No room in the middle ?

[ymu]

I couldn't agree more.

 

That's why I don't take part in it.

 

 

The evidence I have seen is that the more reasonable and more accommodating you are to the officials, the more reasonable and more accommodating they are to you. It's a rule that works in all aspects of life.

You think there's no one on this forum who knows the boat you mean, or who is personally affected by the attitudes you display in the OP?

 

Think on.

 

And yes, handling things well often works a treat. It's especially easy to handle things well when you're doing nothing wrong, of course.

[Circe]

You think there's no one on this forum who knows the boat you mean, or who is personally affected by the attitudes you display in the OP?

 

Think on.

 

And yes, handling things well often works a treat. It's especially easy to handle things well when you're doing nothing wrong, of course.

 

Which boat do you mean YMU? Either of the 2 month + residents, the 6 week overstayer, the one coming up to a month, or the couple that have been there about 2 weeks?

 

It's on my walk to work, so it doesn't bother me - I'm not trying to moor there, after all. I do idly notice the boats on my walk though and there are some beauties at the moment.

 

But it's got me curious. Let's assume they are all there perfectly validly and BW has approved them all staying. That's over a third of the potential moorings taken by people not moving on (for whatever valid reason), a fifth for extended periods (beyond their control). Is this normal for all other moorings?

 

I'm a big 'live and let live' person - can't be bothered with the aggro and upsetting people. Personally, I try and think the best of people. Maybe you want to think on too - especially when no harm was meant by a post

[Minos]

"Think on," indeed.

 

Certain topics appear to be 'off limits' on this forum. When even the non-critical comment, "No-one appears to mind the accommodating overstayers" prompts a pugnacious response, you quickly learn that certain topics are simply too touchy to get involved in.

 

I haven't been around long, but long enough to know that here on CWDF topics about overstaying and CMing are very one-sided and unpleasant.

 

This topic is obviously a raw nerve for you, YMU, and if discussing it at all upsets you then I shall avoid it.

[mayalld]

There seems to be an obsesion with getting boats without permenant moorings to move on, and on, and on, whats the point, as long as visitor moorings are on a 14 day turnaround, and give everyone a chance of a mooring at the end of a days travelling, the boat has to be somewhere and the more it moves the more wear and tear on the infrastructure. Constant cruisers and bridge hoppers don't pay fees because they get nothing, no security, no post box, no facilities, usually not even a mooring ring to call home, i had some fruitbat climb on my roof the other night ! £7000 a year gets you a secure marina berth with all facilities laid on, unfortunatly some of those people resent those who can't afford this, and think they own the whole system. It would be a sad day when the only people who can afford boating are boring posh twits who come out of their marinas once a year, in their daft washer joshers.

 

rant over...time for my Diazepam.

 

And what does £1,113 get you?

 

Does it get you security? - NO

Does it get you a post box? - NO

Does it get you facilities? - NO (other than the public facilities nearby)

Does it get you a mooring ring to call your own? - Yes, although there are those who would claim that they can use it when you aren't there.

 

So, there you go. People are paying over a thousand pounds a year here and the ONLY thing that they are getting for that money is the right not to have to move on every 14 days. Yes, you can pay even more than that, and get more for your money, but £1,000 is what not moving on costs. If you aren't prepared to pay that money, you have to move on.

[ymu]

"Think on," indeed.

 

Certain topics appear to be 'off limits' on this forum. When even the non-critical comment, "No-one appears to mind the accommodating overstayers" prompts a pugnacious response, you quickly learn that certain topics are simply too touchy to get involved in.

 

I haven't been around long, but long enough to know that here on CWDF topics about overstaying and CMing are very one-sided and unpleasant.

 

This topic is obviously a raw nerve for you, YMU, and if discussing it at all upsets you then I shall avoid it.

I don't think any topic is off-limits here; this place tolerates bigotry to a degree I find shocking. Especially from intelligent people like you and Martin, because you're not the usual ignorant thugs that come out with this crap.

[Guest]

I don't think any topic is off-limits here; this place tolerates bigotry to a degree I find shocking. Especially from intelligent people like you and Martin, because you're not the usual ignorant thugs that come out with this crap.

 

 

????

[ymu]

????

I was referring to the knots you're tying yourself in on the other thread. I would be less likely to bother if I didn't believe you were better than that. That's all.

