A CC supporter on You Tube

[Higgs]

7 minutes ago, frangar said:

And the cash to run the system comes from where?? 

 

From somewhere legitimately liable. And those moorers in NAA marinas are also hit for the cost of access. 

 

 

Edited January 3 by Higgs

[frangar]

5 minutes ago, Higgs said:

 

From somewhere legitimately liable.

 

 

And that source is what exactly?  Perhaps all those without a home mooring should be charged 200% extra ……

[Higgs]

10 minutes ago, frangar said:

And that source is what exactly?  Perhaps all those without a home mooring should be charged 200% extra ……

 

A talked-about rate has already been around. But the government should back their national heritage advert. Loose change, when you consider what is being forked out to businesses.

 

 

 

 

10 minutes ago, frangar said:

And that source is what exactly?  Perhaps all those without a home mooring should be charged 200% extra ……

 

Home mooring is not a legal requirement. So, you come up with some silly rule to imply usage. That is already implied when people buy a licence, but now, people will be measured for extra payment. Including home moorers.

 

 

 

 

Edited January 3 by Higgs

[magnetman]

No government is going to give a monkeys about canals. 

 

It is not a priority. 

 

I thought this had been established ages ago. 

 

The CRT need to sort out what they want to do with the towpaths. 

 

[Higgs]

Just now, magnetman said:

No government is going to give a monkeys about canals. 

 

 

 

Why do you expect people in marinas that never use the canal will give it priority either, unless by force?

 

 

[Mike Todd]

21 hours ago, Alan de Enfield said:

 

 

The fact that C&RT tell a CC'er that if they pay 'protection money' they will not enforce the legal requirement to move every 14 days and they can stay in one place for up to 5 months, even tho' they have made a CC declaration to get the licence.

 

A bit like the ULEZ - don't come in our area with your dirty, polluting, car - think of the children !

On the other hand, yes, go on, you can come if you pay us £12.50 (or whatever) and 'sod the children'

So, would you rather that no-HM boaters should not be offered a winter opportunity? Even if it leads to a significant rise in overstaying?

 

Since CaRT have the power to designate locations for mooring (like those run by Waterside) and to charge for them, it is likely that a court would accept the legitimacy of Winter Moorings, by implication that this is not 'protection money'. 

 

BTW, I do like your comparison with ULEZ (for similar reasons!) 

21 hours ago, Arthur Marshall said:

About as sensible as anything you write. Currently I pay over a grand in mooring charges, most of it direct to CRT, so why I'm being miserly when I'm paying what's due without whinging I don't know. And I never said you were a miser, just a hypocrite unwilling to stand up for the "principles" you preach about. I notice you ignore that point, while typically shifting the argument to something I never said. By the way, I moor on farms because I like them and I could afford them. Not all of us are rolling in money, but we still pay our way without complaint.

If you define yourself as a cheapskate, that's fine, but don't bring me into it. I'll not respond to anything else you write, because it really is just a waste of time and I've got euphoniums to play.

At least they can make a sweet sound!

21 hours ago, Arthur Marshall said:

No more a "home mooring" than one paid for at Llangollen, or if a Ccer puts the boat in a marina for a few weeks while on holiday elsewhere. I think there's another thread somewhere which implied a home mooring had to be taken for a full year. And as we know CRT can charge for towpath moorings if they wish, so no problem.

That doesn't even make sense.... any chance of a translation into English? On second thoughts...

The 'new' classification is a Boater without a Home Mooring - in other words, this is defined by omission rather than commission. The full year bit only impacts if a boater seeks to pay HM rates when in a marina whilst accepting the surcharge when not. 

 

If a winter mooring is to be considered a Home Mooring then we get quite a mess with the surcharges!

20 hours ago, ditchcrawler said:

Historically all moorings were residential when the family lived on a working boat, there may have been different families there but they were living aboard 

 

But they would have had a problem if they never moved - no income!

[Higgs]

There are over 5 million businesses in the UK. Call it 3 million in England. In working tax credits, businesses receive some £30 billion a year. If £150million was skimmed off that for the canals each year, each of those businesses would have to find £50.00 pounds a year. The price of a meal out. Adding some social context and responsibility to the business community. Give back.

