NBTA protest

[Athy]

 

Erm... no.

You are, I assume, aware that that's tantamount to accusing me of mendacity? I am disappointed by that. and don't think that we have anything further to add.

[FadeToScarlet]

You may not see any statistics to prove it, but just think, one is a depreciating asset, the other almost certainly appreciating. Which would you take for preferance?

Bob

Boats don't necessarily depreciate. Mine hasn't.

[magictime]

So when a 'not-for-profit' organisation makes a profit

 

What, when a not-for-profit organisation is non-non-profit-making?

[MtB]

Numpty edit.

Edited May 12, 2016 by Mike the Boilerman

[magictime]

Do quote the whole sentence I wrote rather than truncating it to twist the meaning. Then it makes perfect sense.

 

Sorry Mike, I didn't mean to imply otherwise. It was supposed to be a bit of wordplay referring back to the argument I've been having with Athy.

 

Ok I'll quote it for you as I'm sure you'll find a way to avoid it.

 

Argh! This has got confrontational very fast! No avoiding of anything here. I can see how that must have come across. Once again, sorry, it wasn't supposed to be a criticism of anything you were saying, just a bit of verbal mischief.

[MtB]

 

Sorry Mike, I didn't mean to imply otherwise. It was supposed to be a bit of wordplay referring back to the argument I've been having with Athy.

 

 

Argh! This has got confrontational very fast! No avoiding of anything here. I can see how that must have come across. Once again, sorry, it wasn't supposed to be a criticism of anything you were saying, just a bit of verbal mischief.

 

Dammit, sorry I didn't realise, I'll go back and edit it. I took it straight, not noticing the humour

 

It's been a difficult afternoon at work and I'm on a short fuse!

[cuthound]

We really do need a "tongue in cheek" ASAP

[Mike Todd]

It's such a simple and obvious solution that there has to be a catch - which may, I suspect, be that many liveaboards are not in the upper income bracket, so paying say £1,000 per year for a permanent mooring could be difficult for them.

Planning?

 

That transcript you quote certainly suggests so. Goalposts pre-2004 - move a token distance at least once every 14 days. Goalposts in 2004 - move to a new locality or neighbourhood at least once every 14 days. Goalposts in 2016 - move to a new locality or neighbourhood at least once every 14 days and have an annual cruising range of at least 15-20 miles.

The goal posts haven't changed - they have just been painted so that people can see them!

[MtB]

Planning?

 

Yes, or to term it correctly for those scratching them's heads, planning permission.

[Nightwatch]

When a non profit making organisation makes a profit, they sack the accountant as he would have lost the profit by paying somebody a bonus.

 

This is just my thought on it.

[Mike Todd]

 

Challenge accepted!

 

GUIDANCE FOR BOATERS WITHOUT A HOME MOORING

 

The law states that applicants for a Licence are not required to have a Home Mooring provided that "the applicant for the relevant consent satisfies the Board that the vessel to which the application relates will be used bona fide for navigation throughout the period for which the consent is valid without remaining continuously in any one place for more than 14 days or such longer period as is reasonable in the circumstances." This Guidance seeks to explain in day-to-day terms how we interpret this legal requirement.

 

'Bona fide' is Latin for "with good faith" and is used by lawyers to mean 'sincerely' or 'genuinely'.

 

'Navigation' in this context simply means travelling by water. As a car is used to 'drive' from A to B, and a plane to 'fly' from A to B, so a boat is used to 'navigate' from A to B.

 

So, a boat is used "bona fide for navigation" whenever it is used genuinely to travel by water from one place to another. "Place" in this context means a neighbourhood or locality, NOT simply a particular mooring site or position.

 

A boat is used "bona fide for navigation throughout the period for which the consent is valid" if during the licence period, no significant amount of time elapses during which the boat is not used bona fide for navigation. This "significant amount of time" is specified in the legislation as being 14 days.

 

In everyday terms, then, we will issue a licence for a boat without a Home Mooring if we are satisfied that it will genuinely be used to travel by water from one neighbourhood or locality to another at least once every 14 days throughout the licence period.

An interesting point that had not struck me before: the requirement to 'satisfy the board' is written in the future tense not the past.

[mark99]

When a non profit making organisation makes a profit, they sack the accountant as he would have lost the profit by paying somebody a bonus.

 

This is just my thought on it.

 

Funnel all embarrassing profits to me. I'm that kinda guy.

[Mike Todd]

I am at a loss as to why there is such a problem with the concept of place/neighbourhood.

 

If you drive into a village and stop and ask a local the name of the next place they will name the hamlet/village/town/city which is the next collection of houses down the road. If in a city or larger town you ask about neighbourhoods they will give to a quick easy answer.

 

OK there might be a slight problem as to where the place begins and ends but for ease in a canal situation it could be half way between the two.

 

I realise this idea will be too simplistic for some and too complicated for other.

Bet you would not get such a clear answer if you had happened to stop to ask a lawyer.

[Paul C]

When a non profit making organisation makes a profit, they sack the accountant as he would have lost the profit by paying somebody a bonus.

 

This is just my thought on it.

 

Normally its not too hard to get pretty close to £0, by allocating the budgets for that £0 profit and then either having a spending spree just before end of financial year; or delaying spends until just after.

[Mike Todd]

It is all boaters fault that on line moorings are being reduced! For many years in BW surveys the thing that annoyed boaters most was having to pass long lines of moored boats.

It was from this that BW decided to reduce on line moorings...

