A broad view of canal boat licence fees (The other side)

[MtB]

8 hours ago, Higgs said:

 

Listen, you're all going on about paying what you think boaters should owe, for using the towpath. I can go on about boaters not paying for things that are not due to CRT, because they are neither on 'CRT water' or using the canal.

 

 

Debating skills of a 5-year-old. 

 

 

[TheBiscuits]

8 hours ago, MtB said:

Maybe in future we might see another declaration being required by CRT in addition to the 'Home Mooring" declaration, that the vessel will not be used as a dwelling. 

 

We're much more likely to see an equivalent of the Bridgewater Canal's Platinum Licence - an extra fee of over a hundred quid a month on top of the standard boat licence - that grants permission to stay onboard ...

 

 

Edited May 3 by TheBiscuits
Stupid mobile phone

[beerbeerbeerbeerbeer]

7 minutes ago, MtB said:

 

Debating skills of a 5-year-old. 

 

 

 

Now is that a straw man argument? Instead of addressing the comment reply with an insult?

 

The debate on the whole seems to be steered by less than a hand full of home moorers who are pretty keen telling those without a home mooring how to behave, or how they would like them shoved into the countryside out of sight 
 

Most home moorers I meet are very happy

folk and just get on with boating without too

much trouble. 
Same as those without a home mooring.  
 

Perhaps the curtain twitchers should just go boating? (Like the rest of us)
 

 

[MtB]

16 minutes ago, beerbeerbeerbeerbeer said:

Now is that a straw man argument? Instead of addressing the comment reply with an insult?

 

Nope. 

 

Impossible to reply to a near-incomprehensible post. 

 

 

[Arthur Marshall]

32 minutes ago, TheBiscuits said:

 

We're much more likely to see an equivalent of the Bridgewater Canal's Platinum Licence - an extra fee of over a hundred quid a month on top of the standard boat licence - that grants permission to stay onboard ...

 

 

I expect that to be the logical result of the CC surcharge - that anyone claiming to continuously cruise will have to confirm that they live aboard full time. It's not possible to do it otherwise, however much some people would like to bend the spirit of the law. You can't be continuously cruising while sitting a hundred miles away in a house with your feet up. It's a separate matter from the squatting residential boats, of course, and I admit I'm only interested in it as an intellectual puzzle. I'm not going to get upset about anyone on a boat unless they set their dog on me. I'd rather there were squatting and dumped boats than none.

[MtB]

3 minutes ago, Arthur Marshall said:

I expect that to be the logical result of the CC surcharge - that anyone claiming to continuously cruise will have to confirm that they live aboard full time. It's not possible to do it otherwise, however much some people would like to bend the spirit of the law.

 

Seconded. 

 

Its only easily practical to "CC" when living on the bank due to the ridiculously slack requirement of CRT to move a few hundred yards once a fortnight. 

 

If the letter of the law was enforced then all 14 day-long mooring 'events' would have to be part of a proper continuous cruise (to paraphrase the law). 

 

 

 

 

 

[___]

Two posts above that demonstrate a lack of understanding of how CRTs new licensing regime actually works and of how other people go about boating.

 

There is absolutely no requirement, or any realistic need, to be resident on a boat to not have a home mooring.

 

Folks seem to have become so embittered about “CCers” and “CMers” that they’ve lost the ability to think it through.

 

Edited May 3 by Captain Pegg

[Arthur Marshall]

19 minutes ago, Captain Pegg said:

Two posts above that demonstrate a lack of understanding of how CRTs new licensing regime actually works and of how other people go about boating.

 

There is absolutely no requirement, or any realistic need, to be resident on a boat to not have a home mooring.

 

Folks seem to have become so embittered about “CCers” and “CMers” that they’ve lost the ability to think it through.

