Sadly this video does portray it this way, I guess that the producers did not realise the backlash. It comes across as 'hippy' benefit users wanting it all their own way!
@Mr Brightside still labelling "these people" id loce to meet you ps unfortunately crt are in breach of the Misrepresentation Act 1967 by stating minimum distances to travel on theyre website as being part of the law when it isnt
And nothing wrong with that. When the cuts were working properly, you didn't have shanties of non working boats- but communities of boats whose occupantsworked damned hard, and kept the country going, and however you view that (part of the system, working for the man, enslaved, etc. etc. ), those people back then did the spadework for the benefits these moaners enjoy today, but no compaints from them, eh? Ghettoes on water- how novel." Lets have some more", thought no one.
@Mr Brightside you enter into a contract anytime you buy anything buying a licence is a contract go in to a shop and buy a can of coke a tube of toothpaste as soon as you pay there exists a contract
You good folks need to get that public administrator down to the river and have dinner on the boats with him so he can know you and see you. Paper notices are not efficient. Face to face conversations are much better. Once he sees the families, children, pets, and ingenuity, he will begin to have compassion. Great video. Tried to sign petition but does not take my zip code.
@Mr Brightside Your Taxes aren't high because some poor bums pay less than You, Your taxes are waay higher than they ought to be because the system of direct, progressively increasing taxes on income and profit does not work properly anymore with a lotta players waay bigger than You not paying even an incremental fraction of their fair share. As a singlehanding sailor for three decades I do not like unskilled bums on boats crashing into my liveaboard yacht for technical insufficiency or lack of concious capability to keep their track, but I would never ever blame somebody having particularly less than me for being that poor. Poverty is a shame the rich in a society have to take. Not very en vogue since Maggy the bitch, I know right, but that doesn't change the hard, empirical facts.
@Mr Brightside You seem to not have fully transcended the concept of a public spirited, culturally advanced society earning the attribute "civilized" I'm afraid. The allegation of "freeloading" is a grey area on the far side of the income distribution, where society does show its solidarity by providing as a whole what some on the lower income end simply can not afford - tax financed social housing would be a classic case of such an act of solidarity where it is everything else than "freeloading" to get this sorta help, as well as keeping up a system like the NHS for example. Keeping up canals as a little exonerating valve to decompress a borderline criminal, steaming mortgage-rat-race ralley could well be another example. It's a grey area, but letting loose a butcher's dog like this chain choker-gentleman to get rid of people like the bicycle driven lady-narrowboater and her son is overcooking it absolutely, that's for sure - she's a well integrated part of the society, visibly educating her son to become exactly that, too, and struggling financially just because the neoliberal ratrace isn't the best for our kids which she has understood and does not take part in, logically - she isn't "freeloading" just because she's poor. "Freeloading", or more precisely expressed "criminally antisocial" would it be however for example to take the millions or billions of profit One makes in one country and slyly park it in an Irish-Dutch sandwich to avoid the fair share of taxes in the country whose inhabitants did enable making this profit at all in the first place. Criminalizing this practice - instead of wrongfully acclaim it as "successful" - and subsequently seize the thus illegalised amounts for the better good of the duped society alltogether would reduce YOUR taxes a double digit percentage. The UK and here mostly the city of London have several tenthousands of well organized, structurally criminal banksters driving Your taxes in dwindling heights by cutting theirs as well as their customers' almost entirely, and You have nothing else to say or do than offensively attack a handful of poor canal dwellers? Well, that's not only annoying to be honest, my british friends would probably call this "shocking", to say the least.
I think bad examples of both sides were used in this video as most of the live aboards here were bums living in death traps and the guy representing CRT was an arragant Ponce
@Markus Bates You claim these people are doing no harm to anybody. This woman is trying to move a very large boat using only human power, as her Diesel Engine has long since been removed. This alone, presents a hazard to all other boats. She also clearly will find great difficulty moving this boat to meet the established navigation requirements, which serve the very purpose to put an end to Squatters. You can see the ugly state these places have turned into when these people squat on the canal and the land adjacent to it. No, they are NOT living in harmony as you claim, they are creating disharmony by trashing up the beautiful canal system England so graciously provides. There is nothing like this in America, but if there were, I would hate to see a bunch of Hippie Squatters trashing up a beautiful canal system because they believe the somehow have the right to squat on a piece of water/land. These people who believe that our programming by the State is complete, share the mentality that they are above the law and should never be subject to any authority. Simply put, a healthy society cannot function if its' members refuse to abide and obey basic sets of rules.
@Markus Bates - It is perfectly reasonable to prevent groups of boaters setting up a static community at one particular location, surely. They have every right to travel as a group, moving around enough to meet the continuous cruising requirement - why don't they? Maybe not that close a community?
Er? Define ‘bum’ ? Someone without a mortgage and not in hock to the international banking system, who might have read 1984? So probably not ‘joe Clooney’?
@Markus Bates who will pay for their £20000 cancer treatment each year when they need it in 40 years time? they have paid in nothing. i bet YOU don't want your kids to pay for it?
I continuously cruised for my first 8 years of living on my boat. I cruised an average of 300 miles a year travelling mostly round Yorkshire and I stayed 1 to 2 weeks at every stop. I have now had a mooring 6 years, but cruise 9 months of the year... had just one ticket from CRT but was cleared with a phone call ! . This year I spent the winter away from my mooring, fancied a change . I've cruised roughly 70 miles this year up to now.
@@sarahgardiner1649 I'm not being disingenuous. Maybe in the UK Charity means something different. In the US a Charity has no legal power to impose citations commonly called a ticket in American English. If you are from the UK and can explain this to me it would be helpful.
Basically, it looks like the CRT don't want the water version of a piece of inland waste ground littered with caravans and ford transit pickups. Can't see the problem myself.
Formidable38 It’s not about keeping things pretty. It’s about people having the right to live and people who want shit nice and fancy need to intrude and make a bunch of ordinances which counter the LAW
I lived next to the boaters in Hackney Wick for 10 years. Many boats would not move and they would trash the surroundings. Their dogs would attack people and many of the boats were just floating scrap yards. There was fires on the tow path and just stuff dumped for everyone else to deal with. It's these type of boaters who kick up a fuss. If these people respected the cruising rule and had some respect for others and the surroundings I don't think CRT would have any issue. Its the dumping of trash, stationary boats, abusive behaviour and general unpleasantness which is the issue. It doesn't cost anything to be tidy and respectful of others. There are a few on the canals who think they are hard done by even though they act like clowns and spoil it for many.
Don't be an arsehole! There are plenty of people like you describe living in houses who act just the same making their neighbours lives a misery! There's good and bad everywhere!!
@Mr Brightside Where did I say that it was ok to be an asshole on water!! Read my comment properly,.I was merely pointing out, and stated, that there's good and bad everywhere be it on land or water!! I couldn't have been more clearer.
@Mr Brightside Have a nice day. I don't mind the odd comment and odd reply but you're obviously very lonely and I don't engage in conversations with strangers on the Internet. Good Bye.
I'm a continuous cruiser. Never had an issue with CRT. Once had an engine problem. Informed them. No problems. Not saying CRT doesn't have an agenda regarding making money. Canals cost. And there all looking after themselves. Living on the road for 38 years met many like this.( travellers) everything for nothing. Everyone against them. How about other boater's who want to moor..... Bit of give and take.
A General Nuisance it's law, The Waterways Act, not rules. The guidelines are only there to help you understand how to stay legal. The requirements about moving on only apply to boats not on a permanent (i.e. rented, paid for) mooring, whether that's "off-line" in a marina, or "on-line" on the canal. If you do as you must do by law, you'll never hear from CRT.
d c the waterways act requires all boats that do not have a permanent mooring to be used for “bona fide navigation”. That is not exactly defined in the act so that’s where the CRT guidance is aimed at - the guidance is not law but if you comply with it then you won’t get any bother off CRT. If it does go to court, CRT present their case, the boater presents theirs, and the court decides who they feel is in the right. Sometimes it’s CRT, sometimes it’s not. That’s how the law is supposed to work. This country has laws written by parliament, that are interpreted by the courts. Think of CRT guidance as being like the Highway Code. It’s not law, but if you obey it’s provisions then you won’t fall foul of the law. Why is it so difficult for people to just behave responsibly and reasonably? CRT do not want to enforce Section 8 of the Waterways Act on anyone, but some people are just unreasonable and behave unfairly to everyone else. If we all paid our licence fees, if we all obey the law, then CRT would have more time and money to spend on the canals and less on removing the irresponsible takers. And remember that someone who doesn’t move often doesn’t have insurance, a safety certificate, or any concern for your safety or welfare, and their boat is often a fire hazard and a health hazard. Be reasonable, be fair, be honest, and there’s no issue at all.
d c my boat is “pretty” and I’ve been asked to move on after 16 days. Heresay isn’t a good working proposition. I know someone who’s got mental health problems. CRT allow him to stay in one place, CRT arranged for his licence to be payed by housing benefit. CRT are not an evil force out to eat your children. If you fail to comply with the guidelines, if you don’t enter into reasonable dialogue and come to an arrangement with them, then it’s the courts- not CRT - who decide if you’ve broken the law. The law allows for the boater to present a case. If that case isn’t reasonable (and “my kids are in school” is not a valid reason) then the court may find against the boater.
d c were you in court? Did you have access to the prosecution case? To the defence? No? Me neither. But knowing how the courts are reluctant to cause someone to become homeless in all but the most extreme circumstances, I must ask you to consider the likelihood that they were “innocent” is extremely remote. If they had “obeyed the law to the letter” then it would probably not have gone to court, and if it did, the judge would have seen defence evidence that they had “obeyed the law to the letter”. This is not a police state, it’s not China, or the USSR. Judges in the UK are not swayed by the influence of prosecuting authorities, but only by precedent, evidence, and witnesses.
I'm a livaboard continuous cruiser, shock horror is that I couldn't agree less with this film. I've been positively welcomed by the CaRT people I've met. I move regularly and have never, ever had any issues (other than the time my licence had fallen off my window, which is kind of fair enough) My personal take on this is that too many people for too long ignored and flouted the rules in the 1995 act of Parliament. These people are now finding that the rules are being enforced, the rules haven't changed. The people saying a distance should be given should realise that when a distance was inputted into the T&Cs people fought against it stating that as no distance is in the 1995 act it couldn't be legally enforceable and so it was removed and the guidance of 15-20 miles inputted. Do people here really feel that 15-20 miles per year is a struggle to comply with? I make that kind of move every two weeks (other than the last 2 months as I needed to stay put to deal with a family crisis. The local enforcement officer stated I would be okay to stay but I paid for a mooring anyway because I like to stay within the spirit of the act) Another shock horror, I manage to hold down a job in a permanent place whilst having a range of around 100 miles a year. Trust me its not gentrification of the system otherwise I would definitely be in enforcement! If you need to stay in one place, you can, pay for a mooring. If you want to cc then move, to comply with the guidance its less than a mile every two weeks. I know hundreds of boaters that manage it. I hate the fact that some parts of the system are difficult for me to use as having two dogs means I don't feel comfortable not being along the tow path so parts of the K&A and London are pretty much no go for me as the numbers of people barely moving means I struggle to get in. I must say though the CaRT employee on the film doesn't really do them any favours. No one I've met from them has come across as quite so pompus and up themselves as he does. Really sorry guys but move it or lose it.
I agree with you totally, these people are trying to bend the rules just so they can not get a home mooring, and look at the state of the boats and some people, they want to drop out of society but want society to pay for it, go with the rules or go home, simple
I agree, Terry. It's a shame that some people feel that they can stay on short term moorings as long as they like whilst others have to travel further just to get a mooring to stay for a couple of nights. I don't know what their argument is, why can't they pay to stay on a long term mooring like everyone else has to?
just stumbled onto this from years ago, it looks like that letter was dated 2015, and I wonder where they all are now, and how is the CRT changing the rules still, or is there more solid rules/guidance for the CC's to work with now.
I lived on a boat near to these people for a summer. I loved it, but I did have the benefit of a 'home mooring'. I've also kayaked from Bristol to London on the K&A, several times, and met some of the people in this video on my journeys and enjoyed the company and hospitality of them all.
