Not looking good for us

[peterboat]

3 hours ago, IanD said:

 

And probably wideboats too. Cue screams of protest from anyone who'll end up paying more so that others can pay less (relatively speaking)... 😞

According to most on here, fat boats move the least so they should pay the least. also they dont only try to get away with opening one gate so do less damage to locks

Edited February 16, 2023 by peterboat

[beerbeerbeerbeerbeer]

1 minute ago, peterboat said:

According to most on here, fat boats move the least so they should pay the least. also they dont only try to get away with opening one gate so do less damage to locks

I’m hardly a fan of fat boats but must say I was never for the increase on a fat boat license. 
Seemed a petty way to scrape a few extra pounds of money. 
 

 

[rusty69]

6 minutes ago, peterboat said:

According to most on here, fat boats move the least so they should pay the least. also they dont only try to get away with opening one gate so do less damage to locks

And long boats too. They have access to less of the system. 

[TheBiscuits]

18 minutes ago, rusty69 said:

And long boats too. They have access to less of the system. 

 

Not many longboats on the canals since the Vikings left!

[IanD]

45 minutes ago, peterboat said:

According to most on here, fat boats move the least so they should pay the least. also they dont only try to get away with opening one gate so do less damage to locks

Except the debate that's been running for pages is whether boats in marinas should pay the same as boats moving round the system, and the arguments are the same -- one side thinks they should pay the same regardless of canal use to give a level playing field, the other side thinks they should pay less because they don't use the canals. The only unifying factor is that most people seem to think that either they deserve to pay less or somebody else deserves to pay more... 😉

Edited February 16, 2023 by IanD

[rusty69]

10 minutes ago, TheBiscuits said:

 

Not many longboats on the canals since the Vikings left!

Viking afloat are still around.

 

Which happens to be the first and only hire boat company we ever used. Whitchurch to Llangollen IIRC

[IanD]

1 hour ago, Alan de Enfield said:

 

C&RT repeatedly say that "every kilometre of the system is walked by licence checkers every 14 days"

 

Given the boats I see that have been moored in the same place for more than a year, they can't be doing a very good job... 😞

[Higgs]

46 minutes ago, IanD said:

Except the debate that's been running for pages is whether boats in marinas should pay the same as boats moving round the system, and the arguments are the same -- one side thinks they should pay the same regardless of canal use to give a level playing field, the other side thinks they should pay less because they don't use the canals. The only unifying factor is that most people seem to think that either they deserve to pay less or somebody else deserves to pay more... 😉

 

Should pay nothing, if they don't use or enter the waterway. If they do not cross the land boundary that runs across the entrance of a marina, boats remain on private property. And if that is case, year in, year out, those boats are not subject to the law requiring a licence. The law does not extend onto private property. 

 

 

 

 

Edited February 16, 2023 by Higgs

[beerbeerbeerbeerbeer]

1 hour ago, Alan de Enfield said:

 

 

C&RT repeatedly say that "every kilometre of the system is walked by licence checkers every 14 days"

which is evidence they’re not able to monitor all the 7day, 2day, 1day or what ever time restraints they keep messing about with.  
 

 

[beerbeerbeerbeerbeer]

5 minutes ago, Higgs said:

 

Should pay nothing, if they don't use or enter the waterway. If they do not cross the land boundary that runs across the entrance of a marina, boats remain on private property. And if that is case year in, year out, those boats are not subject to the law requiring a licence. The law does not extend onto private property. 

 

 

 

 

Higgs, I’ve got to ask the obvious,

why would you not want to take your boat out for a spin?

 

You can only be arguing this from a hypothetical point of view? unless of course a disability stops you taking the boat out and then I’m sorry that’s the case. 
 

But most will find this an odd argument, having a boat and not go boating?

But again I guess there are reasons, but 🤷‍♀️ I don’t understand. 
 

 

[Higgs]

..

Edited February 16, 2023 by Higgs

[Higgs]

14 minutes ago, Goliath said:

Higgs, I’ve got to ask the obvious,

why would you not want to take your boat out for a spin?

 

You can only be arguing this from a hypothetical point of view? unless of course a disability stops you taking the boat out and then I’m sorry that’s the case. 
 

But most will find this an odd argument, having a boat and not go boating?

But again I guess there are reasons, but 🤷‍♀️ I don’t understand. 
 

 

 

It isn't hypothetical. Many people never take their boats out. One obvious reason - people become infirm, but still enjoy visiting the boat. People who are working, as in my case, there's not a lot to see, once you've done the local bits, and a bit further. People who simply have the boat to live on. 

 

It is a personal choice, when all said and done. The canal and boating don't even have to figure. 

 

 

Edited February 16, 2023 by Higgs

[Alan de Enfield]

49 minutes ago, IanD said:

 

Given the boats I see that have been moored in the same place for more than a year, they can't be doing a very good job... 😞

 

All they do is report the 'non-movement' it's then down to 'C&RT HQ' to start the enforcement process.

[beerbeerbeerbeerbeer]

12 minutes ago, Higgs said:

 

It isn't hypothetical. Many people never take their boats out. One obvious reason - people become infirm, but still enjoy visiting the boat. People who are working, as in my case, there's not a lot to see, once you've done the local bits, and a bit further. People who simply have the boat to live on. 

