Jump to content

More residential moorings


Smelly

  

43 members have voted

  1. 1. can we?

    • yes
      31
    • no
      12


Featured Posts

I'm just wondering who planted thoughts about boats in Grant Shapps' head?

 

Cheers

 

Gill

 

I honestly think it is lobbying and a media campaign by London Boaters. Following the failed Lee and Stort proposals (which made some boaters fear for their homes), we've had lots and lots of press recently and many local housing authorities and councillors have been written to.

Edited by Lady Muck
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

I'm just wondering who planted thoughts about boats in Grant Shapps' head?

 

Cheers

 

Gill

 

My money is on CIVA.

 

They told the Parliamentary Waterways Group that a need existed for at least 5,000 residential moorings and are now congratulating themselves on Shapps' announcement.

Edited by Allan(nb Albert)
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi Nina C

 

I'm suspicious of this new idea of turning businesses into charities. The tax-treatment of charities - and the people who invest in them (i mean 'donate money' to them) is very favourable. When we have a Chancellor whose own capital (from the Osborne & Little Wallpaper empire) is safely stashed in the Cayman Islands, what else is that little weasel up to at the behest of his wealthier cronies?

 

 

 

hate to interrupt the nina c and Gollywobbler love in and maybe even worse goingsmiley_offtopic.gif would be interested in your source for the above.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Where I moor we have lobbied our MP about residential moorings, looking forward to the response.

I think the government are sh*tting themselves. They have a big problem on their hands. There is no council housing to speak of and a shortage of affordable private lets.

 

MP's have been lobbied alot by liveaboards recently, it has made them aware of a 'problem' that they didn't even know about. If BW start booting liveaboards off their boats for whatever reason the problem gets worse.

 

Clicky

 

ETA here's another 'cheerful' article. Clicky

Link to comment
Share on other sites

came up with no evidence of Osborne having bank accounts in the Cayman Islands so link would be very helpful. I am aware of trust funds set up for his children to avoid tax but the Cayman Islands seems to have passed me and the Newspapers by, I think.

 

Try again. The details are in the public domain if you look.

 

However, I am not going to lift a finger of my own to help you to find them when you won't do anything to help me to help Darren on the other thread.

 

Helping people is a TWO way street, so you reap what you sow.

 

Spend more time on the Internet and you will soon discover that Osborne's children are not the only people benefitting out of the Cayman Islands but the UK taxpayer does not exactly win from the arrangements.

 

The tax-arrangements are legit. They are "tax avoidance," not "tax evasion."

 

I suspect Osborne is well able to describe the details to his wealthy cronies so that they can follow in his footsteps.

 

However, this bloke Osborne is the Chancellor, I believe?

Edited by Gollywobbler
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Try again. The details are in the public domain if you look.

 

However, I am not going to lift a finger of my own to help you to find them when you won't do anything to help me to help Darren on the other thread.

 

Helping people is a TWO way street, so you reap what you sow.

 

Spend more time on the Internet and you will soon discover that Osborne's children are not the only people benefitting out of the Cayman Islands but the UK taxpayer does not exactly win from the arrangements.

 

The tax-arrangements are legit. They are "tax avoidance," not "tax evasion."

 

I suspect Osborne is well able to describe the details to his wealthy cronies so that they can follow in his footsteps.

 

You make a statement on a public forum.

Hi Nina C

 

I'm suspicious of this new idea of turning businesses into charities. The tax-treatment of charities - and the people who invest in them (i mean 'donate money' to them) is very favourable. When we have a Chancellor whose own capital (from the Osborne & Little Wallpaper empire) is safely stashed in the Cayman Islands, what else is that little weasel up to at the behest of his wealthier cronies?

 

 

 

So the least you can do is give the source for this statement

As far as I am aware Osborne's Childrens Trust Funds are UK based.

Edited by cotswoldsman
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You make a statement on a public forum.

 

So the least you can do is give the source for this statement

As far as I am aware Osborne's Childrens Trust Funds are UK based.

 

Sure, the kids' Trusts are UK based. There is also nothing in them to tax.

 

Anyone with any nous looks for the dosh, not at the brats.

 

You help me with Darren and I'll show you how to find the stuff about Osborne's antics but I am NOT going to give you a free ride on my back.

 

I have posted on Darren's thread this arvo:

 

1. Is Northwich a reasonable place? and

2. Is a Dawncraft a reasonable boat?

 

You help me and I'll help you but not unless and until.

