Arthur Marshall

Well, that's my point of view what I posted. It's an opinion, just like yours. I don't mind pushback, though I'd prefer a reasoned argument why my opinions are wrong instead of just yet another statement that your opinion is different, understandably. It's just that I think you need to be aware that what satisfied the board in the past may not always do so in the future. Anyway, I didn't mean to butt in again. Got some music to learn. Really leaves the thread, this time. If you want the last word, you're welcome.

Unfortunately, while CRT doesn't give a toss about what boat is on my mooring, or precisely where it is, the farmer does. But as you don't pay mooring fees to CRT anyway, you'd have no right to it anyway A bit of logic, please. It's a shame you don't read what I wrote before you sling accusations of disrespect about, nor actually try to take issue with any point I made, rather than trying to shift the argument to one you could win. I think someone mentiones straw men. I did note that on another thread one of our members says they've just been on a cruise. They probably stayed on it continuously - if they hadn't, it would have been several cruises, like yours. Trying to argue that you've navigated continuously enough not to require a home mooring throughout a year by moving sometimes, leaving the boat and going elsewhere, then returning to chug a bit more is pure nonsense. Every single boater does exactly that unless they never, ever, leave their mooring. As I've said repeatedly, I'm just trying to get to grips with the reasons for the changing attitudes of CRT. In everyone's favourite line, some of my best friends are continuous cruisers, sometimes compliant, sometimes not. That's their business not mine. Our opinions don't matter much and I'm sure you no more resent home moorers (especially as you've been one) than I do genuine cruisers, dumpers, bridge hoppers or those just wanting a roof over their heads. I'll be interested to see where this debate goes, if anywhere, but I'll now politely doff my cap and leave this thread.

I certainly don't have a jaundiced view of boaters without a home mooring. Nor do I have the chip on the shoulder that most BWAHM do (if you prefer the term to CC, as I'm sure yiu do, for obvious reasons). However, doing a staggered series of little chunks of trips during a year, still does not, in my view, qualify as 'bona fide navigation throughout a period". It's no different to what I do and probably a lot less travel, and I certainly don't . It may be "bona fide navigation through several periods with big gaps between", which really isn't the same thing at all. Just because you've got away with it for years, still doesn't make it so, unfortunately. I therefore pay mooring fees to CRT which, while technically are attached to my home mooring, in fact aren't as they are the same wherever I choose to moor, whether on the Shroppie, the upper Macc or the lower. So one leisure boater pays a grand to CRT in addition to their licence, and another doesn't. Perhaps you can now see why CRT have started levelling the playing field?. It is, if course, unfair to those who are actually navigating throught the year, but that's collateral damage caused by those who are gaming the system, either by hiccupping along or illegally residing. You can understand why CRT have got fed up with both. I have no beef with anyone who manipulates the rules to their advantage, it's what we all do. It's academic, it doesn't impinge on my boating at all very much, certainly not enough to bother me. There's certainly nothing personal in it, or I wouldn't have some of the friends I do. What does irritate slightly is the squeals of outrage from some of the gamers when they get gamed back. Luckily, neither of our opinions cut much ice with CRT, who will just do what they do and we'll put up with it. I still think someone who leaves a hundred grand's worth of investment unattended in a public place for weeks on end is a bit weird - it stresses me out leaving mine to go to the shops - but then, we all are, a bit , or we wouldn't do it at all.

