Continual cruising

[Alan de Enfield]

kris88, on 03 Oct 2014 - 4:59 PM, said:

 

by the way nc i cant find the exact amount private marinas contribute to crt either so if you could provide the link it would be good.bwml contributed 6.6 million.

 

Lets just take some very rough & ready figures.

 

Marina fees fall lower and lower, BWML no longer makes a profit so C&RT lose £6.6 million (your figures), for C&RT to keep the same level of income to maintain the already low maintenance programme, the licence fee of every one of the 30,000 licenced boats would have to increase by £220 (boats with, or without a home mooring)

 

The majority of marinas are paying C&RT 9% of their turnover, so, if you feel so inclined, look at the accounts for every Marina, take 9% and you will have a rough idea of C&RTs income from Marinas.

[kris88]

i cant be bothered personally i just get bored of people who moor in marinas, moaning about people who choose not to.

Everybody has the choice.

 

regards kris

[b0atman]

Summer mooring permits could be a good idea as I have a couple of areas where stopping more than 14 days could be an option but what would be the qualifying months and cost ?

[Graham Davis]

sorry i forget that you have to put a smiley face on to indicate humour on this forum. The option of having a mooring or not is open to every boater. So make the choice that suits you and your lifestyle ,and be happy in it. But dont moan about people that make different choices.

ps im not condoning pisstakers

 

regards kris

 

 

Why not? Surely all boaters have free choice at the moment?

[b0atman]

 

Lets just take some very rough & ready figures.

 

Marina fees fall lower and lower, BWML no longer makes a profit so C&RT lose £6.6 million (your figures), for C&RT to keep the same level of income to maintain the already low maintenance programme, the licence fee of every one of the 30,000 licenced boats would have to increase by £220 (boats with, or without a home mooring)

 

The majority of marinas are paying C&RT 9% of their turnover, so, if you feel so inclined, look at the accounts for every Marina, take 9% and you will have a rough idea of C&RTs income from Marinas.

After the pillings saga I got the impression that it was based on number of mooring places not cash turnover.

[kris88]

graham i think you need to read what ive posted as i think your not reading the is as what i said is everybody has the choice

 

regards kris

[Alan de Enfield]

After the pillings saga I got the impression that it was based on number of mooring places not cash turnover.

 

It is actually based on the number of moorings, the average mooring cost per metre in the area x 9%

 

So I you had 1000 metres of mooring space, the local average rate is £150 per metre then you would be paying 9% of £150,000, ie £13,500 per annum.

 

Why do marinas have pontoons that are not full length - they get the customers to pay the £150 per metre on boat length, but only pay C&RT 9% of £150 per metre based on Pontoon length. Simples.

[b0atman]

My 55ft is on a 55ft jetty but neighbour has a 60ft boat crafty but good business practice .

How does this work though when marinas do not have jettys for example zouch marina you have a towing ball on the boat bow with a tow hitch ?from the shore .

[Woodstock]

 

 

I have NEVER seen a post on this forum objecting to continuous cruisers.

 

I was lucky enough to have a couple of years cruising the system and I would dearly love to be able to spend a couple more exploring the bits I missed

and like probably a good percentage of boaters I envy those who are able to.

 

However I have a objection to people using the CC guise to shuffle around the smallest area of canal they can, rather than get the mooring they should have

Exactly

 

As much as we'd like to continuous cruise, we would find it extremely difficult to comply due to our work and family commitments, so pay for a mooring. I fully support genuine compliant continuous cruisers and hope at some time it becomes an option for us

 

I do find it a bit of an oxymoron when some continuous cruisers are trying to work out how to move their boat the minimum distance possible. Restricted to boating at weekends and holidays- 18 miles in my world is part of a weekends boating- so what is the problem here?

 

If the OP has work commitments and cannot comply with the continuous cruiser requirements- then I suggest they pay for a mooring like the rest of us

 

To the genuine continuous cruisers- Enjoy it- I hope to join you at some point.

[kevinl]

If op has a bike and a vehichle to get to work then why not do the MTB style of boating but visiting different neighbourhoods for example A Kidlington B Kirtlington C Lower Heyford D Somerton E Aynho F Banbury maybe even further up the Oxford .

That is how some people like to boat and is surely along the lines of the K&A trial.

Just a thought.

OP's post #76

"ok what I am doing is going from the City Centre of Oxford up to Anyho the distance being a total of 18 miles, I stop at around 8 places for about 14 days each. I work in Oxford so I do not intend to go further North."

That's what is happening and what CRT are objecting too.

K

[bargemast]

Dear Dave Mayall,

 

I haven't been able to find your explanation on my genuine question, all I could discover is that you only used 1 line of what I wrote, which make it look very different from what I wrote.

 

Hope to read your explanation with some (for me) easier to understand wording.

 

Thanks,

 

Peter.

 

 

 

I'm terribly sorry Dave, you're surely much more intelligent than I am, and it's probably because of that that I haven't got a clue of what you wrote.

 

Would you please be so kind to write again but this time try to understand that I'm not half (or maybe not even 1/10th) as good with words and their understanding than you, to give me a chance to understand what you wanted to say.

