Leaderboard

If anyone thinks that this petition is going to make the slightest difference to how this government handles the housing situation, they are away with the fairies. Signing a petition about X in the hope that it will achieve Z is laughable!!! This is a petition about boaters who I am thinking are nowhere near the top of the list of government priorities, if they are even on the list. The language in the petition is designed, poorly so, to raise emotions and mislead. The petition has been written specifically to get the Ahhhhh factor for the 'families' and the BOO! factor for the CRT. It is appalling! As has been said earlier 'itinerants move about' when they stop moving they are no longer itinerants! Unique is relative to 'the only one' so given that there are many of them unique doesn't apply. If CRT refuse a licence to a boat it has not made them homeless they themselves, by their failure to abide by the rules which they signed in agreement, have done that. If my memory serves me well the rules have always said "If you need to be in one place for work or schooling then CCing is not an option you should be thinking of." No one is evicting them they are simply no being allowed to stay on CRT water. They can keep their boats, just not on the canals. They could go to the Thames. See how they get on against the PLA or the EA. I have said on the petition that I will not sign and why. My comments, I believe, have been removed. Democracy is dead.

I've re-read this petition a few times and I'm not even sure what they're petitioning for? The closest it gets is 'CART needs to accept it's responsibilities as a landlord'. That could mean almost anything. The subtext of the petition is that liveaboards should be able to choose whatever cruising pattern they like, including not moving at all. If that happened, the implication would be that a large proportion of boaters with home moorings would give them up and moor for free on the towpath. The canals would be chock-full of lines of moored boats in many areas, marinas and boatyards would go out of business and CRT would lose mooring fees. The canals would be a worse place to be and CRT would either have to reduce expenditure on the network or raise license fees. I've no problem with debating these issues with those who would sign this petition, but I suspect that most of them don't want to live in the real world. They want to: 1. Live on a boat. 2. Live close to work/school. 3. Have a well maintained canal network. 4. Not pay for a mooring. 5. Have others subsidise their lifestyle. 6. Blame everyone but themselves for their problems. It's the behavior of a 5 year old throwing a tantrum because they don't get their way.

That is perfectly ok , if someone wants to stay in one place go to work in the local area, bring up children etc. .... Go and find a permanent mooring and do just that , if on the other hand you have no ties and want to cruise around the various waterays on the system, get a CC licence and do just that, but dont do the former then complain that someone is making it difficult for you because you chose to omit the step of getting a permanent mooring and even have the gall to then say that same authority that is responsible for the maintenance of that waterway and who everyone else pays to use should give you a mooring for free and become your landlord when you arent even prepared to pay rent by way of a mooring .. that is just incredulous to those of us that do pay the very same landlord for somewhere to moor our boats. Rick

Living here and following all the progress I would say that they've made hard work of this, but, draining the whole length with the issues of moving a very large pontoon and 2 smaller pontoons complete with lines of electric bollards and cabling, along with moving all the other commercial boats who require the basin facilities for their businesses, and the amount of heras fencing which would be needed, and the additional cost with the fish rescue, and the fact that there simply isn't enough room on the North side of the basin for all the boats to moor and be safely accessible, and the additional pumps needed to empty a far bigger section - compare that to the temporary dams which have been installed pretty quickly once they got going and the canal is drained and I imagine the inspection will happen tomorrow. It's an absolute no brainer. Tony - I do understand your animosity towards CRT but blindly attacking them at every opportunity does you no favours and undermines your valid grievances.

What a negative heading from someone who presumably has volunteered to monitor this forum .

Would that be Eaton, Herefordshire; Eaton, Cheshire; Eaton, Leicestershire or did you perhaps mean Eton??

One petition I won't be signing.

NBTA are often rather selective in what they quote (just like CaRT). Assuming this is true then it does nothing to strengthen or weaken the case of those who challenge the rules of continuous cruising vs continuous mooring.. What it does do is to show CaRT behaving like vindictive bullies and idiots and somehow all boaters need to unite and stop CaRT from doing this, it is in no-ones interest. There are enough boaters about who are totally ignoring the rules and it is starting to look like CaRT prefer to go after people who they don't like who are slightly bending the rules. ...............Dave

Because the owner had a top hat

I think that the reason that people don't discuss overcrowding in cities is because, at the moment, that is not the problem. The example you give of Tokyo with about the same size as London but double the population emphasises the point, they haven't all died or gone mad, they just live in higher density. I've been to Hong Kong where the population density is even higher than Tokyo and the situation is the same. The problem with London is the lack of affordable housing. There are plenty of properties and an unnecessarily large percentage are empty because they have been bought up by Russian,Middle Eastern and other foreign nationals as a place to lodge huge quantities of money of dubious provenance. The government are happy with this situation since they get a kick-back in stamp duty whenever one of these obscenities is bought or sold. The related problem with the canal system is that because they cannot find land based accomodation people are trying to move onto the water which is a limited resource. As has been repeatedly discussed before there is nothing that CRT can do to prevent people buying up a boat and moving it to London if they wish so ultimately the numbers will just keep on increasing. The end result will be a water-borne shanty town or favela (and before being accused of over dramatising consider that such things don't drop from the sky, they develop over time, and currently there is nothing CRT can do to stop it developing). As water overcrowding increases over time some will move off because the conditions have deteriorated and be replaced by others who are more willing to suffer the privations of such life.I'm sure at one time someone said "What is the problem with letting a friend or two live in my garden shed?" this has now developed into a considerable unregulated market of beds in sheds noticeably in certain Western Boroughs of London. I don't know how CRT are going to stop this from happening, I just hope that they can.

