Real narrowboat living battle with CRT

[narrowboatham]

I'm always looking at narrowboat/canal videos on youtube and found this one this morning.

 

I'm not sure how to add a link but if you type in the title of this thread you should find it.

 

I found it quite interesting, i know one or two people in the film are probably not playing by the rules, but what do you think CRT's long term goal might be?

[alan_fincher]

i know one or two people in the film are probably not playing by the rules, but what do you think CRT's long term goal might be?

 

Well I haven't looked for it or watched it I admit.

 

However my opening bid for an answer (whatever the actual story is), is "to get them to play by the rules".

 

(Just guessing, like).

[Laurie Booth]

Link

 

https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=Real+narrowboat+living+battle+with+CRT

[Naughty Cal]

 

Well I haven't looked for it or watched it I admit.

 

However my opening bid for an answer (whatever the actual story is), is "to get them to play by the rules".

 

(Just guessing, like).

I'm just guessing the same

[Chewbacka]

According to the video the River Seven north of Gloucester is "extremely dangerous tidal waters". A bit of a dramatic claim to justify never leaving the G&S canal.

[Mac of Cygnet]

Well I haven't looked for it or watched it I admit.

 

However my opening bid for an answer (whatever the actual story is), is "to get them to play by the rules".

 

(Just guessing, like).

I watched it all (quite surprised at myself) and a major argument in the film is that CRT keep changing the rules.

[zenataomm]

They want them to go with the flow.

[alan_fincher]

I watched it all (quite surprised at myself) and a major argument in the film is that CRT keep changing the rules.

 

That's an argument I do have quite a lot of sympathy with, provided it can be substantiated they (CRT) have changed their interpretation of the rules.

 

That's why I never just sign up for most of the "they are taking the p*$$" arguments, because I am well aware of people who went to some lengths before committing to buying a boat to find out what in practice was treated as "compliant".

 

It is undoubtedly true in some areas that CRT have heavily moved the goal posts, and that "compliance" is now much harder to achieve.

 

So for people in that situation I do have some considerable sympathies.

 

The problem is that many of the arguments from the other side about CRT acting unreasonably are palpable nonsense, (I'm not saying that is the case here, as I have yet to watch the video).

 

IMO each time "the other side of the argument" resort to statements that can easily proved to be untrue, they do those they are claiming to support no favours at all.

[Naughty Cal]

I watched it all (quite surprised at myself) and a major argument in the film is that CRT keep changing the rules.

What "rules" have CRT changed?

[dmr]

I can see that its a real bummer if you have been having a great life style for many years by bending the rules and CaRT then starts enforcing those rules. Its not limited to living on the canals either.

 

What bothers me is that so many of the reasons given for not obeying the rules are spurious, pathetic or just silly. I have also yet to meet a boater who can put their hand on their heart and say "I am genuinely continuous cruising within the spirit of the rules and CaRT have come and got me".

 

I would like to see an approach where boaters go to CaRT and say "the canals really benefit from having younger people living here and bringing up children on the cut, and moving is much better than a mooring, so what sort of constructive compromise can we come to to make this work for everyone?". Sadly things have got so polarised with so many legal challenges and arguments about finer points of the law its hard to see how this can now be done.

 

.................Dave

[mayalld]

 

That's an argument I do have quite a lot of sympathy with, provided it can be substantiated they (CRT) have changed their interpretation of the rules.

 

That's why I never just sign up for most of the "they are taking the p*$$" arguments, because I am well aware of people who went to some lengths before committing to buying a boat to find out what in practice was treated as "compliant".

 

It is undoubtedly true in some areas that CRT have heavily moved the goal posts, and that "compliance" is now much harder to achieve.

 

So for people in that situation I do have some considerable sympathies.

 

The problem is that many of the arguments from the other side about CRT acting unreasonably are palpable nonsense, (I'm not saying that is the case here, as I have yet to watch the video).

 

IMO each time "the other side of the argument" resort to statements that can easily proved to be untrue, they do those they are claiming to support no favours at all.

 

Sorry, but I'm not buying the "They changed the rules" line.

 

If anything, their stated position on what is required has been substantially relaxed over the years from "a continuous journey over a significant pat of the system" to a fairly trivial minimum range today.

 

What they have changed is how keenly they enforce.

 

In the past, they had stricter guidance, but didn't actually enforce. Now they enforce.

 

The point is that it was ALWAYS possible to see this coming.

 

For many years, BW told people what the rules were, and the existing P-takers told people to "ignore it, they won't actually do anything".

 

Nasty people like me have been saying for years that people were being led up the garden path by those who gave them that advice.

 

The rules were always there. The fact that a bloke down the pub said that they would never enforce them and has been proved to be talking crap isn't a reason to exempt people from the rules.

[haza]

in a nut shell

[Alan de Enfield]

 

Sorry, but I'm not buying the "They changed the rules" line.

 

If anything, their stated position on what is required has been substantially relaxed over the years from "a continuous journey over a significant pat of the system" to a fairly trivial minimum range today.

 

What they have changed is how keenly they enforce.

