CCERS assoc ?

[Naughty Cal]

Of course people should pay, however there are millions of reasons why people may not pay, or cannot pay, their licences or afford a mooring. Just the same way as someone with a genuine mooring may suddenly find themselves in a set of circumstances that forces them to overstay somewhere. With every assumption, every new law, every new witch hunt, every new blame, you people push the very simple answers into obscurity and then think that all CC'ers are the problem. Its just too easy a philosophy to follow, and it just self-excuses those doing the sabre-rattling from their own drastic shortcomings. Yes very very deep but also very very true and appropriate.

 

Then they shouldnt have a boat. These things are not optional, if you cant afford them you cant afford to have a boat.

 

(Just to add the "you" in there isnt aimed at anyone in particular)

[Sir Nibble]

I dont think you have ever heard of 'Cognitive Dissonance.' Its a buzz word for avoidance of self-blame (taking roughly what Leo Festinger had to say about the psychology of most people.)

Which is the mechanism by which some people manage to identify themselves as the true custodians of the waterway and soldiers of liberty because the alternative is to admit to making a dishonest declaration out of pure self interest.

 

And once again, NO-ONE is trying to demonise or otherwise denegrate CCers.

[Nightwatch]

Not all ccers are are the problem, only the ones that don't pay up. I would go as far as to say thatanyone on the waterways that don't pay up are problems.

 

To say that some can't afford to pay actually says more towards the fact that those who can't afford to pay should not be on the waterways. I, myself dur to health problems, may well find in the (possibly near) future that I am in the postition not to be able to pay for my boat and all the accompaning costs in addtion to my home, indeed the possible loss of my present home, this does not mean I will move onto the boat and leech off those that can. my future ambition is to live aboard and travel the system, but the tim has to be right and under my own resourses. My morals won't allow me to not pay my own way.

 

If people can't afford their boat and additions then move ashore and get housing with suitable acceptable assistance.

 

 

Martyn(who is 'still' not going to change the world)

 

 

 

 

 

Martyn

Edited May 6, 2009 by Nightwatch1

[fender]

It is fine to say everyone should obey the rules but if the rules don't meet the requirements of those using the canals then maybe it is time for a different approach. Rather than dismiss those who don't stick to the rules as "undesirables" maybe it would be better to consider if it is not the rules themselves that are undesirable and look for alternatives which would be more satisfactory to a larger number of boaters. If more people can be accommodated within the rules, then there would be less incentive for people to act outside them.

 

Thats absolutely great Natalie! Thats what I call a quantum leap forward! Its been the most constructive suggestion in the entire history of this forum! Now can people begin to think along these lines instead of pulverising the CC'er???

[Nightwatch]

I hope, Natalie, you're not suggesting that until such time the BW has the right mix there are some that can use the watwerways and not pay because they don't agree with the rules.

 

Martyn

[Nine of Hearts]

If people can't afford their boat and additions then move ashore and get housing with suitable acceptable assistance.

 

Some of us don't actually own homes other than our boats. And am I right in thinking that when I hit financial difficulties last year as a result of redundancy, you think I should have been booted off the cut and into social housing? Cheers. Fortunately BW are a little more forebearing.

[Natalie Graham]

I hope, Natalie, you're not suggesting that until such time the BW has the right mix there are some that can use the watwerways and not pay because they don't agree with the rules.

 

Martyn

 

No. I am suggesting we look at how to improve the rules to take into account changing patterns of usage and reduce the number of people who are not paying because they don't agree with them.

[Nightwatch]

Some of us don't actually own homes other than our boats. And am I right in thinking that when I hit financial difficulties last year as a result of redundancy, you think I should have been booted off the cut and into social housing? Cheers. Fortunately BW are a little more forebearing.

 

 

I assume that you are up to date with all your bits and bobs and you either continuously cruise (for real) or you have a permanant berth.

