceptional circumstances.

 

However, we do need to approach this with a little more realism.

 

Just because SOME people are in truly exceptional circumstances, it does NOT mean that all people living the same lifestyle share the same circumstances.

 

The system can't say "oh, some people are on boats because they have no other choices and it is all beyond their control, so we treat everybody on boats as if this applies to them".

 

There is a solution to be found, but for as long as we see people who have made a lifestyle choice to live on a boat banging on about their RIGHT to not play by the rules, the solution will remain elusive.

Yes, Dave, I agree with that and that is why you simply cannot try to make wide-ranging laws that are absolute. Law-makers and codifies may seek to find binary conditions, but in truth, good law allows for flex in the system. That's why fuzzy or grey codes and laws are wise, but it takes judgment and good sense to apply that. Wisdom accepts that there will be exceptions, stupidity tries to force people to comply with impossible rules.

 

The outcome is often not what was desired ... For example, The Black Act of 1723 introduced more than 50 'crimes' for which the death sentence was the official response. It was a response to a small-scale localised problem of poachers going in disguise (in women's clothing and with blackened faces - if you couldn't be identified as male, it was believed that you could claim a defence of 'femme couvert' in law). It was the singularly most repressive and violent class-hating and fearful piece of legislation introduced in English law. It was initially very successful, but gradually, even the gentry worked out it was unworkable because rather than discourage the behaviour, there was an upsurge in defiance. History shows, again and again, that if you try to take away the grey areas, people will attempt to redress that loss, often through less than societally-acceptable ways. 'You promise me death for trapping a rabbit? I'm going to fire your barns'. The application of a blanket rule led directly to escalating violence which came close to fomenting revolution; one of the reasons given for what was a very close scrape with revolution in the form of the Jacobite Insurrection of 1745, was the promise given that the Black Act would be repealed. I'm not suggesting that the current dispute is in any way analogous, other than to point out the consequences when the punishment doesn't fit the originating act.

 

Obviously, to liken breaking a mooring code isn't the same as behaving in a truly reprehensible way, but why do people who sometimes fail to comply with mooring codes run the risk of losing their homes with depressing regularity? And, as Lady Muck says, we know CRT's record-keeping is not a thing of accuracy either. Why is it not acceptable for authorities to say, we treat these issues on a case by case basis and we simply accept that? I keep coming back to the fact that it's a vanishingly small proportion of the population involved, so why not live and let live? There's no real precedent set, the law, in the main, doesn't work like that.

Edited August 5, 2016 by wrigglefingers

[Jerra]

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.

As I said earlier I was 40 years a teacher I saw all sorts of situations such as you describe. Not one moved on to a boat! Mainly because there isn't a canal for 40 miles and they obviously didn't fancy trying the lake.

 

The point is they were all sorted out. You chose a boat for whatever reason but it isn't the only available possibility otherwise lots of families would have moved away to be near a canal.

 

Whilst having sympathy for those in need of accommodation it is no different to living on land with regard to whether the authorities should treat people any differently. Many of the cases I am talking about moved to a caravan site nicknamed "Bleak House" but they were treated the same as anyone else by the authorities and wouldn't have wanted to be treated differently.

[Jrtm]

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.

I agree. If you dont want to cc dont get a cc licance and then pay for a mooring even if its cheap off a farmer or mate. Adults make the choice to move or live on a boat with or have childern and have jobs there are many who live on boats have cc licance and still work or have a boat have a cc licance and a job and family and still manage to keep in the law so why cant these people apart from the fact there just trying to get all for nothing.

 

I remember a few years ago a work mate go a council house wanted to do it up knew it would cost around 1-3k by a mate so he got the most expencive quotes came to 5.5k then put it threw and got 3.2k he then did the jobs himself ecxept a cheap carpet and pocketed the rest and bough a new tv and ps3 i made a complaint council did look into it but i dont know the out come as the guy changed jobs.

[AMModels]

Funnily enough this popped up on the BBC website

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-36794222

 

More reason than ever to introduce strict rent controls, limit multiple house ownership beyond strictly regulated housing associations and building more social housing.

[Dave_P]

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.

I tend to agree with this and I think just about everyone here would agree that it's best for children to go to school. However, the alternative to cc'ing over a very small range is not just cc'ing over a larger range, other alternatives include taking a permanent mooring and being offered housing on land by the LA.

