Continuous Cruisers

[John Orentas]

As the thread seems to have finally ran out of steam, I think it would be a good time to finally "knock it on the head". If for no other reason than it is now up to 211 replies and it has become very cumbersome.

 

I will give it a day or so.

[Sam]

As the thread seems to have finally ran out of steam, I think it would be a good time to finally "knock it on the head".  If for no other reason than it is now up to 211 replies and it has become very cumbersome.

 

I will give it a day or so.

21757[/snapback]

 

Whats the harm in leaving it open . ?????????????????????????//

 

Be careful with what you do John . . it is a very popular thread and people may not like it!

[Southdowner]

Whats the harm in leaving it open . ?????????????????????????//

 

Be careful with what you do John . . it is a very popular thread and people may not like it!

21932[/snapback]

 

 

Before the thread be closed......

 

I take the point made earlier in this thread that CC'ers can cut themselves off from fixed links in the world by moving on so regular a basis, but it is my ambition to do this for a season or two to get round the network, the better to choose those stretches that appeal the most for a more permanent future stay. Given the likely enforced increase in diesel prices, the last thing genuine CC'ers need is the imposition of additional 12 month mooring & enhanced licence costs when the said mooring is not used for many months of a given year.

 

First I need my own boat of course....."not if but when"

 

Southdowner.

[gaggle]

the increased charges you refer to are i believe the changes the likes of victor are looking for. as a way of clearing from the canals what in their minds is the undesirables from the canals,the poorest members of the canal community.it is social engineering by the few who seem to think they are the elite on the canals,victor has asked the question this week inviting your response.i have sent my response have you sent yours? speak up against these views which are being repeated more and more in the canal mags and on the likes of narrowboat world,each time of repeating it seems the more vitrolic.victor will not answer your email about cc,s although the other contributors to nb world are happy to reply to other concerns,HIS VIEW HAS BEEN GIVEN AND NO DISCUSSION WILL BE TOLERATED.DICTORIAL.SELF IMPORTANT.POMPOUS.RIGHT WING AND NOT TO BE IGNORED.it may be his way his way of calling attention to nb world,cause some contraversy await response and increased usage of site but i think it is more.

gaggle.give the thread a little longer it deserves it ,even the victor chap admits it is the most debated subject of canal life.another reason perhaps why he has taken it up and is so one sided in his veiws,i believe the canal media is there to encourage debate and not to try and split the community as victor is surely but slowly doing. i will now shut up

Edited June 6, 2005 by gaggle

[dor]

HIS VIEW HAS BEEN GIVEN AND NO DISCUSSION WILL BE TOLERATED.DICTORIAL.SELF IMPORTANT.POMPOUS.RIGHT WING AND NOT TO BE IGNORED

 

Gaggle: aren't you being a bit guilty of the same, but from the other side?

 

We all like to think our view is the right one, and that an opposing view must be wrong, but you must see it from both sides.

 

The fact is, a huge number of boaters do not see why they should pay a very significant amount of money to keep their boat on the water when others get away without paying. Again I should stress this is not directed at the genuine CCs, but those who simply don't pay for a mooring (and often not pay for a licence either) and stay more or less in one place.

 

To say that this targets the poorer members is not the point. If people can't afford a canal boat they should look to Social Services for help - why should living on a boat be any different from living on land?

 

I still believe that a clearer understanding of what is meant by Continuous Cruiser is needed; a bridge-hopper or squatter is not a CC. Just because you do not pay for a mooring does not mean you are a CC. And the number of genuine CCs is relatively small. Regrettably the number of bridge hoppers is far from small, and their behavior is no more acceptable than not paying council tax, road tax or income tax for that matter.

[bottle]

I to have e-mailed Victor.

 

Contnuous Cruiser; Person who pays all required fees and has right to be on the cut just like all the other fee payers but has decided not to pay for permanent mooring that he does not need. Obeys all requirements on moving etc.

 

Non payers/bridge hoppers; blight on society but these people are the equivilent of travellers etc who do not pay no matter where they are.

