Equality Commision Investigates C&RT

[Murflynn]

I didn't realise that C&RT even existed in 1993.

[costalot]

 

 

The fact that the Trust now says it is ‘currently seeking to assist boaters with school aged children establish compliant patterns of movement—any request to relax our requirements for this group will be balanced against a number of other legitimate aims’ suggests that contrary to the provisions in the human rights act, they have not already done this.

 

That might be your interpretation but 'currently' doesn't infer something wasn't happening previously or will not continue into the future. Example; If asked I tell people I'm currently retired. But I've been retired for six years and will likely be retired until the end of my life.

 

CRT have an obligation to ensure boaters without a home mooring regularly move and the boater agrees any movement will be bona fide for navigation. If CRT authorised or formally approved a situation where boaters moved in school holidays with the express purpose of avoiding CRT enforcement then CRT would probably be in breach of it's obligations.

[Teasel]

 

Do you have any suggestions as to how CRT would do this?

 

Yes - they would accept that there are people living on boats on the waterways whose rights may be adversely affected by their interpretation of the law, and their enforcement policy. They would accept that they have obligations in relation to these.

 

They would identify what those rights might be and how they may be affected, and then consider the purpose of the policy and interpretation.

They would need to make sure that any policy they intended to impose met the 'proportionality' test - that is to say they would see whether the (seemingly) conflicting obligations around leisure use and children's rights have been balanced proportionately.

 

This would include looking into any other means by which they could meet their objective of fairness to boaters which does not interfere with children's rights to education. That could mean more mooring rings, rubbish, sanitary, water points, dredging etc.. to make more areas of the waterways available for mooring. It would also mean accepting that they have no power to set distance requirements under the 95 Act, since this means that the distance requirements they set are 'unlawful' and therefore not a proportionate interference with children's rights within the meaning of the human rights act.

 

They need to balance rights and obligations when they set the guidance.

 

 

 

That might be your interpretation but 'currently' doesn't infer something wasn't happening previously or will not continue into the future. Example; If asked I tell people I'm currently retired. But I've been retired for six years and will likely be retired until the end of my life.

 

CRT have an obligation to ensure boaters without a home mooring regularly move and the boater agrees any movement will be bona fide for navigation. If CRT authorised or formally approved a situation where boaters moved in school holidays with the express purpose of avoiding CRT enforcement then CRT would probably be in breach of it's obligations.

 

 

It is my interpretation - are you saying you think CRT have already done all of the above?

 

Nobody is saying that they do not want to navigate at all. People navigate for all sorts of reasons - that's up to them. The question of how far and in what direction they are made to do so is different - navigating in a particular direction and for a particular distance to meet CRT's requirements does not mean they are navigating expressly to avoid enforcement - it means that they have fewer choices about where they end up.

 

CRT can manage this lawfully and fairly by considering all their legal obligations, not just the ones they choose.

[Jerra]

I am still trying to get my head around why anyone sees it as acceptable for somebody to declare themselves a "CCer" when they know they have no intention of sticking to what they said.

[spadefoot]

 

And, as I posted earlier in this thread - between May 2015 and March 2016 (Bear in mind that there are around 5000 boats declared as 'no home mooring',)

 

Since May 2015 over 860 requests for extended stays or a longer term adjustment under the Equality Act from boaters without a home mooring were granted.

 

An example was given earlier by a participant in this thread, where due to requiring dialysis she was allowed to stay within a restricted range of the facility.

 

That does not look to me like an organisation abrogating its responsibilities.

 

In that period some 2240 boaters failed to meet the conditions of their licence, of those 1130 failed to convince the board that they would meet the condition in the future and were issued a 'short term restricted' licence.

652 took up the offer whilst the balance either complied with the requirements and regained a 'full' licence, the boat was sold, took a mooring or taken off C&RT waters,

68 were refused any licence, of which 45 remain in enforcement process.

But do these figures help the discussion?

We don't know how many of the 5000 or so boats are lived on. So we don't know how many of the 2240 boats are lived on, etc, etc.

So we don't know how many of these cases involve families with children.

All we know is the number of boats.

