Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 7, 2021 11:14:36 GMT
Has anyone seen this YouTube video? A real eye opener for sure.
|
|
|
Post by Telemachus on Aug 7, 2021 11:59:17 GMT
A link might be helpful, there are quite a few videos on YouTube!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 7, 2021 12:01:15 GMT
A link might be helpful, there are quite a few videos on YouTube!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 7, 2021 12:05:07 GMT
Been posted before -
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 7, 2021 12:06:35 GMT
Ah I wasn't sure, apologies! As a new member and new to narrowboating it was quite an eye opener, to me anyway.
|
|
|
Post by Telemachus on Aug 7, 2021 12:08:25 GMT
Do you mean it’s an eye opener as far as the sense of entitlement and refusal to comply with the rules they signed up to regarding continuous cruising, or what?
|
|
|
Post by Mr Stabby on Aug 7, 2021 12:09:23 GMT
It's the one with the amazing pedal powered narrowboat.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 7, 2021 12:17:16 GMT
Do you mean it’s an eye opener as far as the sense of entitlement and refusal to comply with the rules they signed up to regarding continuous cruising, or what? Mainly that yes, the way some people are living, my wife and I found it bizarre to say the least. Interesting points from the CRT guy too, there seems to be a couple of things open to interpretation regarding rules surrounding the definition of a continuous cruiser from the CRT point of view. The minimum cruising distance being one which is not specified in law. He admitted they can't specify an exact distance by law but then said boaters should follow the CRT guidance. Seems a real grey area to me. Isn't all this just to stop these boating communes hogging the moorings long term?
|
|
|
Post by kris on Aug 7, 2021 12:28:42 GMT
I’m going to find my tin helmet and sit on the side lines of this one.
|
|
|
Post by JohnV on Aug 7, 2021 12:32:57 GMT
Probably all of us have seen it Paul or something like it.
As always there are the extremes at both ends, those whose idea is to move the absolute minimum (or virtually not at all)
and some high up in CRT who seem dedicated to the idea of getting rid of continuous cruisers totally (in fact liveaboard generally)
It often seems to me that CRT would be much happier if there were no boats on the canals apart from a few pretty ones in the "vistor wellbeing hot spots"
The very large number of urban boat dwellers in some areas (where numbers have increased at a rate that those of us who remember what it was like 40 or 50 years ago find it hard to believe. are often both totally ignorant of the requirements (in fact much of the facts of life when it comes to boat living)
I have always believed that if someone has decided to live on a boat then if they wish to stay in one area because of jobs or if they then have children, schools, that they should get a liveaboard mooring as their requirements are at odds with the requirements for continuous cruising. CCing in my book means you move, probably more in a month than CRT's suggested distance for the year, and most do but there are many who seem to think it is their right to stay in one area because of the life style they choose.
That is where I am unsympathetic to those who wish to just stay in the one little area (or in the case of the woman with the pedal powered boat whose boat is not capable of moving the s uggested distance)
On the other hand I am totally against CRT when they invent regulations ..... They do not have the legal right to do this.
The legal requirements are in the waterways acts which CRT frequently just ride through roughshod. For example they insist you sign up to licence conditions or they will not issue a licence. The legal requirements before purchasding a licence are enshrined in the Waterways acts that CRT do not have the legal right to amend. Their terms and conditions do not have any legal standing ...... but they will still refuse you a licence if you don't agree to them.
This is all without going into the fact that if you wish to purchase a river registration certificate as per the Waterways Acts, they will only sell you a Rivers only licence. That simple change of name means that it will cost you 15% 25% 20% (thankyou Nick) more than it should, because a licence attracts VAT but a registration does not. (Other waterways Authorities supply a registration which is VAT free)
I could probably continue for pages but instead I suggest you look back through the posts of the late and much missed NigelMoore a far more errudite, polite and clever person than I will ever be
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 7, 2021 12:34:01 GMT
I’m going to find my tin helmet and sit on the side lines of this one. me too, I thought I'd light the blue touch paper and sit back and enjoy! seriously though, I just wanted some clarification what constitutes 'reasonable travelling distances' when CC'ing.
