Reasons for not allowing continuous on line mooring.

[bassplayer]

Agree - but now you're also agreeing that a mooring has a value - which was the point I was making.

....car parking spaces have a value too...

 

At the MK open meeting with Mr Parry last night, someone suggested licence fees should double and the CRT mooring contributions be halved...I think this was aimed at CC'ers but could be wrong...

[MtB]

Blimey I kicked something off there with my intellectual property theft analogy didn't I???!!

 

Ok, let's try another analogy...

 

If I jump on the train from Reading to Paddington without buying a ticket, this is also equivalent to fake CCing. The train is going there anyway so no extra cost to the railways, yet most people would regard it as dishonest.

 

MtB

[Wanted]

I generally find that those who indulge in software and music piracy, even at low levels of acvity want to soften the definition of their crime and therefore don't like to use the word 'theft' or 'thief' as it helps them make themselves feel better about what they perceive to be a 'victimless' crime, and helps them rationalise their 'well they (as in the music and software industries) can afford it' mentality.

 

Whilst it might not meet the strict definition in legal terms FAST consider it theft in order to re-enforce the seriousness of it and I feel comfortable with describing it as theft because if you ever get to court and are convicted the strict definition wont really concern the magistrate or judge (depending on the scale of your illegal activities) when he or she hands out the sentence.

 

Hence why I am keen for it to be called 'theft'.

So it's not actually called theft, but you think it should be. Riiight...

[mark99]

So it's not actually called theft, but you think it should be. Riiight...

 

 

Post 223 Rob.

[John V]

A rose by any other name.....

[mark99]

Blimey I kicked something off there with my intellectual property theft analogy didn't I???!!

 

Ok, let's try another analogy...

 

If I jump on the train from Reading to Paddington without buying a ticket, this is also equivalent to fake CCing. The train is going there anyway so no extra cost to the railways, yet most people would regard it as dishonest.

 

MtB

 

 

Yeah man.... but it's the system innit - it stynks, power to the people (unless I want their stuff).

[jenlyn]

....car parking spaces have a value too...

At the MK open meeting with Mr Parry last night, someone suggested licence fees should double and the CRT mooring contributions be halved...I think this was aimed at CC'ers but could be wrong...

The whole meeting was seemingly an opportunity taken by a silly bunch of old duffers to knock continuous cruisers, or like David daines, moan about having two boats and having to licence them.

One guy even came equipped with photos of overstayers, which turned out were not, and proved to be a huge embarrassment for him.

All in all, there was some disgusting attitudes on show.

 

David daines is on the south east waterways sub group. He was the guy who believed licence fees should be doubled, and online mooring fees halved.

Edited October 7, 2014 by jenlyn

[alan_fincher]

The whole meeting was seemingly an opportunity taken by a silly bunch of old duffers to knock continuous cruisers, or like David daines, moan about having two boats and having to licence them.

One guy even came equipped with photos of overstayers, which turned out were not, and proved to be a huge embarrassment for him.

All in all, there was some disgusting attitudes on show.

 

Greenie.

 

It was a bloody horrible experience, with some bloody horrible people.

[Wanted]

Post 223 Rob.

Not conclusive. I don't always agree with delta but on this I do.

 

I also see nowhere where he said that he condoned piracy.

[mayalld]

I know how you behave on here and that's my only interest in you. You cast a shadow over this forum.

I read everyones posts, yours just stand out as pernickety, pointless and often rude. It's hard not to notice you.

 

And I try so hard to stand out, only to find that Martin pips me to the post!

[Wanted]

Greenie.

 

It was a bloody horrible experience, with some bloody horrible people.

I've just read someone's feedback from it on a FB page and there was a genuine feeling of disgust at the way some people were attacking CC's

[Guest]

So it's not actually called theft, but you think it should be. Riiight...

I was asked a question which I answered in simple easy to understand terms. It is a definition used by many others and I happen to agree with it, even if those who would prefer it not to be defined as such (for the reasons I stated ie for their own convieience).

Edited October 7, 2014 by The Dog House

[cotswoldsman]

I've just read someone's feedback from it on a FB page and there was a genuine feeling of disgust at the way some people were attacking CC's

No can't believe some were attacking CCers never seen that anywhere before.

 

David daines is on the south east waterways sub group. He was the guy who believed licence fees should be doubled, and online mooring fees halved.

 

Like to see if he has the On Line Mooring Consultation and then see his replies

[Higgs]

The whole meeting was seemingly an opportunity taken by a silly bunch of old duffers to knock continuous cruisers, or like David daines, moan about having two boats and having to licence them.

