Wow, interesting video! I've lived close to the K&A all my life, I can remember my uncle taking me fishing there in the early 70's.......I didn't realize things had got so bad. I've spent a few holidays on other canals and loved the lifestyle, I appreciate that holidays and real life can be very different, but living aboard is something that appeals to me in the future. I find it hard to understand what the trust are trying to achieve by these measures and also, how they can get away with these rules?
I think you will find that it is the boaters who are trying to get away with circumventing the rules, rules which they agreed to when they applied for a licence. The Trust make it clear that those with regular jobs and children who are at school will not easily comply with the cc licence. There is a choice: they can move ashore or they can pay for a home mooring. If they apply for a cc licence then they need to accept the terms of the licence.
It's always been my dream to live on the canals......Not anymore though...I'm now looking for another way of life out of these bricks !..Good luck to you lovely people...Keep up the good fight.
Since making this film, CRT have continued to make things harder for boaters. This has particularly affected boater families who need to attend school. Please sign this new petition now. you.38degrees.org.uk/petitions/boat-children-deserve-equal-access-to-education?bucket&source=facebook-share-button&time=1483436201
This story brought me to tears, I have admired your pedal boat for years, cubs dad did a great job, and you look incredibly healthy for the pedaling. Did you ask the crt what legal requirements you were not meeting?
Hi Wendy, I just read your post on Shooting People, as I myself am looking to promote my film in the same way. Great shots and an interesting concept to your film. I wish you all the best. If you can share any advise that would be greatful - I will subscribe and share your film to show my support.
Making sacrifices is a part of life. If access to your job or your child's school is a priority, then maybe canal life isn't the way to go. If canal life is your priority, be prepared to forfeit access to certain things. Personally, I think the CRT is trying to prevent the canal system from becoming a low income housing project.
Heaven forbid all those poor people trying to have some sort of stability in a pretty part of the UK that should only really be for the likes of you and I, right? Stick 'em all in a slum where they deserve to be, out of sight and out of mind, right? 😂🖕
The CRT use the term 'sanitise' the waterways, Hitler used the same word.....relatively unnerving! So sorry for the lovely lady having to let your boat go.i hope your journey turned out great in your van, remember homes where the heart is!
Recently I saw this video: th-cam.com/video/8fElraViW08/w-d-xo.html (yes, I've got too much time) which I think covers the exact same spot (Bath and east of it) and I was taken aback by the shear amount of barely floating personal junkyards that used to be boats. These absolute eyesores went on for miles after miles on the canal. And the people dwelling on these "boats" are clearly taking advantage of a legal loophole. You're not a continuous cruiser if you just move a bit back and forth! Whether there is a clear legal amount of miles you have to move or not. I can absolutely understand why CRT wants to get rid of these freeloaders.
I'm not a user of the waterways and the film didn't make it clear; but given the Kennet and Avon is 87 (Wikipedia) miles long, if boaters only stayed on that one canal they would be within the guidelines? In my mind, if people are constantly navigating, you would think that people would at least cover the distance of one canal? It seems that the people given notices in the film are hardly moving and indeed would need a fixed mooring? That said, I enjoyed the film and would love to see a follow up.
You would think from the video that they are being asked to cover hundred of miles per year, but in fact, it is very little, maybe TWENTY MILES PER ANNUM!!!!!!
I love the thought of this lifestyle and don't look down on people who choose to live that way at all. I just don't understand what the problem is here. If people just hover around the same spot then it clogs up the canal system for everyone. People naturally want to hover around busy areas. It seems only fair to me that people should keep moving a fair distance if they are continuous cruisers. I don't think these people are being targeted because of any other reason than they don't want to move 20 miles per year, which is nothing. If you are not moving that far then you are permanently mooring in the same area so should have a home mooring. Maybe I'm missing something?
Why not ask "WHO" is the man or woman that is giving me orders and by what authority are they giving me these orders? If someone wants to give me orders then I require compensation cause I am not a slave. Where is the claimant? Hint: A claimant has to be a living being, man or woman not a corporation.
I would love to know how this all worked out? Most of the videos I've watched have been all happy and compliant. Did 'big brother' win? Knowing the current political wind in Britain, I'm fearful for the 'live aboards'.
If you are part of a community in a specific area how can you be navigating? Get a mooring or ride the cut. Government departments becoming charitable trusts are dangerous animals, as are bodies that obtain national recognition of control.
C&RT can't tell you how far you need to travel to comply .... . and state nor should they as they have no right o legal way to to inflict that on anyone ..but yet insist they have the legal right to remove people / boats if they don' travel far enough....but not what far enough is? how in earth is this enforceable?? what am I missing? The guy on J vine bbc RT2 today was terribly evasive and got away with it. I totally agree there is a holiday boat financial agenda here. Donated. signed.
