Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 14, 2016 8:35:24 GMT
I dunno, what you after, a medal? They also pick on people that keep their boats in private marinas by forcing them to buy licences that they don't require to pay for services that they don't use. ETA: Didn't mean to quote you, Jenlyn. I have a bee in my bonnet on that issue. I really do not see why a marina boat should pay for a licence "and" naa. Its wrong.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 14, 2016 8:49:06 GMT
I think you and I look at this from totally different angles.
As I understand it, there are a lot of people who think that the canal system is a place that should look after and support the people who live on it and have a "right" to live there and if unable to support that way of life should be assisted to do so by CRT and the conditions be addressed in the same way that councils approach homelessness.
I think this is totally cloud cuckoo land
The government (and presumably previous, and future governments) don't want to spend more than they absolutely have to in order to keep the maximum number of people happy. This goes the same way for the canal system. as long as the system fulfils its requirements for drainage, flood control etc and keeps the majority of users of the canals happy, they don't care how it is done. The majority of users of the canal system are not boaters The majority of users are walkers, cyclists, fishermen and tree huggers of various clans. The majority would probably be quite happy to get rid of all those untidy boaters with their smelly fires, cluttering up the best fishing spots. As long as some small sections were kept navigable for trip boats and a few preserved old boats driven by people with red neckerchiefs and bowler hats to keep the gongoozlers happy the rest could be a ribbon wildlife park. Remember although boaters may contribute a fair amount of money to the system it doesn't cover the costs of keeping the system navigable. The majority of the cost comes from general taxation (and the majority of tax payers couldn't give a monkey's) If we want to keep a nationwide navigable system, all of us must pay, and pay highly. So if you don't want to pay for the upkeep of the system because you don't leave your private marina then get off the water that the rest of us are paying for. If you want to support vulnerable people who live on the canal and either can't fulfil the conditions imposed, or can't afford the lifestyle, then pay for it out of another purse, not the canals John you haven't mentioned a single point I raised in my post,none of which pertained to any of the above.Who is asking CRT to pay for anyone or anything? We have a right to live on our boat John as long as we obey the Law.You have simply been unable to add to the debate so you would rather cloud it with the above. A great pity.Can I ask again John what part of my previous post do I have wrong?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 14, 2016 8:50:51 GMT
I think you and I look at this from totally different angles.
As I understand it, there are a lot of people who think that the canal system is a place that should look after and support the people who live on it and have a "right" to live there and if unable to support that way of life should be assisted to do so by CRT and the conditions be addressed in the same way that councils approach homelessness.
I think this is totally cloud cuckoo land
The government (and presumably previous, and future governments) don't want to spend more than they absolutely have to in order to keep the maximum number of people happy. This goes the same way for the canal system. as long as the system fulfils its requirements for drainage, flood control etc and keeps the majority of users of the canals happy, they don't care how it is done. The majority of users of the canal system are not boaters The majority of users are walkers, cyclists, fishermen and tree huggers of various clans. The majority would probably be quite happy to get rid of all those untidy boaters with their smelly fires, cluttering up the best fishing spots. As long as some small sections were kept navigable for trip boats and a few preserved old boats driven by people with red neckerchiefs and bowler hats to keep the gongoozlers happy the rest could be a ribbon wildlife park. Remember although boaters may contribute a fair amount of money to the system it doesn't cover the costs of keeping the system navigable. The majority of the cost comes from general taxation (and the majority of tax payers couldn't give a monkey's) If we want to keep a nationwide navigable system, all of us must pay, and pay highly. So if you don't want to pay for the upkeep of the system because you don't leave your private marina then get off the water that the rest of us are paying for. If you want to support vulnerable people who live on the canal and either can't fulfil the conditions imposed, or can't afford the lifestyle, then pay for it out of another purse, not the canals Two issues with 'rights'. Sometimes people claim rights but then do nothing to earn them. The other problem is that others seem to think you can just buy rights. We all have a duty to care about others but they have to care first otherwise it's an uphill struggle.