[carlt]

I assume that you are up to date with all your bits and bobs and you either continuously cruise (for real) or you have a permanant berth.

The problem I have is that, unless you are the enforcing authority, why is any of the above, any of your business?

 

I don't care if my neighbour is up to date with their council tax or if they have a tax disc on display, in their car. It doesn't affect me one little bit and I believe it is the enforcing authorities' duty to worry about such matters.

 

Hogging water, elsan or rubbish points is a bit different but, rather than whine about it on a forum, if I want to moor somewhere, to use a service, I'll knock and ask.

[casper ghost]

It may seem unfortunate but if you find you cannot afford something, in this world, you should do without and not expect others to pay for it for you. If we all pretended to CC, what would happen to BW's finances?

 

Edited to remove a rant, decided what's the point!

Edited May 6, 2009 by casper ghost

[carlt]

BW are not here to provide social housing.

No but they do encourage living aboard which does make them a landlord with responsibilities.

[Sir Nibble]

No but they do encourage living aboard which does make them a landlord with responsibilities.

And one of those responsibilities is to take action against "tenants" who break their "tenancy agreements" in fairness to those who do not.

 

I'm going to see my old infirm granny and apply for a blue badge in her name in order to ease my parking problems. Given my unique circumstances this is a completely reasonable course of action.

[carlt]

And one of those responsibilities is to take action against "tenants" who break their "tenancy agreements" in fairness to those who do not.

I don't disagree and never have.

 

They should also, as responsible landlords, be pushing for all councils to recognise boats as homes so, if a liveaboard's circumstances change, they are not forced to become homeless or licence dodgers.

[Nightwatch]

Carl

 

This is something I have been thinking and talking about for years.

 

has this been tried and failed in the past.

I may need to take advantage if the councils change their stance on this.

 

The canals would certainly get busy then wouldn't they? And hopefully funded.

 

Martyn( who would like to change the world)

Edited May 6, 2009 by Nightwatch1

[Sir Nibble]

They should also, as responsible landlords, be pushing for all councils to recognise boats as homes so, if a liveaboard's circumstances change, they are not forced to become homeless or licence dodgers.

I cannot disagree with that, but we are all responsible for ourselves. I see to housing my family and accept responsibility for that. If someone houses their family on the basis of a false declaration and are subsequently subject to action that threatens their home then they and not the enforcing authority taking that action are responsible.

"Bastard BW are going to take my home and make my family homeless" doesn't cut it, if you take a flier and lose resulting in having to choose between your job and kids schooling, and your home, then that's your fault and only you have failed in your responsibility.

[Naughty Cal]

I cannot disagree with that, but we are all responsible for ourselves. I see to housing my family and accept responsibility for that. If someone houses their family on the basis of a false declaration and are subsequently subject to action that threatens their home then they and not the enforcing authority taking that action are responsible.

"Bastard BW are going to take my home and make my family homeless" doesn't cut it, if you take a flier and lose resulting in having to choose between your job and kids schooling, and your home, then that's your fault and only you have failed in your responsibility.

 

Well said.

 

It is time that people stood up and took resonsibility for their own actions.

[carlt]

Carl

 

This is something I have been thinking and talking about for years.

 

has this been tried and failed in the past.

Some councils are more enlightened than others. The folk that occupied my mooring, before me, could claim housing benefit but the people living 100 yards further down the cut couldn't, because there was a County boundary between them.

 

Likewise, because we were so close to the county boundary we made enquiries to both authorities regarding education and health provision, for our autistic son.

 

The differences in attitude were startling and made our decision about where to move, back on dry land, so much easier.

 

I imagine, though, that, because there was no mechanism for us to pay council tax, there are those who think we should have sent our son to work up the chimneys.

 

I cannot disagree with that, but we are all responsible for ourselves. I see to housing my family and accept responsibility for that. If someone houses their family on the basis of a false declaration and are subsequently subject to action that threatens their home then they and not the enforcing authority taking that action are responsible.

