rowland al
-
Posts
516 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
2
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Gallery
Blogs
Store
Posts posted by rowland al
-
-
Just now, Matt&Jo said:
So....roooookie error
I filled up the old girl last week and diesel treated etc etc ya know that winterisation rubbish and afyer coming bk from the fuel pontoon 1 forgot to grease ones glands......ooooooooo....eeeeeeeerrrrr so its been a few days....should i make the hour journey to greasr my gland or as it was a 5 min trip will it be a wasted journey.....
Will my boat still be afloat!!!!!
The fact you are worried about it enough to write on here, I’d say go back and deal with your fears. Either that or you will waste a couple of hours reading this thread. ?
-
1
-
-
A packet of brazil nuts from my gran (after being told after eating them that she’d sucked the chocolate off).
-
2
-
2
-
-
36 minutes ago, rusty69 said:
Good luck to her. I hope it turns out ok.
Sounds like it pitchpoled like Tzu Hang all those years ago.
Yep, at least she has more balls than most of us.
-
4 minutes ago, Mad Harold said:
I used to have a girlfriend who was rather "noisy"
I used to put a pillow over her face at her climax. Not hard enough to suffocate her you understand,but enough to muffle the howl.
Sadly those days have long gone........sigh.
The pillow will be much cheaper and less hassle than trying to soundproof your boat.
Yes, and even cheaper not to have a girlfriend.
-
1 hour ago, alan_fincher said:
In which case, if there really is another entire sub-section on an alternate "forum" dedicated to analysing what goes on here, what does that say about the people who make that their hobby?
Or was the post that said that just a joke, and in fact do people in the other place now show no interest in CWDF?From what I can see over there, all kinds of subjects are discussed. As mentioned, It’s obvious there will be cross pollination due to some members being members of both forums, not to mention those who were pushed off here because they had an alternative view to people such as yourself.
Forums are predominately a form of entertainment (so shouldn’t be taken too seriously) but they do have some useful information at times (again shouldn’t be taken too seriously). Analysis of each other’s behaivior is fascinating at times and we can all learn from it. Good to see you participating in this analysis.
-
48 minutes ago, alan_fincher said:
Well a boy has got to have a hobby!It seems to me that it is this forum which treats it’s members as children.
-
1
-
-
9 minutes ago, Tanglewood said:
Well no Tax is a mechanism for pay-as-you-go services. And there are other similarities too, there are people who are exempt, just as there are properties that are exempt. But the fact remains, that unless lawful (as opposed to under the counter) exemptions apply, boats used as a main residence, occupying a specific berth for more than 28 consecutive days in a calendar year ought to have planning permission and thence to become liable for Council Tax.
Well this is probably because CRT is not a Housing Association, so could not offer him a residential mooring, and the Marina Operator was refusing to turn a blind eye, so he was homeless. Living on a boat 'per se' does not count as being homeless, but not being able to give a permanent address does.
Tanglewood, The first of the two posts you quoted was from Tacet, not me!
-
19 minutes ago, Tacet said:
These are laudable services. But the Council tax is a tax on the occupation of property - and not a mechanism to pay-as-you-go services consumed. You are in essence, only obliged to pay if you occupy (as defined) property. If you don't occupy property - you are not subject to the tax.
Non-domestic rates and other forms of taxation contribute towards the same services. There can't be many volunteers to pay capital gains tax, corporation tax, stamp duty land tax, landfill tax or VAT from the otherwise non-liable persons. So why should you expect someone to pay Council Tax - other than where it is due?
Just to add another swerve ball to this argument. I know of someone who was told they could no longer stay on a mooring because it wasn’t officially residential.
The council ended up offering council accommodation (which was accepted) on the basis that ‘living on a boat’ was assessed as being ‘homeless’ status. So if ‘living on a boat’ is not treated as occupying a property, then maybe that’s why council tax doesn’t apply. I’m not sure if all councils would think the same way though.
Don’t forget that live aboard boaters miss out on some benefits which come with being on the council register, like jury service. ?
-
2 minutes ago, Tanglewood said:
I did not compare an ISA to a carrot - I was merely pointing out that the Government chooses to levy tax on all sorts of different products - it chooses not to tax carrots but does tax chocolate biscuits. It doesn't tax unearned income from ISAs but it does tax other types of unearned income. We are not required to pay tax on carrots (or potatoes unless they are made into crisps) or ISAs but we do have to make a contribution to the services the local Authorities provide, and the mechanism for this payment for services is Council Tax, which is levied on main residences. From the average Council Tax bill :
£112.00 goes towards education
£104.67 to Roads
£61.80 to buses to
£214.77 to Looked after Children
£451.12 to Looked after vulnerable adults
£61.51 towards preventing homelessness
£99.97 to Museums and Art Galleries
£109.95to bin collections and recycling
£25.40 to street cleaning/flood defence
£29.80 to Trading Standards and Food Safety
£50.65 to Planning
£98.65 Coroners Courts Registrars and other admin
£47.27 to Long term investment
Now I know some of my boat licence fee goes towards refuse sites - but I don't think any goes to any other of the above listed services.
