Equality Commision Investigates C&RT

[NigelMoore]

 

Yes they are, because they are stopping those that are moving from having somewhere to temporarily moor.

Obstruction does not mean just the "navigable" part.

As confirmed by the County Courts in Taylor v BWB in 2001.

[hounddog]

It's very interesting to read all the input of those with school-age children.

 

Or, to put it another way, the self-congratulatory comments of a bunch of men, average age 60, does not a debate produce.

[NigelMoore]

 

Yes they are, because they are stopping those that are moving from having somewhere to temporarily moor.

Obstruction does not mean just the "navigable" part.

As confirmed by the County Courts in Taylor v BWB in 2001.

[Paul C]

Eventually I suspect that will all depend on Brexit and which party wins the next general election..........................

 

But then so does everything related to laws in the country (eventually), especially if the law (such as the Equality Act, or human rights act, or whatever it is) has a basis from European Law. But I don't think its necessarily going to influence many of the areas of discussion in the short term, as much as everyone thinks, because the laws of the land will not be transformed overnight. Yes, some will go with Brexit, but I'm not sure if its going to be a quick process.

 

I admire your enthusiasm for offering a solution to this, but I don't think its going to be possible to simply designate places on the canal towpath as "home moorings" for those who complain about moving when they're CCers, especially if they are unfeasibly cheap/free. For a start, there's a definite policy of reducing (not adding) online home moorings, which is based on robust evidence from the majority of boat owners, who don't want more and more of them. Sure it could be reversed, but i would go against a majority feeling. Then there's planning law to contend with, if the moorings are to be residential. And a lot of these are in conservation or green belt areas. Then there's the ramifications of offering them free/low cost to a subset of the boating community - it would be fairer, indeed probably a legal requirement, to offer them equitibly amongst all boaters/would be boaters; and market forces would mean that mooring prices in the locality and further afield, would be adversely affected. And since CRT and BWML are two of the largest providers, there would be a significant income reduction if it occurred. So offering them would be a short-term fix for a problem perceived only by a minority. Much better to take a longer term, more measured view.

[Jrtm]

 

The two 'main' arguments from those NBTA members involved are :

 

1) They are allowed to not have a 'home mooring' under the 1995 legislation, if they move every 14 days (etc etc) unless there are 'reasons' why they cannot move, and it appears that 'pregnancy' or 'children' are now proposed as reasons not to move.

 

2) They cannot afford to pay for a 'home mooring'.

Ive just read this and now I'm having a baby. And I've just decided I'm living on the boat but stay in the house as its too cold to be on the boat.

 

Better tell crt!

[magpie patrick]

 

The two 'main' arguments from those NBTA members involved are :

 

1) They are allowed to not have a 'home mooring' under the 1995 legislation, if they move every 14 days (etc etc) unless there are 'reasons' why they cannot move, and it appears that 'pregnancy' or 'children' are now proposed as reasons not to move.

 

2) They cannot afford to pay for a 'home mooring'.

 

I'm not sure the bit I've highlighted is true: what follows is an observation not an attempt to take sides

 

The argument as far as I can discern is that the act requires them to move every 14 days, and nothing more, but CRT's terms and conditions are adding to that requirement and requiring boaters to move over a given range, say twenty miles. This is taking the children beyond a practical travelling distance to school.

 

I think the argument is that the terms and conditions are not making allowance, rather than the 1995 act is not making allowance

[Wanderer Vagabond]

I suppose that should the NBTA be successful in this particular case they will then have to start another campaign as to why these people who have now got permanent free/cheap residential moorings so that they can send their children to a convenient school shouldn't have to pay Council Tax on these residential moorings. Since they will be benefiting from local services (Schooling) I see no reason why they should have exemption, but that is just a personal opinion.

[MtB]

On the other hand, according to Doctor Alison in that other thread, narrowboats are too cold to live on so I would imagine should the NBTA discover this, they will start demanding that anyone living on a boat is given a free house.

[Chewbacka]

On the other hand, according to Doctor Alison in that other thread, narrowboats are too cold to live on so I would imagine should the NBTA discover this, they will start demanding that anyone living on a boat is given a free house.

or shore power and free heating..................

[Mike Todd]

 

But then so does everything related to laws in the country (eventually), especially if the law (such as the Equality Act, or human rights act, or whatever it is) has a basis from European Law. But I don't think its necessarily going to influence many of the areas of discussion in the short term, as much as everyone thinks, because the laws of the land will not be transformed overnight. Yes, some will go with Brexit, but I'm not sure if its going to be a quick process.

 

I admire your enthusiasm for offering a solution to this, but I don't think its going to be possible to simply designate places on the canal towpath as "home moorings" for those who complain about moving when they're CCers, especially if they are unfeasibly cheap/free. For a start, there's a definite policy of reducing (not adding) online home moorings, which is based on robust evidence from the majority of boat owners, who don't want more and more of them. Sure it could be reversed, but i would go against a majority feeling. Then there's planning law to contend with, if the moorings are to be residential. And a lot of these are in conservation or green belt areas. Then there's the ramifications of offering them free/low cost to a subset of the boating community - it would be fairer, indeed probably a legal requirement, to offer them equitibly amongst all boaters/would be boaters; and market forces would mean that mooring prices in the locality and further afield, would be adversely affected. And since CRT and BWML are two of the largest providers, there would be a significant income reduction if it occurred. So offering them would be a short-term fix for a problem perceived only by a minority. Much better to take a longer term, more measured view.

What EU legislation relates to this case?

[matty40s]

or shore power and free heating..................

I have heard that the Coal Boats serving London areas are now giving free bags of coal so they don't get taken to court by the NBTA for depriving travellers of the heat they are entitled to. They are also now stocking free weetbix and shredded wheat for school aged boaters and stocks of dog and cat food along with bird seed so no-one can say they are feeling victimised or denied their human or animal rights.

