Equality Commision Investigates C&RT

[Jerra]

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.

By this do you mean make them into permanent moorings rather than move the moorers on to find already established permanent moorings?

[Alan de Enfield]

By this do you mean make them into permanent moorings rather than move the moorers on to find already established permanent moorings?

 

I may be misunderstanding but I read Nigel as saying that the provision of 'permanent' moorings are not within their power to grant, and that any boat on such a mooring can actually be a restriction to navigation under S.21

 

They are not allowed to 'turn a blind eye' to the 14 day rule by the 'taking of a bribe'

Edited November 19, 2016 by Alan de Enfield

[NigelMoore]

 

I may be misunderstanding but I read Nigel as saying that the provision of 'permanent' moorings are not within their power to grant, and that any boat on such a mooring can actually be a restriction to navigation under S.21

 

The provision of permanent moorings is certainly within their gift - it is just that this is restricted to the offside land that they may own, same as with private owners of such land. They have no power to remove from the public, facilities for the sole use of individuals. As a charity, the demand to provide public amenity is paramount, and the towpath is just such an amenity.

 

S.21 is not to do with obstructive moorings, or restrictions to navigation per se; it is to do with regulation of private moorings where the infrastructure can be deemed unsafe [which could be seen as potentially obstructive in effect, of course]. It allows the Board to designate a stretch of waterway for the purpose of making safety certificates for the structures mandatory.

 

Nowadays, as with so much of the law, it is entirely disregarded and they demand that any such structures meet their specifications and approval [at a cost] without bothering with due process. They were not permitted to charge under the Act either; the purpose was solely for ensuring the safety of the navigation and its users, and they were specifically forbidden to use the power in the way that the ultra vires version is used, to control private moorings [as in the sense of denying such rights except upon their consent].

[Teasel]

I'm just going to wade in here, going back to the school thing - I think there's some misunderstanding about whose rights are at issue. People are right to say that the Equality Act makes no specific provision for the parents of school age children in this context, but Article 2 of the 1st Protocol to the European Convention on Human Rights provides that the children​ have a right to access their education.

 

Whatever moral judgment it may or may not be appropriate to make against individual liveaboard parents, it is not appropriate for any of us to punish or blame their children, and it is not appropriate under the law for CRT to act in a way that is unlawful or disproportionate and which has the effect of obstructing or denying a child their right to access their education. CRT have specifically anticipated the presence of school age children in their cc guidance, by stating that needing to stay within commuting distance of a school is not a good enough reason to stay within one locality. This means that they acknowledge that this is an issue for people, but yet, still now they state that the only time it is relevant to them whether a boat is being used as a home is when they want to use enforcement proceedings under s8. They set their guidance in the clear knowledge that it will affect children's access to education, but without taking this into account for the purposes of their interpretation.

 

The law does not define place, neither does it set any minimum distance requirements, nor, as far as I know, any powers for the Trust to set them themselves. The law does say, at s3(1) of the Human Rights Act 1998 that 'So far as it is possible to do so, primary legislation and subordinate legislation must be read and given effect in a way which is compatible with the Convention rights.' This means that CRT's interpretation, which must by law be human rights compliant when they ​make it, as well as when a court does, is clearly not. It is not appropriate or lawful for CRT to interpret the 95 Act entirely in their own favour and without regard to other relevant statutes.

 

I have no children. As far as I know, the law provides me with no rights whatsoever to leisure and tourism opportunities of my choice and convenience. This would not be 'in the public interest', clearly. Conversely, it is indisputably in the public interest for us to educate and care for all children. To this effect, the law provides every child with a right to non-discrimination and the right to an education. The question of 'fairness to other boaters' surely must take into account what the law considers to be fair, rather than what the 'other boaters' do.

[NigelMoore]

By this do you mean make them into permanent moorings rather than move the moorers on to find already established permanent moorings?