Everywhere you live, you pay. You pay for a house, or you pay rent and all the associated costs with go with that. So here we have a group of people without home moorings, who thus fall into the category of continuous cruising, who don't actually continually cruise. They want to live essentially rent free, moving from one 14 day mooring to another and the same general vicinity. If you are moored for more time than you cruise, then that process is not continuous, and is a breach of the Act. C&RT is a statutory authority with a mandate to enforce the rules. If you comply with those rules you wont have an issue. The term continuous cruising means just that; you cruise continually. *It does not mean* that you move from one 14 day mooring to another in the same area, in your quest to live "rent free".
Totally Spot On synopsis, this American truly appreciates your wonderful canal's and system of Locks. I would consider it a privilege to obtain citizenship or some other long-term visa which would allow me access to your amazing waterways. The fact that they are actively and reasonably policed, speaks highly of the British people and their recognition of maintaining such a truly wonderful asset. I applaud you. mh
Its not "rent free", when you have to buy a license every year. Boats also need inspection for insurance compliance, also "not free". And you will find some rules, are not actually law, hence so many cases being pulled by CRT on the day of Court.
@@skaraborgcraftthey are still scroungers move on lile you are ment to these river pikeys are destroying rivers with there boats leaking fule and oil they throw there waste in the water the tip their excrement in the river and bushes leave litter on the banks some sell drugs from house boats for every 1 decent canal boat owner there is a dozen bads ones and a lot of the boats a eye sores the river need cleaning up and a lot of the boats need scrapping to many freeloaders taking to the rivers
Have I got this correct? 15-20 miles during their license which could be a 12 month license, that works out at having to move .76 of a mile every two weeks, or move a mile every two weeks to add up too 26 miles in a year,
No he didn't word it well he meant 15-20 per move so 560 miles a year but the rules have no actual distance so its up to them 😉 aka they just give the ticket to boats they don't like the look of.
OK I've watched this right through and for the life of me I can't see the problem. I have just confirmed with the CRT that licencees are just being asked to move a minimum of 20 miles 'within the life of the licence' if they don't have a home mooring. If she has an annual licence, that's 20 miles p.a. With that licence, she avoids paying Council Tax and has access to free amenities. I'm not too upset that her 'way of life' is 'under threat' if that way of life is ignoring very, very mild requirements. And the shameless putting it in terms of the impact on her child... good grief! She is choosing to flout the laid-back rules, therefore she is the one impacting her child!
I live on my boat on a river rather than the canal system, I have to pay rent but I have a lot of facilities here so it's fair. I think people should be allowed to be nomadic (boats, buses, caravans, whatever) but that there should be some kind of lower rate universal council tax (Or work exchange if people are trying to live without cash) so they are at least contributing to the facilities they are using no matter where they chose to live. You can't live in the UK without using something, be that a road, river, street lighting or even emergency services for instance.
@@deanhoare8789 I can only go by the answer I got from CRT when I contacted them, which is in quotes. They clarified that this meant 6 months on a 6 month licence and a year on a 12 month licence.
Dean Hoare it's 20 miles per year. I continuously cruise the canals, and moving 20 miles per year and complying with the Waterways Act (it's law, not CRT rules) is as easy as anything if you are sensible.
@mikeakachorlton What your saying doesn't make sense. If compliance is as easy as you say then why would she give up her home of 14 years and sell at half it's value rather than comply?
Hardly, she could barely move the boat when it's flat calm. No chance in any wind. No chance of complying with the CRT regs. for contineous cruising, which she signed up to when getting a boat license. Too many don't want to move, but aren't prepared to get a home mooring.
They want to get the rabble off the canals. Be interesting to see if any of the orders have links with complaints. Eg, standards of boat, those aboard etc
Creating a scrap yard on the canal bank is not what narrowboat life should be about. If your boat looks like it’s ready to sink then get a job for a while and make it better for your child’s sake.
lorraine merry Yes I can see that myself. But you got many on here rooting for the CRT, thinking they are the good guys. Thinking they are doing a good job. But they can't see what is really taking place here.That further down the river they themselves will fall foul of this CRT when it becomes more established and powerful and brings in more and more rules and regulations making it unbearable them also.
A simple way to resolve all this would be to have GPS fitted as part of a Continuous Cruising licence and then it can bee seen if the rules are being met.
Rosie Taylor the selfish people in this film would just remove or vandalise them. They think they have an absolute right to live wherever they like, they will hardly comply with measures designed to make it fair for everyone. I visited Bath by boat. Mooring was a nightmare and people were living in tents on the towpath too, to make use of the water points paid for by boaters. Many of the boats looked ready to be scrapped. I think it should be a requirement to move at least a couple of hundred miles a year, and not just back and forwards- they should have to clock in in multiple locations across the network.
@James McPherson The problem is that people extending "continuous cruising" to include blocking towpaths and water points for walkers and other boats are engaging in anti-social behaviour and the CRT has a responsibility to all users to prevent such things.
Panda and cub. Nuff said. Let me draw attention to their accents. Very well spoken. Rich parents, safety net. They are playing at life whilst you and I live it.
Lots of boats require lots of rules. You can’t expect a few to provide the upkeep for the many. If. Left to your own means there would be tent cities or the equivalent of all along the water ways..
why was her licence revoked? did it have a valid bsc? was it insured? if yes to both of those then how can crt revoke a licence?? loving the pedal power
I’m for River dwellers. Just a thought .... gps locators are cheap these days. Fitting one to your boat and inviting the authorities to track your movements would provide absolute proof of distance travelled and provide a continuous record. What a wonderful life and education this child is having ,articulate engaged and interested. Well done that mum
Wow...I'm a bit shocked that anyone would suggest to invite government to track their every move. I am a full time sailor in another country. Maritime law is the oldest on this planet...yet today's governments seems to hate boaters everywhere.
The real problem here is Squatter Boaters refusing to navigate from A to B to C to D. No . . . these Squatters are simply going from A to B and back to A, travelling a short distance and never really leaving the area. They want to live near London on the cheap, trash up the area, and create an eyesore for the 99% who are more than happy to comply with reasonable rule.
Should've gone up north. The folk are nicer. This vlog upset me dearly and I won't be venturing to the K &A despite all the lovely live a boards. You should all travel to the Leeds to Liverpool
agree, London's horrible energy is not really a place I would ever want to be . I have visited and stayed on many occassion's to visit family and I do not like it anyway , why folk fight to go live in a trashy low energy polluted environment desperatly day to day just trying to meet rent boggles the mind
ALL of us live in societies in which laws are passed, good or bad depending on one's point of view. The laws passed that the CRT were (are) trying to comply with (simply having one MOVE their Narrowboat to a different mooring further up or down the canal) really doesn't seem too unreasonable.
you obviously were not listening , the rules keep changing . You could go and meet these REAL people , with REAL lives , real children and animals and look in their eyes . Go share food together . Maybe your perspective will be a tad more compassionate but seems your mind is closed
I have just watched this video and thank you. It would be interesting to hear if there is any "update" of those people involved in this video. That said, this could be an excellent research topic for a book, and if published any profits could be used for keeping alive this "traditional way of life". Just a thought.
I think the only way to solve this is to provide affordable housing or affordable moorings. The continuous cruiser argument is never going to work if you really want to live in the same place. Are you mooring to break your journey or journeying to move your mooring?
I don't really understand what the problem is here. I love the thought of living aboard a narrow boat and have considered it myself. I don't think it's fair that people park up and live in one spot, making it harder for others to moor up when they are travelling the canals. Why is it so hard to move by 20 miles per year? If you are in a fixed position you need to pay for a mooring, if you are travelling then keep moving. It seems simple to me, so maybe I'm missing something.
Shelter Helper 20 mile one year. Who knows how many it will be in five years time. CRT is just a back door entry to take control of the canals and eventually they will have that much power you will all be paying through the nose to stay a float. Including those with moorings. Government has realised this is one area of society they haven't sucked blood from.
The photographer took pictures of the flowers and wildlife not the boats. The boats are floating trash and the people aboard them don't care about the boats appearance. That is the issue. If you have a beautiful home next to the canal or floating the canal you don't want to see trash. It doesn't take a lot of money to keep a boat neat, clean, and painted.
im a live aboard boater, and live in a marina. These people who moan on and on about the CRT and continuous cruising...well I have little sympathy. If you have a family and school to consider then you cant be a continuous cruiser..if you want to remain say 5-6 miles from a base you cant...Marinas are not that expensive...55p to 70p per foot per week +vat..I pay around £3000 per year... for that I get all handy facilities..water..shop..power if I want it...I can come and go as I please, take off for a couple of weeks of peaceful cruising then come back....total freedom. The CRT give me no hassle at all...and my boat/home is safe.Its the hillbilly types who want it all and pay little or preferably nothing, and live in a heap of junk who are the problem.
Then you are really a house owner who lives on water paying rent to a marina owner, which is nothing to do with continuous cruising. And marinas are exepensive Bloody expensive!
@@MrGmail69 It's not a politician who owns the marina I'm in, it's a decent bloke who is often in overalls dragging a welder or set of steps or whatever about the place. The law may allow for continuous cruising but it was made in a different time and for different folk, people who worked the rivers and canals and travelled around them as they worked. Times are different now and as i said above i have no problem with people living on the water but why should it be free? That's just means that those of us who pay are covering their costs, the waterways need looking after and that costs money. i'd be interested to see how many would take up the offer if they were offered the chance to work on maintenance projects in some capacity for a month or so a year to cover their costs and allow them to moor in one place for longer.
Fabio Roscilli I'm a continuous cruiser. I cruise continuously, I love the life, and CRT leave me alone. I know people who live on paid-for permanent moorings, and they prefer that type of life. You, on the other hand don't know what you're talking about.
Steven Newell marinas can be expensive, but you have a choice. Keep moving, obey the law, or go on a permanent mooring (on-line or marina). Or live on land. A boat in a marina is still cheaper and better than a house.
I lived on the canals for 5 years Iremember this lady she was interesting and intelligent I doubt she remembers me I wonder if she's still on the canal?
Play by the rules, keep your boat in a good working safe condition, don't take over walk ways and land with planting veggies and other lifestyle choices, pay your fees and all will be ok with the World. Take the piss and this happens.
Have you watched video? They play by the rules, they move from one location to another every 14days but CRT put fines because CRT think they moved too little.
As a professional mariner and lifetime recreational boater, I noticed the lack of care of most of those boats, and the lack of seamanship in their appearance. I suspect those people just prefer boat living because it is cheap, and would pitch a tent on a town common if they could get away with it. As far as moving 15 miles a year, I row my dingy farther than that in a year, just going to and from my sailboat. The sailboat goes far, far greater distances than 20 miles. A boat is a mobile home. If they want to stay in a single place all the time, they should pay for a flat. How much sympathy would they get living in a truck which never moves, parked on the public right of way. It is very similar.
re dc - Some people need government supervision, or "bullying" as you call it. I have watched them throw trash overboard, pour raw sewage overboard, abandon the derelicts they allowed to sink by carelessness, and litter the area around their boats with needles and other drug paraphernalia. How would you react to a neighbor who did that next to YOUR boat, or your house on land? I would call the "bullies" to come and stop the danger to my health and damage to the environment.
@d c no it doesn't. 15 miles a year is what is stated not every 14 days. Freeloaders don't want to do this.look at the state of those boats. If they were rented out by private landlords there would be uproar. Just scars on the landscape and polluting health hazards.
@d c you are missing the point. What you can't do is stay in the same place for more than 14days. The distance to be covered is over a full year. All of the people in the film claim they don't mind moving, but that is patently untrue. They just want to squat on the canal bank and leach on the rest of us.
If it is their property and they issue a license to be on their property they can make the rules. If you don't like those rules then move it to a river or off the CRT property. You can cash your benefit check somewhere away from the canal system.
Just heard the comment 'We are not a public body' in response to the question about Human Rights Act. CRT appear to be acting as a public body and hide behind being a charity? Housing Associations up and down the country are not for profit organisations but are still accountable under the Human Rights Act. The live-aboard community could be classed as part of the travelling community who have been recognised by law as a minority group. It should be for a court to decide if someone is to be evicted from land or canal. If CRT are removing boats that people live in without a court order then they are probably breaking the law themselves. It seems that when it comes to it CRT are not able to carry out their threat of removing a live-aboard boat as they probably know they do not have the power to do so and don't want to test the case in law as they do not feel the court would act in their favour.
