Bargees Complain about Schooling Problems

[RLWP]

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.

 

Oh yes? You got caught too then

 

Richard

[AMModels]

 

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.

 

I live quite rurally and all our schools have 20mph zones outside them.

[MtB]

 

Oh yes? You got caught too then

 

Richard

 

 

Speeding is an interesting thing. Like tax, there is a 'sweet spot' for generating income. If the government really wanted to stamp it out there is plentty of technology available to enforce the speed limits, but they choose not to use it.

 

Instead they optimise enforcement to maximise income. Enforce it too much and everybody obeys the limits and fine income drops to near zero. Enforce it 'just right' and enough peeps get caught to maximise revenue and this is the policy the govt seem to apply.

 

'Speed safety' is the last thing on their minds. It's just a fig leaf to justify maximising fine income, IMO.

[zigspider]

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.

And we're supposed to take your word on that ? Most new age travellers I knew just wanted to be left alone. I have seen no media coverage of what you are inferring, for surely there would have been if petrol bombs were involved.

[David Schweizer]

 

I live quite rurally and all our schools have 20mph zones outside them.

 

That may well be the case, and if the local Authority can demonstrate that it complies with the loose terminology "built up areas" they can apply a 20MPH speed limit within the vicinity of a school, but if they cannot, the entire cost has to be met by the Local Authority, wheras those complying with the "built up areas" specification can also apply for Government assisted funding.

 

I live aproximately 200 metres from the entrance to our Village School, it is a busy road and bus route, with houses on both sides, a shop, and doctors's surgery all within the same area, but despite applying a 20 MPH zone in another (far less busy) part of the village, the County Council have refused to respond to requests from local residents and the Parish Council to apply a similar restriction outside the School.

Edited August 6, 2016 by David Schweizer

[spadefoot]

 

Blah Blah Blah.

 

Good at criticism but I note you don't provide an answer, just insults

Ah, Graham. Back to your usual sniping I see.

Didn't realise that there was any obligation to provide answers, I thought that perhaps contributing some theory might be acceptable.

Do me a favour though & point out where you can see an insult in my post, cos I've had a look & I'm damned if I can see any.

Oh, one more thing, I've read the whole thread, and your on topic contribution amounts to absolutely nothing. Standard.

[KroSha]

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.

Not quite, the actual definition of affordable housing is taking no more than 30% of salary. So for the national average salary of £31k, this should be c£600pm. Obviously there are regional variations, but for central London, it's about that. (Rich people tend not to live right in the centre).

[spadefoot]

Please explain just what you are implying,sounds rather vague and senseless

 

 

CT

Sorry, I thought it was straightforward.

A previous contributor had made the old "have your cake & eat it" statement, hence my "blah blah blah". So I made reference to a well talked of theory, that a certain socio-economic group, had eaten all the cake already.

Which part are you finding senseless? Let me know & I'd be happy to have another go at explaining.

[Alan de Enfield]

 

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.

 

In which case the school-speed limit analogy is quite good.

 

The law on CCing has not changed, C&RT are just 'tweaking' around the edges to ensure compliance.

 

In fact (as MayallD) pointed out, some years ago the 'guidance' required a "continuous journey around a significant part of the system", the guidance now seems to be a range of 20 miles/kilometres per annum - hardly onerous.

[boathunter]

And we're supposed to take your word on that ? Most new age travellers I knew just wanted to be left alone. I have seen no media coverage of what you are inferring, for surely there would have been if petrol bombs were involved.

Believe what you like, I was where and all I related is true. Sure there were many peaceable types as you describe, like myself, which is why I left them to it.

 

I am sore that the few made wild camping in England almost impossible.

 

I used to squat in London, no problem, neighbours liked us, housing association were happy we were looking after one of their unlettable properties. I am sore that a few squatted private houses and the whole squatting thing was brought to a halt.

 

I will be quietly cross if a similar small (in the scheme of things) number of people make boating more officious and difficult.

 

I am not a middle class boater, I like to live on the fringe, quietly, head down, mind my own business, be helpful where I can. I am not judgemental but there are always a few that can't see the bigger picture and that their needless battles will make life worse for everyone including themselves.

[Sir Nibble]

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".

You are fortunate in that you have the sense to see the problem four years away and have time to make provision to head it off. I presume you will prioritise your child over lifestyle and some compromise will be needed. If you absolutely cannot reconcile the required movement with the little one's best interests then you have time to organise a change of lifestyle. Good luck.

[magnetman]

Believe what you like, I was where and all I related is true. Sure there were many peaceable types as you describe, like myself, which is why I left them to it.

 

I am sore that the few made wild camping in England almost impossible.

 

I used to squat in London, no problem, neighbours liked us, housing association were happy we were looking after one of their unlettable properties. I am sore that a few squatted private houses and the whole squatting thing was brought to a halt.

