Equality Commision Investigates C&RT

[spadefoot]

 

I didn't say that you wanted a mooring. Rather that you want moorings to be made available wherever those who have children want to be.

 

I'm not arguing from a position of privilege. That presumes that I have what I have simply through the luck of the draw. I didn't. I worked damned hard, and continue to do so in order to ensure that I am not beholden to anybody changing the rules to suit me. That isn't privilege, it's taking responsibility.

 

My "privilege" comes at the expense of work being 90 minutes drive from home.

 

It is unfortunate that you don't know where New Mills is, as it is a charming little town in the Peak District, with excellent transport links to Manchester. You might like it there (Kiki who used to post here liked it so much that when they sold the boat, they settled there, half a world away from home in Cape Town).

 

As to why we should discuss house dwellers; We should discuss them, because the discussion is about the disconnect between what PEOPLE want, and what they can actually have. Whether they live aboard, or ashore, this is about people.

 

As a house dweller, I may have many different wants about where I live. In the end, several of the locations that I might want are not available to me for various reasons. That is just life.

 

Why should that simple truth be any different for a boat dweller. Why do you imagine that living aboard suddenly gives people an entitlement to live in the exact location that they want.

Your doing it again. I don't want moorings available wherever etc. That's what some members of NBTA appear to want. That's what is being discussed.

 

About your privilege; If you have worked hard & achieved at least some of your desires, it can be easy to forget that some have worked equally as hard, yet not achieved, possibly through no fault of their own.

 

You ask why "that simple truth" should be any different for a boat dweller. I don't think it is or should be. I don't imagine that living aboard gives people any more entitlement about location. But just as I don't imagine there are any NBTA members lobbying Dorset County Council, I don't suppose there are that many members of the National Bedsit-Dwellers Assoc lobbying CRT about providing accommodation for it's members.

 

If you only want to come up with reasons as to why something shouldn't be done, rather than put your mind to how things could be done, that's up to you.

[spadefoot]

 

 

No, I have never seen people camping in parks or by the canalside (except during the Cropredy Festival when a couple of tents appeared on the towpath). I suppose that it you go out of your way to seek the most squalid, you will find it sooner or later. Some people prefer to don their nice glasses rather than their nasty glasses, and to view the world accordingly.

I can assure you that it is very common to most towns around the south-east at least Athy. There, you can take my word for it so you don't have to look.

[Geo]

I can assure you that it is very common to most towns around the south-east at least Athy. There, you can take my word for it so you don't have to look.

 

Unfortunately I have to agree tis the truth down here as well. Better than it was but still happening

[matty40s]

 

Unfortunately I have to agree tis the truth down here as well. Better than it was but still happening

Its not just down South either, been through Leicester , Nottingham and Lincoln recently and tents very visible close to towpaths.

Nottinghams tent residents aren't shy at coming forward for hot water and any other help!!

[Athy]

I can assure you that it is very common to most towns around the south-east at least Athy. There, you can take my word for it so you don't have to look.

Thank you for the information. I am rarely in the South-East nowadays, so I have not come across these scenes.

Is there really a National Bedsit-Dwellers' Association? I suspect you have made that one up! At various times in my life, I would have qualified for membership.

[mayalld]

 

I am afraid that the ability to do that is a true privilege and not one available to the large majority of people.

 

No, I just don't buy it.

 

The overwhelming majority of the population have ability, but lack application to apply it, and the Guardian-reading establishment hands them a get out of jail free card by telling them that it is all about other people being privileged.

[MtB]

 

No, I just don't buy it.

 

The overwhelming majority of the population have ability, but lack application to apply it, and the Guardian-reading establishment hands them a get out of jail free card by telling them that it is all about other people being privileged.

 

 

The harder I work, the more privileged I get.

 

(To paraphrase Arnold Palmer.)

[Alan de Enfield]

Edited November 23, 2016 by Alan de Enfield

[spadefoot]

 

No, I just don't buy it.

