Roving boaters

[IanD]

3 minutes ago, beerbeerbeerbeerbeer said:

 

name calling again,

You really are c#nt,

 

You started it.

 

And carefully ignored the question, so I'll return the compliment.

 

Bye bye.

 

2 minutes ago, rusty69 said:

A sail is the proper way to propel a boat. 

Tricky on the UK canals, though. Or are you suggesting that sewer tubes aren't proper boats? 😉

Edited November 24, 2023 by IanD

[magnetman]

Also sailing is a bit like refusing to eat bacon. 

 

 

[rusty69]

3 minutes ago, IanD said:

You started 

 

Tricky on the UK canals, though. Or are you suggesting that sewer tubes aren't proper boats? 😉

Of course they aren't proper boats. I suppose you could #unt it, as suggested above. 

[magnetman]

Fewer poles since Brexit..

[rusty69]

3 minutes ago, magnetman said:

Also sailing is a bit like refusing to eat bacon. 

 

 

Care to enlighten as to why? 

[Mike Todd]

5 hours ago, Alan de Enfield said:

 

What additional complexities are there ?

 

You already declare, either 'a home mooring' or a 'no home mooring'

 

The fees are listed by length for each 'type' (declaration).

 

"It's not rocket science" !

 

 

I think what was being referred to was what to do about boaters who have a home mooring for part of a year and then go without for the rest of the year. 

 

At one stage, with our previous boat, we tried to comply with the requirement (even if it had no real impact) by changing our status every time we went into or out of as marina - might be up to 10 times in a year (winter marina mooring plus 4 short term marina moorings). Since nothing seemed to happen with our input we eventually gave up bothering and no-one ever asked about it! Just made sure that we renewed our licence during the winter mooring period! When it was a gold licence that was inevitable. We now have a year round mooring (different marina) as we want to guarantee being able to come back.

 

Once the declaration has a financial implication there will be a temptation to 'adjust' the dates to reduce the surcharges, I guess. This will then become a bit of a nightmare for enforcement staff. At the moment the towpath staff only need to know that a boat is licenced not what type it is. (OK they can tell from the printed licence which a declining number of boats seem to display). But there would be an issue with knowing whether the currently displayed licence is correct - a date is no longer sufficient to determine validity.

 

I could witter on in similar vein. As always, people devise new schemes which appear to work well for 99% of the cases but then end up spending 99% of the budget on dealing with the marginal cases.

[magnetman]

6 minutes ago, rusty69 said:

Care to enlighten as to why? 

 

 

Fridges and diesel engines have been around for ages.

 

[IanD]

9 minutes ago, rusty69 said:

Of course they aren't proper boats. I suppose you could #unt it, as suggested above. 

I say, I say -- what's the difference between a pint of Watneys and making love in a punt?

[rusty69]

Just now, IanD said:

I say, I say -- what's the difference between a pint of Watneys and making love in a punt?

Go on...... 

2 minutes ago, magnetman said:

 

 

Fridges and diesel engines have been around for ages.

 

I see. Thanks for making it clear for me. 

[IanD]

Just now, rusty69 said:

Go on...... 

 

Nothing -- they're both f*cking close to water... 🙂

[Annie cariad]

If anyone can stand up and be counted/honest ..... What percentage of "CC" do that this forum is full of posts about overstaying,boats sat on locks ,organised CC mooring swops etc . If CRT did its job ie enforcement the CC community would use the network more however it's just not the case . All this is doing is recovering lost long term/winter CRT mooring revenue . 

[beerbeerbeerbeerbeer]

12 minutes ago, IanD said:

You started it.

now that really is childish,

and no I didn’t ‘start it’,

you started the name calling,

and I’m going to tell my mum 

14 minutes ago, IanD said:

And carefully ignored the question, so I'll return the compliment.

would you have been happy having your boat delivered in the same state?

 

now please explain your logic how a CCer who never moves should pay a surcharge for using the system more?

 

 

don’t expect to give CCrs a bashing with your imaginary arguments and not have to take it back. 

 

 

[Guest]

18 minutes ago, IanD said:

You started it.