|
|
|
Post by Telemachus on Aug 7, 2021 12:38:35 GMT
Probably all of us have seen it Paul or something like it. As always there are the extremes at both ends, those whose idea is to move the absolute minimum (or virtually not at all) and some high up in CRT who seem dedicated to the idea of getting rid of continuous cruisers totally (in fact liveaboard generally) It often seems to me that CRT would be much happier if there were no boats on the canals apart from a few pretty ones in the "vistor wellbeing hot spots" The very large number of urban boat dwellers in some areas (where numbers have increased at a rate that those of us who remember what it was like 40 or 50 years ago find it hard to believe. are often both totally ignorant of the requirements (in fact much of the facts of life when it comes to boat living) I have always believed that if someone has decided to live on a boat then if they wish to stay in one area because of jobs or if they then have children, schools, that they should get a liveaboard mooring as their requirements are at odds with the requirements for continuous cruising. CCing in my book means you move, probably more in a month than CRT's suggested distance for the year, and most do but there are many who seem to think it is their right to stay in one area because of the life style they choose. That is where I am unsympathetic to those who wish to just stay in the one little area (or in the case of the woman with the pedal powered boat whose boat is not capable of moving the s uggested distance) On the other hand I am totally against CRT when they invent regulations ..... They do not have the legal right to do this. The legal requirements are in the waterways acts which CRT frequently just ride through roughshod. For example they insist you sign up to licence conditions or they will not issue a licence. The legal requirements before purchasding a licence are enshrined in the Waterways acts that CRT do not have the legal right to amend. Their terms and conditions do not have any legal standing ...... but they will still refuse you a licence if you don't agree to them. This is all without going into the fact that if you wish to purchase a river registration certificate as per the Waterways Acts, they will only sell you a Rivers only licence. That simple change of name means that it will cost you 15% more than it should, because a licence attracts VAT but a registration does not. (Other waterways Authorities supply a registration which is VAT free) I could probably continue for pages but instead I suggest you look back through the posts of the late and much missed NigelMoore a far more errudite, polite and clever person than I will ever be Showing your age John, I think it must be 30 years since VAT was 15%!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 7, 2021 12:42:13 GMT
Probably all of us have seen it Paul or something like it. As always there are the extremes at both ends, those whose idea is to move the absolute minimum (or virtually not at all) and some high up in CRT who seem dedicated to the idea of getting rid of continuous cruisers totally (in fact liveaboard generally) It often seems to me that CRT would be much happier if there were no boats on the canals apart from a few pretty ones in the "vistor wellbeing hot spots" The very large number of urban boat dwellers in some areas (where numbers have increased at a rate that those of us who remember what it was like 40 or 50 years ago find it hard to believe. are often both totally ignorant of the requirements (in fact much of the facts of life when it comes to boat living) I have always believed that if someone has decided to live on a boat then if they wish to stay in one area because of jobs or if they then have children, schools, that they should get a liveaboard mooring as their requirements are at odds with the requirements for continuous cruising. CCing in my book means you move, probably more in a month than CRT's suggested distance for the year, and most do but there are many who seem to think it is their right to stay in one area because of the life style they choose. That is where I am unsympathetic to those who wish to just stay in the one little area (or in the case of the woman with the pedal powered boat whose boat is not capable of moving the s uggested distance) On the other hand I am totally against CRT when they invent regulations ..... They do not have the legal right to do this. The legal requirements are in the waterways acts which CRT frequently just ride through roughshod. For example they insist you sign up to licence conditions or they will not issue a licence. The legal requirements before purchasding a licence are enshrined in the Waterways acts that CRT do not have the legal right to amend. Their terms and conditions do not have any legal standing ...... but they will still refuse you a licence if you don't agree to them. This is all without going into the fact that if you wish to purchase a river registration certificate as per the Waterways Acts, they will only sell you a Rivers only licence. That simple change of name means that it will cost you 15% more than it should, because a licence attracts VAT but a registration does not. (Other waterways Authorities supply a registration which is VAT free) I could probably continue for pages but instead I suggest you look back through the posts of the late and much missed NigelMoore a far more errudite, polite and clever person than I will ever be Thanks, you make some good points and that's a great post to someone like myself who is trying to learn as much as I can before venturing out on the canals. So like a car having no car tax means your insurance is invalid likewise if the CRT refuse you a licence then your boat insurance becomes invalid too?