 

Lets start using the correct terminology

[gaggle]

they pay a significant amount for moorings not to be on the water from my understanding the licence payment is the one that allows you onto the water.

at the present time people"limited resources" can afford to live on the canals but if those of us who are better off decide we no longer want them on the canals and launch a campiagn to hike charges up to price them off the canals,i think i am right to say it is social engineering.if you dont want them on the cut at least have the front to launch a campaign and be honest about the reason for it,the present campaign victor baby is trying to launch goes on about the fairness of payments when in i believe it is about the exclusion of the least well off.

i am a newbei to the discussions on these matters and i can only say that over the past weeks my views are reflecting what i read on these forums and in the canal press.i will look to see if posts i have put on are dictorial ect. gaggle

[dor]

at the present time people"limited resources" can afford to live on the canals but if those of us who are better off decide we no longer want them on the canals and launch a campiagn to hike charges up to price them off the canals,i think i am right to say it is social engineering

 

Why do you think people want to price others off the canals?

THere is no need to hike prices, and I am sure most would agree with me in that I do not want to see prices being hiked.

 

What I would like to see is people just paying what they should pay; not evading their dues - i.e. being honest like the rest of us.

 

It is quite simple: be a CC and obey the rules, no mooring fee to pay. Decide you want to stay in more or less one place, pay for a mooring.

 

Simple, no need to change the system, no "social engineering", just application of not unreasonable rules.

[DHutch]

I dont think people should be "priced of the canal"

 

- But i deffonatly think our licence fee is lower than would be reasonable.

 

If the licence fee was raiseda little, and then policed better, with proper penaltys for non complence. I think that would make more sence.

 

 

Daniel

Edited June 7, 2005 by dhutch

[Bernie]

Raising the licence fee above the cost of inflation would in fact price many off the canals. Don't forget many, many narrowboat owners are in fact on a very limited income including those who have retired. I think that if BW were to act a little quicker towards those who don't pay then things would improve.

[Richard Bustens]

Does anyone know how many boats there are that do not have a license etc,

surly if that money was collected it would go a long way.

[gaggle]

victor is very very clear,continuous cruisers should we make THEM pay.at the present time they pay the licence and are lawfully allowed access to the system.should we make them pay i presume means should we make them pay more,that is where the price hike comes into the equation.i have asked victor twice to explain what it is he is demanding the cc,s pay more for,i will ask you the same.what is it they get that they should pay more for,tell me please.moorers pay extra because they want a mooring.at the present time i am not on the cut on a mooring or as a cc,i have no axe to grind one way or the other,however come august"touch wood"i have to choose one way or the other.at the moment i can afford to have a mooring or i can go the cc way which i will probably opt for as i wish to see the network.when i move around the network any money not spent on mooring will not stay in my pocket it will buy fuel,sundries and food from people who depend on cruisers for a living.it is not just victor baby and his campaign it is others who refuse to differentiate between bridge hoppers non licence payers and if you like water gypsies who all seem to be labeled as cc,s,and that practice is it seems on the increase.gaggle you may not want prices hiked for yourself but do you object to the campaign to make cc,s have prices hiked up for nothing in return?

[DHutch]

Does anyone know how many boats there are that do not have a license etc,

surly if that money was collected it would go a long way.

Quite likely.

- but as BW said, trying to collect this money is not finanally viable.

 

AKA the gain revenue would not pay for the hours spent gain it.

 

 

Daniel

[Richard Bustens]

Well that is ridiculous, what would they do if no one paid still say it was not viable to collect.

I bet there are companies out there that will collect it for a %age

[DHutch]

Raising the licence fee above the cost of inflation would in fact price many off the canals. Don't forget many, many narrowboat owners are in fact on a very limited income including those who have retired.

 

Well, i mean obviously you would have to raise it slow enought to allow thos on a limited income to budget for it, but still.

- But if you consider the about of effort thats put into the canal network per user, the current licence is not overly excessive is it?

 

 

Daniel

Edited June 7, 2005 by dhutch

[DHutch]

Well that is ridiculous.

It is totaly un acceptable.

 

-Thats one of the reason i thing the licence fee should be put up, along with more aproprete peneltys for failer to comply (such as a heft fine, or "clamping")

 

 

Daniel

[Bernie]

Pensions rise by the cost of inflation only each year. Most other expenses rise the same or above. So it makes sense to realise that if everything including licences were to rise above then those on limited income of around £100 PW would simply not be able to afford more to help perhaps pay for their chosen leisure activity. Many struggle now. By all means something should be done about the none licence payers but not by penalising those who conform.

Edited June 6, 2005 by Bernie

[DHutch]

Many struggle now.

Well im not saying double it over night or anything, what in was mainly geting at was that the fine/penalty for non-complence should be raised, and properly enforces, this would make "licence dodging" a much more risk bussness, and the fines would also help pay for the time taken enforcing this.

