|
|
Post by peterboat on Apr 29, 2016 12:50:39 GMT
Did anybody else listen to it? it seems that most boaters just want fairness ie if you want to school your kids in a area get a mooring or home school them.
Once again I will say if people wind up CRT, we will maybe end up with them going to parliment and something might come out that really spoils every boaters way of life. At the moment it isnt perfik but it can be made to work if we obey the very simple rules. I want to CC in the future and would like to think I will be able to do it, without worrying about possible draconian laws that could be brought in. The program to be fair gave both sides a fair saying so maybe worth listening on catchup
|
|
|
|
Post by kris on Apr 29, 2016 12:55:59 GMT
Why can't you understand Peter. That there are people who don't do anything wrong that get hassle from Crt.
|
|
|
|
Post by peterboat on Apr 29, 2016 13:00:50 GMT
Because I dont do anything wrong and I dont get hassle and neither did other compliant boaters calling in
|
|
|
|
Post by kris on Apr 29, 2016 13:23:06 GMT
You have a home mooring
|
|
|
|
Post by peterboat on Apr 29, 2016 13:38:08 GMT
I do kris but I have been known to make jaunts out for 7 months at a time. I do understand where you are coming from, but I dont hold with the conspiracy theories that are going around. I have friends who work for CRT and they say its all as normal. I have never seen as much maintenance on our canals as I have since CRT took over. Its rare that a lock doesnt work when it used to be the norm. I am out today and have been helped through locks by CRT, I am not saying they are all good In fact I know of one complete areshole but that was sorted a while ago to my satisfaction
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 29, 2016 13:39:07 GMT
I listened to the show. I have to say the title it was promoted with was rather stupid, and had no hope of gaining any sympathy. This was evident at the end of the show when Jeremy stated most callers were in favour of the trust.
I can fully understand the predicament some are in. BW and for that matter CRT, promoted openly that "three boroughs" were enough (please do not be ignorant of this fact). People adapted their lifestyle to what was being promoted. Now the goalposts have moved, so yes there is an issue.
On the other hand, I like many others read the 95 act before choosing to Cc. I was pretty clear in my mind what I needed to do to comply, and I have to honestly say, I could probably hold down a job whilst ccing, but getting kids to school would put me off.
The annoying fact, is that CRT are now causing further fuck ups by "suggesting" cruising routes to ccers yet again, which will in time cause further issues.
There really needs to be some commitment to deal with the root problem, affordable moorings in urban areas.
Not everyone's idea of an answer of course, but continuously shuffling everyone along a small system is bloody stupid.
|
|
|
|
Post by peterboat on Apr 29, 2016 13:48:35 GMT
I listened to the show. I have to say the title it was promoted with was rather stupid, and had no hope of gaining any sympathy. This was evident at the end of the show when Jeremy stated most callers were in favour of the trust. I can fully understand the predicament some are in. BW and for that matter CRT, promoted openly that "three boroughs" were enough (please do not be ignorant of this fact). People adapted their lifestyle to what was being promoted. Now the goalposts have moved, so yes there is an issue. On the other hand, I like many others read the 95 act before choosing to Cc. I was pretty clear in my mind what I needed to do to comply, and I have to honestly say, I could probably hold down a job whilst ccing, but getting kids to school would put me off. The annoying fact, is that CRT are now causing further fuck ups by "suggesting" cruising routes to ccers yet again, which will in time cause further issues. There really needs to be some commitment to deal with the root problem, affordable moorings in urban areas. Not everyone's idea of an answer of course, but continuously shuffling everyone along a small system is bloody stupid. I agree with you Its how do we get those moorings through? We all know what its like everybody will be up in arms when its on their back door. My mooring is far from ideal but its home and at the moment suits me. The council know people live there but choose to turn a blind eye, I do have an address so its no problem but others pay council tax there and that saved me in a run in with DVLA and the council. Whats needed is waste land in industrial areas so no one will complain just like my mooring |
|
|
|
Post by smileypete on Apr 29, 2016 22:00:13 GMT
I listened to the show. I have to say the title it was promoted with was rather stupid, and had no hope of gaining any sympathy. This was evident at the end of the show when Jeremy stated most callers were in favour of the trust.Not surprising, most people like have too much time on their hands.  While the poor sods trying to bring up their kids on a boat are out there toiling in the real world! I agree with you Its how do we get those moorings through? We all know what its like everybody will be up in arms when its on their back door. My mooring is far from ideal but its home and at the moment suits me. The council know people live there but choose to turn a blind eye, I do have an address so its no problem but others pay council tax there and that saved me in a run in with DVLA and the council. Whats needed is waste land in industrial areas so no one will complain just like my mooring OK so you're happy for the council to turn a blind eye to your liveaboard mooring, but not for CRT turn a blind eye to people mooring where they can take their kids to school - in case it impinges on your hobby in future, right? Very caring of you...  Listened to the programme and it allowed both sides to air their views OK, but then got a bit muddled up with the issue of VM overstayers. |
|
|
|
Post by Mr Stabby on Apr 29, 2016 22:13:23 GMT
I heard it. The simple fact is that you cannot legitimately be a continuous cruiser if your children have to go to the same school for the next seven years or so under the current rules.
As to whether these rules should be relaxed, personally I would say no.
|
|
|
|
Post by naughtyfox on Apr 30, 2016 4:12:15 GMT
peterboat said: "Because I dont do anything wrong"
and then: "My mooring is far from ideal but its home and at the moment suits me. The council know people live there but choose to turn a blind eye"
Does the 'blind eye' choosing affect you? If so, that would suggest you are doing something 'wrong'.