@@windsorlad1000 Therein lies the problem. The distance required to travel is not defined so making it difficult for CRT to enforce and for the boater to know how far they need to go. If CRT sorted out the distance problem by getting the legislation amended to include an appropriate distance then everyone would know where they stood.
CRT will have to apply to a court before removing a boat from the canal but the court will grant the request unless the boat owner can prove continuous cruising or have a compelling reason why they cannot move.
Whatever their rules are, one thing no one ever asks for when happily handing over their money every year to this charity (a business) is a complete transparent breakdown of monies showing where every single penny of all that money collected goes every year. Down to the penny. They should produce an annual statement to all licence owners. As a kayaker, I no longer use these disgusting bodies of water anymore. I paid my licence fee for a year to unfortunately find myself asking the question, what the hell is my money being spent on. The stretch of the canal where I live, there are many pipes sticking out from the sides, running foul smelling water into the canal. The rubbish floating is endless in dome areas, it's not a nice place to kayak. So yes. If I ever applied for a licence again, I'd demand a down to the penny statement from the crt to show me what I am actually paying for. My experience is they do very little but are happy to take your money.
Lt H it's a massive problem on London too. Hippies there have basically taken over, no one else has a cat in hells chance of getting a mooring if they visit for a couple of nights. When they do occasionally seize a dangerous, unlicensed and uninsured boat the "community" often rallies round, blocks the canal and intimidates the contractors. Then they complain about being unfairly treated!
Oh come on the CRT website says the range needed for the licence is 20 miles in a year as far as I can tell. About 0.38 miles a week. If you need to remail in one place then get a home mooring. Simple.
We got a hire boat on this canal - the live aboard folk are so diverse friendly and part of the canal culture - there part of the reason we wanted the holiday on the canal in the first place - we will always remember the hippy like couple with a tribe of kids completely at one with nature handing us fresh baked rolls
If I were a continuous cruiser, I would try and maintain a community spirit by getting all my boater friends, if at all possible, to move together, on the same day each time. Do people do this?
Feel bad for that little child, from a dilapidated boat to a van, Children need stability and it's easy to blame the CRT but the parent needs to do better. Just my opinion
Right off, I'll state that I'm not a great fan of the CRT.. Having said that, people need to cast their minds back to the late 60s/early 70s when these canals were nothing more than dried up mud ditches, no working locks, just rotting collapsed lock gates. Had volunteers not come together to rescue what we considered a valuable part of our history and heritage, they would have disappeared completely over the next two decades. The reasoning behind the immense work and funding put into that rescue was to create an attractive leisure resource. It's clear now that without some legal oversight allowing control of canal usage that there's a real danger of the tow-paths becoming little more than unattractive campsites for people looking for an 'alternative' life-style. I've seen many of these boats ultimately abandoned, sinking or sunk. The owners simply disappearing, leaving the CRT to fund the removal. The tow-paths are maintained to allow people to find a little respite from the bustle of life in towns, the water is there to allow people on leisure craft to enjoy the slow discovery of rural England. Unattractive, rotting and failing vessels stuck semi-permanently on their slow way to the bottom of the canal are not what people walking the tow-path should expect, and cruising boats should be able to tie-up and wander into the local village or town not feeling that their boat is at risk. No, I'm not a great fan of the CRT.. but in this case, I have to agree with them.
But these people don't live on semi-sunken boats and on the other hand, if CRT wants to regulate that they don't take tables or chairs out on the towpath then tell them so. They should be clearer and not mislead them: CRT do not tell them how many miles they have to move but they throw them out because they do not move enough (sorry for my English, I am not a native speaker).
@@shamsshams20261 No, they don't live on sinking boats.. what happens is that low-income/no-income people get hold of a wreck of a boat and begin trying to rescue it, it sits at the side of the canal and continues to look like a wreck, eventually they give up the struggle, sit down smoking weed until the boat is no longer habitable then walk away leaving it sinking. As for the rules.. personally, I hate rules, I'm in defence of freedom. But, with freedom comes responsibility, these people abuse their freedoms which inevitibly leads to more rules being imposed.. that's the sad result.
Just spoken to the CRT was told as a Continuous cruiser you need to do over 20 miles per year thats 1.6 miles a month so Im finding it hard to see why they are trying to enforce other distances on people Im wanting to be a live aboard but dont think Ill bother plus Id contact the CEO of the trust who according to Third sector is on a good wage over £100,000 a year also heard they want to change froma charity to a Business
Good old CRT! Not allowed to specify how far but enforce it if they feel people haven’t moved what they think is far enough. Wouldn’t it be great if they spent some money on actually maintaining the waterways!?
At the end of the day these folks living rent free. Free water, free toilet dump. Just obey the rules. They are there to help everyone live as they wish.
@@forfucksakehandle Water points, toilets, wastewater disposal, showers, rubbish bins and recycling points all paid for from the licence, add to that lock maintenance, lock keepers on the bigger locks, waterway management, cutting back vegetation, aquatic weed control, dredging
The CRT spokesman said something about basic human rights that every liveaboard should use in court “we are not a public office.” If that’s the case then they have no right to remove boats or regulate the PUBLIC waterway. They are either a public office and have to answer to the people and respect public laws, or they are a charity and have no legal standing to make and enforce rules for the public on public waterways.
It's cute that you think you have human rights, when the government can just nullify them anytime they wish to. We do not have rights as rights can not be taken away, what we have are privileges.
@@sfcmmacro waterways are not public. Built with private funding years ago and now owned by a charity, responsible maintaining them. Not very well, and with the same government department attitude and culture, but that is where we are, if pensioners have fuel allowance stolen why should the taxpayers fund each boat to the value of 2,500 pounds a year?
She has a good attitude and sense of humour and what a way to bring up a youngster! Amongst nature, movement and time. I hope Bev and Cub are able to live freely and set this good example. It makes me curious about the history of live aboard boaters - what trades did they offer? What trades do those featured in this film offer? Societies function best and people are left alone when they are useful.
I am just about to go through the process of buying a narrowboat and having a continuous cruising license. The thing is; how far is far enough every 2 weeks? I keep on asking, but nobody knows the answer. Is it down to postal codes; ie:- LE11, then you have to move to LE1 for example or DE7 another authority area leicestershire 2 weeks then move to Derbyshire for another 2 weeks then Nottinghamshire another 2 weeks. but you can't go back to Derbyshire after Nottinghamshire even though you have travelled a fair distance. So if I travelled 300 yards down the canal, would that be far enough to qualify and not get me into trouble. If I move 300 yards every 2 weeks, I am sure that I would make my 20 miles limit or near to that milage per year. These rules need to be a lot clearer from CRT.
Robbie Coleman it's not rules. The Waterways Act requires certain things. No staying more than 14 days in one place. Then you must move to a new place. You must be bona-fide navigating. The 20 miles per year guidance is not rules, it's a point below which CRT will start to try to encourage you to move further each year. The only grey area is the word "place". In a city, places are accepted as being closer together than they are in the more rural areas. Most boaters think a parish is a place, but the law doesn't actually define it, so - if it gets to court - a decision is taken based on precedent, circumstances, and results therefore vary.
Legally, they can't. However, someone needs to fund a legal case against them, and win. That would probably make them think twice about their constant rule-changing. Also, as part of the court case, a legal precedent of a 1 mile minimum distance needs to be set, for a fixed period of 10 years, before it can be changed again by the CRT.
"Bona fide navigation" is a key phase in the law. You are genuinely navigating (moving on/travelling) the canals and river ways or you're not. Living in a relatively small navigation zone, would not be considered a bona fide navigation of the waterways and therefore an abuse of the law. Economic Housing Marinas and Ports developed by government for those boat owners with lower incomes could be potentially operated at as "Not For Profit" facilities. Pay for what you use and avoid clashes with the CRT over navigation issues. Just a thought for debate.
It sounds like their are 2 problems. One is you all want to stay together and the other is some boats are in very bad shape to the point of not having propulsion. If you can't control the boat when its under way then its a danger to other boat users, your families and yourself, fix them. So you want to be a small exclusive community then find a permanent mooring either buy one, rent one or use a marina- though I'm not sure marinas would want boats that are not safe and even by the looks of it close to sinking. The other alternative is to be as it says "continuous cruisers" ie cruise continuously, there are 24 or 48 or 2 weeks moorings so abide by those rules and also 'cruise' ie use the canal system not just a few hundred yards of it. As it says in CRT rules "In order for CRT to renew your narrow boat licence, they must be satisfied you are truly cruising continuously and not simply moving back and forth between a few mooring spots. CRT advises that although there is no set distance, you should expect to travel in excess of 15-20 miles for the duration of your licence". This is not there to inconvenience you but to allow all canal users to moor up in all moorings on the canal. Its about sharing. If you have a family then the children should be your priority and keeping a secure, safe and stable home life for them is essential, this can be done on a canal by following the rules. Community is not one or two people its all canal users. A lot of self made problems here.
I can't really see the issue with what the CRT are doing. If van travellers ( gypsies ) set up camp on someone's street. The homeowners would want them moved. The people shown in this video seem to be like traveller's. There's live aboard canal boaters who have jobs and manage to contribute. It seems these people aren't bringing anything to the local area. Their boats don't look well maintained and they take over the tow path with chairs, tables, junk.
You are clearly operating from prejudice and stigma. If "chairs, tables and junk' were the issue, that is what they should be cited for. If you watch the video, what CRT used to dispossess that mother and her child of their home are guidelines that are not even in law: changing guidelines of how far boats have to move every 14 days. You may think you're advocating for a law and order position, but in reality you are advocating for extra-judicial harassment that has disastrous consequences on people who don't have much. If the UK does not find a way to develop a compassionate society, the future appears very, very grim.
@@malk6277 Absolutely. Always some bastard in a shirt and jacket ' enforcing' laws they just made up. Provide decent housing. Illegal Corporate money laundering is given a free pass. People trying to live humbly and are poor get persecuted.
I agree with you, I suspect it is eventually going to be like areas of London where gentrification is pushing out all the families who lived in the local areas. But why not introduce a fair practice in which there is a diverse community including people who choose to move every 14 days without pressure on their communities.
i don't blame them. if people don't try to skirt the rules they would not have to define and redefine the rules. keeping your boat in running order and meet minimum standard is a must.
@@rorytennes8576 Interesting philosophical issues. A simple extrinsic measure is taxation, now the woman is using a van she will be paying tax and duty on the fossil fuel. The government, elected by the people (I do cringe as I type this btw.), determine how is is raised and how it is used. All societies would like to work on the assumption that one contributes in and gets something in return based on one's needs. If we felt like we were being cheated unduly by the system then ultimately the system would fail....
People who abuse the system by living on one short stretch of water ruin boating for everyone. London and Bath have become nose to tail floating gypsy camps. It's pure selfishness to expect to be able to stay wherever you like almost indefinitely. No one has the right to do. People like this give genuine continuous cruisers a bad name. If you are confined to one area by work, school, health issues or any other reason then you should not be allowed a CC licence. They were intended for people who wish to explore the network, not for people looking for a cheap way of living in some of the UK's most expensive cities, to the detriment of everyone else.
Says a rich person. Have you thought beyond what happens to these people if they are removed so you can ponce around on your beautiful leisure craft. Look how they are living
It doesn't take much money for a gallon of water and bleach, paint, neatness, and general maintenance. If you noticed the photographer didn't spend to much time photographing the actual boats. We did see flowers, spiderwebs, and ducks.
Ok if you work and contribute and choose to live on the canal absolutely fine, but I’ve experienced passing the shit hole communities moored up and looking a blight on the water and never moving more than a few feet. Are we really going to allow one of our best tourist attractions to decay into yet another dumping site.
Canals are man made, over two hundred years old and need maintenance. No licence fees no repairs and no water would mean that they would be left sitting in a muddy ditch. Maybe that wouldn't bother them but the rest of us would not like it. They don't move because they want to live without paying. Try camping on the edge of the road or overnight in a layby see what happens!
