A new way of looking at the CC issue

[sueb]

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.

The many boaters organisations still exist and still rigorously oppose the powers that be when they come up with silly ideas. How do you think the 60/40 diesel split got to be variable; the BSS got more reasonable and the licence increase for wide boats and ccers got abandoned.

Sue

[Lesd]

OK, that's at least the second time that you have attempted to use the term "Continuous Moorer" to refer to people who have a permanent, paid-for mooring.

 

So far as I am aware, you are the only participant who feels that the term should be used in that sense, and it would appear to me that everybody else believes the term to mean "a boater who has no paid-for permanent mooring, but who either remains moored on a public towpath for an extended period, or who moves back and forth between a small selection of towpath moorings in a limited area"

 

Now, if you wish to contend that such people are in fact continuous cruisers, that is one thing, but your deliberate attempts to cloud the issue by trying to add confusion as to what the terms mean does nothing beyond exposing the lack of a cogent argument from you.

 

When I asked what a continuous moorer was earlier many people came up with a different deffinintion, so I dont think Chris is on his own here at all,

[magpie patrick]

I've been trying to work out whether to get into this debate or not... I'm verging on not bothering...

 

I shall just state my own (our own) position

 

62 foot nb, marina mooring, hope to get 30-35 days crusing out of it...

 

basic cost is £3000 quid, plus fuel, plus maintenance: £2000 of this is for moorings

 

when using it, we may leave it on a "public" (i.e. not a reserved mooring) for one week, perhaps two. If the rules allowed I might leave it for three weeks, but I don't, and I'd be nervous.

 

I could do with cheaper moorings, they are a large percentage of the cost...

 

but even if the rules allowed, I woulnd't just leave it moored to the towpath for months at a time.

 

The rules don't allow, and I am so glad that when I visit the boat once a fortnight, I don't actually have to move her.

 

The cost of the mooring raises a question mark over keeping the boat, but I'd rather sell her than dump her on the towpath, unofficial, unsupervised etc

 

I presume continuous moorers are liveaboards, they should move moor often, what I'm paying for is the freedom not to have to move the boat: I presume they want that freedom otherwise they'd move it anyway. Continuous cruisers shoudl be left alone.

 

But BW have said they will only pursue where there is finiancial advantage for doing so. Dave Mayall's stance is fine and principled, but it wont solve the problem. There will still be a financial advantage in not having a mooring, and until the fines, costs (and perhaps penalties for not enforcing the rules, from OffCanal) are in place and mean it costs BW less to tackle the problem than to ignore it illicit mooring will continue.

 

That's some not bothering isn't it

[mayalld]

When I asked what a continuous moorer was earlier many people came up with a different deffinintion, so I dont think Chris is on his own here at all,

 

There are many variations on a theme, because it is a neologism, and means different things to different people.

 

The one thing that is constant in all the definitions other than Mr Pinks' is that they relate to people who do NOT have a paid mooring, and remain in one place for a longer time that the person using the term thinks reasonable.

 

NOBODY but Chris uses the term to refer to those who are on a paid-for mooring.

 

Why should the use of loaded and pejorative language be reserved for your side of the argument?

 

I did not use it to cloud any issues (what issue they cry) simply that it had a poetic ring about it.

 

Yes it does have a poetic ring to it, doesn't it.

 

There is just one minor problem. The "other side" got there first, and the term acquired a meaning.

 

You can't just come along and hijack the term to mean something else.

 

As you rightly note, the term is pejorative, and carries an accusation of a failure to obey the rules. As I am obeying the rules, I'll thank you not to direct it at me again.

 

You must, of course, feel free to dream up your own pejorative terms for people with a permanent mooring.

[gaggle]

You must, of course, feel free to dream up your own pejorative terms for people with a permanent mooring.

 

what about "rope dopes" .

[OptedOut]

Houseboat Henry, Dunroaming Dropout, Pond Life?

Edited December 2, 2008 by OptedOut

[Tribalmaya]

If I appear to be doing that, I'm sorry. It was not my intention.

 

In order to clear up any confusion;

 

• I have no time whatsoever for continuous moorers. Regardless of their various special pleadings about why they are somehow different,and should be exempt from the rules, they are cheating the system, and BW should Section 8 them without a second thought.
  
• I have no issue at all with CCers.
  
• I am happy that BW's definition of a Continuous Cruiser is fair.
  
• I believe that the current boat licence system has unfairly "hidden" part of the true cost of a licence in various connection charges, EOG fess and the like, which has the effect of exempting parts of the boating population (mainly CCers and gold licence holders with EA moorings) from what is essentially another chunk of licence fee.
  
• I am in favour of a gradual phasing out of these other fees, with the additional revenue collected as a general part of the licence.
  

 

Your such a w****r!

[gaggle]

You can't just come along and hijack the term to mean something else.

 

 

dave you are so gay.

[Chris Pink]

I think that the majority of recreational boaters would agree with the first three points at least.

 

I can understand why those who play by the rules to indulge in what is, at the end of the day, a very expensive hobby, get upset at the thought of the waterways being clogged up by boats owned by people who are determined to cheat the system. In truth, those who cannot afford to pay the proper dues for the enjoyment of their boating should choose a different hobby that they can afford.

 

So it wasn't expensive there would be no need to get upset?

 

The implication being that if you can't afford it 'bugger off' and we'll raise the price until only a select few can. A bit like the gentlemen's clubs of Piccadilly.

 

they should move moor often,

 

nice pun, Patrick

Edited December 2, 2008 by Chris Pink

[Lady Muck]

Can we stop the name calling please and keep it civil?