And this: "Whats needed is waste land in industrial areas" - as in rubble and old concrete bases and the remains of fires and kids throwing stones and general dereliction and decay? No thanks! Those who own industry should be responsible for the tidying up afterwards, in my opinion. Otherwise it's just 'rape and bugger off'. Tax paradises anyone?
'Affordable moorings' is like saying 'affordable housing' to local councils. Apart from some idealogical socialist bodies, landlords are out to make a profit pure and simple - and if you can't afford it, someone else will come along who can.
Human nature is like being at the rodeo - for how long can you keep riding on other peoples' backs?
Two ways to make money: become a businessman/politician/conman, or get yourself educational qualifications of high standards and then you can cherry-pick your profession and then demand a professional salary.
Actually, let's group politicians and conmen into the same category.
Even 'professionals' are at the mercy of these back-stabbing pond-life creatures.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 30, 2016 7:23:05 GMT
I heard it. The simple fact is that you cannot legitimately be a continuous cruiser if your children have to go to the same school for the next seven years or so under the current rules. As to whether these rules should be relaxed, personally I would say no. I think the 20 mile guidance could probably be interpreted as suitable relaxation existing already. This is where I have sympathy with johnv and his summing up of the NBTA,their objectives,key demands and their relevance to other boaters.I think a proper inclusive agenda should be formed but I am happy for the NBTA to advance it as it seems to me they are at least proactive. I would love a few comments even if to put me right if I have it wrongly. |
|
|
|
Post by loafer on Apr 30, 2016 9:58:22 GMT
I heard it. The simple fact is that you cannot legitimately be a continuous cruiser if your children have to go to the same school for the next seven years or so under the current rules. As to whether these rules should be relaxed, personally I would say no. I think the 20 mile guidance could probably be interpreted as suitable relaxation existing already. This is where I have sympathy with johnv and his summing up of the NBTA,their objectives,key demands and their relevance to other boaters.I think a proper inclusive agenda should be formed but I am happy for the NBTA to advance it as it seems to me they are at least proactive. I would love a few comments even if to put me right if I have it wrongly.
Whether rightly or wrongly, a CC-er is supposed to be on a continuous cruise around the inland waterways. It is completely contrary to the definition of CC to do it whilst your kids are at school. It simply is not for those sort of boaters. CC-ing is for those that don't want a home mooring because they don't WANT to remain in the same place all the time! "Those are my opinions. If you don't like them, I do have others!" |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 30, 2016 10:18:56 GMT
I think the 20 mile guidance could probably be interpreted as suitable relaxation existing already. This is where I have sympathy with johnv and his summing up of the NBTA,their objectives,key demands and their relevance to other boaters.I think a proper inclusive agenda should be formed but I am happy for the NBTA to advance it as it seems to me they are at least proactive. I would love a few comments even if to put me right if I have it wrongly.
Whether rightly or wrongly, a CC-er is supposed to be on a continuous cruise around the inland waterways. It is completely contrary to the definition of CC to do it whilst your kids are at school. It simply is not for those sort of boaters. CC-ing is for those that don't want a home mooring because they don't WANT to remain in the same place all the time! "Those are my opinions. If you don't like them, I do have others!" Its a fair opinion Loafer but is it relevant considering where we are at the present time, we at present have a recommendation of 20 miles,what about that and the historical encouragement of Liveaboard boaters even if that encouragement was by turning a blind eye ? |
|
|
|
Post by Higgs on Apr 30, 2016 11:05:57 GMT
Human nature is like being at the rodeo - for how long can you keep riding on other peoples' backs?
Probably to a lesser degree than CRT. It's a pretty warped system. "Statutes governing extortion by private persons vary in content. Many hold that a threat accompanied by the intent to acquire the victim's property is sufficient to establish the crime."
A person's home/boat is given no protection in CRTland. If CRT are not given permission to set a distance, then, they are creating the problems. They are asking for some moral acceptance of a responsibility to others, from boaters, to agree with the guidance. Threatening to confiscate and possibly destroy someone's owned home is, in my opinion, immoral. There must be, in turn, the general consensus that the majority of boaters would agree with CRT's policy to take such actions; implicit in CRT's reference to actions they take that they say are for the "good of all", making all boaters complicit in all of CRT's actions.
There is no getting away from the fact that the governments of recent have allowed the housing stock to fall behind the demand. Governments have to accept a high degree of responsibility for limiting peoples' options. People have to find a home, and find them on the canal, if necessary.
In some cases, there will be social problems. The nature of the canal is changing and those who just want the canal financing in order to continue on with their affordable lifestyles of leisure based boating are living in the past.
Boaters are not morally responsible for the 2000 miles of canal. The licence fee is already valued with an eye on the maintenance and running costs. The trend towards viewing the canal as heritage is something that is valued on a national perception scale. The trend towards making the public the main beneficiaries make it a government vision. Boaters are, well I am, a customer, not a financial backer for a government scheme. The government want the public in, they can pay more for that burden. More marinas are necessary and with planning permission for residential use and, licence free. For those that don't mind being herded, like a bunch of dumb contained sheep, there's always the option of a residential home; where you can continue to be a money bag and fed lots of mush. No teeth required.
|
|
|
|
Post by naughtyfox on Apr 30, 2016 12:44:52 GMT
I wonder if boaters should dress up in historical costumes to keep the licence fees down a bit, and the gongoozlers entertained?
|
|