@d c licence fees average £600 a year, equivalent of road fund licence pays for right to have the boat on the water. Liveaboards pay the same as leisure users, the extra use of facilities is not paid for. Also licence fees, if being paid, are often covered by housing benefit. Boaters overall only contribute 10% of the crt income, 25% comes from the taxpayer, 25% from the property portfolio, (a legacy from the taxpayer when crt created)
Hang on - I don't think you paid attention. The woman at the centre of this film did pay license fees every year. If the license fees are not enough to cover maintenance, that sounds like CRT is being mismanaged: not something you can pin on the people using the waterways. And you're claiming 'they don't move'... they DO move, every 14 days, and there were multiple people expressing that they embrace moving every 14 days: that there is a beauty to it. The issue is CRT is moving the goal posts every year, increasing how far people have to move, completely arbitrarily with NO BASIS IN LAW. Do you want the UK to operate according to the rule of law, or do you want it to be a place where extra-judicial harassment is carried out against people who are essentially defenceless? My hope is that you develop some compassion: the economy is wrecked and if we do not learn to respect the dignity of people of little means, we're going to hate the country we become.
@@malk6277mate she was a total soap dodger living in squalor I can assure you that boat was not fit to be on the water in life mate we have to keep it real if people want to live like Neanderthals remove yourself from the rest of us hey further more who call's their son cub poor boy is destined to have his head punched poor boy that and the obvious lack of discipline
The trust website lists the requirements for continuous cruising to be movement from neighborhood to neighborhood, every 14 days (unless the area moored in has requirements for shorter periods, or weather, maintenance, or ill health preclude the ordinary 14 day movement). The included language lists that such movement must be understood to be from A to B to C, shuttling (i.e. going from A to B then back to A) is not permitted unless coming to the end and returning along a waterway. Of course there are many areas where mooring for only short periods has become the norm, as cites like London wish to increase tourist and visitor traffic rather than allow for alternative lifestyle arrangements. Is it not possible for those wishing to have this life as shown in your video, to meet the continuous movement requirement as set out in the 2012 document? Is it not possible to have pressure put upon the trust not to decrease the areas available for regular continuous cruising mooring rather than the shorter period moorings that have been popping up? I know that the continuous mooring requirement may be difficult for developing and maintaining employment, health, and community relationships, but could not the gathering of those wishing to live this way, and arranging to work together to support each other while trying to meet the requirements of the licensing agreement be a possible choice?
Whilst I have great sympathy for these people, such action can be avoided by doing a bit of travel occasionally. I support any self-created community in Britain, but if they organised they could travel as a group to meet the 'continuous cruising' requirement. I wonder whether this rule is designed to stop groups of boaters just setting up home permanently in an area, which appears reasonable, as it seems most here want. Perhaps small residential marinas are needed. Loved the time lapse of the dog, very creative. The child should have been only in the background, only spoken of and not taken part.
the tessellater There are already residential moorings. But prices are set by the market, and they can be expensive in desirable areas. There has never been an issue with people who wish to travel the system- this is about selfish idiots who think they have a right to live on one short stretch, often in the most desirable location (London, Bath) therefore making it difficult for other boaters who wish to visit.
@@spencerwilton5831 Exactly! These Hippies want to live on the cheap in and near London. They set fires on the tow path and trash up the area. Just look at what is happening to Venice Beach in California, it looks like an apocalypse has taken place and why . . . because Liberal Nutcase Sanctuary City types are running the show. You have people living in million dollar homes, who now have to put up with tents, feces, and blue tarps ten feet from their doorways. How is this fair to them, and just how has this negatively impacted their property value. These boat squatters deserve to have their licenses revoked! They are a blight upon the beauty which is England.
Wow ! I am an American, so I can understand that many may feel I have no right to comment, but may I offer my observations. What I came away with after watching this video is this. These people for the most part appear to me to be living like Hippies in derelect boats and really don't want to live under anybody's authority but their own. I've seen this type of Liberal mentality many times in my life, where this type of personality truly holds a disdain for rules and regulations. Let's face it, why does this lady complain that she must move her boat every 14 days a reasonable distance, when she has converted her boat to pedal power. If she cannot afford a deisel engine, should every other canal boat user be made to suffer? And did you see the look of these places where these people were staying, "dog patch" doesn't even begin to describe it ! Now . . . if these people want to live in a commune Hippie type setting, that is their choice and freedom to choose so, however, this same choice should not be at the expense of the rest of the boating society, these people should find a bridge somewhere to live under. Sound a little harsh, you bet, but I live in track housing here in America and let me tell you, we all live under the reign and rule of the Home Owners Association, a group which has the power to cite me or even fine me if I do not maintain my home to the standards laid out in our community manual. Now . . . everyone KNOWS full well these rules, as your Estate Agent provides you this information before you buy. I guarantee you, these Hippies know the rules and regulations of the canal waterways as well, but they are trying to bend them as much as possible to accommodate their commune-type lifestyle, all at the detriment to the vast majority who gladly play by the rules. Again . . . I'm an American, perhaps many feel I have zero-right to offer an opinion, but . . . I feel at least my opinion is perhaps even more objective because I live across the pond. These are my thoughts, I know many will disagree, and that is their right. mh And as a brief postscript to my above comments, the woman at the beginning of the film admits she really has very little control over the boat in even a very slight wind, again due to the fact it is pedal powered. Does this not present even a small hazard to all other boaters as she can easily slam into them? Also, and I may be wrong here so forgive me if I am . . . Is her boat a wide beam vessel? If it is, she cannot travel on many of the narrow canals which would further exacerbate her ability to navigate the required distance to meet the Continuous Cruiser license. Again, this all may sound a little harsh but . . . if you cannot afford to properly outfit your vessel , cannot afford to even put an engine in it, you have just become a burden to all the other Boater's who are legally using tne canals, rivers and locks. I'm not trying to be heartless here, but I'm also not willing to ignore or distort the facts. I recently had the very good pleasure to witness England's beautiful Canals and system of Locks when staying in the quaint town of Devizes. I had two very wonderful conversations with a Boater who built a 14 foot homemade boat from 70% recycled material, as well as a passing jogger who kindly answered many of my questions regarding the canals and regulations. I came away feeling that England definitely has its' house in order in the running, refurbishment, and policing of their heritage and waterways. To say I would be proud to live in England and be able to use their waterways would be a gross understatement. mh
Well, how other people live is of no particular concern to others, IF THEY LIVE ON THEIR OWN LAND IN ISOLATION, don't use public roads or ANY other services which they don't pay for, and don't expect others to subsidise them. However this is not possible. There are very few countries where anarchy is encouraged, the UK is not one of them, for very good reasons. They are "entitled" to this that and the other, ie take take take.
You can't live in he UK without using anything at all, even if you lived totally isolated in a field and never left it you would benefit from things such as a lower crime rate because of the police existing.
Jo Allan first I believe there is an annual fee that is supposed to amortize the costs of operating the canal system. Second, I am not sure how it works in England but in the USA you never really own land unless you are the government because you always have to pay taxes on it at peril of loosing it for nonpayment, so practically we are all renters.
This ‘subset’ of boaters are absolutely taking the piss. They are forcing a ‘charity’ to expend resources on them alone and in company as they continually and purposefully flout the condition of their continuous cruising licence. They had a choice if they did not want to move so that their family lifestyle requirements could be achieved they should pay for a home berth and pay the associated fees and licence. If they cannot afford to do that (home mooring) then they have two responsible choices: 1. Apply for a continuous cruising licence and comply with the conditions by continually cruising and not attempting to flout and turn into a series of home moorings with a just few miles in between. 2. Sell the boat and move ashore. The CRT may not be perfect but this subset of boaters have set out to breach the conditions of a continuous cruising licence, they seek but most surely do not deserve any sympathy. The CRT should act quicker and more firmly with them.
I don’t think I have ever seen a pair of blue jeans look so good in my entire life !!
All that peddling seems to be good for a person.
Yep...
Well spoken guys... an elegant observation . (would drive our Joe Biden and TRUMP to ACTION)
Lol. We might have to slide a pickle in the front pocket of those bluejeans to get ole lunch box Joe Biden to take a look !
@@josephwinkler4863 Wrong guy ... Joe sniffs HAIR... you are thinking of "Buttigieg" he is our "pickle" lover
Seems to me like CRT is trying to prevent its waterways from becoming cluttered shantytowns, without directly coming out and saying it.
Sadly this video does portray it this way, I guess that the producers did not realise the backlash. It comes across as 'hippy' benefit users wanting it all their own way!
@Mr Brightside Exactly.
@Mr Brightside still labelling "these people" id loce to meet you ps unfortunately crt are in breach of the Misrepresentation Act 1967 by stating minimum distances to travel on theyre website as being part of the law when it isnt
And nothing wrong with that. When the cuts were working properly, you didn't have shanties of non working boats- but communities of boats whose occupantsworked damned hard, and kept the country going, and however you view that (part of the system, working for the man, enslaved, etc. etc. ), those people back then did the spadework for the benefits these moaners enjoy today, but no compaints from them, eh? Ghettoes on water- how novel." Lets have some more", thought no one.
@Mr Brightside you enter into a contract anytime you buy anything buying a licence is a contract go in to a shop and buy a can of coke a tube of toothpaste as soon as you pay there exists a contract
You good folks need to get that public administrator down to the river and have dinner on the boats with him so he can know you and see you. Paper notices are not efficient. Face to face conversations are much better. Once he sees the families, children, pets, and ingenuity, he will begin to have compassion. Great video. Tried to sign petition but does not take my zip code.
And this one again ....@Mr Brightside You start to annoy me.
@Mr Brightside Your Taxes aren't high because some poor bums pay less than You, Your taxes are waay higher than they ought to be because the system of direct, progressively increasing taxes on income and profit does not work properly anymore with a lotta players waay bigger than You not paying even an incremental fraction of their fair share.
As a singlehanding sailor for three decades I do not like unskilled bums on boats crashing into my liveaboard yacht for technical insufficiency or lack of concious capability to keep their track, but I would never ever blame somebody having particularly less than me for being that poor.
Poverty is a shame the rich in a society have to take.
Not very en vogue since Maggy the bitch, I know right, but that doesn't change the hard, empirical facts.
@Mr Brightside You seem to not have fully transcended the concept of a public spirited, culturally advanced society earning the attribute "civilized" I'm afraid.
The allegation of "freeloading" is a grey area on the far side of the income distribution, where society does show its solidarity by providing as a whole what some on the lower income end simply can not afford - tax financed social housing would be a classic case of such an act of solidarity where it is everything else than "freeloading" to get this sorta help, as well as keeping up a system like the NHS for example. Keeping up canals as a little exonerating valve to decompress a borderline criminal, steaming mortgage-rat-race ralley could well be another example.
It's a grey area, but letting loose a butcher's dog like this chain choker-gentleman to get rid of people like the bicycle driven lady-narrowboater and her son is overcooking it absolutely, that's for sure - she's a well integrated part of the society, visibly educating her son to become exactly that, too, and struggling financially just because the neoliberal ratrace isn't the best for our kids which she has understood and does not take part in, logically - she isn't "freeloading" just because she's poor.
"Freeloading", or more precisely expressed "criminally antisocial" would it be however for example to take the millions or billions of profit One makes in one country and slyly park it in an Irish-Dutch sandwich to avoid the fair share of taxes in the country whose inhabitants did enable making this profit at all in the first place.
Criminalizing this practice - instead of wrongfully acclaim it as "successful" - and subsequently seize the thus illegalised amounts for the better good of the duped society alltogether would reduce YOUR taxes a double digit percentage.
The UK and here mostly the city of London have several tenthousands of well organized, structurally criminal banksters driving Your taxes in dwindling heights by cutting theirs as well as their customers' almost entirely, and You have nothing else to say or do than offensively attack a handful of poor canal dwellers?
Well, that's not only annoying to be honest, my british friends would probably call this "shocking", to say the least.
7:00 I f**king love that pedal-powered propeller set-up!
I wouldn't be loving it on a flowing river. Would you say it might be the world's biggest pedelo?
Really? Is there a good reason for vulgarity,and horrid expletives!!
@@francisfake782 ..... oh seriously? He f**king deleted some f**king letters. Get a f**king like.
*Great when **_downhill_** but when you come to an uphill stretch not enough power.*
Not sure that you understand how canals work@@GrrMeister
This sequel to "Tales of the Riverbank" certainly has a more gritty feel.
