Live-aboard but no residential moorings.

[Chris Pink]

Maybe we should all just not pay for our licence, turn into continuous moorers and refuse to move on request.

 

If that's what you want to do that is entirely between you and British Waterways.

 

Good luck.

[Naughty Cal]

If that's what you want to do that is entirely between you and British Waterways.

 

Good luck.

 

Dont think i will.

 

The thought of ripping off the company/body charged with looking after the waterways i enjoy using doesnt ring true with me. If we all want to continue using the waterways we have to pay our fair share in maintaining them.

 

Falling on hard times isnt an excuse to not to pay. If you cant afford the lifestyle sell up and move on. The fees payable are not optional.

[deletedaccount]

Wow. Your compassion does you credit Phylis.

[Chris Pink]

Wow. Your compassion does you credit Phylis.

 

Compassion takes intelligence and empathy. You won't find those in Phylis.

 

Teaching a slug to talk would be easier than teaching Phylis compassion.

 

Come to think of it the process would probably be similar.

 

Mind she doesn't have a problem with ripping off her employer, i wonder what's so special about BW?

[carlt]

It affects us all. Whilst BW is wasting time, money and effort to round up these non payers.........

.....they could be spending it on a fault reporting system that could benefit us all.

 

You're right, Phylis, it does affect us all.

 

BW pandering to the whingers and curtain twitchers, wasting money on worthless snitch sites and phonelines, without any legislative power to back up their "initiatives" affects everybody.

 

It is time they started clamping down on the whingers and said "No! We're going to spend our time and money on where the system needs it...not on a pointless exercise, trying to eradicate an insignificant 'problem'".

[Naughty Cal]

Compassion takes intelligence and empathy. You won't find those in Phylis.

 

Teaching a slug to talk would be easier than teaching Phylis compassion.

 

Come to think of it the process would probably be similar.

 

Mind she doesn't have a problem with ripping off her employer, i wonder what's so special about BW?

 

Why would my employer be ripped off? They get the work done that they ask me to do. They ask for a job to be done by a certain deadline, it gets done, all are happy.

 

And back on topic, I fail to see why someone who is failing to contribute to the upkeep of the waterways should be allowed to continue to use them. Owning a boat is not a cheap passtime/lifestyle, there are certain costs which all boat owners have to pay. It isnt a choice the costs are compulsary. If you cant afford them, then you cant keep your boat on their waters. Simples really.

[mayalld]

So the answer, for the OP, is to get a cheap mooring, anywhere in the country, a letter from their parents saying the boat can be stored on their drive or rent a bit of industrial estate hardstanding and "bridge hopping" is legal and acceptable?

 

Something I have said for a long time and illustrating, perfectly, why the law, as it stands, is ridiculous and needs amending.

 

Yes, it needs amending.

 

But given that Mr Brown has other things on his mind, that isn't going to happen soon.

 

As for the answer that you posit. It makes bridge hopping, backed up by a REAL cheap mooring legal, but not acceptable.

 

Paper moorings are a different matter. A paper mooring is not a place where the boat can lawfully be kept, and those who use them should have licences withdrawn.

[Sir Nibble]

Isn't a little presumtious, and possibly patronising to assume that every boater who never moves is deserving of compassion? If you're not up to moving the boat then perhaps you're not up to living on it and compassion should take the form of a council flat.

[Naughty Cal]

It is time they started clamping down on the whingers and said "No! We're going to spend our time and money on where the system needs it...not on a pointless exercise, trying to eradicate an insignificant 'problem'".

 

But it wouldnt be pointless if everybody took the same view as you and Chris seem to have.

 

If everybody took the oppurtunity to not pay their fees, we would have no waterways to use. If you want a service you have to pay for it and wether you like it or not BW are providing a service in allowing you and others to use their waterways.

[carlt]

If you're not up to moving the boat then perhaps you're not up to living on it and compassion should take the form of a council flat.

.......and that is going to help the public purse how, exactly?

 

Moving someone from a home that isn't costing the tax payer anything to one that is a burden on the public purse, purely because you don't like seeing them seems a bit strange.

[mayalld]

.......and that is going to help the public purse how, exactly?

 

Moving someone from a home that isn't costing the tax payer anything to one that is a burden on the public purse, purely because you don't like seeing them seems a bit strange.

 

The public purse hands BW a small amount of money. I would rather they spent that money on maintaining canals than on providing housing. If the public purse wishes to deliver social housing on the waterways, then it comes out of that pot of money!

[deletedaccount]

The public purse hands BW a small amount of money. I would rather they spent that money on maintaining canals than on providing housing. If the public purse wishes to deliver social housing on the waterways, then it comes out of that pot of money!

 

That hypothetical boat being there doesn't cost BW a penny.

[Naughty Cal]

That hypothetical boat being there doesn't cost BW a penny.

 

And when that one hypothertical boat become a hundred hypothetical boats becomes a thousand hypothetical boats..................................

 

does that still not cost BW a penny?

[carlt]

The public purse hands BW a small amount of money. I would rather they spent that money on maintaining canals than on providing housing. If the public purse wishes to deliver social housing on the waterways, then it comes out of that pot of money!

The bulk of BW's funding comes from the public purse, especially after BW effectively ring fenced its funding from other sources, so it could not be used for waterway maintenance.

 

And when that one hypothertical boat become a hundred hypothetical boats becomes a thousand hypothetical boats..................................

 

does that still not cost BW a penny?