[Hawkmoth]

I am still trying to get my head around why anyone sees it as acceptable for somebody to declare themselves a "CCer" when they know they have no intention of sticking to what they said.

Perhaps because they simply cannot afford to get a mooring, they earn just enough to buy a cheap boat and hope they can avoid the enforcement. It isn't the parents who really suffer, it is the innocent kids here.

I don't have any answers I'm just pointing out what I think is a reason for the situation.

Bob

[spadefoot]

 

I would suggest that if you (and NBTA) keep "pushing" this line then CaRT will eventually clamp down even harder and this will affect ALL boaters, not just those currently moaning.

Beware what you wish.

A variation on this often crops up, usually when the argument is lost. As I read it, it seems to mean, "don't stand up for a minority, in case things become worse for all of us" or " shut up & keep your heads down, or we'll all cop for it".

I am still trying to get my head around why anyone sees it as acceptable for somebody to declare themselves a "CCer" when they know they have no intention of sticking to what they said.

So find someone who thinks it acceptable, and ask them.

[MtB]

Perhaps because they simply cannot afford to get a mooring, they earn just enough to buy a cheap boat and hope they can avoid the enforcement. It isn't the parents who really suffer, it is the innocent kids here.

I don't have any answers I'm just pointing out what I think is a reason for the situation.

Bob

 

 

I'm not sure even that is true. A kid not going to school isn't really 'suffering' in the true sense of the word. Kids are very accepting of their circumstances. Only when they've grown up might they appreciate the value of an education and even then, possibly not.

 

And besides, most boater children ARE attending school aren't they, generally? The school attendance is the reason for the parents failing to comply with CC guidelines. If the parents are withholding their kids from school they have no reason not to comply with the CC rules.

[haggis]

I think in life we all have to make our own decisions having weighed up the pros and cons. It looks to me (and I may well be wrong) that a lot of boaters make the decision to live on a boat and declare themselves as continuously cruising when they know that is not going to happen because they have to stay in one location because of employment or childrens schooling. By deciding to adopt a lifestyle which they know to be not in accordance with the boat licence conditions to me they are placing themselves outwith the "rules" and I honestly can't see why C&RT or anyone else should make special concessions for them. If they have children they must know that as parents it is their legal responsibility to make arrangements for the children to be educated and they should arrange their life accordingly.

If they don't arrange for their children to be educated or if they do not keep in line with the CC guidelines they have only themselves to blame if the Education authority or C&RT take them to task.

 

I will obviously be shot down in flames for having such antiquated views that people should be more responsible for their own destiny but there you are.

 

Haggis

Edited November 24, 2016 by haggis

[Jerra]

Perhaps because they simply cannot afford to get a mooring, they earn just enough to buy a cheap boat and hope they can avoid the enforcement. It isn't the parents who really suffer, it is the innocent kids here.

I don't have any answers I'm just pointing out what I think is a reason for the situation.

Bob

 

I think in life we all have to make our own decisions having weighed up the pros and cons. It looks to me (and I may well be wrong) that a lot of boaters make the decision to live on a boat and declare themselves as continuously cruising when they know that is not going to happen because they have to stay in one location because of employment or childrens schooling. By deciding to adopt a lifestyle which they know to be not in accordance with the boat licence conditions to me they are placing themselves outwith the "rules" and I honestly can't see why C&RT or anyone else should make special concessions for them. If they have children they must know that as parents it is their legal responsibility to make arrangements for the children to be educated and they should arrange their life accordingly.

If they don't arrange for their children to be educated or if they do not keep in line with the CC guidelines they have only themselves to blame if the Education authority or C&RT take them to task.

 

I will obviously be shot down in flames for having such antiquated views that people should be more responsible for their own destiny but there you are.

 

Haggis

More or less what I was trying to say but much more eloquently put.

 

Living on a boat is a choice there are other choices which might not be as pleasant but when you have kids you have to make choices and choices which are best for them.

 

So if anybody is disadvantaging the kids it is the parents IMO.

[Paul C]

 

Yes - they would accept that there are people living on boats on the waterways whose rights may be adversely affected by their interpretation of the law, and their enforcement policy. They would accept that they have obligations in relation to these.

