Jump to content

___

Member
  • Posts

    5,064
  • Joined

  • Days Won

    6

___ last won the day on November 9 2022

___ had the most liked content!

2 Followers

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Undisclosed

Recent Profile Visitors

11,620 profile views

___'s Achievements

Veteran

Veteran (11/12)

1.9k

Reputation

  1. Most of what group in this instance? Most never even start on that process or otherwise get past stage 1. A stage that does not lead directly to your stage 2.
  2. I get all that, but unfortunately some folk seem to take it rather literally based on what they would like the requirements to be.
  3. They always have good beer. The urge to test out the new garden furniture and fire up the pizza oven has won over a trip to the beer tent, even if it is less than 10 minutes walk from home.
  4. You provide a great example of why a lot of folk without a home mooring dislike the "continuous cruiser" label. It leads to a false view of what is required, and also I think of what is fair and reasonable. The journey I described is certainly within the requirements of my licence and indeed did 'satisfy the board'. Not only that, I believe that it is also a usage of the canals that is reasonable and fair to other users. Is it really "nonsense" to suggest that what is demonstrably a 'progressive journey' qualifies as 'bona fide for navigation' irrespective of whether I returned home at points during the overall period of the journey? Would it have constituted a single journey in your eyes if I had simply stayed aboard while on those moorings? Is one not allowed to take a break during a long journey? The law seems to think it reasonable. And is there any suggestion or evidence that the original decision to not require a home mooring for all licence holders was only considered in relation to liveaboards? If you go on a public forum and suggest that someone is "getting away with it for years" and talking "nonsense" when they are in fact demonstrably within their rights - and more in my opinion - then you're going to get some pushback. So, yes, best to step back. Or perhaps simply post your point of view without such remarks.
  5. I know I don’t need to tell you the history behind all that. Nationwide now have brokerage moorings in various locations although I think they are in some - and perhaps all - cases run by marina staff on an agency basis. It’s also quite likely that when a vendor chooses to sell from a home mooring rather than take their boat to a brokerage site that it is made clear to them that it limits the number of people likely to view the boat as it excludes the casual customer who may ultimately turn out to be a genuine buyer.
  6. Full of contradications and incorrect assumptions, Arthur. And some unnecessarily nasty insinuation. Not at all the response of someone that isn't bothered. The towpath moorings were pretty much all on short term visitor moorings (typically of 5 days limit) and were compliant. The longer stays are the paid ones. Yet you assume you know how I and others boat. I haven't "gotten away" with anything for years. I had a home mooring for six years until two years ago. Full fee paid directly to CRT since it was a CRT permit mooring. I now pay about 40% of that amount in winter mooring fees for 25% of the time on what is essentially the same mooring site. Plus whatever proportion of marina fees goes to CRT. I pay my way as I'm obliged to do and more. It equates to more money direct to CRT than most marina dwellers. So I don't really see that CRT are levelling things up, they're just charging differently in a way that is probably more equitable overall but has some flaws. There is no perfect and totally fair pricing model. It's not the principle I have an issue with, just the rather narrow way they have defined a home mooring for licensing purposes. The problem here isn't your views on what you think is right. It's your attitude to other boaters. Show some respect, just about everybody on the canal is making some contribution and very few are truly detrimental in the bigger picture.
  7. You're arguing for what you would like the system to be rather than what it is actually is. That's fine in itself, until it leads to the use of derogatory terminology and assumptions about movement patterns of boats for which you don't fully know the movement pattern, or indeed the reasons why it may appear not to move in your less than complete observations. Nobody has to define or redefine "continuous" or "cruise" as neither word is part of the legislation. You simply have to keep moving and not remain in one place without permission for more than 14 days. I made a convoluted journey from my winter mooring at Droitwich to Marple and back last year, during the course of which I left my boat on the towpath (unless stated) and returned to my home from Stoke Pound, Alvechurch, Lapworth, Saltisford (paid), Braunston (in dock), Hillmorton, Newbold, Ansty, Hawkesbury, Atherstone, Fazeley, Curdworth, Hawne Basin (paid), Penkridge, Stone, Congleton, Marple, Whaley Bridge, New Mills Marina (paid), Scholar Green (paid), Great Haywood marina (complimentary night on board), Hawne Basin (paid), Alvechurch, Stoke Prior and finally back to Droitwich for another winter mooring. Whether that's a series of single journeys or one continuous journey is irrelevant, and I'm principally a leisure boater (although I have a roving trader licence). I see no relevance in that either. It all meets the legislative criteria and no questions were asked when I renewed my licence earlier this week. Do you really think I should buy a mooring in a single permanent location when I have no intention of being on it for 8 or 9 months of the year? Or that by not doing so I'm ripping you off? A key point you are missing is that CRT made a signifciant decision in the way they now classify a 'home mooring' for the purposes of licensing. It isn't just any paid mooring that qualifies. It's effectively a single permanent mooring for the duration of the licence. There are plenty of people who move in a similar fashion to me and are effectively subject to a double whammy under the new rules. Probably because CRT have the same jaundiced view of boaters without a home mooring as you.
  8. Two posts above that demonstrate a lack of understanding of how CRTs new licensing regime actually works and of how other people go about boating. There is absolutely no requirement, or any realistic need, to be resident on a boat to not have a home mooring. Folks seem to have become so embittered about “CCers” and “CMers” that they’ve lost the ability to think it through.
  9. There’s space in Netherwich basin. Moor anywhere else and you might get collared for a fee. I shall be attending at various times over the weekend, sans boat as that’s elsewhere at present.