 

I have dealt with this aspect long ago. It would be utterly unfair to make those who relied on the authority's representations of false entitlement, suffer for that. The proper way to reduce these towpath moorings is as BW and then CaRT have done, taking them out of use as offline facilities in the vicinity are made available [and the same should apply to online but offside moorings].

 

Having made that clear, I would, however, suggest that where existing towpath moorings do remain, CaRT have an obligation to ensure that everyone moors appropriately so that impeding the navigation is minimised. There can be NO justification for these moored boats to require slowing down of passing boats, and rather than pander to their own neglect, CaRT should give priority to ensuring that until lawful alternatives are made available, these towpath moorings sites should be adequately dredged; the mooring rings etc sufficient in number and strength, and all berth holders required as a condition of their agreement to moor properly.

 

Anyone on these moorings screaming abuse at lawfully navigating boats should have their agreement terminated and the site vacated.

[Alan de Enfield]

I'm just going to wade in here, going back to the school thing - I think there's some misunderstanding about whose rights are at issue. People are right to say that the Equality Act makes no specific provision for the parents of school age children in this context, but Article 2 of the 1st Protocol to the European Convention on Human Rights provides that the children​ have a right to access their education.

 

Whatever moral judgment it may or may not be appropriate to make against individual liveaboard parents, it is not appropriate for any of us to punish or blame their children, and it is not appropriate under the law for CRT to act in a way that is unlawful or disproportionate and which has the effect of obstructing or denying a child their right to access their education. CRT have specifically anticipated the presence of school age children in their cc guidance, by stating that needing to stay within commuting distance of a school is not a good enough reason to stay within one locality. This means that they acknowledge that this is an issue for people, but yet, still now they state that the only time it is relevant to them whether a boat is being used as a home is when they want to use enforcement proceedings under s8. They set their guidance in the clear knowledge that it will affect children's access to education, but without taking this into account for the purposes of their interpretation.

 

The law does not define place, neither does it set any minimum distance requirements, nor, as far as I know, any powers for the Trust to set them themselves. The law does say, at s3(1) of the Human Rights Act 1998 that 'So far as it is possible to do so, primary legislation and subordinate legislation must be read and given effect in a way which is compatible with the Convention rights.' This means that CRT's interpretation, which must by law be human rights compliant when they ​make it, as well as when a court does, is clearly not. It is not appropriate or lawful for CRT to interpret the 95 Act entirely in their own favour and without regard to other relevant statutes.

 

I have no children. As far as I know, the law provides me with no rights whatsoever to leisure and tourism opportunities of my choice and convenience. This would not be 'in the public interest', clearly. Conversely, it is indisputably in the public interest for us to educate and care for all children. To this effect, the law provides every child with a right to non-discrimination and the right to an education. The question of 'fairness to other boaters' surely must take into account what the law considers to be fair, rather than what the 'other boaters' do.

 

So, to use a land based comparison - if I buy a camper-van, and want to educate my child in a 'good school' I can just roll up and set up home in a public park within the catchment area of my chosen school, and the police, landowner, or local authorities can do nothing to 'move me on' because my child's Human Rights mean they can have an education ?

[furnessvale]

 

So, to use a land based comparison - if I buy a camper-van, and want to educate my child in a 'good school' I can just roll up and set up home in a public park within the catchment area of my chosen school, and the police, landowner, or local authorities can do nothing to 'move me on' because my child's Human Rights mean they can have an education ?

I have stated a few times in this forum, to those who would have the canals in London used as a supplementary housing pool, that Hyde Park would be a good location to place caravans, and let's see just how long they remain insitu!

 

George ex nb Alton retired

[Gareth E]

Having thought this through it now seems clearer, as to what the confusion is.

 

Whilst parents with children are not a specific protected group we should consider:

 

1/ The cost of bringing up children, for those under average income, is largely borne by the state. Or if you like, the cost of bringing them up is paid for by those without children, rather than those with.

 

2/ All local authorities will oust a person without children from the top of the social housing, regardless of how long they've been waiting, in favour of any newly joined applicant with children.