Edited by Gollywobbler
Link to comment
Share on other sites

In the absence of any substantiation I firmly believe that this allegation is total bullshit.

 

Tony

 

I have to agree. I am not defending Osborne (would never do that) I am trying to establish the credibility of Gollywobbler's post as I have found some of her post difficult to believe.

 

Sure, the kids' Trusts are UK based. There is also nothing in them to tax.

 

Anyone with any nous looks for the dosh, not at the brats.

 

I take it that means no link to the source of the information on the bank accounts in the Caymans?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have to agree. I am not defending Osborne (would never do that) I am trying to establish the credibility of Gollywobbler's post as I have found some of her post difficult to believe.

 

 

 

I take it that means no link to the source of the information on the bank accounts in the Caymans?

 

 

I take it that means no link to the source of the information on the bank accounts in the Caymans
?

 

 

Gawd almighty. They are not "bank accounts." They are companies which are registered in the Cayman Islands.

 

Before I retired from the Law (because of marriage) I used to act for a lot of wealthy people who had very sound financial reasons for wanting to keep their money outside of the UK, purely so as to avoid being taxed in the UK for the dosh.

 

That is done by choosing an offshore jurisdiction. Offshore, they are not "trusts" but brand-new companies, more usually. The companies have no liabilities locally because they are brand-new. The more primitive the place, the less likely its local Law is to understand complicated ideas about "trusts."

 

The only person who will put anything into the offshore companies or control what they do is the donor of the money. In some jurisdictions, this will be the "Trustees" (eg in the Channel Islands. In theory, the offshore Trustees do as they wish but in practice they are being paid to do as they are told.)

 

My only own personal experience is with the Channel Islands and Panama. I've never had clients who wanted to put their dosh in the Isle of Man or the Caymans, Malta or Singapore - they are all "tax havens," - but one only learns the details according to what the client wants to set up and a wealthy client's accountants ALWAYS know more than his/her solicitors.

 

The donor ensures that s/he does not spend more than 183 days in each F/Y being physically present in the UK. That fact gets the donor round UK Income Taxes.

 

Also, I was a land lawyer, not a tax lawyer. To keep land in E&W out of the greedy claws of the Exchequer, I favour the Channel Islands myself, but Arab clients preferred Panama because the shares in a Panamanian company are "bearer shares," so the beneficial owner of the shares will never be named on any documents. The Arabs were being advised by the best accountants in the world so when the accountants say "Panama," the English lawyer trots off to a Panamanian lawyer and buys as many clean companies as the accountants say will be required. It is not actually difficult to do because so many other people explain what to do and how to set about doing it.

 

That said, it does require the lawyer to have more than a mung-bean by way of a brain, in order to be able to have enough imagination to get the basic idea. Also, a young lawyer in a large City of London law firm has stacks of back-up from older colleagues who have done it before.

 

But once you understand the general gist, you can do the rest.

 

What I am NOT prepared to do is to do anything to help you when you have done nothing constructive towards helping Darren on the other thread. It is not my problem if you live in ignorance for the rest of your life, after all.

 

Where do you think Osborne spent his summer hols recently? Was it in the UK? What's with his trotting off to the USA for "business meetings" the whole time?

 

His crony Cameron does not have as much to worry about because Cameron is only the Younger Son, plus most of Cameron's money is actually his wife's money anyway.

 

So get real. Instead of wasting your own time and mine on things that you clearly know nothing about, why not spend your own time helping Darren instead, with things that you presumably DO understand?

Edited by Gollywobbler
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

What I am NOT prepared to do is to do anything to help you when you have done nothing constructive towards helping Darren on the other thread. It is not my problem if you live in ignorance for the rest of your life, after all.

 

 

Oh please get over yourself.

 

People come here for their entertainment, not yours.

 

Have a look at other newbie threads and see all the useful advice, and a bit of fun, that they've got because they haven't had some high and mighty mother hen clucking round, getting peoples' backs up.

 

I suggest you leave Darren alone because you are not doing him any favours.

 

I'd be happy to give Darren any help he wants, directly, if he was to come on and have a chat (28 years boating inland and coastal, 12 years liveaboard, joiner and ex professional boat fitter) but I will not go through his self-appointed surrogate mum.

 

You haven't got any information that you can bribe us with, by the way. It's a discussion forum so, if you say "I'm not telling you" then all you're doing is not taking part...No loss, on our part.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What I am NOT prepared to do is to do anything to help you...

