What can be done about residential leisure moorer?

[nicknorman]

Though I can see why you are putting it across.

Good. It is of course to show the ridiculousness of the stance of "other people's business is none of my business" right up until their moral judgement kicks in, ie other people's business is none of my business unless I object on the grounds of my personal morals and judgment. But of course if your personal morals and judgement are slightly different from mine, that makes you a busybody.

 

Which makes it a pretty feeble stance because it then becomes all about ones personal ideas and prejudices and not about any grand and universal truth.

Edited October 7, 2015 by nicknorman

[jenlyn]

Good. It is of course to show the ridiculousness of the stance of "other people's business is none of my business" right up until their moral judgement kicks in, ie other people's business is none of my business unless I object on the grounds of my personal morals and judgment. Which makes it a pretty feeble stance because it then becomes all about ones personal ideas and prejudices and not about any grand truth.

Not good really, because it simply shows how ridiculous some will get to win an advantage.

 

Personally, if I was to use your "morals", I would be suggesting all home moorers don't pay their way because they should in fact be paying council tax on their second homes.

Edited October 7, 2015 by jenlyn

[nicknorman]

Not good really, because it simply shows how ridiculous some will get to win an advantage.

 

Personally, if I was to use your "morals", I would be suggesting all home moorers don't pay their way because they should in fact be paying council tax on their second homes.

You miss the point completely. The point is that there is no problem with someone saying, for example, "live and let live, it doesn't matter to me whether my neighbour pays for a licence / council tax etc". But there is a problem when that same person berates another person for taking a different view that, for example, an unlicensed boat is effectively theft of public money and has a desire to report it. Surely even you can see the hypocrisy in that? To put it more plainly, it's "live and let live but woe betide anyone who has a different opinion from me".

[Sabcat]

Good. It is of course to show the ridiculousness of the stance of "other people's business is none of my business" right up until their moral judgement kicks in, ie other people's business is none of my business unless I object on the grounds of my personal morals and judgment. But of course if your personal morals and judgement are slightly different from mine, that makes you a busybody.

 

Which makes it a pretty feeble stance because it then becomes all about ones personal ideas and prejudices and not about any grand and universal truth.

 

You're all over the place. Morality doesn't come into it at all, and a universal morality, I'm not sure where that would come from, God? Expediency trumps morality every time, which is why those who pinch a bit around the edges are much more likely to get caught/punished and those with cash/power/influence get to do pretty much as they please.

 

Trying to think of this in terms of morality, drawing the equivalences that you do is a cop out. Imagining that we live in a world where principle counts for anything at all is a fairy tale believed in the place of any real, collectively agreed morality.

[nicknorman]

You're all over the place. Morality doesn't come into it at all, and a universal morality, I'm not sure where that would come from, God? Expediency trumps morality every time, which is why those who pinch a bit around the edges are much more likely to get caught/punished and those with cash/power/influence get to do pretty much as they please.

 

Trying to think of this in terms of morality, drawing the equivalences that you do is a cop out. Imagining that we live in a world where principle counts for anything at all is a fairy tale believed in the place of any real, collectively agreed morality.

So you have no counter argument of substance then.

 

Perhaps morality wasn't quite the right word though, I was a referring to a sense of right and wrong, morality for short.

[jenlyn]

You miss the point completely. The point is that there is no problem with someone saying, for example, "live and let live, it doesn't matter to me whether my neighbour pays for a licence / council tax etc". But there is a problem when that same person berates another person for taking a different view that, for example, an unlicensed boat is effectively theft of public money and has a desire to report it. Surely even you can see the hypocrisy in that? To put it more plainly, it's "live and let live but woe betide anyone who has a different opinion from me".

I'm not saying or implying anything related to what your waffling on about above. As you well know, I am making the point that your comparison was stupid. (it's still stupid).

[nicknorman]

I'm not saying or implying anything related to what your waffling on about above. As you well know, I am making the point that your comparison was stupid. (it's still stupid).

I think your post is stupid too, but then since neither of us are prepared to justify those opinions in any sort of rational way there doesn't seem much point in discussing it further.

[jenlyn]

I think your post is stupid too, but then since neither of us are prepared to justify those opinions in any sort of rational way there doesn't seem much point in discussing it further.

pads are in the second drawer down Nick.....

[Sabcat]

So you have no counter argument of substance then.

 

Perhaps morality wasn't quite the right word though, I was a referring to a sense of right and wrong, morality for short.

 

It's nothing to do with a sense of right and wrong either. It's pure spite. There's some that absolutely cannot stand that some are getting away with something when they themselves are not. They fall back on ideas of right and wrong to mask their petty spite. They talk about theft of public money, when in reality they couldn't give a single toss about such things. They don't like individuals getting away with something.

 

It's easy to cut through the bullshit of morality and right or wrong and reduce it to a measurable, material set of conditions. If they genuinely cared about ideas like the public good then they would do the opposite of your suggestion and instead of worrying about the person with barely a pot to piss in getting away with a licence fee or ct payment be up in arms over corporate tax avoidance. That's institutions though, it does nothing to sate their vindictive hunger.

