A CC supporter on You Tube

[Higgs]

Just now, Jerra said:

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?

 

The pragmatic view to answer the question of insufficient funds likely to be the forever problem. The inevitability of the consequences. Why beat around the bush?

 

 

[magnetman]

Basically what is going on with the NBTA is a land boundary dispute. Its got nothing to do with Boats whatsoever. The Boats are simply a useful too in the dispute. 

 

This is a territorial dispute. Its not complicated what is going on here. 

 

 

 

The navigation authority need to be in charge of the situation. Currently they are not. 

[Arthur Marshall]

30 minutes ago, Alan de Enfield said:

 

 

 

 

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

 

 

Winter moorings are not residential. Most boats on winter moorings are non-liveaboard CCers , getting a cheap rest from their generally unused obligation to move.

[Alan de Enfield]

Just now, Arthur Marshall said:

Most boats on winter moorings are non-liveaboard CCers

 

Can you provide any evidence of that ?

[Arthur Marshall]

30 minutes ago, Alan de Enfield said:

 

 

 

 

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

 

 

Winter moorings are not residential. Most boats on winter moorings are non-liveaboard CCers , getting a cheap rest from their generally unused obligation to move.

 

15 minutes ago, Higgs said:

 

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

 

Mirror, mirror, on the wall...

[Higgs]

3 minutes ago, Arthur Marshall said:

Winter moorings are not residential. Most boats on winter moorings are non-liveaboard CCers , getting a cheap rest from their generally unused obligation to move.

 

CMers, using up valuable canal resources warrant extra surcharges. 

 

How are going to work with the CMers argument now. Not using enough resources?

 

 

 

 

Edited January 3 by Higgs

[Paul C]

14 minutes ago, Higgs said:

 

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

 

 

I was criticising YOUR choice to not engage with OTHERS. Effectively you have indicated you are disengaging from this debate. You have not persuaded anyone else your view(s) are worthy of support, taken long pauses between posting, and slipped to throwing insults rather than addressing the points raised (played the man not the ball). 

 

This is as clear indication that you've lost the debate as any is needed.

 

You have made it pretty clear you're selfish, and have an irrational hatred of CRT. This makes you no better than the likes of George Ward etc, just less brave to translate your (irrational) thoughts into actions.

 

If you really want to be perceived as such, keep going. If not, then you need to address the valid points raised and re-engage with the debate in a more coherent way.

[Higgs]

1 minute ago, Paul C said:

 

I was criticising YOUR choice to not engage with OTHERS. Effectively you have indicated you are disengaging from this debate. You have not persuaded anyone else your view(s) are worthy of support, taken long pauses between posting, and slipped to throwing insults rather than addressing the points raised (played the man not the ball). 

 

This is as clear indication that you've lost the debate as any is needed.

 

You have made it pretty clear you're selfish, and have an irrational hatred of CRT. This makes you no better than the likes of George Ward etc, just less brave to translate your (irrational) thoughts into actions.

 

If you really want to be perceived as such, keep going. If not, then you need to address the valid points raised and re-engage with the debate in a more coherent way.

 

Can you put your thoughts down in fewer useless words. Your last post was an excellent example.

 

 

Edited January 3 by Higgs

[Paul C]

11 minutes ago, Higgs said:

 

Can you put your thoughts down in fewer useless words.

 

 

 

Play the ball not the man. And listen/read/think before posting.

Edited January 3 by Paul C

[magnetman]

3 minutes ago, Higgs said:

 

 CMers, using up valuable canal resources warrant extra surcharges. 

 

How are going to work with the CMers argument now. Not using enough resources?

 

 

 

Now its getting interesting. 

 

The proposal is to differentiate between those who live on Boats on towpaths and those who simply moor their Boats on towpaths. 

 

This will be a lot of fun. 

[Higgs]

Just now, Paul C said:

 

Play the man not the ball. And listen/read/think before posting.

 

Note to yourself, I presume.

 

 

2 minutes ago, magnetman said:

Now its getting interesting. 

