|
|
Post by bodger on Nov 20, 2016 12:50:22 GMT
well said.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 20, 2016 13:08:17 GMT
i don't think anybody on this thread had said otherwise? The problem is in the climate of fear created by Crt, people are reacting out of fear and clutching at straws. Obviously any legislation has to apply equally to all. The issue with your suggestion of getting a mooring is the continuing policy of removal of on line moorings. I don't think I suggested anybody had said otherwise, I was just putting forward my opinion. Your point re online moorings is another debate altogether, if you're CCing, by definition you're not looking for long term moorings whether on a marina it the towpath. it annoys me that people use "I've got children" as a ploy to get better treatment or privileges than everyone else. This doesn't occur just on the Cut, it happens everywhere. For instance why do people think I will drive differently just because they have a "Baby on Board" sticker in the car? i have a child btw. I'm not anti family! Must say I thought baby on board stickers were a way to tell other drivers that you (as the baby owner) might be driving more carefully than usual rather than asking other people to drive differently. I used one on the car when my children were babies. Its not a request for other people to modify their driving - not at all! At least not for me it wasn't. |
|
|
|
Post by kris on Nov 20, 2016 13:15:54 GMT
No, the debate is about CCing, abiding by the rules and schooling children. Where I and most people live is decided by our budget, which colours the size of our families and the schools our children attend. If a prefered school is 15 miles away from where we live then whether there is suitable transport to and from the school will affect the decision as to whether they attend that school. If that is not practical the decision is either find another school or move home. Where is the difference with boat dwellers? Children must be schooled, it's the law, finding a way to do that whilst ensuring you comply with the other constraints on our freedoms i.e. employment and complying with the terms of the licence is up to the individual to work out. It's not a solution to ignore the terms and conditions and expect everyone else to be happy with that. you have children, so does the great majority of the population, you're not special, live with it. how would the provision of online moorings not alleviate the situation? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 20, 2016 13:19:48 GMT
And we took a mooring when our kids were of school ages. Ironically they are now home ed now but we keep the mooring. I agree with Kris about the lack of available moorings specially on the actual cut (on line). This is a clear problem not helped by the policy of reducting online moorings when marinas are opened. But... take London (central) as an example. I know this is not the only place but it is where a lot of the perceived problems are and seems to be an nbta hotspot. New residential moorings were built near Hackney (60ftx7ft so no wide beans allowed). About 10 moorings I think. All sold for £9,000 p.a. each immediately. So this sets some sort of benchmark price wise for Zone 2 London. Question being if it is £10k a year to live on a boat in London (council tax as well!) (this is what I pay as it happens and is about what Limehouse Marina charge ) will we end up with lots of empty moorings when living on a boat suddenly looks less financially appealing  And then there's the air bnb shit as well I don't know why CRT can't just ban the fuckers. Of course if others are correct that landowners can just do what they want in terms of moorings then perhaps costs can come down but who is going to take the risk of building moorings when it is not actually clear whether people living on boats are going to pay for moorings? It does seem to be the elephant in the room, to me anyway. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 20, 2016 13:22:05 GMT
 Attachments:
|
|
|
|
Post by kris on Nov 20, 2016 13:27:56 GMT
It seems to be the solution to me as well.
A win win in fact increased revenue from moorings a decline in the "cc'er problem." And it's associated costs.
of course it's going to be impossible to meet demand in hotspots, but such is life. But no crt would rather criminalize people and take their homes, at a time when the government is already spending billions to house families in temporary accomadation.
|
|
|
|
Post by smileypete on Nov 20, 2016 13:52:15 GMT
I do think people should follow the rules but OTOH if resources are genuinely scarce it can benefit the greater good if the rules are altered.
Any time this happens it usually does result in 'winners' and 'losers' to some degree, but you just have to deal with it as part of living in a civilised society.
Now it does seem that CRT are hell bent on driving certain groups and individuals off the canals in a costly, vindictive, and often illegal manner as their court losses attest.
OTOH any scheme with a social objective needs to be carefully tailored or structured to target only those most in need.
|
|
|
|
Post by Delta9 on Nov 20, 2016 13:56:49 GMT
I don't think I suggested anybody had said otherwise, I was just putting forward my opinion. Your point re online moorings is another debate altogether, if you're CCing, by definition you're not looking for long term moorings whether on a marina it the towpath. it annoys me that people use "I've got children" as a ploy to get better treatment or privileges than everyone else. This doesn't occur just on the Cut, it happens everywhere. For instance why do people think I will drive differently just because they have a "Baby on Board" sticker in the car? i have a child btw. I'm not anti family! Must say I thought baby on board stickers were a way to tell other drivers that you (as the baby owner) might be driving more carefully than usual rather than asking other people to drive differently. I used one on the car when my children were babies. Its not a request for other people to modify their driving - not at all! At least not for me it wasn't. They are actually intended to alert the emergency services to the presence of a baby if you put your car in a ditch, so they don't stop looking for victims after dragging the adults out. |
|
|
|
Post by kris on Nov 20, 2016 14:00:36 GMT
Now it does seem that CRT are hell bent on driving certain groups and individuals off the canals in a costly, vindictive, and often illegal manner as their court losses attest. this is the gentrification and social cleansing that I mentioned before. Ordinery people getting in the way of corporate interest. Crt are not alone in their actions the same things are happening all over the world. But crt are the face of it that I am concerned with because I live on the water and intend to continue to do so. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 20, 2016 14:16:02 GMT
Must say I thought baby on board stickers were a way to tell other drivers that you (as the baby owner) might be driving more carefully than usual rather than asking other people to drive differently. I used one on the car when my children were babies. Its not a request for other people to modify their driving - not at all! At least not for me it wasn't. They are actually intended to alert the emergency services to the presence of a baby if you put your car in a ditch, so they don't stop looking for victims after dragging the adults out. That makes sense I didn't know that.. |
|
|
|
Post by IainS on Nov 20, 2016 14:23:37 GMT
They are actually intended to alert the emergency services to the presence of a baby if you put your car in a ditch, so they don't stop looking for victims after dragging the adults out. Which is why it's really annoying and time wasting for emergency services when "baby on board" stickers are permanently attached, whether or not there is a baby on board. |
|
|
|
Post by bodger on Nov 20, 2016 15:14:06 GMT
should be a law against it.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 20, 2016 15:40:44 GMT
Sorry but this is all just typical stirring by the usual suspects on CWF.
You can ask anyone in the street whether they would be prepared to bring a family up on a narrow boat (or wide beam). Let me know how many will come back to you and say yes.
As it happens, I did know a family who did exactly this for many years until one of the kids got ill. Guess what? They then sold the boat and moved into a flat.
There are some really nasty, spiteful, divisive people over there. Please don't drag the dirty washing over here. Leave them to their property empires and jealous ways.
|
|
|
|
Post by bodger on Nov 20, 2016 16:53:47 GMT
................ and your point is??
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 20, 2016 17:09:17 GMT
................ and your point is?? If anyone is brave enough to bring up a family on a boat, good luck to them. I'm sure we can live and let live. I had that option but wasn't brave enough. I waited until my kids were independent. My point was actually that some people just like to stir things up to get attention. I can think of lots of other 'minorities' who have a much bigger contribution to misery than a few families who want to live on a boat. |
|
