Equality Commision Investigates C&RT

[beerbeerbeerbeerbeer]

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.

Firstly I'll apologigse for such short posts, when lots are making an effort to post in length. I'm on a phone and it takes ages to type with thumbs.

 

We can change rules and regulations. Particulrly arbitary rules. If it makes for a more inclusive society.

There are too many exclusive rules.

[Teasel]

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.

 

It's not the travelling lifestyle which is the problem here - in fact, as hounddog said, a travelling lifestyle can bring huge advantages to children - learning resource autonomy; practical skills; living outdoors etc... It's not the travelling lifestyle which is the problem, it's the extent to which CRT considers it appropriate to control and enforce the way that it is lived, rather than providing facilities and management strategies that ensure it can be lived sustainably.

 

I think the assumption of 'free choice' in this context is also problematic - as above, we are in a time of extreme housing crisis- this is the best choice many people can make for themselves and their children. Beyond that, many if not most would prefer to make the same valid cultural lifestyle choice in any event, and to have that respected - in policy - rather than denied, as is their right.

 

In terms of parents 'abrogating their responsibilities', maybe we should look at whether the responsibility for CRT to act lawfully in setting its' guidelines has been properly satisfied before we decide who has dropped the pieces, and who needs to pick them up.

 

Thanks Glenn for above - it is my pleasure

[Allan(nb Albert)]

I would like to associate myself with the views of Magpie Patrick, Goliath and Teasel.

 

It would seem to me that many contributers to this thread have failed to read the NBTA press release before posting.

[beerbeerbeerbeerbeer]

 

Are you suggesting that the 'rules and regulations' that apply to the majority should to be amended to suit a minuscule 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.

I guess so.

Yea.

Dont forget the rules and regulations are set by a minuscule minority to govern the majority, and suite the upper minority.

Edited November 20, 2016 by Goliath

[Mikexx]

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.

 

Is that strictly true for old buildings? For new building access requirements are quite clear, including safe havens for wheelchair users in the event of fire through Part M Building regulations.

 

However, my understanding is that old buildings, including some that cannot be changed through historical listing etc, were exempt, subject to "reasonable adjustments".

[Teasel]

I think you're right Mike - it's all about the 'reasonableness' - it wouldn't be a blanket exemption as such, but while it's always reasonable in the modern age to build in anticipation of different needs, it may be less so - depending on heritage value/financial constraints/ alternative access opportunities etc to retrofit the same adjustments to much older buildings.

[Mikexx]

 

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 cannot be so wrong.

 

Clearly you aren't black, nor a woman and have a chip on your shoulder.

 

FYI, a socialist is someone who cares for those around them. Socialism was born out of the abusive nature of work houses and employers where children starved.

[Mikexx]

AFAIK, the Equality Act does not, as far as I can see, lay any duties with regard to the provision of Education (Schools specifically) other than on the providers ie controlling bodies and local authorities. There does not appear to be any more general duty to enable children to access a school (eg transport providers do not have to offer positive discrimination in the respect). (They, along with all service providers) have to treat other protected characteristics fairly)

 

 

I feel obliged to point out the education act specifically includes provision for travelling children, where local authorities are legally required to accept these children. Its quite pertinent to say that some of these laws originated from commercial traffic where families lived on boats and travelled around the coutry.

[Mikexx]

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.

 

 

I agree that it is a wonderful environment but in today's age, with emphasis on qualifications, don't you think that your grandchildren will be especially disadvantaged in comparison with their equivalent peers in full time education at one school?

 

Mind, land based employees are often taken for a ride, where the employer knows an employee won't uproot their family for a better job.

[hounddog]

You jest. My grandchildren will, in all probability, be, exactly like their parents, high-achievers in whatever field they choose to enter. It takes more than school to make an education but access to school is a basic human right.

 

Not my children but those of a friend, lived on a boat near to one location for their schooling, they both now study at Oxford, their parents, schooling done are now roaming far and wide over the system.

 

Your ignorance fails to see these facts. CRT doesn't prevent education, or schooling, it simply, in breach of the law, puts obstacles in its way.

Edited November 21, 2016 by hounddog

[mayalld]

Is that the case though Grahame? Assuming that we're not just talking about one particular boat here.

There must be some, surely, who would be happy to pay a mooring fee, were a suitable mooring available.

Others obviously couldn't give a toss, but can we lump them all together?

 

Suitable moorings are available.

 

They may not always be available (or available at a price that the particular individual can afford) within range of the selected school.