 

And carefully ignored the question, so I'll return the compliment.

 

Bye bye.

 

Tricky on the UK canals, though. Or are you suggesting that sewer tubes aren't proper boats? 😉

 

I think you are completely wrong there fella.

 

The actual name calling was very firmly and 100% initiated by you. The previous comment was about your boating handling ability (or lack of).

1 minute ago, beerbeerbeerbeerbeer said:

now that really is childish,

and no I didn’t ‘start it’,

you started the name calling,

and I’m going to tell my mum 

would you have been happy having your boat delivered in the same state?

 

now please explain your logic how a CCer who never moves should pay a surcharge for using the system more?

 

 

don’t expect to give CCrs a bashing with your imaginary arguments and not have to take it back. 

 

 

 

Worry not, I think the 'bye bye' signals you are back on his 'naughty step'. 

[Peanut]

19 minutes ago, Alan de Enfield said:

 

(Corrected that for you)

 

As Beery says :

 

 

No, dear Alan, you are quite wrong.

To take a home mooring is a choice, and they quite likely use the canal system intensely when they can, possibly motivated to get value from the discretionary spending they have made. Whereas, a boater who navigates the system won't be in such a hurry to, "pack it all in"  the limited time available to a pleasure boater, and may not use the infrastructure any more than they do, or as intensely.

There is no reason they should be subsidised, just because they chose not to use their boat, except when it suits them. They still benefit from the canal being there, at their call, when they are moored up, which involves CRT in the cost of its upkeep. There can be no reason why they should receive a discount, they can use the canal whenever they choose, it has to be maintained and available for them. It is pure greed, they want their leisure boating to be subsidised by others. Their version of the give me culture.

 

[beerbeerbeerbeerbeer]

19 minutes ago, M_JG said:

 

I think you are completely wrong there fella.

 

The actual name calling was very firmly and 100% initiated by you. The previous comment was about your boating handling ability (or lack of).

Well,

if he weren’t so vociferously against CCers I wouldn’t wind him up. 
 

 

Edited November 24, 2023 by beerbeerbeerbeerbeer

[IanD]

29 minutes ago, Peanut said:

No, dear Alan, you are quite wrong.

To take a home mooring is a choice, and they quite likely use the canal system intensely when they can, possibly motivated to get value from the discretionary spending they have made. Whereas, a boater who navigates the system won't be in such a hurry to, "pack it all in"  the limited time available to a pleasure boater, and may not use the infrastructure any more than they do, or as intensely.

There is no reason they should be subsidised, just because they chose not to use their boat, except when it suits them. They still benefit from the canal being there, at their call, when they are moored up, which involves CRT in the cost of its upkeep. There can be no reason why they should receive a discount, they can use the canal whenever they choose, it has to be maintained and available for them. It is pure greed, they want their leisure boating to be subsidised by others. Their version of the give me culture.

 

I'm confused -- what is this "discount" that you think that home moorers (or possibly CMers) are getting?

 

CART maintain the canal system so it can be used by all types of boater (well, cyclists and fishermen according to some...) and they need money to pay for this.

 

From CCers what they get is the license fee, typically about £1000 or so. From HMers in private marinas or moorings they get this plus a fraction (9%?) of the mooring fees; if we assume an average of £3000 per year (is this reasonable?) this gets CART another £270 a year. Of course the HMers are also getting all the wonderful marina/mooring advantages too, but surely it doesn't seem unreasonable that both CCers and HMers should contribute the same amount to CART, since they can (if they choose to use the canals) receive the same benefits?

 

On this basis a 25% surcharge for CCers seems perfectly reasonable, which is what CART are going to gradually bring in.

 

If you disagree and think this is somehow "unfair" to CCers, what's the reason?

Edited November 24, 2023 by IanD

[beerbeerbeerbeerbeer]

9 minutes ago, IanD said:

If you disagree and think this is somehow "unfair" to CCers, what's the reason?

I think Peanut has explained their reasoning very clearly. 
 

Ironically, do you realise using the acronym CART is derogatory?