 

3/ Those with children, particularly women, are less likely to receive a custodial sentence following a criminal conviction, than those without.

 

So: when the government, local authorities and the judiciary behaves in such a way to suggest that those with children are indeed protected, it's easier to see why a group representing travelling boaters might think the same.

[Graham Davis]

I'm just going to wade in here, going back to the school thing - I think there's some misunderstanding about whose rights are at issue. People are right to say that the Equality Act makes no specific provision for the parents of school age children in this context, but Article 2 of the 1st Protocol to the European Convention on Human Rights provides that the children​ have a right to access their education.

 

As far as I can see, yes it gives them a right to education, but that does not specify where that education establishment has to be.

There are plenty of examples of "brick dwellers" hoping to get their children into schools in their area but finding them over subscribed, resulting in their child having to travel long distances to the nearest school with spaces.

[Arthur Marshall]

 

As far as I can see, yes it gives them a right to education, but that does not specify where that education establishment has to be.

There are plenty of examples of "brick dwellers" hoping to get their children into schools in their area but finding them over subscribed, resulting in their child having to travel long distances to the nearest school with spaces.

Being on a boat, of course also means they can easily move to somewhere they can access a scbool. Just might not be where they want to be.

[MtB]

Being on a boat, of course also means they can easily move to somewhere they can access a scbool. Just might not be where they want to be.

 

 

Yeahbutnobut....

 

It would have to be a different skool every two weeks if parents CCed compliantly.

[Teasel]

Hi Alan de Enfield, I don't know how to quote but - no, there's no need for a 'land-based comparison', as the waterways in question ​are​ land under the law. You can't just park your camper van in a catchment area for a good school where the relevant laws prohibit that. Property law stops you just using anyone's private property, the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act made criminal offences of trespassing on land in order to outlaw road-based traveller communities. Liveaboard boaters are not trespassers - they hold licences. The waterways are not private property in the same way that your garden is - they are held in Trust for the nation.

 

Your child's Human Rights to an education will not help on other land for 2 reasons (and probably more):

 

1. Private property - the Human Rights Act only applies to 'public authorities', or in our case, a hybrid authority (CRT) for the purposes of it's 'public functions' (boat licencing is one). The owner of any private property you park your camper van on is protected by Art. 1 of Protocol 1 ECHR - the right to the peaceful enjoyment of property - and not required to consider any human rights in any case. The police/ local authority are likely to help you evict unlawful trespassers of this kind from your land.

 

2. In the event that your camper van is on public authority land, there will be other law in play regarding the proportionality of interference with education, and these are subject to the same interpretive provisions under s(3) of the HRA. Here on the Waterways, the relevant law is s17(3)©(ii) of the 95 Act, so that's the one we need to interpret. As I said above - the HRA requires that where there is an ambiguity, (which is what we're talking about) the primary statute is interpreted as far as possible in such a way as to protect Human Rights.

 

To Furnessvale - Hyde Park has never been recognized or legitimised as a residential space, and there is no licence available to the public which will allow them to use it as such. The canals, on the other hand, have been used residentially since they were built, and have provided a 'supplementary housing pool' in times of housing crisis throughout their history. A private bill was promoted by Harry Gosling in 1929 to ban children from the boats, and the Ministry of Health raised a 'manifest objection to doing anything to exacerbate the current housing shortage' The 1st Charitable Objective of the Trust now is to keep them open for navigation for boats - specifically to include boats used also for human habitation (see 'navigation' in the defined terms). This means that they should anticipate the residential use of boats when setting their guidelines, and make sure that they are HR compliant.

 

to Gareth E, I can see what you're saying, but again, the families who take precedence in Social Housing lists would not enjoy the same priority need status without the children - it is the children who are being protected, This is because they are 'vulnerable' under the law by definition, and homelessness law recognises that. In fact though, if you actually look at the state of housing provision for vulnerable families in this country right now, you'll find 100'000's of children living in B and B's; and in appallingly sub-standard, over-priced and insecure private rented tenancies. For the avoidance of doubt - this is the result of the Government's Housing Policy and global economic crisis, not the parents moral failure. It is definitely not the children's fault.

