Jump to content

overstay £25 per day


b0atman
 Share

Featured Posts

Yep, 100% with you on that, I've flicked through this thread, and haven't commented because I can't quite get to what the actual problem or issue is, (My fault, I have little understanding of such things). The way I've read it is -

Someone stayed on a time sensitive mooring !, Ok fine.

Someone overstayed on the same time sensitive mooring !.

In my view,,,yep they should be charged whatever the cost is !, if they didn't like the cost and or didn't make special arraignments with the mooring or land owners, then move before becoming an over stayer !.

At the visitors mooring where I am, you pay Your harbor license ofcourse to allow you to navigate, but then in addition you pay £2.85 per

Mtr per Day, if you 'Choose' to use the mooring,

But as I said there is probably something I'm missing, or not fully understanding in all this.

 

The case in point must revolve around exactly where the errant boater moored. I have already pointed out that there is one location at Thrupp where the sign makes NO MENTION of the charge and in my view a reasonable man could well think the £25 per day charge no longer applied. Mooring anywhere else at Thrupp would clearly attract the £25 a day charge.

 

If anyone thinks this is unreasonable then they need to test it in the courts. I note the various associations do not seem keen to mount a test case.

 

I find the whole thing at Thrupp rather annoying. Much of the South Oxford's bank involves mooring against under water rocks that tends to make for noisy nights. Areas close to Oxford have great lengths reserved for water voles or "hippy boats" so mooring close to public transport is very limited, as are the 14 day moorings at Thrupp (actually it would be truer to say Shipton). Despite all this TCCC seems to be allowed to monopolise an awful lot of the banks it is possible to moor against. To make matters worse it seems to me that the actions taken re mooring on the Thames at Oxford have forced a lot of livaboards up the canal who further deny moorings to cruising boaters.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

If anyone thinks this is unreasonable then they need to test it in the courts. I note the various associations do not seem keen to mount a test case.

 

Leaving aside the rather bizarre specific case and not concentrating particularly on Thrupp, the last I heard CRT have tried levying only a very few of these £25 charges across the sites where they have now applied them.

 

I know that in some cases they have been challenged, and CRT have withdrawn the charges in certain cases, rather than try further to force payment.

 

The attitude has seemed to be that some people will just pay, and, if they do CRT will collect it, but I think CRt know they are on unsound ground if they try and pursue any particular case of non payment.

 

The intent has always, I think, been to scare people into compliance, with no real view that it represents any great revenue stream.

 

I actually think that if a cast iron case came up of somebody being heavily pursued, who did not think the charge was justified and/or legal that at least one of the associations might be happy in supporting them, if CRT actually try testing it in court.

 

I wouldn't like to predict which way it would go, but I think you could be confident that once again the main winner would be Shoesmiths!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

The intent has always, I think, been to scare people into compliance, with no real view that it represents any great revenue stream.

 

 

Or an alternative view is it's about the only tool left in CRT's bag with which to stop CMers and piss-takers overstaying on prime VMs.

 

 

 

 

I wouldn't like to predict which way it would go, but I think you could be confident that once again the main winner would be Shoesmiths!

 

 

I suspect CRT believe the serial overstayers would win, which is why CRT aren't making a song and a dance about suing one.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

I think its more a case that he doesn't have to necessarily answer your questions, to have a valid and valuable input on this debate.

You his spokesman now? He stated that it was to stop overstaying at VM's but in my case I have had no problem with VM so like to know where all these VM are with over stayers

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think its more a case that he doesn't have to necessarily answer your questions, to have a valid and valuable input on this debate.

That is a rather bizarre statement Paul...

 

Sometimes when I struggle to come up with a good answer it's when I realise I might need to modify my views.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

I think its more a case that he doesn't have to necessarily answer your questions, to have a valid and valuable input on this debate.

Exactly this - if he wants to post misinformation to try and make a point it doesn't have to stand up to scrutiny. Everyone is free to post crap.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Exactly this - if he wants to post misinformation to try and make a point it doesn't have to stand up to scrutiny. Everyone is free to post crap.

 

If I post that rhododendrons are a major pest, and someone demands to know where and I can't be ar@@d to tell them 'cos I would rather be boating than researching it does not make it any less valid a comment.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Or an alternative view is it's about the only tool left in CRT's bag with which to stop CMers and piss-takers overstaying on prime VMs.

 

I'm not familiar enough with Thrupp to pass valid comment, but know Stoke Bruerne intimately.

 

What I have found there is that even those broadly supportive of such initiatives have all freely admitted there has rarely been any significant overstaying of the limits, including the old arrangements before SEVM.

 

If you think about it, Stoke Bruerne is in the middle of nowhere, with no shops, very limited public transport, and almost zero car parking. It is simply not the kind of place that attracts significant numbers of CMers, and I have never known it to ever be. (They are at the road bridges a couple of miles to the South, where you am leave a car on the verge!).

 

The SEVM arrangements still seem to be causing genuine "cruisers" who might have stopped there for a couple of days previously to instead put two fingers up at the £25 signs, and to decide not to bother.

 

So have they successfully freed up VMs for fairer use by all, or just created a place where there are now often only handfuls of boats, and boat length upon boat length of empty tow-path? I know what I think, and I wouldn't wish to be a business that was based there.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

If I post that rhododendrons are a major pest, and someone demands to know where and I can't be ar@@d to tell them 'cos I would rather be boating than researching it does not make it any less valid a comment.

