Sutton Protest.

[Bernard]

https://www.northnorfolknews.co.uk/news/24241569.boat-painted-swastikas-broads-mooring-fee-protest/

 

 

[dom]

What goes around, comes around.

I doubt the fishermen incident went beyond a few stern words from the Police but, if it did, that'll probably bring the matter to a close.

There's still more to the story.

[Smoggy]

10 minutes ago, dom said:

What goes around, comes around.

I doubt the fishermen incident went beyond a few stern words from the Police but, if it did, that'll probably bring the matter to a close.

There's still more to the story.

Same person?

[dom]

5 minutes ago, Smoggy said:

Same person?

Yep. Same one who had a boat fire at Sutton some years ago too. And also the same one in the electric post Youtube video.

[Happy]

What a shame.  This type of behaviour is not going to help boost the 'Broads' popularity 

[dom]

Certain people also need to be distancing themselves from it, before it backfires. Unfortunately, I've tried telling them this but they don't have the sense to understand.

[Mouldy]

6 minutes ago, Happy said:

What a shame.  This type of behaviour is not going to help boost the 'Broads' popularity 

Certainly won’t boost the popularity of Sutton Staithe as a mooring.  Can’t help thinking that the overall appearance of it can’t be helping business at the boatyard or the hotel.

[OldBerkshireBoy]

Are BA allowed to cover a boat with a tarpaulin as said in the article?

[dom]

The Police were involved, so it may have been done under their instruction.

I suspect they could probably cover any defence with Section 2 of the Broads Authority Act anyway, specifically making a special direction to stop it "interfering with the reasonable use or enjoyment of the navigation area by other vessels or persons".

[Hylander]

Spraying it with paint to cover the abusive , rude and offensive signs would be a good idea.     What makes the lawless types in this country think they can get away with anything.     I can just see this happening in any other country.  It just would not be tolerated.      It has certainly put us off visiting Sutton Staithe.

[Gracie]

I don't remember anything like this happening when I was a little girl playing on the green after having a nice lunch in the hotel and then doing the same with my own boys. Such a lovely place to stop and a lovely hotel too but then we only visit once or twice a year so what do I know, rose tinted glasses perhaps

Please don't be put off visiting, don't let nasty people who think they are above the law win.

Grace x

[Hylander]

Sorry that should read 'cant' see this happening.

[rightsaidfred]

1 hour ago, Gracie said:

I don't remember anything like this happening when I was a little girl playing on the green after having a nice lunch in the hotel and then doing the same with my own boys. Such a lovely place to stop and a lovely hotel too but then we only visit once or twice a year so what do I know, rose tinted glasses perhaps

Please don't be put off visiting, don't let nasty people who think they are above the law win.

Grace x

This has only become an issue in the last few years with the increase in liveaboards of a certain disposition, it is far from being exclusive to the broads more an increasing problem on most waterways.

One wonders how people with no visible means of support and who can`t or won`t pay the legally required dues can afford to buy a boat in the first place.

Fred 

[Ray]

I believe councils are legally obliged to provide facilities for Travellers, could there be any advantage in requiring the same of river authorities?

I'm not proposing this as an answer just exploring the idea from the point of view of our experienced members.

[Wussername]

27 minutes ago, rightsaidfred said:

This has only become an issue in the last few years with the increase in liveaboards of a certain disposition, it is far from being exclusive to the broads more an increasing problem on most waterways.

One wonders how people with no visible means of support and who can`t or won`t pay the legally required dues can afford to buy a boat in the first place.

Fred 

Some of the boats I suspect are sold very cheaply, a few pounds. The alternative, a door way or a multi-storey car park in Norwich.  

Three  years back I counted 41 liverboards between Brundall and Norwich yacht station. That figure does not include the community that live at  Thorpe St Andrew, the so called island, at The River Green.  

Today, I passed the River Green on a bus. It was not a good look.

A place, a village which was once called one of the gardens of England, a place of magnificent houses owned by influential people, wealthy people.  

Years ago folk from Norwich would take a tram or whatever, might be a boat to The River Green. A bus or a tram would stop at the Redan a public house in those days and they would walk to the river.

A day out for the family. The fun days. The regattas, the greasy pole, the boats, the people, the flowers, the flags, the local band, Nobby Clark, Nutty Slack, the River Commissioner immaculate as ever with his launch.

Gone.

For me, years to do are very few. 

I feel that somehow I and my peers have failed

I do apologise.

Andrew 

 

[dom]

40 minutes ago, rightsaidfred said:

This has only become an issue in the last few years with the increase in liveaboards of a certain disposition, it is far from being exclusive to the broads more an increasing problem on most waterways.

One wonders how people with no visible means of support and who can`t or won`t pay the legally required dues can afford to buy a boat in the first place.

