Equality Commision Investigates C&RT

[Arthur Marshall]

 

 

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...

MTB is correct of course - there are no such things as "human rights" except as how we ourselves define them, which is the purpose of the Human Rights Act (and the US Declaration, for that matter). It's just an attempt by what we think of as a civilised society to spread the civilisation around more fairly. Generally, things like access to education, clean air and water, shelter etc have to be fought for by someone or other at some time, and then fought to be kept from those who would rather take them away so they can make a profit from them. Whether you disagree with them or not, that's just what the Bargee boys are doing now.

[Geo]

 

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'.

 

I think the use of the word 'Choices' is interesting. Of the live-a-boards with children that I have know they have little or no 'choice' in where they live. Many have been through the mill of bad landlords, high rents etc. They have looked for a way to give their families a bit of stability with regard to their housing needs and the cheapest thing they can find is a boat. Many just scrape from week to week for the basics in life let alone the luxuries. Things that you and I take to be the norm, being able to put fuel in the car without think which person I owe money to is going to have to wait etc. No there is no real 'choice' there is only as I see it 'necessity' and that is no 'choice'.

Edited November 21, 2016 by Geo

[Sir Nibble]

 

I think the use of the word 'Choices' is interesting. Of the live-a-boards with children that I have know they have little or no 'choice' in where they live. Many have been through the mill of bad landlords, high rents etc. They have looked for a way to give their families a bit of stability with regard to their housing needs and the cheapest thing they can find is a boat. Many just scrap from week to week for the basics in life let alone the luxuries. Things that you and I take to be the norm, being able to put fuel in the car without think which person I owe money to is going to have to wait etc. No there is no real 'choice' there is only as I see it 'necessity' and that is no 'choice'.

I was under the impression that bargee travellers are completely in love with the waterways and even act as unpaid custodians making sure the waterway is clean and tidey and being the "Eyes of the waterway".

[Alan de Enfield]

 

I think the use of the word 'Choices' is interesting. Of the live-a-boards with children that I have know they have little or no 'choice' in where they live. Many have been through the mill of bad landlords, high rents etc. They have looked for a way to give their families a bit of stability with regard to their housing needs and the cheapest thing they can find is a boat. Many just scrap from week to week for the basics in life let alone the luxuries. Things that you and I take to be the norm, being able to put fuel in the car without think which person I owe money to is going to have to wait etc. No there is no real 'choice' there is only as I see it 'necessity' and that is no 'choice'.

 

Maybe the 'Can't Pay We'll Take it Away' programme has a lot to answer for - but - the implication is that for families, that would otherwise be homeless, will get Council accommodation - the argument being that it may well not be in an area that the family 'want to be in'.

 

Another 'choice' available is (if the family is in such financial 'dire straights' as you suggest) they could take a mooring, the mooring costs, Insurance and licence fees would be paid for by 'Benefits' - This, again. may result in the family not being where they would wish to be (but how many of us really are ?) It would then 'free up' money that they are currently paying on licence, insurance fuel etc. to pay for food, childrens' clothes etc. etc.

 

Living on a boat is a 'choice'.

[Geo]

I was under the impression that bargee travellers are completely in love with the waterways and even act as unpaid custodians making sure the waterway is clean and tidey and being the "Eyes of the waterway".

 

Maybe a better way of putting it is making the best of what they have got and doing their best to make sure that it does not get any worse than it is. In my young days it was interesting to notice that the streets that were the cleanest and had the brightest stoned steps and entrances, were in the poorest areas. It was the poor saying we maybe poor but we will live to the best standard we can with what little we have.

[Geo]

 

Maybe the 'Can't Pay We'll Take it Away' programme has a lot to answer for - but - the implication is that for families, that would otherwise be homeless, will get Council accommodation - the argument being that it may well not be in an area that the family 'want to be in'.

 

Another 'choice' available is (if the family is in such financial 'dire straights' as you suggest) they could take a mooring, the mooring costs, Insurance and licence fees would be paid for by 'Benefits' - This, again. may result in the family not being where they would wish to be (but how many of us really are ?) It would then 'free up' money that they are currently paying on licence, insurance fuel etc. to pay for food, childrens' clothes etc. etc.

 

Living on a boat is a 'choice'.

 

Well for starters there has to be housing available for families, locally there are a lot of one bedroom places available even the odd two bedroom but a three bedroom and you could have to wait in bed & breakfast for three years. What would you do subject your children and family to one room, a family room, and getting kicked out after breakfast only allowed to return in the late afternoon. I suspect your pride and honour would make you want to do something better, and a boat is a lot better.