 

In the past, they had stricter guidance, but didn't actually enforce. Now they enforce.

 

The point is that it was ALWAYS possible to see this coming.

 

For many years, BW told people what the rules were, and the existing P-takers told people to "ignore it, they won't actually do anything".

 

Nasty people like me have been saying for years that people were being led up the garden path by those who gave them that advice.

 

The rules were always there. The fact that a bloke down the pub said that they would never enforce them and has been proved to be talking crap isn't a reason to exempt people from the rules.

 

A clear & factual summary and well worthy of a' greeno'

[alan_fincher]

 

Sorry, but I'm not buying the "They changed the rules" line.

 

If anything, their stated position on what is required has been substantially relaxed over the years from "a continuous journey over a significant pat of the system" to a fairly trivial minimum range today.

 

What they have changed is how keenly they enforce.

 

In the past, they had stricter guidance, but didn't actually enforce. Now they enforce.

 

The point is that it was ALWAYS possible to see this coming.

 

For many years, BW told people what the rules were, and the existing P-takers told people to "ignore it, they won't actually do anything".

 

Nasty people like me have been saying for years that people were being led up the garden path by those who gave them that advice.

 

The rules were always there. The fact that a bloke down the pub said that they would never enforce them and has been proved to be talking crap isn't a reason to exempt people from the rules.

 

It was not always like this though,was it?

 

I am well aware of cases where people did their research by actually seeking out BW enforcement officers in their area, and asking the staff on the ground what would satisfy them. I'm not talking about people looking to do the bare minimum, but people who knew there would for some years be a limit to just how big a patch they could roam over, and who did not want to commit to a situation that might in future cause problems.

 

In such cases EOs often specified their requirement as being far far less than what people knew they could easily achieve, so they rightly thought that even if enforcement did, over time, get somewhat stricter, they were still unlikely to ever have a problem.

 

So it wasn't always a "bloke down the pub" or a "P-taker" advising these people, and it s unfair to suggest they have been so ill-informed.. They were actually doing the best due diligence they could, given that at the time there was little correlation between BWs interpretation of the law, and what the view was of enforcement staff on the ground.

 

There is little doubt in my mind that people who have done this are in many cases easily complying with "bona fide for navigation", which is all the relevant act actually require. The fact that this doesn't comply with your idea that such people need a home mooring doesn't actually make you right, and them wrong does it?

[Bee]

People living on boats have always been pushing their luck, there are many hundreds (thousands ?) of lived on boats and only a few score residential moorings therefore most people are bound to be illegal in some way or other. The CC licence is either a jolly good wheeze or a godsend whichever way you look at it, it enables you to at least get a licence wheras before you had to get some sort of mooring. ( the last one I claimed to have was a mud berth in the Medway) If you live on a boat you must realize that it is virtually impossible to do it fully legally so you have to keep your head down, keep tidy, at least have some sort of licence and realise that you have very, very, few rights. I did it for years before such things as a CC licence. CRT might wish for a neat and tidy solution but there isn't one and people living on boats might wish for all sorts of things but they really aren't going to get much more than they already have.

[Mac of Cygnet]

People living on boats have always been pushing their luck, there are many hundreds (thousands ?) of lived on boats and only a few score residential moorings therefore most people are bound to be illegal in some way or other. The CC licence is either a jolly good wheeze or a godsend whichever way you look at it, it enables you to at least get a licence wheras before you had to get some sort of mooring. ( the last one I claimed to have was a mud berth in the Medway) If you live on a boat you must realize that it is virtually impossible to do it fully legally so you have to keep your head down, keep tidy, at least have some sort of licence and realise that you have very, very, few rights. I did it for years before such things as a CC licence. CRT might wish for a neat and tidy solution but there isn't one and people living on boats might wish for all sorts of things but they really aren't going to get much more than they already have.

 

Really? Only a few score residential moorings? Like one or two hundred? I find that very difficult to believe. Is there any info on the actual total anywhere?

[narrowboatham]

I would like to become a genuine cc'er one day. I'd rent my flat out to pay the regular bills fuel, food, license and so on and have some savings for unforeseen problems.

 

This would avoid me having to stay in a certain area for work etc.

 

I think it would be a great way to live and see the country, but some people in the film seem to be suggesting this may not an option in the future and CRT want everyone in a marina.

 

I just hope when the time is right for me it can still be done.

[peterboat]

 

Sorry, but I'm not buying the "They changed the rules" line.

 

If anything, their stated position on what is required has been substantially relaxed over the years from "a continuous journey over a significant pat of the system" to a fairly trivial minimum range today.

 

What they have changed is how keenly they enforce.

 

In the past, they had stricter guidance, but didn't actually enforce. Now they enforce.

 

The point is that it was ALWAYS possible to see this coming.

 

For many years, BW told people what the rules were, and the existing P-takers told people to "ignore it, they won't actually do anything".

 

Nasty people like me have been saying for years that people were being led up the garden path by those who gave them that advice.

 

The rules were always there. The fact that a bloke down the pub said that they would never enforce them and has been proved to be talking crap isn't a reason to exempt people from the rules.