They were only removed after more had been provided elsewhere in the vicinity and I doubt whether a significant number of those that were removed were residential.

[Lady Muck]

But how many of the vociferous NBTA members would move voluntarilly into a flat at a reasonable rent? Where their neighbours work locally in 9-5 jobs? Where they are no longer part of a gang, living extremely cheaply and sticking two fingers up to the organisation whose land they are using? I suspect it would be very few if there was no pressure. At the moment they have the option of moving their boat to some area where they could continue their lifestyle with little hassle, albeit individually rather than en masse, but they refuse that option.

But what is so evil about wanting to live as cheaply as you can? I wouldn't want to live in a flat and have a nine to five. I'm a lot poorer because of it, but its my choice. I don't want that life. I would be on six figures by now like some of my ex colleagues but I'd also be permanently on a plane and permanently knackered. My neighbour sold her flat and got the boat to have a fuller life. She now does freelance bookkeeping, has formed a band and written a novel. Good for her I say. Both me and him indoors stand to inherit property, so we know how priviledged we are. We won't be living in it, thats for sure. We don't want to and neither do a lot of NBTA members, some I know have never lived in property, were not born in property and neither were their kids. ETA as someone who is a trend forecaster (one of the things I do freelance), this is a worldwide trend, from Marie Kondo in Japan, to the tiny house movement in the USA. Own less, work less. There is even a billionaire who lives out of a carryon bag and doesn't own anything else.

Edited May 13, 2016 by Lady Muck

[Paul C]

But what is so evil about wanting to live as cheaply as you can? I wouldn't want to live in a flat and have a nine to five. I'm a lot poorer because of it, but its my choice. I don't want that life. My neighbour sold her flat and got the boat to have a fuller life. She now does freelance bookkeeping, has formed a band and written a novel. Good for her I say. Both me and him indoors stand to inhert property. We won't be living in it, thats for sure. We don't want to and neither do a lot of NBTA members, some I know have never lived in property, were not born in property and neither were their kids. ETA as someone who is a trend forecaster (one of the things I do freelance), this is a worlwide trend, from Marie Kondo in Japan, to the tiny house movement in the USA. Own less, work less. There is even a billionaire who lives out of a carryon bag and doesn't own anything else.

 

That's fine but it illustrates its a lifestyle choice - nothing wrong with that. HOWEVER if that lifestyle choice meant that laws were ignored/broken, then there is an element of wrongness.

[Lady Muck]

But no one is breaking any laws!

[alan_fincher]

 

That's fine but it illustrates its a lifestyle choice - nothing wrong with that. HOWEVER if that lifestyle choice meant that laws were ignored/broken, then there is an element of wrongness.

 

Surely any residential boater, (or indeed any boater at all), can only be claimed to have broken any actual law at the point they are taken to court, and the judgement goes against them?

[Mike Todd]

 

It didn't supersede it, and the terms aren't "equally accurate" because they mean two different things.

 

A "non-profit-making" company is just a company that doesn't make a profit, e.g. because it's running at a loss.

 

A "not-for-profit company" is a company that's not run for the purpose of making a profit.

Furthermore - it is usually a non-profit-distributing company. Any company has to make a profit in order to survive - the difference is who benefits from those profits.

[peterboat]

But what is so evil about wanting to live as cheaply as you can? I wouldn't want to live in a flat and have a nine to five. I'm a lot poorer because of it, but its my choice. I don't want that life. I would be on six figures by now like some of my ex colleagues but I'd also be permanently on a plane and permanently knackered. My neighbour sold her flat and got the boat to have a fuller life. She now does freelance bookkeeping, has formed a band and written a novel. Good for her I say. Both me and him indoors stand to inherit property, so we know how priviledged we are. We won't be living in it, thats for sure. We don't want to and neither do a lot of NBTA members, some I know have never lived in property, were not born in property and neither were their kids. ETA as someone who is a trend forecaster (one of the things I do freelance), this is a worlwide trend, from Marie Kondo in Japan, to the tiny house movement in the USA. Own less, work less. There is even a billionaire who lives out of a carryon bag and doesn't own anything else.

Virtual greenie

[magictime]

You are, I assume, aware that that's tantamount to accusing me of mendacity? I am disappointed by that. and don't think that we have anything further to add.

 

You're probably right. When a for-profit argument ends up being as non-profit-making as this one has, it's time to quit.

[Paul C]

 

Surely any residential boater, (or indeed any boater at all), can only be claimed to have broken any actual law at the point they are taken to court, and the judgement goes against them?

 

That goes without saying, but is completely irrelevant to the point I made. The fact is that we're talking about a generalised situation where one group of boaters is disputing the interpretation of CRT upon a legal matter. And historically, there have been similar cases where boaters have similarly disputed CRT's interpretation, gone to court and lost. Of course you or I can't predict the outcome of future legal cases.

[peterboat]

But no one is breaking any laws!

The law is that vague that you are right on the button. For me 20 miles per year isnt much so do it keep a log or geo spike and if doesnt satisfy CRT then NBTA can back somebody going to court and its all sorted

[cuthound]

Normally its not too hard to get pretty close to £0, by allocating the budgets for that £0 profit and then either having a spending spree just before end of financial year; or delaying spends until just after.

You haven't heard of zero based budgeting then? Where every penny in the budget has to be justified before the budget is awarded and no unplanned spending is permitted without board approval. Edited May 12, 2016 by cuthound