Alan de Enfield Posted March 25, 2017 Report Share Posted March 25, 2017 (edited) From Narrow Boat World. http://www.narrowboatworld.com/index.php/news-flash/9766-illegally-moored-boaters-will-be-evicted Illegally moored boaters will be evicted Wednesday, 22 March 2017 13:50 RESIDENT boaters on the Cam in Cambridge are to be evicted from the waterway if they do not have a legal mooring on the river and no licence. Last year there was jubilation, particularly by members of the National Bargee Travellers Association (NBTA) when they were assured, after taking to the streets and protesting, that the result of a consultation by Cambridge City Council assured boaters that they would be allowed to stay. ('Bargees' take on Cambridge City Council.) Acted as a magnet But then the outcome was obvious—it acted as a magnet to more and more boats who proceeded to moor all along the river banks causing problems, all without any mooring rights and some even without licences. At a recent council meeting it was heard that there was a long list for mooring on the river, and some new ones will be provided, but fees are set to be increased and that it was important to regulate the ever increasing number of boats with licences, and none with licences will be made homeless but no such guarantee could be given for those without. Charged on their length A further method of regulating moorings is that in future the single occupancy would be removed and boats will now be charged on their length. But it was stated at the meeting that new spaces have been found for other moorings that are safe and a good compromise with more services in the future, but is has to be paid for, and it is not fair that the local tax payer picks it up. Needless to say there has been another demonstration by the those who desire to moor their boats on the Cam in Cambridge, but without paying. Edited March 25, 2017 by Alan de Enfield Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OldGoat Posted March 25, 2017 Report Share Posted March 25, 2017 It must be an age problem - I don't expect anything of right, certainly not to stop and do as I please without "check or hindrance" anywhere. So why should anyone else? Everything costs somebody, somewhere and in these times of ever reducing central government funding, LAs have to look to more users for a contribution (or more). So what's so special about the NBTA??? Harrumph. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Taslim Posted March 25, 2017 Report Share Posted March 25, 2017 9 minutes ago, OldGoat said: It must be an age problem - I don't expect anything of right, certainly not to stop and do as I please without "check or hindrance" anywhere. So why should anyone else? Everything costs somebody, somewhere and in these times of ever reducing central government funding, LAs have to look to more users for a contribution (or more). So what's so special about the NBTA??? Harrumph. Not an age problem I think but the squeaky wheel gets the grease. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mark99 Posted March 25, 2017 Report Share Posted March 25, 2017 (edited) Poetic justice of a sort. Freeloaders messed up by ..... freeloaders. Either they have been naive or Cambridge CC have played a long clever game. Edited March 25, 2017 by mark99 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Martin Megson Posted March 25, 2017 Report Share Posted March 25, 2017 I can't help noticing that the NBTA only seem to protest when they are not allowed to stay somewhere long term. I thought the T stood for Travellers. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alan de Enfield Posted March 25, 2017 Author Report Share Posted March 25, 2017 Just now, Martin Megson said: I thought the T stood for Travellers I thought the T was a shortening of the name of someone who throws something (a ball maybe) to another. Dictionary definition : Toss - to throw (something) somewhere lightly or casually Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mark99 Posted March 25, 2017 Report Share Posted March 25, 2017 More like a buzzword to try to confer some "rights" afforded to others. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted March 25, 2017 Report Share Posted March 25, 2017 Strictly speaking the NBTA represent a 'socio-economic economic' group, rather than ethnic Travellers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MtB Posted March 25, 2017 Report Share Posted March 25, 2017 On 25/03/2017 at 21:43, Meanderingviking said: Strictly speaking the NBTA represent a 'socio-economic economic' group, rather than ethnic Travellers. Yes. But the colloquial term for a 'socio-economic economic' group is a 'bunch of freeloaders' as any fule kno. A what on earth is an "ethnic Traveller" anyway, seeing as you mention them? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MtB Posted March 25, 2017 Report Share Posted March 25, 2017 Oh hang on. does it mean people like US???!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul C Posted March 26, 2017 Report Share Posted March 26, 2017 2 hours ago, Meanderingviking said: Strictly speaking the NBTA represent a 'socio-economic economic' group, rather than ethnic Travellers. Strictly speaking, NBTA don't represent anybody because they don't have a mandate, because they don't have any type of elected/selection system to determine representitives who speak on behalf of a wider group. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FadeToScarlet Posted March 26, 2017 Report Share Posted March 26, 2017 Not the most accurate reporting in the world. There has been a section of river where mooring has been unregulated for the past 25 years, with wrangles over ownership. The city council believes it has now proved ownership, and in October 2014 had liveaboard boaters register that they were there, onto a regulated (but free of charge) mooring scheme. Now, they plan to keep only 7 moorings (or of 30 or so boats) and the remaining 12 on the regulated list, they say, will be found moorings elsewhere, on the paid for residential mooring scheme- not that there is enough physical space, as I told the committee at their meeting having measured it, but they told me that thEy were sure there was..... We shall see. Any new boats arriving (three) since 2014 didn't influence the Council; 2 have since left. The problem for the Council will come when they try and move the 12 boats onto their other paid-for moorings, and attempt to evict the remaining ten or so. It will get very messy and unpleasant. The residential mooring scheme is now being charged by length (unsurprising) which is a big departure from the previous focus on basing charges on services used (e.g. there was a single person discount, now scrapped) towards charging purely for the amenity of mooring. Some people are facing overnight mooring fee increases of 50%. That said, the increases are no way as large as the Council originally wanted to impose (they originally wanted to auction at commercial rates, and then having u turned over that, at least double the fees) and the fact that they will permit some boats to remain on Riverside (the disputed area with up to noe free mooring) is a starting point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FadeToScarlet Posted March 26, 2017 Report Share Posted March 26, 2017 Oh, and the Council have had to apologise for calling mooring on the Railings (the area in dispute) "illegal", as mooring there has never been illegal- it's a grey area but it certainly isn't illegal to moor there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