 

 

 

Edited January 3 by Higgs

[magnetman]

It is easy for people who use, and perhaps even depend on, canals for pleasure or a residence to think they are important. 

 

This is a view based on personal circumstances and is understandable.

 

In reality there are massively more important things for .gov to worry about and spend money on / embezzle money from. 

 

Canals are almost irrelevant except in the eyes of people who use them. 

 

 

 

[Alan de Enfield]

22 hours ago, Mike Todd said:

.........but CaRT (as I know) do go to great lengths to ensure that they only apply such measures as the law permits

 

 

 

 

But the law does not permit C&RT to randomly designate 'residential moorings' in excess of 28 days per annum.

 

 

Edited January 3 by Alan de Enfield

[magnetman]

 

The evidence is plain to see. Whenever one passes through an urban or suburban section of canal there are signs of dereliction and fly tipping all over the place. Landfill / canal fill.

 

Its a useless ditch. 

 

 

[Alan de Enfield]

.

Edited January 3 by Alan de Enfield

[Higgs]

1 minute ago, magnetman said:

 

Canals are almost irrelevant except in the eyes of people who use them. 

 

 

Then, let them rot, because 30 odd thousand boaters aren't going to make a difference.

 

 

[magnetman]

Just now, Alan de Enfield said:

 

 

But the law does not permit C&RT to randomly designate 'residential moorings' in excess of 28 days per annum.

 

 

People with winter moorings are not necessarily living on the Boats. 

1 minute ago, Higgs said:

 

Then, let them rot, because 30 odd thousand boaters aren't going to make a difference.

 

 

 

Sadly this might be what happens. 

 

 

[Jerra]

1 hour ago, Higgs said:

 

Boaters have a problem..., being able to use the canal. 

OF course and reducing the income of CRT makes using the canal even more difficult as maintenance decreases.

1 hour ago, Higgs said:

There are marinas on the cut that do not make the moorers pay for a licence.

As far as I know, these are ones which don't need an access agreement because either they were created before the agreement was introduced or they have a historic right because of things like being a wharf.

 

If you can prove there is a marina which was created after access agreements were introduced you have a point if not the argument doesn't hold water (pun intended).

1 hour ago, Higgs said:

To run the marina business, they do not feel the need to demand the moorers are licensed.

Because they didn't need an access agreement.  It really is simple to understand.  If your business needed to negotiate an access you have to agree to boats being licenced.  It isn't a choice to allow boats without a licence if you need a new access.

1 hour ago, Higgs said:

 

There is nothing binding on these marianas to force moorers to pay into the CRT pot.

There is if they needed to negotiate access.  They made an agreement with CRT as the farce at Pillins showed they might escape for a time but eventually, they do need to ensure boats are licenced and they pay their dues to CRT.

1 hour ago, Higgs said:

These marinas haven't signed away their independence and that of their moorers to choose. And I'm sure CRT would like to remove this freedom some marinas have.

If you are talking about those with historic rights I am sure any business running the canals would want to have the same agreement for all.  However, imposing conditions retrospectively doesn't happen.  I am not sure of the point you are trying to make.

1 hour ago, Higgs said:

 

And those marinas that have signed the NAA, yes, they've been obliged to demand that moorers are licensed.  Those licences are, however, meaningless within the marina.

How do you suggest CRt ensure boats leaving the marina are licenced, insured and safe (safety certificate) without such an agreement?  You start by saying "Boaters have a problem.... being able to use the canals" so you obviously want good functioning canals.  Clearly, you don't want less maintenance, in fact probably more.  So can you suggest a more cost effective way of ensuring any boat that leaves the marina is licenced?

 

I doubt it!  So by arguing against insisting on a licence in marinas, you are arguing in favour of the canals degenerating and being worse for boaters and boating.

 

Realistically which would you prefer no NAA and the vast loss of income or canals degenerating more slowly and being available for slightly longer?

 

I know which I would choose.

1 hour ago, Higgs said:

There is no legitimacy about them. Marinas are neither the legal body that issues them, nor the legislature, so cannot give that power to CRT, and cannot make the licence a legal permit within the marina confines.  

Have you ever been in business?  We found with the two jewellers shops you made pragmatic agreements with your suppliers.  To not do so made the business less viable.

