Liveaboards being evicted in UK

Status
Not open for further replies.
Tranona said:
Very opposite. I don't use the waterways - no need as I can see Poole Harbour out of my bedroom window..
Click to expand...

How dare you enjoy a nicer view than me. It's not fair and I demand that something is done about it

Poole Harbour should immediately be filled with rusty hulls with tatty superstructures in all the navigable channels occupied by anarchic new age travellers who believe the state should subsidise their chosen way of life.

Its totally unreasonable for the thousands of leisure users of the harbour to enjoy it at the expense of the poor and homeless
 
dgadee said:
The CRT have a clear policy of encouraging holidaymaker usage at the expense of permanent users/the housing crisis. Why would I need to accept that policy as the best fit for the country in its current situation?
Click to expand...

If we can accept that the CRT, correctly identified as an NGO and as a Charitable trust has Statutory Duties.

If it avoids these Statutory Duties by allowing licence condition breakers to get away with it, licence condition compliers, who are very upset at these-and I'll stop being PC for once-often traveller type hippies filling up the amenities they pay for. If they were complying with what they signed up for, there would be no cause for complaint.

But they are using temporary mooring places permanently thus depriving others from using them for the intended purpose.

The canal system was not, is not, and probably never will be a major resource for housing.

Some few thousands enjoy the lifestyle without any problems at all.

The offenders are often very astute and will push things as far as they can before complying. This costs the CRT time and money-both in short supply. Getting tough with these persistent offenders appears to meet with the approval of most licence holders.

Interesting, is it not, that the residential boat owners group has no issue with enforcement.

I wonder why that is the case? Perhaps it is because their members abide by the rules and thus pay for it and they find it offensive when others take the P*ss.



It is just the same as buying a cinema ticket to find no seats available in the theatre because someone has bunked in the fire door for free and stolen your place.
 
Last edited:
Was trying to put another boater they got in the floods same time as me.but carnt sort this out as new to computers.so more evidence for me in court
 
Erbas said:
I preume you mean http://www.towpathtalk.co.uk/news/star-letter-traffic-wardens-for-the-waterways
Click to expand...

And in any case, in their case too I would want to know how long they had been in and around the Trent before the winter set in

I would also point out that the River Trent and the River Soar become un-navigable for periods of time, sometimes, extended, every single winter. The rivers are therefore clearly not a suitable place to spend a winter continuously cruising for that very reason. A genuine continuous cruiser would have no issue with heading onto the canals during the winter where only severe ice would prevent compliance with the 14 day rule
 
sixtimes said:
http://www.topathtalk.co.uk/news/star-letter-traffic-wardens-for the waterways
Click to expand...

http://www.towpathtalk.co.uk/news/star-letter-traffic-wardens-for-the-waterways

Fixed the link for you AGAIN - there's a "w" in "towpathtalk"

Same link, already commented on. Its from May 2013 and is one persons rant against what they perceive to be unfair treatment. Story virtually identical to yours (hmmm!)

I question again what on earth they, or you, are doing trying to hang around on rivers which are notorious for flooding - the Soar in particular has an evil reputation
 
Oh dear, they had to cope with cold weather and snow. Well jeez, no sh*t Sherlock as the Americans would say!

If they can't cope with cold weather and snow what the hell are they doing living aboard?
 
sixtimes said:
Yes did mean that.star letter the floods lasted 4 months it states it in that letter
Click to expand...

And?

It's not all that unusual. It's common enough for the flood boards to be up on the Soar in summer, trying to overwinter thereabouts seems to me to be pretty good evidence of a lack of understanding of the obligations and implications of adopting the CC lifestyle.
 
dgadee said:
You are all arguing from a position of self interest, and claiming to be detached. You are not. And Tranona is very judgmental in his language. I bet his wife and kids love being around him.
Click to expand...

Tranona I have differed, and I am sure will continue to differ, on several issues. However I have found him to be a well-informed contributor here and of unfailing courtesy. I have certainly never seen him descend anywhere near spiteful little jibes like your last sentence.
 
JumbleDuck said:
According to the CRT, they have just under 4,000 moorings in total. (http://canalrivertrust.org.uk/boating/mooring/finding-a-home-mooring). Even if every single one of those was residential it would be a minuscule proportion of UK housing provision.
Click to expand...

Plus the many thousands of privately operated moorings, mostly in marinas (there's around 35,000 boats in total on CART waterways, most of which have a permanent home mooring)

As I said earlier, there is significant demand for residential moorings and some scope for providing them if the planning consent regime were relaxed although supply is never practicably going to meet demand

Any such moorings would be unlikely to suit the majority of current non-compliant towpath lurkers because the going rate for such a mooring is right up there with South Coast marina prices!
 
Back in Ye Mistes of Tyme, the Highlands and Islands Development Board (RIP) spent quite a lot of money providing visitors' moorings on the west coast of Scotland, hoping to boost business from visiting yachts. In many places this worked well but in some, like Gigha, it did not, because local fishermen promptly saw a way of saving a few quid and moved their boats permanently onto the visitor moorings.
 
If its known like you said .about trent and soar than why harress boaters with threats of termination ov licence.if the enforment staff did there job properly then they would be able to see why we not travelled.so why harress us.and make us stressed.
 
Last edited:
The link sixtimes posted is an interesting read.

It is significant that only one side of the story is told.

I wonder if the CRT enforcement team records would show the writer of the missive to be a Continuous Cruising miscreant over some considerable length of time.

As Erbas points out only a complete wally would be on the Trent or Soar in the winter.

It is not as if there are not any nice canals which are not so afected by serious water flows or flood risk nearby, is it.

Ah-I wonder if it is the town and city amenities which are attractive........................................
Long Eaton, Nottingham and Loughborough all have plenty of amenities-and benifit offices-where it would be very practical for these liveaboard cheats to stay illegally.

I know it sounds cynical, but I wager it is near the mark.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Share this page

Top