|
Post by Telemachus on Aug 8, 2021 19:00:25 GMT
I can honestly see both sides of the coin here. Folk need somewhere to live, and housing policy in the UK has been a shitstorm for decades. But also travelling boaters need to be able to moor some place when they are cruising. Folk do need somewhere to live, but equally the canals don’t have to be a soft target. Try turning up in a nice urban park with a caravan and saying “I have to put my caravan here, I can’t afford to rent / buy a home in the vicinity” and see what happens. Society could take the view that providing cheap homes for anyone who wants them is the priority. But it doesn’t, it takes the view that recreational spaces should be kept for recreation. Canals were the modern transport network. Now they are a recreational space (which doesn’t preclude use for transport). But without control, they would become a glorified caravan park.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 8, 2021 19:06:42 GMT
I can honestly see both sides of the coin here. Folk need somewhere to live, and housing policy in the UK has been a shitstorm for decades. But also travelling boaters need to be able to moor some place when they are cruising. Folk do need somewhere to live, but equally the canals don’t have to be a soft target. Try turning up in a nice urban park with a caravan and saying “I have to put my caravan here, I can’t afford to rent / buy a home in the vicinity” and see what happens. Some people do, they are called Travellers..
|
|
|
Post by Telemachus on Aug 8, 2021 19:31:33 GMT
Folk do need somewhere to live, but equally the canals don’t have to be a soft target. Try turning up in a nice urban park with a caravan and saying “I have to put my caravan here, I can’t afford to rent / buy a home in the vicinity” and see what happens. Some people do, they are called Travellers.. Can’t remember the last time I saw travellers in a London park such as Hyde Park, Regents Park etc. Yes they do pitch up on some random green space but usually after they’ve gone, steps are taken to prevent a return visit.
|
|
|
Post by Mr Stabby on Aug 8, 2021 19:32:44 GMT
I can honestly see both sides of the coin here. Folk need somewhere to live, and housing policy in the UK has been a shitstorm for decades. But also travelling boaters need to be able to moor some place when they are cruising. Folk do need somewhere to live, but equally the canals don’t have to be a soft target. Try turning up in a nice urban park with a caravan and saying “I have to put my caravan here, I can’t afford to rent / buy a home in the vicinity” and see what happens. Society could take the view that providing cheap homes for anyone who wants them is the priority. But it doesn’t, it takes the view that recreational spaces should be kept for recreation. Canals were the modern transport network. Now they are a recreational space (which doesn’t preclude use for transport). But without control, they would become a glorified caravan park. As I say, I can see both sides. Colonel Gaddafi is generally considered to be one of the 20th Century's greatest bogeymen but everyone in Libya had a house. If a young couple got married the whole village would pitch up and build them a house. Here we just flood the place with ever more cheap eastern European labour to increase Tesco's profits and don't care if they have to live six to a caravan or if our own young people are destined to a lifetime renting a bedsit because home ownership will never be within their grasp. So who is to say that we are the World's arbiter of correct thinking? If people need to live on boats when they would rather live in bricks and mortar then perhaps we should be addressing the second issue rather than the first. And without wishing to appear rude, your Nimbyism is a large part of the problem.
|
|
|
Post by Telemachus on Aug 8, 2021 19:38:01 GMT
Folk do need somewhere to live, but equally the canals don’t have to be a soft target. Try turning up in a nice urban park with a caravan and saying “I have to put my caravan here, I can’t afford to rent / buy a home in the vicinity” and see what happens. Society could take the view that providing cheap homes for anyone who wants them is the priority. But it doesn’t, it takes the view that recreational spaces should be kept for recreation. Canals were the modern transport network. Now they are a recreational space (which doesn’t preclude use for transport). But without control, they would become a glorified caravan park. As I say, I can see both sides. Colonel Gaddafi is generally considered to be one of the 20th Century's greatest bogeymen but everyone in Libya had a house. If a young couple got married the whole village would pitch up and build them a house. Here we just flood the place with ever more cheap eastern European labour to increase Tesco's profits and don't care if they have to live six to a caravan or if our own young people are destined to a lifetime renting a bedsit because home ownership will never be within their grasp. So who is to say that we are the World's arbiter of correct thinking? If people need to live on boats when they would rather live in bricks and mortar then perhaps we should be addressing the second issue rather than the first. And without wishing to appear rude, your Nimbyism is a large part of the problem. You are making it personal (my Nibyism) when in fact my post discussed society’s attitudes, not my personal ones. My sister and I own a 5 acre field in rural Warwickshire. I would be absolutely delighted to be able to build houses on it but unfortunately for the time being Stratford Upon Avon council don’t agree with the idea.
|
|
|
Post by Trina on Aug 8, 2021 19:42:47 GMT
We bought our boat(new) because we decided we liked boats.Paul had always liked the idea of a canal boat-we even looked at one for him before we actually lived together.2002 was the turning point,we went on a French boating holibob & absolutely loved it-we're both pretty fluent in Froggy & had a great time chatting to locals having a great time.Got home & decided on a canal hol Easter 2003-fab.Then booked a hol for May2003-fab.Booked a 2 week hol for summer 2003-fab.In the mean time,the Froggy firm P was managing over here decided to put a Froggy in charge instead.The dosh P got paid in return paid for our new boat,a Merc plus a fair few bits n' bobs.We've never looked back !
