Roving boaters

[Guest]

Just now, beerbeerbeerbeerbeer said:

Chances are we’ve passed and he’s said nowt,

some folk are like that,

 

 

I'd put money on it.

 

[frangar]

22 minutes ago, M_JG said:

 

Well you see the problem here is the fact that you deserve it. It's a single word, made in response to a massive assumption that you made.

Really?? For making a valid point about how to fund the shortfall in CRT funds? You really can’t help but making a dig can you?  It must be a sad life you lead. 

13 minutes ago, beerbeerbeerbeerbeer said:

Chances are we’ve passed and he’s said nowt,

some folk are like that,

 

Depends if you were being an idiot at the time….if you were I’d soon have pointed it out. I’ll be sure to introduce myself next time. 
 

What’s your suggestion for funding the shortfall in CRT income with a reduced grant? Why shouldn’t those that use more CRT facilities pay extra? Why not pay extra to moor on a towpath in one spot? It’s what most users in london and the like seem to want. 
 

I’ll stand by for the personal insults or mention of Rwanda for some inexplicable reason….

 

Edited November 24, 2023 by frangar

[Guest]

4 minutes ago, frangar said:

Depends if you were being an idiot at the time….if you were I’d soon have pointed it out. I’ll be sure to introduce myself next time. 

 

The problem here is that relies on you recognising his boat name, but not him recognising yours, because he doesn't know it, at least as far as I know he doesn't.

 

So in order to even up the chances of you being able to demonstrate that you'd 'welcome a discussion' as you put it, just send it by PM.

[frangar]

Just now, M_JG said:

 

The problem here is that relies on you recognising his boat name, but not him recognising yours, because he doesn't know it, at least as far as I know he doesn't.

 

So in order to even up the chances of you being able to demonstrate that you'd 'welcome a discussion' as you put it, just send it by PM.

I do love how you need to latch onto others on here to back up your arguments….as I’ve always suspected you are incapable of independent thought….oh and you’d be amazed what’s said about you via DM’s…..

[beerbeerbeerbeerbeer]

1 minute ago, frangar said:

.oh and you’d be amazed what’s said about you via DM’s…..

that’s a cheap shot,

really cheap,

 

 

sounds like  you got mates 🤡

[Guest]

2 minutes ago, frangar said:

I do love how you need to latch onto others on here to back up your arguments….as I’ve always suspected you are incapable of independent thought….oh and you’d be amazed what’s said about you via DM’s…..

 

So have you sent him your boat name?

 

Simple question just answer it.

 

Oh and the DM thing, gosh, how hurtful. I feel wounded and distraught.....😆😆😆😆😆

[frangar]

Just now, beerbeerbeerbeerbeer said:

that’s a cheap shot,

really cheap,

 

 

sounds like  you got mates 🤡

Just telling the truth. Anyhow I’ll be sure to introduce myself should I see you. Feel free to post your ideas on how to increase CRT income at some point. I’ll await them with interest. 

[magnetman]

Charging money on a regional basis for use of towpath moorings really -is- the answer here. 

 

Its not rocket science. This is an asset which the CRT have and they do not take advantage of. 

 

Whether the mechanism exists to do this is a potentially awkward point but at the end of the day this is what needs to be done. By hook or by crook. 

 

In times of financial distress a zero tolerance approach is needed and money needs to be taken. 

 

 

[frangar]

1 minute ago, M_JG said:

 

So have you sent him your boat name?

 

Simple question just answer it.

 

Oh and the DM thing, gosh, how hurtful. I feel wounded and distraught.....😆😆😆😆😆

No need….I promise I’ll introduce myself when I see him. 

[Guest]

9 minutes ago, beerbeerbeerbeerbeer said:

that’s a cheap shot,

really cheap,

 

Not really I've been around far too long to be worried about people saying 'ooh we've been talking about you behind your back, and we don't like you'

 

Last heard when I was at primary school.

 

 

Edited November 24, 2023 by M_JG

[magnetman]

Unfortunately a lot of people won't understand why it is necessary which will mean terrible scumbags like parking enforcement companies will turn up and sort it out. 

It won't be easy. 

 

if more people understood what was going on and paid more via voluntary donations it could all go swimmingly. 

 

 

[frangar]

2 minutes ago, magnetman said:

Charging money on a regional basis for use of towpath moorings really -is- the answer here. 

 

Its not rocket science. This is an asset which the CRT have and they do not take advantage of. 