Liveaboards undoubtedly add vibrancy and character to the canal system, but the video is pretty disingenuous and there are plenty of just plain foolish comments below regarding the CRT. There are two major benefits to holding a Continous Cruiser licence: firstly you can live on the canal network without having to pay for a home mooring (which in London in particular are very expensive), and you are not liable for Council Tax. BUT being on a CC licence means you must abide by the law (move every 14 days) and the CRT guidelines Some people are wilfully finding fault with the principle of continously cruising in good faith (i.e. don't just go from A to B and back to A agin; travel at least 15 - 20 miles per annum) simply because it suits their own interests. They want the "alternative" lifestyle with all the benefits (?!?) that brings but without the cost, and usually that means because they don't have the income to to pay for moorings and Council Tax (although ironically, if they needed the police or fire brigade they wouldn't turn them away because they haven't helped to pay for these services). Personally I'd love an alternative "lifestyle" but unfortunately I have to go to work 250 days a year, in part, to pay for the privilege of using the waterways of the UK. If the CRT's rules and guidelines were not enforced, the canals (especially in London) would become a linear housing estate/campsite in a very short period of time due to the cronic shortage of affordable social housing. I read an anti-CRT blog recently about a teacher in London recieving an enforcement notice "even though he had travelled 60 miles in 6 months". This is an average of 5 miles every 14 days! I personally wouldn't consider that to be continous cruising. If he needs to stay close to work he needs to pay for a home mooring. If you ask me to contribute through the taxes I pay so that this teacher (or nurse, or bus driver or ...) can have somewhere affordable to live within London then I say fine; tax me and lets build some more social housing. But please don't blame the CRT because they want the waterways of the UK to remain navigable. And don't play the game of pretending guidelines are meaningless because they are not enshrined in Law. They rely on people acting in good faith; which some clearly are not. Wendy seems like a very nice lady with a kid who is clearly very smart and a credit to her, but...........How far can you travel on a pedal-powered narrowboat with no steering? How far did you travel in the 12 months prior to receiving the enforcment notice? Would complying with the guidelines be a direct contradiction of the "community" located in one area that you desire? My guess is you have not travelled far enough to even pay lip service to the CRT's guidelines. You can't have it both ways.
This is an ongoing issue in many societies, housing. I had a 16 year stint as a live aboard. Been around the world on board. Spent years on inland waterways. I've seen this issue up close and personal many times. Simply put, this is a person, a mother, who asserts a societal position with implied status. She is banking upon charity. I assert her position does not warrant that which is implied by this video segment. Waterways are a public trust. They are either maintained outright by our government, or by those whom have been appointed through whichever process has put them there. The CRT is a vested trust, by Queen and Parliament, to the maintenance and administration of a chain of navigable waterways. Maritime Rules of the Road (MRoR) provide a starting point. These are ubiquitous and inviolable. Chief among the MRoR is the precept that no vessel shall present a hazard to navigation. This point might be arguable by those who only entertain a narrow and obviously selfish regard to how one considers another vessel a hazard to others. In the long history of maritime courts, the position being held by the CRT in this "documentary" is spot on. The requirement of tangible movement throughout the waterways demonstrates to the CRT, fellow seamen, and the public at large, that any given vessel is demonstrably NOT a hazard to navigation. By transiting, a vessel is showing to all who witness that said vessel can be operated safely, but more importantly, reliably and on demand. This is of paramount necessity to ensuring safe navigation of the waters. If a master of a vessel needs to operate his craft emergently, to avoid danger, it is incumbent upon all those who share the water to be able to afford the other craft the opportunity to avoid danger. Primarily by not being themselves first a danger to others. Vessels lumber, floods rage, fires gallop. Time is not on the side of the captain in an emergency. Any and ALL vessels must be able to be considered safe and navigable, at all times so as to afford this minimum requirement to ALL VESSELS who share the waterways. Vessels that are navigable, as demonstrated by their constant transit, tell others, tell society, that they are safe to be around; that they are not a potential onerous burden, waiting to devastate the resources of any particular council, marina, or other responsible social infrastructure that they happen to be near when the "shit hits the fan." These craft weigh tonnes empty. Pedal power, however "green" is sketchy at best. Why dont we see sails on the cut, I mean, besides the bridges and tunnels? Why? It's not reliable in such a highly confined modality, such a insanely constrained environment. Now, if her vessel had three other crewmen with dedicated pedals for propulsion, that were all with the craft when it was in motion, to provide a minimum of safe control of the vessel, she wouldn't have been asked to leave. She could have handily demonstrated the "seaworthiness" of her vessel by moving it several leagues a day or what ever is the currently accepted minimum. Usually from one given council or district to the next is considered a minimum of movement. If that is a 100 meters or two miles, it is usually felt that as long as the vessel is transiting then the requirement is met. Why must one transit, aside from actively, practically demonstrating the seaworthiness of any given vessel? Simple. So as not to put an undo burden on any one mynicipality, sharing the burden, the responsibility of affording emergency care, infrastructure maintenance and the like (roughly) equally across all participating stake holders. To not do this is simply to take advantage, unduly of the system. No one is entitled to right of pilotage. This is a privilege being a vessel in a waterway. The CRT is acting appropriately to prevent, simply, "a tragedy of the commons." This vast resource is just that, a resource. Should, God forbid, an emergency put vast sections of road out of commission, the kingdom has a built in backup system for the transportation of resources, the waterways. It is a most precious resource and must be afforded great care and all diligence to maintain. The rail companies and intermodal shipping interests almost tore it down. They were not successful. And through careful and meticulous effort, the canals ARE coming back. Not only as a keisure resource but as a vital mode of transport for business. The convenience of having an industrial lot of land on a waterway cant be overstated. Water transport can be just as green as rail. And, as long as the waterways are safe to navigate transit by boat is safer, cheaper, just as reliable. But it all comes back to one simple concept. The cut is a communal resource. Shared by all, the waterways must be operated, at all times, safely by all. Minimum standards must be met at alltimes. These standards cost money, time, experience, all in varying degree. If you dont have the money to have the local chandlery come make a repair, you had better heaven too and make the repair yourself, right then and there, out of the way of others. If your vessel is going to be laid up, do so appropriately, in a marina, a drydock, a wharf or a cleat on the towpath. Point is, get out of the way. If your vessel is operable, safely, get out of the way. Move on. If you like the view, get a mooring that is yours, otherwise weigh anchor. Water flows. Constant motion is the natural order of water. So too are those who set sail upon it. Waterborne life is not stationary. Whatever excuses one makes to deny this are just that, excuses. Continuously Cruise or loose your license. Duh.
