Equality Commision Investigates C&RT

[dmr]

Do you have a problem with this hypothetical pattern of movement?

 

Do I have a problem????

 

I still do a bit of work for big corporates and "problem" is pretty much a taboo word in corporate newspeak, you have to say opportunity!

 

As Billy Bragg says, there are two sides to every story, and I do try to see both of them. Bradford on Avon is a good place to moor, and live. and get the kids educated, and if I had discovered this way of life 30 years ago I would be down there myself doing exactly the same and seeing how much I could get away with.

But, as I reckon you know, there is a big problem. If one or two boats do it then its ok, but if 40 boats do it then Bradford is gridlocked and the other 30,000 boats on the system are denied their chance to visit. This is a bad thing.

Another big and interesting aspect is that CaRT have very limited legal powers and have to apply them fairly, which means that in order to resolve Bradford and London All boaters everywhere see a lot more enforcement. The BoA boaters will find a way to stay because they have a lot to loose, but others who were just shuffling up and down in the wilderness will (and have) chosen to leave the cut.

 

.................Dave

[beerbeerbeerbeerbeer]

 

 

Do they? From the numerous past threads on here that is the one thing they are NOT doing effectively.

 

See the reply about the membership criteria for the NBTA above, and from previous posts on here about the west end of the K & A. Many seem to imply they can't afford to pay any mooring fess although it has been confirmed that the Benefit system would cover them.

The numerous threads on here are very biased, speak to those living on boats.

 

.

[beerbeerbeerbeerbeer]

 

I think you've confused the point you're trying to make. There is a debate on what the requirements are, for not staying in one place, which the vast majority of CCers are happy about and comply with. This is not the topic of this debate. Looking back at the OP, the NBTA are making a case that those with children are being treated unfairly, and in fact are an exceptional case (like, rightly, those with health issues, illness etc) under the Equity Act and thus don't need to comply with the existing requirements that other CCers do.

No I'm not confused.

Those with children, health issues, illnesses etc are being dealt with unfairly.

 

Now define place.

[Paul C]

No I'm not confused.

Those with children, health issues, illnesses etc are being dealt with unfairly.

 

Now define place.

 

Well, according to the linked article in the OP, its being looked into. NBTA have chosen, as have you, to include those with children in the group of people apparently being dealt with unfairly. My personal opinion is that simply having children, doesn't entitle anyone to special treatment under the law, there is a valid case for the others though. (There may be other factors in individual situations, of course).

 

The "place" debate is elsewhere than on this particular thread, by all means add your input onto one of the existing threads or start a new thread asking for opinions on how this is defined.

[beerbeerbeerbeerbeer]

 

Well, according to the linked article in the OP, its being looked into. NBTA have chosen, as have you, to include those with children in the group of people apparently being dealt with unfairly. My personal opinion is that simply having children, doesn't entitle anyone to special treatment under the law, there is a valid case for the others though. (There may be other factors in individual situations, of course).

 

The "place" debate is elsewhere than on this particular thread, by all means add your input onto one of the existing threads or start a new thread asking for opinions on how this is defined.

You bought up 'place'.

 

And were not talking about law, but a bit of common sense for some leeway.

[Paul C]

You bought up 'place'.

 

And were not talking about law, but a bit of common sense for some leeway.

 

I think we're broadly in agreement here anyway. I agree that the Equity Act should be fully upheld by organisations such as CRT, and if they're falling short of their duties regarding provisions for the elderly, infirm, disabled etc then they should rightly be pulled up on it. My concern, however, is that the NBTA, by also including those with children, are diluting this message and it is likely not to be taken seriously - other posts on this thread have illustrated this approach.

 

Yes, I mentioned "place" but only in passing reference to compare/contrast a "normal" CCer who does not need nor want the protection available (mainly because they cruise compliantly, and in cases where they are unable to they fall securely in the "reasonable in the circumstances" eg emergency stoppages, river conditions, mechanical breakdown etc); and those who are seeking the protection instilled in the Equity Act for their personal circumstances. I agree there's a valid debate on the issue of "place" but I'm reluctant to get into it on this thread.

[spadefoot]

 

Do I have a problem????