One guy even came equipped with photos of overstayers, which turned out were not, and proved to be a huge embarrassment for him.

All in all, there was some disgusting attitudes on show.

 

David daines is on the south east waterways sub group. He was the guy who believed licence fees should be doubled, and online mooring fees halved.

 

 

The bloke's confused/I'm confused. He moans about having to licence two boats then advocates doubling his misery. ??

Edited October 7, 2014 by Higgs

[Sabcat]

 

Ah Castro - the chap who used to run his own theifdom with the whole Cuban population as slaves. Of course he had no interest in suppressing freedom of expression and free enterprise did he.

 

So far you:

 

1) don't have an issue with taking anothers IP without paying

2) taking stuff out of supermarkets without paying full amount (thread a few weeks back)

 

Is there anything else you want to tell us about? what is not fair game to you?

 

I still think you are a forum wind up.

 

I did say I wasn't a fan. 1 & 2 you're spot on. I wouldn't want to ruin the anticipation by laying everything out in one go. Continue following my posts and more will doubtless be revealed. As for whether I'm a wind up or not, no but then I'd have to say that whether I was or not, wouldn't I?

[furnessvale]

Blimey I kicked something off there with my intellectual property theft analogy didn't I???!!

 

Ok, let's try another analogy...

 

If I jump on the train from Reading to Paddington without buying a ticket, this is also equivalent to fake CCing. The train is going there anyway so no extra cost to the railways, yet most people would regard it as dishonest.

 

MtB

Mike, with that one word you hit the nail squarely on the head.

 

Many things are dishonest, such as your example and the copyright infringements being "discussed". However, dishonesty is only one of the elements to be proved in the offence of theft. Fail to prove any one element and the charge fails completely hence the need for parliament to create new specific offences to cover things such as copyright infringement.

 

All the huffing and puffing in the world will not change the legal definition of what is theft.

 

George ex nb Alton retired

[Sabcat]

Blimey I kicked something off there with my intellectual property theft analogy didn't I???!!

 

Ok, let's try another analogy...

 

If I jump on the train from Reading to Paddington without buying a ticket, this is also equivalent to fake CCing. The train is going there anyway so no extra cost to the railways, yet most people would regard it as dishonest.

 

MtB

 

It's not really equivalent, is it? A CCer fake or otherwise has a licence, they've paid for their boat to be on the water. Whether they conform to the rules of CCing doesn't make any difference to anything in terms of money unless you think that they're dodging a mooring cost but that, in the same way as the arguments about music are flawed, assumes that the alternative is only that. If the CCer instead of taking a mooring just cruised a bit more then the financial position between the CCer and CaRT hasn't altered just as Aeorosmith would have been no better off if I'd just not downloaded their discography and not bought it either.

 

Much of this argument about CCers seems to come down to a collection of petty minded bigots (you're not one of them btw MtB as a far as I can see) who just object to people not paying as much they pay. This shouldn't form the basis of an argument. If a boat is causing an material problem in their cruising pattern (or lack of it) then enforcement action should be taken, if the boat is causing no problem at all then why bother? Leave them be.

 

What's more likely to happen with the influx of people to the cut looking for cheap housing and the raft of anti CC sentiment and resulting pressure on CaRT to act is that bridge you keep seeing a boat moored at will still have a boat moored at it, it'll just be a different boat every so often rather than the same boat. I like this. I like it alot. If an organisation like NBT for example could organise CCers in an area to effectively swap moorings to keep everyone compliant we can probably get a few thousand more on the cut all compliant. CaRT win because of more licence money and the increase in scruffy boats is likely to drive a few of the middle class no it alls with their 100k toys to sod off and take up skiing or similar thus improving the general mood of the cut immensely.

[Paul C]

 

It's not really equivalent, is it? A CCer fake or otherwise has a licence, they've paid for their boat to be on the water.

 

They've not paid for a home mooring though

 

 

Whether they conform to the rules of CCing doesn't make any difference to anything in terms of money unless you think that they're dodging a mooring cost but that, in the same way as the arguments about music are flawed, assumes that the alternative is only that. If the CCer instead of taking a mooring

 

If the CCer took a mooring instead of cruising a bit more the argument falls on its arse. Many have ties to a local area which is the root cause of their not moving too much, eg work schooling health issues etc

 

just cruised a bit more then the financial position between the CCer and CaRT hasn't altered just as Aeorosmith would have been no better off if I'd just not downloaded their discography and not bought it either.

 

Much of this argument about CCers seems to come down to a collection of petty minded bigots (you're not one of them btw MtB as a far as I can see) who just object to people not paying as much they pay.

