Equality Commision Investigates C&RT

[b0atman]

the school if in centre of 20 mile travel range will be 10 miles maxish lots of children in rural areas do this regular and have done so standing at a roadside waiting for a bus in all weathers.

[StarUKKiwi]

Equality in this instance is so that you are not disadvantaged, For example, I am covered under the Equality Act due to me illness; we had an adjustment to travel six miles due to NHS transport constraints. We managed to get a mooring, not because of crrt, but because dialysis transport got confused if we moved

[Alan de Enfield]

the school if in centre of 20 mile travel range will be 10 miles maxish lots of children in rural areas do this regular and have done so standing at a roadside waiting for a bus in all weathers.

 

Indeed they do, and generally by paying Council tax the parents have contributed financially to the footpaths, the street lighting, the bus-stops and the 'school bus'

Maybe if full residential moorings were provided (subject to CT) then they could also contribute to the services they intend to use.

[hounddog]

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.

[Mike Todd]

Exactly this. Well done Patrick.

But surely Patrick is wrong: the option to not have a home mooring has a prerequisite that the boater can convince 'The Board' that they are engaged in a bona fide navigation (ie journey). The 14 day rule is somewhat incidental to this and, in any event, affects all boaters. The question of distance relates to 'convince the Board' and, whilst they cannot under the legislation say what boaters must do they are allowed to say what action will not convince them the the prerequisite has been met. There is a large grey area in between.

[Sir Percy]

 

 

THE Canal & River Trust is being investigated by the The Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) that is reviewing whether the Trust is fully meeting its Equality Act obligations.

 

What a clunky sentence. If this is a piece of 'reporting' from the NBTA itself, that might explain why - one man's review ( ) is another man's investigation ( ).

[Paul C]

 

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

 

The Act requires the boater to satisfy CRT that the boat will be used bona fide for navigation; then it additionaly goes on to state it must not remain in one place longer than 14 days (or longer as reasonable in the circumstances). So its not "nothing more" its "used bona fide for navigation".

[Arthur Marshall]

 

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.

You aren't being treated equally if you can't shop in Marks & Sparks. because you can't get up the stairs, or you can't get a burger because there's no wheelchair access. Or, for that matter, if you can't get a job because the colour of your skin is wrong. That's not demanding preferential treatment, it's asking to be treated the same as your neighbour. Or, if you like, equally. Or even if you don't like, in fact...

[mayalld]

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.

 

Well, if you are there tomorrow, and the day after, and the month after that, then you WILL be required to pay.

[Athy]

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.

Not entirely comparable: you're visiting the city (lucky you!), you aren't intending to live in it.

[Alan de Enfield]

You aren't being treated equally if you can't shop in Marks & Sparks. because you can't get up the stairs, or you can't get a burger because there's no wheelchair access. Or, for that matter, if you can't get a job because the colour of your skin is wrong. That's not demanding preferential treatment, it's asking to be treated the same as your neighbour. Or, if you like, equally. Or even if you don't like, in fact...

 

I think your comparisons are incorrect - it would be 'nearer the truth' if you were to say :

 

If you are Black, or Pregnant (or whatever) you can park on the double yellow lines and you can use the main entrance, anyone else not having 'protected' characteristics must use the local car park and then enter by the 'back entrance'.

 

You are not being treated 'equally' if you are told that you cannot moor in a certain place for more than 14 days and then move "X" miles, but, if you are pregnant, or have children you can do so with impunity.

 

I was in South Africa as Apartheid ended - I thought I had seen the last of this kind of separation.

 

[IanD]

Equality legislation means that it is illegal to discriminate against people on various protected counts, including colour, race, religion, sex, disability -- for example, the infamous "No blacks or Irish" sign. Having children is not one of these counts. It does not say that special exceptions should be made for people because of something they choose to do when other reasonable alternatives are available.

 

If there's a rule on CC which says people have to move a certain distance over a certain period of time then exceptions can be made, but unless these are on a protected count (e.g. disability) the exception can be challenged by people who then feel that they are being discriminated against by not being given the same treatment.

 

So if people with children who want to "CC without moving" -- in other words, live like they have a permanent mooring without paying for it -- on grounds such as schools (which are specifically excluded by CART terms and conditions) were allowed to do this by CART, everyone without children could demand the same treatment since the law doesn't give any special privilege or protection to people with children.

 

The consequence would either be that CART withdraw the special treatment (i.e. go back to the official position today) or that anyone can moor permanently anywhere ("CC without moving") without paying for a home mooring -- and I think it's obvious what the consequences of this would be for CART and the canals...

[magpie patrick]

 

The Act requires the boater to satisfy CRT that the boat will be used bona fide for navigation; then it additionaly goes on to state it must not remain in one place longer than 14 days (or longer as reasonable in the circumstances). So its not "nothing more" its "used bona fide for navigation".

 

Going back to my original post, I wasn't saying that the argument was correct, I was clarifying what the argument is: I have seen professional advocates trip up by arguing against the wrong thing

 

And on that point I will reiterate that the argument isn't that protected groups shouldn't have to move at all, it is that they shouldn't have to move so far as to make their child's education impractical.

