Baton Twirlers Stage Protest (again)

[Momac]

19 minutes ago, ditchcrawler said:

Funny they don't rely on the boaters word that he has a mooring any more, but that could cost them money 

C&RT are not asking existing customers for evidence of a mooring contract at the point of purchasing a license . But when the customer changes the home mooring location they will ask for evidence.. C&RT may ask for evidence of a mooring contract at any time if they wish. 

 

[peterboat]

Just now, Momac said:

C&RT are not asking existing customers for evidence of a mooring contract at the point of purchasing a license . But when the customer changes the home mooring location they will ask for evidence.. C&RT may ask for evidence of a mooring contract at any time if they wish. 

 

I am afraid they are, when I licenced the knew boat it asked me where it was moored, it was online and I couldn't get the address correct, so I went to my old boat to discover the address was missing there. CRT had to add the correct address for me

[MtB]

3 hours ago, magpie patrick said:

To my mind, living on board holds one's cruising aspirations back. 

 

Indeed and its a curious thing. When I lived aboard I realised I no longer enjoyed my boating. The boat became just the place I went to cook/eat and sleep. Filling the water tank, emptying the bog and changing gas bottles became a tedious chore. Now I'm living on the bank, going to the boat has become a treat again.

 

 

[Lady M]

Yes and don't forget all those CCers who go on holiday to foreign parts.  We have always enjoyed our boat holidays more than any other type of break, even since retirement.  Using the boat as a 'country cottage' is also a treat for us.

[Momac]

2 minutes ago, MtB said:

 

Indeed and its a curious thing. When I lived aboard I realised I no longer enjoyed my boating. 

Too much of good thing. 

Similarly I met a boat salesman who was about to retire. In retirement his wish was never again to set foot on another boat.

[beerbeerbeerbeerbeer]

3 hours ago, Paul C said:

 

Its a red herring because its not about "alternative lifestyle" etc, its about whether CCers comply with the law or not. (And by that I mean, actions which are clearly against the spirit of the law and might lead to enforcement eg staying in one place for months, not the technicality of "I'm not a criminal yet because I've not gone to court and been convicted").

 

A corollary might be that instead of going out to work and earning £12/hour in a boring job, someone chooses an "alternate" income which involves stealing cars and selling them. One is within the law, one is not.

 

There's plenty of CCers who DO comply with the law and plenty who, quite clearly, don't. 

Ok, I think we’re on about different things and I may have mixed things up a bit. 
 

I simply don’t see why someone, like myself, who has chosen to lead a life style away from the bills and expense of living on land should be seen as an easy target to clobber with higher taxes/bills/whatevers. There are a couple of posters on here who have repeatedly said our expenses are nothing like there’s and we should pay more. I’m not necessarily talking about boating expenses but about general living expenses. 
I don’t want to be dragged into their world. To a certain extent I’ve opted out of it. 

The law, or the spirit of the law 

is a different discussion. 
The majority of boaters without a home mooring that I meet are on a genuine cruise. But then I don’t venture down south much and see the problems down there. 
I think some of your terminology comparing CCers with criminals further imbeds mistrust of CCers
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Paul C]

7 minutes ago, beerbeerbeerbeerbeer said:

I think some of your terminology comparing CCers with criminals further imbeds mistrust of CCers
 

 

I'm not comparing CCers with criminals though. I'm comparing law-breakers with law-breakers. Also let's put it in perspective - "breaking" the CCing rules is a low level offence, similar to speeding.

 

I see MANY, MANY speeders on the roads as I travel around the country. I don't hold a strong opinion on it, unless it directly affects me (at least once a week on the roads, someone will try to kill me - inadvertently). But myself, I don't speed, because I choose that choice.

Edited March 31 by Paul C

[Momac]

1 hour ago, peterboat said:

I am afraid they are, when I licenced the knew boat it asked me where it was moored, it was online and I couldn't get the address correct, so I went to my old boat to discover the address was missing there. CRT had to add the correct address for me

Well that's not what C&RT say . Maybe it was the new boat added which messed it up.

