A new way of looking at the CC issue

[carlt]

but do you really believe that that is what parliament intended when they made the concession to remove the obligation to have a home mooring from those using the boat for navigation throughout the period of the licence? Please don't sidestep again by quoting the lack of clarity in the wording of the legislation, just give an honest opinion. DO YOU BELIEVE THAT IS WHAT PARLIAMENT INTENDED WHEN THE LEGISLATION WAS FRAMED?

When did they remove the obligation to have a home mooring??

 

There never was one.

[Sir Nibble]

Forget it, I give up.

If the only way the point can be argued is to invent obstacles to discussion I can't be arsed with it. There is no need in law for anyone to have a home mooring, end of story. Now the only problem is navigating a linear housing estate.

[carlt]

Forget it, I give up.

If the only way the point can be argued is to invent obstacles to discussion I can't be arsed with it. There is no need in law for anyone to have a home mooring, end of story. Now the only problem is navigating a linear housing estate.

Sorry snibble but, by repeating the same question over and over again and not accepting anyone else's answer but your own, I'd say it was you who is putting up obstacles.

 

I first had a boat in the early 80s, with a licence, but no mooring, perfectly legitimately. I cannot recall any earlier legislation that said it was obligatory to have a home mooring.

 

The 1995 act attempted, quite clumsily, to tighten the laws up but has been (mis)interpreted by so many people that I believe it is ambiguous.

[AlanH]

Does the repeating of an untrue statement make it true?

 

You do not pay the connection fee, the marina operator does. You do not pay the ground rent, if the marina operator leases the land, from BW, the marina operator does.

Does the repeating of an untrue statement make it true?

BW gets more money from me than it does from a CCer. That is true whether you like it or not.

 

Do you think you should pay less Council Tax, because you are contributing more to local government, by paying the marina operator's business rates?

 

Probably, yes. I am certainly paying a lot more CT than a liveaboard CCer.

[mayalld]

Sorry snibble but, by repeating the same question over and over again and not accepting anyone else's answer but your own, I'd say it was you who is putting up obstacles.

 

I first had a boat in the early 80s, with a licence, but no mooring, perfectly legitimately. I cannot recall any earlier legislation that said it was obligatory to have a home mooring.

 

The 1995 act attempted, quite clumsily, to tighten the laws up but has been (mis)interpreted by so many people that I believe it is ambiguous.

 

It isn't actually ambiguous at all.

 

It is quite clear that you must satisfy the board. In the absence of anything more specific in the act, it is clear that the exact definition of what is required is left to the board.

[carlt]

Does the repeating of an untrue statement make it true?

BW gets more money from me than it does from a CCer. That is true whether you like it or not.

That is not true.

 

A ccer is most likely using more diesel, than a marina moorer (by your reckoning) and he would almost certainly be buying the diesel from a marina, boatyard or coal boat that is paying an additional levy, to trade on the canals.

 

As their customer, he is paying that levy.

 

Every time he goes to buy something from a chandlers, he is paying the charges that BW levy on them.

 

Every time he pays for a pump out, he is paying the boatyard's BW charges.

 

Every time he drinks in a BW pub, buys an elsan key or a postcard from the stophouse (other BW offuces are available).

 

We're gonna need a bigger calculator!

 

Should people with economical engines pay more than (for example) Phylis with her Super, megacharged 170bhp lump, for their licence, because, by not visiting the boatyard's pumps so often, they are not contributing as much to BW's coffers, or the public purse?

Edited December 1, 2008 by carlt

[carlt]

In fact, using AlanH's logic it's time we stopped penalising the businessman, who blats up and down the motorway, in his 8 litre Chelsea Tractor and started loading more taxes on the driver of the 70mpg hybrid car, because they aren't contributing as much to the upkeep of the country!

 

Since moving closer to town I now walk in, to do my shopping.

 

I am writing to the council to insist that they put my council tax up as I contribute less, to the upkeep of the town, than someone who is forced to pay their extortionate car parking charges.

 

Any other examples, as silly as AlanH's?

 

If you try hard you might even think of one sillier!

 

 

 

 

 

Maybe people without boats should pay a higher licence than people with boats, because they're not contributing as much, to the upkeep of the waterways.