 

I'm not saying CCers should pay more, I think home moorings cost too much. If they were (much) cheaper and more widely available where people wanted them, a lot of the problems would be solved.

 

 

This shouldn't form the basis of an argument. If a boat is causing an material problem in their cruising pattern (or lack of it) then enforcement action should be taken, if the boat is causing no problem at all then why bother? Leave them be.

 

What's more likely to happen with the influx of people to the cut looking for cheap housing and the raft of anti CC sentiment and resulting pressure on CaRT to act is that bridge you keep seeing a boat moored at will still have a boat moored at it, it'll just be a different boat every so often rather than the same boat. I like this. I like it alot. If an organisation like NBT for example could organise CCers in an area to effectively swap moorings to keep everyone compliant we can probably get a few thousand more on the cut all compliant. CaRT win because of more licence money and the increase in scruffy boats is likely to drive a few of the middle class no it alls with their 100k toys to sod off and take up skiing or similar thus improving the general mood of the cut immensely.

[mayalld]

 

It's not really equivalent, is it? A CCer fake or otherwise has a licence, they've paid for their boat to be on the water. Whether they conform to the rules of CCing doesn't make any difference to anything in terms of money unless you think that they're dodging a mooring cost but that, in the same way as the arguments about music are flawed, assumes that the alternative is only that. If the CCer instead of taking a mooring just cruised a bit more then the financial position between the CCer and CaRT hasn't altered

 

 

Indeed it is true that if the fake CCer cruised more then CRT wouldn't get a penny more out of him.

 

He would, of course incur additional expenses by doing so.

 

The answer is that yes there is a legitimate way of avoiding paying for a mooring. That legitimate way involves other expenditure, and as such means that CCing isn't simply a way to avoid paying for a mooring, because if you actually CC it will probably cost as much as a cheap mooring.

 

There are many things in life where one could argue that there is no real loss, because you could organise your life differently and not pay anything, but that doesn't mean that it is OK to avoid paying for it.

 

There is a bus outside the office at the moment. There are only 7 people on it. If I get on it and don't pay, then I could argue that I could have walked instead, in which case the bus operator would have got no money, and it isn't as if my being there occupying a seat for nothing is stopping them carrying a passenger who might pay, and the presence of 1 more passenger doesn't add to the cost of running the bus.

 

It only works if everybody else pays for what they have and only you choose not to.

[Sabcat]

 

Indeed it is true that if the fake CCer cruised more then CRT wouldn't get a penny more out of him.

 

He would, of course incur additional expenses by doing so.

 

The answer is that yes there is a legitimate way of avoiding paying for a mooring. That legitimate way involves other expenditure, and as such means that CCing isn't simply a way to avoid paying for a mooring, because if you actually CC it will probably cost as much as a cheap mooring.

 

There are many things in life where one could argue that there is no real loss, because you could organise your life differently and not pay anything, but that doesn't mean that it is OK to avoid paying for it.

 

There is a bus outside the office at the moment. There are only 7 people on it. If I get on it and don't pay, then I could argue that I could have walked instead, in which case the bus operator would have got no money, and it isn't as if my being there occupying a seat for nothing is stopping them carrying a passenger who might pay, and the presence of 1 more passenger doesn't add to the cost of running the bus.

 

It only works if everybody else pays for what they have and only you choose not to.

 

Your analogy of the bus doesn't relate to the CCer buying diesel instead of a mooring. The situation for everyone else on the cut isn't affected by the purchase of that diesel or the changing boat moored at the bridge. I would contend as well that having had a look at the places maps that CaRT initially released a person could comply on less than £50 of diesel a year. It's not in the financial interests of CaRT to hound people off the cut even if they do upset the neckerchief and 100k toys brigade because although very vociferous the latter don't actually contribute very much if any more than CCers. Rather than forcing boats to shuffle around, leave them be and let them keep that £50 for something else.

 

The backdrop of this is the situation in the rest of society living through austerity, the reason we have the housing crisis that is impacting on the cut. What the neckerchief and 100k toy types really want is the rest of society in the form of the grant to pay for their playground but keep away, thanks very much.

 

I like MTB's music piracy analogy much better, it fits because just like the illegal downloading of music the influx of people looking for housing isn't going to change, it's reality and reality is nothing if not persistent.

[John V]

Sabcat

 

I'm not going to quote because it takes up too much space.......

 

What is up with you and 100K boats.....

 

My boat is probably around that value, and I got it by buying a heap of scrap 20 odd years ago and pouring all of my free time and most of the money I earned,into her, not spending money on drinking or going on holidays. driving an ancient works van etc etc ........... Grow up!