I will share this on twitter and facebook. I had this video posted via google as i'd signed the petition already. I had at one time wanted to live on a boat because i loved the idea of the freedom, however due to chronic health and other reasons i never was able. I send you all many blessings and pray for protection from the powers that be who want to force people to live a lifestyle of slavery and consumerism.
Essential viewing for all live aboard boaters! The CRT have indeed broken up most of the boating communities on the Oxford canal. The noose gets ever tighter and we all live with a feeling of insecurity and dread. Boats are our homes.
6:23 in he says "Providing people keep moving and the don't over stay and they follow the guidance then they are welcome to travel on any of our waterways." CRT seem to have forgotten that the waterways don't belong to them. They are not a business that profits from an asset they own, they are a charity with responsibility to look after a public asset.
Perhaps we are a more litigious society on this side of the pond, but over here in such a situation the liveaboards would form an association, hire an attorney, and take the CRT to court, and the first thing they'd do is ask for an injunction prohibiting any further evictions/revocations while the suit was ongoing. Is this possible under UK law?
its nothing to do with wanting to keep you moving its about forcing you into marinas or off the canal all together so the toffs don't have to look at you who the CRT just see as canal gypsies and they just want rid of you . unfortunately in the end they almost certainly will win because £££££ will always move the little person .
This is insane, the CRT rep basically said outright that they are doing things they shouldn't be able to do. What a scumbag. I mean, these aren't laws, they're "guidelines", the rep even said that, so how are they able to force people out? This is awful, unfair, unethical and pretty sketchy of the CRT. It's almost.....criminal
CRT don't want to see tubs on their waters only if you have got a nice looking boat you get left alone, I suppose they see these liveaboards as unkempt people who do what they want. But the big question is are they ?.
People living on boats are not part of the debt based monetary system. As such, everything will be done to make them give up boat life to live in bricks and mortar and become part of the debt based monetary system.
As always, the UK loves turning anything relatively cheap but different into a rich person's hobby, and then we all sit around scratching our heads wondering why poverty and home insecurity are on the rise and councils have huge waiting lists for affordable houses. Still, we wouldn't want poor people living in nice areas, would we?
Three sides to every story...yours, theirs...and the truth. This is a biased, vested interest centred presentation of one side of the story. It is far from the rounded view.
So explain the D-Bag official they interviewed. There is no minimum distance, but we'll evict you if you don't move far enough. If that sounds legit to you, I've got some property for sale. I haven't decided on a price. You just keep handing me money, and if it's not enough, I'll just evict you..
Evicting them because they 'ignored the 'Guidance".' 19:08. Even the wording is mealy-mouthed, vague nonsense. I can't see it being enforced by the courts.
I couldn't agree more. We've never had a single issue with the CRT because we just abide by the rules set in place. They aren't difficult to stick to. Also, we have recently visited the K&A and the first two people we spoke to form this 'community of boaters' said that they completely disagree with this video. We were even told that the main lady in this video has a home that she rents out... Now there's a moral issue to discuss! There were other points also made about this one sided video but I will leave it at that.
Really saddened and upset, at the plight of the liveaboards. I hate it when authorities persecute people who are quietly going about their business, living low impact lives and hurting no one. Rules should be honest, fair and transparent. The persecution by stealth of these people, is nothing short of ethnic cleansing of the livabords. :-(
It sounds reasonable to keep the boats moving. Nobody is trying to instill fear in you nor trying to get rid of live aborts these are the costs of living in a community. The great canal conspiracy is not real so stop your whining.
Maybe you should pay attention to what the pencil necked geek was saying. He says there is no minimum distance stipulated, but then immediately admits to evicting people who don't move far enough. What kind of crazy is that?
