|
Post by Andyberg on Jul 6, 2023 17:27:11 GMT
Live-a-boards need to learn not to quack like a duck, but to soar like an eagle.đ
|
|
|
Post by Telemachus on Jul 6, 2023 17:40:37 GMT
I like living on boats, I donât live on a boat for cheap accommodation. But Iâd still like to be able to get water conviently and dispose of my rubbish safely and sustainably without having to travel for two whole days in either direction. I understand why nick doesnât see it being anti livaboard, because he doesnât livaboard and is only on his boat intermittently. Andrew just has no empathy and is alright jack so doesnât care. The point is under crtâs guardianship there is a rapid decline of the network generally. The removal of facilities just being one of the symptoms. Whether or not it affects liveaboards more than leisure boaters is I think not the reason CRT are closing some facilities. It is a bit conspiratorial to conclude that they are out to get you because you are live aboard. More likely, they are just looking at cost cutting. But anyway, until you get your answer from CRT we donât really know the magnitude of the problem, or even if there is a general problem. I donât know your movement patterns but I will mention that the intent of the 1995 act allowing no home mooring was justified on the grounds that some people didnât need to have a home mooring because they wanted to explore the system. Using the boat bona fide for navigation. It was not created to allow people to live on their boats and move the minimum amount. Using the boat bona fide for living on. And then complaining when there arenât the desired facilities within immediate reach of a 14 day mooring opportunity. As to the general decline, yes unfortunately you would have to be blind and stupid not to see that.
|
|
|
Post by â on Jul 6, 2023 17:45:42 GMT
Live-a-boards need to learn not to quack like a duck, but to soar like an eagle.đ Eggs actly.
|
|
|
Post by â on Jul 6, 2023 17:47:43 GMT
I donât know your movement patterns You could always ask.
|
|
|
Post by Aloysius on Jul 6, 2023 17:47:59 GMT
I suspect these things are just water off a duck's back for most.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 6, 2023 18:20:50 GMT
I like living on boats, I donât live on a boat for cheap accommodation. But Iâd still like to be able to get water conviently and dispose of my rubbish safely and sustainably without having to travel for two whole days in either direction. I understand why nick doesnât see it being anti livaboard, because he doesnât livaboard and is only on his boat intermittently. Andrew just has no empathy and is alright jack so doesnât care. The point is under crtâs guardianship there is a rapid decline of the network generally. The removal of facilities just being one of the symptoms. Whether or not it affects liveaboards more than leisure boaters is I think not the reason CRT are closing some facilities. It is a bit conspiratorial to conclude that they are out to get you because you are live aboard. More likely, they are just looking at cost cutting. But anyway, until you get your answer from CRT we donât really know the magnitude of the problem, or even if there is a general problem. I donât know your movement patterns but I will mention that the intent of the 1995 act allowing no home mooring was justified on the grounds that some people didnât need to have a home mooring because they wanted to explore the system. Using the boat bona fide for navigation. It was not created to allow people to live on their boats and move the minimum amount. Using the boat bona fide for living on. And then complaining when there arenât the desired facilities within immediate reach of a 14 day mooring opportunity. As to the general decline, yes unfortunately you would have to be blind and stupid not to see that. Na, your first two paragraphs are not really helpful. Both your conclusions are wrong, and appear to be nothing more than a bystanderâs view. CRT suggested in 2013 that reducing the number of facilities was one way to reduce the number of new liveaboards invading the canals and London was the first place to see facilities removed. As to the intent of the 95 act, many of the people who were fighting BW at the time were in fact livaboards. Their argument was based around them living on boats, and was duly accepted. Living on boats is not a new trend, it has been happening since the late 60s early 70s.
|
|
|
Post by â on Jul 6, 2023 18:33:40 GMT
People living on boats goes a lot further back than the 60s.
One point to mention is that modern technology such as mobile phones has made it more comfortable to live on canal boats. Other thongs too.
A lot of people who live on boats today with considerable 'home comforts' would not even consider a boat if you took them back 50 yars. Or even 30 yars when mobile phones were in their infancy.
Things have changed.
I find it odd that there was a plethora of BW Acts then it suddenly stopped in 1995.
Updated regulations are needed.
|
|
|
Post by IainS on Jul 6, 2023 18:33:53 GMT
From the original link (which is more about charging liveaboards more for a licence than it is about closing services)
Maybe it's not the travelling boater that's the problem, but the No Boats Travelling Anywhere ones?
|
|
|
Post by â on Jul 6, 2023 18:36:23 GMT
The NBTA are a militant wing of the CRT engaged in a campaign to criminalise living on boats.
