Continuous Cruising/Mooring

[mrsmelly]

Dean I think you have it backwards. A lot of peeps have life circumstances (e.g. a job in a fixed location, kids in a school, whatever) which prevent them from CCing.

 

We all have to comply with the rules we agreed to when we applied for our licence. These broadly say if you can't arrange your life so you can CC, you must get a home mooring. So if you can't afford the home mooring, you can't afford the luxury of living on a boat.

 

Arguing the rules are senseless or are unfair does not cut it. We are lumbered with them and have to comply with them or risk the consequences. Time to grow up and accept reality.

 

MtB

 

Greenie.

[GUMPY]

 

We have just been told (by head of boating at CRT) that you can stay just on the 28 miles of the River Lee, and provided you otherwise follow the guidance CRT are not going to be coming after you

 

 

And were you also told that this applied nationally?

I would say that the Lee is a special case as it has a licence that does not, with a few transit exceptions, allow you to travel off it.

Same for every river navigation.

 

I wonder if those thast fought so hard for the no home mooring clause in the 1995 act are now looking back and thinking why did we do that?

[alan_fincher]

And were you also told that this applied nationally?

No, I'm not claiming that.

 

I am responding mainly to the point that you cannot CC on just one navigation, but also trying to give some kind of reality check to those who dearly want things to be different from the real world they live in.

 

I fully understand where you are coming from, but anybody who takes the time to study where we are now, and the messages CRT are giving, will find that there is never again likely to be an insistence about travelling over huge geographical areas.

 

I'm making no comment as to whether that is "a good thing" or "a bad thing", but fail to see what is achieved by people continuing to believe that CRT have powers they do not, and that therefore, if some magic wand was waved, all these "no movers" and "low movers" would suddenly disappear.

 

But we have been here before of course, many times

[blodger]

I wonder if those thast fought so hard for the no home mooring clause in the 1995 act are now looking back and thinking why did we do that?

 

What an odd thing to be wondering about given its success

[Leonie]

 

If they really arent earning enough then they could claim housing benefit for their mooring and licence.

 

I've seen this crop up a few times in these regular cruiser bashing sessions and it makes me think I really do come from a different planet. Frankly I'd rather someone bend/break/trample all over the CC rule than claim a benefit that they don't really need in order to remain self sufficient. You are happy to fund someone's mooring fee out of my taxes but you won't share your towpath with them? What on earth. Carry on. I'll never understand.

[GUMPY]

I wonder if those thast fought so hard for the no home mooring clause in the 1995 act are now looking back and thinking why did we do that?

 

What an odd thing to be wondering about given its success

 

You may see it as a success I think its a disaster in the way it has been enforced/implemented

[carlt]

You may see it as a success I think its a disaster in the way it has been enforced/implemented

I wonder if BW had used its powers to move boats obstructing VMs, water points, lock landings and other sensitive locations there would be less hysteria about harmless overstaying on more remote unrestricted sites.

Edited December 4, 2012 by carlt

[oarfish]

If it's not a busy section of canal and they are not hogging visitor moorings, who cares? You could do that on the T&M and not disturb a soul. Anybody with a home mooring 300 miles away could do the exact same thing within the rules.

[John V]

I wonder if BW had used its powers to move boats obstructing VMs, water points, lock landings and other sensitive locations there would be less hysteria about harmless overstaying on more remote unrestricted sites.

 

IMO I think you are almost certainly correct.

[Tuscan]

I wonder if BW had used its powers to move boats obstructing VMs, water points, lock landings and other sensitive locations there would be less hysteria about harmless overstaying on more remote unrestricted sites.

 

 

Surely this is the only real action that's needed. I thought this was the original suggestion about changing the time allowed on some VM's that got everyone going.

 

The only thing that seems to be drip fed from the recent meeting is that the requirement for a home mooring that has driven most of my colleagues to have one is now no longer required and they could free up a sizeable chunk of money by mooring on the towpath if they needed to. I don't think this will leave many to leave the security of the marina but at least its an option for the future.

[oarfish]

Also

 

[lesrollins]

I recently saw a 70ft on line leisure mooring go for nearly £3000 no water no electric i wonder if the housing benefits would of paid for that. I have to agree with leonie and there views on ccers bending the rules to become self sufficient. How can anyone justify paying 3k for a mooring. I just came from a house where the rates were £1800 theres no sense in the greed and the stupidity that people will pay.

[cotswoldsman]

I recently saw a 70ft on line leisure mooring go for nearly £3000 no water no electric i wonder if the housing benefits would of paid for that. I have to agree with leonie and there views on ccers bending the rules to become self sufficient. How can anyone justify paying 3k for a mooring. I just came from a house where the rates were £1800 theres no sense in the greed and the stupidity that people will pay.

 

£250 pm would be no problem on HB for that you would not even get a bedsitter in Birmingham or a garage in London

[carlt]

How can anyone justify paying 3k for a mooring. I just came from a house where the rates were £1800 theres no sense in the greed and the stupidity that people will pay.

Err how much was the rent on that house?

 

Significantly more than the £250 per month for the mooring,I'd guess.