 

As for a mooring, I bet a lot, if they could get a residential mooring, would take one paid for by the state. Oh hold on where are all these residential moorings, do you know of say a thousand residential mooring around the country that are vacant and available to people on benefits. Even house landlords do not like tenants who are on benefits hence they tend to end up with the bad landlords. Find the residential moorings and I suspect a goodly number would grab at the chance.

[Alan de Enfield]

 

 

As for a mooring, I bet a lot, if they could get a residential mooring, would take one paid for by the state. Oh hold on where are all these residential moorings, do you know of say a thousand residential mooring around the country that are vacant and available to people on benefits. Even house landlords do not like tenants who are on benefits hence they tend to end up with the bad landlords. Find the residential moorings and I suspect a goodly number would grab at the chance.

 

The Marina that we are in has several residential berths available.

It also has several 'moorers' who are on benefits / Pips and get their bills paid 'by the state'.

 

I am sure that there are a number of moorings available - but - not in the 'South' which is apparently where the majority wish to be

 

(Are you really suggesting that of the 5000 registered CCers that 1000 are the financial situation to describe).

[Athy]

I was under the impression that bargee travellers are completely in love with the waterways and even act as unpaid custodians making sure the waterway is clean and tidy and being the "Eyes of the waterway".

From what I have seen, yes, there's a lot of truth in this. Liveaboards seem to be clued up on what's doing on their section of waterway and who's doing it. They also voluntarily do jobs such as cutting back hedges and filling in holes in the towpath.

Have a greeno.

[Geo]

 

The Marina that we are in has several residential berths available.

It also has several 'moorers' who are on benefits / Pips and get their bills paid 'by the state'.

 

I am sure that there are a number of moorings available - but - not in the 'South' which is apparently where the majority wish to be

 

(Are you really suggesting that of the 5000 registered CCers that 1000 are the financial situation to describe).

 

BTW PIP is not a benefit in the normal meaning, it is a allowance given to the disabled regardless of income and is not means tested.

 

I am basing the figures on CRT's figures I saw recently of those who were on or on the edge of enforcement. Now of course I will readily accept that not all may have children, but the benefits you pointed to are payable even to single people, not just those with families. In the past I have manage to guide several people to those benefits enabling them to take moorings and get some stability in their lives. There is a greater problem with families with children. A single person can frequently moor on an online leisure mooring and quietly reside there and get away with it. For a family with children that does not work, children like to play, make a noise etc and it is obvious when they are there. Behaving as children should.

[Chewbacka]

A few years back I was chatting to a woman with a couple of kids that lived on her boat. I asked why she did not get the social to 'give' her a house etc under the benefits system. She had considered it, but did not want her children to grow up - her words - in a rough part of the city surrounded by drug dealers and gangs. She wanted better than that for her children. I fully understand her position, and if I had been in the same situation as her I would have considered the same.

 

So whilst we may say these bargees should get a residential mooring, there are very often none available, let alone at an affordable price. Trying to get the kids to school when you don't have a car or fuel for it and school is 10 miles away is impossible, unless the council accepts the children's right to an education and CRT's right to keep them moving and provides a daily taxi service when ever the travel distance is greater than a couple of miles. If they did supply a taxi, I think there would be a very negative reaction from certain sections of the media and public.

 

This problem is not going to go away, and I can see these people for whatever reason do not wish to move into inner city housing and will fight to maintain their life style. They are not even asking for money, just a place to moor during term times. Is that asking too much???

In answering my own question, maybe CRT or the council should provide a mini bus to drive up and down the canal every morning and evening taking the kids to and from school. That way the kids get to school and CRT keep them moving. Of course the old system of letting them stay put during term times is a lot cheaper.........

[Geo]

A few years back I was chatting to a woman with a couple of kids that lived on her boat. I asked why she did not get the social to 'give' her a house etc under the benefits system. She had considered it, but did not want her children to grow up - her words - in a rough part of the city surrounded by drug dealers and gangs. She wanted better than that for her children. I fully understand her position, and if I had been in the same situation as her I would have considered the same.

 

So whilst we may say these bargees should get a residential mooring, there are very often none available, let alone at an affordable price. Trying to get the kids to school when you don't have a car or fuel for it and school is 10 miles away is impossible, unless the council accepts the children's right to an education and CRT's right to keep them moving and provides a daily taxi service when ever the travel distance is greater than a couple of miles. If they did supply a taxi, I think there would be a very negative reaction from certain sections of the media and public.