It's only going to get worse. Bits of the Cam/Great Ouse network are rammed with them due to the excessive cost of housing in the area (although it seems to be levelling out at insane everywhere now). Bits of London canal network have towpaths lined 2 or 3 deep with them.

If you frequent cheap/free boat groups on Facebook, there's a steady trickle of people looking for free boats to live on. Invariably, they tend to have fake names on their Facebook profiles, so are clearly hiding from something - presumably either debt, the law, or both.

I have every sympathy for someone facing homelessness, but find the whole "liveaboard as a solution to poverty" concept  annoying and objectionable for a number of reasons.

Firstly, I think these people are just going to go from being on the edge of society to well beyond it - and living on a boat without the means to sustain yourself is going to be utterly miserable, probably worse than squatting on land. Secondly, the Broads (and other waterways) shouldn't be a dumping ground for society's failings - and particularly not when £8m+ a day is being spent housing people we're supposedly providing asylum to. Third, it results in a trail of abandoned boats, falling apart and sinking, the cost of which ends up with legitimate boat owners - BA appear to have paid around £2k most months last year for related issues. Lastly, with no means of income, it's obvious a certain amount of petty crime and drug dealing is going to follow.

42 minutes ago, Ray said:

I believe councils are legally obliged to provide facilities for Travellers, could there be any advantage in requiring the same of river authorities?

Unfortunately, organised facilities would come with various ancillary requirements - BSS testing, insurance, paying council tax, etc. The people involved are often barely above vagrancy, so expecting them to pay is unrealistic. Lump a load of non-conforming people in a single place and you're also aggregating a load of social issues in a single district. If you try and spread it out, BA are already struggling to maintain a network of moorings for legitimate users.

Just to add, none of the above is a reflection on legitimate, working liveaboards who make a conscious choice to live the lifestyle whilst remaining within the law. I suspect there's a good chance I might end up amongst them when I eventually retire - another growing trend which probably does need more consideration, especially around granting planning for residential moorings.

[grendel]

yet we have to remember that there are also quite respectable live aboards and thus not tar everyone who follows the live aboard lifestyle with the same brush, once again it is the few that give a bad reputation to the many.

[kpnut]

I don’t often get involved with discussion about ‘liveaboard’ boats, as I have a hankering to be one myself and I fully realise there are so many issues, both financial, practical and psychological surrounding the issue. 

But today I went up the Ant and to Sutton staithe. And felt cross.
The Ant now has either 8 or 9 wild moorings taken up with boats that seem to go nowhere. (As a comparison, I think it was about 3 last summer season). 

In fact, there are now various structures built on the banks. I have a feeling quite a number of the boats are owned by just one person, but might be wrong.

In my book, taking up space like that and making it your home, building things, leaving junk on the bank etc is not on at all. 

So that’s that number of moorings fewer for everyone else. I realise they are not BA moorings, so not part of our tolls, but it really does no good to the general feel of the area, especially for holidaymakers whom we all want to return to the benefit of the future of the Broads. 

I don’t know the answer other than to

1. provide proper facilities for those who would actually prefer it

2. enforce the legislation - tolls, insurance, BSS- have it - you can stay but please move around to give everyone a chance to use the environs, - don’t have it - you can’t keep a boat on the Broads. But then what can the BA do to enforce people who refuse to abide by the rules? 

Then on the way up to Sutton staithe, there’s a group of three more on the right and one on the left as the moorings start, none of which have moved for ages. I fully agree with Gracie that Sutton staithe is just not inviting at all. I hate going up there and if weren’t for a good boatyard with fair prices at the top I’d never venture up. 
I also visited Thorpe green in February and thought it was extremely uninviting. 

It makes me feel very sad. 

[MauriceMynah]

Me? Respectable?? 

The jury is still out on that one.

[YnysMon]

I completely agree with Dom’s post, not least in that we shouldn’t forget that there are a lot of legitimate liveaboards who choose the boating life as an alternative lifestyle and who plan it out and finance it properly. 

I’ve often thought, when passing liveaboards boats that are particularly small and run down, that it must be a miserable life, and those that have two or three boats with a lot of clutter (some of it on the river bank) can’t be faring much better. I can’t imagine living in such surroundings. Quite often such people have had a tough life, are not good with planning ahead and have poor mental health. However much I sympathise though, it’s not doing the Broads economy any good to have tatty boats hogging mooring spaces.

It’s definitely a conundrum.

[Ray]

4 minutes ago, YnysMon said:

I completely agree with Dom’s post, not least in that we shouldn’t forget that there are a lot of legitimate liveaboards who choose the boating life as an alternative lifestyle and who plan it out and finance it properly. 