 

They would identify what those rights might be and how they may be affected, and then consider the purpose of the policy and interpretation.

They would need to make sure that any policy they intended to impose met the 'proportionality' test - that is to say they would see whether the (seemingly) conflicting obligations around leisure use and children's rights have been balanced proportionately.

 

This would include looking into any other means by which they could meet their objective of fairness to boaters which does not interfere with children's rights to education. That could mean more mooring rings, rubbish, sanitary, water points, dredging etc.. to make more areas of the waterways available for mooring. It would also mean accepting that they have no power to set distance requirements under the 95 Act, since this means that the distance requirements they set are 'unlawful' and therefore not a proportionate interference with children's rights within the meaning of the human rights act.

 

They need to balance rights and obligations when they set the guidance.

 

 

 

It is my interpretation - are you saying you think CRT have already done all of the above?

 

Nobody is saying that they do not want to navigate at all. People navigate for all sorts of reasons - that's up to them. The question of how far and in what direction they are made to do so is different - navigating in a particular direction and for a particular distance to meet CRT's requirements does not mean they are navigating expressly to avoid enforcement - it means that they have fewer choices about where they end up.

 

CRT can manage this lawfully and fairly by considering all their legal obligations, not just the ones they choose.

 

Of course CRT can set a distance requirement - the way the law is written, its up to the boater to satisfy them that the boat is being used bona fide for navigation. So, CRT can certainly publish a general guideline that translates this into a simpler-to-understand distance requirement. In fact, CRT chooses not to mention a distance in their official guidelines anyway, so your assertion in wrong here.

 

If parents of schoolchildren are able to stay in a very small range during term time and compensate for it by cruising more extensively in holiday times, then implied here is also that some kind of cruising range is required, thus there will be a measure, on distance, as to what is/isn't acceptable. For example I'm sure you'd agree that staying in one place for 6+ months (ie through term and holiday time not moving at all) isn't acceptable. To imply not staying in one place, implies some kind of distance in a time period.

 

Without specific examples of boaters and their cruising patterns, then its not really possible to further this debate. Clearly there is a feeling with a minority of boaters that CRT are asking too much of them; and we get the impression from CRT that some boaters are not meeting the "bona fide for navigation" threshold.

[WotEver]

 

I will obviously be shot down in flames for having such antiquated views that people should be more responsible for their own destiny but there you are.

Not by me.

 

There are some who believe that it is perfectly acceptable to lie on a declaration but I'm not one of them.

[Teasel]

 

Of course CRT can set a distance requirement - the way the law is written, its up to the boater to satisfy them that the boat is being used bona fide for navigation. So, CRT can certainly publish a general guideline that translates this into a simpler-to-understand distance requirement. In fact, CRT chooses not to mention a distance in their official guidelines anyway, so your assertion in wrong here.

 

 

 

‘It is not possible (nor appropriate) to specify distances that need to be travelled’

https://canalrivertrust.org.uk/media/library/633.pdf

‘This means looking at how far boats have moved over the course of their previous licence to see if it satisfies the requirement for continuous cruising.’

https://canalrivertrust.org.uk/news-and-views/news/policy-outlined-for-boaters-without-a-home-mooring

[Paul C]

 

 

‘It is not possible (nor appropriate) to specify distances that need to be travelled’

https://canalrivertrust.org.uk/media/library/633.pdf

‘This means looking at how far boats have moved over the course of their previous licence to see if it satisfies the requirement for continuous cruising.’

https://canalrivertrust.org.uk/news-and-views/news/policy-outlined-for-boaters-without-a-home-mooring

 

Yep, I'm completely familiar with these. However the wording in your post "this means that the distance requirements they set are 'unlawful' and therefore not a proportionate interference with children's rights within the meaning of the human rights act." isn't true, it is not unlawful of them to set a distance requirement, and you imply they do set a distance requirement.