 

In that respect, the NBTA members are in exactly the same boat as land-dwellers who may find it impossible to secure a house within range of a particular school.

 

Are their human rights being infringed as well?

 

As I see it, the only potential duty here falls on the Local Authority, which should be considering providing residential moorings for those who meet the legal definition of being a traveller, but who now seek to temporarily or permanently cease travelling for any of the legally recognised reasons

[Alan de Enfield]

 

 

As I see it, the only potential duty here falls on the Local Authority, which should be considering providing residential moorings for those who meet the legal definition of being a traveller, but who now seek to temporarily or permanently cease travelling for any of the legally recognised reasons

 

Greeny for some 'common sense'

 

It is just as quoted in (I think post 141)

 

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".

Edited November 21, 2016 by Alan de Enfield

[Alan de Enfield]

CRT released the following statement on 14th November 2016:

 

“1. We are updating our published policies to reflect our obligations and current practices under the Equality Act – this will include how we assess and implement reasonable adjustments for disabled people and how we assess impacts and avoid unlawful discrimination against all protected characteristics – including in respect of pregnant boaters.

 

2. We will be happy to make this document accessible on our website and refer to it in other related documents – so that boaters who are not already aware of our current practices are aware of the updated published policy.

 

3. Enforcement officers already receive training in equality and will continue to do so.

 

4. We will continue to consider equality adjustments where appropriate in line with our obligations under the Equality Act.

 

5. We are currently seeking to assist boaters with school aged children establish compliant patterns of movement – any request to relax our requirements for this group we will balanced against a number of other legitimate aims, including our duties to manage the waterways, the need to mitigate congestion around certain parts of the network and fairness to other boaters.”

[MtB]

You jest. My grandchildren will, in all probability, be, exactly like their parents, high-achievers in whatever field they choose to enter. It takes more than school to make an education but access to school is a basic human right.

 

 

I'm curious. You keep saying this but is it true?

 

I have no grounding in philosophy but I struggle with the concept of 'human right' at all. How does the concept of 'basic human rights' arise please?

 

I can see that humans would consider awarding themselves such rights reasonable but even so, access to a school seems to me to be a higher level 'right'. (The truly basic 'human rights' being shelter, food and freedom from arbitrary arrest and imprisonment. There are probably others I can't think of now.)

[Mike Todd]

 

I feel obliged to point out the education act specifically includes provision for travelling children, where local authorities are legally required to accept these children. Its quite pertinent to say that some of these laws originated from commercial traffic where families lived on boats and travelled around the coutry.

I don't think that what you say is inconsistent with what I wrote and you cited.

[Mike Todd]

 

 

I'm curious. You keep saying this but is it true?

 

I have no grounding in philosophy but I struggle with the concept of 'human right' at all. How does the concept of 'basic human rights' arise please?

 

I can see that humans would consider awarding themselves such rights reasonable but even so, access to a school seems to me to be a higher level 'right'. (The truly basic 'human rights' being shelter, food and freedom from arbitrary arrest and imprisonment. There are probably others I can't think of now.)

This would take a very long screed even to begin to justice! However, the main effective matter is what can be argued under the Human Rights Act, which makes UK law compliant with its international treaty commitments (Which, incidentally, the UK was in the lead in forming). Of course, these rights may be taken away by a future government - something that keeps coming and going from the UK political agenda. The hue and cry from red tops usually follows what can sometimes seem to be a perverse interpretation of the law. The HRA is no different from any other law - plenty of examples in the courts over waterways legislation! The HRA is necessarily drawn very generally, which is why the processing of some cases is very complex and courts at higher levels may disagree with those at first determination. Inevitably, rights and duties run in parallel and some of the debates arise when one side of the balance seems to receive better treatment than the other. (To cite a small example: those who seek to be allowed to moor almost indefinitely in one place without payment but are not as keen on anti-litter and other environmental laws - of course most are even handed)

 

The question whether there is any such thing as a Natural Law has been a philosophical debate from way back in the mists of time. In general, it is not much help in the courts, AFAIK. 'basic human right' - without capitals - is mythological.

[IanD]

From the CRT press release:

 

5. We are currently seeking to assist boaters with school aged children establish compliant patterns of movement – any request to relax our requirements for this group we will balanced against a number of other legitimate aims, including our duties to manage the waterways, the need to mitigate congestion around certain parts of the network and fairness to other boaters.”

 

This is saying that "think-of-the-children's-education" will be taken into account, but not allowed to override all other considerations.