Virtual greenie sir

[rasputin]

This is just that same old video re released

[David Schweizer]

 

It was not always like this though,was it?

 

I am well aware of cases where people did their research by actually seeking out BW enforcement officers in their area, and asking the staff on the ground what would satisfy them. I'm not talking about people looking to do the bare minimum, but people who knew there would for some years be a limit to just how big a patch they could roam over, and who did not want to commit to a situation that might in future cause problems.

 

In such cases EOs often specified their requirement as being far far less than what people knew they could easily achieve, so they rightly thought that even if enforcement did, over time, get somewhat stricter, they were still unlikely to ever have a problem.

 

So it wasn't always a "bloke down the pub" or a "P-taker" advising these people, and it s unfair to suggest they have been so ill-informed.. They were actually doing the best due diligence they could, given that at the time there was little correlation between BWs interpretation of the law, and what the view was of enforcement staff on the ground.

 

There is little doubt in my mind that people who have done this are in many cases easily complying with "bona fide for navigation", which is all the relevant act actually require. The fact that this doesn't comply with your idea that such people need a home mooring doesn't actually make you right, and them wrong does it?

 

Rose Tinted Spectacles Alan. Whilst there may be a few people who have consulted BW/C&ART staff before deciding to live on a boat, My experience on the K&A suggests that the majority have bought a boat and listened to others already living on boats to discover how much they might get away with. Most of the the boats and boaters featured in the Video along with at least a hundred more, have spent the past 15 years piddling about between Bathampton and Widbrooke (about 8 miles) pretending that they are continuously cruising, and despite C&ART's efforts to accomodate their requirements , they continue to flout the rules.

Edited January 6, 2017 by David Schweizer

[BruceinSanity]

Really? Only a few score residential moorings? Like one or two hundred? I find that very difficult to believe. Is there any info on the actual total anywhere?

We've got 260 right here in Mercia, for a start.

 

We cc'd for six years perfectly legally, the probs start when you have local commitments like a job or kids to school. I reckon mayalld hit the nail smack bang on the head.

 

(Sorry, bit more emphatic than usual, there, just started a fresh bottle of Yellow Tail. <happy sigh>)

[alan_fincher]

Rose Tinted Spectacles Alan.

Not at all, because I was very careful to make it quite clear that my sympathies were only with a smallish number of people who actually tried to make sure they could comply before embarking on the life by talking to someone other than "the bloke down the pub".

 

I know these people exist, because I have met and talked to them, and in my book the people I am talking about are not the "P Takers" being referred to.

 

Although I have never boated it, my understanding is the bit of the K&A you refer to is pretty unique, and what you describe is not often found except where there are very considerable concentrations of live-aboards.

 

I have make no attempt to defend the position of anybody "piddling about" on the K&A, but I do know actual people elsewhere who had gone to the trouble of talking to real enforcement officers in BW days, to ensure they knew what was required, when there was clearly big differences between the ever changing BW guidance on the topic, and what EOs actually required on the ground.

 

Even if 99% of people could be deemed to be "taking the P", I will still state the case for the 1% who have tried very hard not to. (I believe the percentage ic a lot higher than that though, countrywide, without limiting the evidence to just one infamous hot-spot).

[zenataomm]

This is nothing more than the oft repeated thread ......

 

What do I have to do in order to live on my boat legally? - VERSUS - I want to live on my boat cheap as chips, how do I get around the rules?

[David Schweizer]

Not at all, because I was very careful to make it quite clear that my sympathies were only with a smallish number of people who actually tried to make sure they could comply before embarking on the life by talking to someone other than "the bloke down the pub".

 

I know these people exist, because I have met and talked to them, and in my book the people I am talking about are not the "P Takers" being referred to.

 

Although I have never boated it, my understanding is the bit of the K&A you refer to is pretty unique, and what you describe is not often found except where there are very considerable concentrations of live-aboards.

 

I have make no attempt to defend the position of anybody "piddling about" on the K&A, but I do know actual people elsewhere who had gone to the trouble of talking to real enforcement officers in BW days, to ensure they knew what was required, when there was clearly big differences between the ever changing BW guidance on the topic, and what EOs actually required on the ground.

 

Even if 99% of people could be deemed to be "taking the P", I will still state the case for the 1% who have tried very hard not to. (I believe the percentage ic a lot higher than that though, countrywide, without limiting the evidence to just one infamous hot-spot).

 

I agree that is my experience, and that is pobably the root of their misunderstanding. I always sought mooring information directly from the Regional Moorings Officer, rather than an operative on the ground. I also made sure that any concessions agreed were conveyed to the local Mooring Enforcement Officer,

[Arthur Brown]

The problem is that CaRT is patchy at enforcement.

 

There was a thread here about a forum member being warned for overstaying at Braunston despite having cruised the Pennine canal system between two sightings at Braunston. There are also places where boats move so little that they can walk to work and no enforcement happens for long periods. This means that public appreciation of the rules falls somewhere between the two extremes, and wherever suits each available boater at the time.