|
Post by naughtyfox on Nov 17, 2018 19:23:29 GMT
Eyeing up the next meal.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 17, 2018 20:05:03 GMT
I don't think its about "society". I believe (rightly or wrongly) that you get people in influencial positions who follow personal agendas. They don't have a wider society view they have a narrow personal view and they follow this up with changes to suit their agenda if they think this will benefit their short term political aims. Its nothing to do with the greater good of society its just personal shit and in a lot of cases personal conflict. You raise an interesting point in suggesting people are jealous of the boat dwelling lifestyle. I reckon that's bollocks. Its easy to think that just because I like being on the water all the time everyone else must be yearning for that but at the end of the day it's entirely probable that a huge majority of people would prefer to live in a house and have a boat for playing with then if the weather is shite just say "sod that I can't be arsed so shall stay in the house and watch telly". If its nice the option to go on the boat is available. I've been on the Thames around Marlow this weekend. Lovely weather nobody about (which is good). I'm glad they don't put small wood stoves in gin palaces or people might start using them out of season I think everyone ‘follows personal agendas’, regardless of financial wealth. I don’t think that makes them narrow minded unless they are not open to other people’s views. When you find people with similar views, the agenda may become a group thing. Sometimes we might initially disagree with a view but then modify our view after some thought. I’m totally with you on the personal conflict thing. It’s amazing how much time and effort someone will put in just to chase justice, and they sometimes don’t care about who they drag along with them. As for the jealousy thing, you may have a point , but I’ve found it is common driver behind people who target a different lifestyle to their own. As you say, and I’ ve said many times, living on board a boat only suits a small minority. However it’s the fact that many of us are happy with our lives which makes them jealous. It almost seems that ‘because I have a miserable life, you should too’. Everyone has a choice (well for now). If anyone feels miserable about their own life, then change something, don’t fuck it up for others. TBH, I don’t know all the reasons why live aboards and CC’ers get targeted. I’m sure some of us do take the piss sometimes and it’s something those belonging to the NBTA need to be wary of before making their case. To clarify, live and let live, but try not to bugger it up for others.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 17, 2018 20:14:04 GMT
I agree Live and let live. I'm not a member of any organisations and never have been so there is no influence. My views and comments will never have any material effect on anyone. Its just a discussion.
The personal agenda thing was referring to the fact this Raab geyser who apparently started the "secretive defra group" might end up being prime minister.
|
|
|
Post by NigelMoore on Nov 18, 2018 0:22:27 GMT
Well I’m happy to learn. I always thought the 1995 act came about because lots of ‘boaters’ got together to get a change in the law so they didn’t have to have a home mooring. I thought that was because they wanted to explore the system, so wouldn’t need a home mooring. Are you saying that wasn’t the intention behind the 1995 act? If so, what was the history behind it? Do your own research, it's all been gone through many times on this forum and analworld. While you are correct Kris, even searching back through the Forums is unnecessary. The most direct way to understand what the 1995 Act was all about (in its entirety) is to read that Act as published on the government legislation website :- www.legislation.gov.uk/ukla/1995/1/contents/enacted In point of fact, the 1990 Bill was aimed at obtaining a large number of powers, gathered under 3 distinct headings: ‘Entry onto land’; ‘Regulation and management of inland waterways’, and ‘Miscellaneous and general’. The much discussed element over licence conditions itself forms only one of half a dozen sub-headings under the 'Regulation' heading. Even then, the debated point only falls under one of 2 subsects, of one of the 3 subsections of only one out of 11 sections under that sub-heading! It is extraordinary that people tend to think of the 1995 Act as purely concerning itself with the fuzzily expressed alternative to having a home mooring.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 18, 2018 4:26:04 GMT