[Jrtm]

But I like crunchy nut cornflakes.

[Graham Davis]

As confirmed by the County Courts in Taylor v BWB in 2001.

 

Thank you for confirming that, Nigel.

[Paul C]

What EU legislation relates to this case?

 

I didn't know, I was taking a wild stab in the dark. So I looked it up, Wikipedia (if you believe it) phrases it quite well:

 

The Equality Act 2010 is an Act of Parliament of the United Kingdom, and has the same goals as the four major EU Equal Treatment Directives, whose provisions it mirrors and implements.

[matty40s]

But I like crunchy nut cornflakes.

You need to move to the Western K&A for those luxuries.....

[Detling]

CRT is more like a highways authority in that it's remit is to provide a navigation/transport system, being able to moor on the towpath side is similar to parking on the road outside your terraced house. There is no housing obligation in CRT's remit just as a highway authority does not have to allow caravans to be parked and lived in, and indeed most prevent it. Then there is the cash strapped local authority which runs planning, which also has elected representatives who are only to happy to put their oar in.

[Martin Megson]

Is it just me that finds it laughable that the only time I ever hear the National Bargee Travellers Association mentioned is when they are fighting to stay put?

No the irony isn't lost on me.

[StarUKKiwi]

 

The two 'main' arguments from those NBTA members involved are :

 

1) They are allowed to not have a 'home mooring' under the 1995 legislation, if they move every 14 days (etc etc) unless there are 'reasons' why they cannot move, and it appears that 'pregnancy' or 'children' are now proposed as reasons not to move.

 

2) They cannot afford to pay for a 'home mooring'.

 

Under the Equality Act 2012; you are considered as having a protected characteristic if you are pregnant and cannot be discriminated against. Children have the right to education and some parents cannot home school. I cannot comment on the K&A as I am not colse enough; however, I do knpw that in other cases, there is an agreement in place that they stay within a three mile area of the school the children attend in term time and then cruise in the holidays.

So the pregnancy is covered by the Equality Act and the latter by the Education Act

[adam1uk]

Under the Equality Act 2012; you are considered as having a protected characteristic if you are pregnant and cannot be discriminated against. Children have the right to education and some parents cannot home school. I cannot comment on the K&A as I am not colse enough; however, I do knpw that in other cases, there is an agreement in place that they stay within a three mile area of the school the children attend in term time and then cruise in the holidays.

So the pregnancy is covered by the Equality Act and the latter by the Education Act

Yes pregnancy is listed in the equality act -- but that means that you mustn't be disadvantaged because of a pregnancy, not that you get preferential treatment.

[Arthur Marshall]

CRT is more like a highways authority in that it's remit is to provide a navigation/transport system, being able to moor on the towpath side is similar to parking on the road outside your terraced house. There is no housing obligation in CRT's remit just as a highway authority does not have to allow caravans to be parked and lived in, and indeed most prevent it. Then there is the cash strapped local authority which runs planning, which also has elected representatives who are only to happy to put their oar in.

The local authority can't afford to put people up in temp accommodation any more, there's hardly any social housing left and what there is is being got rid of, and CRT isn't a housing authority. So if you do kick people off the canal (justifiably under the rules), where do they go? if they can't afford a mooring, then they certainly can't afford a deposit even if they could afford the rent. Might be more sensible to try and persuade them to move to an area where they either could CC and still school their kids, or find cheaper moorings than where they currently are. You can always say people shouldn't have kids if they can't afford to raise them, but sadly they do, and then it's tough on the kids.

Ultimately it's a political problem, and those in charge at the moment aren't interested in solving it (not being partisan, nor were the other lot when they had the chance). When they do get round to it (probably after the next set of riots), there may have to be a lot of changes.

[Allan(nb Albert)]

 

Under the Equality Act 2012; you are considered as having a protected characteristic if you are pregnant and cannot be discriminated against. Children have the right to education and some parents cannot home school. I cannot comment on the K&A as I am not colse enough; however, I do knpw that in other cases, there is an agreement in place that they stay within a three mile area of the school the children attend in term time and then cruise in the holidays.

So the pregnancy is covered by the Equality Act and the latter by the Education Act

It would appear to me that the Equality Act provides guidance to the 1995 BW Act as to what is reasonable under the circumstances.

[hounddog]

 

I'm not sure the bit I've highlighted is true: what follows is an observation not an attempt to take sides

 

The argument as far as I can discern is that the act requires them to move every 14 days, and nothing more, but CRT's terms and conditions are adding to that requirement and requiring boaters to move over a given range, say twenty miles. This is taking the children beyond a practical travelling distance to school.

 

I think the argument is that the terms and conditions are not making allowance, rather than the 1995 act is not making allowance

Exactly this. Well done Patrick.

[chubby]

Perhaps CRT can begin producing and promoting those poxy " Baby on Board " badges like TfL do ?

[Allan(nb Albert)]

Perhaps CRT can begin producing and promoting those poxy " Baby on Board " badges like TfL do ?

No doubt these would be sent out electronically for the boater to print out and display ...

[Gareth E]

Equality: The notion that everyone should be equal and not be discriminated against. Lovely.

 

The Equality commission and the whole movement: The process of pigeon holing people in order to decide whether they are 'deserving' of special treatment, or not. If you happen to be within a group of 'nots' you are then discriminated in order than the special ones may receive their 'due' care or support.

 

I've thought for some time that the very notion of equality is a misnomer. The above is not equality, it's selective discrimination. If 'fairness' was the objective it would be easier to understand why some groups receive preferential treatment. It's most certainly not equality, which is when everyone is treated the same.