The 14 Day RuleBoaters may have received two letters from CRT recently, posted direct to their boats. One, dated 8 August 2014, states "The canals and rivers in London have seen a 36% rise in boat numbers over the last five years to 2,964 boats in March 2014. In the past year alone, overall numbers have increased by 14%, while numbers of continuous cruisers in East London has [sic] increased by 85%."

It goes on to say "To make sure everyone has a fair chance of mooring it's important that boaters respect the mooring requirements. This month we're starting an initiative of text messaging boaters in London when they've reached the maximum stay time on a 14-day towpath mooring as a gentle reminder to move on."

CRT then explain they have "recently recruited a new enforcement supervisor and an additional enforcement officer, and are in the process of looking for another enforcement officer."

The second letter, dated simply August 2014, explains changes in mooring times at Victoria Park, Broadway Market and Little Venice, to be implemented from 1 September 2014.

At Victoria Park, the stay time on the "eastern half" will be reduced from 14 to 7 days; at Broadway Market there will apparently be "a new 7-day visitor mooring located at the western end of Andrew's Road"; and at Little Venice the "eastern half" will be reduced from 14 to 7 days.

These changes to mooring times ignore continuous cruisers' legal right to a fortnight – a right spelt out in the 8 August 2014 letter. CRT make no mention of plans to install mooring rings or new grass verges along the long stretches of canal that could easily accommodate boats but currently sit unoccupied.

The reduction in mooring times and the fact they are being introduced at the end of the summer and in time for the winter seems to be designed to make live-aboard boaters' lives in London harder.

The 2014 General Meeting of the National Bargee Travellers Association (NBTA) will take place on Saturday 22nd November 2014 at 1pm to 5pm at the Quaker Meeting House, 150 Church Rd, Watford WD17 4QB (near Watford Junction Station). All members are welcome.If you would like to come to the General Meeting, please book a place as soon as possible by emailing secretariat@bargee-

traveller.org.uk or phoning 0118 321 4128. We need to keep the venue informed of the numbers so please let us know in advance if you wish to attend. Further travel directions etc will be sent out on booking.

Privatisation with a Needy Smile: a CaRT HistoryThe Canal and River Trust have recently made a further move towards enclosure of the London waterways, by attempting to define “place” with the use of boundaries and labels on maps. Intended only as “guidance” for continuous cruisers who may be unsure of how far they need to move every 14 days in order to be using their boats bona fide for navigation. Many new boaters may agree that this is a useful tool to help them stay on the right side of CaRT, but the more seasoned continuous cruiser may argue the necessity. Within a short while of living on the cut and moving around in our floating coffins, one gets a clear sense of locality. An ethereal definition of “place” emerges naturally as the sum of our individual experiences.

The definition of “place” is highly controversial, and there is a great deal of history around this issue, particularly with regard to the British Waterways Act of 1995.

Back In The Day

In the early 1990s British Waterways, the Canal and River Trust’s predecessor before the Coalition’s bonfire of the quangos, proposed a private bill to parliament. The bill was brought about mainly to tackle safety issues on the water by using a legislative framework to ensure higher standards. The bill in its original form was poorly put together and attracted much outrage from various stake-holders, none of which were consulted. Consequently there were many petitions to members of parliament over various controversial clauses. It took 4 years for the bill to be debated

into an acceptable form, as Labour MP Clare Short describes in a parliamentary debate on May 17th

1993:

“It is a great pity that the Bill was introduced in such an unacceptable form. All sorts of fears and reasonable alarms were created. The Bill has been massively modified. British Waterways would have been better advised to consult more broadly before it introduced the Bill.”

Not Quite So Back In The Day

Some of us may remember British Waterways’ 2011 attempt to tackle “congestion” in London, where the proposals were so extreme (requiring movement of vast distances every week) that even if boaters could follow the unlawful rules, British Water-ways would fail spectacularly (as they continue to do now) to enforce them. Ms Short’s lament is one boaters are familiar with.

Many MPs believed that this ill-considered bill was a thinly veiled ruse for the privatisation of the waterways. Here’s Ms Short again, from the same debate:

“Many people are concern-ed about the danger that the Government may priv-atise British Waterways. I listened carefully to what the Minister said. He said that the Government have no plans so to do. Before the election, the Govern-ment told us that they had no plans to increase value added tax, but we know

what has happened in relation to domestic fuel. We know that the Government are planning to privatise the forests and railways in Britain, so I am sorry to say that I am a little suspicious about what the Minister said. Will he give us an absolute com-mitment that in the lifetime of this Government there will be no move whatever to privatise any part of British Waterways?”

There was a lengthy response by a Mr Baldry to reassure the Honourable Lady. Ms Short was not alone in her fears though, as David Hinchliffe Labour Member of Parliament for Wakefield also had words to say on the matter. From the same debate on May 17th, 1993:

“I believe that privat-isation will be the next step and that the Bill is a thinly disguised paving measure. I hope that I am wrong, but given the Government's record, and the direction of almost every measure that they have introduced, I see no reason to believe that privatisation will not be the end result. I suspect that I shall be proved right. It is clearly the Government's intention to commercialise the BWB (British Water-ways Board) even further, to enable it to pull out even more from state funding of the inland waterways system. That saddens me, but it comes as no surprise. Even more worrying is the fact that the Government have no coherent political strategy

for the use of our inland waterways, and the immense potential offered by our rivers and canals.”