😆
I think bad examples of both sides were used in this video as most of the live aboards here were bums living in death traps and the guy representing CRT was an arragant Ponce
@Markus Bates You claim these people are doing no harm to anybody. This woman is trying to move a very large boat using only human power, as her Diesel Engine has long since been removed. This alone, presents a hazard to all other boats. She also clearly will find great difficulty moving this boat to meet the established navigation requirements, which serve the very purpose to put an end to Squatters. You can see the ugly state these places have turned into when these people squat on the canal and the land adjacent to it. No, they are NOT living in harmony as you claim, they are creating disharmony by trashing up the beautiful canal system England so graciously provides. There is nothing like this in America, but if there were, I would hate to see a bunch of Hippie Squatters trashing up a beautiful canal system because they believe the somehow have the right to squat on a piece of water/land. These people who believe that our programming by the State is complete, share the mentality that they are above the law and should never be subject to any authority. Simply put, a healthy society cannot function if its' members refuse to abide and obey basic sets of rules.
@Markus Bates - It is perfectly reasonable to prevent groups of boaters setting up a static community at one particular location, surely.
They have every right to travel as a group, moving around enough to meet the continuous cruising requirement - why don't they?
Maybe not that close a community?
Michael Higgins fuck society
Er? Define ‘bum’ ? Someone without a mortgage and not in hock to the international banking system, who might have read 1984? So probably not ‘joe Clooney’?
@Markus Bates who will pay for their £20000 cancer treatment each year when they need it in 40 years time? they have paid in nothing. i bet YOU don't want your kids to pay for it?
I continuously cruised for my first 8 years of living on my boat. I cruised an average of 300 miles a year travelling mostly round Yorkshire and I stayed 1 to 2 weeks at every stop. I have now had a mooring 6 years, but cruise 9 months of the year... had just one ticket from CRT but was cleared with a phone call ! .
This year I spent the winter away from my mooring, fancied a change . I've cruised roughly 70 miles this year up to now.
I don't understand how a charity can give a ticket. Can you explain this to me?
@@Scott-by9ks don’t be disingenuous. You look silly.
@@sarahgardiner1649 I'm not being disingenuous. Maybe in the UK Charity means something different. In the US a Charity has no legal power to impose citations commonly called a ticket in American English. If you are from the UK and can explain this to me it would be helpful.
#yawn.... bore off brass polisher 😂
Basically, it looks like the CRT don't want the water version of a piece of inland waste ground littered with caravans and ford transit pickups.
Can't see the problem myself.
Formidable38
It’s not about keeping things pretty. It’s about people having the right to live and people who want shit nice and fancy need to intrude and make a bunch of ordinances which counter the LAW
Spoken like a true gorja.
33"3"3&~"*c2"~"~"2"23"33333"3"3"2^"" 3^"c3"cc~"~32332332c3c3cc3c33c2""3"22"c2"2c2"2c 22c2cd"2c2ccc22"cc2ccc22cccc2ccc2"c2cc2ccx2cc2cc2222c2c2c2"2cccccc2cc2d2cc2d2ccc2c2cc2c&2ccxxc2dd2"xcc222"2c2x2"xxc"xxc2x""3"22"c2"2c2"2c cred x zed£cd CCTV xccx££££x£2£x£@@APheonixPretense8
You said the same thing about brexit and look what a f+ck up that was for us all!
@anthonyfrancis2374 But Brexit never really happened, so stfu
I lived next to the boaters in Hackney Wick for 10 years. Many boats would not move and they would trash the surroundings. Their dogs would attack people and many of the boats were just floating scrap yards. There was fires on the tow path and just stuff dumped for everyone else to deal with. It's these type of boaters who kick up a fuss. If these people respected the cruising rule and had some respect for others and the surroundings I don't think CRT would have any issue. Its the dumping of trash, stationary boats, abusive behaviour and general unpleasantness which is the issue. It doesn't cost anything to be tidy and respectful of others. There are a few on the canals who think they are hard done by even though they act like clowns and spoil it for many.
Don't be an arsehole! There are plenty of people like you describe living in houses who act just the same making their neighbours lives a misery! There's good and bad everywhere!!
@Mr Brightside
Where did I say that it was ok to be an asshole on water!! Read my comment properly,.I was merely pointing out, and stated, that there's good and bad everywhere be it on land or water!! I couldn't have been more clearer.
@Mr Brightside
Have a nice day. I don't mind the odd comment and odd reply but you're obviously very lonely and I don't engage in conversations with strangers on the Internet. Good Bye.
A lot of pedalling to get to K&A
Absolutely
I'm a continuous cruiser. Never had an issue with CRT. Once had an engine problem. Informed them. No problems. Not saying CRT doesn't have an agenda regarding making money. Canals cost. And there all looking after themselves. Living on the road for 38 years met many like this.( travellers) everything for nothing. Everyone against them. How about other boater's who want to moor..... Bit of give and take.
Alex Smith: I can't imagine the rule would apply to a "private" mooring but only towpath moorings... no?
A General Nuisance it's law, The Waterways Act, not rules.
The guidelines are only there to help you understand how to stay legal.
The requirements about moving on only apply to boats not on a permanent (i.e. rented, paid for) mooring, whether that's "off-line" in a marina, or "on-line" on the canal.
If you do as you must do by law, you'll never hear from CRT.
d c the waterways act requires all boats that do not have a permanent mooring to be used for “bona fide navigation”. That is not exactly defined in the act so that’s where the CRT guidance is aimed at - the guidance is not law but if you comply with it then you won’t get any bother off CRT. If it does go to court, CRT present their case, the boater presents theirs, and the court decides who they feel is in the right. Sometimes it’s CRT, sometimes it’s not. That’s how the law is supposed to work. This country has laws written by parliament, that are interpreted by the courts.
Think of CRT guidance as being like the Highway Code. It’s not law, but if you obey it’s provisions then you won’t fall foul of the law.
Why is it so difficult for people to just behave responsibly and reasonably? CRT do not want to enforce Section 8 of the Waterways Act on anyone, but some people are just unreasonable and behave unfairly to everyone else. If we all paid our licence fees, if we all obey the law, then CRT would have more time and money to spend on the canals and less on removing the irresponsible takers. And remember that someone who doesn’t move often doesn’t have insurance, a safety certificate, or any concern for your safety or welfare, and their boat is often a fire hazard and a health hazard.
Be reasonable, be fair, be honest, and there’s no issue at all.
d c my boat is “pretty” and I’ve been asked to move on after 16 days. Heresay isn’t a good working proposition. I know someone who’s got mental health problems. CRT allow him to stay in one place, CRT arranged for his licence to be payed by housing benefit.
CRT are not an evil force out to eat your children.
If you fail to comply with the guidelines, if you don’t enter into reasonable dialogue and come to an arrangement with them, then it’s the courts- not CRT - who decide if you’ve broken the law. The law allows for the boater to present a case. If that case isn’t reasonable (and “my kids are in school” is not a valid reason) then the court may find against the boater.
d c were you in court? Did you have access to the prosecution case? To the defence? No? Me neither. But knowing how the courts are reluctant to cause someone to become homeless in all but the most extreme circumstances, I must ask you to consider the likelihood that they were “innocent” is extremely remote. If they had “obeyed the law to the letter” then it would probably not have gone to court, and if it did, the judge would have seen defence evidence that they had “obeyed the law to the letter”. This is not a police state, it’s not China, or the USSR. Judges in the UK are not swayed by the influence of prosecuting authorities, but only by precedent, evidence, and witnesses.
*That may well be a very green approach to powering a barge, but what happens when you come to an uphill bit ?*
You understand how water works right? Canals don't have "uphill bit"s...
No uphill bits, but there is strong bywash and the turbulence near weird to cope with. She would not be able to do it safely
Hillarious
I'm a livaboard continuous cruiser, shock horror is that I couldn't agree less with this film. I've been positively welcomed by the CaRT people I've met. I move regularly and have never, ever had any issues (other than the time my licence had fallen off my window, which is kind of fair enough)
My personal take on this is that too many people for too long ignored and flouted the rules in the 1995 act of Parliament. These people are now finding that the rules are being enforced, the rules haven't changed.
The people saying a distance should be given should realise that when a distance was inputted into the T&Cs people fought against it stating that as no distance is in the 1995 act it couldn't be legally enforceable and so it was removed and the guidance of 15-20 miles inputted. Do people here really feel that 15-20 miles per year is a struggle to comply with? I make that kind of move every two weeks (other than the last 2 months as I needed to stay put to deal with a family crisis. The local enforcement officer stated I would be okay to stay but I paid for a mooring anyway because I like to stay within the spirit of the act)
Another shock horror, I manage to hold down a job in a permanent place whilst having a range of around 100 miles a year. Trust me its not gentrification of the system otherwise I would definitely be in enforcement!
If you need to stay in one place, you can, pay for a mooring. If you want to cc then move, to comply with the guidance its less than a mile every two weeks. I know hundreds of boaters that manage it.
I hate the fact that some parts of the system are difficult for me to use as having two dogs means I don't feel comfortable not being along the tow path so parts of the K&A and London are pretty much no go for me as the numbers of people barely moving means I struggle to get in.
I must say though the CaRT employee on the film doesn't really do them any favours. No one I've met from them has come across as quite so pompus and up themselves as he does.
Really sorry guys but move it or lose it.
I agree with you totally, these people are trying to bend the rules just so they can not get a home mooring, and look at the state of the boats and some people, they want to drop out of society but want society to pay for it, go with the rules or go home, simple
I agree, Terry. It's a shame that some people feel that they can stay on short term moorings as long as they like whilst others have to travel further just to get a mooring to stay for a couple of nights. I don't know what their argument is, why can't they pay to stay on a long term mooring like everyone else has to?
Terry Morris agreed
Because it costs money, and they don't want to pay for anything if they can get away with it.
what a bunch of nimby arsehats the above comments are. CRT does not have the legal right to set a minimum distance.
just stumbled onto this from years ago, it looks like that letter was dated 2015, and I wonder where they all are now, and how is the CRT changing the rules still, or is there more solid rules/guidance for the CC's to work with now.
It is still on going, the debate rates on, up until the present day!
I just found it as well. Britain went to the dogs a long time ago. Moved out 11 years ago.
I lived on a boat near to these people for a summer. I loved it, but I did have the benefit of a 'home mooring'. I've also kayaked from Bristol to London on the K&A, several times, and met some of the people in this video on my journeys and enjoyed the company and hospitality of them all.
Everywhere you live, you pay. You pay for a house, or you pay rent and all the associated costs with go with that. So here we have a group of people without home moorings, who thus fall into the category of continuous cruising, who don't actually continually cruise. They want to live essentially rent free, moving from one 14 day mooring to another and the same general vicinity. If you are moored for more time than you cruise, then that process is not continuous, and is a breach of the Act. C&RT is a statutory authority with a mandate to enforce the rules. If you comply with those rules you wont have an issue. The term continuous cruising means just that; you cruise continually. *It does not mean* that you move from one 14 day mooring to another in the same area, in your quest to live "rent free".
Totally Spot On synopsis, this American truly appreciates your wonderful canal's and system of Locks. I would consider it a privilege to obtain citizenship or some other long-term visa which would allow me access to your amazing waterways. The fact that they are actively and reasonably policed, speaks highly of the British people and their recognition of maintaining such a truly wonderful asset. I applaud you. mh
In a democracy laws trump rules.
So they dont pay for license???
Its not "rent free", when you have to buy a license every year. Boats also need inspection for insurance compliance, also "not free". And you will find some rules, are not actually law, hence so many cases being pulled by CRT on the day of Court.
@@skaraborgcraftthey are still scroungers move on lile you are ment to these river pikeys are destroying rivers with there boats leaking fule and oil they throw there waste in the water the tip their excrement in the river and bushes leave litter on the banks some sell drugs from house boats for every 1 decent canal boat owner there is a dozen bads ones and a lot of the boats a eye sores the river need cleaning up and a lot of the boats need scrapping to many freeloaders taking to the rivers
Have I got this correct? 15-20 miles during their license which could be a 12 month license, that works out at having to move .76 of a mile every two weeks, or move a mile every two weeks to add up too 26 miles in a year,
No he didn't word it well he meant 15-20 per move so 560 miles a year but the rules have no actual distance so its up to them 😉 aka they just give the ticket to boats they don't like the look of.