|
|
|
Post by JohnV on Aug 7, 2021 12:44:15 GMT
Probably all of us have seen it Paul or something like it. As always there are the extremes at both ends, those whose idea is to move the absolute minimum (or virtually not at all) and some high up in CRT who seem dedicated to the idea of getting rid of continuous cruisers totally (in fact liveaboard generally) It often seems to me that CRT would be much happier if there were no boats on the canals apart from a few pretty ones in the "vistor wellbeing hot spots" The very large number of urban boat dwellers in some areas (where numbers have increased at a rate that those of us who remember what it was like 40 or 50 years ago find it hard to believe. are often both totally ignorant of the requirements (in fact much of the facts of life when it comes to boat living) I have always believed that if someone has decided to live on a boat then if they wish to stay in one area because of jobs or if they then have children, schools, that they should get a liveaboard mooring as their requirements are at odds with the requirements for continuous cruising. CCing in my book means you move, probably more in a month than CRT's suggested distance for the year, and most do but there are many who seem to think it is their right to stay in one area because of the life style they choose. That is where I am unsympathetic to those who wish to just stay in the one little area (or in the case of the woman with the pedal powered boat whose boat is not capable of moving the s uggested distance) On the other hand I am totally against CRT when they invent regulations ..... They do not have the legal right to do this. The legal requirements are in the waterways acts which CRT frequently just ride through roughshod. For example they insist you sign up to licence conditions or they will not issue a licence. The legal requirements before purchasding a licence are enshrined in the Waterways acts that CRT do not have the legal right to amend. Their terms and conditions do not have any legal standing ...... but they will still refuse you a licence if you don't agree to them. This is all without going into the fact that if you wish to purchase a river registration certificate as per the Waterways Acts, they will only sell you a Rivers only licence. That simple change of name means that it will cost you 15% more than it should, because a licence attracts VAT but a registration does not. (Other waterways Authorities supply a registration which is VAT free) I could probably continue for pages but instead I suggest you look back through the posts of the late and much missed NigelMoore a far more errudite, polite and clever person than I will ever be Showing your age John, I think it must be 30 years since VAT was 15%! corrected .... thanks Nick
|
|
|
Post by Telemachus on Aug 7, 2021 12:50:19 GMT
I’m going to find my tin helmet and sit on the side lines of this one. me too, I thought I'd light the blue touch paper and sit back and enjoy! seriously though, I just wanted some clarification what constitutes 'reasonable travelling distances' when CC'ing. The law is fairly concise, it says that in order to be exempt from having a home mooring the licence applicant must satisfy the Board (now CRT) that the boat will be used bona fide for navigation throughout the period of the licence. So it comes down to “bona fide for navigation”. A boat which never moves clearly isn’t. A boat which only moves because it has to to keep CRT of their backs isn’t either, although that is more contentious. CRT can’t set a legal limit for navigation distance but they can set guidance which, if you comply with it, they will not hassle you. If you don’t comply with it, ultimately you can argue your case in court. But the ball is in CRT’s court because it is their decision whether they are “satisfied” or not. You’d need to win a Judicial Review to force them to change their minds. One should bear in mind that the legislation was altered to allow no home mooring, with the argument that people wanted to explore the system for months or years and thus had no use for a home mooring. The argument was not to create permission for a lot of live aboard boaters to set up home near their work, school etc and live in an otherwise unaffordable place (eg London). Of course at the time, there were very few live aboard boaters. It’s a very recent craze driven in part by the national housing shortage. But anyway the point is that there are thousands of live aboard boaters who do use their boats for navigation, cover a lot of the system and never fall foul of CRT. But equally there are a relatively few pisstakers who sign up to a deal (no home mooring but using boat bona fide for navigation) with absolutely no intention of honouring what they signed up to, many not really interested in boating just looking for cheap accommodation and or maybe like the idea of a cheap floating country cottage, and then whinge when CRT come after them.
|
|