 

I think there's a great danger in dancing round the words in order to try not to mention distance, or have any kind of leeway so that CRT can mention distance. It is an inevitibility of cruising that one covers a distance in the boat from place to place, indeed the law mentions not staying in one place (thus logically implying place to place). Yes, the wording of the law itself doesn't mention distance but any reasonable extrapolation of it which involves cruising (I accept there's some exceptional circumstances such as serious mechanical breakdown, which means they physically can't cruise) also involves covering a distance of some kind. I get the feeling that if a distance were to be well defined and agreed upon (which is unlikely) or for that matter whether "place" is well defined and agreed upon, there will be a number of piss-takers who no longer have anything to grip onto to claim they're compliant, when clearly they're not.

[Alan de Enfield]

 

 

I will obviously be shot down in flames for having such antiquated views that people should be more responsible for their own destiny but there you are.

 

Haggis

 

Maybe we were 'brought-up differently' to those who seem to think that the rules should be amended to suit their 'wants'.

 

I am in agreement with you

[Teasel]

I think there's a great danger in dancing round the words in order to try not to mention distance, or have any kind of leeway so that CRT can mention distance. It is an inevitibility of cruising that one covers a distance in the boat from place to place, indeed the law mentions not staying in one place (thus logically implying place to place). Yes, the wording of the law itself doesn't mention distance but any reasonable extrapolation of it which involves cruising (I accept there's some exceptional circumstances such as serious mechanical breakdown, which means they physically can't cruise) also involves covering a distance of some kind. I get the feeling that if a distance were to be well defined and agreed upon (which is unlikely) or for that matter whether "place" is well defined and agreed upon, there will be a number of piss-takers who no longer have anything to grip onto to claim they're compliant, when clearly they're not.

 

OK - I'll concede that, you are right that distance must be relevant in some way to the question of moving. And I agree with what you say.

 

My point was that the blanket application of a rule and enforcement policy which is an interpretation of the law that's been made without considering the rights of children to their education is unlawful. The 'unlawfulness' of the distance requirement that I meant to refer to here was one that is imposed without properly considering this. It's important to remember that most people affected are in fact meeting the requirements that have been set, because the threat of enforcement action potentially means not only difficulty with access to education but also homelessness for their children. The 6 and 3 month licences that have been used up the pressure for this, and mean that parents are stressed, and that their children are tired and cold from having to travel further than is sustainable for them to school.

 

You're right that I probably expressed this inaccurately and badly before.

 

It is also worth mentioning in relation to other posts that leisure boating on the inland waterways is also a 'choice' and if people can't manage or don't want to walk (or cycle) a few hundred yards down a towpath to the pub or shop or whatever they want to get to; or if they cannot cope with sharing the space, which is required to further the public benefit of social inclusion, with people whose lifestyle choices they don't like, maybe they could join the camping and caravan club or something, and start visiting the wealth of country houses and national monuments the rest of the country has to offer. They don't have to spend their leisure time on the waterways.

[Alan de Enfield]

 

 

 

It is also worth mentioning in relation to other posts that leisure boating on the inland waterways is also a 'choice' and if people can't manage or don't want to walk (or cycle) a few hundred yards down a towpath to the pub or shop or whatever they want to get to; or if they cannot cope with sharing the space, which is required to further the public benefit of social inclusion, with people whose lifestyle choices they don't like, maybe they could join the camping and caravan club or something, and start visiting the wealth of country houses and national monuments the rest of the country has to offer. They don't have to spend their leisure time on the waterways.

 

Whilst 'harsh' - a similar argument could be put forward for those you are so strongly defending.

 

If they are finding it difficult to 'get the kids to school' then take a mooring or move off the water, then they won't have the problem that "their children are tired and cold from having to travel further than is sustainable for them to school".

 

(Not sure what that means but they wont have to do it anyway).

[mayalld]

 

So I guess you would say you have the things and situation etc as of right because you worked for them and you owe nothing to society as a whole.

 

We all of us OWE something to society, because if we didn't society couldn't exist, and that would (in my view) be a bad thing.

 

Those of us who have (whether by good fortune or hard work) arrived in a position where they have "enough" (and enough is a variable feast according to the position of the observer), don't actually OWE anything extra to society, but may feel that we are able to give more to society than we owe

[Murflynn]

I think in life we all have to make our own decisions having weighed up the pros and cons. It looks to me (and I may well be wrong) that a lot of boaters make the decision to live on a boat and declare themselves as continuously cruising when they know that is not going to happen because they have to stay in one location because of employment or childrens schooling. By deciding to adopt a lifestyle which they know to be not in accordance with the boat licence conditions to me they are placing themselves outwith the "rules" and I honestly can't see why C&RT or anyone else should make special concessions for them. If they have children they must know that as parents it is their legal responsibility to make arrangements for the children to be educated and they should arrange their life accordingly.