 

The proposal is to differentiate between those who live on Boats on towpaths and those who simply moor their Boats on towpaths. 

 

This will be a lot of fun. 

 

Some people, like AM, have moan as their middle name.

 

 

[Mike Todd]

1 hour ago, Arthur Marshall said:

Winter moorings are not residential. Most boats on winter moorings are non-liveaboard CCers , getting a cheap rest from their generally unused obligation to move.

The CaRT web site on winter moorings says, " Winter moorings give boaters who don't already have a permanent mooring a chance to moor up for the winter months" It does not specify whether or not you can stay aboard for all of the paid for time.

[Arthur Marshall]

1 hour ago, Higgs said:

 

Some people, like AM, have moan as their middle name.

 

 

Have you ever posted anything on here which wasn't a moan, whinge, invented injustice claim or insult? Not such a middle name, in your case, but double barrelled for emphasis.

I'm beginning to suspect that, after so many unmoving years in a marina, your cruising pattern may not be one that satisfies CRT and that's why you're so anti them. I can't think of any other explanation for your irrationality or apparent support for continuous moorers.

I'm not going to get involved in your ridiculous arguments, but I do object to personal and childish insults.

[magnetman]

1 hour ago, Higgs said:

 

Some people, like AM, have moan as their middle name.

 

 

Odd response. 

 

From your comment you clearly want CMers and CCers to be two different groups. By doing this you are not only introducing division but you are also suggesting that it would be a Good Thing if the CRT (and other authorities of course) were to closely examine the usage status of Boats moored on towpaths. 

 

I know this will happen because of being a clairvoyant but am slightly surprised anyone living on a Boat would think it was appropriate. 

 

I may be wrong but I'm getting the impression you are a property owner using the low cost of waterways as a way to rent the house out. 

 

 

 

Edited January 3 by magnetman

[Arthur Marshall]

1 hour ago, magnetman said:

Now its getting interesting. 

 

The proposal is to differentiate between those who live on Boats on towpaths and those who simply moor their Boats on towpaths. 

 

This will be a lot of fun. 

I think that's going to be CRT's next step, which will be to insist that only those living on their boats can qualify as CCers. Those just using the towpath as a free mooring will be forced either onto proper moorings or lose their boats. The extra income from moorings will compensate for the loss of the surcharge and with luck and an increase in the licence and mooring fees, see the surcharge scrapped.

[magnetman]

1 minute ago, Arthur Marshall said:

I think that's going to be CRT's next step, which will be to insist that only those living on their boats can qualify as CCers. Those just using the towpath as a free mooring will be forced either onto proper moorings or lose their boats. The extra income from moorings will compensate for the loss of the surcharge and with luck and an increase in the licence and mooring fees, see the surcharge scrapped.

One easy way to do it would be to require proof of council tax payment. 

 

Obviously there is a weakness due to the 1, 2 or more people at the address thing so businesses would pop up. 

 

 

[Alan de Enfield]

5 minutes ago, magnetman said:

One easy way to do it would be to require proof of council tax payment. 

 

 

The problem with that is that it is in contravention with the requirements in the 1995 Act

 

C&RT are legally to commited to supplying a licence if 4 conditions are met :

 

BSS

Insurance

Mooring / No mooring declaration.

Payment.

 

Other boat-based industries (eg mooring providers) can, & and do, use a Council Tax as being indicative that the boat is not the main residence.

 

Marinas have stipulated that without evidence of a 'main residence' (Council Tax bill in the boaters name) the boater will only be allowed a residential mooring which avoids the use of Leisure moorings for residential use.

[Paul C]

1 hour ago, Alan de Enfield said:

 

The problem with that is that it is in contravention with the requirements in the 1995 Act

 

C&RT are legally to commited to supplying a licence if 4 conditions are met :

 

BSS

Insurance

Mooring / No mooring declaration.

Payment.

 

Other boat-based industries (eg mooring providers) can, & and do, use a Council Tax as being indicative that the boat is not the main residence.

