Cavalcade and the NBTA

[Peanut]

2 minutes ago, beerbeerbeerbeerbeer said:

if it were an option I think there’d be plenty of takers,

Well, yes 1000 moorings at £10,000 pa would raise ten million, which would help, but where would everyone else moor?  Or would it just move the problem further out.

[beerbeerbeerbeerbeer]

5 minutes ago, Paul C said:

They can’t break the law just because of a lack of moorings in their particular chosen area.

but that’s the argument, what’s an ‘area’?

how far does one have to move to comply to the 14 day rule?

there’s long been a chase for that answer but there’s nothing but vague answers that have moving goal posts,

 

 

 

 

[frangar]

4 minutes ago, beerbeerbeerbeerbeer said:

if it were an option I think there’d be plenty of takers,

 

I doubt it. They won’t even pay a bit extra for a licence and now object to the bookable moorings which may give others a chance of actually being able to moor in london!!

[beerbeerbeerbeerbeer]

1 minute ago, Peanut said:

Well, yes 1000 moorings at £10,000 pa would raise ten million, which would help, but where would everyone else moor?  Or would it just move the problem further out.

as long as they don’t go Tipton I’m not bothered,

Ive realised this week I am a NIMBYist. 

[Peanut]

6 minutes ago, beerbeerbeerbeerbeer said:

if it were an option I think there’d be plenty of takers,

Not my plight matey,

I don’t want no kids 

I was not actually referring to you personally, but the implied moorers.

[frangar]

1 minute ago, Peanut said:

Well, yes 1000 moorings at £10,000 pa would raise ten million, which would help, but where would everyone else moor?  Or would it just move the problem further out.

There are bookable moorings to allow visiting boats a hopefully guaranteed spot…maybe a few more of those would help

[Peanut]

I realise that those who don't want to pay for a mooring, won't pay for a mooring anyway, so will just move past the next bridge.

Edited April 17 by Peanut

[Paul C]

5 minutes ago, beerbeerbeerbeerbeer said:

but that’s the argument, what’s an ‘area’?

how far does one have to move to comply to the 14 day rule?

there’s long been a chase for that answer but there’s nothing but vague answers that have moving goal posts,

 

 

 

 

It’s not about “how far do I have to move?” That style of question illustrates that they’re after a minimum, so unlikely to be on a bona fide cruise.

[ditchcrawler]

17 minutes ago, frangar said:

There are bookable moorings to allow visiting boats a hopefully guaranteed spot…maybe a few more of those would help

If they pay, 

[Francis Herne]

16 minutes ago, beerbeerbeerbeerbeer said:

but that’s the argument, what’s an ‘area’?

how far does one have to move to comply to the 14 day rule?

there’s long been a chase for that answer but there’s nothing but vague answers that have moving goal posts,

It seems a meaningless question to me (as a continuous cruiser myself).

 

If people consistently move just once every 14 days, to my mind they'd have to move many miles each time to be in the spirit of things.

 

If you're travelling hundreds of miles overall and feel like moving a few yards around the corner one time, who cares?

 

It would matter if CRT tried to rigidly police every movement in isolation, but they don't. Taken over months it's obvious who's really moving and who's shuffling.

[beerbeerbeerbeerbeer]

15 minutes ago, Francis Herne said:

It seems a meaningless question to me (as a continuous cruiser myself).

 

If people consistently move just once every 14 days, to my mind they'd have to move many miles each time to be in the spirit of things.

 

If you're travelling hundreds of miles overall and feel like moving a few yards around the corner one time, who cares?

 

It would matter if CRT tried to rigidly police every movement in isolation, but they don't. Taken over months it's obvious who's really moving and who's shuffling.

Yes, I tend to agree,

and having a law that says “in the spirit of things” is something I (we?) can enjoy and be ok with, 

Its a pretty good law ain’t it?

perhaps there’s them that can’t deal with it,

for some either abuse it or some simply resent the idea of it 🤷‍♀️

I believe most get on with it 

[Momac]

18 hours ago, Midnight said:

Why don't crt just raise fees for all

They have raised fees for all 

Some more than others

[MtB]

4 hours ago, David Mack said:

Can you imagine the hoohah NBTA would make if they were 'banned' from having a stall at Cavalcade? Better to have them inside the tent p*ssing out, than outside p*ssing in.

 

Trouble with NBTA though, is they p*ss all over everything indiscriminately. 

[Captain Pegg]

1 hour ago, Francis Herne said:

It seems a meaningless question to me (as a continuous cruiser myself).

 

If people consistently move just once every 14 days, to my mind they'd have to move many miles each time to be in the spirit of things.

 

If you're travelling hundreds of miles overall and feel like moving a few yards around the corner one time, who cares?

 

It would matter if CRT tried to rigidly police every movement in isolation, but they don't. Taken over months it's obvious who's really moving and who's shuffling.

But why do some boaters get so worked up about how far and how often other boaters move?

 

A boat can only exist in one place and it makes no fundamental difference as a boater where you encounter it. Hence I’d suggest these arguments are not principally about boating.

 

The 14 day business should perhaps matter more to local residents who potentially have non-contributing members of their community using local amenities.

 

My solution to this is overstay in the same area where I pay Council Tax.