 

It is not true that women receive fewer custodial sentences than men for comparable crimes - they commit less crime, and when they are convicted, they are generally treated more ​punitively than men, including receiving more of the most damaging kinds of sentences where less damaging ones are available - short term custodial sentences for petty crime. Women are also far more likely to become 'criminals' as a result of victimisation by far worse criminals than they are than men.

 

To Graham Davis - you're right, there are plenty of other people facing serious challenges with educating their children. Our law is the '95 Act, and it needs to be interpreted so as not to interfere with the education of children living on boats. As there is no definition of 'place' in the Act, and no minimum distance requirement, we have an opportunity (an obligation actually) there to protect the rights of the children in our own community.

 

It's true that people can move to schools, but the difference for educational outcomes between being able to settle in one school not of your first choice, and being forced to move between schools throughout your education is huge. 'New Traveller' children suffer the worst educational outcomes of any minority group in the UK.

 

It's not about letting people do whatever they want because they have children, it's about interpreting the law in such a way that the most vulnerable members of our community, and those with the least choice in their personal circumstances, are protected. Residential moorings are extremely difficult to come by - in whatever area - and housing possibly even more so. The 14 day rule still applies, and in and of itself does not interfere with educational opportunities for children. It is the interpretation of it that does that.

 

Whatever politics arise on the waterways, is it fair to bring them to bear on the children here? They have no choices about where they live, they have no contract with CRT, and they don't know what politics means - although I have personally seen a child, playing alone, unaware I was there, acting out an enforcement officer scenario with toy figures. These issues affect them. We should remember that. As has been said so often before - the enforcement of the 'guidelines' cannot actually 'solve' any of the issues it seeks to, other than to demonstrate 'fairness' to 'other boaters'. Making children pay for our politics is not fair.

 

There are other solutions. If we just start from the rights of the children - these children who are here, in their own unique environment - we might find that we all benefit in the end.

[Arthur Marshall]

To say we are making children pay for our politcs is a bit dodgy - you could as well argue that the parents are using their children to try and circumvent the rules,when in fact they have other options. Maybe if you want to be a traveller, you have to take the responsibility for your own kids - you may even have to do some work and educate them yourself.

[MtB]

How does this compare with the education difficulties facing land-based traveller communities? What education solutions exist for the kids who live in the caravans that temporarily populate the roadside verges here and there?

[magpie patrick]

How does this compare with the education difficulties facing land-based traveller communities? What education solutions exist for the kids who live in the caravans that temporarily populate the roadside verges here and there?

 

The definition of a traveller includes someone who is not travelling by reason of educational needs (it also includes health and old age): I can't quote the exact defintion from memory and I have other things to do this morning. However, before anyone leaps up and down, one has to have been a traveller and have stopped travelling for reasons of your child's education, you can't just decide once children appear that you would have been a traveller if only...

 

In this context, the NBTA ae asking for less than the law allows land based travellers, as they don't have to move at all. The NBTA are suggesting that they be allowed to limit their movements in term time to remain within reach of the school the child is at (note within reach, not within the catchment, and there is no suggestion it should be a particular school other than the one the child is currently attending)

[Alan de Enfield]

Hasn't the recent change in the law affected the 'DUTY' to provide etc etc ?

 

From the Bath & NE Somerset Council website

 

Section 124 of the Housing and Planning Act :2016 removes the duty on local authorities under the Housing Act 2004 to assess the accommodation needs of Gypsies and travellers in their area as a distinct category. Instead, it specifies that local housing authorities should consider the needs of people "residing in or resorting to their district with respect to the provision of sites on which caravans can be stationed, or places on inland waterways where houseboats can be moored".

 

So that if , having 'considered' the needs, they subsequently decide to 'do nothing' have they complied with the legal requirements ?