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 8, 2021 19:50:58 GMT
Folk do need somewhere to live, but equally the canals don’t have to be a soft target. Try turning up in a nice urban park with a caravan and saying “I have to put my caravan here, I can’t afford to rent / buy a home in the vicinity” and see what happens. Society could take the view that providing cheap homes for anyone who wants them is the priority. But it doesn’t, it takes the view that recreational spaces should be kept for recreation. Canals were the modern transport network. Now they are a recreational space (which doesn’t preclude use for transport). But without control, they would become a glorified caravan park. As I say, I can see both sides. Colonel Gaddafi is generally considered to be one of the 20th Century's greatest bogeymen but everyone in Libya had a house. If a young couple got married the whole village would pitch up and build them a house. Here we just flood the place with ever more cheap eastern European labour to increase Tesco's profits and don't care if they have to live six to a caravan or if our own young people are destined to a lifetime renting a bedsit because home ownership will never be within their grasp. So who is to say that we are the World's arbiter of correct thinking? If people need to live on boats when they would rather live in bricks and mortar then perhaps we should be addressing the second issue rather than the first. And without wishing to appear rude, your Nimbyism is a large part of the problem. To be fair a lot of it is geographic isn't it. People naturally want to live on 'tendy' or more socioeconomically advantaged areas. So places like the canals in and around London become incredibly busy probably with people who have no connection to London and entirely likely they would be able to afford to buy a house in their town of origin but prefer to be in the city. It's not all about poverty and not being able to afford anything at all. Although there is that too, obviously. You could argue that housing is more important than older well off people having a boating hobby. On the other hand I think it very probable that the majority of people would not want to live on boats. They would rather have houses. And it's also incredibly likely that a lot of people on boats also own property and take advantage of the healthy rental market.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 8, 2021 19:57:42 GMT
Of course a fairly straightforward option is to allow the canals to fall into disrepair, make old locks into picnic areas and have a footpath. Narrow waterway (2m wide) for ducks and plant growth. It could be made to flow by having bywashes at lock sites or piped culverts.
Fill in the rest of it and build modern eco friendly housing units.
Elevated cycleways and hyperloop freight transportation units could be fitted in too. Modern transport for the modern age using the same routes as in days of old.
That would probably be a better use of the land for society as a whole.
You could always leave boats in marinas all the time as a lot of people do anyway.
Better for the environment as less diesel being burned.
|
|
|
Post by Mr Stabby on Aug 8, 2021 20:12:57 GMT
As I say, I can see both sides. Colonel Gaddafi is generally considered to be one of the 20th Century's greatest bogeymen but everyone in Libya had a house. If a young couple got married the whole village would pitch up and build them a house. Here we just flood the place with ever more cheap eastern European labour to increase Tesco's profits and don't care if they have to live six to a caravan or if our own young people are destined to a lifetime renting a bedsit because home ownership will never be within their grasp. So who is to say that we are the World's arbiter of correct thinking? If people need to live on boats when they would rather live in bricks and mortar then perhaps we should be addressing the second issue rather than the first. And without wishing to appear rude, your Nimbyism is a large part of the problem. You are making it personal (my Nibyism) when in fact my post discussed society’s attitudes, not my personal ones. Well, when I said "you", what I meant was "you, society", not you personally. I accept that I could probably phrased it better and probably would have had I studied English Language at proper school. Apologies for any confusion.
|
|
|
Post by Telemachus on Aug 8, 2021 20:51:42 GMT
You are making it personal (my Nibyism) when in fact my post discussed society’s attitudes, not my personal ones. Well, when I said "you", what I meant was "you, society", not you personally. I accept that I could probably phrased it better and probably would have had I studied English Language at proper school. Apologies for any confusion. "You, society" implies that you are not part of the society. But since you live in the UK, have a job, pay taxes, acrue a pension, use NHS and other services, have family in the UK I am struggling to see why you exempt yourself from being part of the society you refer to.
|
|
|
Post by Mr Stabby on Aug 8, 2021 20:55:21 GMT
Well, when I said "you", what I meant was "you, society", not you personally. I accept that I could probably phrased it better and probably would have had I studied English Language at proper school. Apologies for any confusion. "You, society" implies that you are not part of the society. But since you live in the UK, have a job, pay taxes, acrue a pension, use NHS and other services, have family in the UK I am struggling to see why you exempt yourself from being part of the society you refer to. It's because I'm special.
|
|
|
Post by Trina on Aug 8, 2021 21:00:05 GMT
Special Brew ??
|
|
|
Post by thebfg on Aug 8, 2021 21:19:24 GMT
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 8, 2021 21:23:46 GMT
I must say that I didn't think either Telemachus or Mrs Tabby were of society. For a start they both seem to have or have had jobs and as far as I am aware are of rather ill breeding.
|
|
|
Post by JohnV on Aug 8, 2021 22:39:10 GMT
In any regulated activity you'll find folk who hold the view that the Law doesn't apply to them, and they will decide what they do, not the regulatory authority. Compared to other regulatory bodies I've had to deal with in the past, such as DVSA (formerly VOSA) then CRT are a bunch of pussy cats whose approach seems to be to spend several years cajoling and hectoring before actually doing anything. Try running an unlicenced heavy goods vehicle and see how long you get away with that. I know BFG has replied to this but I wanted to reinforce his comments.
VOSA and probably the majority if not all other licencing authorities in the UK act within the law of the land.
The laws that empower CRT are the Waterways Acts. CRT throughout their existance have a record of attempting to distort, alter, ignore or introduce new conditions outside of the act.
They do not have the legal authority.
As Nigel always pointed out, CRT are their own worst enemy, so much of their costly actions could be better achieved utilising existing bylaws , at very little cost
That is my beef with CRT ........... and it should be every boaters ........ CRT should operate scrupulously within the existing law
|
|