 

If anybody thinks they can propose something better, I'd be interested to hear what it is...

[Alan de Enfield]

From the CRT press release:

 

5. We are currently seeking to assist boaters with school aged children establish compliant patterns of movement – any request to relax our requirements for this group we will balanced against a number of other legitimate aims, including our duties to manage the waterways, the need to mitigate congestion around certain parts of the network and fairness to other boaters.”

 

This is saying that "think-of-the-children's-education" will be taken into account, but not allowed to override all other considerations.

 

If anybody thinks they can propose something better, I'd be interested to hear what it is...

 

Having 'agreed compliant patterns of movement' C&RT are then leaving themselves 'open' to everyone jumping on the 'bandwagon' and saying that now the 'rules' have been clarified they must apply to all.

 

Then another 'group' will loudly declare that C&RT have no powers to determine 'compliant movement patterns' and that the 1995 Act makes no mention of distance - and - has been stated in Court, it is 'intention', rather than 'distance' that determines compliance with 'Bona-Fide Navigation'.

 

Dammed if they do, Dammed if they don't.

[hounddog]

 

 

I'm curious. You keep saying this but is it true?

 

I have no grounding in philosophy but I struggle with the concept of 'human right' at all. How does the concept of 'basic human rights' arise please?

 

I can see that humans would consider awarding themselves such rights reasonable but even so, access to a school seems to me to be a higher level 'right'. (The truly basic 'human rights' being shelter, food and freedom from arbitrary arrest and imprisonment. There are probably others I can't think of now.)

I apologise, you are right, it's not a 'human' right, it's a legal right.

 

See the Education Act 1944. I shall be more careful in future.

 

Btw you forgot access to water.

[MtB]

I apologise, you are right, it's not a 'human' right, it's a legal right.

 

See the Education Act 1944. I shall be more careful in future.

 

Btw you forgot access to water.

 

 

Ah so now I'm even more confused. We are talking about using the Human Rights Act to enforce a legal right to schooling under the Education Act 1944?

 

No time to read it now.

 

But the name of the Human Rights Act sort of suggests there ARE some 'human rights'. What are they? Is one of them a right to a free of charge education?

 

Curiouser and curioser...

[AllanC]

Taken from the 'Human Rights Act 1998'

Article 2 E+W+S+N.I.Right to education

No person shall be denied the right to education. In the exercise of any functions which it assumes in relation to education and to teaching, the State shall respect the right of parents to ensure such education and teaching in conformity with their own religious and philosophical convictions.

 

Edit to say. I don't think this is relevant to the case in question.

Edited November 21, 2016 by AllanC

[Geo]

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.

 

I am sorry, I am aware of the 1995 think it is Act that defines the conditions under which CRT have to grant a licence under. As far as I can see there is not condition in that that requires a boater with a home mooring to do anything other than have that home mooring. However those that decide to CC are required to move every 14 days. So where in either bylaw or statute does it lay down that a boater with a home mooring has to move every 14 days or move at all?

[Alan de Enfield]

Taken from the 'Human Rights Act 1998'

Article 2 E+W+S+N.I.Right to education

No person shall be denied the right to education. In the exercise of any functions which it assumes in relation to education and to teaching, the State shall respect the right of parents to ensure such education and teaching in conformity with their own religious and philosophical convictions.

 

Edit to say. I don't think this is relevant to the case in question.

 

I think that is correct.

 

No body (no organisation) is denying the rights of the child to have an education, the problem occurs when the parents of the child(ren) expect their life-choices not to affect their children such that everyone else must adapt to 'suit them'.

[Geo]

...

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.

 

I think that is the important point. Given stability of location most parents cope with their children's education get to school etc. Being under a cosh of enforcement if they do not move every 14 days and a required but mythical distance boaters with school age children can find it impossible to cope with getting children to a stable school for education. Thus I believe in this case that CRT has to bend as well as the Act. The special consideration is being permitted to remain in a place that allows the parents to get the children their education.

[MtB]

 

I think that is correct.

 

No body (no organisation) is denying the rights of the child to have an education, the problem occurs when the parents of the child(ren) expect their life-choices not to affect their children such that everyone else must adapt to 'suit them'.

 

 

This is how I see it too.

 

The parents are setting arbitrary conditions of their own (i.e. we live on a boat and choose not to have a home mooring).

 

No-one is denying their children an education other than the parents, through their inappropriate decision(s) about where and how to live.