Yes you are correct, cont cruising is really really easy, these people are LIARS
OK I've watched this right through and for the life of me I can't see the problem. I have just confirmed with the CRT that licencees are just being asked to move a minimum of 20 miles 'within the life of the licence' if they don't have a home mooring. If she has an annual licence, that's 20 miles p.a. With that licence, she avoids paying Council Tax and has access to free amenities. I'm not too upset that her 'way of life' is 'under threat' if that way of life is ignoring very, very mild requirements. And the shameless putting it in terms of the impact on her child... good grief! She is choosing to flout the laid-back rules, therefore she is the one impacting her child!
I live on my boat on a river rather than the canal system, I have to pay rent but I have a lot of facilities here so it's fair. I think people should be allowed to be nomadic (boats, buses, caravans, whatever) but that there should be some kind of lower rate universal council tax (Or work exchange if people are trying to live without cash) so they are at least contributing to the facilities they are using no matter where they chose to live. You can't live in the UK without using something, be that a road, river, street lighting or even emergency services for instance.
its not 20 miles per year ,its every two weeks
@@deanhoare8789 I can only go by the answer I got from CRT when I contacted them, which is in quotes. They clarified that this meant 6 months on a 6 month licence and a year on a 12 month licence.
Dean Hoare it's 20 miles per year. I continuously cruise the canals, and moving 20 miles per year and complying with the Waterways Act (it's law, not CRT rules) is as easy as anything if you are sensible.
@mikeakachorlton What your saying doesn't make sense. If compliance is as easy as you say then why would she give up her home of 14 years and sell at half it's value rather than comply?
The condition of the boats in this film speak volumes ? No mention of boat safety certificates or insurance here !
guess you were not listening then
The lady had her peddle powered boat insured.
What a fantastic idea "Pedal Power." this is the first time I've ever seen this absolutely brilliant !!!
Hardly, she could barely move the boat when it's flat calm. No chance in any wind. No chance of complying with the CRT regs. for contineous cruising, which she signed up to when getting a boat license. Too many don't want to move, but aren't prepared to get a home mooring.
They want to get the rabble off the canals.
Be interesting to see if any of the orders have links with complaints. Eg, standards of boat, those aboard etc
Creating a scrap yard on the canal bank is not what narrowboat life should be about. If your boat looks like it’s ready to sink then get a job for a while and make it better for your child’s sake.
Yep!
Absolutely
Her boat looks like it hasn't been blacked in a very long time
This is going the same way as it went with the land travellers.
lorraine merry
Yes I can see that myself. But you got many on here rooting for the CRT, thinking they are the good guys. Thinking they are doing a good job. But they can't see what is really taking place here.That further down the river they themselves will fall foul of this CRT when it becomes more established and powerful and brings in more and more rules and regulations making it unbearable them also.
Dirty jippos, the lot
WebbedToesRule Group . Who are you to judge people. Keep your comments to yourself.
@Mr Brightside You fucking Moron they do not benefit from the councils so why pay it , oh I forgot you are a fucking Moron
A simple way to resolve all this would be to have GPS fitted as part of a Continuous Cruising licence and then it can bee seen if the rules are being met.
Rosie Taylor the selfish people in this film would just remove or vandalise them. They think they have an absolute right to live wherever they like, they will hardly comply with measures designed to make it fair for everyone. I visited Bath by boat. Mooring was a nightmare and people were living in tents on the towpath too, to make use of the water points paid for by boaters. Many of the boats looked ready to be scrapped. I think it should be a requirement to move at least a couple of hundred miles a year, and not just back and forwards- they should have to clock in in multiple locations across the network.
@James McPherson The problem is that people extending "continuous cruising" to include blocking towpaths and water points for walkers and other boats are engaging in anti-social behaviour and the CRT has a responsibility to all users to prevent such things.
Any comments regarding the child's education,health and well being, ambitions, other plans or concerns?
Just follow the rules. See, Isn't that easy.
Panda and cub. Nuff said. Let me draw attention to their accents. Very well spoken. Rich parents, safety net. They are playing at life whilst you and I live it.
That's just a southern accent, keep your ignorance to yourself.
@@mickwakefield1874 and pay for it.
Lots of boats require lots of rules. You can’t expect a few to provide the upkeep for the many. If. Left to your own means there would be tent cities or the equivalent of all along the water ways..
why was her licence revoked? did it have a valid bsc? was it insured? if yes to both of those then how can crt revoke a licence?? loving the pedal power
I don't think you need a BSC if you Don't have an engine or gas or a fuel system....
@kevgray. You need a BSC to get a license.
@@mikehurley5052 You don't need one if you don't have an engine or gas or a fuel system... I checked before I commented
I’m for River dwellers. Just a thought .... gps locators are cheap these days. Fitting one to your boat and inviting the authorities to track your movements would provide absolute proof of distance travelled and provide a continuous record.
What a wonderful life and education this child is having ,articulate engaged and interested. Well done that mum
Wow...I'm a bit shocked that anyone would suggest to invite government to track their every move. I am a full time sailor in another country. Maritime law is the oldest on this planet...yet today's governments seems to hate boaters everywhere.
No sign of the father in this video
This makes me so sad,I lived in my van until I got this exact treatment an had to move out of that too 😢
The real problem here is Squatter Boaters refusing to navigate from A to B to C to D. No . . . these Squatters are simply going from A to B and back to A, travelling a short distance and never really leaving the area. They want to live near London on the cheap, trash up the area, and create an eyesore for the 99% who are more than happy to comply with reasonable rule.
Should've gone up north. The folk are nicer. This vlog upset me dearly and I won't be venturing to the K &A despite all the lovely live a boards. You should all travel to the Leeds to Liverpool
agree, London's horrible energy is not really a place I would ever want to be . I have visited and stayed on many occassion's to visit family and I do not like it anyway , why folk fight to go live in a trashy low energy polluted environment desperatly day to day just trying to meet rent boggles the mind
@@thefloatingapothecaryroman16 no they're not
ALL of us live in societies in which laws are passed, good or bad depending on one's point of view. The laws passed that the CRT were (are) trying to comply with (simply having one MOVE their Narrowboat to a different mooring further up or down the canal) really doesn't seem too unreasonable.
you obviously were not listening , the rules keep changing . You could go and meet these REAL people , with REAL lives , real children and animals and look in their eyes . Go share food together . Maybe your perspective will be a tad more compassionate but seems your mind is closed
I have just watched this video and thank you. It would be interesting to hear if there is any "update" of those people involved in this video. That said, this could be an excellent research topic for a book, and if published any profits could be used for keeping alive this "traditional way of life". Just a thought.
Some floating wrecks on this clip
Yeah, some of the boats are pretty screwed as well!
I think the only way to solve this is to provide affordable housing or affordable moorings. The continuous cruiser argument is never going to work if you really want to live in the same place. Are you mooring to break your journey or journeying to move your mooring?
When dealing with authorities/enforcement, one should always record the conversation, they do
I don't really understand what the problem is here. I love the thought of living aboard a narrow boat and have considered it myself. I don't think it's fair that people park up and live in one spot, making it harder for others to moor up when they are travelling the canals. Why is it so hard to move by 20 miles per year? If you are in a fixed position you need to pay for a mooring, if you are travelling then keep moving. It seems simple to me, so maybe I'm missing something.
Shelter Helper
20 mile one year. Who knows how many it will be in five years time. CRT is just a back door entry to take control of the canals and eventually they will have that much power you will all be paying through the nose to stay a float. Including those with moorings. Government has realised this is one area of society they haven't sucked blood from.
I think some people have great spots and don't want to share them!
@@SNAKEPIT359 wow 20 whole miles in a year. Get over yourself loser
The photographer took pictures of the flowers and wildlife not the boats. The boats are floating trash and the people aboard them don't care about the boats appearance. That is the issue. If you have a beautiful home next to the canal or floating the canal you don't want to see trash. It doesn't take a lot of money to keep a boat neat, clean, and painted.
im a live aboard boater, and live in a marina. These people who moan on and on about the CRT and continuous cruising...well I have little sympathy. If you have a family and school to consider then you cant be a continuous cruiser..if you want to remain say 5-6 miles from a base you cant...Marinas are not that expensive...55p to 70p per foot per week +vat..I pay around £3000 per year... for that I get all handy facilities..water..shop..power if I want it...I can come and go as I please, take off for a couple of weeks of peaceful cruising then come back....total freedom. The CRT give me no hassle at all...and my boat/home is safe.Its the hillbilly types who want it all and pay little or preferably nothing, and live in a heap of junk who are the problem.
but if you understand the marinas are owned by politicians and want 3000 pounds from everybody not just from who is willing to pay
Then you are really a house owner who lives on water paying rent to a marina owner, which is nothing to do with continuous cruising. And marinas are exepensive Bloody expensive!
@@MrGmail69 It's not a politician who owns the marina I'm in, it's a decent bloke who is often in overalls dragging a welder or set of steps or whatever about the place. The law may allow for continuous cruising but it was made in a different time and for different folk, people who worked the rivers and canals and travelled around them as they worked. Times are different now and as i said above i have no problem with people living on the water but why should it be free?
That's just means that those of us who pay are covering their costs, the waterways need looking after and that costs money. i'd be interested to see how many would take up the offer if they were offered the chance to work on maintenance projects in some capacity for a month or so a year to cover their costs and allow them to moor in one place for longer.
Fabio Roscilli I'm a continuous cruiser. I cruise continuously, I love the life, and CRT leave me alone.
I know people who live on paid-for permanent moorings, and they prefer that type of life.
You, on the other hand don't know what you're talking about.
Steven Newell marinas can be expensive, but you have a choice. Keep moving, obey the law, or go on a permanent mooring (on-line or marina).
Or live on land.
A boat in a marina is still cheaper and better than a house.
I lived on the canals for 5 years Iremember this lady she was interesting and intelligent I doubt she remembers me I wonder if she's still on the canal?
Play by the rules, keep your boat in a good working safe condition, don't take over walk ways and land with planting veggies and other lifestyle choices, pay your fees and all will be ok with the World. Take the piss and this happens.
Have you watched video? They play by the rules, they move from one location to another every 14days but CRT put fines because CRT think they moved too little.
There are a lot of recent comments on this post, but no updates on how any of these people are doing now nearly two years on.
Bev left the canal to pursue other adventures with Cub, meanwhile the battle continues and the storm rages on!
@@Some_Room cheers for the update!
As a professional mariner and lifetime recreational boater, I noticed the lack of care of most of those boats, and the lack of seamanship in their appearance. I suspect those people just prefer boat living because it is cheap, and would pitch a tent on a town common if they could get away with it.
As far as moving 15 miles a year, I row my dingy farther than that in a year, just going to and from my sailboat. The sailboat goes far, far greater distances than 20 miles. A boat is a mobile home. If they want to stay in a single place all the time, they should pay for a flat. How much sympathy would they get living in a truck which never moves, parked on the public right of way. It is very similar.
True. The boat is incidental. They would squat anywhere they can.
d c this is about people who just want to squat on a towpath somewhere nothing to do with genuine travelling
re dc - Some people need government supervision, or "bullying" as you call it. I have watched them throw trash overboard, pour raw sewage overboard, abandon the derelicts they allowed to sink by carelessness, and litter the area around their boats with needles and other drug paraphernalia.
How would you react to a neighbor who did that next to YOUR boat, or your house on land? I would call the "bullies" to come and stop the danger to my health and damage to the environment.
@d c no it doesn't. 15 miles a year is what is stated not every 14 days. Freeloaders don't want to do this.look at the state of those boats. If they were rented out by private landlords there would be uproar. Just scars on the landscape and polluting health hazards.
@d c you are missing the point. What you can't do is stay in the same place for more than 14days. The distance to be covered is over a full year. All of the people in the film claim they don't mind moving, but that is patently untrue. They just want to squat on the canal bank and leach on the rest of us.
Is there a update to what has happened to Bev and cub ?
I know a couple who have been in the same place for fifteen years
I am listening and watching ❤ Xx
Love the propel system
If it is their property and they issue a license to be on their property they can make the rules. If you don't like those rules then move it to a river or off the CRT property. You can cash your benefit check somewhere away from the canal system.