Matthew Symonds of CRT is wrong. CRT do have to abide by equalities legislation. This is tediously legalese, but this stuff is important. From one of CRT's own equalities impact assessments: The Canal & River Trust (“the Trust”) has undertaken this EIA to assess each proposal’s potential impact on people with ‘protected characteristics’ under the Equality Act 2010 (“the Act”). Whilst the Trust is not a ‘public authority’ named in Schedule 19 to the Act, for the purposes of the Act and the Specific Duties Regulations which flow from it, the Trust recognises that it does exercise some public functions as a statutory navigation authority including in respect of boating and, when exercising those functions, the Trust is subject to the general Public Sector Equality Duty (“PSED”) under s.149(1). The Trust understands it must therefore have ‘due regard’ to the following objectives when exercising those public functions: The need to eliminate discrimination, harassment, victimisation and any other conduct that is prohibited by or under the Act (s.149(1)(a); The need to advance equality or opportunity between persons who share a relevant protected characteristic and persons who do not share it (s.149(1)(b)). This involves having due regard to the needs to: remove or minimise disadvantages suffered by persons who share a relevant protected characteristic that are connected to that characteristic; take steps to meet the needs of persons who share a relevant protected characteristic that are different from the needs of persons who do not share it; encourage persons who share a relevant protected characteristic to participate in public life or in any other activity in which participation by such persons is disproportionately low. The need to foster good relations between persons who share a relevant protected characteristic and those who do not share it (s.149(1)(c)). This includes having due regard to the need to tackle prejudice and promote understanding (s.149(5))
So they want to stay in one place for schools etc, but they dont want a home mooring, just buy a continuous cruising license and dont move anywhere. Well that is why you have problems now, read the terms of your license, these people are just hillbillies, makes the canal look like a shanty town, go by the rules or go find a different life.
None of the boaters said that they did not want to move anywhere. They are very happy to move on after 14 days. The difficulty arises when they are told that they are not moving sufficient distances over the year. But they do not know what that distance should be because the CRT have not set an arbitrary minimum distance. The CRT seem to making up the rules as they go along.
I thought this country was championing diversity, or is it only the diversity from other countries and not from within, the same persecution was dished out to new age travelers in the 1980's. The comment from the suit at the end about what type of organisation they are and it's responsibilities and by the look on his face shows just how determined he is in ridding "his" canals of people who he deems unworthy, you can bet ur bottom dollar this is his own personal vendetta !
all this is down to London and people winning there. it is not fare or legal or just to hit every one else on the canal due to troubles in London. this is not right and the crt need to stop now. leave these people alone
Completely shocked by the abuse of the CRTs power as a charitable trust! Where are the stakeholders representatives views being considered? They surely cannot enforce as the highways authority can (on road use) and even landlords have limitations under the law! Clearly the CRT should be brought to court in one action to account for their own abuse of power to stipulate what constitutes guidance and define what are their legal powers to enforce sanctions, not to mention what is a proportionate sanction under the law, including the European Act for Human Rights. What progress has the petition made please?
I am completely shocked by the conditions these poor kiddies are being brought up in, looks to me like some of them have some sort of mental disorder, and its not surprising.
Hello from the USA! it looks like your government has decided to make life miserable for live aboard boaters. Could this be in order for more wealthy and commercial users to gain access and increase business? I'm truly sorry for your plight. From my viewpoint it looks like your community is causing no harm to the canals, so why the big push to run you off? it looks like you are responsible stewards of the waterways. abuse and destruction of the canals is the only reason which I could see for this aggressive enforcement. Keep up the good fight! forcing people from their homes is wrong, no matter who does it.
+Brian Garrow People are using the canals to escape the high cost of housing, especially in London. The government do not want this and are discreetly forcing people off the canals.
So if people live on the canals for free, who pays for the maintenance? The canals will be gone in a couple of years if they are not maintained. Or should everyone else pay more to make up for the freeloaders?
I cant see that thechild's education has to be put on hold, thats a nonsense. Basically the CRT wnt to disrupt the liveaboard community. Why they want to do this is evident, but whether they should, is a different matter.
So sad to see you being forced to give up a lifestyle that you obviously love because of government nitpicking. It is as bad as it is in the states I am sorry to say. I always thought that the UK was more progressive than the US government. Best of luck to you and Cub and all the ones affected by this.
The woman "peddling" the narrow boat at 0:44 with a small child huddled in blankets is something out of Charles Dickens.
Wow, interesting video! I've lived close to the K&A all my life, I can remember my uncle taking me fishing there in the early 70's.......I didn't realize things had got so bad. I've spent a few holidays on other canals and loved the lifestyle, I appreciate that holidays and real life can be very different, but living aboard is something that appeals to me in the future. I find it hard to understand what the trust are trying to achieve by these measures and also, how they can get away with these rules?
I think you will find that it is the boaters who are trying to get away with circumventing the rules, rules which they agreed to when they applied for a licence.
The Trust make it clear that those with regular jobs and children who are at school will not easily comply with the cc licence.
There is a choice: they can move ashore or they can pay for a home mooring. If they apply for a cc licence then they need to accept the terms of the licence.
It's always been my dream to live on the canals......Not anymore though...I'm now looking for another way of life out of these bricks !..Good luck to you lovely people...Keep up the good fight.
Since making this film, CRT have continued to make things harder for boaters. This has particularly affected boater families who need to attend school. Please sign this new petition now.
you.38degrees.org.uk/petitions/boat-children-deserve-equal-access-to-education?bucket&source=facebook-share-button&time=1483436201
Beautiful. Thank you for sharing, petition signed and video shared :)
This story brought me to tears, I have admired your pedal boat for years, cubs dad did a great job, and you look incredibly healthy for the pedaling.
