Higher Licence Fee for Continuous Cruisers

[John Orentas]

Hi Martin.

 

I am sure you will not meet with any genuine resentment, the problem is that many people are completely incapable of imagining that anyone would be able to, or would want to, spend a couple of years doing what you are doing.

 

I have met many people who stay on the move, many for years on end, some even make a point travelling every yard of the navigable system but of course you will know more of that than me.

 

Enjoy your two years and try to keep in touch with those of us here who are less fortunate.

[Incentive]

Thank you John and Richard

It's reassuring to hear what you say. We wouldnt want to alientate any of our fellow boaters, especially since we realise the wealth of common sense and experience that people have to offer. Our experience has always been one of a classless fellowship on the cut, but all the vitriol that this issue seems to hint at on this site and others gave me pause for thought.

Cant wait now to get on with it! I'm sure that when reality sinks in we will be in need of the sort of help and company that this forum offers.

 

Martin.

[maffi mushkila]

The problem with arguments is there are two or more people with differing points of view both thinking they are right

 

No Richard I don't think so. This is all about misconception. Long Term Moorers have the idea that CCer's are getting something for their licence fee that they (LTM's) are not getting. Only a complete idiot would argue that this is so.

 

I re-iterate

 

Every private licence holder has exactly the same access to the whole system for their fee

 

CCer's get nothing that LTM's don't get and LTM's get nothing that CCer's don't get..

 

Now is that plain enough or would you like me to draw you a picture.

Edited June 26, 2005 by maffi mushkila

[maffi mushkila]

i still can not understand that some out there can not see that cc has a mooring, or am i mistaken and they travel through the night.

 

Well OK then Richard let BW put a 'parking' meter on every mooring. Then the CCer's will pay for their mooring. Of course LTM's will have to pay for those moorings as well when they are away from their home mooring but at least that would be fair. Everybody pays, just like the system that operates now!

 

In all honesty I really don't know why I am trying to convert you Richard, I could have a better chance of converting a stick!

Edited June 26, 2005 by maffi mushkila

[nigel carton]

He He, bit o friendly banter on a Sunday morning!

[Incentive]

How complicated is this?

 

You pay your fee (like road tax) it lets you use the waterway (like a road). You can park your vehicle (a boat) anywhere you like, except in designated areas, some of which are private, and some are publically owned (like a car park), if you "park" in these places you will have to pay a fee (like rent).

 

The only aditional complicated bit is that there is an extra rule, and that is that you can not park your vehicle in any one locality for longer than 2 weeks (unless there are exceptional circumstances) unless you use a morring site for which you will pay a rental fee (like a car park see above).

 

In fact, if you fail to license your car, and park it anywhere, you will be fined, and you could have your vehicle towed away............. perhaps this should be considered on the waterways.

[Richard Bustens]

The problem is maffi, that i am open minded and can see both sides of this coin,

Unlike you who are a biggeted old fart and can only see one side , the side which suites YOU best. .

 

I dont think that anything can be done to change anything that is there now , as it would not be workable but i can see what people are saying, and hold, on so can BW. coz they are going to change it.... .

 

And i dont want GENUINE CCers to pay more, just the ones that say they are CCers and are not, you see these people ride on the backs of the CCers not the moorers. you never see a person who sayes he is a moorer tying up to a bridge for months on end and hopping between the next bridge and back again.

Edited June 26, 2005 by Richard Bustens

[fender]

Please, Please, Fender read all the postings. There is already considerable support amongst the contributors to this discussion, who do NOT support any increase in price rises for continuouis Cruisers. To lay accusation that we are all anti-CC will not serve your argument in any constructive way, and could be counter productive if it galvanizes hostility.

24174[/snapback]

 

 

You mis read what I said David. I said anti-CC's. Those sort of types who barge on about CC's not paying for this and that. I'll tell you, as a true CC its hard work. I spoke to some others at the weekend and we agree that many of us boaters started out as CC's. And being a CC is not a thankful task as some seem fit to see it. Its bloody hard work. Especially if you are a true CC'er and move on so as not to break limits.

 

I didnt say everyone on this forum was an anti-CC. I know there are many who are pro-CC on this forum. Despite us pros tryign to present valid and sensible views on this arguement the anti's always find something to pull us back to the dark ages.

[fender]

What I do know is that all this squabbling is not doing our cause (whatever that may be) any good at all.  Those people in the BW office lack any kind of subtlety, and they understand little of the system they are supposed to be managing.  They will however pick up on any division they observe and will use it to their advantage, we will all be losers.

24181[/snapback]

 

OK John, so how do you see this issue being resolved? Its already out of hand as far as I am concerned, with this consultation process underway. Its obvious as I said, that BOTH moorers and CC's will get penalised.