Rules and the law are different.
@@chevyimp5857 Rules are the law if a court decides they are reasonable. It is called Case Law and is how our country is constituted.
Absolutely.. are you aware of any significant judgements regarding this issue?
is it their property ?
balista property is theft
Just heard the comment 'We are not a public body' in response to the question about Human Rights Act. CRT appear to be acting as a public body and hide behind being a charity? Housing Associations up and down the country are not for profit organisations but are still accountable under the Human Rights Act. The live-aboard community could be classed as part of the travelling community who have been recognised by law as a minority group. It should be for a court to decide if someone is to be evicted from land or canal. If CRT are removing boats that people live in without a court order then they are probably breaking the law themselves. It seems that when it comes to it CRT are not able to carry out their threat of removing a live-aboard boat as they probably know they do not have the power to do so and don't want to test the case in law as they do not feel the court would act in their favour.
If they actually 'travelled' and genuinely navigated the system, the CRT would not worry them.
@@windsorlad1000 Therein lies the problem. The distance required to travel is not defined so making it difficult for CRT to enforce and for the boater to know how far they need to go. If CRT sorted out the distance problem by getting the legislation amended to include an appropriate distance then everyone would know where they stood.
CRT will have to apply to a court before removing a boat from the canal but the court will grant the request unless the boat owner can prove continuous cruising or have a compelling reason why they cannot move.
Whatever their rules are, one thing no one ever asks for when happily handing over their money every year to this charity (a business) is a complete transparent breakdown of monies showing where every single penny of all that money collected goes every year. Down to the penny.
They should produce an annual statement to all licence owners.
As a kayaker, I no longer use these disgusting bodies of water anymore. I paid my licence fee for a year to unfortunately find myself asking the question, what the hell is my money being spent on. The stretch of the canal where I live, there are many pipes sticking out from the sides, running foul smelling water into the canal. The rubbish floating is endless in dome areas, it's not a nice place to kayak. So yes. If I ever applied for a licence again, I'd demand a down to the penny statement from the crt to show me what I am actually paying for.
My experience is they do very little but are happy to take your money.
@@apollo2276 there is an annual report, online, check it out.
How deep are the canals are?
About 4 feet, usually.
Is this only on the Kennet and Avon? Anytime I see these types of reports it always seems to be this canal
Lt H it's a massive problem on London too. Hippies there have basically taken over, no one else has a cat in hells chance of getting a mooring if they visit for a couple of nights. When they do occasionally seize a dangerous, unlicensed and uninsured boat the "community" often rallies round, blocks the canal and intimidates the contractors. Then they complain about being unfairly treated!
Dipping eggs good luck to you all love and best wishes cub xxx🤔
Maybe these people should pay an annual fee that actually covers the cost of maintaining the waterways.
Try a mortgage, council tax etc, etc
I somehow get the feeling that not many of these people are ‘going to work every day.’
And🤷
@@111parks
Because that was what was said in the film.
Good on them. Why partake in the rat race if you don’t want to.
Just noticed this was 7 years ago. What was the outcome
Oh come on the CRT website says the range needed for the licence is 20 miles in a year as far as I can tell. About 0.38 miles a week. If you need to remail in one place then get a home mooring. Simple.
That is genius pedalling it nice
I often wondered where all the New age travellers went!
We all old age travelers now. x
No mention of the residential boat owners association then. Wonder why?
We got a hire boat on this canal - the live aboard folk are so diverse friendly and part of the canal culture - there part of the reason we wanted the holiday on the canal in the first place - we will always remember the hippy like couple with a tribe of kids completely at one with nature handing us fresh baked rolls
If I were a continuous cruiser, I would try and maintain a community spirit by getting all my boater friends, if at all possible, to move together, on the same day each time. Do people do this?
They can't even get along with each other for five minutes ! - let alone being organised and travelling together
Depends whos got the ketamine tbf 😂
Feel bad for that little child, from a dilapidated boat to a van, Children need stability and it's easy to blame the CRT but the parent needs to do better. Just my opinion
Right off, I'll state that I'm not a great fan of the CRT.. Having said that, people need to cast their minds back to the late 60s/early 70s when these canals were nothing more than dried up mud ditches, no working locks, just rotting collapsed lock gates. Had volunteers not come together to rescue what we considered a valuable part of our history and heritage, they would have disappeared completely over the next two decades. The reasoning behind the immense work and funding put into that rescue was to create an attractive leisure resource. It's clear now that without some legal oversight allowing control of canal usage that there's a real danger of the tow-paths becoming little more than unattractive campsites for people looking for an 'alternative' life-style. I've seen many of these boats ultimately abandoned, sinking or sunk. The owners simply disappearing, leaving the CRT to fund the removal. The tow-paths are maintained to allow people to find a little respite from the bustle of life in towns, the water is there to allow people on leisure craft to enjoy the slow discovery of rural England. Unattractive, rotting and failing vessels stuck semi-permanently on their slow way to the bottom of the canal are not what people walking the tow-path should expect, and cruising boats should be able to tie-up and wander into the local village or town not feeling that their boat is at risk. No, I'm not a great fan of the CRT.. but in this case, I have to agree with them.
But these people don't live on semi-sunken boats and on the other hand, if CRT wants to regulate that they don't take tables or chairs out on the towpath then tell them so. They should be clearer and not mislead them: CRT do not tell them how many miles they have to move but they throw them out because they do not move enough (sorry for my English, I am not a native speaker).
@@shamsshams20261 No, they don't live on sinking boats.. what happens is that low-income/no-income people get hold of a wreck of a boat and begin trying to rescue it, it sits at the side of the canal and continues to look like a wreck, eventually they give up the struggle, sit down smoking weed until the boat is no longer habitable then walk away leaving it sinking. As for the rules.. personally, I hate rules, I'm in defence of freedom. But, with freedom comes responsibility, these people abuse their freedoms which inevitibly leads to more rules being imposed.. that's the sad result.
Just spoken to the CRT was told as a Continuous cruiser you need to do over 20 miles per year thats 1.6 miles a month so Im finding it hard to see why they are trying to enforce other distances on people Im wanting to be a live aboard but dont think Ill bother plus Id contact the CEO of the trust who according to Third sector is on a good wage over £100,000 a year also heard they want to change froma charity to a
Business
Good old CRT! Not allowed to specify how far but enforce it if they feel people haven’t moved what they think is far enough. Wouldn’t it be great if they spent some money on actually maintaining the waterways!?
They're just bigoted bullies.
At the end of the day these folks living rent free. Free water, free toilet dump. Just obey the rules. They are there to help everyone live as they wish.
They pay a licence fee. Presumably that covers utilities etc
@@forfucksakehandle Water points, toilets, wastewater disposal, showers, rubbish bins and recycling points all paid for from the licence, add to that lock maintenance, lock keepers on the bigger locks, waterway management, cutting back vegetation, aquatic weed control, dredging
Hello The Janiepooh. I have updated the link, it now works, thanks for letting me know
I owe the CRT a big apology. I didnt think they were doing anything about the scrap boats and soap dodgers on the cut. Good for them.
What ever happened to Bev and Cub?
The CRT spokesman said something about basic human rights that every liveaboard should use in court “we are not a public office.” If that’s the case then they have no right to remove boats or regulate the PUBLIC waterway. They are either a public office and have to answer to the people and respect public laws, or they are a charity and have no legal standing to make and enforce rules for the public on public waterways.
It's cute that you think you have human rights, when the government can just nullify them anytime they wish to. We do not have rights as rights can not be taken away, what we have are privileges.
@@sfcmmacro waterways are not public. Built with private funding years ago and now owned by a charity, responsible maintaining them. Not very well, and with the same government department attitude and culture, but that is where we are, if pensioners have fuel allowance stolen why should the taxpayers fund each boat to the value of 2,500 pounds a year?
How can they monitor everybodys boat move ? On a daily weekly basis That’s a massive time consuming job ?
She has a good attitude and sense of humour and what a way to bring up a youngster! Amongst nature, movement and time. I hope Bev and Cub are able to live freely and set this good example. It makes me curious about the history of live aboard boaters - what trades did they offer? What trades do those featured in this film offer? Societies function best and people are left alone when they are useful.
More than likely on benefits
You are off your head if you think she is caring for the boy appropriately I can guarantee you that absolutely crazy woman
@@simonphillips2420 they claim housing benefit for licence fee and moorings if they one. Private moorings providers probably won't have them.
I felt for her and the child. They looked like good people.
@Stephen-so9oi she is a sausage 🌭
Where’s the petition . I’m in NZ and intend coming to retire on a boat.
I am just about to go through the process of buying a narrowboat and having a continuous cruising license. The thing is; how far is far enough every 2 weeks? I keep on asking, but nobody knows the answer. Is it down to postal codes; ie:- LE11, then you have to move to LE1 for example or DE7 another authority area leicestershire 2 weeks then move to Derbyshire for another 2 weeks then Nottinghamshire another 2 weeks. but you can't go back to Derbyshire after Nottinghamshire even though you have travelled a fair distance.
So if I travelled 300 yards down the canal, would that be far enough to qualify and not get me into trouble. If I move 300 yards every 2 weeks, I am sure that I would make my 20 miles limit or near to that milage per year.
These rules need to be a lot clearer from CRT.
Robbie Coleman it's not rules.
The Waterways Act requires certain things.
No staying more than 14 days in one place.
Then you must move to a new place.
You must be bona-fide navigating.
The 20 miles per year guidance is not rules, it's a point below which CRT will start to try to encourage you to move further each year.
The only grey area is the word "place".
In a city, places are accepted as being closer together than they are in the more rural areas.
Most boaters think a parish is a place, but the law doesn't actually define it, so - if it gets to court - a decision is taken based on precedent, circumstances, and results therefore vary.
If the law doesn't state a minimum distance how can the crt try and enforce one
Legally, they can't. However, someone needs to fund a legal case against them, and win. That would probably make them think twice about their constant rule-changing. Also, as part of the court case, a legal precedent of a 1 mile minimum distance needs to be set, for a fixed period of 10 years, before it can be changed again by the CRT.
"Bona fide navigation" is a key phase in the law. You are genuinely navigating (moving on/travelling) the canals and river ways or you're not. Living in a relatively small navigation zone, would not be considered a bona fide navigation of the waterways and therefore an abuse of the law. Economic Housing Marinas and Ports developed by government for those boat owners with lower incomes could be potentially operated at as "Not For Profit" facilities. Pay for what you use and avoid clashes with the CRT over navigation issues. Just a thought for debate.
@Alex Smith Hi Alex... it's an idea that could possibly work... people need to motivate the government to see the need and develop such places.
It sounds like their are 2 problems. One is you all want to stay together and the other is some boats are in very bad shape to the point of not having propulsion. If you can't control the boat when its under way then its a danger to other boat users, your families and yourself, fix them. So you want to be a small exclusive community then find a permanent mooring either buy one, rent one or use a marina- though I'm not sure marinas would want boats that are not safe and even by the looks of it close to sinking. The other alternative is to be as it says "continuous cruisers" ie cruise continuously, there are 24 or 48 or 2 weeks moorings so abide by those rules and also 'cruise' ie use the canal system not just a few hundred yards of it. As it says in CRT rules "In order for CRT to renew your narrow boat licence, they must be satisfied you are truly cruising continuously and not simply moving back and forth between a few mooring spots. CRT advises that although there is no set distance, you should expect to travel in excess of 15-20 miles for the duration of your licence". This is not there to inconvenience you but to allow all canal users to moor up in all moorings on the canal. Its about sharing. If you have a family then the children should be your priority and keeping a secure, safe and stable home life for them is essential, this can be done on a canal by following the rules. Community is not one or two people its all canal users. A lot of self made problems here.
However, when the distances keep getting longer and longer each year, there's no justification for needing to do that.
There's only one problem, and it's greed, on behalf of the CRT.
well said ......these are new age dossers
As a keen cyclist I'd love to see a further developed version of the bike powered boat!
I can't really see the issue with what the CRT are doing.
If van travellers ( gypsies ) set up camp on someone's street. The homeowners would want them moved.
The people shown in this video seem to be like traveller's.