 

I will be quietly cross if a similar small (in the scheme of things) number of people make boating more officious and difficult.

 

I am not a middle class boater, I like to live on the fringe, quietly, head down, mind my own business, be helpful where I can. I am not judgemental but there are always a few that can't see the bigger picture and that their needless battles will make life worse for everyone including themselves.

Exactly. Perhaps it is the same people who were squatting aggressively who are now using the canal as a cheap housing option 'loophole' - which of course will force changes in a similar way. Edited August 6, 2016 by magnetman

[spadefoot]

Believe what you like, I was where and all I related is true. Sure there were many peaceable types as you describe, like myself, which is why I left them to it.

 

I am sore that the few made wild camping in England almost impossible.

 

I used to squat in London, no problem, neighbours liked us, housing association were happy we were looking after one of their unlettable properties. I am sore that a few squatted private houses and the whole squatting thing was brought to a halt.

 

I will be quietly cross if a similar small (in the scheme of things) number of people make boating more officious and difficult.

 

I am not a middle class boater, I like to live on the fringe, quietly, head down, mind my own business, be helpful where I can. I am not judgemental but there are always a few that can't see the bigger picture and that their needless battles will make life worse for everyone including themselves.

It's an interesting idea but I'm not so sure. I find it hard to believe that a few dozen aggressive crusties in trucks & buses, could have so much power & influence in a country of 65million.

More likely, they were used as folk-devils and blamed for changes, that the large landowners & others in real power, wanted to introduce.

Most of the ones (peace convoy bunch) that I knew, sodded off to Portugal, & bought land using the massive payouts they got from the Wiltshire bill.

[ditchcrawler]

Well I guess they will be complaining about this next and say its discrimination. RCR are considering inspecting the boats of prospective members who are inside the M25 from Narrowboat World

 

http://www.narrowboatworld.com/index.php/news-flash/9658-london-unable-to-cope-with-boaters

[Chewbacka]

Well I guess they will be complaining about this next and say its discrimination. RCR are considering inspecting the boats of prospective members who are inside the M25 from Narrowboat World

 

http://www.narrowboatworld.com/index.php/news-flash/9658-london-unable-to-cope-with-boaters

and this from RCR as well .......

 

"Engineers have found the number of forums giving inappropriate advice and lack of qualified engineers in London causes people to try cheap solutions that often result in more expensive repairs."

[ditchcrawler]

and this from RCR as well .......

 

"Engineers have found the number of forums giving inappropriate advice and lack of qualified engineers in London causes people to try cheap solutions that often result in more expensive repairs."

If you are on Facebook you will know thats true

[Chewbacka]

If you are on Facebook you will know thats true

I did assume that was not a reference to this place, but not sure where they meant as I don't do facebook.

[Machpoint005]

Perhaps RCR just needs to revisit its business model in order to prevent people taking the piss?

[Chewbacka]

I saw that one of the concerns for RCR is congestion making for long travel times, no where to park, poor vehicle access to the canals etc, then I thought why don't they have a RCR repair BOAT or two for the area. Much more fun.

[mrsmelly]

I did assume that was not a reference to this place, but not sure where they meant as I don't do facebook.

 

Ahh another boater without a resident 12 year old I new I wasnt the only one.

[Arthur Marshall]

Perhaps RCR just needs to revisit its business model in order to prevent people taking the piss?

There are only certain things covered by the annual subs, so they will charge you for anything else. Their engineers have been known to walk away and leave someone (eg me) stranded when faced with anything they don't understand, such a Lister SR2... though that said, others have been more than helpful. I've had a lot of money off them for gearbox repairs, though I don't think i'm extracting anything as the boat's always been maintained - it's just a bit old, like me.

I think some people just aren't interested in the thing as a boat, just as a floating house, so they don't do even the basic stuff.

[Tanglewood]

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 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

Not actually true. The LA must provide transport to the nearest school at which they can offer a place. If parents choose to send a child to a different school from the one at which a place has been provided, then parents are responsible for transport. Hence the 4x4s.

[Athy]

Not actually true. The LA must provide transport to the nearest school at which they can offer a place. If parents choose to send a child to a different school from the one at which a place has been provided, then parents are responsible for transport. Hence the 4x4s.

Is this so? I thought that it applied only when the distance from home to school exceeded three miles. But I am not sure if this rule is countrywide or whether it is up to each local council to make their own rules.

[Jerra]

Is this so? I thought that it applied only when the distance from home to school exceeded three miles. But I am not sure if this rule is countrywide or whether it is up to each local council to make their own rules.

As far as I know you are correct and it is nation wide. 2 miles I think for primary schools.

[ditchcrawler]

Not actually true. The LA must provide transport to the nearest school at which they can offer a place. If parents choose to send a child to a different school from the one at which a place has been provided, then parents are responsible for transport. Hence the 4x4s.

When I was at school that meant that over 3 miles they lent you a bicycle over 5 miles a school bus