Leaderboard

C&RT have little stomach for testing their fanciful interpretations of various pieces of waterways legislation in a Court of law, and if faced with the prospect of having to do so, will almost invariably look for a way out. If they do persist in making an issue out of their apparent disapproval of the way that you use your boat, then please get in touch. A suitably amended version [to make it applicable to you, your boat and your circumstances] of the written Defence that frightened them into discontinuing the action against me in 2014 is readily available to anyone who finds themselves in need of it. Ps. If anyone needs to contact me for any reason whilst I'm enjoying one of my routine periods of banishment from this Forum, then I am available via E-mail at ~ tony@canalrivertransport.com

Highlighted it for you.

As I said, you'd need to talk to some of them to know the real reasons. I went along with a few others to the protest to hear what they were saying. The problem with sitting in an internet bubble is that you don't get the full picture. Believe it or not, I do see the threat to what some call 'genuine' CC'ers. On one hand that threat is enforcement spilling over onto those who are not only compliant with the law but also with CRT's made up rules. But I also see this being used as one step in the tide towards justifying a reversal of the 1995 act and force everyone to have a home mooring. The NBTA seem the only organsation who seem to be standing up to CRT vocally and I applaud them for that.

To be fair, that's not 'can't', that's 'find it inconvenient'. In all walks of life, people have to make choices between doing what they want and doing what's necessary. Plenty of people would prefer to live a certain lifestyle but circumstances won't allow it. If important things like getting to school get in the way of a chosen lifestyle, then surely the chosen lifestyle has to take second place.

Yes and yes. Now shut up and bugger off.

What do you think the reaction would be if CRT acceded to demands for 'clarity', and gave a distance? Here's what I think would happen: most of the people who demanded 'clarity' would say CRT had exceeded their powers, and had no right to give such a distance. So continued demands for 'clarity' are disingenuous at best -- particularly when the people demanding it know it's not possible to get it.

I assume it's because they would have problems travelling 20 miles to school/work. This could be due to there being no practical way of getting there or not being able to afford transport. TBH you'd have to ask them rather than seek assumptions from an internet forum.

But why can't they move? Are they physically incapable of doing so? Is there boat not capable of being moved? Or is it that they cannot be bothered? Other families in similar situations manage to do it.

I know next to nothing about third sector funding, but from a layman's perspective, this is how I understand the point BSP has been trying to get across: Suppose Sustrans receives £100,000 a year from the EU, and spends 1% of its annual budget directly on towpath-improvement schemes run in partnership with with CaRT. Now suppose that the loss of that £100,000 is the straw that breaks the camel's back in terms of Sustrans' financial viability; six months later, they've disappeared. The 'actual size' of the lost EU contribution to those joint Sustrans-CaRT schemes, if you wanted to put a figure on it, is £1000. But putting that figure on it, as if what's been lost is just the ability to buy £1000 worth of gravel, completely misses the bigger picture. What's actually happened is that the loss of a partner organisation with its own funding, its own connections, its own 'clout', has seriously and permanently reduced CaRT's ability to win support and funding for towpath-improvement schemes. Now suppose that a similar financial hit has been taken by all the other the members of a network of (as BSP puts it) "tens or probably hundreds of organisations, trusts, foundations, statutory funders, major donors and local authorities" with which CaRT might work in some way on projects to attract visitors, restore historic structures, maintain/improve infrastructure, support businesses, etc. etc. Again, putting a figure on the 'actual size' of a theoretical overall pot of lost EU contributions, as if we can then just refill that pot with an equivalent amount of our own money, wouldn't really get you any closer to understanding the actual impact on the waterways. Edited to add: apologies, BSP, if I'm misunderstanding anything or appearing to put words in your mouth.

If, because of family commitments, they cannot move, then surely a mooring is the answer. If they cannot finance a mooring then let the social security pay it (mooring, licence and maybe insurance and BSS) If they don't want to live in a marina then get a house / flat. If they cannot finance a house / flat then let the council home them, or, let the social security pay the rent etc. Despite the 'headlines' todays society is a caring society and generally (apart from a few instances) all it takes is for the person to ask for help - it may not provide what they would 'like' but in many instances provides what they 'need'.