 

This problem is not going to go away, and I can see these people for whatever reason do not wish to move into inner city housing and will fight to maintain their life style. They are not even asking for money, just a place to moor during term times. Is that asking too much???

 

I do not think it is asking too much. It is an investment in our young people and in the future long term boaters. Yes they are our young people, the people who, if we can educate them and find good jobs for them, will be paying the pensions etc of a lot of those who are members here in future years. Think of it as an investments in the future.

[Athy]

Of course the old system of letting them stay put during term times is a lot cheaper.........

You may be on to something here. There are plenty of schools which have boarding houses, and I know that in some cases parents can get their child's tuition and boarding fees paid for - but, having been out of the education system for a decade now, I can't remember what criteria apply.

[Alan de Enfield]

 

BTW PIP is not a benefit in the normal meaning, it is a allowance given to the disabled regardless of income and is not means tested.

 

I am basing the figures on CRT's figures I saw recently of those who were on or on the edge of enforcement. Now of course I will readily accept that not all may have children, but the benefits you pointed to are payable even to single people, not just those with families. In the past I have manage to guide several people to those benefits enabling them to take moorings and get some stability in their lives. There is a greater problem with families with children. A single person can frequently moor on an online leisure mooring and quietly reside there and get away with it. For a family with children that does not work, children like to play, make a noise etc and it is obvious when they are there. Behaving as children should.

 

I think that it is a bit of a 'leap' to suggest that every boater 'on the edge of enforcement' is there because of 'financial problems', or trying to stop in one place (or a restricted range of bridge hopping) because of having a family.

 

There are a goodly number who 'stop in one place' for work, hospitals, family and friends, its a 'nice area', or the just 'bloody minded' that think the world owes them the right to do whatever they wish.

 

I know of several (all single males) who fall in the latter category and have had PreCC1 letters and beyond.

 

It does appear that C&RT are looking to have discussions on 'acceptable' movements for CCers and it may be that in conjunction with the Local Council / Authorities they have to jointly provide suitable residential moorings - at that time those that are affected can choose to remain as CCers, and comply with whatever is proposed, or, take a mooring which should be at a 'commercial' rate for which the benefit system will pay for.

[Gareth E]

It hasn't been mentioned yet. If things are so dire out there, the only housing being in slum areas with slum landlords; CRT refusing to follow the lead of other authorities by discriminating in favour of families with children; what can be done?

 

Well, knowing all this, people most definitely still have choice. They could continue as they are doing; expect to do pretty well what they like and if not; some or other socialist inspired body will take up the cause and continue the attritional progress towards the eutopia where people without children are subjected to rules and high rates of tax enabling those with to freeload, and do as they like.

 

The choice of course is nobody is forced into having children. Choosing not to is definitely better for the environment and quite possibly; for society. Is it such an appealing choice though, not to, when you know that if you're poor, or unlucky, you might find yourself living in a cardboard box? Probably best to have one or two really, on reflection.

[Athy]

 

 

The choice of course is nobody is forced into having children. Choosing not to is definitely better for the environment and quite possibly; for society. Is it such an appealing choice though, not to, when you know that if you're poor, or unlucky, you might find yourself living in a cardboard box? Probably best to have one or two really, on reflection.

While I realise that you're joking, there's one flaw in your argument: if no one had children, the environment would suffer because there would be no one left to care for it.

[KevMc]

While I realise that you're joking, there's one flaw in your argument: if no one had children, the environment would suffer because there would be no one left to care for it.

 

... or no-one left to damage it ?

[MtB]

 

Well for starters there has to be housing available for families, locally there are a lot of one bedroom places available even the odd two bedroom but a three bedroom and you could have to wait in bed & breakfast for three years.

 

 

Can't help but observe that the one bed flat you dismiss as unsuitable is probably twice or three times the size of the boat this hypothetical family currently chooses to live in.

[hounddog]

 

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?

 

Because CRT can control mooring on their land (the towpath) as riparian owners, they are generously giving boaters with home moorings the same time limits to remain as those without have granted by law.

 

In fact, he says, casually tossing the cat amongst the pigeons, it's only those with home moorings to whom the concept of 'visitor mooring times' is legally binding, all boats without home mooring have the legal right to use them for 14 days.

[Geo]

 

I think that it is a bit of a 'leap' to suggest that every boater 'on the edge of enforcement' is there because of 'financial problems', or trying to stop in one place (or a restricted range of bridge hopping) because of having a family.