 

I'm not going to be drawn on whether I agree with this or not

[beerbeerbeerbeerbeer]

 

I think your comparisons are incorrect - it would be 'nearer the truth' if you were to say :

 

If you are Black, or Pregnant (or whatever) you can park on the double yellow lines and you can use the main entrance, anyone else not having 'protected' characteristics must use the local car park and then enter by the 'back entrance'.

 

You are not being treated 'equally' if you are told that you cannot moor in a certain place for more than 14 days and then move "X" miles, but, if you are pregnant, or have children you can do so with impunity.

 

I was in South Africa as Apartheid ended - I thought I had seen the last of this kind of separation.

 

I don't understand this post.

I find it bizzar that the requirements or needs of a minority of boaters are being compared to an appartide.

The original post smelled of a Daily Mail headline. Now it's Daily Sport.

 

The Act requires the boater to satisfy CRT that the boat will be used bona fide for navigation; then it additionaly goes on to state it must not remain in one place longer than 14 days (or longer as reasonable in the circumstances). So its not "nothing more" its "used bona fide for navigation".

Getting the kids to school is a bone fide use of the navigation.

[Paul C]

 

Getting the kids to school is a bone fide use of the navigation.

 

That's an interesting bunch of extra words you inserted there!!!!

[beerbeerbeerbeerbeer]

 

That's an interesting bunch of extra words you inserted there!!!!

You know it makes sense?

[Paul C]

 

Going back to my original post, I wasn't saying that the argument was correct, I was clarifying what the argument is: I have seen professional advocates trip up by arguing against the wrong thing

 

And on that point I will reiterate that the argument isn't that protected groups shouldn't have to move at all, it is that they shouldn't have to move so far as to make their child's education impractical.

 

I'm not going to be drawn on whether I agree with this or not

 

Indeed, there is a minority of people who either deliberately or subconciously misinterpret the wording, to their advantage. The wording of the Act was made deliberately vague, so as to be flexible to allow a variety of different ways the canals can be used lawfully.

You know it makes sense because I'm completely bonkers and walk round with a pair of underpants on my head

 

True.....sorry I might have inserted a few extra words, it might have subtly changed the meaning of your post?

[Athy]

Indeed, there is a minority of people who either deliberately or subconciously misinterpret the wording to their advantage.

Are they called "lawyers"?

[beerbeerbeerbeerbeer]

 

Indeed, there is a minority of people who either deliberately or subconciously misinterpret the wording, to their advantage. The wording of the Act was made deliberately vague, so as to be flexible to allow a variety of different ways the canals can be used lawfully.

 

 

True.....sorry I might have inserted a few extra words, it might have subtly changed the meaning of your post?

Ah, very clever, I see what you did there.

[Jess--]

Hmmm so they are complaining that CRT have started enforcement against a bargee traveller (presumably for not moving far enough)

 

And they are trying to claim that this enforcement (which would apply to anyone without a home mooring / aka CC license) is breaching equality laws.

 

Can I have some of what they're smoking? (it must be the good stuff)

[beerbeerbeerbeerbeer]

Hmmm so they are complaining that CRT have started enforcement against a bargee traveller (presumably for not moving far enough)

 

And they are trying to claim that this enforcement (which would apply to anyone without a home mooring / aka CC license) is breaching equality laws.

 

Can I have some of what they're smoking? (it must be the good stuff)

Never pressume.

[Chewbacka]

.........................................

 

Getting the kids to school is a bone fide use of the navigation.

If you mean taking the kids from the home mooring to the school by boat then I must agree with you.

[furnessvale]

If you mean taking the kids from the home mooring to the school by boat then I must agree with you.

A chap near my old mooring used to do that every day. By Canadian canoe!

 

George ex nb Alton retired

[Alan de Enfield]

If you mean taking the kids from the home mooring to the school by boat then I must agree with you.

 

If they had a 'home mooring' I'd agree with you - however - the boaters concerned are CCers and whilst they have 'no home mooring' they wish to stay in a restricted area.

 

To be an NBTA member you MUST NOT have a home mooring.

 

1.2 “Bargee Traveller” means itinerant boat dweller, boat dweller without a home or permanent mooring, travelling boat dweller, live-aboard continuous cruiser or itinerant live-aboard boater and includes anyone whose home is a boat and who does not have a permanent mooring for their boat with planning permission for year-round residential use.

[MtB]

 

1.2 “Bargee Traveller” means itinerant boat dweller, boat dweller without a home or permanent mooring, travelling boat dweller, live-aboard continuous cruiser or itinerant live-aboard boater and includes anyone whose home is a boat and who does not have a permanent mooring for their boat with planning permission for year-round residential use.

 

 

So anyone living on a leisure home mooring now qualifies to join the NBTA, it appears.

 

When did they add that bit in? I don't remember it being there last time I looked.

 

 

 

(Edit to insert some missing precision!)

Edited November 18, 2016 by Mike the Boilerman