[gaggle]

It has already been established elsewhere that Dave pays £130 p.a. more to BW than Cotswoldman therefore he pays more towards the BW tap.

is it established elsewhere, has everyone agreed to this so and it is "now established" ?.

when ,where was it established ?

[GUMPY]

When did they remove the obligation to have a home mooring??

 

There never was one.

 

There was, it was removed in the early 1990s cant remeber the exact date but there was no such thing as a CC licence and you had to state a home mooring otherwise you didnt get a licence.

I remember having to lie about the mooring to do so.

 

Julina

Edited December 1, 2008 by idleness

[AlanH]

A ccer is most likely using more diesel, than a marina moorer (by your reckoning) and he would almost certainly be buying the diesel from a marina, boatyard or coal boat that is paying an additional levy, to trade on the canals.

 

As their customer, he is paying that levy.

So am I

 

Every time he goes to buy something from a chandlers, he is paying the charges that BW levy on them.

So am I

 

Every time he pays for a pump out, he is paying the boatyard's BW charges.

SDo am I

 

 

Every time he drinks in a BW pub, buys an elsan key or a postcard from the stophouse (other BW offuces are available).

Same for me

 

 

 

Should people with economical engines pay more than (for example) Phylis with her Super, megacharged 170bhp lump, for their licence, because, by not visiting the boatyard's pumps so often, they are not contributing as much to BW's coffers, or the public purse?

 

Those with gas guzzlers are contributing more to the public purse by using more fuel and therefore paying more tax on it.

[carlt]

There was, it was removed in the early 1990s cant remeber the exact date but there was no such thing as a CC licence and you had to state a home mooring otherwise you didnt get a licence.

Sorry but, before 1989 (when I moved to France and therefore had to put my boat somewhere) I never had a home mooring but had a licence.

Edited December 1, 2008 by carlt

[AlanH]

No it hasn't! He pays no more, to use the canal, than anyone else.

What is thast £130 for then? It can't even be connection as he moors offside.

[Chris Pink]

DO YOU BELIEVE THAT IS WHAT PARLIAMENT INTENDED WHEN THE LEGISLATION WAS FRAMED?

 

Aha an easy question...

 

yes I do. If they didn't they would have said so.

[carlt]

What is thast £130 for then? It can't even be connection as he moors offside.

I can only assume it is the levy, which BW charge the landowner, to rent out moorings.

 

A service which the ccer doesn't require.

 

 

 

So am I

 

 

So am I

 

 

SDo am I

 

 

 

Same for me

 

 

 

 

 

Those with gas guzzlers are contributing more to the public purse by using more fuel and therefore paying more tax on it.

 

I think you are deliberately missing the point.

 

The CCer (according to your much earlier posts) is using his boat more than you (hence using more diesel and wearing his boat and equipment out faster) so he is using the services of boatyards, diesel suppliers and chandlers more than marina moorers, therefore, he needs to pay those businesses more, therefore he is contributing more (according to your earlier post) than the marina moorer, therefore the marina moorer (according to your logic) should pay more for his licence.

 

As to the gas guzzlers, you've read my post the wrong way round.

[AlanH]

I can only assume it is the levy, which BW charge the landowner, to rent out moorings.

 

A service which the ccer doesn't require.

And who pays the landowner? The moorings would be £130 cheaper if there were no levy. Therefore Dave is paying the levy.

 

There is no doubt that BW get more of my money than they do from a CCer whether it is through connection charges, EOG charges or levies.

[carlt]

And who pays the landowner? The moorings would be £130 cheaper if there were no levy. Therefore Dave is paying the levy.

 

There is no doubt that BW get more of my money than they do from a CCer whether it is through connection charges, EOG charges or levies.

There is plenty of doubt and you fail to address the point that, because BW sell a service to the marina owner, and the marina owner incorporates that into your fees, this is a service that you get but the ccer doesn't.

 

As I said, by your logic, someone who doesn't own a boat should be forced to buy a licence, that is more expensive than the one bought by a boat owner.

[Chris Pink]

There was, it was removed in the early 1990s cant remeber the exact date but there was no such thing as a CC licence and you had to state a home mooring otherwise you didnt get a licence.

I remember having to lie about the mooring to do so.