 

The overwhelming majority of the population have ability, but lack application to apply it, and the Guardian-reading establishment hands them a get out of jail free card by telling them that it is all about other people being privileged.

Oh dear oh dear oh dear. So know you're suggesting that the overwhelming majority of the population, listens to what Guardian readers tell it. And that these same Guardian readers, are the establishment. Hmmm.

[Peter X]

This article tells that while the quote was widespread long before Arnold Palmer, its origin is unclear and it probably wasn't from Thomas Jefferson:

http://quoteinvestigator.com/2012/07/21/luck-hard-work/

Edited November 23, 2016 by Peter X

[Athy]

Thank you for that interesting link, Peter. From it, we learn that the adage has been around in various guises since the 16th century, and is probably as true now as it was then.

[MtB]

As I understood it, Arnold Palmer said about golf, "The more I practise, the luckier I get".

[Athy]

As I understood it, Arnold Palmer said about golf, "The more I practise, the luckier I get".

As I understand it, Gary Player said that, though Palmer may have borrowed the expression from him.

[mayalld]

 

Of course you are privileged, you have enough money to own a boat, a luxury to the vast majority of the population, you have enough money to live in New Mills in a house you own, albeit probably with a mortgage, at least you can get one, I know it well, you have enough money to be able to afford the luxury of driving 90 minutes to work. Yes like most of us you worked hard to attain this privileged position. But you still live in a privileged position where you can easily get personal credit if you want it, you pay your house fuel bill on direct debit or by whatever manner you chose thus getting cheaper fuel. You do not have to put 50p in the slot for gas and electric at an exorbitant rate. Your life compared to the poorer of this country is a bed of roses.

 

Like you I am privileged, I started in London many years ago with an overdraft, ah I was already privileged I could get a loan, and worked my way up, studied as I went, got qualifications as I went, spent many hours studying late at night and in the early mornings. But most importantly people helped, guided and supported me, I did not do it alone. Nor I suspect did you although I suspect it might feel like you did. Today I spend more of my time trying to find somewhere to invest the money safely at a reasonable rate than I do working, well not quite . So yes I am privileged. But I owe a duty, to the poorer of this world. Maybe you do as well.

 

Could these people have done what you have done, I suspect not otherwise they would have done it. But that makes no differences to the fact that we should do something to take, enable, empower or whatever word you like to use the children out of the bottom layer of society. Thus in our country they are a special case and we need to make special provisions for them.

 

Privilege is where you are where you are through sheer good fortune. Disadvantage is where sheer bad luck is to blame.

 

The majority of us are somewhere in between, where in large part, we make our own "luck".

 

I am not privileged to have enough money to own a boat, I have that money because I worked hard to get somewhere so that I would have enough money. I don't live in New Mills. I can get personal credit because I have spent years building a good credit history.

 

Did people help, guide and support me? Yes they did, but unfortunately to no avail.

 

I've seen it from both ends. I've chucked away that advantages that I had, dropped out of university, ended up in the worlds grottiest bedsit (putting 50p in the meter), worked on a casual basis on the grottiest jobs. I didn't end up there because of bad luck. I ended up there because I was idle.

 

I didn't pull back from there because of a stroke of luck, but because I decided to pull my socks up and start again in a completely different field.

 

Over the years, yes things have come in from left field, both bad luck and good luck. Quite a lot of bad luck actually, but I don't see that as an excuse. I can be a victim of circumstance or master of my own destiny. I CHOOSE the latter.

 

I also choose to be the source of "luck" to others where I can, but whatever I can do for others to allow them to make their way in the world will be of no use to them if they just expect the luck to do it for them.

 

Success is about application to make use of good fortune and work round adversity.

[MtB]

As I understand it, Gary Player said that, though Palmer may have borrowed the expression from him.

 

 

Yeah that's who I meant!

 

:D

[mayalld]

Oh dear oh dear oh dear. So know you're suggesting that the overwhelming majority of the population, listens to what Guardian readers tell it. And that these same Guardian readers, are the establishment. Hmmm.