Can't possibly say can he? He wasn't watching!

I'm forthright. It's not offensive in my eyes, just direct. The reason you struggle to debate any issue, comes from your neglect to grasp and fathom out what you read, if you read some of it at all. The issue you have with me is not about debate, it's personal, as you well know. ;-)

Why do you have to be so offensive to people who have a different view to you?

So you were warning CRT from the start but you are not prepared to support their current effort to deal with the problem. Maybe it would be best just to let them get on with tackling the problem.

These hire boats are a menace aren't they, not like the old days...

Yes Mike , someone pointed that out to me on a previous thread ....so who represents the ACM? pmsl Rick

It depends which way you look at it , rules are simple, follow them no hassle, choose to flaunt them then accept the possible consequences. As for myself, i am lucky as i am alive unlike a number of guys i served with in the forces, unlucky because i came away disabled, me being glass half full go with lucky....as for anything i have in life i have worked day and night to get it, i have in the past lost everything and had to start again with nothing, just because i am comfortable now doesnt mean i cannot say what i think of anyone who chooses a situation then moans about it when they come unstuck. Rick I draw the very clear line that exsists between anyone that is a CMer and those that genuinly CC .... and if you really dont understand that line you havent read my posts Rick

I suppose we should be glad that there are so many hire boats cluttering up the areas round the hire bases as without them paying much higher licence fees than us, we, the private boaters might have to pay more. During the main hiring periods, there will probably only be congestion on change over day but just now with no boats out, they have to put them somewhere. haggis, feeling in a mellow mood :-)

My view is that as you say, nowt has changed. If you move around PROPERLY you get left alone, always have done. If you have a full time job or kids at school and are tied to one area ( as I am at the moment) then a mooring is needed. CART are most definately not a housing authority and neither were their predecessors. There are costs associated with boating, always has been. Tim

I would have to say that the highlighted comments really makes me sick. This bunch of 'johnny come lately's' seem to have some mistaken belief that they have been the 'saviour' of the canals. Perhaps they should be asked where they were when the likes of Tom Rolt, Robert Aickman, Charles Hadfield and Frank Eyre (amongst other 'middle class types) were REALLY saving the canal system? I don't suppose they were even a glint in their parent's eyes. If they think that they are going to impress anyone by trying to rewrite history with themselves as the 'knights in shining armour' then, quite honestly, they deserve all the abuse that they get!

In the interests of democracy and lending a voice to the people. I wonder if 38degrees would be prepared to run a petition supporting the trusts plan to ensure a waterway for all who genuinely use it for its intended purpose of cruising around the waterways. And support the trust financially by purchasing licenses and moorings that suits their usage AND comply with the conditions of use!! And before the angry brigade get on their high horses, I am not implying that all continuous moorers do not have licenses.

I have always felt that, at least on the official Government petitions, if not all such petitions, there should be the ability to record a "NO" or negative vote. George ex nb Alton retired