 

Julina

 

Not true, there was no requirement to have a mooring pre-1995, it was attached to the 1995 to appease the 'politics of envy' lobby and rigorously opposed by many boater's organisations (they existed in those good old days).

 

There was said to be a 14 day rule, the one with parishes, but it was never legislated anywhere. There were also, in my memory, old boats everywhere.

 

It must not cloud reality that the vociferous few on this forum do not reflect the feelings and everyday life on the canal which proceeds with none of the conflict implied by Dave and his troupe.

[AlanH]

There is plenty of doubt and you fail to address the point that, because BW sell a service to the marina owner, and the marina owner incorporates that into your fees, this is a service that you get but the ccer doesn't.

 

In my area there is a marina which has diesel, pumpout, chandlery in it. The CCer can enter and leave the marina to access these free of charge. I have to pay for my access. Why is that then?

[carlt]

In my area there is a marina which has diesel, pumpout, chandlery in it. The CCer can enter and leave the marina to access these free of charge. I have to pay for my access. Why is that then?

They are paying for access, by paying the marina operator for the services he provides them with.

 

Your connection fee is not a fee for access, btw, it is the fee the marina operator has to pay BW, for his marina to be connected to the system.

 

The clue is in the name.

Edited December 1, 2008 by carlt

[John Orentas]

I have just skimmed this thread, life is too short for anything else but I must say I just don't get it !

 

Is the term 'Continuous Cruiser' when used in the modern context intended to be ironic, like "We're all cheating the system and stealing from our fellow boaters".. All I have seen in the thread is people going on about "Their" mooring and "Their" water tap, why on earth would someone who is continuously cruising need either of these facilities.

 

What I suspect they are really doing is daring everyone on the forum to snitch on them.

 

Isn't anyone of you going to say, "We all pay our mooring fees squire....... Know what I mean, nudge nudge, wink wink, say no more" !!!..

[Chris Pink]

In my area there is a marina which has diesel, pumpout, chandlery in it. The CCer can enter and leave the marina to access these free of charge. I have to pay for my access. Why is that then?

 

Scraping the barrel, Alan, scraping the barrel.

 

The marina owner effectively 'subsidises' this use in order to get the sales.

 

Obviously. If the marina owner wanted to bar any other boat then they could do so without notice.

[gaggle]

In my area there is a marina which has diesel, pumpout, chandlery in it. The CCer can enter and leave the marina to access these free of charge. I have to pay for my access. Why is that then?

he allows others to enter as the profit he makes from them can subsidise the inmates.

[Chris Pink]

I have just skimmed this thread, life is too short for anything else but I must say I just don't get it !

 

Is the term 'Continuous Cruiser' when used in the modern context intended to be ironic, like "We're all cheating the system and stealing from our fellow boaters".. All I have seen in the thread is people going on about "Their" mooring and "Their" water tap, why on earth would someone who is continuously cruising need either of these facilities.

 

What I suspect they are really doing is daring everyone on the forum to snitch on them.

 

Isn't anyone of you going to say, "We all pay our mooring fees squire....... Know what I mean, nudge nudge, wink wink, say no more" !!!..

 

No John, simply yet another thread where the Continuous Moorers moan about the Continuous Cruisers.

 

 

Continuous Moaners is about right. You must use your voice continuously for moaning not being content for more than 14 days without it is reasonable to do so. Christmas and lottery winnings will not be seen as 'reasonable'.

[mayalld]

Aha an easy question...

 

yes I do. If they didn't they would have said so.

 

So, you honestly believe that what parliament intended, when it passed the 1995 Act, was that any movement at all within a 14 day period (even reductio ad absurdum, a movement away from a mooring for a couple of hours, and returning to the same mooring), would constitute "used bona fide for navigation throughout the period for which the consent is valid without remaining continuously in any one place for more than 14 days"

 

Is that your contention here?

[AlanH]

They are paying for access, by paying the marina operator for the services he provides them with.

But those mooring in the marina use the same facillities. Does that mean that the moorers are subsidising the CCers?

 

Your connection fee is not a fee for access, btw, it is the fee the marina operator has to pay BW, for his marina to be connected to the system.

Merely semantics. Does the connection not provide access? Of course it does. Would I have access without the connection? Of course I wouldn't. No matter what it is called it is still money that the marina moorer pays indirectly to BW and the CCer does not.