 

I still do a bit of work for big corporates and "problem" is pretty much a taboo word in corporate newspeak, you have to say opportunity!

 

As Billy Bragg says, there are two sides to every story, and I do try to see both of them. Bradford on Avon is a good place to moor, and live. and get the kids educated, and if I had discovered this way of life 30 years ago I would be down there myself doing exactly the same and seeing how much I could get away with.

But, as I reckon you know, there is a big problem. If one or two boats do it then its ok, but if 40 boats do it then Bradford is gridlocked and the other 30,000 boats on the system are denied their chance to visit. This is a bad thing.

Another big and interesting aspect is that CaRT have very limited legal powers and have to apply them fairly, which means that in order to resolve Bradford and London All boaters everywhere see a lot more enforcement. The BoA boaters will find a way to stay because they have a lot to loose, but others who were just shuffling up and down in the wilderness will (and have) chosen to leave the cut.

 

.................Dave

I'm not sure it's that great for mooring in BoA. For a start there's that concrete shelf. Tithe barn to Avoncliffe is a bit gloomy in winter with the hill & tall trees on the south bank. Shopping is a bit limited.

Limpley Stoke area is beautiful this time of year, but there's still that shelf & again, very shady.

In summer, it's a nightmare of hire boats & holiday boats & day boats blasting up & down & bashing into moored boats.

At this time of year it gets quieter but people don't seem to like slowing down.

Last time I went through, most of the "Bradford" boats were at Seend & heading for Sells Green. Mind you, their place was taken with the Bath boats, so making people move about more doesn't necessarily solve much.

It's ok to visit for a while, spend some time in Bath, enjoy the scenery but overall, the eastern end is much nicer for actual boating & some peace & quiet.

[dmr]

I'm not sure it's that great for mooring in BoA. For a start there's that concrete shelf. Tithe barn to Avoncliffe is a bit gloomy in winter with the hill & tall trees on the south bank. Shopping is a bit limited.

Limpley Stoke area is beautiful this time of year, but there's still that shelf & again, very shady.

In summer, it's a nightmare of hire boats & holiday boats & day boats blasting up & down & bashing into moored boats.

At this time of year it gets quieter but people don't seem to like slowing down.

Last time I went through, most of the "Bradford" boats were at Seend & heading for Sells Green. Mind you, their place was taken with the Bath boats, so making people move about more doesn't necessarily solve much.

It's ok to visit for a while, spend some time in Bath, enjoy the scenery but overall, the eastern end is much nicer for actual boating & some peace & quiet.

 

The hire boats have rather spoilt it over the last couple of years, but we only visit in the winter/early spring when its not too bad. I agree its a bit dark but the ledge can be handled. Eastern end is lovely and better shopping but I still like some things about the community atmosphere at the western end, and the beer is a lot cheaper.

The long pound is pretty good too, going there tomorrow.

 

............Dave

[Graham Davis]

The numerous threads on here are very biased, speak to those living on boats.

 

.

 

Are they? Then why do other boating people who live in the area complain about certain elements of the continuous moorers in that area?

 

No I'm not confused.

Those with children, health issues, illnesses etc are being dealt with unfairly.

 

Now define place.

 

The fact that people have children gives them no increased rights. They cannot be compared with those with health or illness issues. If they are continuously moored without paying mooring fees then they are causing an obstruction (as confirmed earlier) and should either abide by their licencing agreement with CaRT or get a proper PAID FOR mooring.

[spadefoot]

 

 

 

 

See the reply about the membership criteria for the NBTA above

Yes, I see that. But as the NBTA is just a pressure group,surely some would leave if they got what they were after. Some might really want a mooring & have joined the NBTA in the hope that it might help.

Obviously some of them are just selfish people, full of their own entitlement, but that's not uncommon in modern Britain.

 

The hire boats have rather spoilt it over the last couple of years, but we only visit in the winter/early spring when its not too bad. I agree its a bit dark but the ledge can be handled. Eastern end is lovely and better shopping but I still like some things about the community atmosphere at the western end, and the beer is a lot cheaper.

The long pound is pretty good too, going there tomorrow.

 

............Dave

Your not wrong about the beer. Pubs definitely better down west.