[BlueStringPudding]

 

But surely that was the whole point of the thread you started out by mocking, the character in the other thread Was having a direct and tangible negative impact

 

As regards a boat being classed as the lowest band rates, I was told that it was because of the lower standards of amenities.

(for example I have no rubbish collection, council lighting, maintained road access etc etc)

No it wasn't. His mooring against that piece of land without "paying his way" (I'm referring directly to the stance of the OP in the other thread by choosing that term) has zero direct negative impact on the OP

 

If he's running his generator out of hours that is irrelevant to whether he pays to moor his boat there

 

If he is responding to the OP's undoubtedly polite requests to turn it off in a manner that is antisocial, that is irrelevant to whether he pays to moor his boat there.

 

And so on...

[jenlyn]

 

It's nothing to do with a sense of right and wrong either. It's pure spite. There's some that absolutely cannot stand that some are getting away with something when they themselves are not. They fall back on ideas of right and wrong to mask their petty spite. They talk about theft of public money, when in reality they couldn't give a single toss about such things. They don't like individuals getting away with something.

 

It's easy to cut through the bullshit of morality and right or wrong and reduce it to a measurable, material set of conditions. If they genuinely cared about ideas like the public good then they would do the opposite of your suggestion and instead of worrying about the person with barely a pot to piss in getting away with a licence fee or ct payment be up in arms over corporate tax avoidance. That's institutions though, it does nothing to sate their vindictive hunger.

May I just say, eloquently put.

I live and learn with this forum. Greenie

[Dave_P]

When we had a CRT LTM there was absolute zero rules or stipulation about living aboard. A few people did on our moorings too, but they were certainly not breaching anything regarding CRT.

 

As for Council Tax well I am not sure how that would work in practice regarding payment if the mooring doesn't have an address which can be banded.

 

They may be in some sort of 'limbo' regarding the council but unless there is a specific planning restriction that says no body can reside there I can't see what LA rules they are breaking either.

Due to the labyrinthine way that councils work, there's no given rule that planning approval for residential use goes hand in hand with council tax liability.

 

When I receive an application for change of use, I process the application based on planning criteria. Council tax issues don't come into it. The simple reason for this is that people frequently submit speculative applications which are never implemented. Following up each one would amount to chasing shadows. Under the current austerity within the public sector, there simply isn't the staff for that.

[BlueStringPudding]

When we had a CRT LTM there was absolute zero rules or stipulation about living aboard. A few people did on our moorings too, but they were certainly not breaching anything regarding CRT.

 

As for Council Tax well I am not sure how that would work in practice regarding payment if the mooring doesn't have an address which can be banded.

 

They may be in some sort of 'limbo' regarding the council but unless there is a specific planning restriction that says no body can reside there I can't see what LA rules they are breaking either.

Central Bedfordshire council invent an address for it in order to tag that to the council tax bill. However they also argue that you don't have the right to use it as a postal address nor to have your rubbish collected. Those are considered separate to the council tax billing procedure, bizarrely.

[GoodGurl]

What the hell has it got to do with anyone what someone else is doing? If they are doing something they shouldn't CRT will catch them eventually without your intervention and if they don't good luck to them.

Edited October 7, 2015 by GoodGurl

[BlueStringPudding]

 

I realise you may not only be talking about CRT directly managed moorings, but I would suggest that they represent a large percentage of the cases where people may be living aboard without the mooring having a full residential status recognised by a planning authority.

 

If you look at this probably most frequent example, I am unclear by what you mean by "breaching the terms of a leisure mooring" or "leisure mooring renters breaking that rule". The standard mooring agreement in use by CRT makes absolutely no mention of "leisure" or "residential", and lays down no conditions whatsoever about living aboard or otherwise. When I have taken a CRT permanent mooring, those are the terms and conditions I have signed up to, and nothing in them suggests I would be doing wrong by living full time on my boat. (And, for completeness, my moorings have never had additional local conditions attached that vary the BW/CRT standard conditions in any way).

 

So, although I have never lived on a boat at a CRT mooring, can you please spell out exactly what "terms" or "rules" I might be breaking if I chose to do so?

 

I would go so far as to suggest that if you check, no such "terms" or "rules" actually exist for the majority of CRT directly managed moorings, at least. Perhaps why they don't treat people doing this of having done anything wrong? Perhaps no "blind eye" needs to be turned?

"8. You must comply with the conditions of any planning permission for the Mooring Site (if appropriate) and comply with relevant laws, byelaws, Site Rules and special conditions, including any concerning your private use of the land at the Mooring Site...

13. You are responsible for paying Council Tax (if applicable) and all gas, electricity and other services used by you at the Mooring Site."

 

Central Beds council certainly thinks it's applicable. As does North Warwickshire. And that's just two that I know of, I'm sure there's others.

 

And as for other local authority regulations re council tax, you can do your own research on that.