 

It is arguable that there is no "requirement". It was certainly the understanding of the original concession. As to "realistic need", it's just that, in fact, you can't be on a cruise without being on the boat, and to justify not having a home mooring you have to be on a cruise. It's no good just trotting out "it ain't so cos I don't like it" or "but then I can't do what I want ". Just explain, in simple terms, how you can be on a continuous cruise by moving your boat a couple of miles once a fortnight while spending the rest of time half a country away in a house.

You may have to redefine the words "continuous" and "cruise". Perhaps you've booked a two week holiday on a cruise ship, boarded it on Monday , nipped home on Wednesday for a couple of weeks, flown out and joined it somewhere along the route for another weekend, flown home again, and actually finished your cruise with P&O two months later? You may find the company object.

To say there is no need to be physically present during what is claimed to be a single journey is, I'm afraid, either daft or magical thinking. If they are really doing separate journeys, then, however inconvenient they may find it, that person aint a continuous cruiser. They're a leisure boater, just like me, except one of us is ripping off the system by not paying online mooring fees.

Which has, for a while, been acceptable to CRT. It may not be for much longer.

 

. .

[Iain_S]

32 minutes ago, Arthur Marshall said:

It is arguable that there is no "requirement". It was certainly the understanding of the original concession. As to "realistic need", it's just that, in fact, you can't be on a cruise without being on the boat, and to justify not having a home mooring you have to be on a cruise. It's no good just trotting out "it ain't so cos I don't like it" or "but then I can't do what I want ". Just explain, in simple terms, how you can be on a continuous cruise by moving your boat a couple of miles once a fortnight while spending the rest of time half a country away in a house.

You may have to redefine the words "continuous" and "cruise". Perhaps you've booked a two week holiday on a cruise ship, boarded it on Monday , nipped home on Wednesday for a couple of weeks, flown out and joined it somewhere along the route for another weekend, flown home again, and actually finished your cruise with P&O two months later? You may find the company object.

To say there is no need to be physically present during what is claimed to be a single journey is, I'm afraid, either daft or magical thinking. If they are really doing separate journeys, then, however inconvenient they may find it, that person aint a continuous cruiser. They're a leisure boater, just like me, except one of us is ripping off the system by not paying online mooring fees.

Which has, for a while, been acceptable to CRT. It may not be for much longer.

 

. .

My understanding of the original; concession was that those who wanted to move around the system, and were therefore unable to make use of a fixed home mooring were allowed to do so. Thar is quite possible while not living permanently on the boat. There is, in law, no such thing as a "continuous cruiser", only a "boat without a home mooring".

[Paul C]

9 minutes ago, Iain_S said:

My understanding of the original; concession was that those who wanted to move around the system, and were therefore unable to make use of a fixed home mooring were allowed to do so. Thar is quite possible while not living permanently on the boat. There is, in law, no such thing as a "continuous cruiser", only a "boat without a home mooring".

Why is your phraseology of "move around the system" okay, while "continuous cruiser" isn't okay? The requirement is to use the boat bona fide for navigation throughout the period of the licence. 

[___]

17 minutes ago, Arthur Marshall said:

It is arguable that there is no "requirement". It was certainly the understanding of the original concession. As to "realistic need", it's just that, in fact, you can't be on a cruise without being on the boat, and to justify not having a home mooring you have to be on a cruise. It's no good just trotting out "it ain't so cos I don't like it" or "but then I can't do what I want ". Just explain, in simple terms, how you can be on a continuous cruise by moving your boat a couple of miles once a fortnight while spending the rest of time half a country away in a house.

You may have to redefine the words "continuous" and "cruise". Perhaps you've booked a two week holiday on a cruise ship, boarded it on Monday , nipped home on Wednesday for a couple of weeks, flown out and joined it somewhere along the route for another weekend, flown home again, and actually finished your cruise with P&O two months later? You may find the company object.

To say there is no need to be physically present during what is claimed to be a single journey is, I'm afraid, either daft or magical thinking. If they are really doing separate journeys, then, however inconvenient they may find it, that person aint a continuous cruiser. They're a leisure boater, just like me, except one of us is ripping off the system by not paying online mooring fees.