 

Edit

P.S. For information I just now bought a new license to start from tomorrow and it processed online with no evidence of a mooring contract required .

Edited March 31 by Momac

[Lady M]

The new boat will, for the time being, be an additional mooring at the same place.

[Arthur Marshall]

40 minutes ago, beerbeerbeerbeerbeer said:

I simply don’t see why someone, like myself, who has chosen to lead a life style away from the bills and expense of living on land should be seen as an easy target to clobber with higher taxes/bills/whatevers. There are a couple of posters on here who have repeatedly said our expenses are nothing like there’s and we should pay more. I’m not necessarily talking about boating expenses but about general living expenses. 

I don’t want to be dragged into their world. To a certain extent I’ve opted out of it. 

The law, or the spirit of the law 

is a different discussion. 
The majority of boaters without a home mooring that I meet are on a genuine cruise. But then I don’t venture down south much and see the problems down there. 
I think some of your terminology comparing CCers with criminals further imbeds mistrust of CCers
 

Unfortunately, you've been dragged into the clobbering for higher costs, as have a fair few others, because so many have successfully bent both the original spirit and the letter of the rules. If they hadn't, and had paid their way properly, all this need never have happened. Much the same has happened to anyone who wants to live somehow outside what our betters think is a normal lifestyle focused largely on the acquisition of more and more money.

Just because something is less costly in some respects is not an argument for making it more expensive, it's a perfectly valid choice.

A single, universal licence, including an amount to cover what CRT see currently as separate mooring fees, would solve the whole problem and cut down their office costs to boot.  CCers benefit the system in many ways, and I think most of us home moorers are aware of this, though I suppose those that just sit in marinas and rarely move out may not be.

Edited March 31 by Arthur Marshall

[alan_fincher]

14 hours ago, beerbeerbeerbeerbeer said:

had me boat valued earlier this month and it’s doubled in value over 12 years 🤷‍♀️

 

The estimated value of the boat has doubled.

 

The actual value only doubles if and when you manage to make a sale at the estimated figure

[MtB]

2 minutes ago, Arthur Marshall said:

Just because something is less costly in some respects is not an argument for making it more expensive,

 

It certainly IS where boat licenses are concerned, given the licence fee is so low that CRT have a £400m shortfall. 

[beerbeerbeerbeerbeer]

2 minutes ago, alan_fincher said:

 

The estimated value of the boat has doubled.

 

The actual value only doubles if and when you manage to make a sale at the estimated figure

in that case it may treble

[Paul C]

7 minutes ago, beerbeerbeerbeerbeer said:

in that case it may treble

Does it matter? The principle is, boats don't appreciate in value in the same way that land does.

[beerbeerbeerbeerbeer]

20 minutes ago, Paul C said:

Does it matter? The principle is, boats don't appreciate in value in the same way that land does.

No, it don’t matter. 
your correct,

as was Alan Fincher’s pedantry.  
 

[Momac]

2 hours ago, ditchcrawler said:

Funny they don't rely on the boaters word that he has a mooring any more, but that could cost them money 

Having just an hour ago bought a license valid from tomorrow  I can conform they (C&RT) do rely on the boaters word that he has a home mooring and insurance. This is providing there is no change in the home mooring location.

 

It's only the BSS certificate that C&RT can see but that's because C&RT are part owners of BSS so its data that is easily shared.

Which reminds me I need to arrange a fresh BSS.

 

[beerbeerbeerbeerbeer]

1 hour ago, Paul C said:

 

I'm not comparing CCers with criminals though. I'm comparing law-breakers with law-breakers. Also let's put it in perspective - "breaking" the CCing rules is a low level offence, similar to speeding.

 

I see MANY, MANY speeders on the roads as I travel around the country. I don't hold a strong opinion on it, unless it directly affects me (at least once a week on the roads, someone will try to kill me - inadvertently). But myself, I don't speed, because I choose that choice.

