Bargees Complain about Schooling Problems

[Alan de Enfield]

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.

 

Surely a roving permit would imply that you would be 'roving' - no wonder the NBTA 'shot it down in flames'

[Lady Muck]

 

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"

it can be very hard whether you move or not, one woman I know who is a newbie and has been mucked around by engineers springs to mind. Single parent, had ended up stuck outside a marina, without a boat engine, (she's an RCR member but I think in this case shes really been messed around). Thats a marina that dislikes ccers and will not help her, she had run out of water and has two kids onboard, one is a teething baby. It's not ideal.

 

I'm always very keen to stress to newbies that the life is really damn hard if you are a cruiser, can be made even more difficult if you can't afford that new a boat, buy a wreck and you end up with unaffordable repairs. It can be made really stressy because of that as CRT are now really tough on people who can't move because of a breakdown. Especially if they've already got a family, I'm frank with them, it's not a walk in the park, whether you intend to bridge hop or not. Before we had shore power on our moorings there was a newborn here, I remember her trying to start the genny on winter mornings so she could sterilise the baby bottles. Anyway, they bought a house, the little boy hated the boat and would scream the place down.

 

But that doesn't take into account why some families have ended up on boats and that some 'can't seem to get it together' to comply with the guidelines. To be honest, i'm living and working aboard, i'm out cruising and working right now and it still takes all of my time up, working and trying to not run out of water, trying to find services (there are barely any out here) and cruise. I couldn't do this with kids. It really wouldn't be easy. But I don't think anyone does it thinking it's going to be easy. Even if they don't fully understand what my mate calls 'the boat toil.'

 

Reading this thread make me think some of us are either really lucky or have lead a sheltered life.

Edited August 5, 2016 by Lady Muck

[Tuscan]

According to Septembers Waterways World in an article under Waterways News about bookable moorings.

 

"According to the trust 400 liveaboards have come to the capital in the last year posing a problem for true continuous cruisers" So are you a liveaboard or a true continuous cruiser own up now

[Lady Muck]

That should say 'boats' as so many end up not being lived on.

[system 4-50]

One problem with CC mode is it gives people the opportunity to get on the water with a relatively small initial cost.

This might be a wreck with inevitable huge repair bills that can result in people unable to afford the repairs to be able to move.

It might just be a reasonable boat that depends on the fitness of one person to keep it moving.

Underlying CC mode is the requirement that if you can't do the moving bit for anything other than a short term interruption then you should be able to put it into a mooring that you can obtain and that you can pay for. This might even be outside London!

Therefore anybody who takes out a boat licence on CC terms should be required to supply a bond for £x,000 to prove they have the finance to do this, & they should be required to sign an explicit affidavit to say that they are ready to move to a fixed mooring if their circumstances prevent them moving as required.

The bond could be returned on changing from CC mode or after n years of trouble-free CC navigation.

[KroSha]

Time to throw my hat in the ring. We have a CC boat and a baby (we had the boat first). Thus far, we've had a great time moving every 14 days to a new place. OK, the early days were tough; winter, a newborn and no sleep is not easy. But we've persevered and it's coming together now.

 

I am slightly worried about what happens in 4 years when we need to think about schooling, although TBH, we could still move every 14 days and get the boy to school. There's a suitable, boater friendly, school that we have our eye on. The bit that might be problematic would be the "cruising range" "guideline" that CRT have decided to implement. Yes, I know it's in the T&C, but that doesn't change the fact that it's a unilateral condition that there is no actual legal justification for. What's to stop them from changing it to 30 or 50 miles in the future? That would effectively force us and lots of our friends off the cut, as there's no way we could comply and keep working. Before you say it, there are no affordable moorings in London; none.

 

For all those of you curmudgeons saying "follow the rules", WE DO! But the rules keep changing and it does feel like a dedicated assault on our chosen lifestyle. If the DVLA decided that to own a car you had to have an annual driving range of 300 miles, there'd be a massive ****ing outcry against it. There'd also be smug commenters saying, "That's the rules, you chose to have a car, you have to fulfill the range".

[frangar]

Time to throw my hat in the ring. We have a CC boat and a baby (we had the boat first). Thus far, we've had a great time moving every 14 days to a new place. OK, the early days were tough; winter, a newborn and no sleep is not easy. But we've persevered and it's coming together now.

 

I am slightly worried about what happens in 4 years when we need to think about schooling, although TBH, we could still move every 14 days and get the boy to school. There's a suitable, boater friendly, school that we have our eye on. The bit that might be problematic would be the "cruising range" "guideline" that CRT have decided to implement. Yes, I know it's in the T&C, but that doesn't change the fact that it's a unilateral condition that there is no actual legal justification for. What's to stop them from changing it to 30 or 50 miles in the future? That would effectively force us and lots of our friends off the cut, as there's no way we could comply and keep working. Before you say it, there are no affordable moorings in London; none.