  10. With a two week trip if you do choose to head for Stratford you should have time to be able to go back to Birmingham (via Knowle if you want a different but much more urban route) and then take stock of how the Severn is behaving. It could be very different in 10 days time and it might enable you to return via Stourbridge and the Staffs & Worcs with a back up of coming back down Tardebigge. As has been said the trip from Stourport to Hawford is easily done in two to three hours.
  11. That does seem strange as presumably the point of the marina wanting to verify the permanent address is because they don't have permission for reidential moorings and therefore those moorings don't (or didn't) attract council tax. Nonetheless I'm confident in saying there are many people holding leisure mooring contracts that are effectively permanently resident on their boat and not subject to council tax. Those doing so in a marina are presumably compliant with the terms of their mooring contract; those on CRT permit moorings possibly not. They are folk trying to make the system work for them in a way that authorities accept or at least tolerate. No different from most boaters living on the towpath. As a couple of posters have touched upon consequence is a large part of the practical application of rules and regulations. It's never as simple as a black and white application of the written word; our legal system recognises no such thing exists. The moral high ground is a precarious place to position oneself in any case; and all too easy if the system has largely worked in your favour as a result of the good fortune of the circumstances around your birth. As for those issues in London I'm not aware of the specific detail - as for the NBTA I regard the term 'bargee' in much the same way as 'CMer' - but I did suggest earlier in the thread that the people who should be most upset about towpath mooring are local residents rather than other boaters. Eradicating London liveaboards would solve some issues; and create another set of issues. I'm also not sure blaming campaigning organisations for legal rulings we don't like is particularly valid in a democratic society, assuming one supports the basis of our society.
  12. Interesting stuff. You touch upon the issue of Council Tax paid by boaters. Is it not the case that there are many boaters who are living aboard boats effectively as a permanent resident on a designated leisure mooring and not paying council tax? Arguably pretty much the same behaviour as those who move just often enough and just far enough to satisfy the requirements of CRT in respect of boaters without home moorings. Yet members of CWDF will mostly advise the former group of how to go about their business but deride the latter group. A key difference being that the latter is more visible and tends to have less aesthetically pleasing boats. @agg221 cites some examples of real people working probably outside of the requirements, a couple of them with obvious awareness of their impact, at least one of which could be described as being vulnerable. Now while I don’t advocate the canals being used as an official social housing overflow I do wonder if there are Councils who are secretly glad that the canal is housing folk that they would otherwise have more expense in dealing with. That isn’t necessarily a bad thing for CRT politically in the current climate. As far as London goes the demographic of liveaboards is different from other parts of the country. Many London boat dwellers would be able to afford land based accommodation if employed in similar jobs in the Midlands or North. They are also helping to provide services that support the local economy. It’s a very subtle balance, that’s how free markets work, and one that doesn’t have simple engineered solutions.
  13. Absolutely spot on. My attitude to towpath moored liveaboards has changed over the decade I’ve owned a boat. People are as much a part of canals as the boats and the infrastructure. The one thing I really don’t like though is those that colonise the towpath. You can have your space on the water for 14 days but the towpath isn’t an extension of your home anymore than the street outside my house is mine. On the subject of mooring anyone with a licence is permitted to use a visitor mooring. The status of the boater is irrelevant if they were there first and are not overstaying. If they are routinely full the solution is to extend the VMs. One thing that is perhaps worthy of change is the default to 14 days for visitor moorings between October and March. You will be familiar with live aboard communities that pitch up in one place for a couple of weeks then move on to the next. In summer VMs are generally not of interest to these folks but I have noticed that once October comes around they may occupy VMs for 14 days. I wonder if perhaps it should be take a winter mooring - which usually are on VMs - or make do with the general towpath all year.
  14. Nothing like 4 out of 5 boaters pay the 9% levy. That’s only those in NCAA marinas. Even if it were contractually possibly I don’t think it would be wise.
  15. They are boaters Ian. If you want a short name use that. Then describe the action in question rather than label the person. Why does anyone other than CRT need to distinguish their status? Nobody else has any reliable means to do so anyway. My experience is that trying to do so is fraught with danger because people simply do not fall into neat little categories. That's precisely why I post stuff to illustrate that point with my own movements as a boater without a home mooring. Beyond being simply boaters there are liveboard boaters and non-liveaboard boaters, boaters with a home mooring and boaters without a home mooring. Boaters with home moorings may pay a direct mooring fee to CRT, an indirect levy to CRT, or no contribution from their mooring fee whatsoever. Boaters without a home mooring may pay a direct fee to CRT for winter moorings, no contribution at all or maybe (I'm unsure if it applies) an indirect fee for short term moorings in NCAA marinas. This is where your parity of fee per boater argument falls down a little because to even know the relevant contributions simply between boaters with a home mooring and those without as a whole you'd need to establish the numbers that fall into each category and the fees they pay. For instance I contribute more direct fee to CRT through winter mooring fees than you do from your 9% NCAA contribution in your marina mooring fee. But it's me that pays the licence surcharge not you. There wasn't parity before, there still isn't and there never will be, although it is possibly more equitable now. There's also no absolute reason why there should be, it just seems to appeal to your sense of logic.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.