It doesn't though, does it?

 

The waterways weren't lined with liveaboards, when I started boating...a time when investigation and enforcement were non-existent (I spent over a year unaware that a licence was actually necessary, not encountering a BW employee, until I left the Yorkshire waterways).

[Chris Pink]

It makes bridge hopping, backed up by a REAL cheap mooring legal, but not acceptable.

 

Paper moorings are a different matter. A paper mooring is not a place where the boat can lawfully be kept, and those who use them should have licences withdrawn.

 

Not acceptable? gosh, stepping out from what is law, or against the rules, to what is acceptable? To whom exactly Mr Mayall? to your Rule or Dave?

 

I don't understand your 2nd point? Carl has pointed out that he has (hypothetically) a bit of industrial hard standing where his boat "can lawfully be kept", where is your legal objection to this exactly? and what legal means would you like BW to use to remove licences from such boats?

[soldthehouse]

Yes, it needs amending.

 

But given that Mr Brown has other things on his mind, that isn't going to happen soon.

 

As for the answer that you posit. It makes bridge hopping, backed up by a REAL cheap mooring legal, but not acceptable.

 

Paper moorings are a different matter. A paper mooring is not a place where the boat can lawfully be kept, and those who use them should have licences withdrawn.

Excuse my ignorance and laziness for not researching but what is a paper mooring...

[Naughty Cal]

Excuse my ignorance and laziness for not researching but what is a paper mooring...

 

A mooring that numerous continuous moorers cruisers claim to be their home mooring when in fact none of them have the use of it or in some cases it doenst even exist.

[Chris Pink]

Why would my employer be ripped off? They get the work done that they ask me to do. They ask for a job to be done by a certain deadline, it gets done, all are happy.

 

Just because Soulgirl established that your employer "doesn't mind what she does as long as she answers the phone when it rings" does not negate the fact that you are using your time and attention to contribute so much to an internet forum is costing your employer money. (or is it part of your job description?).

 

The benefits that you and your employer receive from the public purse are also being abused, probably to a greater degree than our hypothetical over-stayer (who is costing nothing).

 

I would consider that on-topic as we are discussing the envy of people who get something for nothing.

[mayalld]

Not acceptable? gosh, stepping out from what is law, or against the rules, to what is acceptable? To whom exactly Mr Mayall? to your Rule or Dave?

 

I don't understand your 2nd point? Carl has pointed out that he has (hypothetically) a bit of industrial hard standing where his boat "can lawfully be kept", where is your legal objection to this exactly? and what legal means would you like BW to use to remove licences from such boats?

 

Not acceptable to me. There are some things that people do that are legal that I will still feel free to criticise as unacceptable behaviour.

 

If the boat is, in fact, returned to that hard standing when not in use, no problem. If it isn't,then the condition of thelicence isn't met.

[Naughty Cal]

Just because Soulgirl established that your employer "doesn't mind what she does as long as she answers the phone when it rings" does not negate the fact that you are using your time and attention to contribute so much to an internet forum is costing your employer money. (or is it part of your job description?).

 

The benefits that you and your employer receive from the public purse are also being abused, probably to a greater degree than our hypothetical over-stayer (who is costing nothing).

 

I would consider that on-topic as we are discussing the envy of people who get something for nothing.

 

Ah yes our friend the stalker. How is your little pet?

 

As i said before show me anyone who is envious of a licence evader.

[Chris Pink]

If the boat is, in fact, returned to that hard standing when not in use, no problem. If it isn't,then the condition of thelicence isn't met.

 

Bit of free interpretation going on here?

 

The word is 'can', which I would envisage in the case of a liveaboard, in case of illness, imprisonment or a protracted absence. The law, or the rules, do not state that a boat must be left on that mooring.

 

Surely it is sufficient to show that it could be 'lawfully left' if needed. Both in the spirit and letter of the law.

[mikevye]

It's all right Mike, don't worry, when they deal with this boat, they'll still be something for you to moan about.

 

Get a life, do. Envy of someone who is pretty well down near the bottom of society's ladder does you no favours at all.

 

If I moaned as much as you I'd award myself a medal! Once again it would appear that anyone in disagreement with you gets grief. Have you ever thought of becoming a more evenly balanced person and get a chip on each shoulder.

[Chris Pink]

. Have you ever thought of becoming a more evenly balanced person and get a chip on each shoulder.

 

Made I giggle that did.

[Naughty Cal]

It wasnt a joke though

[mayalld]

That hypothetical boat being there doesn't cost BW a penny.

 

A point which I would have thought would have been raised sooner.

 

In looking closely at any single case, the choice seems to be between a boat paying no licence, or no boat paying no licence, so zero actual loss of cash.

 

If, however, we look at the whole, we see that;

 

1) If boaters are seen to be getting away with not licencing boats, others may decide to do likewise, resulting in a net income loss.

2) In some parts of the country, the system is close to capacity. Removing half a dozen non-paying boats may create enough room to encourage people who will pay to get a boat.

 

Bit of free interpretation going on here?

 

The word is 'can', which I would envisage in the case of a liveaboard, in case of illness, imprisonment or a protracted absence. The law, or the rules, do not state that a boat must be left on that mooring.

 

Surely it is sufficient to show that it could be 'lawfully left' if needed. Both in the spirit and letter of the law.

The wording is actually "can reasonably".

 

So a claim that you can put it on hard standing, just as soon as you get a crane organised isn't going to wash.