 

Am I suggesting that those who are in inferior circumstances simply because they haven't made any effort to better themselves will take up any theory that it is all somebody else's fault with great enthusiasm?

 

Well, yes actually!

[Guest]

The "one size fits all" approach simply doesn't work with this sh*t. I have seen people do all the "wrong" things in life, and come up smelling of roses. I have seen others do all the "right" things and get sh*t upon. Most people are somewhere in between (as has been suggested.)

I consider myself extremely lucky in many ways (if there is such a thing.)

Edited November 23, 2016 by Guest

[mayalld]

The "one size fits all" approach simply doesn't work with this sh*t. I have seen people do all the "wrong" things in life, and come up smelling of roses. I have seen others do all the "right" things and get sh*t upon. Most people are somewhere in between (as has been suggested.)

I consider myself extremely lucky in many ways (if there is such a thing.)

 

I'm not going to deny that luck plays some part, and that any of us could say "I've had above or below average luck. With average luck, it would have been better or worse".

 

What I will say is that somebody who puts it all down to luck or privilege, and fails to strive to make his own luck is generally going to do a lot worse in life.

[costalot]

 

Am I suggesting that those who are in inferior circumstances simply because they haven't made any effort to better themselves will take up any theory that it is all somebody else's fault with great enthusiasm?

 

Well, yes actually!

There are plenty of people who will comfortably assume the powerful position of being a victim and try to transfer the responsibility for resolving their situation to someone else. It's often called "passing the monkey".

 

CRT has some core responsibilities and needs to be very careful about accepting non-core monkeys to feed and carry.

[Murflynn]

 

I can be a victim of circumstance or master of my own destiny.

well said.

 

 

 

have a greenie.

Edited November 23, 2016 by Murflynn

[Sir Nibble]

Children and their well being must be paramount and all options must be on the table. These options must include both establishing suitable moorings and grabbing the parents by the throat and telling them to stop playing the hippy, grow up and take responsibility.

[Teasel]

CRT has some core responsibilities and needs to be very careful about accepting non-core monkeys to feed and carry.

 

Good point. Two of those Core Responsibilities are

 

1. to ensure that they consider the Equality Act when setting their guidance. This requires them to make anticipatory reasonable adjustments for any disabled person who is likely to be disadvantaged by any 'provision, criterion or practice' that they follow or impose.

 

2. To interpret the law (in s17(3)©(ii) of the British Waterways Act 1995) in such a way that it does not disproportionately interfere with Human Rights - here, the right to education.

 

At the moment, the guidelines are set and enforced without regard to either of these things. This is the only reason there is anything here for the 'non-core monkeys' to grab hold of. The non-core monkeys come from all sides of this argument and are as monkey-like as each other. All CRT need to do is consider their legal obligations when they set their guidelines. At the moment they don't do this and it's left a big hole for us all to fill with our politics.

[Guest]

 

I'm not going to deny that luck plays some part, and that any of us could say "I've had above or below average luck. With average luck, it would have been better or worse".

 

What I will say is that somebody who puts it all down to luck or privilege, and fails to strive to make his own luck is generally going to do a lot worse in life.

Think I can agree with most of that. "With a little bit of bloomin' luck" and all that. I don't know if we "make our own

luck" and think this is something of a hackneyed phrase, but perhaps "luck favours the prepared." (Still not 100% if I believe in luck, more likely chance )

Edited November 23, 2016 by Guest

[Mike Todd]

 

Good point. Two of those Core Responsibilities are

 

1. to ensure that they consider the Equality Act when setting their guidance. This requires them to make anticipatory reasonable adjustments for any disabled person who is likely to be disadvantaged by any 'provision, criterion or practice' that they follow or impose.

 

2. To interpret the law (in s17(3)©(ii) of the British Waterways Act 1995) in such a way that it does not disproportionately interfere with Human Rights - here, the right to education.

