|
Post by naughtyfox on Dec 7, 2018 14:15:59 GMT
to be honest I've not heard of anyone having issues in the area where I am. So I think it's being rolled out in the south first I’m guessing there are pockets in other parts of the country where a small number of people have lobbied CRT to fulfill their agenda. Stoke Bruerne is a good example of this and has become a ghost village as a result. An own goal I think. Kathryn likes this.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 7, 2018 14:16:40 GMT
I can see perhaps why some boaters try to deny what is written in the 1995 act, but if the powers that be are given the excuse to change it, where do you honestly think it will end for all of us? Don’t forget most boaters in the country currently follow the law and CRT’s made up rules without too much of a problem. In fact I would guess that the majority of boaters don’t give a stuff about the London problem. If things get worse for the majority elsewhere in the country, I’m sure more and more people will fight their case. As for the ‘London problem’, I’ve always suggested that more dedicated moorings (and marinas) are created to allow people to use boats as accommodation if they wish to work and live there. It’s a very densely populated area, which has a unique problem. Land value is too high to build new marinas. Interestingly the "problems" which caused the DEFRA houseboat group to appear are actually not connected to the London conurbation. Its a home counties problem. Leafy Surrey in fact. Yes but if businesses in London want to retain staff they will need to find ways of accommodating them. Boats don’t take up a lot of space...but I guess you can’t stack them up on eachother. Boats add a lot of charm to places like Limehouse, so I’m sure a balance can be found. Obviously that balance tipped over in the case of the DEFRA group, the question is, who tipped it first and why?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 7, 2018 14:18:58 GMT
I'll delete my comments kris
|
|
|
Post by kris on Dec 7, 2018 14:20:05 GMT
You obviously missed my edited post. I'm quite happy to go away and do my own research and correct my self when I'm wrong. I'll delete my comments kris No leave them, I don't mind making a mistake and then correcting it. I obviously can't read and type as fast as some others.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 7, 2018 14:20:41 GMT
Deleted.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 7, 2018 14:25:48 GMT
Land value is too high to build new marinas. Interestingly the "problems" which caused the DEFRA houseboat group to appear are actually not connected to the London conurbation. Its a home counties problem. Leafy Surrey in fact. Yes but if businesses in London want to retain staff they will need to find ways of accommodating them. Boats don’t take up a lot of space...but I guess you can’t stack them up on eachother. Boats add a lot of charm to places like Limehouse, so I’m sure a balance can be found. Obviously that balance tipped over in the case of the DEFRA group, the question is, who tipped it first and why? Boats definitely make inner city areas nicer. Specially if they are not running generators or engines during evening. Only problem with that is then you get into residential mooring territory which obviously reduces the appeal of living on a boat because it is no longer ridiculously cheap. Its a bit of a catch-22 situation. I agree entirely that the situation in cities should not be extended to rural areas but because of the way the system is set up I think it will be. Two solutions are either regional tolls or local authoruity. Or both. Tolls is how the canal system was originally managed. Maybe a return to this system would be worthwhile. Obviously the original idea was to spend as little time on a particular canal as possible so alterations would be needed to account for the existing user base.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 7, 2018 14:35:55 GMT
Obviously that balance tipped over in the case of the DEFRA group, the question is, who tipped it first and why? I like your thinking here. Someone sets up a few slum boats which are obviously unacceptable to Joe public but appears to be untouchable. Forces changes in the law while remaining untouchable. Hmm. Yes it does smell a bit doesn't it !!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 7, 2018 14:47:18 GMT
Obviously that balance tipped over in the case of the DEFRA group, the question is, who tipped it first and why? I like your thinking here. Someone sets up a few slum boats which are obviously unacceptable to Joe public but appears to be untouchable. Forces changes in the law while remaining untouchable. Hmm. Yes it does smell a bit doesn't it !! Occums razor doesn’t apply when the logic is actually complicated!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 7, 2018 14:48:07 GMT
Yes but if businesses in London want to retain staff they will need to find ways of accommodating them. Boats don’t take up a lot of space...but I guess you can’t stack them up on eachother. Boats add a lot of charm to places like Limehouse, so I’m sure a balance can be found. Obviously that balance tipped over in the case of the DEFRA group, the question is, who tipped it first and why? Boats definitely make inner city areas nicer. Specially if they are not running generators or engines during evening. Only problem with that is then you get into residential mooring territory which obviously reduces the appeal of living on a boat because it is no longer ridiculously cheap. Its a bit of a catch-22 situation. I agree entirely that the situation in cities should not be extended to rural areas but because of the way the system is set up I think it will be. Two solutions are either regional tolls or local authoruity. Or both. Tolls is how the canal system was originally managed. Maybe a return to this system would be worthwhile. Obviously the original idea was to spend as little time on a particular canal as possible so alterations would be needed to account for the existing user base. ...and Lengthsmen...
|
|
|
Post by naughtyfox on Dec 7, 2018 14:49:32 GMT
No squealing! It's secret!!
|
|
|
Post by NigelMoore on Dec 19, 2018 23:37:33 GMT
Just received news that 8 live-aboard boats on the Thames in Reading have been served court papers by District Enforcement. The court papers were served on Monday 17th December for a hearing on Thursday 20th December - just 3 days notice.
The NBTA are advising those affected to attend and ask for time to prepare any Defence. Tomorrow could prove to be a significant event. The NBTA advise that “there will be a meeting to discuss ongoing legal support and action on Sunday 23rd December 2018 at the Fisherman's Cottage, 224 Kennet Side, Reading RG1 3DW (opposite Blake's Lock on the River Kennet).”
|
|
|
Post by Telemachus on Dec 19, 2018 23:50:32 GMT
Just received news that 8 live-aboard boats on the Thames in Reading have been served court papers by District Enforcement. The court papers were served on Monday 17th December for a hearing on Thursday 20th December - just 3 days notice. The NBTA are advising those affected to attend and ask for time to prepare any Defence. Tomorrow could prove to be a significant event. The NBTA advise that “there will be a meeting to discuss ongoing legal support and action on Sunday 23rd December 2018 at the Fisherman's Cottage, 224 Kennet Side, Reading RG1 3DW (opposite Blake's Lock on the River Kennet).” Served court papers saying what? “Move on”, or something else?
|
|
|
Post by NigelMoore on Dec 20, 2018 0:08:10 GMT
Something else - i.e. you owe us lots of money in fines. At least, that is what I surmise. I have no more details than what I posted.
|
|
|
Post by thebfg on Dec 20, 2018 2:17:44 GMT
that would be a normal underhand tactic that these cowboys would employ.
quite a few useful defence points. i wish them well.
Will you be having any hand in helping them?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 20, 2018 7:04:16 GMT
I read somewhere that some boat dwellers in Reading had put notices on their boats which said that anyone attaching a notice to their boat was entering a contract and agreed to pay the boat owner £100. Not sure if it was a giggle or could actually be legal.
|
|