 

 

[MtB]

11 hours ago, Captain Pegg said:

But why do some boaters get so worked up about how far and how often other boaters move?

 

 

When you're paying £4k for your CRT home mooring and one boat after another spends months on end moored opposite you paying nothing, one begins to feel a bit of an idiot for paying the £4k.

 

Hope that helps explain...

 

 

 

 

Edited April 18 by MtB
Clarify a point.

[beerbeerbeerbeerbeer]

…and because you’re an idiot I get a surcharge?

 

You say one boat after another,

that suggests the boats are moving?

 

[Paul C]

6 hours ago, beerbeerbeerbeerbeer said:

…and because you’re an idiot I get a surcharge?

 

You say one boat after another,

that suggests the boats are moving?

 

I am not sure if you meant MtB or the non-moving boater as the idiot. If the non-moving boater hadn't taken the piss quite so blatantly, the observing home moorers might not have become so disgruntled (and felt like an idiot), and the genuine CCer might not have suffered with the CCer surcharge. Who's the root cause of the "issue" here?

[Arthur Marshall]

10 hours ago, Peanut said:

Well, yes 1000 moorings at £10,000 pa would raise ten million, which would help, but where would everyone else moor?  Or would it just move the problem further out.

But as they are there already, everyone else would be in exactly the same position they are now, the only difference being CRT would have more money.

And saying people can't break the law just because they think they have good reason, is nonsense, because they do. You can say they shouldn't (your moral judgement), but not that they can't.

[Captain Pegg]

7 hours ago, MtB said:

 

When you're paying £4k for your CRT home mooring and one boat after another spends months on end moored opposite you paying nothing, one begins to feel a bit of an idiot.

 

Hope that helps explain...

 

 

 

 

Which you do because you want security, don’t wish to move every 14 days and can afford the fee.

 

The kind of boater folks get upset about has little security, has to move (and the majority do), and is probably on a boat because they can’t afford to live on land.

 

And for their trouble they get vilified.

 

There are a whole load of issues here that I think we’d all like to see some better solutions to, but the way in which the chief protagonists here argue it should be done is pretty unsavoury.

Edited April 18 by Captain Pegg

[frangar]

20 minutes ago, Captain Pegg said:

Which you do because you want security, don’t wish to move every 14 days and can afford the fee.

 

The kind of boater folks get upset about has little security, has to move (and the majority do), and is probably on a boat because they can’t afford to live on land.

 

And for their trouble they get vilified.

 

There are a whole load of issues here that I think we’d all like to see some better solutions to, but the way in which the chief protagonists here argue it should be done is pretty unsavoury.

 But the twirlers say it’s all about the “lifestyle” not the freeloading……

[Paul C]

24 minutes ago, Captain Pegg said:

the way in which the chief protagonists here argue it should be done is pretty unsavoury.

Can you give an example of a solution to “the problem “ which is savoury?

[Captain Pegg]

3 minutes ago, frangar said:

 But the twirlers say it’s all about the “lifestyle” not the freeloading……

The NBTA is the opposite extreme of many here, it’s not the “association of boaters without a home mooring”.

 

15 minutes ago, Paul C said:

Can you give an example of a solution to “the problem “ which is savoury?

It would likely be one that didn’t lead to people seeking to live on boats when they’d really prefer to live on land.
 

Forcing such people to pay more to live on boats is a solution that doesn’t seem to achieve much other than increasing the self satisfaction of wealthy leisure boaters.

 

For sure there would still be some hardcore that really do subscribe to the off-grid kind of lifestyle but their pioneer is one Mr Rolt.

[Tonka]

27 minutes ago, frangar said:

 But the twirlers say it’s all about the “lifestyle” not the freeloading……

Yes a lifestyle which includes freeloading. 

Like the gypsy lifestyle which includes defecating in public because they won't do it in their caravan

[Paul C]

1 hour ago, Arthur Marshall said:

 

And saying people can't break the law just because they think they have good reason, is nonsense, because they do. You can say they shouldn't (your moral judgement), but not that they can't.

I’ll happily admit my moral standpoint is to remain within the law.

 

If you live outside the law, then life becomes interesting. I guess, “don’t do the crime unless you can do the time” might be a good mantra to live by. 
 

As a CMer there is always the possibility of licence non renewal, s.8, etc

[Francis Herne]

9 hours ago, Captain Pegg said:

But why do some boaters get so worked up about how far and how often other boaters move?

1 hour ago, Captain Pegg said:

It would likely be one that didn’t lead to people seeking to live on boats when they’d really prefer to live on land.
 

Forcing such people to pay more to live on boats is a solution that doesn’t seem to achieve much other than increasing the self satisfaction of wealthy leisure boaters

 

At least for me, your second post quoted answers the first one.

 

I don't care much about individuals, unless they're hogging a spot in a high-demand area with no spare moorings.

 

I do see the requirement to move frequently over a meaningful distance as a way to differentiate between those who want to live on a boat, and use it as a boat , and those who really want cheap static accommodation.

 

As such I think it needs to be enforced better (and have a significantly higher bar than the '20 miles') because in recent years it's clearly failing to do that.

 

Raising the 'surcharge' doesn't differentiate at all between those groups, until it goes above the price of housing in major cities by which time many of the 'boat for its own sake' people would be priced out too.

Edited April 18 by Francis Herne