 

An interesting Government document covering 'Traveller' Children and Education

 

Attendance-advice-gypsy-roma-traveller-children.pdf

 

For the purposes of this advice only, the term ‘Gypsy, Roma and Traveller families’ means:

a) •

i. Gypsies inc. Romanies, Romanichals, Welsh Gypsies/Kaale, Scottish Gypsies/Travellers;

ii. Irish Travellers, Minceir;

iii. Roma from Eastern and Central Europe;

iv. Showmen (Fairground people);

v. Circus people;

vi. Boat Travellers/Bargees;

vii. New Travellers or New Age Travellers;

 

and

b ) the parent/carer is engaged in a trade or business of such a nature that requires them to • travel from place to place.

 

This advice on school attendance only applies to families who meet the criteria at both a) and b ) above.

So 'travellers do not need to stay in one place and for the children be educated at just one school - they can move around the country being educated (and registered at) a number of schools.

 

If the parents are not 'moving around' because of work requirements then it does not apply.

 

This needs someone a bit cleverer than me to sort out.

 

Edit to remove a 'smiley' and replace with b )

Edited November 20, 2016 by Alan de Enfield

[Graham Davis]

Could get interesting if that does take precedent over what the NBTA are arguing about.

[Teasel]

To say we are making children pay for our politcs is a bit dodgy - you could as well argue that the parents are using their children to try and circumvent the rules,when in fact they have other options. Maybe if you want to be a traveller, you have to take the responsibility for your own kids - you may even have to do some work and educate them yourself.

 

Seems a strange argument to raise having previously said 'Ultimately this is a political problem'. You could argue that if you wanted, but you'd be illustrating rather than disproving my point that we shouldn't make children pay for our politics, by taking an explicitly moral and political position in order to argue against their lawful human right to an education. You'd also need to prove that each individual child whose rights are being affected was being used by his or her parents for this purpose, and having done that, you'd then need to demonstrate how and why that is unlawful in such away as to justify an interference with the rights of that same child, rather than to justify intervention on behalf of the child against the parents. You'd also need to show that the 'rules' that are being circumvented in this way are themselves lawfully enforceable.

 

The travellers we're talking about are taking responsibility for their own kids, by doing everything they can to ensure that they have a home and an education. As I've said - I'm not a parent, I still think we should make sure the children here are not educationally and socially disadvantaged by the way we share this space.

 

There is no reason why a set of guidelines that has been drafted without regard for Human Rights and applied to the whole 'cc' population should not be amended to be Human rights compliant, and still apply to everyone - there is no need for CRT to discriminate here either positively or negatively, just to act lawfully. There is no distance requirement in the '95 Act, there is no 'cruising pattern.' There is no need for them.

 

The management strategy at the moment focusses on using sanctions and threats to control peoples' behaviour in order (theoretically) to solve issues of congestion and 'unfairness'. This has had a clear impact on children's access to their education. I suggest, that if CRT want to fulfil their public benefit obligations of keeping the waterways navigable by residential boats, they could achieve more sustainable outcomes for everyone by looking at the issues that raises, and taking a rights-based approach to how to deal with them.

 

My understanding has been that better provision of water points, dredging, mooring rings, bins, sanitary facilities, economic opportunities and general good will towards boat families - possibly including provision of more affordable (or any affordable) residential mooring sites may go a good way further towards achieving the kind of outcomes we need to see.

 

At present, CRT insist that the only time it is relevant to them whether a boat is used as a home is if they're trying to take it off their water. The public benefit in the residential use of boats on the waterways is recognised and furthered by the first of their charitable objects. I think they need to consider how this can best be facilitated and managed to produce the best outcomes for all users earlier on in the process.

[Jerra]

 

The travellers we're talking about are taking responsibility for their own kids, by doing everything they can to ensure that they have a home and an education. As I've said - I'm not a parent, I still think we should make sure the children here are not educationally and socially disadvantaged by the way we share this space.