Which has, for a while, been acceptable to CRT. It may not be for much longer.

 

. .

 

You're arguing for what you would like the system to be rather than what it is actually is. That's fine in itself, until it leads to the use of derogatory terminology and assumptions about movement patterns of boats for which you don't fully know the movement pattern, or indeed the reasons why it may appear not to move in your less than complete observations.

 

Nobody has to define or redefine "continuous" or "cruise" as neither word is part of the legislation. You simply have to keep moving and not remain in one place without permission for more than 14 days. I made a convoluted journey from my winter mooring at Droitwich to Marple and back last year, during the course of which I left my boat on the towpath (unless stated) and returned to my home from Stoke Pound, Alvechurch, Lapworth, Saltisford (paid), Braunston (in dock), Hillmorton, Newbold, Ansty, Hawkesbury, Atherstone, Fazeley, Curdworth, Hawne Basin (paid), Penkridge, Stone, Congleton, Marple, Whaley Bridge, New Mills Marina (paid), Scholar Green (paid), Great Haywood marina (complimentary night on board), Hawne Basin (paid), Alvechurch, Stoke Prior and finally back to Droitwich for another winter mooring.

 

Whether that's a series of single journeys or one continuous journey is irrelevant, and I'm principally a leisure boater (although I have a roving trader licence). I see no relevance in that either. It all meets the legislative criteria and no questions were asked when I renewed my licence earlier this week.

 

Do you really think I should buy a mooring in a single permanent location when I have no intention of being on it for 8 or 9 months of the year? Or that by not doing so I'm ripping you off?

 

A key point you are missing is that CRT made a signifciant decision in the way they now classify a 'home mooring' for the purposes of licensing. It isn't just any paid mooring that qualifies. It's effectively a single permanent mooring for the duration of the licence.

 

There are plenty of people who move in a similar fashion to me and are effectively subject to a double whammy under the new rules. Probably because CRT have the same jaundiced view of boaters without a home mooring as you. 

[Iain_S]

The legal requirement is to not remain in one place for longer than 14 days. Someone who, for example, boats at weekends while navigating from London to Ripon cannot make use of a home mooring, and would be compliant with the 1995 Act. I would not class that as "continuous cruising", although others may differ.

[Paul C]

18 minutes ago, Iain_S said:

The legal requirement is to not remain in one place for longer than 14 days. Someone who, for example, boats at weekends while navigating from London to Ripon cannot make use of a home mooring, and would be compliant with the 1995 Act. I would not class that as "continuous cruising", although others may differ.

 

There's more to it than that. It must also be "bona fide for navigation" (link provided above).

[Iain_S]

10 minutes ago, Paul C said:

 

There's more to it than that. It must also be "bona fide for navigation" (link provided above).

In my example, when the boat is used, it is for bona fide navigation, and that takes place throughout the period of the licence. Admittedly not continuous usage, but for how long is a gap in navigation permitted? The 1995 Act says 14 days.

 

I would suggest that my example is more "bona fide navigation" than can be accomplished by any liveaboard boater who has a job requiring a physical presence!

Edited May 3 by Iain_S

[Arthur Marshall]

11 minutes ago, Captain Pegg said:

There are plenty of people who move in a similar fashion to me and are effectively subject to a double whammy under the new rules. Probably because CRT have the same jaundiced view of boaters without a home mooring as you. 

I certainly don't have a jaundiced view of boaters without a home mooring. Nor do I have the chip on the shoulder that most BWAHM do (if you prefer the term to CC, as I'm sure yiu do, for obvious reasons).

However, doing a staggered series of little chunks of trips during a year, still does not, in my view, qualify as 'bona fide navigation throughout a period". It's no different to what I do and probably a lot less travel, and I certainly don't . It may be "bona fide navigation through several periods with big gaps between", which really isn't the same thing at all. Just because you've got away with it for years, still doesn't make it so, unfortunately. 