Allan, I take exception to your label, I am not an apologist for CRT, I just want to see what positive suggestions you are able to come up with. I always believe in "constructive criticism". I once had a boss who said "Don't come to me with problems, come to me with solutions". A policy I adopted when I became a manager in BT. Something I learnt very early in my career, if people always are moaning the audience very quickly switches off. To be honest I expected you to avoid answering both Graham Davis and myself. Another question, Do you really think CRT will positively engage with you with the negativity you espouse? Please note I have never used such derogatory terms as "CRT basher" in your direction.

Unfortunately, although it reads very well, she has consistently refused to refused to even speculate on the actual size of the contribution to CaRT's running costs which originate from EU funding, preferring instead to attack the question and saying she will not engage any further when pressed. As far as I am concerned, without actual numbers to back it up, this is emotive conjecture. Personally I am still undecided which way to vote, but this type of presentation of opinion as facts registers high on my bullshit meter.

Sorry for the late response but been out all day. Normally I wouldn't bother but I am sick of your implied insults. Why the hell do you think that would cause me a problem? I do wish you would stop reading posts via your prejudices. How do you know I have never slept rough or been homeless? How do you know I haven't moved onto a boat because I had nothing else? All I said was that some people move onto boats because they have nowhere else to go. Why do you find that offensive? Because you may have had the choice of where and how you live, many don't. They need to be thought about a bit too.

That's fine and I have no problem with it. We did (and effectively still do) just the same. However we are not on our soapboxes saying C&RT are villains for making us move in accordance with the terms of our licence - saying we can't afford a flat and have no choice but to live on a boat. That is not the same thing at all, and is said just to get the sympathy vote. And no, they are not breaking the law, but they are certainly stretching any sensible definition of bona fide navigation to the extent that C&RT are almost forced into taking legal action if some sections of canal are not to become linear housing estates, making any other use difficult and unpleasant. Edit to add that I am by no means a fervent supporter of C&RT in all their doings, and they are frequently very in the wrong. I just don't think this is the case here.

There is not a housing shortage, there is a people oversupply.

I think that is sort of the nub of the problem, how do CRT square that particular circle in London? The cost of all accomodation in London is outrageous but if CRT were to supply moorings at less than the market rate they would then be subject to criticism for not achieving the best return on their assets. If they supply moorings at the market rate they are profiteering, there is no 'middle ground'. To try to solve London's housing problem by moving to the water is just going to spread the misery wider, what are needed are more genuinely affordable houses in London, something that doesn't look as though it is going to happen any time soon. Perhaps the best result would be for the low paid to abandon London altogether and then see where they get their Care Workers/Baristas/Street Cleaners from. Perhaps there might be the re-emergence of a radical Victorian idea where your employer supplied you with somewhere to live

I owned Towy at one stage and I can happily say it was the most interesting boat I ever had. Fun events included nearly sinking in Blisworth tunnel, the gearbox snapping whilst being interviewed by the BBC approaching Stoke Bruerne locks, getting a barbed wire fence (plus posts) stuck round the prop and having to dive in to cut it off in March and catching the rudder on the cill causing it to drop off.And then I sold it. LIfe became rather dull after that so I hope you enjoy it as much as I did!

If only it were that simple. As far as C&RT are concerned many people registering as CCers do not satisfy C&RT's definition of bona fide navigation. Ipse facto they should be able to either force them to take up a home mooring or leave C&RT waters. That has not proved to be viable, hence C&RT have been forced to try to say why they do not find various individual cruising patterns satisfactory and have tried to do so by saying people are not moving far enough as that is all they can do. But you know that of course.