Is the long term investment kept in offshore Accounts? (I’ll get My Coat)
-
1
-
-
1 hour ago, Naughty Cal said:
We probably all do have money in offshore accounts.
Who knows what the banks and investment companies do with our money!
Hmm..good point. I suppose we are all part of one big tangled web really. ?
-
15 minutes ago, doratheexplorer said:
You speak for yourself. That sort of thing disgusts me. Next time you read about some poor sod dying of winter cold because the DWP stopped their benefits, try and make the connection with your behaviour.
Couldn’t agree more except I have no offshore accounts and don’t participate in any creative accounting.
-
59 minutes ago, Mike Todd said:
Yup - the problem is that (which I realised as I wrote wot I did) is that one person's tax avoidance is another person's tax planning.
I would guess that creative accounting and putting money in offshore accounts loses more potential tax revenue than a handful of CC’er live aboards not being able to pay council tax!
-
2 hours ago, Naughty Cal said:
Yes. But if they are complying with the conditions then they are doing nothing wrong.
Exactly, and before people accuse others of ‘playing the game’ it might be wise to judge ourselves before pointing fingers.
For example, how many of us have off shore bank accounts or have used ‘creative accounting’ to pay less tax?
I suppose it all comes back to the balance between what you put in and what you take out again. Most of the important stuff had nothing to do with money, it’s to do with how we spend our time with others.
-
8 minutes ago, Tanglewood said:
You are quite right and I apologise for the lazy expression which may me suggest that. I recognise that no mechanism exists.
But if such a mechanism existed - do you think those who currently benefit from not paying £1500 pa form an orderly queue in order to pay it?
To be honest, probably not. Well to be fair, how many of us pay out for things when we don’t have to?!
Also bear in mind there is a slight overlap between what the licence fee covers and council tax. Rubbish disposal and maintainence of shared surroundings for example.
As I have said in another thread, I think many boaters give back a lot more than just money to society.
-
There’s a couple in a hire boat behind me. The lady told me she has terminal cancer. She’s hired the boat because they wanted to enjoy her last days cruising.
Isn’t it lovely they can do that still? Sorry to pull any heart strings but it made me think.
-
13 hours ago, LadyG said:
Where are they going to get the cash?
Perhaps by using money which may be being wasted on pointless ‘initiatives’ (e.g re-branding, licence reviews) and empire building.
If C&RT were more open about their true objectives and avoided withholding/spinning information, they would probably receive more in donations from the public as we would have more confidence and respect for them.
They do get some things right. After all there is a certain degree of maintenance, just not enough when it comes to maintaining the navigation for boaters.
I wonder whether the problem is that boaters are only seen for their financial contribution. I mean, the income from the tax payer as a whole and way leave charges, far exceed what boaters financially contribute. (yes, most boaters are also tax payers).
So how much do boaters contribute in non-financial ways? I’ll start -
By maintaining our heriatage of historic boats.
By providing entertainment to the general public (especially in locks!).
By contributing to public events with craft and food sale boats.
By providing charitable help (trip boats for less abled and educational purposes).
By maintaining the Timothy and Pru dream to be able to cruise the whole system. (back to use it or lose it again)
By maintaining a lifestyle which is a microcosm of the world we would all like to live in. (I’m seeing more selfishness creep in more recently though ? )
To maintain the dream for those clinging onto life in the hope that one day they can escape ‘the system’ (I did say ‘dream’ lol but sometimes it’s all we have)
Feel free to add to the list.
-
4
-
-
24 minutes ago, Alan de Enfield said:
It is amazing that 2 people could be so easily hoodwinked.
?
I think it’s been a very interesting exercise especially as the vote wasn’t just restricted to boaters.
-
1 hour ago, Arthur Marshall said:
- Nor do I care much if CRT go broke, I don't expect it'll affect me if they do -
- I don't care much either what happens to CCers -
So why contribute on things you don’t care about?
I think that’s half of the problem, not enough people left who actually care.
