Jump to content

Continual cruising

Boston

By Boston
in General Boating

 Share

Featured Posts

bottle Veteran II

bottle

Posted
Posted

Simple solution ... anyone on a CC licence pays £10 a night to stop on a visitor moorings and all prime locations are reduced from 14 days to 48 hours , so if you want to live the life as you put it without actually going anywhere ( anywhere being at least a hundred + miles each season in one direction, although i will do more than that in summer just like a lot of recreational and hire boaters will) because you cant continually cruise around the whole system due to work commitments etc. you moor for your 14 days at a time along the cut, then you are not infringing on anyone else and should you want to stop on a prime VM you are paying for it pro rata to anyone with a home mooring that is just travelling through.

 

Rick

 

I stated my movements for the last month, I did not and will not tell you the number of miles I did over the last year and never returning to the same place.

 

Again I do not work, have not worked for the last ten years, and get my state pension this month.

 

Why should I pay for something that you can get free, a visitor mooring, I to am passing through.

 

As before I am exactly the same as you a visitor.

 

Thers one to be going on with ... cant be bothered to look for any more, but if you wish to you will find them as earlier in this thread the argument was about CMers overstaying on VMs , not using VMs

 

Rick

Exactly! well said that man have a greenie

 

Rick

ps, one thing that really annoys me is all those marina boaters that come out each weekend and always go to the same visitor mooring and stop us CCers being able to moor up. tongue.pngwink.png

 

Edit: spelling and to make another point.

 

Just to set the record straight i moor an hour from home at shardlow, so even if i go cruising for the weekend i use one of four different waterways and always use different VPs ... where would be the fun in going up and down the same bit of water to the same place all the time?

 

Rick

 

I see you quoted my ps. and you took it hook line and sinker, did you not notice the smilies.

 

Just for the record I could not care less what you do, I do care that I stay within the guidelines.

 

Here's another one for you to have a go at, I ran my generator till 21:00 hrs last night.

 

Be careful though you do not have all the facts.

 

I wish you well, enjoy your time on your boat and on the cut.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Wanderer Vagabond Influencer

Wanderer VagabondDonate to Canal World

Posted
Posted

I don't love to bash a boater with a home mooring at all, what an ignorant oaf you make of yourself by saying that.

 

I worry that a council would actually give the CCer's a miss owing to the difficulties in administering and collecting a tax, and choosing to go with the easy option instead, collecting from boats moored in a marina, or on a home mooring.

Why do you worry that a council (let us say Camden as an example) would give Continuous Moorers a miss? Since they and most others councils are now seriously strapped for cash where would be the difficulty? They could send someone to check the boats on the Canal within their borough and those who had remained for more that a month could be billed for 1/12 of the annual Band D (£1320 p.a. or £110 per month). That would seem a fair solution to me and, if I were in the position of wanting to live in Camden (as an ex-Londoner I don't), it would seem to be a reasonable amount to pay to access the facilities available. It would also counter quite reasonable resentment from the land based residents of Camden who may object to people otherwise freeloading on their facilities.

 

I don't see the councils going for the marina boats since they are already getting business rates from the marina owners so it could be argued that they would be getting a double take on it. I cannot however see any argument why anyone living in Camden, on a boat or otherwise, should not have to pay for the local facilities that they make use of.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
jenlyn Veteran II

jenlyn

Posted
Posted

Why do you worry that a council (let us say Camden as an example) would give Continuous Moorers a miss? Since they and most others councils are now seriously strapped for cash where would be the difficulty? They could send someone to check the boats on the Canal within their borough and those who had remained for more that a month could be billed for 1/12 of the annual Band D (£1320 p.a. or £110 per month). That would seem a fair solution to me and, if I were in the position of wanting to live in Camden (as an ex-Londoner I don't), it would seem to be a reasonable amount to pay to access the facilities available. It would also counter quite reasonable resentment from the land based residents of Camden who may object to people otherwise freeloading on their facilities.

 

I don't see the councils going for the marina boats since they are already getting business rates from the marina owners so it could be argued that they would be getting a double take on it. I cannot however see any argument why anyone living in Camden, on a boat or otherwise, should not have to pay for the local facilities that they make use of.

It's so far out there, I can't believe you can seriously be suggesting implementation. However, just to humour, how much would each council have to fork out to (1) sort the legislation needed, and (2) sort the logistics for collection and monitoring.

To be honest, this is getting to silly to debate really. It's not even close to dealing with the issues in hand.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Wanderer Vagabond Influencer

Wanderer VagabondDonate to Canal World

Posted
Posted (edited)

...perhaps they can't afford to due to their situation....now what are you going to do with them?

I'm sorry but that's not really an excuse is it? There are loads of land based people who also struggle to pay their percentage of the council tax and they get taken to court for it, so why not Continuous Moorers? All I would argue for is a bit of consistency since I despise those who have properties in 1 Hyde Park who don't pay Council tax, I despise Amazon and Starbucks and the other multinationals who don't pay tax, I can hardly therefore say it is OK for those living on the cut to avoid paying their taxes just because they are 'one of us'. If they want to live in a particular area either pay the local tax or move on.

 

Edited by Wanderer Vagabond
Link to comment
Share on other sites
bassplayer Influencer

bassplayer

Posted
Posted

Are suggesting that we should just let them off then?? Sort of OK you can't afford it so we are happy for you to be a freeloader!! After all the world must owe you a living

...note my earlier definition of a piss taker...some are genuinely in a difficult situation..some serve those in the ivory towers but the salary barely covers basic living costs....some may be taking the piss..

