Baton Twirlers Stage Protest (again)

[Sea Dog]

Just now, Higgs said:

 

Well, we can have this argument, if you want. Private marinas are private land, and CRT have no entitlement to require a licence. 

 

 

As long as the boats are moored on that "land" I'd say you're correct. You might find it a different story for the water though...

[MtB]

1 minute ago, Higgs said:

CRT have no entitlement to require a licence. 

 

 

 

Self-evidently wrong.

 

 

[Higgs]

7 minutes ago, MtB said:

Self-evidently wrong.

 

CRT's jurisdiction is on its managed water. Not inside private property boundaries, and where the water is above private property/land.

 

It should be patently obvious, that no access fee would be required to enter or exit CRT's own property. A private marina isn't, therefore, an access fee.

 

 

 

Edited April 6 by Higgs

[Arthur Marshall]

9 minutes ago, beerbeerbeerbeerbeer said:

I think, if my figures and estimate is correct the surcharge when it reaches 25% will most likely out way what most home moorers believe  they pay to CRT through their mooring contracts. 
 

Not that I’m persuaded the home moorer’s extra payments to CRT are a good foundation for arguing the surcharge. 
 

as we know a home

mooring is a choice to pay for an additional service. 
 

but…round and round we’ll go on that one,

 

 

Probably, unless you pay EOG, which is about 80% of licence fee and sometimes more. But as you say, it's nothing to do with an argument for a surcharge, just a fact to be taken into account. 

Who pays what and whether it's "fair" is a bit daft, if Higgsish. CRT needs more money and they have to milk the beasts they  think can afford to stump up a bit more, rather than driving ones who can't off the pond and losing their contributions entirely. It's just pragmatism. If they lose a few NBTA boats who they have to endlessly spend money on, chasing them for fees and compliance, they won't worry much.

[Higgs]

3 minutes ago, Arthur Marshall said:

Probably, unless you pay EOG, which is about 80% of licence fee and sometimes more. But as you say, it's nothing to do with an argument for a surcharge, just a fact to be taken into account. 

Who pays what and whether it's "fair" is a bit daft, if Higgsish. CRT needs more money and they have to milk the beasts they  think can afford to stump up a bit more, rather than driving ones who can't off the pond and losing their contributions entirely. It's just pragmatism. If they lose a few NBTA boats who they have to endlessly spend money on, chasing them for fees and compliance, they won't worry much.

 

Then I'm sure there'll be no complaints from you to spend your own money doing it, along with everyone else on an equal basis, for your basic licence.

 

 

[Sea Dog]

3 minutes ago, Higgs said:

...where the water is above private property/land.

Not a good place to be!

More seriously, isn't the "water" CRT's as it's connected to their system? If it wasn't, it may well be the land owners, but then it would be a lake. There are some exceptions such as Ashwood on the S&W where the water is classed as private - someone will know how that works - but they're few and far between.

[Higgs]

9 minutes ago, Sea Dog said:

Not a good place to be!

More seriously, isn't the "water" CRT's as it's connected to their system? If it wasn't, it may well be the land owners, but then it would be a lake. There are some exceptions such as Ashwood on the S&W where the water is classed as private - someone will know how that works - but they're few and far between.

 

Once the water crosses the land boundary, it is not managed by CRT. It could not even be classed as CRT water.

 

 

[MtB]

22 minutes ago, Higgs said:

 

CRT's jurisdiction is on its managed water. Not inside private property boundaries, and where the water is above private property/land.

 

It should be patently obvious, that no access fee would be required to enter or exit CRT's own property. A private marina isn't, therefore, an access fee.

 

 

 

Self-evidently wrong.

 

 

 

[Higgs]

Just now, MtB said:

Self-evidently wrong.

 

Saying that won't prove your right.

 

 

[Paul C]

29 minutes ago, Higgs said:

 

Well, we can have this argument, if you want. Private marinas are private land, and CRT have no entitlement to require a licence. 

