Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 11, 2019 16:36:04 GMT
The nbta freely admit that it is a suitable alternative to squatting which has become more awkward due to law changes. The next thing which will become more awkward due to changes will be living on boats. I just thought I'd quote the section that I pulled Andrew up on again before he forgets what he said. It's not based on preduices Andrew it's based on what you say. Your the one claiming that NBTA have said something they haven't. Your showing your preduices against squatters and members of NBTA by basically demonising them. Maybe you'd like to use the usual insult dirty squatters? Thanks for confirmimg my prejudices. I am in favour of squatting, quietly. It is (was) the obvious way to use unoccupied property. Done with respect it is beneficial for owner and occupier. No question about that. I am also in favour of being able to live on boats without paying for moorings. You have put me in the wrong box. It is easy to put people in boxes. I prefer not to put people in boxes if possible. I don't mind putting an organisation in a box that's a different situation. Eta what I am not in favour of is being loud about something you know is a bit unconventional and not really all that legal when its all taken into account. I hate that.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 11, 2019 16:47:45 GMT
Twenty years ago we got very close to getting a "rogue" IWA chairman elected as at that time you didn't need to have worked your way up through the ranks, since then you do as they changed the selection rules to prevent it happening again Yet it still stinks of old farts and rogues 😂
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 11, 2019 17:04:46 GMT
I remember attending a meeting with iwa at their headquarters, where one of the vice chairs Paul Roper stated he was sick of continuous cruisers because he could never find a mooring at 5pm during August. When I suggested he was exaggerating, and I suspected there were plenty of places to pin, he stated he didn't use pins, and only moored on Armco. The room fell silent, and the faces of les Etheridge and co was a scream. Muppets.
|
|
|
Post by thebfg on Apr 11, 2019 17:11:18 GMT
I just thought I'd quote the section that I pulled Andrew up on again before he forgets what he said. It's not based on preduices Andrew it's based on what you say. Your the one claiming that NBTA have said something they haven't. Your showing your preduices against squatters and members of NBTA by basically demonising them. Maybe you'd like to use the usual insult dirty squatters? Thanks for confirmimg my prejudices. I am in favour of squatting, quietly. It is (was) the obvious way to use unoccupied property. Done with respect it is beneficial for owner and occupier. No question about that. I am also in favour of being able to live on boats without paying for moorings. You have put me in the wrong box. It is easy to put people in boxes. I prefer not to put people in boxes if possible. I don't mind putting an organisation in a box that's a different situation. Eta what I am not in favour of is being loud about something you know is a bit unconventional and not really all that legal when its all taken into account. I hate that. Squating still goes on. I think they stay(mostly) out of residential properties as it's harder to get them.out of comercial ones. Some are brilliant and look after places and a few have let us in for a look. Others well what disgrace, I think they are mostly drug dens.
|
|
|
Post by kris on Apr 11, 2019 18:23:40 GMT
I just thought I'd quote the section that I pulled Andrew up on again before he forgets what he said. It's not based on preduices Andrew it's based on what you say. Your the one claiming that NBTA have said something they haven't. Your showing your preduices against squatters and members of NBTA by basically demonising them. Maybe you'd like to use the usual insult dirty squatters? Thanks for confirmimg my prejudices. I am in favour of squatting, quietly. It is (was) the obvious way to use unoccupied property. Done with respect it is beneficial for owner and occupier. No question about that. I am also in favour of being able to live on boats without paying for moorings. You have put me in the wrong box. It is easy to put people in boxes. I prefer not to put people in boxes if possible. I don't mind putting an organisation in a box that's a different situation. Eta what I am not in favour of is being loud about something you know is a bit unconventional and not really all that legal when its all taken into account. I hate that. Remind me again how all of that relates to NBTA?
|
|
|
Post by naughtyfox on Apr 11, 2019 18:30:04 GMT
Thanks for confirmimg my prejudices. I am in favour of squatting, quietly. It is (was) the obvious way to use unoccupied property. Done with respect it is beneficial for owner and occupier. No question about that. I am also in favour of being able to live on boats without paying for moorings. You have put me in the wrong box. It is easy to put people in boxes. I prefer not to put people in boxes if possible. I don't mind putting an organisation in a box that's a different situation. Eta what I am not in favour of is being loud about something you know is a bit unconventional and not really all that legal when its all taken into account. I hate that. Squating still goes on. Especially at the Esquator.