 

Whether the mechanism exists to do this is a potentially awkward point but at the end of the day this is what needs to be done. By hook or by crook. 

 

In times of financial distress a zero tolerance approach is needed and money needs to be taken. 

 

 

It would actually be beneficial in areas of high use and lack of movement. The user could stay put and CRT would get income. A win all round. 

[Guest]

1 minute ago, frangar said:

No need….I promise I’ll introduce myself when I see him. 

 

How will he/we know you did?

 

You are as I have always said 'full of it frangar'.

[___]

1 hour ago, Alan de Enfield said:

 

C&RT are a limited company and all the assets of the Government owned BW were transferred to the limited company. The over seeing authority for the C&RT Board are the Charity Trustees, (Nothing to do the Parliament or the Civil Service)

 

If you have a look on the C&RT website all of the 2012 documents regarding the formation of C&RT, the Transfer of assets and the role of the Trustees are available.

 

The Board of Trustees :

 

Board of Trustees | Canal & River Trust (canalrivertrust.org.uk)

 

Beneath the Trustees is the Council who are the legal company.

 

 

The Council is made up of up to 50 members and includes a mix of elected and independently nominated individuals together with the six Regional Advisory Board chairs, who are ex officio members.

Council members are the legal company members of the Canal & River Trust. They have responsibilities granted them by the Articles. Council members reflect the wide appeal of the waterways - from boating and angling through to walking and conservation. The Council is chaired by the chair of the Trust Board, David Orr CBE.

The Council is responsible for the appointment of trustees. It debates important points of principle to provide guidance and perspective from different stakeholders, suggesting issues of concern for the Trustees to pursue, and acts as a sounding board for the Trustees in relation to the development of proposals and strategy.

                                                   

CRT is surely owned by the Government.

[beerbeerbeerbeerbeer]

15 minutes ago, M_JG said:

 

How will he/we know you did?

 

You are as I have always said 'full of it frangar'.

sounds like I’m on a promise,

been awhile 😃

[magnetman]

36 minutes ago, Captain Pegg said:

CRT is surely owned by the Government.

 

This is the theory. 

 

https://find-and-update.company-information.service.gov.uk/company/07807276

 

Canal & River Trust 

 

Registered office address

National Waterways Museum Ellesmere Port, South Pier Road, Ellesmere Port, Cheshire, England, CH65 4FW

Company status

Active

Company type

Private Limited Company by guarantee without share capital use of 'Limited' exemption

Incorporated on

12 October 2011

 

Nature of business (SIC)

• 36000 - Water collection, treatment and supply
• 52220 - Service activities incidental to water transportation
• 91020 - Museums activities
• 91030 - Operation of historical sites and buildings and similar visitor attractions

 

 

------------

 

 

Of course there is also Canal & River Trading CIC. 

 

https://find-and-update.company-information.service.gov.uk/company/08069602

 

Registered office address

National Waterways Museum Ellesmere Port, South Pier Road, Ellesmere Port, Cheshire, England, CH65 4FW

Company status

Active

Company type

Private limited Company
Community Interest Company (CIC)

 

Nature of business (SIC)

41100 - Development of building projects 91020 - Museums activities 96090 - Other service activities not elsewhere classified

 

Edited November 25, 2023 by magnetman

[Mike Todd]

10 hours 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. 

 

 

CCer who never moves - contradiction? Or at least an empty set?

 

It is important to bear in mind that the new proposals are for 'boaters without a home mooring'  rather than 'continuous cruisers' - there can be a difference. as your phrase suggests.

6 hours ago, Arthur Marshall said:

The error in the first para is in assuming we all moor in marinas. Many don't. We moor against the edge of the cut, just like continuous cruisers, the only difference being we stay in the same place (rather like a lot of continuous cruisers). Like a marina moorer, we pay a wodge to our landlord. Unlike the marina moorer, who pays to CRT an amount included in his rent, we pay direct to CRT. This IS an additional contribution to CRT. I really can't believe that some still don't accept this. But both types of moorers pay more than what their landlord would charge because CRT want a slice.

But the effect on the canal of an online moorer, whichever side they glue themselves to, is exactly the same (except that only the offside lot pays to CRT). And, judging by the number of CCers who rabbit on about moving as much as ten miles a fortnight (except in winter) , there really isn't much difference between them. I probably do more than that.