 

At the moment, the guidelines are set and enforced without regard to either of these things. This is the only reason there is anything here for the 'non-core monkeys' to grab hold of. The non-core monkeys come from all sides of this argument and are as monkey-like as each other. All CRT need to do is consider their legal obligations when they set their guidelines. At the moment they don't do this and it's left a big hole for us all to fill with our politics.

The two numbered points you make are unarguable. However, the final paragraph (even though I do not understand the monkey expression, maybe I live in protected circles) spoils it by making an assertion without evidence. Certain people are claiming that the existing policy disadvantages them, either on grounds of disability or as a parent of a child at school age. This is very different from being able to prove that CaRT did not consider the matters as set out in 1 and 2 just that they came to conclusions that do not match the expectations of the claimants.

 

To establish the first it will be necessary to show that people with a given disability cannot reasonably comply with the current law on boaters without a home mooring together with the existing guidance and also that it is reasonable that they should be able to do so. This still leaves them as boaters without a home mooring and so still subject to the basic legal requirement. (For example, I suspect that it will not be sufficient to state that with a disability they cannot move at all and thus be allowed effectively a permanent residential mooring without extra charge)

 

In the second case it will be necessary to show that the so-called cruising guidelines impose a distance requirement that is unreasonably more stringent than parents living in rural areas (or in over-subscribed urban catchment areas) where 10 mile distances are not uncommon.

 

In neither case will it matter, should the claim come to court, whether or not CaRT published their considerations that led them to conclude that their current statements are compliant, although either party may wish to make comments on whether they are reasonable. However, I suspect that CaRT could readily show that they do consider special cases but they only have cite one example to establish that premise. This would leave the claimants needing to show that CaRT have acted unreasonably by not doing the same in every relevant case.

 

I am not saying that claims under either heading are not possible but rather to assert that burden of proof is perhaps a little higher than some suggest.

[Teasel]

The two numbered points you make are unarguable. However, the final paragraph (even though I do not understand the monkey expression, maybe I live in protected circles) spoils it by making an assertion without evidence. Certain people are claiming that the existing policy disadvantages them, either on grounds of disability or as a parent of a child at school age. This is very different from being able to prove that CaRT did not consider the matters as set out in 1 and 2 just that they came to conclusions that do not match the expectations of the claimants.

 

my apologies. Let me show you the evidence. Also - I just picked up the monkey from someone else, but was using 'non-core monkey' to describe any political argument without a basis in law or fact. Not to describe people.

 

In 2012, Sally Ash stated that

 

' With only one exception, our plans and policies don’t depend on us knowing whether a boat is being used as a primary residence. Residency definitions are notoriously difficult to pin down and we have no need or desire to use bureaucratic processes for trying to record this. It only matters when we need to exercise our ‘Section 8’ powers to remove a boat if it’s the person’s only home.'

 

see here - https://canalrivertrust.org.uk/media/library/2305.pdfp2

 

This means that the question of whether boats are used as homes, and therefore the questions of human rights relating to residential use are only considered to be relevant by the Trust when they are enforcing against a boat for a breach of the Guidelines. Not when they are setting them.

 

You can see this again here - https://canalrivertrust.org.uk/media/library/3516.pdf, on p13: 'In any case where the boat is the licence holder’s primary residence, we seek a court order before exercising these powers (s8). This provides the judge with the opportunity to consider the proportionality of the sanction in the context of the Human Rights Act.'

 

​​the Trust admits that it has no desire to use 'bureaucratic processes' (i.e. proper procedure) to record or consider when boats are used as homes other than when they are enforcing against them.

 

They need to consider Human Rights when they are setting​ the guidance, not just when they are enforcing for its' breach. It is not just the s8 sanction which will have an affect on human rights, it is also the need to follow the guidance under threat of homelessness. The child's human right to access to an education will not be relevant to eviction proceedings - it is necessary for the Trust to consider it in advance - when setting the guidance. that's what the law says - its a 'core obligation' rather than a 'non-core monkey'.

 

I think that meets the necessary burden of proof.