 

For all those of you curmudgeons saying "follow the rules", WE DO! But the rules keep changing and it does feel like a dedicated assault on our chosen lifestyle. If the DVLA decided that to own a car you had to have an annual driving range of 300 miles, there'd be a massive ****ing outcry against it. There'd also be smug commenters saying, "That's the rules, you chose to have a car, you have to fulfill the range".

There is life outside London.....and like living on a boat I'm guessing having a child is a choice too...personally I value living afloat and the freedom to move about so that was one of the many reasons I don't have kids.

 

Cheers

 

Gareth

[dogless]

That's like the man who, when asked for directions, replies "You don't want to start from here".

 

Rog

[IanD]

"Before you say it, there are no affordable moorings in London; none."

 

"Before you say it, there are no affordable houses in London; none."

 

What's the difference? I agree 100% that the lack of affordable housing is a huge problem, especially in London -- I know, I live there and both my kids are trying to find places to rent, which is only possible by sharing, luckily they both have very nice SOHs. Should my kids be able to move into a flat and then refuse to pay the rent on the grounds that it's too expensive?

 

Bending the rules to let people fill up the canals without paying for moorings (or can't get them) doesn't solve the problem. If CRT turn a blind eye and more and more articles appear saying how much cheaper it is to live on a boat in London (or Bath, or...) than rent (or buy) a house, especially if you buy a cheap wreck and don't pay for a mooring, it will only take a few thousand people to completely jam up the canal system -- and this will be a fraction of a percent of the demand for affordable housing. It won't even make a tiny dent in the housing shortage, but it will bugger up the canals for everybody else -- and a large part of the income that keeps the canals and CRT going comes from "everybody else".

 

And the simple fact is not that the rules have changed substantially, it's been clear for years that the boaters under discussion have been living within neither the spirit or the letter of the law, but have got away with it -- if you want to stay "in one place" you need a permanent mooring, otherwise you have to keep "cruising". Arguing about details like times and distances and what the exact terms are doesn't change the fact that they've been breaking the law (or rules, or regulations, or conditions, or whatever you want to call them) for years and have now been called out on it.

 

I have some sympathy for people who will be badly affected by this, but it's limited because they've been exploiting the fact that the regulations weren't being enforced and now are. They're not cruising, they know they're not, but think they shouldn't have to follow the rules because it will inconvenience them...

[magpie patrick]

"Before you say it, there are no affordable moorings in London; none."

 

"Before you say it, there are no affordable houses in London; none."

 

What's the difference? I agree 100% that the lack of affordable housing is a huge problem, especially in London -- I know, I live there and both my kids are trying to find places to rent, which is only possible by sharing, luckily they both have very nice SOHs. Should my kids be able to move into a flat and then refuse to pay the rent on the grounds that it's too expensive?

 

Bending the rules to let people fill up the canals without paying for moorings (or can't get them) doesn't solve the problem. If CRT turn a blind eye and more and more articles appear saying how much cheaper it is to live on a boat in London (or Bath, or...) than rent (or buy) a house, especially if you buy a cheap wreck and don't pay for a mooring, it will only take a few thousand people to completely jam up the canal system -- and this will be a fraction of a percent of the demand for affordable housing. It won't even make a tiny dent in the housing shortage, but it will bugger up the canals for everybody else -- and a large part of the income that keeps the canals and CRT going comes from "everybody else".

 

And the simple fact is not that the rules have changed substantially, it's been clear for years that the boaters under discussion have been living within neither the spirit or the letter of the law, but have got away with it -- if you want to stay "in one place" you need a permanent mooring, otherwise you have to keep "cruising". Arguing about details like times and distances and what the exact terms are doesn't change the fact that they've been breaking the law (or rules, or regulations, or conditions, or whatever you want to call them) for years and have now been called out on it.

 

I have some sympathy for people who will be badly affected by this, but it's limited because they've been exploiting the fact that the regulations weren't being enforced and now are. They're not cruising, they know they're not, but think they shouldn't have to follow the rules because it will inconvenience them...

 

No they haven't - there is a difference between what the law says and what people would like it to say (can I just add, that applies at both ends of the argument!)

 

The only action that is incontrovertibly breaking the law is failing to move every 14 days (and even then there is other such period as is reasonable in the circumstances) and very few are failing to do that.

 

As a (not very good) comparison how fast should you drive in a residential area? Or past a school? Usually 30mph but most of us would drive a bit slower, however it would be legal to drive at up to 30mph unless a different limit was posted. How would people react if suddenly the "interpretation" was that 30mph actually means no more than 22? (This comparison isn't very good as driving speed wouldn't be difficult to alter)

[Jerra]

To me it revolves round the words Bona fide and Navigation. Bona fide as in genuine, or without the intention to deceive. Navigation has a number of meanings but one commonly accepted one is to move from place to place as in "naviagte to a website or round a website".

