sixtimes
Well-Known Member
Ur so up urself
Liveaboards being evicted in UK
- Thread starter oldbilbo
- Start date
- Status
rotrax
Well-Known Member
Sixtimes-where has the perfect spelling and word construction gone-post 210 and 213?
I fear Erbas has sussed you out and you are nothing but a **** stirring troll.
I'm done with you. You have nothing relevant to say, and what you have said holds no water.
Goodbye.
hartcjhart
Well-Known Member
I'm done with you. You have nothing relevant to say, and what you have said holds no water.
a bit like his boat if CART get their way
a bit like his boat if CART get their way
rotrax
Well-Known Member
Interesting thread this. Up to post 50 only about half a dozen contributors had suggested the CRT were doing their job-many were REALLY scathing about the " Gestapo bully boy tactics "
Once the real facts came out some changed their tune and wished they had not signed, some worked out the petition did not cover the true situatiion and would not sign, and some with Inland Waterway experience would never have signed.
Sixtimes did not help the petitions cause, even if he is not, as others and I suspect, a Troll.
I wonder if the OP, a respected forumite, has gained anything from the information turned up by the thread?
Once the real facts came out some changed their tune and wished they had not signed, some worked out the petition did not cover the true situatiion and would not sign, and some with Inland Waterway experience would never have signed.
Sixtimes did not help the petitions cause, even if he is not, as others and I suspect, a Troll.
I wonder if the OP, a respected forumite, has gained anything from the information turned up by the thread?
chinita
Well-Known Member
Well I have gained something (but I am not a respected forumite!).
The most obvious being (and it applies to all knee-jerk petitions) is to try to look at all sides.
The other is that all forms of 'alternative living' have their rebel element. Unfortunately the volume of their voices is inversely proportional to the numbers they claim to represent.
Like many, I have considered giving the canals a go for a few years. Nothing I have read here has put me off; merely served to make me even more diligent in research before dipping a toe in the brown water.
The most obvious being (and it applies to all knee-jerk petitions) is to try to look at all sides.
The other is that all forms of 'alternative living' have their rebel element. Unfortunately the volume of their voices is inversely proportional to the numbers they claim to represent.
Like many, I have considered giving the canals a go for a few years. Nothing I have read here has put me off; merely served to make me even more diligent in research before dipping a toe in the brown water.
rotrax
Well-Known Member
Of course you are a respected forumite!
Why would you think otherwise?
Why would you think otherwise?
dgadee
Well-Known Member
Sorry for absence. In Lymington preparing boat for canal trip. Will 1.8m keel stop me getting to Milton Keynes? I note the Tories and I have been singing from the same hymn sheet:
http://www.insidehousing.co.uk/deve...-boats-to-ease-housing-crisis/6517491.article
http://www.insidehousing.co.uk/deve...-boats-to-ease-housing-crisis/6517491.article
Bru
Well-Known Member
Ah now this is a very different thing though. The minister is not proposing that people should be allowed to live aboard a boat mooring anywhere they please without paying for a mooring and blocking facilities needed by cruising boats (both residential and holiday)
He is proposing something I have no issue with at all, in principal, which is a more balanced approach to planning consent for permanent residential moorings
To date, with one or two rare exceptions, it has only been possible to get planning consent for a very small number of residential moorings. Generally speaking the authorities will permit a single residential berth within a small mooring development, perhaps two or three in a larger marina
There is scope, and demand, for a greater number of residential moorings particularly in urban areas although the scope is constained by the avilability of suitable locations. You cannot simply plant mile after mile of linear on-line moorings along the towpath* so any significant developments would need to be in existing basins or new off-line marinas. It's never going to come even close to solving the housing crisis and Shapps is being disengenous to hint that it could. It makes for a nice bit of meeja publicity though!
* Not without causing a huge conflict of interest between cruising users and the residents. Extended linear moorings are a nightmare because you really need to slow right down to tickover and pass moored boats at a crawling pace otherwise they'll get slammed around like nobody's business. This may not seem an issue to people used to rivers and sea going sailing / motor boating but anybody with experience of the man made canals will know it's a massive bone of contention amongst users
Edit: There's also some misrepresentation of the facts in that article - note that RBOA estimate, and it's little more than a guess, that some 15,000 people live on boats on canals. rivers AND tidal waters. Suddenly that becomes 15,000 people living on the waterways which isn't quite the same thing.
Last edited:
Tranona
Well-Known Member
I already hinted at that earlier on in this saga. However, as Erbas explains it is just political puff and not seriously grounded in any real understanding of the issues. More a diversionary tactic of passing the "blame" onto somebody else. As I said, the government had an opportunity, both in the 1995 bill that set the current ground rules and in the creation of the CART to explicitly create a framework to use the waterways more widely for housing. On both occasions they chose not to, for reasons that are all too obvious to people who understand the nature of the waterways.