 

Thank you very much in advance,

 

Peter.

 

 

 

[mayalld]

OP's post #76

"ok what I am doing is going from the City Centre of Oxford up to Anyho the distance being a total of 18 miles, I stop at around 8 places for about 14 days each. I work in Oxford so I do not intend to go further North."

That's what is happening and what CRT are objecting too.

K

So, essentially, your intent is to stay as close as possible to Oxford at all times. You will move the boat as infrequently as possible and for as short a distance as possible.

 

If they changed the rules to allow 28 days you would stay 28 days. If CRT said 10 miles was enough you would adopt a 10 mile range.

 

Basically, you aren't actually engaging in BONA FIDE navigation.

 

Despite this, CRT are going to allow you to say that you are engaging in bona fide navigation as long as you demonstrate that you ARE moving over an 18 mile range and you are complaining that they are harassing you.

 

No they aren't!

[Alf Roberts]

All this simplifies the Davis judgement. His stance was that he didn't have to have the intention to navigate. This was wrong. It is entirely possible to use a boat bona fide for navigation within an 18 mile radius. It serves your argument to simplify Davis like this but it's not a reflection of the current legal status of boats without moorings who choose to frequent one area.

[mayalld]

All this simplifies the Davis judgement. His stance was that he didn't have to have the intention to navigate. This was wrong. It is entirely possible to use a boat bona fide for navigation within an 18 mile radius. It serves your argument to simplify Davis like this but it's not a reflection of the current legal status of boats without moorings who choose to frequent one area.

The OP has stated that they have no intention of going further because they work in Oxford, and that they move only every 14 days.

 

Making their intent different to Davies is just wishful thinking

[Tony Dunkley]

After receiving a second inappropriate patrol notice I found out that this was due to the warden's patrol range being limited and in order to stop being harassed by Canal & River Trust I had to take a photo of every place I moored to prove I was moving the required distance. Surely this isn't right?

 

Were the two Patrol Notices issued recently and was the second one 14 days after the first and for the same location?

[Tony Dunkley]

 

The suggestion was made that if boaters would record their movements (which is a reasonable enough thing to ask, given that it is for the boater to satisfy the board, so it IS their job), instead of stamping their feet and demanding that CRT do it for them, then CRT would be able to divert funds that they were spending on such activities into more useful things.

 

It is Parry's job to maximise the funds available to spend on the waterways.

 

Clearly there will be those of limited intelect who might suggest that the answer is to simply spend all the enforcement money on waterway maintenance. I had, perhaps unwisely, assumed that you had enough common sense to realise that if you don't spend any money on enforcement, compliance and income reduce year on year.

 

So, Parry is doing his job by spending money on enforcement, which maintains income. If boaters would act in such a way as to render in unnecessary to spend as much on enforcement, then money could be diverted.

 

 

You now seem to be agreeing that the direction of funds is, as I said, Parry's job. Can you now explain just what you were raving on about when you put the following on Post 268 : --

 

 

>>You suggested that this was Parry's job. The Act says otherwise.

 

Now, you may imagine that you aren't talking about the 1995 Act, but the post that you were replying to when you said that it was Parry's job was very clearly talking about that Act.

 

Randomly talking about things that other people aren't talking about doesn't mean that they have a reading comprehension problem.<<

All that was in response to my remark about one specific(red highlighted) sentence in Post 158 that mentioned diverting funds. I really don't see how it's possible to link the allocation of funds to the 1995 BW Act, unless, of course, you had first run it through C&RT's computer system.

Edited October 3, 2014 by tony dunkley

[GUMPY]

All this simplifies the Davis judgement. His stance was that he didn't have to have the intention to navigate. This was wrong. It is entirely possible to use a boat bona fide for navigation within an 18 mile radius. It serves your argument to simplify Davis like this but it's not a reflection of the current legal status of boats without moorings who choose to frequent one area.

That is your opinion

However I think you will find CaRTs is somewhat different.

[Ange]

 

Would you pay more to maintain this freedom? Would you favour the equalisation of CaRT charges between all boaters?

An odd question. We pay our licence fee and abide by the terms and conditions of our licence so there is no requirement to for us to pay any more.

 

We've been moored in a marina for the last few months because I needed to work the summer and we decided that we couldn't be bothered with worrying about the cc rules this year - we could do it legitimately but when you're working it's far from an easy option. I wouldn't expect ccers to contribute towards our marina fees while we make that choice.

[kevinl]

OK so over 300 posts in and is the OP who says she is:

"ok what I am doing is going from the City Centre of Oxford up to Anyho the distance being a total of 18 miles, I stop at around 8 places for about 14 days each. I work in Oxford so I do not intend to go further North."

 

so answer either

A she is doing what is required as a CCer

B a piss taking bridge hopper

 

All the usual suspects with their petty infighting asides can someone tell Dovetail is she a saint or a sinner. One or two have ventured an opinion on the OP's topic but the rest have just reduced it to the usual bearpit of name calling, so is she in the right or in the wrong living her life her way the way she is now? It's a bit unpopular but it's called "staying on topic" instead of name calling, willy waving, look at all the posts I've made egocentric shit, the lady asked a question any answers?