 

Can trying to stay in as small an area as possible be genuine navigation. Personally I don't think so and I don't think the law was drafted with staying in one place in mind.

[AMModels]

 

No they haven't - there is a difference between what the law says and what people would like it to say (can I just add, that applies at both ends of the argument!)

 

The only action that is incontrovertibly breaking the law is failing to move every 14 days (and even then there is other such period as is reasonable in the circumstances) and very few are failing to do that.

 

As a (not very good) comparison how fast should you drive in a residential area? Or past a school? Usually 30mph but most of us would drive a bit slower, however it would be legal to drive at up to 30mph unless a different limit was posted. How would people react if suddenly the "interpretation" was that 30mph actually means no more than 22? (This comparison isn't very good as driving speed wouldn't be difficult to alter)

recent changes to the law means most if not all schools are now protected by a 20mph limit, not heard much moaning about it. Unlike CRT clarifying the cc rules.

 

What sort of range do those who are against the CRT crackdown think is acceptable to continuously cruise over outside of their 14 day stays?

 

Do they not accept that to continuously navigate the system wasnt meant to mean you can stay within a 10-15 mile radius of a certain town or even less it seems in some places?

[Alan de Enfield]

 

 

As a (not very good) comparison how fast should you drive in a residential area? Or past a school? Usually 30mph but most of us would drive a bit slower, however it would be legal to drive at up to 30mph unless a different limit was posted. How would people react if suddenly the "interpretation" was that 30mph actually means no more than 22? (This comparison isn't very good as driving speed wouldn't be difficult to alter)

 

Around us the speed limit around schools has been changed to 20mph after many, many, years at 30mph, rules change, life evolves, things go on.

 

I guess the 'fact' that no distance is specified in the legislation is annoying some people - particularly those who have previously managed to achieve the 'unspecified' distance, but are now failing to achieve the C&RT required distance..

 

But is this really so difficult to achieve ?

2 miles a week for 18 weeks (9 x 2 weeks), then return for 18 weeks repeat ad infinitum (as C&RT told to a member here that if she did that it was acceptable)

[magnetman]

I noticed that the NBTA seem to be a bit London centric. Not sure why or if I an right about that but anyway.

 

Why should boat dwellers somehow be exempt from market forces? Can we have people living on old buses nice and cheap as well?

 

I have been living on boats since the mid nineties mainly cruising the system as a Bona Fide Navigator and now I have children I have taken an (unaffordable ) mooring in London.

 

I don't quite see how or why 'affordable' moorings would be provided unless local authorities were involved.

 

I am coming round to the idea that Local authorities should be given control of towpaths especially in London but that may not have the desired outcome innit

[boathunter]

To me, despite not having much sympathy for people who dig their heels in and fight, using their children as ammunition, when there are alternatives, I think using bone fide for navigation, throughout simply meant don't dump it. The 14 days plucked from the air so as to draw a line to judge that by.

[boathunter]

I travelled a bit with the so-called peace convoy. More like a marauding horde tbh, arriving at quiet villages and going on a brazen rampage knocking off anything from motorbikes to live chickens and revelling in it. When parked up in an abandoned country house, having parties in the ballroom, they were most aggrieved that the locals would throw petrol bombs at them from a nearby railway embankment because some of them "had children". I got tired of pointing out that that just might be a fair reaction all things considered and left them to their faux outrage. They just wanted to fight cops and any authority and did the rampaging to bring that on.

There were a bunch of them with "CC" followed by a number tattood on their arses. CC was at that time Convoy Crazies. Shame to waste a good tattoo.

 

Yes, yes, yes, I know, I don't have a heart of steel, but I wonder how many of these people are pulling the wool in amongst the genuine strugglers, the mindset is all too familiar.

[Allan(nb Albert)]

To me, despite not having much sympathy for people who dig their heels in and fight, using their children as ammunition, when there are alternatives, I think using bone fide for navigation, throughout simply meant don't dump it. The 14 days plucked from the air so as to draw a line to judge that by.

Almost but not quite. BW told a select committee that the test for 'bona fide navigation' would be that the boat did not remain in one place for more than 14 days. However, they were unable provide the select committee with any operational reason why the 14 days should not be longer, say, 28 days.

 

That is the reason why we have the 'or longer if reasonable under the circumstances' bit tacked onto the end.

 

I made a FOI request a while back to determine if CaRT held any recorded information which might suggest that it had altered or amended the 'test' (e.g. to include distance covered within licence period, no return within xxx) -

 

Dear Canal & River Trust,

I refer to the British Waterways Act 1995 and minutes of the Select Committee dated Thursday 1 July 1993. In particular I refer to the exchanges between the Committee chair, Mr George Mudie, and BW's Kenneth Dodd, Head of Marketing and Communications.