It's not as simple as saying "oh, we're homeless, can we have one of those houses please?" What you might get is a b&b for months or even years until a property becomes available for you. You might also get an offer of a house in an area miles away from where your life actually is- I know a woman who was offered a house 150 miles away from her former life, and another who was offered in the same county but the local geography meant that entailed a 60-mile round trip to her job. Again, I think this is pretty simplistic. In my own case, for example, I work and my dd goes to school. I've a car which I'm fortunate enough to own outright. But I can't afford to rent or buy in my area and so with the capital I had I bought a boat to live on. I'm lucky enough to have a mooring which suits us, but that's only by chance. There aren't loads of moorings in the area, certainly not within a practical distance of my work and her school. Would you suggest that I'd be better off going into debt in order to support a rental property which would cost all of my earned income* each month, before I paid a single other bill? In areas like the western K&A it isn't as simple as saying it's just a lifestyle choice. For many people it's a fact that they cannot earn enough to live in that area, yet are tied to the area by family, support networks, and the job or work contacts they have. Simply saying the chosen lifestyle has to take second place is to me rather like saying move to another area or get on your bike. Moving to another area isn't straightforward for many reasons and doesn't always solve the issue; I could've bought a house in Neath, for example, but I couldn't have worked there because there isn't the work there. Families rely on each other for care- not just the children but older people as well. Especially with the cuts this dreadful government has imposed... I totally agree. Personally I think that a navigation to a service quay, a purposeful journey, is as bona fide as any other. Why is a holiday cruise more bona fide than a trip to the water point? *I don't steal the rest of my income, by the way

A good argument until you go down the S Oxford and see where all the three and a half foot boats have been going out of one gate and worn the miters

There is one point which has yet to be mentioned in any post so far in this thread; Administration Costs. Our government ( no matter of which political persuasion ) collects revenue from us in many ways. To do this costs money. Some of what is collected by our government is paid into Europe. Another massively expensive administration. Europe then gives us some of our money back. Some directly to our government, and some by way of grants to other organisations. All of these organisations have running costs which must be met before one single pound ever gets spent on a project. Our tax system was very inefficient, and costly to run. I believe it is improving. The EC administration is horrendously expensive, out of control, and regularly suspected of being corrupt. ( Does no one remember the scandal of huge grants being paid to non existent olive farms ?) Add in more costs by organisations such as sustrans coordinating with local government, and some more money has been frittered away. Think of it as walking to the pub with ten pounds in loose change..............................but you have a hole in your pocket...........................................By the time you get to the bar you only have enough left for one pint !!!

So why DO we have clearly defined speed limits then?

In Pud's world, "morning" is any time between my second breakfast and my lunch. This "morning" may last four hours or it may last one hour. (The time between my first and second breakfasts being a No Man's Land of cro-magnon grunts and snarls that can last anywhen from 6am to 11am depending on multiple factors like bladder urgency, overly vocal canoeists or getting roasted out of bed by the sun on the roof). Afternoon is between my lunch (which could happen any when between 11.30am-3pm) and my dinner (4.30pm-7.30pm) Some afternoons are quite short in my world. Evening is any time after The Simpsons Night time is from Family Guy onwards This is the 24 hour clock according to Pud.

Have his number on our boat but not back onboard till tomorrow, il pm you it tomorrow if no one else has given it too you before then. Ian.

I think it belonged to one of the owners (Tim Cashin?) and very likely left by road.

Surely a family with children would be at the top of the councils list for Housing ?

Paddington Basin 1990 and 2016: Tim

Yep, Not questioning Betty's dilemma, but pointing out that (rightly or wrongly), there is no requirement in the bye-laws to have any light that actually aids you seeing where you are going. Those familiar with boating at night will know that often you can see perfectly well with no headlight, and often turning one on makes life harder rather than easier. (Clearly it depends on the state of the moon and weather conditions how easily you can see without). It is all kind of irrelevant though - if you can't navigate at night without hitting someone else's boat, you clearly shouldn't be doing it, with or without a headlight. Mind you you could say if you can't navigate by daytime without hitting someone else's boat, you clearly shouldn't be doing it", and clearly lots of people can't manage that either!

Bite the bullet and get a smartphone. It won't bite you back or hurt you in any way. You will soon see what a plonker you've been.

Whilst at GHBS, it may be worthwhile looking at Calcutt Boats who have some boats for sale. I moor there but have no knowledge of their reputation as brokers.