 

Yes the numbers involved are 'vanishingly small', but would they stay that way if a precedent was set in which cc'ers with children were given a 'free pass' to stay by their chosen school? The jury's out on that, but you'd have to agree that there's a risk, surely?

 

The solution to this, in my opinion, cannot be simply to allow families to interpret the legislation differently from everyone else. The solution has to involve the cc'ers, CRT and the Local Authorities coming together to agree a way forward. If that means a temporary relaxation of planning policies on the creation of residential moorings, then so be it. I would advocate that existing boating families (i.e. pre-CRT) should be treated differently to new boaters making a cc'ing declaration. I know that this would be somewhat unfair but the whole situation is a mess and there's not going to be a magic pill to resolve it.

 

I'd have boater making a new cc'ing declaration being expected to meet certain minimum cruising requirement which were not retrospectively applied to more established cc'ers who had not been on the receiving end of enforcement action prior to CRT.

[Jerra]

 

building more social housing.

Social housing is IMO the only truly affordable housing as councils etc are the only ones who don't have to make a profit. They have however no incentive to build social housing because some capitalist decided that it would be a good idea to allow social housing to be sold off. Why spend building an asset if it is only going to disappear and leave you scratching round for another site and spending yet more time trying to build houses which will only go to subsidize people who want to buy them.

[RLWP]

I would advocate that existing boating families (i.e. pre-CRT) should be treated differently to new boaters making a cc'ing declaration.

 

I think this is pretty inevitable. It must be easier to create a special case for a particular group than to try to come up with a one-size-fits-all solution

 

Richard

[Jerra]

I would advocate that existing boating families (i.e. pre-CRT) should be treated differently to new boaters making a cc'ing declaration. I know that this would be somewhat unfair but the whole situation is a mess and there's not going to be a magic pill to resolve it.

 

If CRT were to implement one thing which is unfair two things would happen.

 

1. There would be howls of anguish from those not included. Imagine (hypothetical I know) but one family CCing a month before CRT take over and their neighbours started 1 month after. It might have worked if it had been implemented asap after CRT took over but not several years later.

 

2. Other groups could rightly expect preferential consideration if and when they came into conflict with CRT over something.

 

CRT is criticised enough for making its own rules this would just lay them open to even more criticism.

[peterboat]

I posted early on and after reading the whole thread nothing has changed. Boats are a moveable object, moorings are cheaper and available up North. The move every 14 days is reasonable and the distance is small so if you cant do that move your boat to where

A. You can move every 14 days and still have a child at school

B. You can pay for a mooring and your child goes to the local school

The problem is of course that people want to live in the overpopulated South well that isnt CRTs problem is it? They arnt a housing association they look after "our" canals and rivers, and overpopulation does cause pollution especially if refuse and waste disposal isnt available? So say these boaters provide us with these facilities so we dont pollute when will it stop? It wont is the answer, so the only solution is enforce the 14 days move harsh but fair

[David Mack]

I would advocate that existing boating families (i.e. pre-CRT) should be treated differently to new boaters making a cc'ing declaration.

Which is what the roving mooring permit scheme was going to do.

[Jerra]

Which is what the roving mooring permit scheme was going to do.

Which if I remember rightly NBTA shot down in flames, so presumably they don't want to be treated differently.

[Dyertribe]

Which if I remember rightly NBTA shot down in flames, so presumably they don't want to be treated differently.

So they want the penny and the bun?

[AMModels]

Social housing is IMO the only truly affordable housing as councils etc are the only ones who don't have to make a profit. They have however no incentive to build social housing because some capitalist decided that it would be a good idea to allow social housing to be sold off. Why spend building an asset if it is only going to disappear and leave you scratching round for another site and spending yet more time trying to build houses which will only go to subsidize people who want to buy them.

Absolutely agree, I should have made it clear that the right to buy would be ended or at the very least be limited to people who have lived in their present home for 30+ years and all new housing will be exempt from the scheme.

[Allan(nb Albert)]

 

I think this is pretty inevitable. It must be easier to create a special case for a particular group than to try to come up with a one-size-fits-all solution

 

Richard

It is already happening in individual cases as CaRT has to discharge its obligations under the Equality Act and respond to requests for reasonable adjustments.