Did you ask the crt what legal requirements you were not meeting?
Hi Wendy,
I just read your post on Shooting People, as I myself am looking to promote my film in the same way. Great shots and an interesting concept to your film. I wish you all the best. If you can share any advise that would be greatful - I will subscribe and share your film to show my support.
Really good film showing the realities of how things are changing. I lived aboard for 13 years, with my husband and two children. Liked and shared.
I watch a lot of channels where people are continually cruising and don't seem to have any issues. Is it just a case these people are barely moving.
great video, shared on Twitter and FB
+m bennie
thanks!
Making sacrifices is a part of life. If access to your job or your child's school is a priority, then maybe canal life isn't the way to go. If canal life is your priority, be prepared to forfeit access to certain things. Personally, I think the CRT is trying to prevent the canal system from becoming a low income housing project.
Heaven forbid all those poor people trying to have some sort of stability in a pretty part of the UK that should only really be for the likes of you and I, right?
Stick 'em all in a slum where they deserve to be, out of sight and out of mind, right? 😂🖕
Nicely directed +1
good luck everyone 🍀
Interesting video I've a mate who lives on a narrowboat who's an ambulance driver and I've signed your petition.This needs to be stopped
The CRT use the term 'sanitise' the waterways, Hitler used the same word.....relatively unnerving! So sorry for the lovely lady having to let your boat go.i hope your journey turned out great in your van, remember homes where the heart is!
Recently I saw this video: th-cam.com/video/8fElraViW08/w-d-xo.html (yes, I've got too much time) which I think covers the exact same spot (Bath and east of it) and I was taken aback by the shear amount of barely floating personal junkyards that used to be boats. These absolute eyesores went on for miles after miles on the canal. And the people dwelling on these "boats" are clearly taking advantage of a legal loophole. You're not a continuous cruiser if you just move a bit back and forth! Whether there is a clear legal amount of miles you have to move or not. I can absolutely understand why CRT wants to get rid of these freeloaders.
I'm not a user of the waterways and the film didn't make it clear; but given the Kennet and Avon is 87 (Wikipedia) miles long, if boaters only stayed on that one canal they would be within the guidelines?
In my mind, if people are constantly navigating, you would think that people would at least cover the distance of one canal? It seems that the people given notices in the film are hardly moving and indeed would need a fixed mooring?
That said, I enjoyed the film and would love to see a follow up.
You would think from the video that they are being asked to cover hundred of miles per year, but in fact, it is very little, maybe TWENTY MILES PER ANNUM!!!!!!
Yep agree.
I've signed the petition...
Just Signed Wendy..Thanks for bringing this to public attention .
I love the thought of this lifestyle and don't look down on people who choose to live that way at all. I just don't understand what the problem is here. If people just hover around the same spot then it clogs up the canal system for everyone. People naturally want to hover around busy areas. It seems only fair to me that people should keep moving a fair distance if they are continuous cruisers. I don't think these people are being targeted because of any other reason than they don't want to move 20 miles per year, which is nothing. If you are not moving that far then you are permanently mooring in the same area so should have a home mooring. Maybe I'm missing something?
My heart goes out to you all. Don't give up your rights I live on the cut and we need communities which we barely have on land anymore!
nice video, we put it out on visionOntv.
Thanks!
SIGN HERE TO PREVENT THE EVICTION OF BOAT DWELLERS!
you.38degrees.org.uk/petitions/boats-are-homes-prevent-the-eviction-of-boat-dwellers
Why not ask "WHO" is the man or woman that is giving me orders and by what authority are they giving me these orders? If someone wants to give me orders then I require compensation cause I am not a slave. Where is the claimant? Hint: A claimant has to be a living being, man or woman not a corporation.
Link is not working to sign petition
I would love to know how this all worked out? Most of the videos I've watched have been all happy and compliant. Did 'big brother' win? Knowing the current political wind in Britain, I'm fearful for the 'live aboards'.
If you are part of a community in a specific area how can you be navigating? Get a mooring or ride the cut. Government departments becoming charitable trusts are dangerous animals, as are bodies that obtain national recognition of control.
C&RT can't tell you how far you need to travel to comply .... . and state nor should they as they have no right o legal way to to inflict that on anyone ..but yet insist they have the legal right to remove people / boats if they don' travel far enough....but not what far enough is? how in earth is this enforceable?? what am I missing? The guy on J vine bbc RT2 today was terribly evasive and got away with it. I totally agree there is a holiday boat financial agenda here. Donated. signed.
signed and shared
The CRT are are getting above themselves and need taking down a peg or two I feel.
Liveaboards undoubtedly add vibrancy and character to the canal system, but the video is pretty disingenuous and there are plenty of just plain foolish comments below regarding the CRT.