 

 

PS - VS's most recent comments on CC's are pasted herewith. You can see he is enjoying this divide and rule game. Now you see the sort of mind-set we have to deal with....

 

NBW's Victor Swift says - "OKAY, okay, I do go on a bit about continuous cruisers, but at last our masters are seeing it my way, and so a consultation is a-coming."

 

"There really is too much controversy about the breed nowadays allowing them to pay just the same licence fee as those of us who fork out so very much more for moorings, whilst they merrily moor at the best places up and down the waterways, for nowt."

Edited June 26, 2005 by fender

[KENDA]

I have a marina mooring and cruise when ever I can;

 

If I did not work I would be a CC;

 

As part of my marina mooring fee I understand that BW take a cut from the marina for me being able to moor there; I understand that the is the Same for linner moorings; BW or otherwise;

 

This being the case, as a non CC I do pay BW to moor; I also pay the marina for the additional facilities they provide;

 

I am not unhappy with this as I know this is the cost of owing my NB.

 

I know several CC and don't object to them getting better value for money than I do; Because If I could I would;

 

I do however dislike the "bridge hoppers" who do not pay for a mooring and remain relativly static, as that is going againt the rules, and is unfair.

 

If BW want to make the CC licence more aligned to Home moored boats they should include the same levy that is placed on a marina or linner mooring on the CC licence.

 

And for the Bridge Hoppers they should inforce the rules/laws

[fender]

Some said they couldn't find a pdf to download re the Oxera stuff. There's a summarised report on BW's website that's 3 pages (David said there was one 15 pages but cant find it.)

 

Link:

http://www.britishwaterways.co.uk/images/B..._tcm6-98525.pdf

[Les]

Spare a thought for me...i am moored on the Wyrley and essington at Walsall, paying my Marina Licence fees, and my bw licence. i cannot cruise due to the severe weed problems (and carpets,plastic bags,ropes,bits of bodies etc). On a anticipated 4 hour cruise with no locks, i recently had to stop 11 times to clear the hatch!

B.W. have had this problem every year for the past 10 years, and they now promise a weed suction machine will be used in 6 weeks time to "hopefully clear the weed". Should i get a refund from B.W. ?

[fender]

Seems the Oxera investigation was started due a complain to the waterways ombudsman back in Dec 2004 from a boat share owner over licensing shared boats at the higher licensing rate.

 

Link to Article:

 

http://www.rya.org.uk/Motorboating/inlandw...ntentID=4065075

[David Schweizer]

Some said they couldn't find a pdf to download re the Oxera stuff. There's a summarised report on BW's website that's 3 pages (David said there was one 15 pages but cant find it.)

 

Link:

http://www.britishwaterways.co.uk/images/B..._tcm6-98525.pdf

24295[/snapback]

You appear to be quite right Fender, I cannot find the document on the BW Website either. I got my copy from the NABO site and was foolish enough to believe the statement in the BW document which says "You can download an electronic version from www.britishwaterways.co.uk" how silly of me to have believed them!! The document also states that you can submit your responses to the document electronicly to "consultation@britishwaterways.co.uk" but the link doesn't work !!

 

Am I the only prerson who is beginning to doubt BW's sincerity about consultation?

[John Orentas]

I don't think you are David there are thousands of us, they started a "Consultation process" up here about turning towpaths into cycleways, the signs were in position before the first meeting was organised.

[maffi mushkila]

....................................................NBW's Victor Swift says - "OKAY, okay, I do go on a bit about continuous cruisers, but at last our masters are seeing it my way, and so a consultation is a-coming."

 

"There really is too much controversy about the breed nowadays allowing them to pay just the same licence fee as those of us who fork out so very much more for moorings, whilst they merrily moor at the best places up and down the waterways, for nowt."

 

What he fails to see is that he doesn't pay to moor when he is away from his home mooring. But when the powers that be have had their'consultation' he will probably have to pay every night he moors up.

 

A case of shot himself in the foot and everyone else into the bargain.

 

So much for being a paragon of the waterwary. Parsite is probably a better description.

Edited June 26, 2005 by maffi mushkila

[maffi mushkila]

If you can be bothered to read, my standpoint is simple. Every private licence payer pays the same for the same access. My argument is to try to straighten out the misconception that this is not the case. If you can tell me I am wrong then I will go away. Given that you can't you could go away.

Edited June 27, 2005 by maffi mushkila

[Richard Bustens]

Read your last posts Maffi , i did not start the name calling,

It is not me that is throwing anything out of the pram, it is you that cannot get your own way so you revert to insults. in your normal immature way you have a go at me and victor and anyone else who dares to disagree with your God all mighty attitude.

