FEDUP.

[nicknorman]

 

 

Nobody is suggesting they pay XX ammount or years back pay for a mooring. Using your example, from the point in which the council realise the tennant has been underpaying, he should be expected to pay the correct ammount. If he can't afford it then he thinks to himself " ah well,at least i got away with it for so long. All good things come to an end", and moves out. If he want to pay the current going rate then he can stay there.

It wasn't intended to be an exact allusion. But in your ending, he moves out and then what? Sleeps in a cardboard box on the street?

[junior]

But CRT are doing something to tackle the problem. But they are proposing (or going along with) a middle path solution. Come on Junior, I know you are ex mil but we don't need the same tactics we used to invade Iraq for this one!

 

 

I disagree. Middle ground creates conflict. I hope this crazy scheme is not introduced. Maybe it is my military background, but i was brought up that rules are rules. If you knowingly break them, then stand-by.

 

It wasn't intended to be an exact allusion. But in your ending, he moves out and then what? Sleeps in a cardboard box on the street?

 

 

If he doesn't want to pay the going rate that he should have been doing so then yes he should move out! Where he goes is no concern of mine. He had options!

 

I'm not suggesting any of these boaters are kicked out into the street. I am suggesting that if they don't want to get a home mooring, then they should start complying with the guidelines to which they have been signing upto for the last however many years.

[tafelberg]

Greif, I wish I hadn't started this. But when someone knocks on your boat and accuses you of writing a note and pinning it a notice board, you can understand why i was as bit irate. Louise thanks for the chat.

 

Frankly I'm sick of the whole thing. CUB get the best deal you can from C&RT. Jenlyn, I don't have a war on anyone, I just want to live a peaceful life. Life is not fair. That's life, C&RT will end up doing what C&RT will end up doing. I just ask that you people don't talk to me, don't knock on my boat, and don't hassle me.

 

C&RT please can you commission the mooring rings you took 6 months to install and take this horrible temporary fence away, surely a month is long enough for the concrete to go off. After all, I do pay £2000 a year. If you don't, whatever, half the fence has been stolen anyway.

[jenlyn]

Maybe it should go to public consultation?

Why public, are they all going to buy boats?

[nicknorman]

 

 

I disagree. Middle ground creates conflict. I hope this crazy scheme is not introduced. Maybe it is my military background, but i was brought up that rules are rules. If you knowingly break them, then stand-by.

You are young! I used to think like you once. Then I was brain damaged by a good beating from John C, Steve J, Alan F and co and now I am mild mannered and happy with my lot, although I do dribble a bit.

[junior]

You sound just like ian duncan smith :-)

 

 

Never heard of him. IWA i take it?

[Jerra]

It wasn't intended to be an exact allusion. But in your ending, he moves out and then what? Sleeps in a cardboard box on the street?

I am puzzled! Many threads on the forum warn people thinking of living on a boat that it isn't cheaper than living on shore.

 

However as soon as there is a suggestion that CCers (or who ever) should abide by the rules or leave they suddenly become unable to afford to live on land and will be come homeless or live in a cardboard box.

 

Can somebody clarify is living on a boat so much cheaper than living on land or not?

[nicknorman]

 

Can somebody clarify is living on a boat so much cheaper than living on land or not?

It can be if you go for the simple life, but the relevant point is that living on a boat is cheaper than living on land - in or near London!

[Tuscan]

There are two sides to the arguement I imagine there are those who will argue that they are being compliant and have a home mooring and why should someone who has not been complant for whatever reason be given a subsidised mooring. The other side is that BW/CRT have at least been part compliant in allowing the current situation to exist and therefore should help devise a situation that will allow some of the existing boaters to pay for the right to remain in the same area through the introduction of the proposed roving mooring permits . I say this without specific knowledge of the current discussions.

 

Both arguements have some validity my concern is that it will encourage others to move to the area , amnesties have a habit of repeating themselves and perhaps it will make the situation worse for those that cruise around the area by the reduction of available towpath and I am assuming this is being taken into account.

 

CRT's introduction of the "no return rule" with a £25 charge being discussed on the Visitor Mooring proposals may well be used in a wider context to control the movement of those outside the scheme.

[Jerra]

It can be if you go for the simple life, but the relevant point is that living on a boat is cheaper than living on land - in or near London!

Thanks for that. I assume then this is a local problem and is unlikely to have a knock on effect all round the country.

[nicknorman]

Thanks for that. I assume then this is a local problem and is unlikely to have a knock on effect all round the country.

CUB is obviously specific to the SE but as we know, there is a bit of an issue on the W K&A where I would have though the cost of land living was less of a differentiator. I'm not sure if a similar proposal is on the go for that locale?

 

As you say I don't think its a problem elsewhere.

Edited April 29, 2013 by nicknorman

[jenlyn]

These roving pemits will be one time, one off. Very strict rules are applied with them. Ultimately, they are a short term solution while we look at other mooring options. One other aspect is the fact that it should, I hope, drive down other mooring prices by relaxing the demand. I can assure you these permits are far from an easy option.

[cheshire~rose]

There are all sorts of boaters on the cut.

Some pay marina licences.

Some claim to CC.

Some claim that they dont have a marina, and dont CC, and want CRT to recognise them as a special group.

I dont see a problem with that, however.....