 

I am sorry but I can't agree that "The travellers we're talking about are taking responsibility for their own kids, by doing everything they can to ensure that they have a home and an education. ".

 

If the parents were doing everything they can they wouldn't have adopted a travelling life style while they had children of school age. By choosing to adopt a travelling life style during those years they are disadvantaging the children.

 

While I agree society shouldn't disadvantage them this is ,to me at least, yet another example of parents abrogating their responsibilities and expecting society to pick up the pieces.

[hounddog]

Sorry Jerra but that's just nonsense and a wee bit prejudicial nonsense at that. A travelling lifestyle is a valid lifestyle choice and a wonderful environment for children.

 

I'm certainly glad I brought my kids up on the boats rather than some inner-city sunk estate ( not that I would have done this). Incidentally they are now bringing up my grandchildren in the same traditions.

 

As Teasel says, CRT's restrictions are arbitrary and could, just as easily, be written to facilitate rather than obstruct access to schooling.

[beerbeerbeerbeerbeer]

Hi Alan de Enfield, I don't know how to quote but - no, there's no need for a 'land-based comparison', as the waterways in question ​are​ land under the law. You can't just park your camper van in a catchment area for a good school where the relevant laws prohibit that. Property law stops you just using anyone's private property, the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act made criminal offences of trespassing on land in order to outlaw road-based traveller communities. Liveaboard boaters are not trespassers - they hold licences. The waterways are not private property in the same way that your garden is - they are held in Trust for the nation.

 

Your child's Human Rights to an education will not help on other land for 2 reasons (and probably more):

 

1. Private property - the Human Rights Act only applies to 'public authorities', or in our case, a hybrid authority (CRT) for the purposes of it's 'public functions' (boat licencing is one). The owner of any private property you park your camper van on is protected by Art. 1 of Protocol 1 ECHR - the right to the peaceful enjoyment of property - and not required to consider any human rights in any case. The police/ local authority are likely to help you evict unlawful trespassers of this kind from your land.

 

2. In the event that your camper van is on public authority land, there will be other law in play regarding the proportionality of interference with education, and these are subject to the same interpretive provisions under s(3) of the HRA. Here on the Waterways, the relevant law is s17(3)©(ii) of the 95 Act, so that's the one we need to interpret. As I said above - the HRA requires that where there is an ambiguity, (which is what we're talking about) the primary statute is interpreted as far as possible in such a way as to protect Human Rights.

 

To Furnessvale - Hyde Park has never been recognized or legitimised as a residential space, and there is no licence available to the public which will allow them to use it as such. The canals, on the other hand, have been used residentially since they were built, and have provided a 'supplementary housing pool' in times of housing crisis throughout their history. A private bill was promoted by Harry Gosling in 1929 to ban children from the boats, and the Ministry of Health raised a 'manifest objection to doing anything to exacerbate the current housing shortage' The 1st Charitable Objective of the Trust now is to keep them open for navigation for boats - specifically to include boats used also for human habitation (see 'navigation' in the defined terms). This means that they should anticipate the residential use of boats when setting their guidelines, and make sure that they are HR compliant.

 

to Gareth E, I can see what you're saying, but again, the families who take precedence in Social Housing lists would not enjoy the same priority need status without the children - it is the children who are being protected, This is because they are 'vulnerable' under the law by definition, and homelessness law recognises that. In fact though, if you actually look at the state of housing provision for vulnerable families in this country right now, you'll find 100'000's of children living in B and B's; and in appallingly sub-standard, over-priced and insecure private rented tenancies. For the avoidance of doubt - this is the result of the Government's Housing Policy and global economic crisis, not the parents moral failure. It is definitely not the children's fault.

 

It is not true that women receive fewer custodial sentences than men for comparable crimes - they commit less crime, and when they are convicted, they are generally treated more ​punitively than men, including receiving more of the most damaging kinds of sentences where less damaging ones are available - short term custodial sentences for petty crime. Women are also far more likely to become 'criminals' as a result of victimisation by far worse criminals than they are than men.