K

[John V]

Kevini....no she doesn't

 

 

 

 

After receiving a second inappropriate patrol notice I found out that this was due to the warden's patrol range being limited and in order to stop being harassed by Canal & River Trust I had to take a photo of every place I moored to prove I was moving the required distance. Surely this isn't right?

 

 

She asks if it is fair that she has to prove she moves 18 miles my answer .........of course it's fair!

 

eta do I think it fair she ONLY has to move 18 miles....no I think it's risible

Edited October 4, 2014 by John V

[kevinl]

She doesn't have to prove her innocence they have to prove her guilt John V.

The question still is

 

A she is doing what is required as a CCer

B a piss taking bridge hopper

 

That's her original question, that's what she came on here to ask "ok what I am doing is going from the City Centre of Oxford up to Anyho the distance being a total of 18 miles, I stop at around 8 places for about 14 days each. I work in Oxford so I do not intend to go further North."

 

So is moving 18 miles north then 18 miles south then back again over and over enough to get her boat impounded/crushed (or whatever) forget all the asides is she going to get hauled out and should she get hauled out on the basis of her crusing pattern. We don't have a say but it would be interesting to know if the forum thinks CRT are in the right or the wrong. Forget all the asides is what she's doing within the terms of a CC or just living in Oxford on the cheap?

All the rubbish we spout on here counts for nothing but I do think it matters that issues of compliance are sorted out, he said as an aspiring CCer currently stuck in the same marina doing, the same job and bored as hell, But if they can do this to her they can do this to anyone, crush her boat and who knows what happens next?

K

[cotswoldsman]

She doesn't have to prove her innocence they have to prove her guilt John V.

The question still is

 

A she is doing what is required as a CCer

B a piss taking bridge hopper

 

That's her original question, that's what she came on here to ask "ok what I am doing is going from the City Centre of Oxford up to Anyho the distance being a total of 18 miles, I stop at around 8 places for about 14 days each. I work in Oxford so I do not intend to go further North."

 

So is moving 18 miles north then 18 miles south then back again over and over enough to get her boat impounded/crushed (or whatever) forget all the asides is she going to get hauled out and should she get hauled out on the basis of her crusing pattern. We don't have a say but it would be interesting to know if the forum thinks CRT are in the right or the wrong. Forget all the asides is what she's doing within the terms of a CC or just living in Oxford on the cheap?

All the rubbish we spout on here counts for nothing but I do think it matters that issues of compliance are sorted out, he said as an aspiring CCer currently stuck in the same marina doing, the same job and bored as hell, But if they can do this to her they can do this to anyone, crush her boat and who knows what happens next?

K

The question is is it "Bona Fide Navigation" and that as they say is the question no one except a Judge can answer. Is the Mersey Ferry that just covers a 2 mile stretch of river every day backwards and forwards "Bona Fide Navagation"?

[John V]

She doesn't have to prove her innocence they have to prove her guilt John V.

The question still is

 

A she is doing what is required as a CCer

B a piss taking bridge hopper

 

 

Sorry you are wrong, this isn't a court of law

This is a regulation that clearly states the boater has to satisfy the board that they do not require a home mooring

If they require photographs to satisfy them then so be it

 

as to the rest

 

according to the OP she has been told (correctly or not) that she is required to cover this distance.

if this is in fact correct then by the letter of the law A

 

by the spirit of the law however most definitely B

[mayalld]

 

You now seem to be agreeing that the direction of funds is, as I said, Parry's job. Can you now explain just what you were raving on about when you put the following on Post 268 : --

 

 

 

>>You suggested that this was Parry's job. The Act says otherwise.

 

Now, you may imagine that you aren't talking about the 1995 Act, but the post that you were replying to when you said that it was Parry's job was very clearly talking about that Act.

 

Randomly talking about things that other people aren't talking about doesn't mean that they have a reading comprehension problem.<<

 

 

All that was in response to my remark about one specific(red highlighted) sentence in Post 158 that mentioned diverting funds. I really don't see how it's possible to link the allocation of funds to the 1995 BW Act, unless, of course, you had first run it through C&RT's computer system.

Let me simplify it for the hard of thinking.

 

Party's job is to allocate funds appropriately. That could include diverting enforcement money into maintenance.

 

However, as was pointed out in the post you replied to, he can only do that if boaters stop playing silly games and demanding that CRT do their job for them.

 

Simple really

She doesn't have to prove her innocence they have to prove her guilt John V.

 

K

It isnt about guilty or innocent but compliant or not, and it IS up to the OP to demonstrate compliance.

[Tuscan]

Let me simplify it for the hard of thinking.

Party's job is to allocate funds appropriately. That could include diverting enforcement money into maintenance.

However, as was pointed out in the post you replied to, he can only do that if boaters stop playing silly games and demanding that CRT do their job for them.

Simple really

Parrys job surely is to carry out the wishes of the Trustees who for example gave him an extra £1.5M for the Towpath Mooring Project , apart from a few signs it is unclear what this has achieved and perhaps some of this could indeed been better spent on maintenance.