[hounddog]

 

Are they? Then why do other boating people who live in the area complain about certain elements of the continuous moorers in that area.

I was under the impression that a. you live in Wales and b. don't boat in that area.

 

Who exactly are these 'boating people' of the area complaining that you set your stall by?

[hounddog]

 

Do I have a problem????

 

I still do a bit of work for big corporates and "problem" is pretty much a taboo word in corporate newspeak, you have to say opportunity!

 

As Billy Bragg says, there are two sides to every story, and I do try to see both of them. Bradford on Avon is a good place to moor, and live. and get the kids educated, and if I had discovered this way of life 30 years ago I would be down there myself doing exactly the same and seeing how much I could get away with.

But, as I reckon you know, there is a big problem. If one or two boats do it then its ok, but if 40 boats do it then Bradford is gridlocked and the other 30,000 boats on the system are denied their chance to visit. This is a bad thing.

Another big and interesting aspect is that CaRT have very limited legal powers and have to apply them fairly, which means that in order to resolve Bradford and London All boaters everywhere see a lot more enforcement. The BoA boaters will find a way to stay because they have a lot to loose, but others who were just shuffling up and down in the wilderness will (and have) chosen to leave the cut.

 

.................Dave

isn't it a bit of a contradiction to claim that Bradford is 'gridlocked ' - with the exception of Eastef weekend, it's not - and then in the next breath mention the large numbers of hire boats?

 

Will you start a campaign about the large numbers of hire boats that have, more or less, the same cruising grounds?

 

I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt that your stereotypical comments about frame generators and tat on the towpath were jokes as my impression is that, in the main, the people down there are very respectful of both their neighbours ( of all kinds) and the environment.

[Mike Todd]

The Equality Act 2010 listed a number of Protected Characteristics and one of these is Pregnancy and Maternity. It is clear that the provisions under this heading relate to discrimination arising from a woman being pregnant and the immediate consequences of giving birth (including stillbirth). These benefits are specifically restricted to 26 weeks after the date of giving birth, and there is specific protection for breast feeding.

 

There is no mention in the Act (AFAIK) of paternity and so I suspect that a court would normally expect to restrict its attention to matters that arise from the physical and mental consequences of pregnancy and giving birth, especially as it limits the ability of the woman to access services or to return to work.

 

Parenthood is not mentioned as a protected characteristic.

 

AFAIK, the Equality Act does not, as far as I can see, lay any duties with regard to the provision of Education (Schools specifically) other than on the providers ie controlling bodies and local authorities. There does not appear to be any more general duty to enable children to access a school (eg transport providers do not have to offer positive discrimination in the respect). (They, along with all service providers) have to treat other protected characteristics fairly)

 

Land-based parents have to cope with non-trivial travel distances, especially in rural areas. Up to three miles there is still the assumption that children can walk there! At times when 'popular' schools are over-subscribed then some children may have even further to travel and it is the duty of the parent to ensure that this happens - or to provide alternative education, such as home schooling.These distances probably lie in the grey area between definitely not CC compliant and obviously compliant. However, it is clear that parents can legitimately be expected to enable their canal-resident children to attend school and also to engage in some regular movement.

 

There is no requirement on anyone to provide employment within a given distance from home (alas!) and many, many people commute for well over an hour each way each day. AFAIK, access to benefits as a result of unemployment impose a quite stringent test for availability fo work, such as daily work seeking activity and very regular attendamce at job centres (or whatever they are called today!)

 

The issue of indirect discrimination (which seems to be inherent in the matter under discussion) is always complex and depends on showing that there is a causal link between some act or inaction by a service provider or public body in the way in which their terms and conditions impact on a protected characteristic differentially. (It is not enough to say that all users/employees are equally badly affected - that might involve a recourse to Human Rights Act) A high profile set of cases related to discrimination on religious grounds of uniform regulations by certain employers (can employees wear any form of religious symbol, cam employees demand to wear hijab or even burka) These have gone either way and depend on fine detail, sometimes, I recall, relating also to Health and Safety issues.