There are two major benefits to holding a Continous Cruiser licence: firstly you can live on the canal network without having to pay for a home mooring (which in London in particular are very expensive), and you are not liable for Council Tax. BUT being on a CC licence means you must abide by the law (move every 14 days) and the CRT guidelines Some people are wilfully finding fault with the principle of continously cruising in good faith (i.e. don't just go from A to B and back to A agin; travel at least 15 - 20 miles per annum) simply because it suits their own interests. They want the "alternative" lifestyle with all the benefits (?!?) that brings but without the cost, and usually that means because they don't have the income to to pay for moorings and Council Tax (although ironically, if they needed the police or fire brigade they wouldn't turn them away because they haven't helped to pay for these services). Personally I'd love an alternative "lifestyle" but unfortunately I have to go to work 250 days a year, in part, to pay for the privilege of using the waterways of the UK.
If the CRT's rules and guidelines were not enforced, the canals (especially in London) would become a linear housing estate/campsite in a very short period of time due to the cronic shortage of affordable social housing. I read an anti-CRT blog recently about a teacher in London recieving an enforcement notice "even though he had travelled 60 miles in 6 months". This is an average of 5 miles every 14 days! I personally wouldn't consider that to be continous cruising. If he needs to stay close to work he needs to pay for a home mooring. If you ask me to contribute through the taxes I pay so that this teacher (or nurse, or bus driver or ...) can have somewhere affordable to live within London then I say fine; tax me and lets build some more social housing. But please don't blame the CRT because they want the waterways of the UK to remain navigable. And don't play the game of pretending guidelines are meaningless because they are not enshrined in Law. They rely on people acting in good faith; which some clearly are not.
Wendy seems like a very nice lady with a kid who is clearly very smart and a credit to her, but...........How far can you travel on a pedal-powered narrowboat with no steering? How far did you travel in the 12 months prior to receiving the enforcment notice? Would complying with the guidelines be a direct contradiction of the "community" located in one area that you desire?
My guess is you have not travelled far enough to even pay lip service to the CRT's guidelines. You can't have it both ways.
Well said.
hippy chick does not want and rules except her rules/
This is an ongoing issue in many societies, housing. I had a 16 year stint as a live aboard. Been around the world on board. Spent years on inland waterways. I've seen this issue up close and personal many times.
Simply put, this is a person, a mother, who asserts a societal position with implied status. She is banking upon charity. I assert her position does not warrant that which is implied by this video segment.
Waterways are a public trust. They are either maintained outright by our government, or by those whom have been appointed through whichever process has put them there. The CRT is a vested trust, by Queen and Parliament, to the maintenance and administration of a chain of navigable waterways.
Maritime Rules of the Road (MRoR) provide a starting point. These are ubiquitous and inviolable. Chief among the MRoR is the precept that no vessel shall present a hazard to navigation. This point might be arguable by those who only entertain a narrow and obviously selfish regard to how one considers another vessel a hazard to others. In the long history of maritime courts, the position being held by the CRT in this "documentary" is spot on.
The requirement of tangible movement throughout the waterways demonstrates to the CRT, fellow seamen, and the public at large, that any given vessel is demonstrably NOT a hazard to navigation. By transiting, a vessel is showing to all who witness that said vessel can be operated safely, but more importantly, reliably and on demand. This is of paramount necessity to ensuring safe navigation of the waters.
If a master of a vessel needs to operate his craft emergently, to avoid danger, it is incumbent upon all those who share the water to be able to afford the other craft the opportunity to avoid danger. Primarily by not being themselves first a danger to others.
Vessels lumber, floods rage, fires gallop. Time is not on the side of the captain in an emergency. Any and ALL vessels must be able to be considered safe and navigable, at all times so as to afford this minimum requirement to ALL VESSELS who share the waterways. Vessels that are navigable, as demonstrated by their constant transit, tell others, tell society, that they are safe to be around; that they are not a potential onerous burden, waiting to devastate the resources of any particular council, marina, or other responsible social infrastructure that they happen to be near when the "shit hits the fan."
These craft weigh tonnes empty. Pedal power, however "green" is sketchy at best. Why dont we see sails on the cut, I mean, besides the bridges and tunnels? Why? It's not reliable in such a highly confined modality, such a insanely constrained environment. Now, if her vessel had three other crewmen with dedicated pedals for propulsion, that were all with the craft when it was in motion, to provide a minimum of safe control of the vessel, she wouldn't have been asked to leave. She could have handily demonstrated the "seaworthiness" of her vessel by moving it several leagues a day or what ever is the currently accepted minimum. Usually from one given council or district to the next is considered a minimum of movement. If that is a 100 meters or two miles, it is usually felt that as long as the vessel is transiting then the requirement is met.
Why must one transit, aside from actively, practically demonstrating the seaworthiness of any given vessel? Simple. So as not to put an undo burden on any one mynicipality, sharing the burden, the responsibility of affording emergency care, infrastructure maintenance and the like (roughly) equally across all participating stake holders. To not do this is simply to take advantage, unduly of the system.