"Bastard BW are going to take my home and make my family homeless" doesn't cut it, if you take a flier and lose resulting in having to choose between your job and kids schooling, and your home, then that's your fault and only you have failed in your responsibility.

So let's just scrap the Welfare System altogether, if they're all parasites.

[casper ghost]

I know someone who didn't pay their licence for years, when BW finally took action to remove their boat the owner went to the council, who, i'm told, now pay the licence, mooring etc as he was entitled to benefits. I don't have a problem with this but we don't really want every person on a housing waiting list moved onto the waterways to live, do we?

[fender]

I cannot disagree with that, but we are all responsible for ourselves. I see to housing my family and accept responsibility for that. If someone houses their family on the basis of a false declaration and are subsequently subject to action that threatens their home then they and not the enforcing authority taking that action are responsible.

 

Oh really???????? Some people do get into housing on the false or wrongful declarations of solicitors and/or landlords/freeholders. That system is the appaling legal mess known as leasehold. Therefore (according to your brilliantly espoused agenda) we should say it is the fault of the lessees that they got into a mess. Perhaps we should extend the witch hunt over a far wider net than previoulsy anticipated?

[cotswoldsman]

I know someone who didn't pay their licence for years, when BW finally took action to remove their boat the owner went to the council, who, i'm told, now pay the licence, mooring etc as he was entitled to benefits. I don't have a problem with this but we don't really want every person on a housing waiting list moved onto the waterways to live, do we?

 

Firstly they would have to own a boat and if they do why not nothing wrong with being on benefits or the housing waiting list and having the cost of mooring and licence paid by the benefit system.

[Nightwatch]

It would be cheaper for the council as well.

 

To house a couple of people in a flat, maintain the flat has to work out to be more than license and moorings for a boat. You will probably have a happier customer.

 

 

Martyn

[cotswoldsman]

And they all know each other. Think about that, what are the odds on all the customers in a little chef stopping for breakfast all being acquainted? Do you ever see convoys of 30-40 boats all CCing together? Appearing in two consecutive years calendar photos is a giveaway too.

 

I am one of three CCers cruising together and when we get up the Lancaster we will be joined by another CCer so we will then be four CCers cruising together if we find a Little Chef we might even all go for breakfast.

[alan_fincher]

And that calendar photographer! We might as well jump to conclusions about him, too!

Seems you just have by calling them "him".

 

Rather sexist, I'd say!

[mayalld]

Often lawyers and politicians and governments have kleptomaniac methods of fraud, cheating, subfertuge means that a lot of people are left at a disadvantage. And some staff in BW too have fraud methods. Does it mean that those at a disadvantage are the undesirables? I dont think you have ever heard of 'Cognitive Dissonance.' Its a buzz word for avoidance of self-blame (taking roughly what Leo Festinger had to say about the psychology of most people.) Its so easy to practise witch hunts and find good and honest people and burn them at the stake, or crucify them just becasue they dont seem to conform. In hundreds and thousands of years society has not yet progressed beyond the concept of witch hunts. It is psychology stuck on the concept of lets find a devil, lets make a folk devil appear and abolish them for the sake of some stupid so-called sins. Therefore STOP trying to make out that CC'ers are the ONLY undesirable element in society!!!

 

Nobody has claimed that CCers are an undesirable element.

 

I would claim that fake CCers are an undesirable element.

 

I would not claim that they are the only such element.

 

Why is it that whenever the issue of these cheats is raised, people rush to raise a smokescreen by trying to deflect onto other groups instead? Is it your contention that until every single other type of undesirable has been dealt with, the fake CCers should be ignored?

[carlt]

Seems you just have by calling them "him".

 

Rather sexist, I'd say!

Guilty and completely unconcerned.

 

But as 100% of the canal scenes calenders , I am aware of (the one dangling on the kitchen door), are the work of a male photographer, then that is what I have to work with.