It would be more accurate to put that the other way around: to say that s.43 explicitly permits them to levy charges, and to impose such terms and conditions upon the provision of the charged-for service/facility as they chose. It is a distinction that is not merely pedantic, but key to the whole issue. I know we have gone the rounds on this one before, but I am responding yet again for the sake of those new to the topic. I was interested to see that NABO’s legal advisors have taken up this point, and that their team has put the matter directly to CaRT in the simplest possible manner that I have myself have previously seen fit to present on this forum – to wit, that if s.43 of the ’62 Act can be understood in the way CaRT promulgate, then all the subsequent private Acts promoted by BW were a pointless waste of money, and utterly redundant [“otiose” was the word NABO used]. Any understanding of this section has to commence with the context. The section appears under Part III headed “Transport Charges and Facilities”, so that everything following has to be understood as clauses defining what the authority would be able to do respecting the things they were empowered to charge for. Terms & conditions in this context define the rules under which both parties contract to agree when voluntarily entering into a chargeable contract for provision of services and/or facilities. This is given emphasis in this Part of the Act in that it clarifies [s.43(2)] - what does not really need clarifying, but which is added for the avoidance of any doubt – that this section must not be taken to open up all possible uses of the waterways by boats to the expressed new freedoms granted by Parliament to the authorities via s.43. In case the wording of the Act suffered any attempt to construe it as enabling imposition of charges and conditions of supply for all and any use of the waterways by boats, it expressly stated that the clause did NOT apply to anything which they had not [under the underlying Enabling Acts], been previously permitted to charge for. Originally, there were uses of the waterways, by boats and other businesses, for which complicated and unwieldy charging systems applied; limits set on those charges, and constrictions on the terms and conditions applying to those chargeable services and facilities. The ’62 Act aimed to lift the restrictions and simplify the charging schemes. It did NOT empower BW to start charging for anything they chose, and to set T&C’s for that which had previously been free from charge. s.63 of the same Act [Part IV, Miscellaneous and General] is an example of the statutory limitations under which BW [as the other Boards and all Statutory Bodies] laboured: it gave limited powers to sell abstracted water. What it did not expressly do, was allow them to engage in water purification and charge extra for that. As a consequence, they later obtained approval for a Statutory Instrument giving them that power – they could not have set charges and associated T&C’s of sale on such a service otherwise, despite s.43. As to charging for pleasure boats, let alone setting terms and conditions on their using the canals and rivers: that was impossible - except in such instances as these were expressly provided for [such as, in some parts of the system, being able to charge if the boat using a lock used water]. In short, as pertinent to this topic, s.43 gave no power to demand and charge for a pleasure boat licence anywhere on the system, let alone condition the issue of one. When powers were eventually granted [1971] enabling them to demand river registration certificates, these were specifically constrained - in that issue was compulsory on provision of the necessary details and payment. BW’s legal representation during the 1990 Bill was emphatically clear that the Act had given them absolutely no leeway to set any other conditions on issue of the certificate, for all that s.43 of the ’62 Act existed. In all common sense [!?] this was because they were prohibited from imposing any conditions of use for a use which was the public’s as of right under common-law. Neither – despite any narrow interpretation of s.43 – could they levy any charges for such use until Parliament expressly permitted it. The levying of charges under the strictly circumscribed conditions allowed for under the ’71 Act was not controlled by s.43 of the ’62 Act; it was controlled by the specific enactment of the ’71 Act – as were the strictly limited conditions attaching to that power to demand a chargeable registration certificate. The ’62 Act, s.43 could not - and did not - enter into the picture. By way of emphasis that no s.43 control [as to terms and conditions] could be allowed to operate upon the public right of navigation in excess of that provided for in the ’71 Act, even when the power to get approval for byelaws controlling use of the waterways was later [1975 Act] extended to include creating terms and conditions regulating entry onto and use of BW waterways [why? if s.43 had already conferred such powers independent of byelaws?] this power was expressly prohibited from being used to control access to and use of the tidal waters. As a pertinent matter of historical fact, no such byelaws even for the non-tidal parts of the system, have ever been applied for and approved. Not enjoying the freedom from restriction under the terms of the ’62 Act, the level of charges for the issue of river registration certificates was strictly set by Parliament [in the 1983 Act] at a percentage of any charges levied for the all-system river and canal pleasure boat Licences, as were eventually provided for under the terms of the 1975 Act and the resultant relevant new 1976 Byelaw. One can argue all one likes, in concert with the authority, for the unfettered nature of the supposed s.43 right for CaRT to charge and condition as they see fit for any use of the system by boats, but the subsequent historical record of legislation since 1962 proves otherwise [as was noted by HHJ Hildyard when addressing the point]. The point made acknowledging lack of statutory sanction is likewise very telling, and the suggestion that courts could remedy the lacunae is invalid. No court can impose a sanction upon non-compliance with any unauthorised and unilaterally imposed terms and conditions as do not have Parliamentary authority, so the absence of any such sanctions as are specified - as they are, respecting those of the T&C's as repeat byelaws - means that there is no relevant relief that the courts can be asked to impose. For clarity and completeness and “for the avoidance of doubt” as legal speak has it – many of the existing and proposed T&C’s DO have Parliamentary authority and specified sanctions; as when they re-iterate statutory requirements and byelaws. Otherwise? They are of no value whatsoever beyond what they originally were bruited as: sensible guidance to desirable behaviour.

I simply post what I think, see and hear. Yes I am well aware that a lot are more positive than I am but I am also aware that a lot like my myself that were positive are slowly becoming more and more concerned. Having Continuously Cruised now for nearly 9 years I do not really need you to tell me what to consider or reflect upon. It is the reflection that I have done over the last 12 months that have formed my current opinion. Like many I love the lifestyle and will do everything I can to protect it.

Maybe he should have taken note of CaRT cc'er guidelines before he made his declaration. "Unacceptable reasons for staying longer than 14 days in a neighbourhood or locality are a need to stay within commuting distance of a place of work" I would image that most west London commuters would love to pitch up in Kensington, or Mayfair with a camper van because they cannot afford a house there. You may think that harsh but where in CaRT's obligations does it suggest they facilitate every permutation of social needs?