 Now I see this as the red herring,

there’s no reason at all to make the comparison,

 

I guess it grates on me because there’s rarely positive talk/reference to the CCer, 

just a perpetual moaning, or continuous moaning about them,

mind, I see Arthur’s hinted at something more positive,

 

[Tacet]

6 hours ago, magpie patrick said:

 

Arthur, you don't often talk rubbish but that bit about only liveaboards can CC is completely wrong. On many occasions I have made long journeys around the canal system whilst returning home to work every week - one summer Ripple went from Marple to Middlewich, then along the shroppie and onto Nottingham then to Stourport to Leigh to Anderton, back to Shardlow then to Birmingham, then Stourbridge, Froghall and Anderton again and I held down a job in Bath. To my mind, living on board holds one's cruising aspirations back. 

I lived aboard to fulfill my cruising aspirations; I couldn't see another way of doing it. 

 

One year, we completed the Lea & Stort, Middle levels, Fens, K&A to Bristol, Lancaster, Caldon, Thames to Lechlade, Chesterfield Canal, Lincoln, Rochdale Canal, Weaver, Liverpool & more all whilst working too.

[beerbeerbeerbeerbeer]

1 hour ago, Arthur Marshall said:

Just because something is less costly in some respects is not an argument for making it more expensive,

and that is that, in a nutshell 👍

[Tonka]

6 hours ago, Peanut said:

Your house has to move out of band, then you can argue for a revaluation. Easier if you have been put into the wrong band to start with.

Houses don't use council facilities, people do.

There are too many bands at the bottom end and not enough at the top end. Any thing above 1 million pound are all in the same band so pay the same.

[mrsmelly]

3 minutes ago, Tonka said:

Houses don't use council facilities, people do.

There are too many bands at the bottom end and not enough at the top end. Any thing above 1 million pound are all in the same band so pay the same.

It would make much more sense to have a system based on occupancy rather than property value. Four adults pay double what two do etc etc. some people have expensive houses but are skint themselves so should pay the same for services as anyone else. The usual cop outs could still be applied. I am not moaning but I pay considerably more than my neighbour who is also a retired couple simply because my house is two bands higher than his. The use of services etc is identical. Maybe a system called poll tax or similar would be fairer.

[haggis]

We had the poll tax in Scotland when Mrs T wanted it trialled somewhere where the outcome wouldn't affect the chances of her party being re -elected. While on the face of it, making the charge relative to the number of people in a house on the basis that more people resulted in more use of Council facilities was fair it  didn't work out well. You could have non wage earners (undergoing education etc) which were counted but weren't in a position to contribute to the charge. Then you could have a big house with one occupant paying the same as a Council house with one occupant. For one the charge would be a minute part of their income and for the other it could be a major part. The system was deemed to be unfair and was ended and the current Community Charge was brought in. It too has it's problems in that if a house doesn't change hands it stays in the original band whereas if it had been sold and a more recent valuation was available I believe the house could change bands. A very large % of houses are in too low a band but I don't see a national revaluation taking place any time soon.

[Momac]

27 minutes ago, beerbeerbeerbeerbeer said:

 

I guess it grates on me because there’s rarely positive talk/reference to the CCer, 

It's not the cruising that is the issue its the lack of it, which appears to be a regular thing.

Obviously not aimed at those who do genuinely cruise continuously in the spirit of the idea of exploring the inland waterways.

[StephenA]

On the BBC yesterday I learned that some of these "Travellers" can do up to 30 miles a year......

[beerbeerbeerbeerbeer]

20 minutes ago, Momac said:

It's not the cruising that is the issue its the lack of it, which appears to be a regular thing.

Obviously not aimed at those who do genuinely cruise continuously in the spirit of the idea of exploring the inland waterways.

I’d be interested to see the figures CRT have for the non movers. 
what we got 7000boats without a home mooring?

I wonder how many have been given their eviction orders, how many have been put on a six month license, where the  target areas are. 
and how many at a given time are on a permission to overstay,

I wonder what the split would be?