However, you are quite right that the licence fee is too low. It should be doubled and the EOG and charge to marinas scrapped. That would be fair on everyone, and we'd all pay the same to CRT, just like we did when I started this lark. If we wanted a mooring, we'd pay the landlord, same as now.

Not all moorers who pay to CRT are offside.

Edited November 25, 2023 by Mike Todd

[blackrose]

19 hours ago, Clanky said:

I have a mooring which I pay for and I’m certainly not in favour. To me, it is a typical divide and conquer tactic and sets people fighting amongst themselves, which is typical of how society is these days, up yours Jack, I’m alright.

 

Indeed. Everyone seemed happy with the "attack on the widebeam community" in the form of licence fee increases and I don't remember anyone on here jumping to our defence, so I'm totally fine seeing other sections of the inland boating community similarly penalised! 🤣

[Naartjie - Duck Hatch]

22 hours ago, blackrose said:

Yes I dare say you're right about that Alan. My understanding is that the surcharge for CCers is 5% on top of the licence fee. Since they are using the system more than anyone else (or meant to be), it doesn't seem that unreasonable to me. In any case I really don't think it amounts to "an attack" by CRT on the CCing community - assuming such a community actually exists outside of some people's imagination.

So if CCers are paying extra because of more use. Should PM not then have limited use of the system. Yes I know that marinas contribute too. But that could be taken into account. 

As the CCers are proposing, if you as a PM use the system for more than X- number of days, you pay a surcharge. If I'm out on the cut for a year and you are out for a year, surely the surcharges should apply to both of us regardless of whether we are a CCer or a PMer

Fair is fair 😀

 

 

Edited November 25, 2023 by Naartjie

[___]

7 hours ago, magnetman said:

 

This is the theory. 

 

https://find-and-update.company-information.service.gov.uk/company/07807276

 

Canal & River Trust 

 

Registered office address

National Waterways Museum Ellesmere Port, South Pier Road, Ellesmere Port, Cheshire, England, CH65 4FW

Company status

Active

Company type

Private Limited Company by guarantee without share capital use of 'Limited' exemption

Incorporated on

12 October 2011

 

Nature of business (SIC)

• 36000 - Water collection, treatment and supply
• 52220 - Service activities incidental to water transportation
• 91020 - Museums activities
• 91030 - Operation of historical sites and buildings and similar visitor attractions

 

 

------------

 

 

Of course there is also Canal & River Trading CIC. 

 

https://find-and-update.company-information.service.gov.uk/company/08069602

 

Registered office address

National Waterways Museum Ellesmere Port, South Pier Road, Ellesmere Port, Cheshire, England, CH65 4FW

Company status

Active

Company type

Private limited Company
Community Interest Company (CIC)

 

Nature of business (SIC)

41100 - Development of building projects 91020 - Museums activities 96090 - Other service activities not elsewhere classified

 

 

That doesn’t answer the question any more than Alan’s snippets.

 

Even CRT themselves are remarkably coy about answering the question directly.

 

The traditional activities of owners are arguably undertaken by the Council of Members but the members do not carry the personal liabilities that come with truly owning a limited company.

 

The real clue lies in the powers of the Secretary of State for DEFRA who is also a member of the council.

 

Somewhere in the background I suspect CRT has one share and it’s owned by HM Government.

 

[Arthur Marshall]

2 hours ago, Naartjie said:

So if CCers are paying extra because of more use. Should PM not then have limited use of the system. Yes I know that marinas contribute too. But that could be taken into account. 

As the CCers are proposing, if you as a PM use the system for more than X- number of days, you pay a surcharge. If I'm out on the cut for a year and you are out for a year, surely the surcharges should apply to both of us regardless of whether we are a CCer or a PMer

Fair is fair 😀

 

 

I've said this before, but as this is the same old argument I'll say it again.

When I started boating, everyone just paid CRT for a licence. Full stop. If they wanted to stay put, they paid someone for a mooring . That was it.

Then BW decided they wanted a cut too, and invented EOG mooring fees for those mooring on the canal. Not, you notice, for those few people wandering about permanently and mooring on the canal, which was sort of fair enough, though most of them certainly didn't move much. There weren't many of them, anyway.

I've always considered this to be a money raising exercise enabling BW to say they were keeping licence costs low while in fact raising them - like a government keeping income tax the same but raising NI (or, as currently, raising IT by freezing allowances and cutting NI to a rate just above what they raised it from a few months ago) and claiming to be cutting rates.