[Chris Pink]

Can we stop the name calling please and keep it civil?

 

I have been told off by Mr Alnwick for calling Dave Mayall a continuous moorer.

 

I plead guilty.

[carlt]

Can we stop the name calling please and keep it civil?

I think they were just hijacking the terms and changing their meaning to something less offensive.

[AlanH]

Your such a w****r!

That's what I like to see. Logical argument put in a lucid and intelligent manner.

[carlt]

[*]I believe that the current boat licence system has unfairly "hidden" part of the true cost of a licence in various connection charges, EOG fess and the like, which has the effect of exempting parts of the boating population (mainly CCers and gold licence holders with EA moorings) from what is essentially another chunk of licence fee.

 

Does this mean that you don't believe a canal based business should contribute to the maintenance and upkeep of the system that makes them money?

 

I think you missed this question, amidst the name-calling, Dave, so I repeat it here (You can answer too, if you like, Alan).

[AlanH]

I think you missed this question, amidst the name-calling, Dave, so I repeat it here (You can answer too, if you like, Alan).

Now then it could be argued that the system could not work without these businesses. No diesel, no pumpouts, no dry docks, the cut jammed solid becuse there are no marinas. So perhaps the system should be paying them!

[carlt]

Now then it could be argued that the system could not work without these businesses. No diesel, no pumpouts, no dry docks, the cut jammed solid becuse there are no marinas. So perhaps the system should be paying them!

This, of course would apply to many businesses away from the cut, providing services, so do you advocate the abolition of business rates, too?

 

Your argument descended to ridiculous levels some time ago, Alan (evidenced by the fact that you are a lone voice, who even Dave is struggling to support).

[AlanH]

This, of course would apply to many businesses away from the cut, providing services, so do you advocate the abolition of business rates, too?

 

Your argument descended to ridiculous levels some time ago, Alan (evidenced by the fact that you are a lone voice, who even Dave is struggling to support).

Your arguments descended to spurious analogies ages ago. Business rates are paid by canal side firms. Why should they pay extra levies to a system that they enhance?

 

I may be a lone voice but that doesn't make me wrong.

[Maffi]

You say you have no issue with CCers. . . . .

 

I have no issue at all with CCers.

 

 

. . . . . yet it would seem that you do.

 

I believe that the current boat licence system has unfairly "hidden" part of the true cost of a licence in various connection charges, EOG fess and the like, which has the effect of exempting parts of the boating population (mainly CCers and gold licence holders with EA moorings) from what is essentially another chunk of licence fee.

I am in favour of a gradual phasing out of these other fees, with the additional revenue collected as a general part of the licence.

 

 

You pay exactly the same for you licence as a CCer. For that fee you have access to the whole system, 2000+ miles, that seems fair to me.

 

A CCer in the main uses his licence as it was intended, to access the whole system. In effect it could be said the CCer is the only one who is doing the right thing.

 

You obviously cannot use your licence to do the system but want CCers to have the same costs as you. This is not fair. Why should one set of boaters pay more than others to do what their licence allows.

 

Your mooring fee is paid to the marina owner for the marina space, security, and facilities. The marina owner as part of any business will recover his costs from his customers. Although part of the marina owners cost are paid to BW for the right to use the connection to the canal or however it is termed, you are paying the marina owner not BW. Your licence fee is the same as a CCer. You have no complaint about charges and all this bullshit is just hot air from someone who has nothing better to do in his life.

 

Your argument, if an argument is necessary, should be that you should pay less for your licence not that others should pay more otherwise give it a rest it is getting monotonous and petty.

 

If you want an argument about what is fair try this:-

 

Why should one group of boaters empty their 'black' water for free while another group have to pay. [but I suppose that can wait until this thread has burned out again ]

Edited December 2, 2008 by Maffi

[carlt]

I may be a lone voice but that doesn't make me wrong.

No being wrong makes you wrong.

[Maffi]

I have been told off by Mr Alnwick for calling Dave Mayall a continuous moorer.

 

I plead guilty.

 

 

Isn't he?

[carlt]

Your arguments descended to spurious analogies ages ago. Business rates are paid by canal side firms. Why should they pay extra levies to a system that they enhance?

The analogies are not spurious. They are highlighting the ridiculous argument: "Why should I pay, for a service I receive, when someone who doesn't receive that service gets away scot-free.

 

Maybe canalside businesses should become registered charities?

Edited December 2, 2008 by carlt

[AlanH]

No being wrong makes you wrong.

And being wrong makes you right?

I notice that you didn't anwser the question.

[carlt]

And being wrong makes you right?

I notice that you didn't anwser the question.

No not being selfish to the point of silliness makes me right.

 

I've answered all your questions whilst you just dismiss mine as "spurious".

Edited December 2, 2008 by carlt

[AlanH]

No not being sselfish to the point of silliness makes me right.

 

I've answered all your questions whilst you just dismiss mine as "spurious".

I repeat. Why should businesses pay an extra levy to a system that could not work without them?

[John Orentas]

When they threatened to remove my boat from a private boatyard (no licence), the very stupid lady BW manager reeled off a list of places I had to pass through to comply with their records as a CCer.

She actually sent a young man down to attach a notice to our boat about the licence, trespass I think.

 

 

This is a good case in point and the reason why most sensible people haven't a clue what is going on..

 

Here we have a chap bemoaning the fact that his boat might be removed from a private boatyard, yet presumably he considers himself to be a 'Continuous Cruiser'.. This very prevalent attitude offends against every rule of common sense and grammar.