 

 

But CRT don't require the licence there. The marina operator requires you have a CRT licence.

[Higgs]

5 minutes ago, Paul C said:

But CRT don't require the licence there. The marina operator requires you have a CRT licence.

 

They don't initially require boaters to have a licence. It is enforceable through the NAA. CRT being the dominant partner, make the rules the marina applies. The NAA wording would have to be changed, for the marina to be able make an autonomous decision about the requirement for a licence in its marina.

 

 

Edited April 6 by Higgs

[MtB]

1 minute ago, Higgs said:

 

They don't initially require boaters to have a licence. It is enforceable through the NAA. CRT being the dominant partner, make the rules the marina applies.

 

 

 

OMG, you're beginning to get it!

 

🙄

[Paul C]

2 hours ago, Midnight said:

Whilst I think the baton twirlers campaign is going nowhere I do think the surcharge system is flawed and probably will be dropped before too long.  One scenario that has me puzzled is: Boater A is a continuous cruiser so pays the surcharge. Then when winter comes takes an end of garden mooring in a farmer's field for 5 months. Not a home moorer so must be a CCer. He pays the farmer £X a month to tie up to the bank and should pay C&RT EoG charge to float on the water, but hang on he's aleady paid the CCer surcharge. C&RT can't have it both ways so what's the outcome if it went to court?

 

I think you're confusing things here. If someone takes a mooring for 5 months, they have a home mooring.

 

That CRT are using a "6 months" rule for determining when a boater pays a surcharge, if they spend part of the year as a CCer and part of the year as a home moorer, is another separate issue.

 

What would be the avenue it would go to court on? CRT can charge what they like on differentiating licence fees.

 

4 minutes ago, Higgs said:

 

They don't initially require boaters to have a licence.

 

Who is "they" in the above?

Edited April 6 by Paul C

[Higgs]

1 minute ago, Paul C said:

Who is "they" in the above?

 

The marina.

 

 

4 minutes ago, MtB said:

 

 

OMG, you're beginning to get it!

 

🙄

 

No, you're not.

 

 

[Paul C]

38 minutes ago, Arthur Marshall said:

Here's another case. I have a friend who (genuinely) cruises virtually all year, but has retained his EOG farm mooring for when he needs medical treatment. So as long as he's not there for more than a couple of weeks at a time, which he isn't,  although he has a contract for a permanent home mooring, my assumption is that he can declare as CC, saving himself about a grand, as it's no business of CRTs what the farmer does with the mooring, which, obviously, is usually vacant.

Its a sort of reversal of the ghost mooring theory... the advantage now goes the other way.

 

He's either retained his home mooring or he hasn't. And........it IS the business of CRT what the farmer does with the mooring. In the above case, if a farmer is renting out 11 moorings (or the length equivalent of 11) and the contract he has with CRT is for 10 moorings, then he is in breach of that contract with CRT.

8 minutes ago, Higgs said:

 

They (the marina) don't initially require boaters to have a licence. 

 

 

 

Unless its some weirdly exceptional contract or a marina with a prior agreement than with NAA, I'm pretty sure every marina which requires a boater to have a CRT licence as part of the T&Cs of its contract, requires it from the beginning of the mooring agreement.

[David Mack]

14 minutes ago, Paul C said:

In the above case, if a farmer is renting out 11 moorings (or the length equivalent of 11) and the contract he has with CRT is for 10 moorings, then he is in breach of that contract with CRT.

In many cases there is no contract between the farmer and CRT, and thus no contract to breach. There is one contract between the farmer and the boater, and another between the boater and CRT. And CRT's ability to control the moorings against the farmer's land can only be exercised by whether they allow the boater to moor there.

[Paul C]

3 minutes ago, David Mack said:

In many cases there is no contract between the farmer and CRT, and thus no contract to breach. There is one contract between the farmer and the boater, and another between the boater and CRT. And CRT's ability to control the moorings against the farmer's land can only be exercised by whether they allow the boater to moor there.