|
|
|
Post by JohnV on Apr 14, 2016 10:35:40 GMT
on this subject I'm with Loafer. If you want to live on a boat then it's in order to travel if you don't want to move get a waterside shed. It's not much they ask you to move to comply. for goodness sake you can do the annual amount they were moaning about on that K&A film in a day John we are all with Loafer regarding the need to move.That is not in question. I like Loafer have had no trouble from CRT and no axe to grind,but let me sum it up like this, We have a legal requirement to move every fourteen days with the distance unspecified, CRT meanwhile publish a GUIDELINE not a change to the law,but a guideline which asks for a 20 mile minimum within a license period. Some comply,some already easily exceed that,some bury their head in the sand and say " the law is the law I move every fourteen days and you can't tell me how far because the law doesn't allow you". These people are doing nothing illegal John,they are complying with the law. Its in these last sentences where we possibly loose Loafer and thats the realisation that CRT may be engaged in an Agenda to clear the canals of continuous cruisers and the fear is that it is 20 miles of movement this year and perhaps 50 miles next year.Perhaps 50 miles isn't an issue to some, "Get a mooring "I hear you say,well its an issue to the vulnerable,the sick and infirm,the employed on low wages who would like a mooring but in the South East especially there are few affordable to be had.Some law abiding boaters therefore not unreasonably conclude they are under threat.Please tell me John or Loafer or indeed anyone ,what part of the above you disagree with or perhaps don't fully understand or alternately tell me where I have it wrong.
I disagree. 20 miles ? 50 miles Heck, 100 miles a year should not be a problem to a continuous cruiser, that's less than 10 miles a month !!!!!
anybody who is not capable of doing that is not a continuous cruiser, and is just using the term to get cheap accommodation.
so all a CCer has to do to comply with a 100 mile a year is move a niggardly 5 miles every 14 days.
where the heck is the hardship in that ?
If you say " what about winter and being in one place for three months......Wow !!! you have to move 7 miles every 14 days......big deal
I have no sympathy unless there are very special circumstances
If you are unable to comply with the tiny distance they are talking about at the moment, in my opinion you are cheating the system.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 14, 2016 10:44:46 GMT
John we are all with Loafer regarding the need to move.That is not in question. I like Loafer have had no trouble from CRT and no axe to grind,but let me sum it up like this, We have a legal requirement to move every fourteen days with the distance unspecified, CRT meanwhile publish a GUIDELINE not a change to the law,but a guideline which asks for a 20 mile minimum within a license period. Some comply,some already easily exceed that,some bury their head in the sand and say " the law is the law I move every fourteen days and you can't tell me how far because the law doesn't allow you". These people are doing nothing illegal John,they are complying with the law. Its in these last sentences where we possibly loose Loafer and thats the realisation that CRT may be engaged in an Agenda to clear the canals of continuous cruisers and the fear is that it is 20 miles of movement this year and perhaps 50 miles next year.Perhaps 50 miles isn't an issue to some, "Get a mooring "I hear you say,well its an issue to the vulnerable,the sick and infirm,the employed on low wages who would like a mooring but in the South East especially there are few affordable to be had.Some law abiding boaters therefore not unreasonably conclude they are under threat.Please tell me John or Loafer or indeed anyone ,what part of the above you disagree with or perhaps don't fully understand or alternately tell me where I have it wrong.
I disagree. 20 miles ? 50 miles Heck, 100 miles a year should not be a problem to a continuous cruiser, that's less than 10 miles a month !!!!!
anybody who is not capable of doing that is not a continuous cruiser, and is just using the term to get cheap accommodation.
so all a CCer has to do to comply with a 100 mile a year is move a niggardly 5 miles every 14 days.
where the heck is the hardship in that ?
If you say " what about winter and being in one place for three months......Wow !!! you have to move 7 miles every 14 days......big deal
I have no sympathy unless there are very special circumstances
If you are unable to comply with the tiny distance they are talking about at the moment, in my opinion you are cheating the system.