 

IANAL

 

As an individual, I find that I am often conflicted between, on the one hand, my inherent belief in Human Rights, and the consequent Equality provisions, and, on the other hand, that extreme, sometimes seemingly frivolous, claims have led to growing support for a government to abolish many of these rights. (It seems that The Sun shines on the Right not the Righteous!)

 

A fundamental problem with Rights is that there is no absolute basis for them (save for some a recourse to Natural Law) and depend on a state to enforce them. That, in turn, depends in a democratic society, on the willingness of the majority to grant such rights. We are rapidly discovering that the 'will of the majority' is not necessarily a guaranteed route to civilised society.

[NigelMoore]

 

If they are continuously moored without paying mooring fees then they are causing an obstruction (as confirmed earlier) . . .

Further clarification perhaps needed – an obstruction does not cease to become an obstruction just because someone is paid to look the other way. Mooring beyond the relevant time limits is an obstruction even if paid for [and cannot therefore be charged for in the first place]. Either the towpath is accessible to all in their turn or it is not. In my view, CaRT are obliged to maintain the towpath open for all, and cannot - even or especially under charity rules - carve private benefits out of the public benefit they are obligated to provide.

For what it is worth, the judge in Taylor v BWB considered the £25/day charge for overstaying a 48 hour mooring as a fine, not a mooring charge [the boater had argued that as he had happily paid the charges, he should be allowed to enjoy the benefit of them for so long as he was prepared to pay the £25/day – he was running a business selling products from his boat, and the particular mooring was advantageous financially by reason of its access to the public].

[dmr]

isn't it a bit of a contradiction to claim that Bradford is 'gridlocked ' - with the exception of Eastef weekend, it's not - and then in the next breath mention the large numbers of hire boats?

 

Will you start a campaign about the large numbers of hire boats that have, more or less, the same cruising grounds?

 

I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt that your stereotypical comments about frame generators and tat on the towpath were jokes as my impression is that, in the main, the people down there are very respectful of both their neighbours ( of all kinds) and the environment.

 

We were having a hypothetical and slightly humorous conversation about the concept of bone fide navigation over a very short distance, and using BoA as an example. The big genny was a bit of fun. I guess this was probably not totally obvious but myself and Goliath know each other well and he was probably teasing about my battery charging obsessions so that was my reply, I thought it was funny! There is, as far as I know, only one K&A boat with a huge genny bolted to the back deck.

I only visit BoA winter and early spring and have never found it full, though once or twice it has been almost full (all the way down to Avoncliff). I would guess it does get full sometimes in the summer? Bath certainly does get gridlocked but its still usually possible to find a spot of some sort.

Personally I like a bit of fun with stereotypes and am sad that these days so many folk are offended about everything.

I am almost 60, scruffy, long hair, drink too much, and even overstay a bit when it suits me, and really don't care if that makes me a stereotypical boater.

 

...............Dave

[Arthur Marshall]

Mooring beyond the relevant time limits is an obstruction even if paid for [and cannot therefore be charged for in the first place]. Either the towpath is accessible to all in their turn or it is not. In my view, CaRT are obliged to maintain the towpath open for all, and cannot - even or especially under charity rules - carve private benefits out of the public benefit they are obligated to provide.

But how does that tie in with the towpath long term CRT moorings, of which there must be hundreds? These must go back many years as I presume most of them are a legacy from BW days.

[Paul C]

 

Further clarification perhaps needed – an obstruction does not cease to become an obstruction just because someone is paid to look the other way. Mooring beyond the relevant time limits is an obstruction even if paid for [and cannot therefore be charged for in the first place]. Either the towpath is accessible to all in their turn or it is not. In my view, CaRT are obliged to maintain the towpath open for all, and cannot - even or especially under charity rules - carve private benefits out of the public benefit they are obligated to provide.

For what it is worth, the judge in Taylor v BWB considered the £25/day charge for overstaying a 48 hour mooring as a fine, not a mooring charge [the boater had argued that as he had happily paid the charges, he should be allowed to enjoy the benefit of them for so long as he was prepared to pay the £25/day – he was running a business selling products from his boat, and the particular mooring was advantageous financially by reason of its access to the public].