 

every other boater without a home mooring, and who doesnt CC, will (correctly) be able to point to Uxbridge and say...."if they got special recognition, we want that in our area too. "

 

So I DO see this "new group of boaters" in many more places round the country. If it allows CRT to draw a line in the sand and stop "new" boaters from doing the same thing (by signing an adapted CC licence), then this should be a solution CRT can run with, hoping that over time this "new group" will become smaller and smaller or at least remain the same size and not grow larger. (As they will come down heavily on new licencees who try the same thing).

 

Those who argue that it is a bad move by CRT, havent offerred an alternative solution, and most likely have no understanding of the real issues affecting these boaters. CRT cannot just remove them from the canals, as the eviction process would keep CRT in the law courts for years.

 

Get real people

 

A lot of common sense written there.

 

There is a problem on the canals that needs a fix. CRT have come up with a fix. It may not suit everyone but nor does the current situation. It will mean that ongoing the situation will not get worse and with time it should impove. What is it about the fact that a problem is getting fixed that is causing so much angst with everyone?

 

It may not seem fair but in fact it is a potentially very clever solution - all those who are shouting so loud about it being unfair should shut up unless they can thik of a better solution

[junior]

Thanks for that. I assume then this is a local problem and is unlikely to have a knock on effect all round the country.

 

 

Thanks for that. I assume then this is a local problem and is unlikely to have a knock on effect all round the country.

 

 

Of course it will.

 

Any NCCC'er caught by CRT will now demand to be issued their 'roving permit'. If boaters in Uxebridge can have one, why can't every other NCCC'er?

[Bod]

Wow Nick you seem to be almost spot on. This is only stage one of a process to try and sort out a problem. A lot of people have invested a lot of time in trying to sort out this problem. There are some very strict rules that go with theses permits and they also come at a price.

 

Could we have some idea as to what the rules are, and what the "price" could be please.

I feel the "price" may not be monetery.

 

Bod

[luctor et emergo]

I have saved this thread for future reference, and will stop paying my income tax, and my car tax.

 

He, it worked for tv licences, and boat mooring licences...

[Jerra]

Of course it will.

 

Any NCCC'er caught by CRT will now demand to be issued their 'roving permit'. If boaters in Uxebridge can have one, why can't every other NCCC'er?

Well that was rather what was worrying me. I still don't understand quite what the problem is. A multitude of threads show that to CC within the rules you only need to move what IMO are farcically short distances for a Bona fide Navigation.

 

I haven't worked out why the people who would be eligible for a "roaming" permit/license don't just CC. After all distances as short a 10K (6 and a bit miles) are quoted at times.

[luctor et emergo]

CUB is obviously specific to the SE but as we know, there is a bit of an issue on the W K&A where I would have though the cost of land living was less of a differentiator. I'm not sure if a similar proposal is on the go for that locale?

As you say I don't think its a problem elsewhere.

Don't talk about the K&A, when you don't go anywhere near it....

 

There are lots of issues, acording to those who have either never heen here, or passed through 15 years ago...

 

I live here. I can moor anywhere I want, most of the time .. now bug ovf

 

Just move your bloaady boat...

[nicknorman]

Don't talk about the K&A, when you don't go anywhere near it....

There are lots of issues, acording to those who have either never heen here, or passed through 15 years ago...

I live here. I can moor anywhere I want, most of the time .. now bug ovfJust move your bloaady boat...

Glad to hear that when we finally do make it to the K&A I can expect the reserved Hudson moorings to be unoccupied. Even though rumour has it the natives are unfriendly! Edited April 29, 2013 by nicknorman

[luctor et emergo]

We cut hudson boats up for scrap metal.. and sell the occupants to Korean sweatshops...

 

That is how we can afford our massive dutch barges down here...

 

And I see facebook is watching again will the site owner deal with that?

[nicknorman]

We cut hudson boats up for scrap metal.. and sell the occupants to Korean sweatshops...

That is how we can afford our massive dutch barges down here...

Hopefully S Korea? I hear N Korea censors its 3G so no chance of participating in CWDF!

[luctor et emergo]

North Korea pay much better..

[nicknorman]

North Korea pay much better..

Fortunately I very much doubt it! Are we nearly off topic yet? (TFFT)

[luctor et emergo]

You are so naive... it's almost cute

[alan_fincher]

Life is too short to comment in detail on some of the nonsense spouted here, other than to say that as I have had some peripheral involvement, I know some of you are so far off the mark that you really should find out what this is about before being quite so vocal.

 

Well done Nick Norman who has managed to understand exactly what this is about, and to realise we are talking about human beings rather than something you can flush away because you consider it a nuisance.

 

A thought for those who think this is a case of getting something for nothing - just legitimising free-loaders, let's say. Whilst the likely cost of a permit was not set in stone the last time I heard, it isn't going to be cheap, and will very likely be more than many pay for permanent moorings in parts of the country where they are more freely available, and hence far more affordable. The likelihood is that, if introduced, it would probably be at least as much as the boat licence fee, so far from free-loading, people who get one are likely to be contributing at least twice as much to CRT coffers as they currently do.

We are always hearing from certain sectors that "these people should contribute more", but now a very limited scheme is being considered that actually means they will agree to do exactly that, I suspect it is in many cases exactly the same people still complaining.

Edited April 29, 2013 by alan_fincher