|
|
|
Post by Jim on Apr 11, 2019 19:15:07 GMT
Especially at the Esquator. is that going over the waterfall at the edge!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 14, 2019 11:19:57 GMT
I think you are right to be concerned that it will not just be London which is affected it will be everywhere. That’s your view MM, not mine. Sorry to drag this up but it was your view in the caravan boat thread where you expressed the concern which I agree with. Your second paragraph below agrees with me. It might be a bit of a nuisance as you may think you disagree with me but in fact you agree ++++++++++++quote from page 4 of the "outside crts remit" thread+++++++++++ It should indeed be which is why I would advocate local authority management of all towpath moorings. CRT is not a housing authority. They offer some residential moorings but the lawful use of these is subject to local authority management at the end of the day. CRT are being asked, by nbta as an example, to be a health and housing service. How can they do this? I must admit my views have changed over the past few years. Hopefully for the better. However I am seeing more and more of a threat to the navigation, but more importantly to those who live on boats outside London due to local issues being perceived as national issues when they are not. There is a reason why property prices in London are far higher than elsewhere. There is a reason why many people from all over the world want to flock to London. I still hate London though....
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 14, 2019 11:41:53 GMT
That’s your view MM, not mine. Sorry to drag this up but it was your view in the caravan boat thread where you expressed the concern which I agree with. Your second paragraph below agrees with me. It might be a bit of a nuisance as you may think you disagree with me but in fact you agree ++++++++++++quote from page 4 of the "outside crts remit" thread+++++++++++ I must admit my views have changed over the past few years. Hopefully for the better. However I am seeing more and more of a threat to the navigation, but more importantly to those who live on boats outside London due to local issues being perceived as national issues when they are not. There is a reason why property prices in London are far higher than elsewhere. There is a reason why many people from all over the world want to flock to London. I still hate London though.... No, what I’m worried about is the live aboard lifestyle being threatened everywhere due to the ‘London problem’ being used as an excuse. CRT and NBTA both seem to be trying to drag everyone into their battle (rightly or wrongly?).
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 14, 2019 11:43:54 GMT
Exactly. So when I said I thought you were right why did you say that was my view not yours when it obviously is your view?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 14, 2019 12:57:01 GMT
Exactly. So when I said I thought you were right why did you say that was my view not yours when it obviously is your view? I’m not convinced really, I thought you were implying that the whole country would end up being saturated with live aboards (i.e linear housing estate). If I interpreted your reply incorrectly I apologise. The reader decides. I also accept that my paranoia about CRT and the NBTA (inadvertently perhaps) being a threat to liveaboards nationality, could be wrong. That’s why I read everyone’s opinions with interest. I think most of us would agree that threats to our personal lifestyles usually take priority over national politics (which are normally driven by those with money and power). In fact it’s usually only when we are directly personally affected that we get involved (i.e do more than just whinge on an internet forum). When I say ‘personally’ BTW, I mean threats to people directly around me, not just me. What I read in the media gets taken with a pinch of salt.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 14, 2019 13:07:48 GMT
Oh I see.
Sorry about that. I meant that policies which may eventually be formed to "deal with" problematic slum type areas on canals will be blanket policies not just local ones.
For example if at some stage in future there are major problems with slum housing on canals in London and Bradford on Avon (random samples) it could theoretically result in increased regulation of vessels without home moorings. I suspect this would include any boats on rural unpopulated waterways as well as high density urban areas.
I don't think its impossible and I lean towards the view that certain types of behaviour are likely to make this more probable.
Yes the word "slum" is quite inflammatory but it is also accurate. There have been previous examples where slum housing has been cleared notably after ww2 which was obviously profit driven. With any luck the canals might escape the hedge funds as there is no money to be made. Fingers crossed on that one.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 14, 2019 13:30:01 GMT
Just to add a bit.
The reason I mention the profits is that these "high profile" publicised cases usually involve someone using a boat residentially.
Everyone knows that residential accommodation costs money, its not rocket science. My personal view is that it is wrong to profit from other people's basic human needs which is why I have no property as I have no need for it as I live on a boat. I personally disagree with private land ownership but that's another topic.
Regarding boats I can't help feeling that at some stage someone will notice that people are living "too cheap" and start to put in place mechanisms whereby they can get that accommodation money. People shouting about it will just make that happen quicker.
|
|
|
Post by kris on Apr 14, 2019 13:49:22 GMT
Just to add a bit. Regarding boats I can't help feeling that at some stage someone will notice that people are living "too cheap" and start to put in place mechanisms whereby they can get that accommodation money. People shouting about it will just make that happen quicker. I completely agree with this statement, apart from it's not going to happen it has already happened so there's no blaming people for making it happen quicker. The only question is what are YOU going to do about it?
|
|
|
Post by naughtyfox on Apr 14, 2019 13:49:31 GMT
Marinas are OK, and perhaps there should be more of them - it's just that the rents they charge are far too high for what they provide. An easy way to make money would be to buy shares in marina companies, eh? They've got boaters over a barrel.
|
|