As you are unable to substantiate your irrelevant verbose bullshit I suggest these threads would be far easier to get through if you simply didn't make such allegations in the first place.

 

Tony

  • Greenie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

What I am NOT prepared to do is to do anything to help you when you have done nothing constructive towards helping Darren on the other thread. It is not my problem if you live in ignorance for the rest of your life, after all.

 

Where do you think Osborne spent his summer hols recently? Was it in the UK? What's with his trotting off to the USA for "business meetings" the whole time?

 

His crony Cameron does not have as much to worry about because Cameron is only the Younger Son, plus most of Cameron's money is actually his wife's money anyway.

 

So get real. Instead of wasting your own time and mine on things that you clearly know nothing about, why not spend your own time helping Darren instead, with things that you presumably DO understand?

 

Firstly I do understand offshore banking and I also understand offshore companies, I also happen to think that anyone that creates there wealth in th UK should pay all the tax due in the UK and I find the practice of offshore abhorrent and have a very low opinion of people that help with this practice.

As far as Darren is concerned I have nothing to contribute as firstly I have only been on my boat for 5 years and I have no interest in boats or the price of boats. I just happen to like the lifestyle and the freedom a boat offers, and I certainly know nothing about doing it cheaply.

Also until you provide some sort of link to a source for your allegations I will assume that your posts are more suitable Cloud Cuckoo Land than a forum.

Edited by cotswoldsman
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think the government are sh*tting themselves. They have a big problem on their hands. There is no council housing to speak of and a shortage of affordable private lets.

 

MP's have been lobbied alot by liveaboards recently, it has made them aware of a 'problem' that they didn't even know about. If BW start booting liveaboards off their boats for whatever reason the problem gets worse.

 

 

I think BW and some on this forum will be sh*tting themselves as well -

 

Memorandum submitted by the National Bargee Travellers Association (PB 05)

 

How long will it be before government twigs that what NBTA are suggesting is much cheaper for them than paying for moorings?

 

It seems a very well put together document to me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It seems a very well put together document to me.

Yes but which is more likely if the government take a close look at S17:

 

1. They see that it's unenforceable in its current state and so scrap it.

 

2. They see that it's unenforceable in its current state and toughen it up to fit more closely with the original intent (and BW's interpretation).

 

Serious question; which do you think more likely?

 

Tony

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think BW and some on this forum will be sh*tting themselves as well -

 

Memorandum submitted by the National Bargee Travellers Association (PB 05)

 

How long will it be before government twigs that what NBTA are suggesting is much cheaper for them than paying for moorings?

 

It seems a very well put together document to me.

 

It does seem a very well put together document. Though I have to admit that I do not fully understand the implications. Is it a charter for everyone to stop paying mooring fees and just moor where they want for as long as they want?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes but which is more likely if the government take a close look at S17:

 

1. They see that it's unenforceable in its current state and so scrap it.

 

2. They see that it's unenforceable in its current state and toughen it up to fit more closely with the original intent (and BW's interpretation).

 

Serious question; which do you think more likely?

 

Tony

 

Your no 2 is really two options in that it is pretty clear that parliament's intentions and bw's interpretation don't match.

 

There is a number 3 ( or 4) do nothing

 

If there is a will then debating section 17 to fit the reality of 2011 is probably the optimum but pragmatically what is a big deal to us is puny in the priorities of a coalition government.

 

It does seem a very well put together document. Though I have to admit that I do not fully understand the implications. Is it a charter for everyone to stop paying mooring fees and just moor where they want for as long as they want?

 

That's not how j read it, or I would hazard NBTA's thesis.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It does seem a very well put together document. Though I have to admit that I do not fully understand the implications. Is it a charter for everyone to stop paying mooring fees and just moor where they want for as long as they want?

 

It's certainly not meant as a charter but rather evidence that the Public Bill Committee will take into account when considering amendment 99A to the public bodies bill.

Edited by Allan(nb Albert)
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Your no 2 is really two options in that it is pretty clear that parliament's intentions and bw's interpretation don't match.

This is a serious question so I'm not arguing for the sake of it; I've long been confused by the above stance.

 

My understanding was that parliament decreed that every boat on BW's water had to pay for a licence, and also had to have a home mooring. The argument was put to them "But not everyone wants a home mooring; some of us like to continuously cruise" and hence they added S17 so as not to force the home mooring requirement on those who had no need for one.

 

Where is my understanding incorrect?

 

Tony

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.