In those exchanges, Mr Dodd clarified what was meant by the term 'bona fide for navigation' and what was expected of boaters.

I can find nowhere in subsequent minutes where this clarification has been amended or altered and am led to the conclusion that the 'test' for bona fide navigation is contained within the Act (i.e. that boaters simply show compliance by not remaining in one place for more than 14 days unless reasonable to do so). This is strengthened by the Act stating that 'bona fide for navigation' is a fact.

Please provide via whatdotheyknow.com any recorded information provided to the Committee (other than that already in the public domain by virtue of being part of parliamentary records) that alters Mr Dodd's clarification.

 

CaRT's response -

 

Further to your request for information provided to the Select Committee regarding the meaning of ‘bona fide for navigation’, we do not hold any information relevant to your request.

 

Edited August 5, 2016 by Allan(nb Albert)

[MtB]

The thing about 'affordable' houses or 'affordable' moorings, is that it doesn't matter how cheap you make them, there will always be people around who still can't afford them. So the whole thing gets circular.

 

At the opposite end of the spectrum, as virtually houses and moorings are owned/rented by someone (i.e. not vacant and on the market for years on end), each is by definition affordable to someone.

[RLWP]

The thing about 'affordable' houses or 'affordable' moorings, is that it doesn't matter how cheap you make them, there will always be people around who still can't afford them. So the whole thing gets circular.

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-36989263

 

Richard

[MtB]

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-36989263

 

Richard

 

 

Feck Moi.

 

I WANT ONE!!!

(Presumably there are some 'affordable' ones as a condition of Planning Permission?)

[RLWP]

 

(Presumably there are some 'affordable' ones as a condition of Planning Permission?)

 

[David Schweizer]

recent changes to the law means most if not all schools are now protected by a 20mph limit, not heard much moaning about it. Unlike CRT clarifying the cc rules.

 

What sort of range do those who are against the CRT crackdown think is acceptable to continuously cruise over outside of their 14 day stays?

 

Do they not accept that to continuously navigate the system wasnt meant to mean you can stay within a 10-15 mile radius of a certain town or even less it seems in some places?

 

The reason you have not heard much moaning is probably because there has been no such change in the Law. The Government is now allowing Local Authorities to apply a 20 MPH speed limit in built up areas near Schools, but that does not include Schools in rural areas, and many Local Authoities are resisting requests from residents to introduce such a limit near Schools, even when they are on a busy road and bus route.

Edited August 5, 2016 by David Schweizer

[mayalld]

Time to throw my hat in the ring. We have a CC boat and a baby (we had the boat first). Thus far, we've had a great time moving every 14 days to a new place. OK, the early days were tough; winter, a newborn and no sleep is not easy. But we've persevered and it's coming together now.

 

I am slightly worried about what happens in 4 years when we need to think about schooling, although TBH, we could still move every 14 days and get the boy to school. There's a suitable, boater friendly, school that we have our eye on. The bit that might be problematic would be the "cruising range" "guideline" that CRT have decided to implement. Yes, I know it's in the T&C, but that doesn't change the fact that it's a unilateral condition that there is no actual legal justification for. What's to stop them from changing it to 30 or 50 miles in the future? That would effectively force us and lots of our friends off the cut, as there's no way we could comply and keep working. Before you say it, there are no affordable moorings in London; none.

 

For all those of you curmudgeons saying "follow the rules", WE DO! But the rules keep changing and it does feel like a dedicated assault on our chosen lifestyle. If the DVLA decided that to own a car you had to have an annual driving range of 300 miles, there'd be a massive ****ing outcry against it. There'd also be smug commenters saying, "That's the rules, you chose to have a car, you have to fulfill the range".

 

That doesn't actually correspond to what has ACTUALLY happened to the guidance over the years though.

 

If you go back 15 years, the guidance from BW was that a CCer must be engaged on a progressive journey over a significant part of the system, so over the course of those 15 years, the guidance as to how far is enough has been softened considerably.

 

What has happened though is that having set a much less onerous target, they are more actively enforcing against it.

[MtB]

 

The reason you have not heard much moaning is probably because there has been no such change in the Law. The Government is now allowing Local Authorities to apply a 20 MPH speed limit in built up areas near Schools, but that does not include schools in rural areas or even on housing estates.

 

I live in a village within 200 metres from a School, on a busy road and bus route, but despite requests for a reduced speed limit from some residents, the County Council has decided not to apply one.

 

 

Not enough fatal accidents yet, probably.

[Cheshire cat]

Went on a speed awareness course last month. 20mph limits were discussed. Councils aren't keen because as well as the signs they have to put in regular speed calming measures which costs far more than they are willing to spend.