I therefore pay mooring fees to CRT which, while technically are attached to my home mooring, in fact aren't as they are the same wherever I choose to moor, whether on the Shroppie, the upper Macc or the lower. So one leisure boater pays a grand to CRT in addition to their licence, and another doesn't. Perhaps you can now see why CRT have started levelling the playing field?. It is, if course, unfair to those who are actually navigating throught the year, but that's collateral damage caused by those who are gaming the system, either by hiccupping along or illegally residing. You can understand why CRT have got fed up with both.

I have no beef with anyone who manipulates the rules to their advantage, it's what we all do. It's academic, it doesn't impinge on my boating at all very much, certainly not enough to bother me. There's certainly nothing personal in it, or I wouldn't have some of the friends I do. What does irritate slightly is the squeals of outrage from some of the gamers when they get gamed back.

Luckily, neither of our opinions cut much ice with CRT, who will just do what they do and we'll put up with it. I still think someone who leaves a hundred grand's worth of investment unattended in a public place for weeks on end is a bit weird - it stresses me out leaving mine to go to the shops - but then, we all are, a bit , or we wouldn't do it at all.

[Alan de Enfield]

In a court case, Mr Stoner QC  put forward the suggestion that in fact a Liveaboard can never comply with the CCer requirement to Bona Fide navigate ...............

 

 

The judge in Davies got bamboozled by Mr Stoner QC's (as he since became) clever rhetoric on the point. As one online commentator noted at the time, if the letter of the law is being followed, it really does not matter why. To say that Mr Davies' movement pattern was unexceptional in itself (the 'continuous journey' argument of BW was rejected - “I think it is right to say however that my decision is not to be taken as fully endorsing the board's guidance. It is possible to envisage use of a vessel which fell short of the Board's concept of continuous cruising but which still qualified the vessel for a licence under section 17(3)( c )(ii).”), but that he was committing a criminal act because he only complied in order to comply – hence was not 'bona fide' in what he was doing - was ludicrous. Mr Davies' downfall, in the eyes of the judge, was that he was “clearly living on the boat”, hence that his purpose with the boat was therefore not for navigating.

 

On that argument, it could never have made any difference no matter what his movement pattern was. Every permanent live-aboard embarked on a progressive journey around the system in their retirement would be unlawful, simply because they had made the boat their sole and permanent home

Edited May 3 by Alan de Enfield

[Paul C]

1 minute ago, Alan de Enfield said:

In a court case, Mr Stoner QC  put forward the suggestion that in fact a Liveaboard can never comply with the CCer requirement to Bone Fide navigate ...............

 

 

The judge in Davies got bamboozled by Mr Stoner QC's (as he since became) clever rhetoric on the point. As one online commentator noted at the time, if the letter of the law is being followed, it really does not matter why. To say that Mr Davies' movement pattern was unexceptional in itself (the 'continuous journey' argument of BW was rejected - “I think it is right to say however that my decision is not to be taken as fully endorsing the board's guidance. It is possible to envisage use of a vessel which fell short of the Board's concept of continuous cruising but which still qualified the vessel for a licence under section 17(3)( c )(ii).”), but that he was committing a criminal act because he only complied in order to comply – hence was not 'bona fide' in what he was doing - was ludicrous. Mr Davies' downfall, in the eyes of the judge, was that he was “clearly living on the boat”, hence that his purpose with the boat was therefore not for navigating.

 

 

The problem with that judgement (which is county court, and doesn't set a precedent) is that it assumes something only has one use. A boat is practical enough to be multi-purpose, and can be used for more than one thing at a time. An analogy might be, that a double-cab pick up truck can simultaneously transport passengers, transport building materials, tow a sizeable trailer, entertain the passengers (because it has a stereo) and charge their mobile phones (because it has power outlets).

[Alan de Enfield]

 

 

4 minutes ago, Paul C said:

 

The problem with that judgement (which is county court, and doesn't set a precedent) is that it assumes something only has one use. A boat is practical enough to be multi-purpose, and can be used for more than one thing at a time. An analogy might be, that a double-cab pick up truck can simultaneously transport passengers, transport building materials, tow a sizeable trailer, entertain the passengers (because it has a stereo) and charge their mobile phones (because it has power outlets).