 

Marinas have stipulated that without evidence of a 'main residence' (Council Tax bill in the boaters name) the boater will only be allowed a residential mooring which avoids the use of Leisure moorings for residential use.

 

They could use it to differentiate the payment amount though. 

 

* Applying for "home mooring" licence                                                                              -->   base rate

* Applying for CC licence, council tax bill showing address elsewhere                               --> base rate + 20%
* Applying for CC licence, unable to produce council tax bill for a valid land address       --> base rate + 100%

 

or whatever. Obviously, there are a number of valid scenarios where one is unable to provide the CT bill, but isn't liveaboard. But it seems to work for marinas where they wish to apply different fees for "high usage"/"liveaboard" etc.

[Alan de Enfield]

26 minutes ago, Paul C said:

 

They could use it to differentiate the payment amount though. 

 

* Applying for "home mooring" licence                                                                              -->   base rate

* Applying for CC licence, council tax bill showing address elsewhere                               --> base rate + 20%
* Applying for CC licence, unable to produce council tax bill for a valid land address       --> base rate + 100%

 

or whatever. Obviously, there are a number of valid scenarios where one is unable to provide the CT bill, but isn't liveaboard. But it seems to work for marinas where they wish to apply different fees for "high usage"/"liveaboard" etc.

 

In principle, that would work, but, it does complicate things with the 'knock-on' effect of complying with the various other bits of legislation :

 

For example a River Registration MUST be (by law) 60% of the equivalent Canal & River licence.

 

It would not work by having 'add-ons', it would only work if the 'base rate' a standard canal licence for a 72 footer  is (say) £3000 and then discounts against that are allowed for each category of boat ie:

 

72 foot boat with home mooring £3000 x 50%

etc etc

 

 

I did discuss this with Nigel Moore (Rip) who agreed that it would be legal and could achieve C&RTs aims.

 

 

British Waterways Act 1983

.....Notwithstanding anything in the Act of 1971 or the Act
of 1974 or in any other enactment relating to the Board or their
inland waterways, the Board may register pleasure boats and
houseboats under the Act of 1971 for such periods and on payment
of such charges as they may from time to time determine:
Provided that the charge payable for the registration of a
pleasure boat shall not at any time exceed 60 per centum of the
amount which would be payable to the Board for the licensing of
such vessel on any inland waterway other than a river waterway
referred to in Schedule 1 to the Act of 1971 as that Schedule has
effect in accordance with any order made by the Secretary of
State under section 4 of that Act.

 

New Charging Bands For Boat Licence

Nigel Moore 6/1/18

 

The 1971 Act has already been ‘changed’ twice: first in 1974 and then in 1983. The charging schedules of the 1971 Act, which specified charges for categories according to length, were eventually abolished, so that charges for a PBC are now merely pegged at 60% of whatever fees [according to whatever category] CaRT choose to charge for a PBL for the same vessel.

I have argued back and forwards on this in my own mind, but currently conclude that CaRT can legally do whatever they wish in respect of licence categories and charges, subject only to that percentage discount for PBC’s. The only [purely implicit] further restriction on the creation of yet more categories would be the restriction on charging more for such categories than for the ‘standard’ licence. Easily subverted, as Alan has suggested, by making the ‘standard’ licence category sufficiently costly, with discounts tailored to suit the managerial aspirations.

Edited January 3 by Alan de Enfield

[Mike Todd]

3 hours ago, Alan de Enfield said:

 

In principle, that would work, but, it does complicate things with the 'knock-on' effect of complying with the various other bits of legislation :

 

For example a River Registration MUST be (by law) 60% of the equivalent Canal & River licence.

 

It would not work by having 'add-ons', it would only work if the 'base rate' a standard canal licence for a 72 footer  is (say) £3000 and then discounts against that are allowed for each category of boat ie:

 

72 foot boat with home mooring £3000 x 50%

etc etc

 

 

I did discuss this with Nigel Moore (Rip) who agreed that it would be legal and could achieve C&RTs aims.