Greenied cos I like your answer. Isn't this the crux of the issue. We need to find ways to accommodate people on the waterways. They are there already. The 'problem' exists and solutions need to be found. There seems little point just arguing over what's right or wrong, based on the past. The geography of London is outside my knowledge, but there must be ways some form of pre-approved cruising plan could be agreed with C&RT, and then monitored and enforced. Individuals merely paying lip service would be providing evidence C&RT could use in court to demonstrate their lack of commitment to 'bona fide' cruising. If we always do what we always did, we'll always get what we always got. There appears to be genuine families, and individuals out there who need this chance. It can't be that difficult surely. Rog

I've just spotted this and thought it might be of interest to someone: http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/Vintage-CANAL-cruising-photograph-album-c1960-/191866299855?hash=item2cac1f65cf:g:wyoAAOSwYmZXLas3

I'm all in favour of "living lightly" and being comfortable while spending as little money as possible. I wouldn't really be bothered if the whole canal system was one big housing estate where people paid for whatever services they get. I agree with things like council tax and paying for train fares etc. I like to go boating but I also like boats - lots of different boats preferably ! I would not moan about lines of moored boats unless they were all the same and full of people opening the side door simply to say slow down. In the words of a good friend who was confronted by someone ordering him to slow down - "I'm afraid this is as good as it gets - if you don't like it buy a caravan and it won't happen" a bit part of the reason to be afloat is the boats going past !! I don't like people running generators or engines late at night though . The problem is that this is not what is going to happen. What is going to happen is that some shall we say 'militant' groups will eventually destroy what is quite a nice place and cause major change which will not help anyone other than maybe some capitalists. That's my rather grim prediction anyway

Or desperation combined with opportunity.

Yes, it takes a very rare (and brave) breed of person to prefer a lifestyle which breaks away from the one we have been conditioned to believe is 'normal'.

Or you stop people from being able to buy and leave homes purely for investment purposes. Apparently there are over half a million empty homes in the UK. Over 50000 in London alone. It's greed and lack of sharing again. As regards discussions about how much cheaper it is to live in a boat, there are quite a few reasons for this if you think about it for a few seconds. Very few homeless would prefer a boat over a small studio flat yet it's still used to justify the linear housing estate argument.

If only!! These mega plazas aren't built for the benefit of anyone in this country, they are built for obnoxious despots to 'legitimately' launder their ill gotten gains through financial shell companies in the British Virgin Islands, certainly not for plebs trying to find somewhere to live in the capital

Yes I do completely see that point. I really do feel lucky to have lived through the era of peace and prosperity that I did. But, I did what I did and got where I am today by playing to the rules not bending them and then bleating when I'm found out. Bob

It didn't supersede it, and the terms aren't "equally accurate" because they mean two different things. A "non-profit-making" company is just a company that doesn't make a profit, e.g. because it's running at a loss. A "not-for-profit company" is a company that's not run for the purpose of making a profit.

If there are long lines of boats along the cut, I much prefer if they are interesting and quirky liveaboards such as on the Agenda 21 moorings in Oxford and the west end of the K&A, rather than lines of closed up, boring identikit leisure boats.

We had thought about living aboard for years. We were prevented from doing so because we either had children growing up and needing stability in schooling, or until recently both had full time employment. The fact that there wasn't suitable canals near where we choose to live, had there been we may have moved onboard but felt and believed a permanant residential mooring was more appropriate and was in the guidelines as we would not have been able to Continuously Cruise around the network. My feelings on all this are clear. If you can't move freely because of schooling or employment, is living on a boat without occupying an approved residential mooring acceptable? I think not. I could say more,but fear I'll incriminate myself. Martyn About twelve years ago, it was thought by some that every two weeks you were to travel, I think, ten lock miles. That is to say, five locks and five miles or, three locks and seven miles. It was definitely explained to me that way. The distance I can't remember.