 

I know of three CRT owned leisure moorings in different parts of the country where one or more (but not all) the liveaboard boaters have to pay council tax. One because he claims benefits and therfore appeared on the council's radar, and one who was allegedly grassed up to the council by another boater and who also ended up having to pay council tax

 

This isn't just about CRT. It's about local authorities regulations we're bending too

 

So back to my main question at the beginning: which boaters get to decide which regulations are acceptable for another boater to skirt round, and which regulations being bent should we be reporting to the relevant authority? And importantly, why and who has the right to decide?

Edited October 7, 2015 by BlueStringPudding

[Dave_P]

What the hell has it got to do with anyone what someone else is doing? If they are doing something they shouldn't CRT will catch them eventually without your intervention and if they don't good luck to them.

So if you see someone mugging a frail old lady, you ignore it on the basis that the police will catch them eventually?

[BlueStringPudding]

 

 

Which makes it a pretty feeble stance because it then becomes all about ones personal ideas and prejudices and not about any grand and universal truth.

Since when is an Internet forum about canals about grand and universal truths!? if I wanted that I'd go find a Scientology forum or something.

 

This is merely an interesting discussion.

[Paul C]

"8. You must comply with the conditions of any planning permission for the Mooring Site (if appropriate) and comply with relevant laws, byelaws, Site Rules and special conditions, including any concerning your private use of the land at the Mooring Site...

 

 

 

 

What's the planning permission/use class for the site?

[Dave_P]

which boaters get to decide which regulations are acceptable for another boater to skirt round, and which regulations being bent should we be reporting to the relevant authority? And importantly, why and who has the right to decide?

A good (yet troubling) question. My best answer would be that each person must answer to their own conscience and that demanding that we all have the same same conscience is futile. (A total cop-out, I know).

[BlueStringPudding]

Blue...you're stirring a hornets nest

we all know those leisure moorings, aren't used by liveaboards....

 

It's nothing to do with a sense of right and wrong either. It's pure spite. There's some that absolutely cannot stand that some are getting away with something when they themselves are not. They fall back on ideas of right and wrong to mask their petty spite. They talk about theft of public money, when in reality they couldn't give a single toss about such things. They don't like individuals getting away with something.

 

It's easy to cut through the bullshit of morality and right or wrong and reduce it to a measurable, material set of conditions. If they genuinely cared about ideas like the public good then they would do the opposite of your suggestion and instead of worrying about the person with barely a pot to piss in getting away with a licence fee or ct payment be up in arms over corporate tax avoidance. That's institutions though, it does nothing to sate their vindictive hunger.

I prostrate myself before your wisdom and eloquence. I'll have to give you greenies tomorrow coz I think I've used up my quota today ?

[Ronniesonic]

Jeez, has Jeremy Corbyn's fan club taken over the forum.

 

Some peeps need to jump back onto Planet earth & stop sounding like 60's hippies.

 

Not paying taxes...... right on Wolfie, power to the people. Give me a break.

[John V]

No it wasn't. His mooring against that piece of land without "paying his way" (I'm referring directly to the stance of the OP in the other thread by choosing that term) has zero direct negative impact on the OP

 

If he's running his generator out of hours that is irrelevant to whether he pays to moor his boat there

 

If he is responding to the OP's undoubtedly polite requests to turn it off in a manner that is antisocial, that is irrelevant to whether he pays to moor his boat there.

 

And so on...

 

Yet again I think you have missed the point.

 

The OP in the other thread has paid for a mooring.

The person he has complained about is impacting on his environment for which he has paid

IF the person he was complaining about was also on his mooring he would have recourse with regards his anti-social behaviour via the landowner, who could insist on a standard of behaviour with the threat of eviction as a last resort.

IF the person he was complaining about was on CRT there would be recourse through CRT (who would probably do nothing serious about it)

IF the person is illegally squatting on council land then the OP's only recourse it via the council both on the squatting and the noise pollution

 

The whole thing is how do you deal with someone who takes the proverbial and upsets others who are keeping to the rules.#

Ignoring it is not a sensible option as it just causes the problem to get worse.

 

It has nothing to do with "not paying your way"

[BlueStringPudding]

A good (yet troubling) question. My best answer would be that each person must answer to their own conscience and that demanding that we all have the same same conscience is futile. (A total cop-out, I know).

Absolutely.

 

And once done so, each can start a thread on an Internet forum in an attempt to rally troops to try to affirm their conscience was right all along.

 

 

 

Edited October 7, 2015 by BlueStringPudding

[Delta9]

How about education, street lighting (or streets at all), law enforcement, etc.etc.

Yes, of course if we didn't have taxes enforced via the threat of violence and kidnapping, we would have no education or streets... /s

[Dave_P]

Absolutely.

 

And once done so, each can start a thread on an Internet forum in an attempt to rally troops to try to affirm their conscience was right all along.

 

http://www.strathclydetelegraph.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/6-Down-With-This-Sort-Of-Thing-IMAGE.jpg

Share the love guys - peace out!