No one is entitled to right of pilotage. This is a privilege being a vessel in a waterway. The CRT is acting appropriately to prevent, simply, "a tragedy of the commons." This vast resource is just that, a resource. Should, God forbid, an emergency put vast sections of road out of commission, the kingdom has a built in backup system for the transportation of resources, the waterways. It is a most precious resource and must be afforded great care and all diligence to maintain. The rail companies and intermodal shipping interests almost tore it down. They were not successful. And through careful and meticulous effort, the canals ARE coming back. Not only as a keisure resource but as a vital mode of transport for business. The convenience of having an industrial lot of land on a waterway cant be overstated. Water transport can be just as green as rail. And, as long as the waterways are safe to navigate transit by boat is safer, cheaper, just as reliable.
But it all comes back to one simple concept. The cut is a communal resource. Shared by all, the waterways must be operated, at all times, safely by all. Minimum standards must be met at alltimes. These standards cost money, time, experience, all in varying degree. If you dont have the money to have the local chandlery come make a repair, you had better heaven too and make the repair yourself, right then and there, out of the way of others. If your vessel is going to be laid up, do so appropriately, in a marina, a drydock, a wharf or a cleat on the towpath. Point is, get out of the way. If your vessel is operable, safely, get out of the way. Move on. If you like the view, get a mooring that is yours, otherwise weigh anchor.
Water flows. Constant motion is the natural order of water. So too are those who set sail upon it. Waterborne life is not stationary. Whatever excuses one makes to deny this are just that, excuses. Continuously Cruise or loose your license. Duh.
Signed the petition
+Henry Cull
thanks!
If you live on a boat, (an idea that does sound rather appealing), how do you know which place to pay Council Tax to?
You don't pay any council tax. Just need a boat licence.
I will share this on twitter and facebook. I had this video posted via google as i'd signed the petition already. I had at one time wanted to live on a boat because i loved the idea of the freedom, however due to chronic health and other reasons i never was able. I send you all many blessings and pray for protection from the powers that be who want to force people to live a lifestyle of slavery and consumerism.
Essential viewing for all live aboard boaters! The CRT have indeed broken up most of the boating communities on the Oxford canal. The noose gets ever tighter and we all live with a feeling of insecurity and dread. Boats are our homes.
If the boat is your home then you should comply with the terms of your licence or pay for a home mooring.
.
Bring Back British waterway
6:23 in he says "Providing people keep moving and the don't over stay and they follow the guidance then they are welcome to travel on any of our waterways."
CRT seem to have forgotten that the waterways don't belong to them. They are not a business that profits from an asset they own, they are a charity with responsibility to look after a public asset.
no one can tell a man what to do with his own property, and every one knows you don't have to consent to a act ,
Perhaps we are a more litigious society on this side of the pond, but over here in such a situation the liveaboards would form an association, hire an attorney, and take the CRT to court, and the first thing they'd do is ask for an injunction prohibiting any further evictions/revocations while the suit was ongoing. Is this possible under UK law?
This is social cleansing
its nothing to do with wanting to keep you moving its about forcing you into marinas or off the canal all together so the toffs don't have to look at you who the CRT just see as canal gypsies and they just want rid of you . unfortunately in the end they almost certainly will win because £££££ will always move the little person .
This is insane, the CRT rep basically said outright that they are doing things they shouldn't be able to do. What a scumbag. I mean, these aren't laws, they're "guidelines", the rep even said that, so how are they able to force people out? This is awful, unfair, unethical and pretty sketchy of the CRT. It's almost.....criminal
CRT don't want to see tubs on their waters only if you have got a nice looking boat you get left alone, I suppose they see these liveaboards as unkempt people who do what they want. But the big question is are they ?.
People living on boats are not part of the debt based monetary system. As such, everything will be done to make them give up boat life to live in bricks and mortar and become part of the debt based monetary system.
Manic Miner sadly nail on head
brilliant!...and if the control freaks try and spoil this let me know and i will offer my help to stop them by what ever means
As always, the UK loves turning anything relatively cheap but different into a rich person's hobby, and then we all sit around scratching our heads wondering why poverty and home insecurity are on the rise and councils have huge waiting lists for affordable houses.
Still, we wouldn't want poor people living in nice areas, would we?
Live on a boat..yes, Live in a shack..no
did cubs mum ever get sorted out? 😯
For your info; jenni
Three sides to every story...yours, theirs...and the truth. This is a biased, vested interest centred presentation of one side of the story. It is far from the rounded view.
So explain the D-Bag official they interviewed. There is no minimum distance, but we'll evict you if you don't move far enough. If that sounds legit to you, I've got some property for sale. I haven't decided on a price. You just keep handing me money, and if it's not enough, I'll just evict you..
Evicting them because they 'ignored the 'Guidance".' 19:08. Even the wording is mealy-mouthed, vague nonsense. I can't see it being enforced by the courts.
I couldn't agree more. We've never had a single issue with the CRT because we just abide by the rules set in place. They aren't difficult to stick to. Also, we have recently visited the K&A and the first two people we spoke to form this 'community of boaters' said that they completely disagree with this video. We were even told that the main lady in this video has a home that she rents out... Now there's a moral issue to discuss! There were other points also made about this one sided video but I will leave it at that.
It is being enforced by the courts.