[Sir Nibble]

OK then, let's try this "bigotry test".

 

Person A expresses annoyance at a boat overstaying for months on visitor mooring, it is unknown whether person A may or may not be able to substantiate their implication, nor whether they are correct in their assumption. Person B declares person A to be a bigot.

 

One person has undoubtedly leapt to judgement, one person may or may not have.

 

Discuss.

[sueb]

And what does £1,113 get you?

 

Does it get you security? - NO

Does it get you a post box? - NO

Does it get you facilities? - NO (other than the public facilities nearby)

Does it get you a mooring ring to call your own? - Yes, although there are those who would claim that they can use it when you aren't there.

 

So, there you go. People are paying over a thousand pounds a year here and the ONLY thing that they are getting for that money is the right not to have to move on every 14 days. Yes, you can pay even more than that, and get more for your money, but £1,000 is what not moving on costs. If you aren't prepared to pay that money, you have to move on.

Oh no you don't. I don't really know why people who use their boat a lot have a mooring. The chances of being asked to move on are slim and if asked you don't have to move far. The enforcers are mostly non-existent and overworked. Keep a low profile and you don't need a mooring.

Sue

[ymu]

OK then, let's try this "bigotry test".

 

Person A expresses annoyance at a boat overstaying for months on visitor mooring, it is unknown whether person A may or may not be able to substantiate their implication, nor whether they are correct in their assumption. Person B declares person A to be a bigot.

 

One person has undoubtedly leapt to judgement, one person may or may not have.

 

Discuss.

 

Ooh, interesting! Care to adapt it to what's been said on this thread? Could be a powerful tool to illustrate what I'm getting at. Thanking you in advance...

 

And what does £1,113 get you?

 

Does it get you security? - NO

Does it get you a post box? - NO

Does it get you facilities? - NO (other than the public facilities nearby)

Does it get you a mooring ring to call your own? - Yes, although there are those who would claim that they can use it when you aren't there.

 

So, there you go. People are paying over a thousand pounds a year here and the ONLY thing that they are getting for that money is the right not to have to move on every 14 days. Yes, you can pay even more than that, and get more for your money, but £1,000 is what not moving on costs. If you aren't prepared to pay that money, you have to move on.

We spend about £150/month on excess travel costs due to being itinerant. If we had shoreline, we'd save another £150/month or so on diesel.

 

You're paying for the exclusive use of a prime mooring spot and the need not to move the boat every fortnight. If the charge wasn't worth it, you wouldn't be paying it.

 

It's about availability of moorings in areas of high demand, not money.

Edited June 6, 2011 by ymu

[mayalld]

Ooh, interesting! Care to adapt it to what's been said on this thread? Could be a powerful tool to illustrate what I'm getting at. Thanking you in advance...

 

 

We spend about £150/month on excess travel costs due to being itinerant. If we had shoreline, we'd save another £150/month or so on diesel.

 

You're paying for the exclusive use of a prime mooring spot and the need not to move the boat every fortnight. If the charge wasn't worth it, you wouldn't be paying it.

 

It's about availability of moorings in areas of high demand, not money.

 

I do believe that the penny is starting to drop!

 

Tho ONLY benefit that the people who shell out £1,000 for one of these moorings get is the right to stay put. They aren't getting anything else.

 

To my mind, there is a certain "fairness" to that. Either you pay a minimun price for staying put, or you incur the costs of moving on.

 

I have no issue whatsoever with those who choose moving on. I do have an issue with those who take all the financial benefits that come from NOT paying for a mooring, but take all the benefits of having one.

 

Oh no you don't. I don't really know why people who use their boat a lot have a mooring. The chances of being asked to move on are slim and if asked you don't have to move far. The enforcers are mostly non-existent and overworked. Keep a low profile and you don't need a mooring.

Sue

 

Oh, so that's all right then.

 

As long as you aren't going to get caught and as long as the consequences of getting caught aren't too bad, its OK to just abuse the system. After all, as long as most other people don't do what you do, it won't be a problem.

[Sir Nibble]

You're paying for the exclusive use of a prime mooring spot and the need not to move the boat every fortnight. If the charge wasn't worth it, you wouldn't be paying it.