It is arguable that there is no "requirement". It was certainly the understanding of the original concession. As to "realistic need", it's just that, in fact, you can't be on a cruise without being on the boat, and to justify not having a home mooring you have to be on a cruise. It's no good just trotting out "it ain't so cos I don't like it" or "but then I can't do what I want ". Just explain, in simple terms, how you can be on a continuous cruise by moving your boat a couple of miles once a fortnight while spending the rest of time half a country away in a house. You may have to redefine the words "continuous" and "cruise". Perhaps you've booked a two week holiday on a cruise ship, boarded it on Monday , nipped home on Wednesday for a couple of weeks, flown out and joined it somewhere along the route for another weekend, flown home again, and actually finished your cruise with P&O two months later? You may find the company object. To say there is no need to be physically present during what is claimed to be a single journey is, I'm afraid, either daft or magical thinking. If they are really doing separate journeys, then, however inconvenient they may find it, that person aint a continuous cruiser. They're a leisure boater, just like me, except one of us is ripping off the system by not paying online mooring fees. Which has, for a while, been acceptable to CRT. It may not be for much longer. . .

I expect that to be the logical result of the CC surcharge - that anyone claiming to continuously cruise will have to confirm that they live aboard full time. It's not possible to do it otherwise, however much some people would like to bend the spirit of the law. You can't be continuously cruising while sitting a hundred miles away in a house with your feet up. It's a separate matter from the squatting residential boats, of course, and I admit I'm only interested in it as an intellectual puzzle. I'm not going to get upset about anyone on a boat unless they set their dog on me. I'd rather there were squatting and dumped boats than none.

I don't even think it's the licence increases, they, tbh, aren't that much, and we are all are stuck with them anyway. I think it's the hugely increased running costs, gas and diesel, repairs and maintenence. Combine that with endless stoppages which just make it more stressful going out for a long trip while wondering if you'll get home and you have to think harder about whether it's worth it. Leisure boaters are probably, like me, doing fewer short 1 or 2 week trips and saving the money for a single long summer cruise.

Or, of course, why living on a boat anywhere apart from a fixed residential mooring, breaches them. Not that any of that matters, planning permission or not, lots of people are living on boats where technically they didn't ought to be. And, as they're not going anywhere, because there's nowhere for them to go, the logical thing is to sort the planning out so they can stay and everyone gets a bit of money from them, except the government who will largely pay for it in housing benefits, but then they'd be doing that wherever these people lived because that's the system (and comments about that should be in the politics ghetto, not here!).

I think the one that was scuppered was the "moor anywhere in a defined area" thing, not winter moorings which were certainly being offered last winter. Which was scuppered because the overstay brigade would have had to pay for something they now do for free.

Luckily, we're not trying to solve the housing problem, which is rather above our pay scale . We're just trying to find a workable solution for the relatively few people who want to live on boats and work, raise a family at the same time, or just be broke and coping. As it's impossible to get rid of the illegal residential boats, there has to be a solution found. We've put up with them for years, so there shouldn't be any reason why they can't be legitimised, and, at least in some respects, monetised. I can't see any reason why people shouldn't live legally on "leisure" moorings - again, plenty do already (me too, many years ago) under the radar. It makes no difference if someone's there for a week or a year. If the councils want their tax, let them sort it out. Planning permission has been reduced to a joke over the past few years and shouldn't be a problem. Once legalised, the whole mess can be regulated properly.

When I were a lad, before all this major solar stuff took off, you could get a small panel that sat in a window and plugged into one of the 12v power sockets and trickle charged the battery. Pretty inefficient, but I got the impression it did actually work. I'm sure someone will know more...

Having a mooring, if you want to stay around an area, is a really good idea, even if you don't use it much. While it very slightly alters your rights over the 14 day rule, in effect it makrs no difference and it allows you to return to places on a short cruise without problems with CRT. And if you need to work on the boat, or leave it for a bit, it's somewhere safe. You just need to make sure that where your mooring is, your landlord is ok (either officially or unofficially) with you permanently living on the boat - as is often pointed out here, there's no legal security on a mooring. One bloke in Manchester is currently being kicked off after 15 years following a takeover. Best way to find out, if it's not a registered residential mooring, is to ask other boaters. I'm sorry if my referring to "buzzwords" offended. As an old hippie from the '60s, I often see those words now being used to claim "rights" or beneficial treatment without any acceptance of the rather heavier responsibilities that comes with the lifestyle. One thing the boating life isn't, is off-grid, or separate from the rest of society.