- And anyway, as far as i know - Ours is only about £120 or somthing, hardly earth shattering!

 

 

Daniel

Edited June 8, 2005 by dhutch

[Bernie]

That is my business.

[dor]

- Ours is only about £120 or somthing, hardly earth shattering!

 

Daniel, do you get a special rate for being steam? The licence at present is over £500 for a 50ft boat. basic mooring is even more.

[DHutch]

Daniel, do you get a special rate for being steam? The licence at present is over £500 for a 50ft boat.  basic mooring is even more.

Urrm, i dunno, maybe?

- £500 would make more sence, in terms of paying for the system.

 

I dont know why we would get less tho? Doesnt make sence really!

- I mean, we use the locks, and the canal just about as much, and beeing deepish, we need more dredging them some the shallow boats.

 

 

Daniel

Edited June 6, 2005 by dhutch

[fender]

As the thread seems to have finally ran out of steam, I think it would be a good time to finally "knock it on the head".  If for no other reason than it is now up to 211 replies and it has become very cumbersome.

21757[/snapback]

 

 

If its stopped somone'll start up a new one easily. Can always claim it as a prequel.

 

As long as people keep mentioning CC's and mixing them different categories up and making out that CC's (and bridge hoppers etc) are the only ones who dont pay licences, then I agree it is defintely a form of social engineering - ESPECIALLY when we know that people on the other side of the coin DONT PAY licences either. No one attacks these people because they live in prestigious moorings ("surely they cant be not paying?") or because they are important canal users (such as trip boats etc.)

 

Often the only ones that are attacked are those that do not fit into the snug image that canal boats should be smart and tidy etc and have been well maintained. There is also another problem - if people are not working and are on benefit there is a issue of the social services not paying for licences as a legal case in Birmingham shows, so even though bridge hoppers dont often pay licences either remember there is some social issue behind it that no-one has envisaged.

 

I am just sad that CC's and Bridge Hoppers are labelled together because they are different categories of social needs. A lot of Bridge Hoppers, whilst not paying licences, do need help of some sort (whilst CC's often dont need any sort of help because they are self sufficent and can afford to move about. ) and mixing them up does nothing to identify the problems and address them accordingly to severity and extent of financial ability.

 

I know some Bridge Hoppers DO WANT moorings - its the system and attitudes that dont help.

[dor]

A lot of Bridge Hoppers, whilst not paying licences, do need help of some sort

 

I can accept to a certain degree what you say here, but that help should come from outside of BW.

 

Would you accept that someone on a low wage doesn't need to tax their car?

 

Just because someone is on a low wage, or chooses a lifestyle that doesn't bring in an income, it doesn't mean that they should get away with not paying a licence.

[nichimyo]

I can accept to a certain degree what you say here, but that help should come from outside of BW.

 

Would you accept that someone on a low wage doesn't need to tax their car?

 

Just because someone is on a low wage, or chooses a lifestyle that doesn't bring in an income, it doesn't mean that they should get away with not paying a licence.

22040[/snapback]

 

People on low wages usually don't have cars, but everyone has to live somewhere. If you live on a boat, then lose your job, you can't change your boat for a nice cheap local authority house, beacause you "have no housing need", so you have to carry on in your boat... that's assuming you can get the Benefits people to stump up some kind of contribution to your mooring fees and your licence. Can you?

(I'd like to know, if anyone can tell me.)

If youre in a marina, presumably you have some sort of address, but if you're on an online mooring, what do people do about their addresses then that will satisfy the Benefits people?

(That's another thing I'd like to know>)

(Sorry, I don't know who does the Benefits these days, I have been fortunate enough not to have to deal with them for some time now.)

[maffi mushkila]

I dont think people should be "priced of the canal"

 

- But i deffonatly think the licence fee is much lower than would be reasonable.

 

If the licence fee was raised, and then policed, with proper penaltys for non complence. I think that would make more sence.

Daniel

 

Daniel

 

It's probably a fact that many people, particularly retired people on fixed incomes, will be priced off the canal. So what is the purpose of raising the fee. It will not stop licence dodgers, it may even increase the numbers.

 

Just remember you don't have to pay a licence (nor me yet). If the licence fee was raised it would be no more properly policed than it is now.

 

Why are people so happy to raise the fee. If BW should raise the fee do you think the government would continue with their grant at the same level.