All you would need to do is post where you found them a problem so that other boaters are forewarned or something could be done about this major problem. The thing is VM are not a problem even though MtB stated they were. If I am wrong then please tell me where. Edited by cotswoldsman
Link to comment
Share on other sites

All you would need to do is post where you found them a problem so that other boaters are forewarned or something could be done about this major problem. The thing is VM are not a problem even though MtB stated they were. If I am wrong then please tell me where.

I'm assuming Mike is referring to the K&A which does have some hot spots....although I managed to moor up last time I was down there (albeit had to be a bit inventive on occasions)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

If I post that rhododendrons are a major pest, and someone demands to know where and I can't be ar@@d to tell them 'cos I would rather be boating than researching it does not make it any less valid a comment.

 

If you post that daffodils are a major pest and it has been, many times shown that they are not, then two things are likely to happen; 1. Cotswoldman will ask your a reference knowing that there isn't one and 2. I will tell you you are talking crap.

 

Next question?

 

And I forgot 3. Alan Fincher will come along and calmly point out, with evidence, that you are talking bollocks even though he is repeating himself for the 10th time

 

 

....and as Mike the Boilerman spends the best part of his life on here he could be expected to remember that.

I'm assuming Mike is referring to the K&A which does have some hot spots....although I managed to moor up last time I was down there (albeit had to be a bit inventive on occasions)

 

He'll be posting with personal knowledge? or simply retailing the same old bullshit?

Edited by Dave Clinton
  • Greenie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

If you post that daffodils are a major pest and it has been, many times shown that they are not, then two things are likely to happen; 1. Cotswoldman will ask your a reference knowing that there isn't one and 2. I will tell you you are talking crap.

 

Next question?

 

And I forgot 3. Alan Fincher will come along and calmly point out, with evidence, that you are talking bollocks even though he is repeating himself for the 10th time

 

 

....and as Mike the Boilerman spends the best part of his life on here he could be expected to remember that.

 

 

Actually "Daffodils" were a bad choice for your example (Can't be bothered to look up the references but it concerns hybrids against native) but I think the answer lies between our positions, there has been considerable anecdotal evidence, enough to consider it as being a not unreasonable statement

 

 

and edit to add "bluebells" would have been even worse !!!biggrin.png

Edited by John V
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

If you post that daffodils are a major pest and it has been, many times shown that they are not, then two things are likely to happen; 1. Cotswoldman will ask your a reference knowing that there isn't one and 2. I will tell you you are talking crap.

 

Next question?

 

And I forgot 3. Alan Fincher will come along and calmly point out, with evidence, that you are talking bollocks even though he is repeating himself for the 10th time

 

 

....and as Mike the Boilerman spends the best part of his life on here he could be expected to remember that.

 

He'll be posting with personal knowledge? or simply retailing the same old bullshit?

clapping.gifclapping.gifclapping.gifclapping.gif greenie

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

Actually "Daffodils" were a bad choice for your example (Can't be bothered to look up the references but it concerns hybrids against native) but I think the answer lies between our positions, there has been considerable anecdotal evidence, enough to consider it as being a not unreasonable statement

 

 

and edit to add "bluebells" would have been even worse !!!biggrin.png

I guess that is the same anecdotal evidence that VM's are all occupied by ccers. The hard evidence from those that cruise round the system is VM are not a problem unless you are looking late in the day by the time the early bird as they say has caught the worm Edited by cotswoldsman
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

If you post that daffodils are a major pest and it has been, many times shown that they are not, then two things are likely to happen; 1. Cotswoldman will ask your a reference knowing that there isn't one and 2. I will tell you you are talking crap.

 

Next question?

 

And I forgot 3. Alan Fincher will come along and calmly point out, with evidence, that you are talking bollocks even though he is repeating himself for the 10th time

 

 

....and as Mike the Boilerman spends the best part of his life on here he could be expected to remember that.

 

 

He'll be posting with personal knowledge? or simply retailing the same old bullshit?

Same old bull shit would be my guess.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

Actually "Daffodils" were a bad choice for your example (Can't be bothered to look up the references but it concerns hybrids against native) but I think the answer lies between our positions, there has been considerable anecdotal evidence, enough to consider it as being a not unreasonable statement

 

 

and edit to add "bluebells" would have been even worse !!!biggrin.png

 

Whether or not you consider the innocent looking daffodil (or rhododendron) as a threat, 'anecdotal' evidence in this particular debate adds nothing and becomes part of the problem not the solution. The smart money has been advising CRT to gather data to validate the actions they take. A wine-soaked plumber stirring the brown stuff is not data.

  • Greenie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

All you would need to do is post where you found them a problem so that other boaters are forewarned or something could be done about this major problem. The thing is VM are not a problem even though MtB stated they were. If I am wrong then please tell me where.

Marple. Bollington. Stone.

That's three where I've been unable to moor within the last two months and found the same boats there when I went back a few days later. Probably isn't a permament problem (or even a very important one for most people), but to say there isn't one at all is just daft. We've had this discussion several times on here, and it always ends the same way...

  • Greenie 1
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

  • 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.