I don't always do 5 miles every 14 days. Sometimes I don't wish too. Furthermore, you obviously have your own idea of continuous cruising which is fine, but don't suggest that I have to follow your standards. I like to mooch along at a pace that befits my idea of continuous cruising. I don't ridicule or judge those that do it differently.
|
|
|
Post by JohnV on Apr 14, 2016 11:19:25 GMT
I disagree. 20 miles ? 50 miles Heck, 100 miles a year should not be a problem to a continuous cruiser, that's less than 10 miles a month !!!!!
anybody who is not capable of doing that is not a continuous cruiser, and is just using the term to get cheap accommodation.
so all a CCer has to do to comply with a 100 mile a year is move a niggardly 5 miles every 14 days.
where the heck is the hardship in that ?
If you say " what about winter and being in one place for three months......Wow !!! you have to move 7 miles every 14 days......big deal
I have no sympathy unless there are very special circumstances
If you are unable to comply with the tiny distance they are talking about at the moment, in my opinion you are cheating the system.
I don't always do 5 miles every 14 days. Sometimes I don't wish too. Furthermore, you obviously have your own idea of continuous cruising which is fine, but don't suggest that I have to follow your standards. I like to mooch along at a pace that befits my idea of continuous cruising. I don't ridicule or judge those that do it differently.
Except they are not being asked to move 5 miles every 14 days at the moment, that was just an example......at the moment they are only being asked to move a minimum of one mile a fortnight
Sorry but if that is too much then it's taking the piss with a vengeance
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 14, 2016 11:25:36 GMT
I don't always do 5 miles every 14 days. Sometimes I don't wish too. Furthermore, you obviously have your own idea of continuous cruising which is fine, but don't suggest that I have to follow your standards. I like to mooch along at a pace that befits my idea of continuous cruising. I don't ridicule or judge those that do it differently.
Except they are not being asked to move 5 miles every 14 days at the moment, that was just an example......at the moment they are only being asked to move a minimum of one mile a fortnight
Sorry but if that is too much then it's taking the piss with a vengeance
Do you know any of them not doing this, or is that just you making assumptions?
|
|
|
Post by JohnV on Apr 14, 2016 11:29:40 GMT
I do not know any of them I am taking my information from the film posted and the replies of those interviewed who were complaining about this draconian system.
|
|
|
Post by peterboat on Apr 14, 2016 11:29:52 GMT
Yes I see people taking the piss like this all the time
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 14, 2016 11:52:50 GMT
I travel quite extensively. I can honestly say I could not point a finger at anyone and state they take the piss. Perhaps those that do abuse the system are more likely to notice others doing so?
|
|
|
Post by JohnV on Apr 14, 2016 11:55:06 GMT
If you mean that little groups of pisstakers gather in certain areas, almost like little communities, you are probably right. They all seem to be able to recognise one another.
|
|
|
Post by peterboat on Apr 14, 2016 12:09:26 GMT
I hate people that dont when I pay and we all need to pay to keep the system running
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 14, 2016 12:15:50 GMT
I hate people that dont when I pay and we all need to pay to keep the system running Whose not paying what?
|
|
|
Post by peterboat on Apr 14, 2016 12:28:06 GMT
Some of the people that moor for months and months and never pay for moorings because "they are constant cruisers sic" They then scream when they get moved on or refused licenses I can name boats what do it but thats not fair on an open forum
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 14, 2016 12:39:23 GMT
Some of the people that moor for months and months and never pay for moorings because "they are constant cruisers sic" They then scream when they get moved on or refused licenses I can name boats what do it but thats not fair on an open forum I think you should read up on some of crt's recent statements. Especially the one regarding the K&A. Personally, I think you and John are spouting populist crap. I'm a ccer, and I don't see any massive problems of communities causing issues, and seemingly Crt don't either. I'm not denying that the odd boater is a pain in the ass, but that's the brunt of it, the odd boater. I would suggest folk like you and John are more of a problem to crt, in feeding them rubbish statements simply because you can't moor on your favourite spot where the tv reception is good.
|
|