 

If you really want to show your support/respect for CRT then you should say; the CRT, C&RT or simply CRT,

to keep referring to them as CART is showing your ignorance. 
 

 

 

 

[magnetman]

I think when they transferred from  BW they made a mistake it should have been called the Cyclists and Ramblers Trust.

 

 

[Ianws]

25 minutes ago, IanD said:

I'm confused -- what is this "discount" that you think that home moorers (or possibly CMers) are getting?

 

CART maintain the canal system so it can be used by all types of boater (well, cyclists and fishermen according to some...) and they need money to pay for this.

 

From CCers what they get is the license fee, typically about £1000 or so. From HMers in private marinas or moorings they get this plus a fraction (9%?) of the mooring fees; if we assume an average of £3000 per year (is this reasonable?) this gets CART another £270 a year. Of course the HMers are also getting all the wonderful marina/mooring advantages too, but surely it doesn't seem unreasonable that both CCers and HMers should contribute the same amount to CART, since they can (if they choose to use the canals) receive the same benefits?

 

On this basis a 25% surcharge for CCers seems perfectly reasonable, which is what CART are going to gradually bring in.

 

If you disagree and think this is somehow "unfair" to CCers, what's the reason?

As @Arthur Marshall has mentioned a few times he pays more to CRT for his farmers field end of garden mooring than to the farmer. . I'm in a similar position. For our 30ft boat we pay quite a bit more to CRT than £270. 

[MtB]

As a home moorer with a CRT on-line mooring, I pay CRT in the region of £5k a year.

 

[beerbeerbeerbeerbeer]

about time you took a boat out then,

innit,

31 minutes ago, magnetman said:

I think when they transferred from  BW they made a mistake it should have been called the Cyclists and Ramblers Trust.

 

 

There’s a couple of reasons why they wouldn’t use the word Navigation in there

[Midnight]

1 hour ago, IanD said:

................

CART maintain the canal system apart from in Yorkshire, so it can be used by all types of boater (well, cyclists and fishermen according to some...) and they need money to pay for this....

 

 
There I fixed it for you.
Home moorers in Yorkshire should receive a discount! Boaters travelling over the Pennines should receive an MBE.

 

 

 

Edited November 24, 2023 by Midnight

[Captain Pegg]

A change to the licensing regime will attract regulatory scrutiny and CRT will need a fairly straightforward explanation for their proposals.

 

Although @beerbeerbeerbeerbeer mentioned usage of the system above (I’d quote it if I could find it) I suspect the distinction is about access to services.
 

As a home moorer you are paying for rubbish, elsan and water amongst other things in your mooring fees and those are also included in the licence fee. That’s the simplest logic for lower licence fees for home moorers that I can see.

 

There are 30,000+ licence holders and 30,000+ subtly different ways of boating so there is no single equitable method of charging. The logic of everyone paying the same for access to the system is sound, as are the new proposals. If they weren’t neither would - or will - prevail.

 

Edited November 24, 2023 by Captain Pegg

[beerbeerbeerbeerbeer]

2 minutes ago, Captain Pegg said:

Although @beerbeerbeerbeerbeer mentioned usage of the system above (I’d quote it if I could find it) I suspect the distinction is about access to services.

yes, my comment was particular to the usage of the system rather than usage of facilities on the system 

 

so noddy boaters go on busting the bricks and mortar,

while CCers pay for it with the surcharge. 
 

i could make a case with holiday boaters using the facilities more than a CCer.

 

 

[Captain Pegg]

1 minute ago, beerbeerbeerbeerbeer said:

yes, my comment was particular to the usage of the system rather than usage of facilities on the system 

 

so noddy boaters go on busting the bricks and mortar,

while CCers pay for it with the surcharge. 
 

i could make a case with holiday boaters using the facilities more than a CCer.

 

 

We all pay the same for that and that’s how it should be.

 

You know very well that good boaters and bad boaters aren’t exclusive or even predominant in any of the stereotypical boating groups.

 

As I said (or at least tried to infer) it isn’t about the actual volume of use; it’s about the payment for having access to those facilities.