 

 

But there is always a 'primary purpose' of any multi funtional item - in the case of a pick up truck the primary purpose is assumed to be for commercial use hence the reason that it has so many tax benefits - including a reduced rate of annual 'road tax'.

 

From the HMRC update Feb 2024

 

• The tax on the benefit-in-kind will now not increase when employers provide these vehicles to their employees; and the capital allowances available in the first year of use will now not be reduced when a business purchases this vehicle for use in their trade.
• This will ensure a continued generous and consistent treatment of DCPUs for capital allowances, benefit in kind, and VAT purposes, maintaining simplicity in the tax system.

 

In the case of the liveaboard - the primary use of the boat is as the owners 'sole or main' residence.

[Paul C]

But it doesn't need to be the primary use, it just needs to be "used........for navigation........"

[___]

1 hour ago, Arthur Marshall said:

I certainly don't have a jaundiced view of boaters without a home mooring. Nor do I have the chip on the shoulder that most BWAHM do (if you prefer the term to CC, as I'm sure yiu do, for obvious reasons).

However, doing a staggered series of little chunks of trips during a year, still does not, in my view, qualify as 'bona fide navigation throughout a period". It's no different to what I do and probably a lot less travel, and I certainly don't . It may be "bona fide navigation through several periods with big gaps between", which really isn't the same thing at all. Just because you've got away with it for years, still doesn't make it so, unfortunately. 

I therefore pay mooring fees to CRT which, while technically are attached to my home mooring, in fact aren't as they are the same wherever I choose to moor, whether on the Shroppie, the upper Macc or the lower. So one leisure boater pays a grand to CRT in addition to their licence, and another doesn't. Perhaps you can now see why CRT have started levelling the playing field?. It is, if course, unfair to those who are actually navigating throught the year, but that's collateral damage caused by those who are gaming the system, either by hiccupping along or illegally residing. You can understand why CRT have got fed up with both.

I have no beef with anyone who manipulates the rules to their advantage, it's what we all do. It's academic, it doesn't impinge on my boating at all very much, certainly not enough to bother me. There's certainly nothing personal in it, or I wouldn't have some of the friends I do. What does irritate slightly is the squeals of outrage from some of the gamers when they get gamed back.

Luckily, neither of our opinions cut much ice with CRT, who will just do what they do and we'll put up with it. I still think someone who leaves a hundred grand's worth of investment unattended in a public place for weeks on end is a bit weird - it stresses me out leaving mine to go to the shops - but then, we all are, a bit , or we wouldn't do it at all.

 

Full of contradications and incorrect assumptions, Arthur. And some unnecessarily nasty insinuation. Not at all the response of someone that isn't bothered.

 

The towpath moorings were pretty much all on short term visitor moorings (typically of 5 days limit) and were compliant. The longer stays are the paid ones. Yet you assume you know how I and others boat.

 

I haven't "gotten away" with anything for years. I had a home mooring for six years until two years ago. Full fee paid directly to CRT since it was a CRT permit mooring. I now pay about 40% of that amount in winter mooring fees for 25% of the time on what is essentially the same mooring site. Plus whatever proportion of marina fees goes to CRT. I pay my way as I'm obliged to do and more. It equates to more money direct to CRT than most marina dwellers.

 

So I don't really see that CRT are levelling things up, they're just charging differently in a way that is probably more equitable overall but has some flaws. There is no perfect and totally fair pricing model. It's not the principle I have an issue with, just the rather narrow way they have defined a home mooring for licensing purposes.

 

The problem here isn't your views on what you think is right. It's your attitude to other boaters. Show some respect, just about everybody on the canal is making some contribution and very few are truly detrimental in the bigger picture.