 

Yup, if you do not intend to widely cruise the system never stopping in one place for more than 14 days then you must have a mooring to secure a licence. That's the one and only reason I have one. If however you do intend to cruise widely and "constantly" never stopping more than 14 days then you don't need a mooring and it would be stupid to require it. So we agree, us moorers are paying to fulfil the conditions of one licence because we are unable to fulfil the requirements of the other. Unavoidable expense of boating, unless you are unable to fulfill the requirements of either class of licence and tell outright lies either by claiming intend a long term long range cruise with no such intention, or by claiming a paper mooring.

So it seems we agree.

You're paying for the exclusive use of a prime mooring spot and the need not to move the boat every fortnight

And very expensive it is too.

[sueb]

I do believe that the penny is starting to drop!

 

Tho ONLY benefit that the people who shell out £1,000 for one of these moorings get is the right to stay put. They aren't getting anything else.

 

To my mind, there is a certain "fairness" to that. Either you pay a minimun price for staying put, or you incur the costs of moving on.

 

I have no issue whatsoever with those who choose moving on. I do have an issue with those who take all the financial benefits that come from NOT paying for a mooring, but take all the benefits of having one.

 

 

 

Oh, so that's all right then.

 

As long as you aren't going to get caught and as long as the consequences of getting caught aren't too bad, its OK to just abuse the system. After all, as long as most other people don't do what you do, it won't be a problem.

Who said I did this? It is just my observation that some boats previously in marinas or on long term moorings are now just floating around the area without any problems.

Sue

[ymu]

And very expensive it is too.

In some areas yes. Supply and demand. Elsewhere, it is a bargain. We would be much better off if we got a cheap mooring and abused the ambiguity in the 14 day rule for those with home moorings.

 

It's easy enough to CC at weekends. If the cost of the travel and inconvenience made it a better option than having a mooring, that's what you'd do.

 

We have no fixed place of work and a mooring would deny us most of what we like about having a boat. So we don't have one. If the anti-CC cacophany gets any worse, we'll get one, abuse the cruising rules with impunity, and help push mooring charges even higher whilst making it even more difficult for people who actually need a mooring to find one.

 

Target those who abuse the system and we might find a sane solution.

[mayalld]

If the anti-CC cacophany gets any worse

 

What anti-CC cacophony?

 

There is no such thing, other than in your mind.

 

People object to those who pretend to be CCers but fail to keep to the rules.

 

If you stick to the rules, then nobody is opposing what you do. If you don't stick to the rules, you aren't a CCer.

[Sir Nibble]

And very expensive it is too.

In some areas yes. Supply and demand. Elsewhere, it is a bargain.If I could find a cheaper mooring I would We would be much better off if we got a cheap mooring and abused the ambiguity in the 14 day rule for those with home moorings. There is no ambiguity, none at all.It's easy enough to CC at weekends. If the cost of the travel and inconvenience made it a better option than having a mooring, that's what you'd do. No, it would not be too costly nor inconvenient, it would not be possible without giving up the rest of my life.We have no fixed place of work and a mooring would deny us most of what we like about having a boat. So we don't have one. If the anti-CC cacophany gets any worse,There is no anti CC cacophany, I've been on this board, I dunno, 5 years? and never seen a word against CCers. we'll get one, abuse the cruising rules with impunity, and help push mooring charges even higher whilst making it even more difficult for people who actually need a mooring to find one.

 

Target those who abuse the system and we might find a sane solution. Agreed, and the Davies case is the first hit on target.

[ymu]

What anti-CC cacophony?

 

There is no such thing, other than in your mind.

 

People object to those who pretend to be CCers but fail to keep to the rules.

 

If you stick to the rules, then nobody is opposing what you do. If you don't stick to the rules, you aren't a CCer.

Well yes. I'm suggesting that those who complain about 'fake CCers' would be more credible and more effective if they also complained about bridge-hoppers and over-stayers with home moorings.

 

The fact that one 14 day rule has been defined and re-defined several times whilst the other has never been defined at all suggests that only one part of the problem is getting any meaningful attention from the green-ink brigade. Forgive me for trying to help them focus their energies more effectively.

[Sir Nibble]

Well yes. I'm suggesting that those who complain about 'fake CCers' would be more credible and more effective if they also complained about bridge-hoppers and over-stayers with home moorings. They do. Complaints are made about over stayers and bridge hoppers without any knowledge of their mooring status.The fact that one 14 day rule has been defined and re-defined several times whilst the other has never been defined at all No, the 14 day rule for any one mooring is correctly defined first time and has not been redifined, the rule for CCers to move out of the area has been defined once and the dispute has centred around the definition of "place" which has been defined a number of times, there is not and never has been a rule requiring moorers to move out of area at all. suggests that only one part of the problem is getting any meaningful attention from the green-ink brigade. Forgive me for trying to help them focus their energies more effectively.