 

 

There's tons of online, towpath-side long term moorings - many run by CRT but many run privately too. It makes sense to me that so long as these are clearly signed, these are legitimate and are NOT part of the towpath regarding allowing other boats to moor (although it often remains a towpath for walkers, etc). The vast majority of boaters accept this with no issues - are the vast majority of boaters in the wrong here?

[Arthur Marshall]

Why not simply allocate certain stretches, like now but more, as 2 day or VM moorings, police them hard with penalties, and just dump the 14 day rule completely? Let people live comfortably where they want. The only certain thing is that the current rules are unenforceable, expensive, and irrelevant to the way we live now , however they may have been fifty years ago.

[Jerra]

Why not simply allocate certain stretches, like now but more, as 2 day or VM moorings, police them hard with penalties, and just dump the 14 day rule completely? Let people live comfortably where they want. The only certain thing is that the current rules are unenforceable, expensive, and irrelevant to the way we live now , however they may have been fifty years ago.

I suspect those VMs would have to be for quite a long way round each village/town and at bridges which were convenient for transport etc otherwise these attractive places would become permanent "water villages" preventing CCers and Leisure boaters getting access.

[twbm]

Wow. it's a while since we had the old 'they don't pay council tax ' chestnut.

 

I'm visiting Marseille today, perhaps I should be asked to contribute to the street lighting and the rubbish bins. After all it's not fair I should get it for free.

 

if you are living on your boat, rather than using a hotel and paying the local taxe de sejour .....

[spadefoot]

I suspect those VMs would have to be for quite a long way round each village/town and at bridges which were convenient for transport etc otherwise these attractive places would become permanent "water villages" preventing CCers and Leisure boaters getting access.

That's more or less how towns & villages come into existence. I wanted to build a house in an attractive, convenient village once, and you know what? Some bugger had already built one right where I wanted mine. In fact there was a whole row of village, stretching all the way to the end of the village. I ended up having to build it in the next town.

[Jerra]

That's more or less how towns & villages come into existence. I wanted to build a house in an attractive, convenient village once, and you know what? Some bugger had already built one right where I wanted mine. In fact there was a whole row of village, stretching all the way to the end of the village. I ended up having to build it in the next town.

But when you guild a house be it in a village or elsewhere you don't prevent others visiting the place or take up part of the road permanently. Permanent "water villages" would prevent others visiting the land based village and take up part of the canal permanently. Unless controlled as I suggested of course.

[NigelMoore]

 

The vast majority of boaters accept this with no issues - are the vast majority of boaters in the wrong here?

 

Yes.

 

I should perhaps qualify that - yes they are wrong if they believe such moorings to be legitimate; accepting the situation "with no issues" is of course an entirely different thing, and pragmatism has a place.

 

They still are an obstruction under the same considerations that apply to any towpath moorings that are not "authorised" overstay ghettoes. And even if they were legitimate, the same considerations of impeding the navigation apply; if they are permanent moorings, then boats using them should ensure they are suitably moored to allow boat traffic unimpeded by any need to slow down from the standard walking pace limits.

[MtB]

 

Yes.

 

I should perhaps qualify that - yes they are wrong if they believe such moorings to be legitimate; accepting the situation "with no issues" is of course an entirely different thing, and pragmatism has a place.

 

They still are an obstruction under the same considerations that apply to any towpath moorings that are not "authorised" overstay ghettoes. And even if they were legitimate, the same considerations of impeding the navigation apply; if they are permanent moorings, then boats using them should ensure they are suitably moored to allow boat traffic unimpeded by any need to slow down from the standard walking pace limits.

 

 

Does this mean boats insecurely moored whose owners instruct one to 'slow down' when passing are technically an obstruction, even though boats can get past?

[NigelMoore]

 

 

Does this mean boats insecurely moored whose owners instruct one to 'slow down' when passing are technically an obstruction, even though boats can get past?

 

That is certainly my take on it. It is, however, one of the rare instances where I will acknowledge that 'my take' should not be accepted as definitive law.

 

Nonetheless, where stretches of the canal HAVE become a gauntlet of screaming moorers, there can be no question but that CaRT should initiate s.21 and make sure that all boats on quasi-permanent moorings have the infrastructure enabling secure mooring unaffected deleteriously by boats passing at the legal limit.