 

I suspect that the local council would rather pay £3000 for a mooring than, say £6000+ for a two bed terraced plus £1000 in council tax.

[lesrollins]

Rent free owned it

[carlt]

Rent free owned it

So you are hardly comparing like for like then, are you?

[cotswoldsman]

Rent free owned it

 

Ah well thats ok then so HB should be based on the fact that you own your house................

[carlt]

Perhaps I should have asked how much you would rent it out to someone and whether that was less than £250 per month.

[Dave_P]

I first got my first boat in November and needed to moor in Birmingham City Centre so I got a winter mooring which took me through to March. From March to August I cruised an area from Rugeley to Stratford so I could still get to work. In August I got a permanent mooring exactly where I wanted. I'm pretty sure I stayed within the guidelines.

 

But... what if from March to August I had shuttled between Birmingham, Earlswood and Alvechurch (on the same pound), as some do? I'd be the equivalent of satan, according to some it seems. But why? What difference does it make to me now, on my permanent mooring if the boat on the neighbouring visitor mooring has only been moving a few miles? I can see the need to move on, to give others a chance to moor there and to stop people always hogging the best spots, but I honestly can't see why moving 20 miles away is any different to moving 1 mile away. In fact I can see mutual benefits for all boaters if cc'ers do stay within a local area. I get to know them and then get regular updates on local canal 'happenings' which I might not be aware of. They get easier access to work, education, healthcare etc etc.

 

It seems to be that those who can't accept this are the boating equivalent of jobsworths with a 'those are the rules' attitude, without actually considered whether those rules are sensible.

 

I'm glad to hear that CaRT are beginning to relax their position on this.

[lesrollins]

Perhaps I should have asked how much you would rent it out to someone and whether that was less than £250 per month.

If i did rent it out for £250 per month not only it would of been a bargain but it would of been legal and above board. Using a leisure mooring as a place of permanent residence is not

[carlt]

Using a leisure mooring as a place of permanent residence is not (legal and above board).

That's a pretty bold statement to make without any supporting evidence.

 

Could you cite the relevant legislation supporting your assertion?

Edited December 4, 2012 by carlt

[MtB]

I recently saw a 70ft on line leisure mooring go for nearly £3000 no water no electric i wonder if the housing benefits would of paid for that. I have to agree with leonie and there views on ccers bending the rules to become self sufficient. How can anyone justify paying 3k for a mooring. I just came from a house where the rates were £1800 theres no sense in the greed and the stupidity that people will pay.

 

Now we are back to arguing the rules make no sense (with which I agree). But no-one has to 'justify' the cost of a mooring. If that is what they cost in your area then living on a boat has clearly become an expensive luxury, such is demand.

 

I guess another dimension to this is that compliant, law-abiding boaters who stump up large sums of money like this for a home mooring in order to comply with the rules, get jerky when they see other boater flout those rules and save themselves those same large sums of money, whilst simultaneously wishing they had the balls to do the same, perhaps.

 

As Carlt says, the problem is now a problem now because historically, BW were highly unlikely to enforce the rules. CMing* was broadly tolerated and the forbearance CMers* once received came to be regarded a right. But now CMing* has reached critical mass and impacts on most boaters at some point, CRT are moving to clarify and apply the rules that existed all along. Quelle suprise.

 

MtB

 

* For clarity, I do not mean CCers when I use the term CMer. In this case it is shorthand for boaters without a home mooring but who who moor in one place for extended periods of time, claiming work/family/other connections to an area but can't afford/don't want to afford/can't find a suitable home mooring.

[Chris Pink]

..

Edited December 4, 2012 by Chris Pink

[carlt]

As Carlt says, the problem is now a problem now because historically, BW were highly unlikely to enforce the rules. CMing* was broadly tolerated and the forbearance CMers* once received came to be regarded a right. But now CMing* has reached critical mass and impacts on most boaters at some point, CRT are moving to clarify and apply the rules that existed all along. Quelle suprise.

 

Actually I don't believe overstaying is much of a problem at all.

 

I believe that BW's failure to use its powers to enforce obstruction of VMs or "utility" moorings has led to hysteria over harmless overstaying in non-sensitive areas.

 

I don't think a boat being moored in a remote spot on unrestricted towpath impacts on anyone.

[sociable_hermit]

It's all about being sensible, on both 'sides', isn't it?

 

As Carl says, a boat moored up in the middle of nowhere with plenty of other mooring spaces around it isn't going to do any harm, because it's not inconveniencing anyone. So probably best ignored, then.

 

A boat overstaying at a very useful and crowded mooring spot (near the only shops for 10 miles, for example) is a different kettle of fish.

 

Those that take the mickey are being selfish, by assuming that they are somehow more important than anyone else on the cut. It's funny how the admirable concept of "freedom" very often turns into the less desirable "freedom for me at everyone else's expense".

 

A lot of people push the limits from time to time, in all areas of life. But if you're caught out, the adult response is to put your hands up and say "Yeah ok, fair enough" and take it on the chin (assuming the complaint is legitimate). To get on one's high horse for not being allowed to do something you knew damn well you shouldn't have been doing in the first place is just childish.