 

To Graham Davis - you're right, there are plenty of other people facing serious challenges with educating their children. Our law is the '95 Act, and it needs to be interpreted so as not to interfere with the education of children living on boats. As there is no definition of 'place' in the Act, and no minimum distance requirement, we have an opportunity (an obligation actually) there to protect the rights of the children in our own community.

 

It's true that people can move to schools, but the difference for educational outcomes between being able to settle in one school not of your first choice, and being forced to move between schools throughout your education is huge. 'New Traveller' children suffer the worst educational outcomes of any minority group in the UK.

 

It's not about letting people do whatever they want because they have children, it's about interpreting the law in such a way that the most vulnerable members of our community, and those with the least choice in their personal circumstances, are protected. Residential moorings are extremely difficult to come by - in whatever area - and housing possibly even more so. The 14 day rule still applies, and in and of itself does not interfere with educational opportunities for children. It is the interpretation of it that does that.

 

Whatever politics arise on the waterways, is it fair to bring them to bear on the children here? They have no choices about where they live, they have no contract with CRT, and they don't know what politics means - although I have personally seen a child, playing alone, unaware I was there, acting out an enforcement officer scenario with toy figures. These issues affect them. We should remember that. As has been said so often before - the enforcement of the 'guidelines' cannot actually 'solve' any of the issues it seeks to, other than to demonstrate 'fairness' to 'other boaters'. Making children pay for our politics is not fair.

 

There are other solutions. If we just start from the rights of the children - these children who are here, in their own unique environment - we might find that we all benefit in the end.

Thanks for taking time to write that, and the other post. Good to read posts that are informative and contain opinion based on experience.

 

Glenn

Edited November 20, 2016 by Goliath

[Jerra]

Sorry Jerra but that's just nonsense and a wee bit prejudicial nonsense at that. A travelling lifestyle is a valid lifestyle choice and a wonderful environment for children.

 

I'm certainly glad I brought my kids up on the boats rather than some inner-city sunk estate ( not that I would have done this). Incidentally they are now bringing up my grandchildren in the same traditions.

 

As Teasel says, CRT's restrictions are arbitrary and could, just as easily, be written to facilitate rather than obstruct access to schooling.

In your opinion yes. I have taught many travelling kids over the years being near the Appleby Horse Fair. Travelling is a great life style, true and if somebody wants to choose travelling as a life style that is their choice.

 

However I see no reason why society has to change its rules and regulations to suit them. Coupled with that the minute you stop in one place for the kids education it isn't a travelling life style. It is just like anybody else's life style stuck in one place in the accommodation of choice in the area of choice.

 

Once that happens there is no need for special consideration, the parents over come the obstacles to get the kids to school, just as the framer living in a remote place a couple of miles form the school bus route has to over come the obstacles to their kids to school.

[beerbeerbeerbeerbeer]

 

 

However I see no reason why society has to change its rules and regulations to suit them.

'they' are part of society.

[Alan de Enfield]

'they' are part of society.

 

Are you suggesting that the 'rules and regulations' that apply to the majority should to be amended to suit a miniscule minority of society that choose their 'way of life', (disabled people do not get to choose their lifestyle, whilst people living on boats do), and they know the 'rules' when they make their decision.

[Jerra]

'they' are part of society.

True what I should have tried to say is that society can't change its rules and regulations for every minority group as many would have conflicting wants and desires.

 

For example I and a number of others in a dialect society I know would want all children taught their local dialect in school. Not a chance as those who want that are in such a minority. Some minorities just have to accept they can't have everything they want as I accept there is no way dialect will be taught in school.

 

There is also they point which doesn't seem to be being addressed much; it is the parents responsibility to ensure the child gets education or to home educate. Travellers who want to be static travellers have the same responsibility as those who don't travel i.e. to live thier lives in a way which allows their children to be educated.