Indeed true - I believe there are 2 styles of how EOG mooring fees for online moorings are collected. One is where the mooring provider has an overall agreement with CRT, and one where they don't (so the boater pays EOG fees directly). I don't know the situation on Arthur, or his friends, mooring to know which is in force there.

[beerbeerbeerbeerbeer]

15 hours ago, ditchcrawler said:

I don't dislike the charge I am just pointing out that boats with moorings pay more to CRT that the licence fee and more than what CCs will be paying with the surcharge and don't say its so I have the convenience of somewhere to leave may car or boat, that is what the marina owner gets paid for.

 Can’t say I’m really that bothered anymore, 

the arguments for and against the surcharge are quite interesting, although all are pretty much self motivated. I haven’t yet heard a good solid reason for the surcharge just plenty of excuses, 

 

bottom line for me: CRT need the money and have seen ‘an opening’ and gone for it, business wise it makes sense. 


 

 

 

 

 

[GUMPY]

I think all boaters should pay more to keep the system free for Cyclists, Fishermen and Walkers 😱

[matty40s]

If CCers are forced to pay lots more, how on earth are they going to afford their foreign holidays....

 

[Naartjie - Duck Hatch]

41 minutes ago, GUMPY said:

I think all boaters should pay more to keep the system free for Cyclists, Fishermen and Walkers 😱🤔

 

[beerbeerbeerbeerbeer]

1 hour ago, GUMPY said:

I think all boaters should pay more to keep the system free for Cyclists, Fishermen and Walkers 😱

Ah, now fisherists do pay their way,

the honest ones will be,

 

get the cyclists to pay is what I say, maybe a surcharge on a boater who cycles too?

 

[Alan de Enfield]

19 minutes ago, beerbeerbeerbeerbeer said:

Ah, now fisherists do pay their way,

the honest ones will be,

 

get the cyclists to pay is what I say, maybe a surcharge on a boater who cycles too?

 

 

A year or three ago "British Cycling" (the controlling body for cycling) contacted C&RT and suggested that if C&RT wished to inplement a charge (or licence) for cycling on the towpaths they would support it.

 

C&RT thanked them but declined as it was part of the Transfer conditions (BW to C&RT) that the access and use of the towpaths must remain freee of charge and unhindered.

 

Extract from the transfer documents :

 

2.4 The Trustee must obtain the Settlor’s prior written consent before:

 

2.4.1 ...........

 

2.4.2 ...........

 

2.4.3 restricting pedestrian access to any part of the towpaths within the Infrastructure Property; for example by charging a fee for access, save that consent will not be needed for any temporary restrictions either to allow maintenance/repair works or to protect persons from risks to their safety;

2.4.4 diverting the route of any towpath or part of a towpath, other than as permitted at Clause 3.5.1;

 

 

 

Note :

1. Pedestrians: This category includes individuals who walk, use mobility aids (such as wheelchairs and rollators), and those with vision impairments. Essentially, anyone navigating on foot falls under the pedestrian umbrella.

2. Cyclists: While cyclists primarily use bicycles, they are often considered part of the broader pedestrian and active transportation community. So, yes, pedestrian access does indeed include cyclists.

[Arthur Marshall]

4 hours ago, Higgs said:

 

Then I'm sure there'll be no complaints from you to spend your own money doing it, along with everyone else on an equal basis, for your basic licence.

 

 

I have no complaints.

3 hours ago, beerbeerbeerbeerbeer said:

 

bottom line for me: CRT need the money and have seen ‘an opening’ and gone for it, business wise it makes sense. 
 

That's the only argument that's valid. All the rest is self-interested tosh. Fun though.

[nbfiresprite]

5 hours ago, Alan de Enfield said:

 

A year or three ago "British Cycling" (the controlling body for cycling) contacted C&RT and suggested that if C&RT wished to inplement a charge (or licence) for cycling on the towpaths they would support it.

 

 

"British Cycling" is the governing body for competitive cycle racing in Great Britain, the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man.

Edited April 6 by nbfiresprite