Most of these fears concerned barely imagined tolls to access the towpath, which seem awfully cute when compared to the transformation of British Waterways into to the Canal and River Trust, i.e. privatisation with a needy smile.

Concern For Boaters

There was also much concern about how the bill would negatively affect boaters in regard to moorings. In the early draft of the bill, British Waterways wanted all craft to have a mooring. Mr Andrew Bennett, Labour MP for Denton and Reddish sheds light on why this stipulation was not included in the final draft. From the second reading of the bill on January 19th, 1994:

“My second point concerns people with houseboats on the canals and the problems that exist, particularly for people on low incomes. […] They enjoy owning boats and travelling around the canals more slowly than people having a fortnight's holiday and wanting to travel a substantial dist-ance. “Those people like to travel for a few months around the canal network and then stop and find employment for a

few months. […] I hope that when the Committee considers the issue we will be assured that people on low incomes will not be penalised if they do not have permanent moorings, and that if they progress around the canal system and do not need a permanent mooring they will not be in difficulty.”

That particular concern Mr Bennett aired is what should concern us boaters in the present day. The vagueness of the legislation that was eventually agreed upon for the British Waterways Act of 1995, was designed so with intention. It was left “loose” as a concession to those who feared the worst for boaters who may not have the means to comply, for whatever reasons they might have.

And Today, What About That?

If we take a look at the critical piece of legislation from the bill that is still active today, one can see how vague the requirements are. From Section 17 of the British Waterways Act:

the vessel to which the application relates will be used bona fide for navigation throughout the period for which the consent is valid without remaining continuously in any one place for more than 14 days or such longer period as is

reasonable in the circumstances.

Those who use these maps that the Canal and River Trust have created should do so with extreme caution and in the above context. Any materials of guidance the Canal and River Trust publish are exactly that, guidance, and do not have any basis in law. Boaters would do well to remember that every word, comma and full stop of Section 17, that is so pertinent to the continuous cruiser, has been gone over with a fine tooth comb and then some.

It is no accident that we have the law on our side.

Links to the debates:http://hansard.millbanksystems.com/commons/1993/may/17/british-waterways-bill-lords-by-order

http://hansard.millbanksystems.com/commons/1994/jan/19/british-waterways-bill-lords

More information on the maps:http://kanda.boatingcommunity.org.uk/crt-places-maps-were-leaked/

http://kanda.boatingcommunity.org.uk/crt-publish-map-of-places/

The Floater would like to thank Mr Marmaduke Dando for his research, his writing, and for the excellent title of this article. He would like to apologise for the crap subheadings, which have been his own addition. I’ve been in a bit of a hurry of late, you see…

the Editorps. I am aware it’s supposed to be NBTA, but it’s too late to make that particular edit now.

WHAT’S THAT BAD SMELL COMING FROM ISLINGTON?It has been argued by the Air Quality Officer at Islington Council that the trial period for Angel visitor moorings should be

'extended to all parts of the canal in Islington'.

With the support of Islington

Council, the Canal and River Trust (CRT) have already made changes to Islington visitor moorings such as the following:

A limit of 7 days mooring.

‘No Return’ rule

A ban on all fuel other than smokeless coal.

Mooring to be kept to a single line of boats in winter, with a maximum of two abreast in the summer.

A ‘caretaker boater’.

A quiet zone which includes no 'loud' music including limits on engine and generator noise.

The above were agreed to by boaters with the understanding that there was an unique situ-ation at Noel Road because the Council and CRT said that the 'smoke and noise is funnelled down the canal'.

However, the Council have said there is 'evidence of dispersal to the Muriel Street / York Way area which is now our priority'. Since you can't disperse the funnelling shape of the canal what they mean is the dispersal of boat dwellers.

In a bizarre turn, Islington Council has produced a 'Best Practice Guide for Boaters' It states that people living on the water 'can bring with it problems of overcrowding, anti-social behavi-our and nuisance'.

So where does this anti-boater attitude come from?

The problem is the people complaining about boaters are on a mission of cleansing the area of the poor with the help of the Council. Council housing has been sold off, rents have been pushed up, squatters and other homeless people cracked down on. And who

else is there left to attack? That's right, the boaters.

And there have been attacks. The Labour councillor for St. Peter's ward- Martin Klute, states there has been an increase of boaters and claims this has meant there have been many residents who are so fed up of them that they're thinking of moving. The Labour councillors for Caledonian Ward then made a statement that they want stretches of the canal kept clear of moorings.

So why are a Labour Council and their councillors attacking us?

The Green Party has the only non-Labour councillor in the council, and has taken up camp defending the boaters. On Islington Green Party website they defend boaters, as we ‘use local businesses such as shops, launderettes' and 'demonstrate that the canal is a valuable, living feature of Islington'.

So what if we didn’t, would they still support us?I think we should take any support we are given but at the end the day we can't leave it to politicians to defend us. We must organise ourselves to defend our interests.

And let this be a lesson to us, if we let the force against us take a bit they will try and take the lot.

By Marcus.

An Advertisement Follows

It is with no humility whatsoever that the Floater would like to advertise the following, because he can, and because you’ll be seeing a whole lot more of this kind of thing, what with Christmas coming and all, and y’know, you’re kind of the audience for all this crazy Jazz that the good people at Marshgate have agreed to inflict upon the world in general and you, my

little floaters, in particular. Brace yourselves, it may get a little choppy.

the Editor.