I’ve often thought, when passing liveaboards boats that are particularly small and run down, that it must be a miserable life, and those that have two or three boats with a lot of clutter (some of it on the river bank) can’t be faring much better. I can’t imagine living in such surroundings. Quite often such people have had a tough life, are not good with planning ahead and have poor mental health. However much I sympathise though, it’s not doing the Broads economy any good to have tatty boats hogging mooring spaces.

It’s definitely a conundrum.

 

That's the problem in a nutshell, we have no desire to victimise people but the only solutions appear to do just that. Sadly, like so many societal problems every avenue costs a lot of money that simply isn't available. That's why I guess most such difficulties are treated with a stick rather than a carrot 🙁

[dom]

26 minutes ago, kpnut said:

The Ant now has either 8 or 9 wild moorings taken up with boats that seem to go nowhere. (As a comparison, I think it was about : last summer season). 

In fact, there are now various structures built on the banks. I have a feeling quite a number of the boats are owned by just one person, but might be wrong.

I won't tell you who 3 (possibly 4) of the boats belong to. The same person also has a "farm", which I suspect may be the structures you're referring to. You might however be able to guess who it is.

Quote

But then what can the BA do to enforce people who refuse to abide by the rules? 

Actually, quite a lot - but they don't seem to have the spine to use the more serious powers. I think we can probably all guess why.

[rightsaidfred]

1 hour ago, dom said:

It's only going to get worse. Bits of the Cam/Great Ouse network are rammed with them due to the excessive cost of housing in the area (although it seems to be levelling out at insane everywhere now). Bits of London canal network have towpaths lined 2 or 3 deep with them.

If you frequent cheap/free boat groups on Facebook, there's a steady trickle of people looking for free boats to live on. Invariably, they tend to have fake names on their Facebook profiles, so are clearly hiding from something - presumably either debt, the law, or both.

I have every sympathy for someone facing homelessness, but find the whole "liveaboard as a solution to poverty" concept  annoying and objectionable for a number of reasons.

Firstly, I think these people are just going to go from being on the edge of society to well beyond it - and living on a boat without the means to sustain yourself is going to be utterly miserable, probably worse than squatting on land. Secondly, the Broads (and other waterways) shouldn't be a dumping ground for society's failings - and particularly not when £8m+ a day is being spent housing people we're supposedly providing asylum to. Third, it results in a trail of abandoned boats, falling apart and sinking, the cost of which ends up with legitimate boat owners - BA appear to have paid around £2k most months last year for related issues. Lastly, with no means of income, it's obvious a certain amount of petty crime and drug dealing is going to follow.

Unfortunately, organised facilities would come with various ancillary requirements - BSS testing, insurance, paying council tax, etc. The people involved are often barely above vagrancy, so expecting them to pay is unrealistic. Lump a load of non-conforming people in a single place and you're also aggregating a load of social issues in a single district. If you try and spread it out, BA are already struggling to maintain a network of moorings for legitimate users.

Just to add, none of the above is a reflection on legitimate, working liveaboards who make a conscious choice to live the lifestyle whilst remaining within the law. I suspect there's a good chance I might end up amongst them when I eventually retire - another growing trend which probably does need more consideration, especially around granting planning for residential moorings.

I agree with you there, I tried to word my post carefully so as not to generalise as there are many decent law abiding liveaboards, the ones we are referring to used to be called dropouts years ago, some are truly unfortunate and need help, others just don't want the responsibility of being accountable or contributing to society in general.

While as a nation we should be proud to be seen as one of the most generous and caring we have got so soft and lienient it has allowed to much abuse by those that have no regard for others or society in general.

Fred

[dom]

11 minutes ago, rightsaidfred said:

While as a nation we should be proud to be seen as one of the most generous and caring we have got so soft and lienient it has allowed to much abuse by those that have no regard for others or society in general.

I think unfortunately politics has lost all sight of the interests of the people it serves. It's now just about the opposition destroying the incumbent party at all costs - even if that means throwing our health and welfare systems under a bus in the process. Things are bad now, but I'm genuinely scared of what'll come after a general election.

I'm no fan of proportional representation, but I think we probably have no choice but to consider implementing it sooner or later, as the current system is now really far too much like mob rule.

 

[YnysMon]

I’ve been reflecting. (Probably a bad idea.) I was mulling over why there was relatively little homelessness in the 70s, even though as a country generally we were far less affluent. I have an idea that a lot more people who ‘couldn’t cope’, i.e. who had poor mental health, were institutionalised. Then in the 1980s there was a ‘care in the community’ initiative. (Was that under Maggie, or later?) Whilst it was in theory commendable (who wants to be institutionalised), in practice it turned out to be very little care or none.

If the mods think this is too political please delete. It isn’t intended to be, as I have no idea which government instigated the policy and no successive government has overturned it. Also, the policy was intended as a step forward.