 

I was going to remove your last few posts but as they do nothing for you, or the CCers cause i have left them in place,

[Big COL]

Richard

 

QUOTE

And i din't want GENUINE CCers to pay more, just the ones that say they are CCers and are not, you see these people ride on the backs of the CCers not the moorers. you never see a person who sayes he is a moorer tying up to a bridge for months on end and hopping between the next bridge and back again.

 

Reply

 

By the virtue of his actions that is exactly what he is, a moorer who has no intention of paying for a home mooring, so why call him a CC he is no more a CC than the cow standing in the field looking at him. He is more qualified to be called a moorer than a CC. BW class every boat without a mooring as a CC and issue a mooring code, any boat not adhering to the CC rules then becomes a home moorer without a PAID for mooring. Simple- well to some of us it is.

Edited June 26, 2005 by Big COL

[maffi mushkila]

Read your last posts Maffi , i did not start the name calling,

It is not me that is throwing anything out of the pram, it is you that cannot get your own way so you revert to insults. in your normal immature way you have a go at me and victor and anyone else who dares to disagree with your God all mighty attitude.

 

I was going to remove your last few posts but as they do nothing for you, or the CCers cause i have left them in place,

 

Richard, just occasionally you are right, but for the wrong reasons, You should have deleted my last posts, so I'll do it for you.

Edited June 27, 2005 by maffi mushkila

[maffi mushkila]

By the virtue of his actions that is exactly what he is, a moorer who has no intention of paying for a home mooring, so why call him a CC he is no more a CC than the cow standing in the field looking at him. He is more qualified to be called a moorer than a CC. BW class every boat without a mooring as a CC and issue a mooring code, any boat not adhering to the CC rules then becomes a home moorer without a PAID for mooring. Simple- well to some of us it is.

 

Colin

 

I have been wasting my breath trying to get this point across for months.

[Richard Bustens]

Maffi, Big C

 

The irony of this argument is that we are all more or less in agreement, it is only the terminology that is causing a problem.

You say bridge hoppers are not CCers, and yes you are right, but BW class them as this.

 

There are two types of license (excluding hire and commercial) one for persons that pay BW or someone else for a mooring, and, two, someone with no permanent mooring.

 

So anyone with no permanent mooring falls into the category of CCer, weather they are going to be a CCer or B/hopper.

 

So naturally they get the same flack, now it would be interesting to see the figures from BW saying just how many CC licenses there are out there and how many that are abiding by the rules.

 

Someone said that 1 in 20 boats have no license at all, and i suspect they also have no mooring, making them CCer or B/hopper, probably the latter.

 

But the fact still remains that according to the license issued, a bridge hopper is a CCer. all be it an illegal one.

 

So until BW sort out the classifications and create a third one, the Genuine CCer is of the same classification as B/hoppers and will get treated as one, but we all know this can not happen as no one is going to admit, when applying for there license they are a B/H, so they say they CC.

[David Schweizer]

RICHARD and MAFFI

 

This is an important issues that demands everyone's full attention. Both of you have a valid point of view worthy of consideration, it is a pity that you are allowing the bickering between you to get in the way of serious debate.

 

 

 

.

[David Schweizer]

I have spent some more time reading the Consultation Document and am a bit concerned about one of the arguements being marshalled to support the proposal to the cost of Continuous cruising licences.

 

BW are arguing that for most Continuous Cruisers, their boat is the principal or only place of residence, and that the licence fee comprises a significant component of housing cost. They also make the point that most people are willing to pay more for their housing than they are for leisure activities. It is difficult to argue with those points, however BW then make a giant leap of credibility by using this point as an arguement in the case for charging more!!! I would be interested to learn how BW believe that this argument rests with the stated objective of charging the most to those who use the system the most. To my mind, the two issues seem to be totally unrelated. If BW are trying to imply that Continuous Cruisers are avoiding the payment of Council Tax, it would be interested to hear what mechanisms BW are going to put into place to ensure that the additional revenue collected is passed on to the Local Authoriities, who by their own admission cannot come up with a system to do this amongst themselves!!

 

The whole point regarding the comparative cost of housing and boating is totally irrelvant to the sated objectives of the Consultation excercise and should be dismissed as invalid.

Edited June 27, 2005 by David Schweizer

[maffi mushkila]

RICHARD and MAFFI

 

This is an important issues that demands everyone's full attention. Both of you have a valid point of view worthy of consideration, it is a pity that you are allowing the bickering between you to get in the way of serious debate.

 

Absolutely! Already given myself a good slap.

Edited June 27, 2005 by maffi mushkila