Crt up to their old tricks again.

At our marina, if you are a (nearly) permanent live aboard you have to pay more. Fair enough because you use more water, make more rubbish, wear out the pontoons more etc. We have our boat out for about 3 months a year (during which time we use CRT services etc) but for 9 months a year it’s in the marina and out of CRT’s hair. Therefore I don’t think it is fundamentally morally unreasonable that boats that don’t have a home mooring pay more. And I suspect my views are shared by most people who pay for a home mooring. Meanwhile of course those people without a home mooring will be outraged and offended at the very thought.

You don’t share my views on many things.

I don't pay for a home mooring and I don't share his views.

Obviously. Or actually, I’m confused. Because I said people without a home mooring would disagree. So do you disagree with my assertion that you would disagree, or do you disagree with my view that people without a home mooring could reasonably be expected to pay more than those with? Or more likely, you just disagree with everything on principle regardless?

We all have a 12 month licence ... how much time we devote to cruising is a personal choice surely.

If free time is restricted a mooring is required, if not it isn't.

Most years we pay for three months mooring ... this year sadly it was 7 months.

I don't really understand this divisive wedge.

Rog

I’m not sure that dropping a few shekels in Tony’s pocket for the privilege of sharing one mooring space with 50 people, counts.

This is one view, and a perfectly valid one at that. You are right that how much time devoted to being out and about on the cut is a personal choice (albeit sometimes constrained by one’s personal circumstances). But that doesn’t mean that some sort of “pay per usage” model is an unreasonable strategy. It is simply an alternative strategy.