 

One thing I am sure of is that you don't know the situation of every boater in Camden...Do you care about the feelings of those who are struggling?

 

...as I also said...we all have a responsibly to those less fortunate....perhaps we should judge ourselves first...

I'm sorry but that's not really an excuse is it? There are loads of land based people who also struggle to pay their percentage of the council tax and they get taken to court for it, so why not Continuous Moorers? All I would argue for is a bit of consistency since I despise those who have properties in 1 Hyde Park who don't pay Council tax, I despise Amazon and Starbucks and the other multinationals who don't pay tax, I can hardly therefore say it is OK for those living on the cut to avoid paying their taxes just because they are 'one of us'. If they want to live in a particular area either pay the local tax or move on.

 

See my last post..and maybe some of those before that...It seems some of you are missing the point...

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Wanderer Vagabond Influencer

Wanderer VagabondDonate to Canal World

Posted
Posted

It's so far out there, I can't believe you can seriously be suggesting implementation. However, just to humour, how much would each council have to fork out to (1) sort the legislation needed, and (2) sort the logistics for collection and monitoring.

To be honest, this is getting to silly to debate really. It's not even close to dealing with the issues in hand.

Since when did you have to pay for legislation? I thought that paying for that sort of thing was sort of...corrupt. If they saw it as a viable income stream (10 boats = over £1000 per month) I wouldn't think it would be beyond the wit of an area that managed to impose a congestion charge on motorists. And yes it would start to deal with some of the issues since those in Camden who may complain of the smoke and engine/generator noise of the moored boats would be told that they are paying for the privilege.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
The Lockie Community Regular

The Lockie

Posted
Posted (edited)

Don't know what it is about you but every time you post you manage to severely pixx me off!! I do hope I am never unfortunate enough to meet you

 

...note my earlier definition of a piss taker...some are genuinely in a difficult situation..some serve those in the ivory towers but the salary barely covers basic living costs....some may be taking the piss..

One thing I am sure of is that you don't know the situation of every boater in Camden...Do you care about the feelings of those who are struggling?

...as I also said...we all have a responsibly to those less fortunate....perhaps we should judge ourselves first...

 

See my last post..and maybe some of those before that...It seems some of you are missing the point...

Edited by The Lockie
Link to comment
Share on other sites
jenlyn Veteran II

jenlyn

Posted
Posted

Since when did you have to pay for legislation? I thought that paying for that sort of thing was sort of...corrupt. If they saw it as a viable income stream (10 boats = over £1000 per month) I wouldn't think it would be beyond the wit of an area that managed to impose a congestion charge on motorists. And yes it would start to deal with some of the issues since those in Camden who may complain of the smoke and engine/generator noise of the moored boats would be told that they are paying for the privilege.

There you go, you have no idea, so end of that one.

 

Good luck with your lobbying :-)

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Wanderer Vagabond Influencer

Wanderer VagabondDonate to Canal World

Posted
Posted

.

 

See my last post..and maybe some of those before that...It seems some of you are missing the point...

The 'point' that you claim to be making isn't valid, that is why I am not seeing it. As I said in the original post, provided that these people are not making use of any of the facilities of Camden then they wouldn't be freeloading but once they want to access the facilites (like housing benefit) then it is only reasonable that they should contribute to the council area in which they live.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
jenlyn Veteran II

jenlyn

Posted
Posted

Bet you could though. I think you two would really get on well together

I just believe you can't take them all to Kilburn and hang them, or fleece money from them they dont have.

It's obviously not the trusts job to sort housing, but given the problems they are dealing with, it would not go amiss to lobby the waterways minister, making him aware of the issues.

Gotta start somewhere innit.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
b0atman Veteran

b0atman

Posted
Posted

Ok so boater is on breadline but coping and along comes the council who then gets the boater to fill in the forms the councillor then pays the boaters licence for him charges the boater council tax and then pays the council tax .who are the losers the council and the residents of that area .

another scenario is that boater cannot then afford to pay to live on the boat so council then have to house him .

Link to comment
Share on other sites
bassplayer Influencer

bassplayer

Posted
Posted

I think its probably the high handed arrogant way you make your point that does it for me. No matter you are perfectly entitled to be the way you want to be

 

 

You don't know me! I agree my posts sometimes seem a bit pious, I sometimes cringe at some of them but they are genuine and from the heart. Maybe my weakness is letting people find out for themselves. Sorry!

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Wanderer Vagabond Influencer

Wanderer VagabondDonate to Canal World

Posted
Posted

Ok so boater is on breadline but coping and along comes the council who then gets the boater to fill in the forms the councillor then pays the boaters licence for him charges the boater council tax and then pays the council tax .who are the losers the council and the residents of that area .

another scenario is that boater cannot then afford to pay to live on the boat so council then have to house him .

Or perhaps he could just move on out of the borough?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Wanderer Vagabond Influencer

Wanderer VagabondDonate to Canal World

Posted
Posted

...but they may have a job there...I think it does go back to the class divide problem...

Nothing to do with a class divide, if he has a job there he lives there, yes? If he lives there why should he be exempt from council tax when someone struggling to live in land based accommodation under exactly the same circumstances still has to find the money? You seem to repeatedly fail to answer this question.

 

I would also suggest that if he/she has a job that pays so badly they are part of the problem since whilst employers can find people to work for such crap wages in London they will continue to pay them. It is only when no-one will work for wages that bad before employers will have to start paying the Living Wage. The advantage that a liveaboard has is that they don't have to live in London, they can take their boat somewhere else. If on the other hand he/she is relying on Housing Benefit to pay for the likes of their licence, then they should also be contributing to Camden Council, or is there a reason why not?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share
Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.