Been told no right to Anchor?
- Thread starter elioti
- Start date
greenalien
New member
...or to put it another way, it's better to regret something that you have done, rather than something you haven't done...
dgadee
Well-known member
Only environmental information pertaining to rivers, which is unlikely to include anchoring unless it relates to damage of river bed from anchoring.
alahol2
Well-known member
There's a Management Plan on this page.
Also links to various other (maybe) pertinent documents/people.
Also links to various other (maybe) pertinent documents/people.
William_H
Well-known member
Royalty and all that
It is fascinating to us colonialists to hear of the ancient laws of UK particularly regarding owner ship of waters. Here in Oz IMHO we only get a benefit from UK royalty and free of charge.
When our colony was first settled 183 years ago the UK government were clever enough to appoint and send a surveyor with the first settlers. Most of the pitfalls of English ancient laws were avoided. All water ways are controlled by state government with uniform rules. Sure mooring and fishing and in some cases navigation bis restricted licensed etc but generally for good reason. Yes mooring licenses are a tax but at least it goes toward management and boating safety.
History certainly can be burden in some ways. viva the new world olewill
It is fascinating to us colonialists to hear of the ancient laws of UK particularly regarding owner ship of waters. Here in Oz IMHO we only get a benefit from UK royalty and free of charge.
When our colony was first settled 183 years ago the UK government were clever enough to appoint and send a surveyor with the first settlers. Most of the pitfalls of English ancient laws were avoided. All water ways are controlled by state government with uniform rules. Sure mooring and fishing and in some cases navigation bis restricted licensed etc but generally for good reason. Yes mooring licenses are a tax but at least it goes toward management and boating safety.
History certainly can be burden in some ways. viva the new world olewill
prv
Well-known member
Meh. Some people see the word "Crown" in "Crown Estates" and get all aerated. In fact they're not the Queen's back garden to do as she likes with; I'm not sure who owns the land on paper, but in practice it's the government, not royalty, that gets the benefit. It was all handed over a couple of hundred years ago in exchange for what amounts to a salary for the job of monarching, paid by the government. Which, incidentally, is considerably lower than what the Crown Estates bring in each year.
Doesn't mean I approve of them charging people to anchor though
Pete
barnaclephill
New member
What a strange system to pay for a time of anchoring! Here it's all FREE.
I've anchored in various places - Hastings one month free; Port Welshpool 3 months free; Newlands Arm 23 months for free, etc. Eden 2 months for free.
Now I have a mooring - $70 (45 pounds) per year for the licence. Win some, lose some; still a good deal.
Rob_Webb
Active member
Agreed.
And add to that, "Never accept a 'No' from someone who isn't authorised to give a 'Yes'".
Bosun Higgs
N/A
I don't hate royalty because I dont think President Blair would be any better. But I do agree strongly with your general view. We are subjects not citizens and screwed by a state that isnt remotely democratically controlled. Technically even the land your freehold house sits on isnt yours which is why you have a choice of tenants in common etc. when it comes to the deeds.
I was always struck by the different attitude of the French who regard France as their property. Maybe we need a revolution when we can hang all the establishment and send the civil service out for re-education working in the fields and re-opened mines.
ianj99
Active member
Maybe we need a revolution when we can hang all the establishment and send the civil service out for re-education working in the fields and re-opened mines.
I like the suggestion , but we'd end up with another bunch of self serving, corrupt little hitlers, like the ones we already have - in local government...
The best option is to ban the politcial parties and make every politician 'independent' and accountable only to their constituents. True democracy - or as close as you'd get?
Last edited:
Halo
Well-known member
Banning political parties - sounds like a good idea. Does anyone remeber the classic edition of the clangers which ridiculed political parties - it was so true and it really wound the politicos up so they got the bbc to ban it
Twister_Ken
Well-known member
Don't know the river in question or what laws may or may not pertain, but I do wonder, with charges so low, whether staffing, collecting and administering the fees is actually profitable. Seems highly likely it's loss making, in which case it would be cheaper to charge nothing, and have no supervision infrastructure.
MAURICE
Active member
Ive often wondered when asked for payment what would happen if you refused? Looking on any charts there is no mention of payment and generally no markers or signs on the rivers or harbours about payment. Im just thinking of car parks where they have to show how much per hour to pay if there are no signs surely you are in your rights to refuse and move on?