 

It is a personal choice, when all said and done. The canal and boating don't even have to figure. 

 

 

Yes ok, fair enough then. 
I understand the reasons you’ve given. 
Hadn’t given any thought to those who are unable to boat now but visit their boat because they simply enjoy being on it when they can. 

 

..but sadly their boats still need a license
 

 
 

[Higgs]

5 minutes ago, Goliath said:

Yes ok, fair enough then. 
I understand the reasons you’ve given. 
Hadn’t given any thought to those who are unable to boat now but visit their boat because they simply enjoy being on it when they can. 

 

..but sadly their boats still need a license

 

Yes, they do, if or when they pass the land boundary of the marina. But having said that, moorers also have extra cost - the access fee - 9% of the mooring fee. A double hit. 

 

Don't confuse the law with marina terms and conditions. 

 

 

Edited February 16, 2023 by Higgs

[Ronaldo47]

16 minutes ago, Higgs said:

 

It isn't hypothetical. Many people never take their boats out. One obvious reason - people become infirm, but still enjoy visiting the boat. People who are working, as in my case, there's not a lot to see, once you've done the local bits, and a bit further. People who simply have the boat to live on. 

When I was working in Chelmsford, one of ny colleagues had a canal  boat that he kept in a marina in the Midlands. He had clients in Coventry and the surrounding area that he visited on a weekly basis, and rather than use a hotel, he used to stay overnight on his boat. 

[Guest]

7 minutes ago, Goliath said:

..but sadly their boats still need a license

 

Which they very well know when they buy a boat. Even if they don't plan to move it from day one.

 

Unless of course they are in a marina where no licence is required.

 

So all this carping about it being 'unfair' is pretty pointless really. 

 

 

Edited February 16, 2023 by M_JG

[IanD]

33 minutes ago, Alan de Enfield said:

 

All they do is report the 'non-movement' it's then down to 'C&RT HQ' to start the enforcement process.

 

Whether it's the fault of the license checkers or the CART enforcement team, they don't seem to be doing a very good job -- or even a barely adequate one -- of enforcing the CC rules, or mooring restrictions like 48h/14d.

 

Rules like these are effectively useless if large numbers of people flaunt them with impunity and little or no sanction for breaking them... 😞

[magnetman]

It is a BS argument to say boats in marinas, which are floating on water provided by the canal, should not be paying for a license. 

 

One way of dealing with this would be to have two types of marina. One of them is connected to the canal and available for people who take the boat out now and then and happy to pay for this option. The other type would be a non connected lake who has the responsibility to provide their own water supply. 

 

I really don't think water supply should be ignored here. 

 

Maybe people don't know about this but if you want your boat to float then you do actually need to have water under it. It's one of those curious and rather old fashioned laws of physics. 

 

Floating objects need a body of water to support them. I think it's a buoyancy thing. 

 

You can put a cork in a glass full of water. It will float. Take away the water and the cork will no longer be floating. 

 

It isn't all that complicated. 

It is a BS argument to say boats in marinas, which are floating on water provided by the canal, should not be paying for a license. 

 

. 

Edited February 16, 2023 by magnetman
Remove double post

[Higgs]

2 minutes ago, M_JG said:

 

Which they very well know when they buy a boat. Even if they don't plan to move it from day one.

 

Unless of course they are in a marina where no licence is required.

 

So all this carping about it being 'unfair' is pretty pointless really. 

 

They're told they need a licence, but what they don't tell is, it isn't by law, in a marina. 

 

 

[magnetman]

2 minutes ago, IanD said:

 

Whether it's the fault of the license checkers or the CART enforcement team, they don't seem to be doing a very good job -- or even a barely adequate one -- of enforcing the CC rules, or mooring restrictions like 48h/14d.

 

Rules like these are effectively useless if large numbers of people flaunt them with impunity and little or no sanction for breaking them... 😞

I think ignoring a problem until it becomes serious could be a good way to force changes. 

[Guest]

Just now, Higgs said:

 

They're told they need a licence, but what they don't tell is, it isn't by law, in a marina. 

 

 

 

No its marina terms and conditions, so they should move to a marina that doesnt stipulate it.

 

If you cant find a space then sell the boat.

[IanD]

3 minutes ago, magnetman said:

I think ignoring a problem until it becomes serious could be a good way to force changes. 

Which is exactly what has happened over recent years with the rise of CMers, insufficient maintenance, water shortages -- but no sign of any big changes (yet) as a result... :-(

[Higgs]

14 minutes ago, M_JG said:

 

No its marina terms and conditions, so they should move to a marina that doesnt stipulate it.

 

If you cant find a space then sell the boat.

 

The marina isn't the law. Unless you think the marina can write the law. It doesn't have the legal authority. It is obliged by contract. The licence is attached to a legal requirement, not a business setup. 

 

Who has authority, in a marina? 

 

 

Edited February 16, 2023 by Higgs

[magnetman]

1 minute ago, IanD said:

Which is exactly what has happened over recent years with the rise of CMers, insufficient maintenance, water shortages -- but no sign of any big changes (yet) as a result... :-(

 

Exactly. Nothing happening yet but I don't think it will take long.