If they don't arrange for their children to be educated or if they do not keep in line with the CC guidelines they have only themselves to blame if the Education authority or C&RT take them to task.

 

I will obviously be shot down in flames for having such antiquated views that people should be more responsible for their own destiny but there you are.

 

Haggis

join the dinosaur club.

 

we old fashioned folk have the misfortune that we were brought up to accept responsibility for our actions and to tell the truth.

 

unfortunately summat called yumanrites has intervened and now everything that doesn't suit the individual is just not fair.

 

 

............... the end of civilisation as we know it?

Edited November 24, 2016 by Murflynn

[Sir Nibble]

I am still trying to get my head around why anyone sees it as acceptable for somebody to declare themselves a "CCer" when they know they have no intention of sticking to what they said.

That question was asked years ago and the response then was that it was rendered moral and correct because you have to sign to get the licence and the terms were unenforceable, unlawful, ultra vires etc. The same argument made against the abortive attempt to set a distance. I strongly suggest that if those effected were to maximise their boating it might well help. I know it's treason to say so but it is legal to leave a mooring before 14 days. Move more often than compulsory and it will look a bit more like bona fide.

[Alan de Enfield]

That question was asked years ago and the response then was that it was rendered moral and correct because you have to sign to get the licence and the terms were unenforceable, unlawful, ultra vires etc. The same argument made against the abortive attempt to set a distance. I strongly suggest that if those effected were to maximise their boating it might well help. I know it's treason to say so but it is legal to leave a mooring before 14 days. Move more often than compulsory and it will look a bit more like bona fide.

 

You don't mean move voluntarily rather than under compulsion do you ?

[Sir Nibble]

Yes. I know it's harsh but only moving on day 14 with a metaphorical enforcement officer looking over your shoulder cannot really qualify as bona fide.

[mayalld]

Yes. I know it's harsh but only moving on day 14 with a metaphorical enforcement officer looking over your shoulder cannot really qualify as bona fide.

 

Can't quite believe that I'm saying this, but moving on day 14 is something that could very well be bona fide navigation from a CCer who moored up somewhere, and liked it so much that he (or she) decided that staying there for the longest possible time would enhance their cruise along the canals far and wide, then that might well be bona fide.

 

However, if the stop before and the stop after were also 14 days, or the boater spends 14 days there EVERY month, an assumption of good faith becomes strained.

[Mike Todd]

 

OK - I'll concede that, you are right that distance must be relevant in some way to the question of moving. And I agree with what you say.

 

My point was that the blanket application of a rule and enforcement policy which is an interpretation of the law that's been made without considering the rights of children to their education is unlawful. The 'unlawfulness' of the distance requirement that I meant to refer to here was one that is imposed without properly considering this. It's important to remember that most people affected are in fact meeting the requirements that have been set, because the threat of enforcement action potentially means not only difficulty with access to education but also homelessness for their children. The 6 and 3 month licences that have been used up the pressure for this, and mean that parents are stressed, and that their children are tired and cold from having to travel further than is sustainable for them to school.

 

You're right that I probably expressed this inaccurately and badly before.

 

It is also worth mentioning in relation to other posts that leisure boating on the inland waterways is also a 'choice' and if people can't manage or don't want to walk (or cycle) a few hundred yards down a towpath to the pub or shop or whatever they want to get to; or if they cannot cope with sharing the space, which is required to further the public benefit of social inclusion, with people whose lifestyle choices they don't like, maybe they could join the camping and caravan club or something, and start visiting the wealth of country houses and national monuments the rest of the country has to offer. They don't have to spend their leisure time on the waterways.

What do you consider to be the maximum distance that it reasonable for children to have to travel to school?

[Jerra]

What do you consider to be the maximum distance that it reasonable for children to have to travel to school?

I was just going to ask that, I await a reply with interest.