BTW you are aware that a significant number of dwellers on the waterways have their mooring and licence fees paid by the government through housing benefits, so you and I are already subsidising their lifestyle - not that I object because they have a right to that benefit - I only ask that they abide by the rules. Equally I am grateful to the "holiday makers" who pay roughly one third of the total cost of running the waterways out of their taxed income, so reducing the cost to the public purse.
Bru
Well-Known Member
I confess I was concentrating on the on-topic element and failed to note the first line properly .. I assume you are not actually serious?
If by some chance you are serious then the answer is basically yes, 1.8m draught is a total non-starter
If you want to discuss it further might be appropriage to start a new thread on Scuttlebut as it's off-topic for this thread and this forum. Or PM me, be happy to advise
sixtimes
Well-Known Member
This petition is about us sticking up for our selves.how can ppl move in flood or ice conditions are enforsment so thick to see u carnt.then they revoke ur licence for it.im so glad that this is out in the open cus thats all cart do is bully boaters.canrt wait for the judge to see fotos.wonder wot he will think.
Last edited:
JumbleDuck
Well-Known Member
Are they taking you to court for failure to moved during the frozen period or for failing to move over a previous period when you could have cruised if you wanted to?
Rigger Mortice
N/A
I think we all know that it's not the two weeks a year of floods and ice but the 50 weeks a year of ignoring the rules that he signed up to. You won't get a straight answer from him though.
JamesFrance
Well-Known Member
I am amazed that this topic has gone on for 12 pages and that some forum members rushed in to sign the so called petition.
We spent 5 years as narrowboat liveaboards about 10 years ago and travelled to most places accessible to a 70ft boat. Quite frequently we found it difficult to moor near shops and places of interest because what were known as bridge hoppers were taking up the mooring places for extended periods or only moving short distances trying not to be noticed by BW.
There is no provision on the canal system for people who decide to stay in one place to send children to school or live close to a hospital. If this were to be allowed to continue it would be impossible for others, especially boat hirers, to get access to shopping or visit interesting places along the way. The hire industry would collapse.
What these few people are doing is the same as setting up home in a caravan in a village car park. Nobody would be signing petitions to allow that.
We spent 5 years as narrowboat liveaboards about 10 years ago and travelled to most places accessible to a 70ft boat. Quite frequently we found it difficult to moor near shops and places of interest because what were known as bridge hoppers were taking up the mooring places for extended periods or only moving short distances trying not to be noticed by BW.
There is no provision on the canal system for people who decide to stay in one place to send children to school or live close to a hospital. If this were to be allowed to continue it would be impossible for others, especially boat hirers, to get access to shopping or visit interesting places along the way. The hire industry would collapse.
What these few people are doing is the same as setting up home in a caravan in a village car park. Nobody would be signing petitions to allow that.
Tranona
Well-Known Member
The petition focused on so-called bully boy tactics by CART when they do get to the stage of trying to remove unlicenced boats and their owners, rather than the underlying issue of what is permitted or not permitted. It was framed in terms of victimisation and discrimination against particular people. However, once you read the "other side" - that is the CART account and the court process you find a very different story - hence the refusal of many people to sign the petition.
The basic issue of the constraints relating to the various licences and the suitability of the waterways for permanent liveaboard is still there.
The basic issue of the constraints relating to the various licences and the suitability of the waterways for permanent liveaboard is still there.
capsco
Well-Known Member
dgadee
Well-Known Member
Horror! Holidaymakers have to walk!!
rotrax
Well-Known Member
You really are determined not to see the point.
Let us imagine you have a Harbourmasters Pontoon Berth for which you pay an annual fee of-for example- £1500.00.
You go off on a weeks sailing trip to find on your return that there is another boat in your berth who refuses to move.
The only other place for you is on a swinging mooring which requires a lengthy and wet dinghy trip.
The boat in your berth is a liveaboard who is shouting Human Rights and Fascist thugs. He is also not paying anything to the Harbour authority.
Horror! Wealthy yachtsman has to use dinghy!
Perhaps your view might change.
On the other hand you might feel good that you were not depriving the guy in your berth of somewhere to live.
Fat Chance......................................
dgadee
Well-Known Member
Not suggesting permanent moorings should be usurped. I am suggesting there should be more of them.
But that doesn't mean that someone on holiday wanting to moor close to a specific point should have rights over others. Cruising at sea does not give you that right - I have moved elsewhere when anchorages were full. Luckily I have never had to divert to another harbour.
The op was about disability discrimination and I certainly do believe that the DDA has priority over licenses. The HoL (mainly commercial lawyers - I seem to remember - at that time) took the view in Malcolm that property rights should be given priority. That view was overturned in the Equality Act. I believe my view is the current position in law.
So, yes. I am determined not to agree with points that I don't agree with. Give me arguments to prove my view wrong and I will change view. But I haven't seen one yet (despite the 'naive', 'don't understand', 'determined not to see the point', etc.)
JamesFrance
Well-Known Member
That is nonsense, by definition visitor moorings are for temporary use by visitors. You seem to see discrimination where none exists.
- Status