[mayalld]

 

Your analogy of the bus doesn't relate to the CCer buying diesel instead of a mooring. The situation for everyone else on the cut isn't affected by the purchase of that diesel or the changing boat moored at the bridge.

 

 

Actually, yes it is.

 

There are, if we assume that the statistics are correct, around 5,000 boats registered as CCers on the canal.

 

There are also (if we assume that the statistics are overstated) at least 500 boats that seldom move at all or very far.

 

As others have noted, if all that CRT manage to do is to get those 500 boats to move about a little more, there will still be 5,000 boats moored up SOMEWHERE every evening.

 

However, if half of those 500 non-movers decide that they cannot move as required, they will actually take a mooring.

 

At a stroke, there are 250 more moorings available on the towpath every night.

 

Do you seriously contend that the 250 extra moorings made available every night doesn't affect other boaters?

 

It is also the case that a lot of the non-moving boats (certainly round here) congregate where there is easy access to somewhere to park a car, or get a bus or go to the pub, rather than mooring out in the wilds, whereas those who do continuously cruise tend to moor out in the wilds for far more of the time.

 

As such those 250 spots would be disproportionately "premium" mooring spots.

[alan_fincher]

It is also the case that a lot of the non-moving boats (certainly round here) congregate where there is easy access to somewhere to park a car, or get a bus or go to the pub, rather than mooring out in the wilds, whereas those who do continuously cruise tend to moor out in the wilds for far more of the time.

 

As such those 250 spots would be disproportionately "premium" mooring spots.

 

I think analysis of most boats in our area that are "boats without a home mooring, but not moving a great deal" would indicate that the vast majority actually do moor in places where they are not denying people of "premium" mooring space.

 

Not always so, of course, but they do tend to be in places where they are not taking up all available space anyway.

 

I'm not in any way defending those who may be judged to not be involved in "bona fide for navigation", but I think, (in my home area at least) the suggestion they all park themselves at "honeyspot" sites simply isn't true.

 

Yes, maybe near roads where they can park a car, or access transport, but whenever I have wanted to stop at such places, I have not found it impossible to do so.

[mark99]

Sabcat

 

I'm not going to quote because it takes up too much space.......

 

What is up with you and 100K boats.....

 

My boat is probably around that value, and I got it by buying a heap of scrap 20 odd years ago and pouring all of my free time and most of the money I earned,into her, not spending money on drinking or going on holidays. driving an ancient works van etc etc ........... Grow up!

 

 

It's another attempt with the neckerchief jibe at a "right on" clarion call.

 

As regards neckerchiefs I have actually seen them used on the cut - by dogs however.

[Sir Nibble]

It's not really equivalent, is it? A CCer fake or otherwise has a licence, they've paid for their boat to be on the water. Whether they conform to the rules of CCing doesn't make any difference to anything in terms of money unless you think that they're dodging a mooring cost but that, in the same way as the arguments about music are flawed, assumes that the alternative is only that. If the CCer instead of taking a mooring just cruised a bit more then the financial position between the CCer and CaRT hasn't altered just as Aeorosmith would have been no better off if I'd just not downloaded their discography and not bought it either.

 

Much of this argument about CCers seems to come down to a collection of petty minded bigots (you're not one of them btw MtB as a far as I can see) who just object to people not paying as much they pay. This shouldn't form the basis of an argument. If a boat is causing an material problem in their cruising pattern (or lack of it) then enforcement action should be taken, if the boat is causing no problem at all then why bother? Leave them be.

 

What's more likely to happen with the influx of people to the cut looking for cheap housing and the raft of anti CC sentiment and resulting pressure on CaRT to act is that bridge you keep seeing a boat moored at will still have a boat moored at it, it'll just be a different boat every so often rather than the same boat. I like this. I like it alot. If an organisation like NBT for example could organise CCers in an area to effectively swap moorings to keep everyone compliant we can probably get a few thousand more on the cut all compliant. CaRT win because of more licence money and the increase in scruffy boats is likely to drive a few of the middle class no it alls with their 100k toys to sod off and take up skiing or similar thus improving the general mood of the cut immensely.

You are missing the point by concentrating on the little man. Look up and check out his mates too. It's not one boat quietly keeping out of the way, it's 200 boats in a restricted area all jockeying for space and convinced they are the true owners and custodians of the canal. If they were forced to cruise then at least half would move ashore and the rest would be spread around the whole system and not just 10 miles near some city. Do you really believe that the liveaboard CC situation in London has not ruined our capital city as a cruising destination?