 

There are a goodly number who 'stop in one place' for work, hospitals, family and friends, its a 'nice area', or the just 'bloody minded' that think the world owes them the right to do whatever they wish.

 

I know of several (all single males) who fall in the latter category and have had PreCC1 letters and beyond.

 

It does appear that C&RT are looking to have discussions on 'acceptable' movements for CCers and it may be that in conjunction with the Local Council / Authorities they have to jointly provide suitable residential moorings - at that time those that are affected can choose to remain as CCers, and comply with whatever is proposed, or, take a mooring which should be at a 'commercial' rate for which the benefit system will pay for.

 

The problem with figures and CRT is the lack of them, but the need is to have figures to have an idea if it is really a problem or not. If on the whole of the system there were say a 100 I would not see that as a problem, simply find them a place problem solved. From the way things are being discussed and the couple of sites I know of down here, where I think the total would be about twenty with families, it would not surprise me if the total is not in the high hundreds. But the only people that know are the individuals and CRT.

 

As for what are reasonable movements discussions I seem to remember these happening before and coming to nothing as neither side could agree. Possibly with the Equalities Commission being around that might help both sides, we will see.

 

I just hope they find a solution that allows the children an families to be OK.

[hounddog]

 

I think that it is a bit of a 'leap' to suggest that every boater 'on the edge of enforcement' is there because of 'financial problems', or trying to stop in one place (or a restricted range of bridge hopping) because of having a family.

 

There are a goodly number who 'stop in one place' for work, hospitals, family and friends, its a 'nice area', or the just 'bloody minded' that think the world owes them the right to do whatever they wish.

 

I know of several (all single males) who fall in the latter category and have had PreCC1 letters and beyond.

 

It does appear that C&RT are looking to have discussions on 'acceptable' movements for CCers and it may be that in conjunction with the Local Council / Authorities they have to jointly provide suitable residential moorings - at that time those that are affected can choose to remain as CCers, and comply with whatever is proposed, or, take a mooring which should be at a 'commercial' rate for which the benefit system will pay for.

 

That is some chip you've got on your shoulder Alan.

[Geo]

 

 

Can't help but observe that the one bed flat you dismiss as unsuitable is probably twice or three times the size of the boat this hypothetical family currently chooses to live in.

 

I do not disagree, only problem is a council will not let a family with two/three children live in one.

 

Because CRT can control mooring on their land (the towpath) as riparian owners, they are generously giving boaters with home moorings the same time limits to remain as those without have granted by law.

 

In fact, he says, casually tossing the cat amongst the pigeons, it's only those with home moorings to whom the concept of 'visitor mooring times' is legally binding, all boats without home mooring have the legal right to use them for 14 days.

 

I think you will find that the common law rights that private riparian owners have do not apply to CRT. CRT have to work by and within the statutes that govern them and not common law.

 

As for the second paragraph I have a suspicion you are wrong and just trying to stir the pot.

[MtB]

 

I do not disagree, only problem is a council will not let a family with two/three children live in one.

 

Yet they are happy to 'allow' the same family to live in a boat...

 

This often puzzles me. Ever since I was evicted from my home mooring many years ago and the local councillor told me they were doing it for my own good, as boats were sub-standard accommodation. (Nothing to do with their subsequent construction of £5m worth of luxury flats on the site afterwards, obviously.)

[Geo]

 

Yet they are happy to 'allow' the same family to live in a boat...

 

This often puzzles me. Ever since I was evicted from my home mooring many years ago and the local councillor told me they were doing it for my own good, as boats were sub-standard accommodation. (Nothing to do with their subsequent construction of £5m worth of luxury flats on the site afterwards, obviously.)

 

Not 100% sure but I seem to remember that the laws about substandard accommodation and over crowding etc only apply to rental properties and not owner occupied properties. Own it and you and your family can squeeze as tight as you wish.

 

Of course it was for your own good it kept you out of all that building muck and dust

Edited November 21, 2016 by Geo

[Athy]

 

That is some chip you've got on your shoulder Alan.

?

Alan's post is reasonable and informative, obviously based on first-hand knowledge. What makes you think that he has a chip on his shoulder?

[Teasel]

Can anyone tell me please - if a new set of guidelines was written to apply to everyone, not just people with children, that solved this problem of getting the kids to school, would there be a problem be with that?

 

If it was for everyone - whether kids or not. No favourable treatment for anyone, but rules that made it possible to get kids to schools.. Would this be easier to accept than rules that are just for families?

 

Thanks