junior Posted March 26, 2017 Report Share Posted March 26, 2017 Just remember, everybody has to be somewhere. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mross Posted March 26, 2017 Report Share Posted March 26, 2017 (edited) 'A grey area, but certainly not illegal' is a contradiction....................... Edited March 26, 2017 by mross Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FadeToScarlet Posted March 26, 2017 Report Share Posted March 26, 2017 2 minutes ago, mross said: 'A grey area, but certainly not illegal' is a contradiction....................... No it isn't. Because no one was sure who owned the land before 2014, there was no riparian owner to control mooring- so not illegal. Since 2014, boats moored with the Council’s consent- so also not illegal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stilllearning Posted March 26, 2017 Report Share Posted March 26, 2017 2 hours ago, junior said: Just remember, everybody has to be somewhere. Was that Eccles or Seagoon who said that? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WotEver Posted March 26, 2017 Report Share Posted March 26, 2017 9 minutes ago, Stilllearning said: Was that Eccles or Seagoon who said that? Eccles. Sellers: "Anyone with a name like Hitler can't be all that bad" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike Todd Posted March 26, 2017 Report Share Posted March 26, 2017 4 hours ago, FadeToScarlet said: No it isn't. Because no one was sure who owned the land before 2014, there was no riparian owner to control mooring- so not illegal. Since 2014, boats moored with the Council’s consent- so also not illegal. I thought that you had to have the riparian owners consent in order to moor legally. If you don't know who the riparian owner is, how can you obtain their consent? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul C Posted March 26, 2017 Report Share Posted March 26, 2017 4 hours ago, FadeToScarlet said: No it isn't. Because no one was sure who owned the land before 2014, there was no riparian owner to control mooring- so not illegal. Since 2014, boats moored with the Council’s consent- so also not illegal. Agreed, the highlighted (in red) phrases are a little contradictory (or don't correlate).....just because the owner is unknown, doesn't mean there isn't one. For example if I parked my car on a random front garden in a town I was unfamiliar with I couldn't claim it was legal simply due to not knowing the owner. It would be (non-aggrivated) trespass, which I believe is a civil matter (cue debate on whether breaking civil (not criminal) law is deemed "illegal"). If damage was done, then it would be criminal damage and clearly a criminal issue (cue debate about whether committing a clearly criminal act is "illegal" if it is never pursued or enforced in a court of law). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MtB Posted March 26, 2017 Report Share Posted March 26, 2017 On 26/03/2017 at 08:23, FadeToScarlet said: No it isn't. Because no one was sure who owned the land before 2014, there was no riparian owner to control mooring- so not illegal. Since 2014, boats moored with the Council’s consent- so also not illegal. Is this an example of the fine distinction between 'unlawful' and 'illegal'? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted March 26, 2017 Report Share Posted March 26, 2017 13 hours ago, Mike the Boilerman said: Yes. But the colloquial term for a 'socio-economic economic' group is a 'bunch of freeloaders' as any fule kno. A what on earth is an "ethnic Traveller" anyway, seeing as you mention them? A socio-economic (only economic once typo on my behalf oops) group is a way of describing different strands of society, for example 'middle Englanders- middle class reasonable income homeowner etc. People who live on boats, varied background incomes and so on but easily identifiable as a 'group'. Ethnic Travellers include Roma, Gypsies and Irish Travellers, all with a long heritage of an itinerant lifestyle. 'New Travellers' are generally referred to as a socio-economic group, however second and third generation would argue that they should now be recognised as an ethnic group. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
George Kennedy Posted March 27, 2017 Report Share Posted March 27, 2017 On 26/03/2017 at 13:23, Mike the Boilerman said: Is this an example of the fine distinction between 'unlawful' and 'illegal'? Unlawful is against the law whereas illegal is a sick bird Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Horace42 Posted March 28, 2017 Report Share Posted March 28, 2017 On 26/03/2017 at 13:23, Mike the Boilerman said: Is this an example of the fine distinction between 'unlawful' and 'illegal'? I take the two words to mean the same thing in terms of general guidance - but the precise detail of the 'offence' either criminal or civil, might offer a distinction. To my mind, if something is illegal or unlawful - there will be defined courses of action and penalties available to the enforcers.....and if penalties are not there - what can be done to control the situation??? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chewbacka Posted March 28, 2017 Report Share Posted March 28, 2017 On 26/03/2017 at 13:23, Mike the Boilerman said: Is this an example of the fine distinction between 'unlawful' and 'illegal'? I think illegal means specifically forbidden by law - for example speeding or stealing for which you can be prosecuted for. Whereas unlwful is an act not allowed by law, for example refusing to pay your rent in a rented house which is in itself not an illegal act. However the law will be used to get you evicted. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Featured Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now