Do your own research, it's all been gone through many times on this forum and analworld. While you are correct Kris, even searching back through the Forums is unnecessary. The most direct way to understand what the 1995 Act was all about (in its entirety) is to read that Act as published on the government legislation website :- www.legislation.gov.uk/ukla/1995/1/contents/enacted In point of fact, the 1990 Bill was aimed at obtaining a large number of powers, gathered under 3 distinct headings: ‘Entry onto land’; ‘Regulation and management of inland waterways’, and ‘Miscellaneous and general’. The much discussed element over licence conditions itself forms only one of half a dozen sub-headings under the 'Regulation' heading. Even then, the debated point only falls under one of 2 subsects, of one of the 3 subsections of only one out of 11 sections under that sub-heading! It is extraordinary that people tend to think of the 1995 Act as purely concerning itself with the fuzzily expressed alternative to having a home mooring. As I said, I think there may be a conflict of interest between those who are bona fide navigating and those who aren’t. Accepting that that definition is very subjective and fuzzy! If the NBTA want to unite ALL boaters without a home mooring then it would be good to know whether their argument is strong enough. I think the history behind the bona fide navigation (good intention) bit may eventually come into play. I know NABO claimed to have been involved in amending the 1995 act but I don’t know which bits or what their original intentions were? I also appreciate there are also the human right elements to NBTA’s case, so the 1995 act may not be relevant. PS Which MP should itinerant boaters send this letter to? www.bargee-traveller.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2018/11/Sample-letter-to-MP-Defra-working-group-on-residential-houseboats.docx
|
|
|
Post by patty on Nov 18, 2018 7:07:21 GMT
I don't think its about "society". I believe (rightly or wrongly) that you get people in influencial positions who follow personal agendas. They don't have a wider society view they have a narrow personal view and they follow this up with changes to suit their agenda if they think this will benefit their short term political aims. Its nothing to do with the greater good of society its just personal shit and in a lot of cases personal conflict. You raise an interesting point in suggesting people are jealous of the boat dwelling lifestyle. I reckon that's bollocks. Its easy to think that just because I like being on the water all the time everyone else must be yearning for that but at the end of the day it's entirely probable that a huge majority of people would prefer to live in a house and have a boat for playing with then if the weather is shite just say "sod that I can't be arsed so shall stay in the house and watch telly". If its nice the option to go on the boat is available. I've been on the Thames around Marlow this weekend. Lovely weather nobody about (which is good). I'm glad they don't put small wood stoves in gin palaces or people might start using them out of season I’m totally with you on the personal conflict thing. It’s amazing how much time and effort someone will put in just to chase justice, and they sometimes don’t care about who they drag along with them. Haven't read in depth the whole thread but this statement caught my eye 'Justice' sometimes just has to be chased...I've been through some pretty awful stuff and accepted and accepted all the dreadful c... thrown at me until a certain point and when my back against the wall and there was no where left to turn then I fought..solicitors and perpetrators x 3...in each case it seemed futile gesture going up against who I tackled...but I did not care, the line in the sand had been crossed and I'd have done anything to resolve. What Im trying to say is that it becomes so important it doesn't matter who you drag in. We all have our own perceptions of what justice is..sadly it isn't necessarily what is right or legal. The legal system is not what it should be. I succeeded in all 3 cases but only because I had no intention of letting it go....there was a cost but for me that was secondary to proving the right of what I felt was an terrible injustice. The law can be an ass. That said I'd do it again and Ive learnt now not to blindly accept others dictates out of fear.
|
|
|
Post by kris on Nov 18, 2018 9:46:53 GMT
Do your own research, it's all been gone through many times on this forum and analworld. While you are correct Kris, even searching back through the Forums is unnecessary. The most direct way to understand what the 1995 Act was all about (in its entirety) is to read that Act as published on the government legislation website :- www.legislation.gov.uk/ukla/1995/1/contents/enacted It is undoubtedly better to go direct to the source for your information.
|
|
|
Post by kris on Nov 18, 2018 9:55:03 GMT
Some boaters seem to think that any thing this group come up with won't effect them, because they don't boat in London or they are a particular kind of boater. How wrong people who think this are.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 18, 2018 10:18:48 GMT
Its going to be interesting to see what happens. Are they going to go in all guns blazing or just attempt to reduce the future increases.
Its all a bit similar to the squatting subject. I'm not an expert but I believe that a few years ago squatting residential property was criminalised so people don't do it. The idea of itinerant living on boats being criminalised is an interesting one. The only way it could he enforced is by some sort of land use law ie where you secure your boat.
All rather complicated !!
Or do they just go for mooring being a requirement of licensing and actually check it. Or simply increase the costs for people without moorings so that it is equivalent to having a mooring. That would have to be regional as it is a residential thing and rent varies throughout the country.