 

 

 

[Higgs]

10 hours ago, Arthur Marshall said:

I certainly don't have a jaundiced view of boaters without a home mooring. Nor do I have the chip on the shoulder that most BWAHM do (if you prefer the term to CC, as I'm sure yiu do, for obvious reasons).

However, doing a staggered series of little chunks of trips during a year, still does not, in my view, qualify as 'bona fide navigation throughout a period". It's no different to what I do and probably a lot less travel, and I certainly don't . It may be "bona fide navigation through several periods with big gaps between", which really isn't the same thing at all. Just because you've got away with it for years, still doesn't make it so, unfortunately. 

I therefore pay mooring fees to CRT which, while technically are attached to my home mooring, in fact aren't as they are the same wherever I choose to moor, whether on the Shroppie, the upper Macc or the lower. So one leisure boater pays a grand to CRT in addition to their licence, and another doesn't. Perhaps you can now see why CRT have started levelling the playing field?. It is, if course, unfair to those who are actually navigating throught the year, but that's collateral damage caused by those who are gaming the system, either by hiccupping along or illegally residing. You can understand why CRT have got fed up with both.

I have no beef with anyone who manipulates the rules to their advantage, it's what we all do. It's academic, it doesn't impinge on my boating at all very much, certainly not enough to bother me. There's certainly nothing personal in it, or I wouldn't have some of the friends I do. What does irritate slightly is the squeals of outrage from some of the gamers when they get gamed back.

Luckily, neither of our opinions cut much ice with CRT, who will just do what they do and we'll put up with it. I still think someone who leaves a hundred grand's worth of investment unattended in a public place for weeks on end is a bit weird - it stresses me out leaving mine to go to the shops - but then, we all are, a bit , or we wouldn't do it at all.

 

Tell me which weeks your mooring is free, I'll be wanting to use it, to be able to use your transferrable logic mooring scheme.

 

 

[Arthur Marshall]

6 hours ago, Higgs said:

 

Tell me which weeks your mooring is free, I'll be wanting to use it, to be able to use your transferrable logic mooring scheme.

 

 

Unfortunately, while CRT doesn't give a toss about what boat is on my mooring, or precisely where it is, the farmer does. But as you don't pay mooring fees to CRT anyway, you'd have no right to it anyway A bit of logic, please.

14 hours ago, Captain Pegg said:

 

Full of contradications and incorrect assumptions, Arthur. And some unnecessarily nasty insinuation. Not at all the response of someone that isn't bothered.

 

The towpath moorings were pretty much all on short term visitor moorings (typically of 5 days limit) and were compliant. The longer stays are the paid ones. Yet you assume you know how I and others boat.

 

The problem here isn't your views on what you think is right. It's your attitude to other boaters. Show some respect, just about everybody on the canal is making some contribution and very few are truly detrimental in the bigger picture.

 

 

 

It's a shame you don't read what I wrote before you sling accusations of disrespect about, nor actually try to take issue with any point I made, rather than trying to shift the argument to one you could win. I think someone mentiones straw men.

I did note that on another thread one of our members says they've just been on a cruise. They probably stayed on it continuously - if they hadn't, it would have been several cruises, like yours. Trying to argue that you've navigated continuously enough not to require a home mooring throughout a year by moving sometimes, leaving the boat and going elsewhere, then returning to chug a bit more is pure nonsense. Every single boater does exactly that unless they never, ever, leave their mooring.

As I've said repeatedly, I'm just trying to get to grips with the reasons for the changing attitudes of CRT. In everyone's favourite line, some of my best friends are continuous cruisers, sometimes compliant, sometimes not. That's their business not mine. Our opinions don't matter much and I'm sure you no more resent home moorers (especially as you've been one) than I do genuine cruisers, dumpers, bridge hoppers or those just wanting a roof over their heads.

I'll be interested to see where this debate goes, if anywhere, but I'll now politely doff my cap and leave this thread.

 

[ditchcrawler]

When we moored in a well known marina in the midlands the owner often re-let our mooring while we were out, we had a share boat and sometimes we were away for 6 weeks and sometimes just a week.