I think it's the relentless jolly plinkety plonk background music that really does my head in. It's like beaing beaten round the head with a club that's got "this is fun, isn't it" stamped on the side.

I watched most of the first one of fast forward as in real time I couldn't stand it. It's a "reality" show, not a boating programme, so it's only interested in what they see as the "journey" of their subjects, not the journey of the boat. You'd have thought they'd have learnt something from the success of Canalboat Diaries, or even Great Canal Journeys, but this isn't the same kind of thing.

I suppose you get the equivalentof a bungalow with an attic for storage. Albeit one with no resale value whatsoever, potential structural problems and, as it's still a boat, significant mobility challenges. But there's a place for everything...

Just wait. This year, mine got wet inside when it rained. Be careful what you wish for... Mind you, there's still nothing better than messing about on boats.

Perhaps tomorrow's will be better.

If it's commonplace, then it's acceptable to most people. It can't be one thing and not the other. ETA but not on this forum, because it has its own rules. Which is good...

That's it, really. For us leisure boaters, all our fixed costs at home have gone up hugely, so there is less money to spare for playing with toys - especially as the fixed costs for them have whacked up too. Most of us of a certain age have much less spare cash. A boat holiday used to be cheaper than staying at home, now it's a lot more expensive. For narina moorers, they may well just go for a week at the mooring rather than cruising - I know a few who just enjoy the social life at the marina club, treating the boat like a country cottage.

20 years as a civil servant...

I think Peterboat has a point. A few years ago I didn't have to think twice about trundling off for eight weeks. Now it's down to five in the summer, because I can't afford the diesel and gas, and ditto in the rest of the year because of the price of coal . The fixed costs of licence and mooring have almost doubled (probably more in the case of marina dwellers) and so have running costs. My blacking cost has risen by over 100%, safety certificate is now a ridiculous price (and some idiots, probably mostly examiners, now want it annually). You can understand why some continuous cruisers don't move as often as they used to and why leisure boaters go for shorter trips and shorter days. A lot of the attraction for short holiday boaters was pub hopping, too, and stacks of them are shut and, again, prices are through the roof.

Which would explain why a clock on your wrist is called a watch, because it moves as you do, while to clock something means to look at or see it, and a clock stays where it is. Apart from my cuckoo clock, which fell of the wall when I threw a shoe at it when it cuckooed fourteen times at two pm.

At various bits of the Shroppie, it's as many as you can get in. If it's acceptable offside, it's acceptable towpath. Just charge for it. It's only a problem in certain, easily defined areas. So, legitimise the moorings, let them stay where they want, and collect the mooring fees. The dossers won't care, it'll be paid by benefits and everyone, inc CRT, are happy.

The relatively few people using the system as cheap housing makes as much a dent in the overall housing problem as sending a planeload of refugees to Rwanda does to the number of amnesty seekers in the country, ie none. Neither are a solution, as people just want to be somewhere vaguely safe, or at least safer than they would otherwise be. Living on a boat solves the problem for a few individuals (as it did for me) but it's looking at it from the wrong angle. The need is to find a way to make the squatters legal, which could be done by providing proper moorings - the fact most of the relevant folk are broke isn't relevant as benefits would pay. We know CRT can monetise towpath moorings, or could encourage cheap marinas with decent communications. There's no reason councils should whinge, the boats are there already and grandfather rights would ensure those already in situ got first pick of moorings, and they'd get the taxes. Whether the politicians in charge of UC would appreciate a sudden increase of claims from newly legit boaters is another matter!

Isn't it partly because "places" are relative? Because commuting is easier, you could define most of the wider London area as one place, while it's arguable that, say, Congleton and Stoke, or Macclesfield and Marple are different places, although the actual distance between the points is less. It is, as the artists might say, more conceptual than concrete and so comes down to opinion, or, if necessary, court - which is only opinion anyway, and often, as we know, barmy.