Tranona
Well-known member
If only it were as simple as that. The right to charge is not automatic, there are many exceptions. Newtown Creek is a good example. Maintained by the National Trust, but not owned by them. Permitted to ask for "donations" if you lie to your own anchor, but charges if you use one of their maintained moorings. Similar in Poole Harbour - except that there are virtually no visitors moorings so you are free to anchor just about anywhere outside the navigation channels.
Levying charges to anchor in a harbour or river is a way of controlling the limited space available and paying for such things as harbour navigation marks and maintaining the environment. Therefore in places where there is litle demand and plenty of supply (think Scotland for example) there is very litle charging - indeed in many cases mooring is subsidised to attract people to go there. Rather different from, say, Salcombe or Dartmouth.
Last edited:
WilliamUK
New member
The fact is, though, that they are massive landowners who occupy stolen land, restrict and charge for activities on that land that are the right of all people living here. Whether it's the government or the crown that owns, controls and benefits from the land... it should be the people. It was all common land. We were displaced, it was stolen and now we're off it we must use it under their terms. Kinder Trespass was a start, but didn't get close to far enough.Meh. Some people see the word "Crown" in "Crown Estates" and get all aerated. In fact they're not the Queen's back garden to do as she likes with; I'm not sure who owns the land on paper, but in practice it's the government, not royalty, that gets the benefit. It was all handed over a couple of hundred years ago in exchange for what amounts to a salary for the job of monarching, paid by the government. Which, incidentally, is considerably lower than what the Crown Estates bring in each year.
Doesn't mean I approve of them charging people to anchor though
Pete
Scotland, though not perfect (ref. Loch Lomond east shore's restrictions) is much better where responsible access to the land is guaranteed in law. Still a long way from returning what's rightfully ours though.
I don't believe it's an either-or situation. Since the government pretty much plays the role of a shape-shifting dictator now anyway it wouldn't make things any worse if we were a republic. That said, were the government constrained by a constitution drafted with the failings of the US constitution (it was too easy to brush aside) this country would be a much better place.I don't hate royalty because I dont think President Blair would be any better. But I do agree strongly with your general view. We are subjects not citizens and screwed by a state that isnt remotely democratically controlled. Technically even the land your freehold house sits on isnt yours which is why you have a choice of tenants in common etc. when it comes to the deeds.
I was always struck by the different attitude of the French who regard France as their property. Maybe we need a revolution when we can hang all the establishment and send the civil service out for re-education working in the fields and re-opened mines.
We could remove the monarchy entirely and our system of government would be unchanged as the royal family is basically a figurehead. Completely surplus to requirements.
The large estates should be dismantled (Scotland has been kept a wet desert for private profit for far too long now) with the lands they enclosed being returned to common ownership... and by that I don't mean state-owned private land we use on their terms.
I don't want democracy, I want liberty. I want the individual to be sovereign with government's role as protector of nation, person and property. I want a return to individual rights, choice and responsibility... though admittedly you need to go a LONG way back to see that here.
The French have the right idea seeing France as their property, but their government is probably more out of control than ours in many ways.
I'd celebrate for a week of the parties were gone.
That wouldn't be as useful as removing the relationship between big business and government. "Crony Capitalism" as many call it in the states. The primary way to do that is to remove power from government. If government didn't have the power to grant monopolies or take our wages to pay private (or public) companies to further their political goals, things wouldn't look anything like as grim.
Were more people leaning in a libertarian direction I'd be all for revolution, but as things are, the only people who seem that way inclined in significant numbers actually want bigger, more expensive, more controlling government than we have already. The 99% movement here was almost entirely run by groups like Socialist Worker, the Unions and so on. Not the kind of people I'd like to see in charge.
maxi77
Active member
I presume then from your views you own nothing, no house, boat, car?
WilliamUK
New member
How on earth did you come to that conclusion?
Lakesailor
New member
Get over it.
The bed of Windermere was gifted to Windermere Council for the people. The South Lakes District Council took it over.
Now we pay to fart on Windermere. No wonder it's so gusty.
maxi77
Active member
Quite simple really, by owning things you are living of the proceeds of the crimes you complain of. Or is it one rule for them and another for you?
WilliamUK
New member
You see, I don't think it has to be the way it is.
It's far easier to "get over it" than to figure out how to change it, but considering government typically only ever gets bigger and freedom is generally lost "getting over it" seems like a fast track to zero freedom.
The ruling class in this country think they have free reign to charge us for things that need no such thing. We can get over it, or we can tell them to sod off and leave us alone. Do what you like.
Other threads that may be of interest