There's live aboard canal boaters who have jobs and manage to contribute. It seems these people aren't bringing anything to the local area. Their boats don't look well maintained and they take over the tow path with chairs, tables, junk.
You are clearly operating from prejudice and stigma. If "chairs, tables and junk' were the issue, that is what they should be cited for. If you watch the video, what CRT used to dispossess that mother and her child of their home are guidelines that are not even in law: changing guidelines of how far boats have to move every 14 days. You may think you're advocating for a law and order position, but in reality you are advocating for extra-judicial harassment that has disastrous consequences on people who don't have much. If the UK does not find a way to develop a compassionate society, the future appears very, very grim.
You really really don't have a f... ing clue.
@@malk6277 Absolutely. Always some bastard in a shirt and jacket ' enforcing' laws they just made up. Provide decent housing. Illegal Corporate money laundering is given a free pass. People trying to live humbly and are poor get persecuted.
Yep, take your trash elsewhere.
I can understand that the CRT is wanting to get rid of the New Age Travellers. I suspect they would also like to get rid of all liveaboards.
@Chris Landry why do you think that? Without the rivers and canals they would have no point?
@Jeff Moss There was just a teeny touch of irony in my comment....
I agree with you, I suspect it is eventually going to be like areas of London where gentrification is pushing out all the families who lived in the local areas. But why not introduce a fair practice in which there is a diverse community including people who choose to move every 14 days without pressure on their communities.
How far do yall have to move
i don't blame them. if people don't try to skirt the rules they would not have to define and redefine the rules. keeping your boat in running order and meet minimum standard is a must.
David Christensen they weren't redefining the rules. They were moving the goalposts in order to get rid of people. more government tyranny
@@rorytennes8576 Hopefully they will be moved to a place where they can contribute property to society.
Abc Bcde " contribute to society" ?
Why do you say they are not? Who decides who is?
Why must they contribute in the first place. ?
@@rorytennes8576 Interesting philosophical issues. A simple extrinsic measure is taxation, now the woman is using a van she will be paying tax and duty on the fossil fuel. The government, elected by the people (I do cringe as I type this btw.), determine how is is raised and how it is used.
All societies would like to work on the assumption that one contributes in and gets something in return based on one's needs. If we felt like we were being cheated unduly by the system then ultimately the system would fail....
@@rorytennes8576 this Rory character has no idea what soever what these people are like.
Hi everybody
I'm not too good at reading and writing
but I would like to know that you're all okay and what was the outcome
Best wishes to all. 🌟🙏🌟
@pete2778 Doug's got a bloody bouncing job with crt presumably ... no need for distinguishing wright from write, feeling entitled is sufficient.
Wow that pedal powered gizmo is brilliant! Cool! 😁😁
I'd love to see her get it through a lock, cope with a strong bywash or weir. She couldn't
The link to the petition ends in an error page on the 38degrees website.
People who abuse the system by living on one short stretch of water ruin boating for everyone. London and Bath have become nose to tail floating gypsy camps. It's pure selfishness to expect to be able to stay wherever you like almost indefinitely. No one has the right to do. People like this give genuine continuous cruisers a bad name. If you are confined to one area by work, school, health issues or any other reason then you should not be allowed a CC licence. They were intended for people who wish to explore the network, not for people looking for a cheap way of living in some of the UK's most expensive cities, to the detriment of everyone else.
Thank you for some common sense amongst all those torches and pitchforks.
Says a rich person. Have you thought beyond what happens to these people if they are removed so you can ponce around on your beautiful leisure craft. Look how they are living
It doesn't take much money for a gallon of water and bleach, paint, neatness, and general maintenance. If you noticed the photographer didn't spend to much time photographing the actual boats. We did see flowers, spiderwebs, and ducks.
I love the canal barges but some people are free loaders they don't shan't to pay for the upkeep of the canals
WTF!!!
Ok if you work and contribute and choose to live on the canal absolutely fine, but I’ve experienced passing the shit hole communities moored up and looking a blight on the water and never moving more than a few feet. Are we really going to allow one of our best tourist attractions to decay into yet another dumping site.
Canals are man made, over two hundred years old and need maintenance. No licence fees no repairs and no water would mean that they would be left sitting in a muddy ditch. Maybe that wouldn't bother them but the rest of us would not like it. They don't move because they want to live without paying. Try camping on the edge of the road or overnight in a layby see what happens!
@d c licence fees average £600 a year, equivalent of road fund licence pays for right to have the boat on the water. Liveaboards pay the same as leisure users, the extra use of facilities is not paid for. Also licence fees, if being paid, are often covered by housing benefit. Boaters overall only contribute 10% of the crt income, 25% comes from the taxpayer, 25% from the property portfolio, (a legacy from the taxpayer when crt created)
Hang on - I don't think you paid attention. The woman at the centre of this film did pay license fees every year. If the license fees are not enough to cover maintenance, that sounds like CRT is being mismanaged: not something you can pin on the people using the waterways. And you're claiming 'they don't move'... they DO move, every 14 days, and there were multiple people expressing that they embrace moving every 14 days: that there is a beauty to it. The issue is CRT is moving the goal posts every year, increasing how far people have to move, completely arbitrarily with NO BASIS IN LAW. Do you want the UK to operate according to the rule of law, or do you want it to be a place where extra-judicial harassment is carried out against people who are essentially defenceless?
My hope is that you develop some compassion: the economy is wrecked and if we do not learn to respect the dignity of people of little means, we're going to hate the country we become.
@@malk6277mate she was a total soap dodger living in squalor I can assure you that boat was not fit to be on the water in life mate we have to keep it real if people want to live like Neanderthals remove yourself from the rest of us hey further more who call's their son cub poor boy is destined to have his head punched poor boy that and the obvious lack of discipline
@@malk6277you sound like someone that expects welfare
Bless Cub
The trust website lists the requirements for continuous cruising to be movement from neighborhood to neighborhood, every 14 days (unless the area moored in has requirements for shorter periods, or weather, maintenance, or ill health preclude the ordinary 14 day movement). The included language lists that such movement must be understood to be from A to B to C, shuttling (i.e. going from A to B then back to A) is not permitted unless coming to the end and returning along a waterway.
Of course there are many areas where mooring for only short periods has become the norm, as cites like London wish to increase tourist and visitor traffic rather than allow for alternative lifestyle arrangements.
Is it not possible for those wishing to have this life as shown in your video, to meet the continuous movement requirement as set out in the 2012 document?
Is it not possible to have pressure put upon the trust not to decrease the areas available for regular continuous cruising mooring rather than the shorter period moorings that have been popping up?
I know that the continuous mooring requirement may be difficult for developing and maintaining employment, health, and community relationships, but could not the gathering of those wishing to live this way, and arranging to work together to support each other while trying to meet the requirements of the licensing agreement be a possible choice?
Rhymes with tanker
Whilst I have great sympathy for these people, such action can be avoided by doing a bit of travel occasionally. I support any self-created community in Britain, but if they organised they could travel as a group to meet the 'continuous cruising' requirement.
I wonder whether this rule is designed to stop groups of boaters just setting up home permanently in an area, which appears reasonable, as it seems most here want.
Perhaps small residential marinas are needed.
Loved the time lapse of the dog, very creative.
The child should have been only in the background, only spoken of and not taken part.
the tessellater There are already residential moorings. But prices are set by the market, and they can be expensive in desirable areas. There has never been an issue with people who wish to travel the system- this is about selfish idiots who think they have a right to live on one short stretch, often in the most desirable location (London, Bath) therefore making it difficult for other boaters who wish to visit.
@@spencerwilton5831 Exactly! These Hippies want to live on the cheap in and near London. They set fires on the tow path and trash up the area. Just look at what is happening to Venice Beach in California, it looks like an apocalypse has taken place and why . . . because Liberal Nutcase Sanctuary City types are running the show. You have people living in million dollar homes, who now have to put up with tents, feces, and blue tarps ten feet from their doorways. How is this fair to them, and just how has this negatively impacted their property value. These boat squatters deserve to have their licenses revoked! They are a blight upon the beauty which is England.
Wow ! I am an American, so I can understand that many may feel I have no right to comment, but may I offer my observations. What I came away with after watching this video is this. These people for the most part appear to me to be living like Hippies in derelect boats and really don't want to live under anybody's authority but their own. I've seen this type of Liberal mentality many times in my life, where this type of personality truly holds a disdain for rules and regulations. Let's face it, why does this lady complain that she must move her boat every 14 days a reasonable distance, when she has converted her boat to pedal power. If she cannot afford a deisel engine, should every other canal boat user be made to suffer? And did you see the look of these places where these people were staying, "dog patch" doesn't even begin to describe it ! Now . . . if these people want to live in a commune Hippie type setting, that is their choice and freedom to choose so, however, this same choice should not be at the expense of the rest of the boating society, these people should find a bridge somewhere to live under. Sound a little harsh, you bet, but I live in track housing here in America and let me tell you, we all live under the reign and rule of the Home Owners Association, a group which has the power to cite me or even fine me if I do not maintain my home to the standards laid out in our community manual. Now . . . everyone KNOWS full well these rules, as your Estate Agent provides you this information before you buy. I guarantee you, these Hippies know the rules and regulations of the canal waterways as well, but they are trying to bend them as much as possible to accommodate their commune-type lifestyle, all at the detriment to the vast majority who gladly play by the rules. Again . . . I'm an American, perhaps many feel I have zero-right to offer an opinion, but . . . I feel at least my opinion is perhaps even more objective because I live across the pond. These are my thoughts, I know many will disagree, and that is their right. mh And as a brief postscript to my above comments, the woman at the beginning of the film admits she really has very little control over the boat in even a very slight wind, again due to the fact it is pedal powered. Does this not present even a small hazard to all other boaters as she can easily slam into them? Also, and I may be wrong here so forgive me if I am . . . Is her boat a wide beam vessel? If it is, she cannot travel on many of the narrow canals which would further exacerbate her ability to navigate the required distance to meet the Continuous Cruiser license. Again, this all may sound a little harsh but . . . if you cannot afford to properly outfit your vessel , cannot afford to even put an engine in it, you have just become a burden to all the other Boater's who are legally using tne canals, rivers and locks. I'm not trying to be heartless here, but I'm also not willing to ignore or distort the facts. I recently had the very good pleasure to witness England's beautiful Canals and system of Locks when staying in the quaint town of Devizes. I had two very wonderful conversations with a Boater who built a 14 foot homemade boat from 70% recycled material, as well as a passing jogger who kindly answered many of my questions regarding the canals and regulations. I came away feeling that England definitely has its' house in order in the running, refurbishment, and policing of their heritage and waterways. To say I would be proud to live in England and be able to use their waterways would be a gross understatement. mh
She’s selling the boat? Who’s going to buy that?
someone whom likes bikes lol
are long boats like camper in the us, you can camp four 14 days you have to move:{
Well, how other people live is of no particular concern to others, IF THEY LIVE ON THEIR OWN LAND IN ISOLATION, don't use public roads or ANY other services which they don't pay for, and don't expect others to subsidise them. However this is not possible.
There are very few countries where anarchy is encouraged, the UK is not one of them, for very good reasons. They are "entitled" to this that and the other, ie take take take.
You can't live in he UK without using anything at all, even if you lived totally isolated in a field and never left it you would benefit from things such as a lower crime rate because of the police existing.
Jo Allan first I believe there is an annual fee that is supposed to amortize the costs of operating the canal system. Second, I am not sure how it works in England but in the USA you never really own land unless you are the government because you always have to pay taxes on it at peril of loosing it for nonpayment, so practically we are all renters.
This ‘subset’ of boaters are absolutely taking the piss. They are forcing a ‘charity’ to expend resources on them alone and in company as they continually and purposefully flout the condition of their continuous cruising licence. They had a choice if they did not want to move so that their family lifestyle requirements could be achieved they should pay for a home berth and pay the associated fees and licence. If they cannot afford to do that (home mooring) then they have two responsible choices: 1. Apply for a continuous cruising licence and comply with the conditions by continually cruising and not attempting to flout and turn into a series of home moorings with a just few miles in between. 2. Sell the boat and move ashore.
The CRT may not be perfect but this subset of boaters have set out to breach the conditions of a continuous cruising licence, they seek but most surely do not deserve any sympathy. The CRT should act quicker and more firmly with them.
R u still around