Really saddened and upset, at the plight of the liveaboards. I hate it when authorities persecute people who are quietly going about their business, living low impact lives and hurting no one. Rules should be honest, fair and transparent. The persecution by stealth of these people, is nothing short of ethnic cleansing of the livabords. :-(
It sounds reasonable to keep the boats moving. Nobody is trying to instill fear in you nor trying to get rid of live aborts these are the costs of living in a community. The great canal conspiracy is not real so stop your whining.
Maybe you should pay attention to what the pencil necked geek was saying. He says there is no minimum distance stipulated, but then immediately admits to evicting people who don't move far enough. What kind of crazy is that?
Legal or lawful u decide it's a common law country acts are not laws
Matthew Symonds of CRT is wrong. CRT do have to abide by equalities legislation. This is tediously legalese, but this stuff is important. From one of CRT's own equalities impact assessments:
The Canal & River Trust (“the Trust”) has undertaken this EIA to assess each proposal’s potential
impact on people with ‘protected characteristics’ under the Equality Act 2010 (“the Act”).
Whilst the Trust is not a ‘public authority’ named in Schedule 19 to the Act, for the purposes of the Act
and the Specific Duties Regulations which flow from it, the Trust recognises that it does exercise
some public functions as a statutory navigation authority including in respect of boating and, when
exercising those functions, the Trust is subject to the general Public Sector Equality Duty (“PSED”)
under s.149(1). The Trust understands it must therefore have ‘due regard’ to the following objectives
when exercising those public functions:
The need to eliminate discrimination, harassment, victimisation and any other conduct that is
prohibited by or under the Act (s.149(1)(a);
The need to advance equality or opportunity between persons who share a relevant protected
characteristic and persons who do not share it (s.149(1)(b)). This involves having due regard to
the needs to:
remove or minimise disadvantages suffered by persons who share a relevant protected
characteristic that are connected to that characteristic;
take steps to meet the needs of persons who share a relevant protected characteristic that
are different from the needs of persons who do not share it;
encourage persons who share a relevant protected characteristic to participate in public life
or in any other activity in which participation by such persons is disproportionately low.
The need to foster good relations between persons who share a relevant protected characteristic
and those who do not share it (s.149(1)(c)). This includes having due regard to the need to tackle
prejudice and promote understanding (s.149(5))
We gotta fight.. for the right.. to Bargee...
So they want to stay in one place for schools etc, but they dont want a home mooring, just buy a continuous cruising license and dont move anywhere. Well that is why you have problems now, read the terms of your license, these people are just hillbillies, makes the canal look like a shanty town, go by the rules or go find a different life.
None of the boaters said that they did not want to move anywhere. They are very happy to move on after 14 days. The difficulty arises when they are told that they are not moving sufficient distances over the year. But they do not know what that distance should be because the CRT have not set an arbitrary minimum distance. The CRT seem to making up the rules as they go along.
Agenda21 research it!
I thought this country was championing diversity, or is it only the diversity from other countries and not from within, the same persecution was dished out to new age travelers in the 1980's. The comment from the suit at the end about what type of organisation they are and it's responsibilities and by the look on his face shows just how determined he is in ridding "his" canals of people who he deems unworthy, you can bet ur bottom dollar this is his own personal vendetta !
Why cant anyone be left ALONE! What on earth do they want from you? Its all about money!
Trust no one in a suit, he needs chucking in the drink
I know you are a lesbian but you are beautiful.
all this is down to London and people winning there. it is not fare or legal or just to hit every one else on the canal due to troubles in London. this is not right and the crt need to stop now. leave these people alone
Completely shocked by the abuse of the CRTs power as a charitable trust! Where are the stakeholders representatives views being considered? They surely cannot enforce as the highways authority can (on road use) and even landlords have limitations under the law! Clearly the CRT should be brought to court in one action to account for their own abuse of power to stipulate what constitutes guidance and define what are their legal powers to enforce sanctions, not to mention what is a proportionate sanction under the law, including the European Act for Human Rights. What progress has the petition made please?
I am completely shocked by the conditions these poor kiddies are being brought up in, looks to me like some of them have some sort of mental disorder, and its not surprising.
Hello from the USA! it looks like your government has decided to make life miserable for live aboard boaters. Could this be in order for more wealthy and commercial users to gain access and increase business? I'm truly sorry for your plight. From my viewpoint it looks like your community is causing no harm to the canals, so why the big push to run you off? it looks like you are responsible stewards of the waterways. abuse and destruction of the canals is the only reason which I could see for this aggressive enforcement. Keep up the good fight! forcing people from their homes is wrong, no matter who does it.
+Brian Garrow
People are using the canals to escape the high cost of housing, especially in London. The government do not want this and are discreetly forcing people off the canals.
So if people live on the canals for free, who pays for the maintenance? The canals will be gone in a couple of years if they are not maintained. Or should everyone else pay more to make up for the freeloaders?
+andydickey I believe they all pay licence fees, which is for maintenance of the canals .
I cant see that thechild's education has to be put on hold, thats a nonsense. Basically the CRT wnt to disrupt the liveaboard community. Why they want to do this is evident, but whether they should, is a different matter.
So sad to see you being forced to give up a lifestyle that you obviously love because of government nitpicking. It is as bad as it is in the states I am sorry to say. I always thought that the UK was more progressive than the US government. Best of luck to you and Cub and all the ones affected by this.