They don't realise this.
|
|
|
Post by â on Jul 6, 2023 18:41:15 GMT
"In the Bill that became the British Waterways Act 1995, BW wanted it to be a criminal offence to keep a boat on BW waterways without a home mooring. However, with an almighty pushback we instead got an Act which gave us the legal right to exist on BW waterways. "
Almost sounds like the NBTA are claiming credit for achievements in the 1995 Act.
I wonder how many NBTA people have actually been living on boats since then. That would be an interesting statistic.
There must be some.
One could get bored and move back to the Sussex mansion.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 6, 2023 18:41:17 GMT
From the original link (which is more about charging liveaboards more for a licence than it is about closing services) Maybe it's not the travelling boater that's the problem, but the No Boats Travelling Anywhere ones? The myth is the fact that very few boats are taking the piss these days. CRT have made it clear on numerous occasions that non movement is no longer an issue. The issue is some just like to continue whining and moaning for the sake of having no other sensible input.
|
|
|
Post by fi on Jul 6, 2023 18:49:41 GMT
From the original link (which is more about charging liveaboards more for a licence than it is about closing services) Maybe it's not the travelling boater that's the problem, but the No Boats Travelling Anywhere ones? The myth is the fact that very few boats are taking the piss these days. CRT have made it clear on numerous occasions that non movement is no longer an issue. The issue is some just like to continue whining and moaning for the sake of having no other sensible input. Do you have a link or anything else to back this up? Non movement is an issue around here.
|
|
|
Post by kris on Jul 6, 2023 19:17:08 GMT
I like living on boats, I donât live on a boat for cheap accommodation. But Iâd still like to be able to get water conviently and dispose of my rubbish safely and sustainably without having to travel for two whole days in either direction. I understand why nick doesnât see it being anti livaboard, because he doesnât livaboard and is only on his boat intermittently. Andrew just has no empathy and is alright jack so doesnât care. The point is under crtâs guardianship there is a rapid decline of the network generally. The removal of facilities just being one of the symptoms. Indeed, I don't wish to plan my cruising around service points, or have to rush because water's getting low, or rubbish overflowing. But I think that's the same for anyone, liveaboard, holiday maker or infrequent boater. I'd be happy if C&RT would simply maintain what currently exists, but I fear that's unlikely and more will disappear. Rog It does seem so, unless something changes.
|
|
|
Post by kris on Jul 6, 2023 19:20:37 GMT
The NBTA are a militant wing of the CRT engaged in a campaign to criminalise living on boats. They don't realise this. And your an agent provocateur.
|
|
|
Post by Telemachus on Jul 6, 2023 19:25:31 GMT
Whether or not it affects liveaboards more than leisure boaters is I think not the reason CRT are closing some facilities. It is a bit conspiratorial to conclude that they are out to get you because you are live aboard. More likely, they are just looking at cost cutting. But anyway, until you get your answer from CRT we donât really know the magnitude of the problem, or even if there is a general problem. I donât know your movement patterns but I will mention that the intent of the 1995 act allowing no home mooring was justified on the grounds that some people didnât need to have a home mooring because they wanted to explore the system. Using the boat bona fide for navigation. It was not created to allow people to live on their boats and move the minimum amount. Using the boat bona fide for living on. And then complaining when there arenât the desired facilities within immediate reach of a 14 day mooring opportunity. As to the general decline, yes unfortunately you would have to be blind and stupid not to see that. Na, your first two paragraphs are not really helpful. Both your conclusions are wrong, and appear to be nothing more than a bystanderâs view. CRT suggested in 2013 that reducing the number of facilities was one way to reduce the number of new liveaboards invading the canals and London was the first place to see facilities removed. As to the intent of the 95 act, many of the people who were fighting BW at the time were in fact livaboards. Their argument was based around them living on boats, and was duly accepted. Living on boats is not a new trend, it has been happening since the late 60s early 70s. As I recall it, it was Nigel Moore who went into great detail about the parliamentary negotiations surrounding the 95 actâs amendments to allow for not always requiring a home mooring. The arguments were around the proposal that people who wanted to explore the whole system didnât have any use for a home mooring. Well that is what Nigel said, anyway. By â95 there were some live-aboards, this had crept up from a base of virtually zero when I started canal boating in the mid 60s. By mid 70s there was still a miniscule number, I never noticed them. But between 95 and now there has been a probably 10 fold or more increase in liveaboards CCers, all using the âbona fide for navigationâ excuse for not having a home mooring, despite not being much interested in navigating the system. Of course I realise you came to boating much later, but trust me living on a boat in the 60s and 70s was limited to a very few genuine âwater gypsiesâ and you could go for 10s of miles without seeing one.
|
|