 

All an NAA is is a pragmatic agreement between CRt and the marina entered into voluntarily by the marina.  The developers of the marina could have weighed up "do we want the marina here and sign an NAA or should we move to waters that aren't CRT controlled".  Clearly, those with an NAA chose CRT waters.

 

It is a simple common business practice.

1 hour ago, Higgs said:

And now that some people have seen fit to load use of the canal onto some licence holders, moorers that never leave the confines of a marina are due a big, big discount. If the unfair practice of forcing moorers to buy an unnecessary licence isn't stopped, I'd suggest at least a 75% discount.

I look forward to you giving a detailed description of one of two things, your choice.

 

a)  How CRT maintain the canals in their current state let alone a better condition with drastically reduced income.

 

b) How CRT make up the loss of income that you are pressing for.

 

Assuming you can do neither then your opening statement re boaters having a problem rings hollow.  If you don't have an answer to either of my last two points you clearly don't give a damn about boaters being able to use the canals, as without more income let alone the loss of income you are pressing for the canals will rapidly cease to be navigable.

 

So the ball is in your court, choose a) or b) and give a detailed answer.  Failure to do so clearly shows you have no interest in the survival of the canals as a navigable system.

[Alan de Enfield]

1 minute ago, magnetman said:

People with winter moorings are not necessarily living on the Boats. 

 

Agreed, I am sure there are a small number of non-liveaboard CCers, but I'd also suggest that by far the greater number are liveaboards.

[Higgs]

3 minutes ago, Jerra said:

OF course and reducing the income of CRT makes using the canal even more difficult as maintenance decreases.

 

The income from boaters, It's chicken feed, what are you talking about. The money required to maintain the canal is a much bigger sum, and regularly.

 

Can't be bothered with the rest. Cut it down.

 

 

 

Edited January 3 by Higgs

[Jerra]

4 minutes ago, Higgs said:

 

The income from boaters, It's chicken feed, what are you talking about. The money required to maintain the canal is a much bigger sum, and regularly.

 

Can't be bothered with the rest. Cut it down.

 

 

 

In other words, you don't give a damn about the canals and their continued existence.

 

Why on earth do you bother coming on a discussion forum about something you don't care about?

 

To quote a certain super market chain "every little helps.

[magnetman]

5 minutes ago, Higgs said:

 

The income from boaters, It's chicken feed, what are you talking about. 

 

This is the problem. 

 

More money needs to be taken from canal users. Especially those who rely 100% on the services and facilities provided by the navigation authority for their residential use. 

 

Its obvious. The towpath is where the answer lies. Take control of the towpaths. This is an enormous asset which is being accessed without payment. 

[Higgs]

Just now, Jerra said:

In other words, you don't give a damn about the canals and their continued existence.

 

Why on earth do you bother coming on a discussion forum about something you don't care about?

 

To quote a certain super market chain "every little helps.

 

I don't intend to waste my time trawling through the clutter you presented.

 

 

[magnetman]

 

 

It all comes back to the same question. Land use. 

 

Its the most basic function of humans. 

[Mike Todd]

7 minutes ago, Alan de Enfield said:

 

Agreed, I am sure there are a small number of non-liveaboard CCers, but I'd also suggest that by far the greater number are liveaboards.

There is a tendency to forget that the classification is now 'Boaters without a Home Mooring'. One of the less oft debated issues is that of boaters who do not regularly live aboard but who move infrequently. Those who do so within 14 days just about keep within the rules but some do not - MK has been reported a having a particular issue in this regard. It may well be that the market impact of the NoHM surcharge will be more on so-called dumpers than on CCrs

[Paul C]

1 minute ago, Higgs said:

 

I don't intend to waste my time trawling through the clutter you presented.

 

 

Promise?

[magnetman]

 

For canals to be more viable the obsolete towpath sections need to be managed in a different way. 

 

 

[Higgs]

Just now, Paul C said:

Promise?

 

Well, if you're going to be a waste of space, how do you expect me to react?

 

[Jerra]

5 minutes ago, Higgs said:

 

I don't intend to waste my time trawling through the clutter you presented.

 

 

You seem to lack comprehension.

 

No need to look back at anything.

 

You clearly don't care about the canals and boating, hence such comments as let them rot.   So all you have to do is explain why you keep coming on a forum about something you clearly don't care about.

 

It is a little illogical don't you think?