Most likely seems limited stay like 48h everywhere.
|
|
|
Post by kris on Nov 18, 2018 10:25:56 GMT
Or do they just go for mooring being a requirement of licensing and actually check it. This is what BW wanted for years, unfortunately the anti livaboard element still exist within cart. So as you say we'll see. The obvious difficulty with making having a mooring a condition of getting a liscence. Is that there arent enough moorings, this could have been used as a selling point for the marinas. You buy them, we'll make it compulsory to have a mooring. You cash in.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 18, 2018 10:45:07 GMT
I’m totally with you on the personal conflict thing. It’s amazing how much time and effort someone will put in just to chase justice, and they sometimes don’t care about who they drag along with them. Haven't read in depth the whole thread but this statement caught my eye 'Justice' sometimes just has to be chased...I've been through some pretty awful stuff and accepted and accepted all the dreadful c... thrown at me until a certain point and when my back against the wall and there was no where left to turn then I fought..solicitors and perpetrators x 3...in each case it seemed futile gesture going up against who I tackled...but I did not care, the line in the sand had been crossed and I'd have done anything to resolve. What Im trying to say is that it becomes so important it doesn't matter who you drag in. We all have our own perceptions of what justice is..sadly it isn't necessarily what is right or legal. The legal system is not what it should be. I succeeded in all 3 cases but only because I had no intention of letting it go....there was a cost but for me that was secondary to proving the right of what I felt was an terrible injustice. The law can be an ass. That said I'd do it again and Ive learnt now not to blindly accept others dictates out of fear. We probably wouildnt be sitting here if individuals hadn’t sought justice. I just know from my own experience how I let a certain issue spill over onto those around me many years ago, when it may have been better to just let it go and write it off as part of life’s learning process. It obviously depends on how serious the issue is as to how far you go. It also depends on other factors like anger, spite and stubbornness. When someone is threatening to remove your home, then it does become serious. That’s why I have some respect for what the NBTA are doing. My concerns really started after reading the sample letter which the NBTA suggest we send to our MP. It seems to draw on ALL boaters without a home mooring regardless of them being in the London area or K&A. I’ve always seen ‘the issue’ as a localised ‘problem’. The NBTA are now making this a national problem witihout providing any evidence that it is. That worries me. It could be argued that those who push on the limit of the ‘rules’ are creating a problem for those who don’t. However if it can be shown that this group are targeting all boaters without a home mooring then maybe the NBTA would get more support.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 18, 2018 10:46:46 GMT
While you are correct Kris, even searching back through the Forums is unnecessary. The most direct way to understand what the 1995 Act was all about (in its entirety) is to read that Act as published on the government legislation website :- www.legislation.gov.uk/ukla/1995/1/contents/enacted It is undoubtedly better to go direct to the source for your information. Unless I’ve missed something it doesn’t address what I’m talking about.
|
|
|
Post by kris on Nov 18, 2018 11:01:32 GMT
It is undoubtedly better to go direct to the source for your information. Unless I’ve missed something it doesn’t address what I’m talking about. Well what are you on about? Because from here it just looks like your defaming an organisation that has been very effective in holding the navigation authority open to question. Has represented it's members concerns and interests to the relevant authorities. So what is it your on about? Because it just seems your smug because you don't think the actions of this group will effect you because of your interpretation of the legislation. Or maybe it's because you feel superior because you don't have a scruffy boat? It really isn't that clear what your saying other than its not my fault, it's everyone else?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 18, 2018 11:09:50 GMT
Unless I’ve missed something it doesn’t address what I’m talking about. Well what are you on about? Because from here it just looks like your defaming an organisation that has been very effective in holding the navigation authority open to question. Has represented it's members concerns and interests to the relevant authorities. So what is it your on about? Because it just seems your smug because you don't think the actions of this group will effect you because of your interpretation of the legislation. Or maybe it's because you feel superior because you don't have a scruffy boat? It really isn't that clear what your saying other than its not my fault, it's everyone else? You are way off he mark Kris and your accusations aren’t helping. If you read my posts properly it’s clear what I’m getting at. Maybe my reply to Patty above may clarify my concerns better.
|
|
|
Post by naughtyfox on Nov 18, 2018 11:11:42 GMT
Or do they just go for mooring being a requirement of licensing and actually check it. This is what BW wanted for years, unfortunately the anti livaboard element still exist within cart. So as you say we'll see. The obvious difficulty with making having a mooring a condition of getting a liscence. Is that there arent enough moorings, this could have been used as a selling point for the marinas. You buy them, we'll make it compulsory to have a mooring. You cash in.Have you considered buying land and digging out your own marina, kris? You say there are not enough moorings. Also "you cash in", as all those boats parked up in marinas are like your own herd of dairy cows, all ripe for milking. You would be helping The Community by providing more moorings.
|
|