[___]

2 hours ago, Arthur Marshall said:

Unfortunately, while CRT doesn't give a toss about what boat is on my mooring, or precisely where it is, the farmer does. But as you don't pay mooring fees to CRT anyway, you'd have no right to it anyway A bit of logic, please.

It's a shame you don't read what I wrote before you sling accusations of disrespect about, nor actually try to take issue with any point I made, rather than trying to shift the argument to one you could win. I think someone mentiones straw men.

I did note that on another thread one of our members says they've just been on a cruise. They probably stayed on it continuously - if they hadn't, it would have been several cruises, like yours. Trying to argue that you've navigated continuously enough not to require a home mooring throughout a year by moving sometimes, leaving the boat and going elsewhere, then returning to chug a bit more is pure nonsense. Every single boater does exactly that unless they never, ever, leave their mooring.

As I've said repeatedly, I'm just trying to get to grips with the reasons for the changing attitudes of CRT. In everyone's favourite line, some of my best friends are continuous cruisers, sometimes compliant, sometimes not. That's their business not mine. Our opinions don't matter much and I'm sure you no more resent home moorers (especially as you've been one) than I do genuine cruisers, dumpers, bridge hoppers or those just wanting a roof over their heads.

I'll be interested to see where this debate goes, if anywhere, but I'll now politely doff my cap and leave this thread.

 

 

You provide a great example of why a lot of folk without a home mooring dislike the "continuous cruiser" label. It leads to a false view of what is required, and also I think of what is fair and reasonable.

 

The journey I described is certainly within the requirements of my licence and indeed did 'satisfy the board'. Not only that, I believe that it is also a usage of the canals that is reasonable and fair to other users. Is it really "nonsense" to suggest that what is demonstrably a 'progressive journey' qualifies as 'bona fide for navigation' irrespective of whether I returned home at points during the overall period of the journey? Would it have constituted a single journey in your eyes if I had simply stayed aboard while on those moorings? Is one not allowed to take a break during a long journey? The law seems to think it reasonable.

 

And is there any suggestion or evidence that the original decision to not require a home mooring for all licence holders was only considered in relation to liveaboards?

 

If you go on a public forum and suggest that someone is "getting away with it for years" and talking "nonsense" when they are in fact demonstrably within their rights - and more in my opinion - then you're going to get some pushback. So, yes, best to step back. Or perhaps simply post your point of view without such remarks.

 

Edited May 4 by Captain Pegg

[Arthur Marshall]

20 minutes ago, Captain Pegg said:

 

You provide a great example of why a lot of folk without a home mooring dislike the "continuous cruiser" label. It leads to a false view of what is required, and also I think of what is fair and reasonable.

 

The journey I described is certainly within the requirements of my licence and indeed did 'satisfy the board'. Not only that, I believe that it is also a usage of the canals that is reasonable and fair to other users. Is it really "nonsense" to suggest that what is demonstrably a 'progressive journey' qualifies as 'bona fide for navigation' irrespective of whether I returned home at points during the overall period of the journey? Would it have constituted a single journey in your eyes if I had simply stayed aboard while on those moorings? Is one not allowed to take a break during a long journey? The law seems to think it reasonable.

 

And is there any suggestion or evidence that the original decision to not require a home mooring for all licence holders was only considered in relation to liveaboards?

 

If you go on a public forum and suggest that someone is "getting away with it for years" and talking "nonsense" when they are in fact demonstrably within their rights - and more in my opinion - then you're going to get some pushback. So, yes, best to step back. Or perhaps simply post your point of view without such remarks.

 

Well, that's my point of view what I posted. It's an opinion, just like yours. I don't mind pushback, though I'd prefer a reasoned argument why my opinions are wrong instead of just yet another statement that your opinion is different, understandably.

It's just that I think you need to be aware that what satisfied the board in the past may not always do so in the future.

Anyway, I didn't mean to butt in again. Got some music to learn.

Really leaves the thread, this time. If you want the last word, you're welcome.