I saw the protest on ITV and failed to be persuaded by the protesters that they have been wronged. By their own admission they were failing to abide by the 14 day ruling nor making any attempt at completing 20 miles onward travel a year. They cited having children and local jobs as the reason they chose to ignore the terms they had agreed to on their license. The vast majority of CCers manage but it does take some effort which these individuals seemed unwilling to make. Phil

The so called EU money spent on canals is only part of what we give to the EU being returned to us, but with strict instructions attached to it as to what we may spend it on. When we leave the EU our government will be at liberty to spend the same amount of money on canals or whatever else it decides. It will be up to us to lobby the government as every other interested body will be doing. The only difference will be that the pot of money will be bigger, so we could end up with MORE being spent on canals if that is what our own democratically elected government decide to do. George ex nb Alton retired

Your post isn't about CRT funding or the waterways. It's generic politics. Please make it relevant and specific rather than to openly try to get the thread closed down. Maybe just generic politics posts will be deleted instead? Also, do tell me about your 20 year career in the charity sector fundraising from UK and international, state and private funding initiatives, trusts, foundations and the EU. And then tell us all where you got your stats from because they contradict everything I've seen published by economists on how much better off we are in the EU, and why you think the government will spend any small initial saving on the waterways. Because they won't!

Ok, let's see if this thread remains then. To answer the point as to why I believe blue strings post was nonsense. We pay ball park 18 billion a year to the EU. We get an immediate rebate of 5 billion plus the EU then spends 4.5 billion of OUR money on so called EU projects. All this money will not just disappear if we leave. It just means that instead of the EU telling us how to spend 4.5 billion of OUR money, we can decide ourselves. In addition to this however we will also be able to spend the 8.5 billion we pay them that we don't get back.

Yes. All new EU funding would be lost. Any live funded programmes would depend on the small print as to whether the programme continues or is shut down and would likely incur vast financial penalties for the UK partners in each project rendering those projects effectively bust. The Chesterfield Canal work has been funded by ERDF which is one of the main EU funding streams relevant to CRT's work till at least 2020. The ERDF as well as the ESF and EAFRD are the main streams that pay for the vast majority of rural, social and urban development programmes in the UK since the UK government withdrew vast swathes of funding from the third sector from 2010, and EU funding will become even more crucial as central government eliminates grant funding from all local authorities as they announced in the budget. Currently those three main EU funding streams pay for huge amounts of waterways work including towpath maintenance, administrative costs, canal heritage projects, and importantly they shore up staffing levels and keep the books buoyant so expect all boaters to see huge rises in license and mooring fees plus rapid closing down of large sections of the canal and navigable rivers infrastructure if Britain leaves the EU. The same three funding streams pay for social services programmes, small business development opportunities, intervention programmes for children, disabled people, victims of domestic violence, town centre rejuvenation, arts, culture, museums, science, medical research, all the UK's Enterprise Partnerships which support and fund manufacturing and infrastructure like roads, also we'd lose funding for parks including national parks programmes, car parking, community centres, schools and university facilities and most local authority services you think the government pays for. A vote to leave the EU will effectively close down all these things because our own economy can no longer support them due to consecutive governments's emphasis on the Banking and Service industries, tax havens and import over Manufacture, Raw Materials and developing new smaller businesses. Incidentally, I've spent the last few years of my career writing the funding applications to these funding streams in partnership with local authorities, UK and international partners, which is why I know what they pay for. And it's why I know that economically the UK has not been an island for many, many decades and cannot survive as such anymore. Sadly too many people who have a misplaced sense of what they think sovereignty is, are too ignorant to bother researching this sort of thing before they vote to financially and socially ruin the country. Boaters will vote to stay in the EU or say goodbye to the canals and the lifestyle they love, it's as simple as that.

The trouble is that 'taking it personally' is the first step along the road to losing the case. It is a bit like fighters/boxers, once they lose their temper with their opponent by 'taking it personally' they are halfway to losing the fight, to be dispassionate is the only way to survive and win. With the danger of stepping a bit close to the political spectrum, the ones I now feel sorry now for are those involved in divorce/ child custody cases now forced to represent themselves in Court. They cannot help but get emotional about it, which makes them extremely vulnerable to being walked all over by the system but with the removal of legal support they now have no option. There is no real comparison between losing your narrow boat and losing your kids.

Edited to remove criticism of rubbish