-
2 hours ago, ditchcrawler said:
What about ones who live in marinas on non residential moorings and don't pay even band A
This is the information from the Terms and Conditions at the Marina we are in
- The Marina is not an approved residential mooring. The planning conditions for the marina state that the maximum period of stay on board a Boat within the marina shall be restricted to two consecutive weeks in any 12 month period. Owners are expected to comply with this condition.
I wasn’t talking about live aboard boaters in marinas.
-
18 hours ago, Tanglewood said:
Those who do not contribute are benefit cheats.
No, a benefit cheat is someone who claims benefits but doesn’t comply with the required criteria.
Live aboard boaters with no home mooring have no mechanism to contribute to, so it’s not a question of ‘they do not’ it’s that ‘they can not’.
I’d be happy to contribute as a live aboard if there was some way it could be included in the licence fee. However it seems that this can’t be done in practice due to the number of different council regions a roaming boater may pass through. I also suspect the cost to set up such a mechanism would be uneconomical.
-
1
-
-
44 minutes ago, TheBiscuits said:
The official designation is "boat without a home mooring", which is fairly self explanatory.
But being logical, what has ‘continuous cruising’ got to do with not having a home mooring? You can have a home mooring and still ‘continuously cruise’ the system.
It’s the designation, or use of the CC term which seems to get some knickers in a twist causing people to argue about how far and how long a ‘CC’er’ should travel.There is no such definition in law, it’s something made up by C&RT/BWB.
The term ‘navigate’ is used in the act, which could equate to ‘cruise’, but where did the ‘continuous’ bit come from?
-
1
-
-
8 hours ago, Arthur Marshall said:
I don't think I said anywhere that to comply with the letter of the law you had to live on your boat.
My point is that CRT need to raise some money. I can see them arguing that weekending is not continuous cruising, which is supposed to be continuous, not in short jerky movements. Someone who weekends their boat probably does less actual boating in a year than most leisure boaters (who stump up a load of dosh in mooring fees), and someone in CRT is going to notice this sooner or later. They will then point out that a weekender's boat is probably actually moored up for longer than mine is (for example), and wonder why they get more money from me but not from the guy who leaves his boat moored for most of the year, just clogs up the towpath in different places.
As they still, sort of, come under the legal definition of continuous cruising, CRT will need a way to raise their licence fees. They will do this by pointing out that if someone is actually going to be a continuous cruiser, they should also be continuously on their boat because otherwise they can't continuously cruise and therefore must be resident, and therefore will pay a residential licence. Whether they can then wave a council tax bill around will be irrelevant. Two level of licence, leisure (for people with moorings) and residential (for those living on, continuous cruisers and the short jerky movers). And more money for CRT.
Whether I agree with it or not is irrelevant, as, probably, are the finer legal aspects. It's all about money.
And don't start going on that as a leisure boater I must hate CCers, which is usually the next step when someone points anything out which affects them. A fair few of us have been both, and are quite well aware that without the real CCers the system would have degraded a lot faster and a lot earlier that it has. And personally, I don't have a problem with dumped boats, or people living where they technically shouldn't, nor, in fact, with unlicenced boats. Everybody needs a roof. I repeat, it's all about money, and sometimes it's best to think about it and be prepared rather than just be astonished when it happens. Like we all were when mooring fees suddenly happened to us.
I think some take the the word ‘continuously’ too literally. In fact the law only uses that word to state that you must not remain in the same place ‘continuously’. for more than 14 days i.e it’s Ok to be a ‘continuous’ moorer for up to 14 days. ?
I don’t know who came up with the CC’er definition (C&RT?) but it’s a silly definition as clearly nobody can actually cruise continuously, and why should they?
The spirit of the law is to let people enjoy exploring the system without having to pay for a permanent mooring they wouldn’t use. Maybe they should call it a ‘roaming licence’?
It sounds like a permanent mooring suits your situation. What I don’t understand is why some people still try to stir up trouble when they also have a choice?
if you are really concerned about C&RT funding then why not write to them and complain about the money they have been wasting instead of using silly arguments against those who are just trying to enjoy exploring?
By the way, I don’t think you hate ‘CC’ers’ but do I detect maybe you think we are all free loaders?
-
1
-
-
If we have to resort to electric motors for our boats in the future, and someone devises a hydro electric generator for locks, we could charge up while in locks. ?
-
The best way to be ‘green’ is to reduce consumption in the first place.
-
1
-
CRT booking facility
in General Boating
Posted
Just tried booking the Anderton lift for October 31st 2119 , but according to CRT it’s fully booked. Oh, dear. I was hoping to celebrate the 100 years of being free of EU control. ?