As we all thought at the time, it would have been much simpler just to be honest and double the licence fee and then let boaters choose how they wanted to live, enforcing the CC rules as usual. Instead, what they got was a large number of people pretending to be on a cruise who just parked their boat on the towpath and went back home combined wjth a smaller number who, for work or family reasons, just didn't want to move but didn't want to pay the exorbitant mooring fees - which bore no relation, as they were meant to, to genuine local rates (if they did , mine would be £200, not four times as much).

It's all very inefficient. Much better to dump all the faff and double the licence. They could always impose a congestion charge for London and other popular spots - they already do at Llangollen.

[MtB]

1 hour ago, Captain Pegg said:

 

Somewhere in the background I suspect CRT has one share and it’s owned by HM Government.

 

I'm reasonably certain a company limited by guarantee has no shares. Not even one or it would not need to be limited by guarantee. 

 

The question that leaps out at me is who or what provides the guarantee. 

 

9 minutes ago, Arthur Marshall said:

Then BW decided they wanted a cut too, and invented EOG mooring fees for those mooring on the canal. Not, you notice, for those few people wandering about permanently and mooring on the canal, which was sort of fair enough, though most of them certainly didn't move much. There weren't many of them, anyway.

 

That's partly because back in them days it was illegal to live on a boat. 

 

Someone posted up the bylaw saying so a few months back.

 

Edit to add:

Found it....

General Canal Byelaws 1965

30. No vessel on any canal shall without the permission of the Board

be used as a club, shop, store, workshop, dwelling or houseboat.

 

Thought to have been superceded by the British Waterways Act 1995, see

https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/general_canal_byelaws_1965

 

 

The whole problem could be solved at a stroke by re-instating Bylaw 30.

 

 

 

Edited November 25, 2023 by MtB

[Alan de Enfield]

1 hour ago, Captain Pegg said:

The traditional activities of owners are arguably undertaken by the Council of Members but the members do not carry the personal liabilities that come with truly owning a limited company.

 

I truly own a 'limited company' and my liabilities are 'limited' (hence it is a limited company) to 'a few pounds' so in reality have no personal liabilities.

 

If you read the documents I suggested you will see that the Trustees are the ones legally liable for the company but are indemnified.

 

From the Articles of Association of CRT

Definition of Trustee : "a director of the Trust, and includes any person occupying the position of director, by whatever name called".

 

 

6. Indemnity

Without prejudice to any indemnity to which a Trustee may otherwise be entitled, every Trustee of the Trust shall be indemnified out of the assets of the Trust in relation to any liability incurred by him or her in that capacity but only to the extent permitted by the Companies Acts; and every other officer of the Trust may be indemnified out of the assets of the Trust in relation to any liability incurred by him or her in that capacity, but only to the extent permitted by the Companies Acts

 

and for the (50) members (who control the company)

 

5.2 Every Member of the Trust promises, if the trust is dissolved while he, she or it is a Member or 12 months after he or she ceases to be a Member, to contribute such sum (not exceeding £10) as may be demanded of him or her towards the payment of the debts and liabilities of the Trust incurred before he, she ceases to be a Member, and of the costs, charges and expenses of winding up, and the adjustment of the rights of the contributories among themselves

 

 

 

 

[___]

18 minutes ago, MtB said:

 

I'm reasonably certain a company limited by guarantee has no shares. Not even one or it would not need to be limited by guarantee. 

 

The question that leaps out at me is who or what provides the guarantee. 

 

Not shares in the sense of a plc that’s floated on the stock exchange but I think the description still holds for the distribution of ownership of a company.

 

Be that as it is may your second point is most definitely the relevant one. The answer is HM Government who behind all the fluff of the Board of Trustees, the Council of Members, the Regional Advisory Boards and such are who really carry the can for CRT.

 

 

Edited November 25, 2023 by Captain Pegg

[frangar]

7 minutes ago, Alan de Enfield said:

 

I truly own a 'limited company' and my liabilities are 'limited' (hence it is a limited company) to 'a few pounds' so in reality have no personal liabilities.

 

 

 

 

Unless as I said you as a director are made personally liable for any debts by suppliers. I’ve had a few suppliers say we have to agree or we don’t get a credit account….not an issue for my company as we take care of our cash flow but I suspect they had one too many debts they couldn’t get back….it seems more popular with plant hire companies….and whilst I could go to other hire companies I like using those I know and trust to offer a good service.