[ymu]

Can't see how any of that contradicts what I saud about market forces, Nibble. The rest is a matter of opinion and I see no need to repeat myself.

 

We were offered Gunpowder Wharf, near Thrupp, for £75/month. We're glad we didn't take it now, but we'd be saving £150/month on travel alone, and a lot of diesel if I could access office facilities easily.

 

What you are prepared to pay for a mooring before you're better off weekending or not owning a boat depends on your circumstances and preferences. Nothing else.

[Sir Nibble]

Can't see how any of that contradicts what I saud about market forces, Nibble. The rest is a matter of opinion and I see no need to repeat myself. Of course mooring costs depend upon market forces, what else astrology? And a lot of what you describe as matters of opinion are matters of fact in which you would appear to be mistaken, ie, wrong.

We were offered Gunpowder Wharf, near Thrupp, for £75/month. We're glad we didn't take it now, but we'd be saving £150/month on travel alone, and a lot of diesel if I could access office facilities easily.

Yup, those dreaded market forces hit us in the south harder than that.What you are prepared to pay for a mooring before you're better off weekending or not owning a boat depends on your circumstances and preferences. Nothing else. Absolutely spot on, and those who dodge the choice by neither having a mooring nor moving on?

[TimD]

Going back to the original question: surely there is no CC rule being contravened by boating to Oxford, bridge hopping once in Oxford, then going to Cropredy and brige hopping once there and then moving on somewhere different. The problem comes when someone contiuously bridge hops in Oxford every two weeks because they work there.

 

There is obviously a grey area between the two, but the OP is clear cut-ly within the rules.

[Sir Nibble]

Going back to the original question: surely there is no CC rule being contravened by boating to Oxford, bridge hopping once in Oxford, then going to Cropredy and brige hopping once there and then moving on somewhere different. The problem comes when someone contiuously bridge hops in Oxford every two weeks because they work there.

 

There is obviously a grey area between the two, but the OP is clear cut-ly within the rules.

I'm no lawyer and don't pretend to grasp the legal nuances but I would agree with you on all points.

[ymu]

Going back to the original question: surely there is no CC rule being contravened by boating to Oxford, bridge hopping once in Oxford, then going to Cropredy and brige hopping once there and then moving on somewhere different. The problem comes when someone contiuously bridge hops in Oxford every two weeks because they work there.

 

There is obviously a grey area between the two, but the OP is clear cut-ly within the rules.

Yes, precisely.

 

The Davies judgement gives a precedent for ignoring the CC guidance. If you can't satisfy the Board you might nevertheless satisfy a judge, so the 1995 Act is all you need to worry about until and unless there is a new precedent set.

 

The pattern you describe is quite lawful. There is also no lawful reason we cannot moor up on a different stretch of moorings in the same 'neighbourhood' after 14 days. That part of the 14 day rule is now, in effect, the same for everyone, whether they have a home mooring or not.

Edited June 6, 2011 by ymu

[Sir Nibble]

Yes, precisely.

 

The Davies judgement gives a precedent for ignoring the CC guidance. If you can't satisfy the Board you might nevertheless satisfy a judge, so the 1995 Act is all you need to worry about until and unless there is a new precedent set.The pattern you describe is quite lawful. There is also no lawful reason we cannot moor up on a different stretch of moorings in the same 'neighbourhood' after 14 days. That part of the 14 day rule is now, in effect, the same for everyone, whether they have a home mooring or not.

That's turbine like spin there! The Davies judgement roughly says that.

The BW Guidance for continuous cruisers is about right, though exceptional circumstances where it may not apply could be envisaged.

That the acid test is does the boater intend to follow a long distance cruising pattern.

That staying in one vicinity to remain close to work is a breach of licence conditions and justifies refusal of renewal

This is not instead of the 1995 act, it is the judges description of what the act means.

 

Usual disclaimers about not being a lawyer etc.

[RLWP]

<snip>

 

Usual disclaimers about not being a lawyer etc.

 

Not even the Barrack room kind

 

Richard