 

 

British Waterways Act 1983

.....Notwithstanding anything in the Act of 1971 or the Act
of 1974 or in any other enactment relating to the Board or their
inland waterways, the Board may register pleasure boats and
houseboats under the Act of 1971 for such periods and on payment
of such charges as they may from time to time determine:
Provided that the charge payable for the registration of a
pleasure boat shall not at any time exceed 60 per centum of the
amount which would be payable to the Board for the licensing of
such vessel on any inland waterway other than a river waterway
referred to in Schedule 1 to the Act of 1971 as that Schedule has
effect in accordance with any order made by the Secretary of
State under section 4 of that Act.

 

New Charging Bands For Boat Licence

Nigel Moore 6/1/18

 

The 1971 Act has already been ‘changed’ twice: first in 1974 and then in 1983. The charging schedules of the 1971 Act, which specified charges for categories according to length, were eventually abolished, so that charges for a PBC are now merely pegged at 60% of whatever fees [according to whatever category] CaRT choose to charge for a PBL for the same vessel.

I have argued back and forwards on this in my own mind, but currently conclude that CaRT can legally do whatever they wish in respect of licence categories and charges, subject only to that percentage discount for PBC’s. The only [purely implicit] further restriction on the creation of yet more categories would be the restriction on charging more for such categories than for the ‘standard’ licence. Easily subverted, as Alan has suggested, by making the ‘standard’ licence category sufficiently costly, with discounts tailored to suit the managerial aspirations.

The Act you cite does not refer to a base rate or whatever. It says that Rivers Only must not be more than 60% that the licence for the same boat on the canals and rivers. Hence, if a boat on the canals is  a noHM, and thus paying a surcharge, then the same surcharge would apply at 60% for Rivers Only.

[IanD]

7 minutes ago, Mike Todd said:

The Act you cite does not refer to a base rate or whatever. It says that Rivers Only must not be more than 60% that the licence for the same boat on the canals and rivers. Hence, if a boat on the canals is  a noHM, and thus paying a surcharge, then the same surcharge would apply at 60% for Rivers Only.

True so long as the same applies to all discounts and surcharges -- whatever set of license costs calculations CART use for the canals (e.g. widebeam/CC surcharges, electric/historic/butty discounts, charging by length/width/area/whatever...) they just knock 40% off and that's the cost of the rivers-only license for the same boat.

Edited January 3 by IanD

[Alan de Enfield]

59 minutes ago, Mike Todd said:

Hence, if a boat on the canals is  a noHM, and thus paying a surcharge, then the same surcharge would apply at 60% for Rivers Only.

 

Which is exactly what I said :

 

4 hours ago, Alan de Enfield said:

For example a River Registration MUST be (by law) 60% of the equivalent Canal & River licence.

 

It would not work by having 'add-ons', it would only work if the 'base rate' a standard canal licence for a 72 footer  is (say) £3000 and then discounts against that are allowed for each category of boat

 

 

[Paul C]

I don't see why it wouldn't work for different charges, however they are structured, be it "add ons", "discounts" (which are the same thing, just with the base price set at the bottom or top), length (already done), width, propulsion (electric), historic etc. I don't see add ons being different from discounts.

[Mike Todd]

15 hours ago, IanD said:

True so long as the same applies to all discounts and surcharges -- whatever set of license costs calculations CART use for the canals (e.g. widebeam/CC surcharges, electric/historic/butty discounts, charging by length/width/area/whatever...) they just knock 40% off and that's the cost of the rivers-only license for the same boat.

I dont think tte Act precludes different differentials for various licence categories.

[IanD]

8 minutes ago, Mike Todd said:

I dont think tte Act precludes different differentials for various licence categories.

I thought the 60% figure (river-only vs. river-and-canal) was specifically laid down in law?

 

But even if it isn't, it doesn't alter the fact that CART can do what they want on the canals so long as they follow the law on the relative cost of a river-only license.