Interesting Petition Part 2
Comments
-
yes I have to say it blows the whole idea of these stop overs out of the water and the very insignificant number people who support them appear not to have thought things out at all?
4 -
I didn't see that article when you first posted it sorry (couple of hours ago) but yes, a great article & vindicates what many of us have been saying....
3 -
Now that is really a good post TW
0 -
Thanks but the credit should go to the author rather than me. I just pointed it out.
0 -
Posted on 16/08/2018 16:17 by Cornersteady
yes I have to say it blows the whole idea of these stop overs out of the water and the very insignificant number people who support them appear not to have thought things out at all?
Cherry picking a couple of paragraphs out of any article which tries to provide a balanced view might purport to support one argument or another but the very act of cherry picking fails to include validity (might even be said to blow itself out of the water
).The rest of the article (which was was written to be read as a (balanced) whole, including linked articles) is just as relevant to this thread.
0 -
Well, not wishing to be considered unfair, I’ll repost your link to make it easy for others to read the whole article, MHP.
http://www.motorhomeparking.co.uk/offsite.htm
It is, however, only the quoted paragraphs which refer to petitions for aires which is the subject of this thread.
5 -
+1 wot he said
1 -
You can try and dig yourself out of the hole that is really of your own making, but the fact is that the paragraphs are there for all to read and what they say is quite clear. It is not a long article and easy to read
Perhaps you could, in all fairness, post some paragraphs from your supplied article that gives an opposite view? I couldn't really see any as the rest talks about what is off site camping and what is not? No 'balanced view' is given as I read it and it's quite a technical article apart from the two very damning paragraphs about these stop overs? But perhaps you can supply the balanced viewpoints? In all fairness of course.
3 -
BB, I don't doubt the (long...wink) pothole story, and I'm sure there are inefficiencies in any organisation including LA's, but that's not going to make them throw their hands up and say "Come and camp (park) for free......."
no, but we aren't talking about free parking, are we, this is about provision that can, hopefully, be funded by those paying for it...and hopefull ongoing efficiencies (I mean making things work better not arbitrary cuts) will gradually seep through....
and to contribute to this mess, 'wealthy' (or not) MHers generally pay their taxes don't they?
I pay all my taxes, lots of them, but they don't let me in my local swimming pool for free.......!
...again, no one is asking for anything 'free'...we have an indoor and an outdoor pool (I've been going for nearly 60 yrs) but I don't expect to go for free, merely to have thse services available to buy...
just carry on what I've been doing.....visiting towns where they welcome 'wealthy' (surely not after buying one, lol?) MHers and understand what cheap, basic services are required to help enjoy them.
I'm sure that even "over here" you will find lots of sites, CL/CS's, THS, rallies etc close to those towns or a short bus or taxi ride away. An opportunity to put a fiver in a taxi drivers pocket and support the local economy.....
the stops we find don't usually require a taxi.....legs or pedals.
And when you're "over there"......well it's all good isn't it.......
as you know
0 -
BB.....Apart from the rather unusual way of reversing bold & normal text for quotes & comments......
I think we are in unanimous agreement......
0 -
sorry, I wanted you to be able to pick out the most recent comments
cheers.
0 -
I see what you mean - my own fault for rushing a response whilst I was busy.
I hold up my hands, I posted the article in order to clarify the legislation on camping (as raised by the post I quoted). It is one of a series of articles written some years ago which (perhaps being too close to the matter) I tend to see as a whole.
Taken on their own, I agree, the selected paragraphs do not show the provision of "aire" type facilities in a good light, especially in respect to the mention of petitions.
At the same time, though, contrasting those petitions with the current one does highlight the way things are changing. The current petition makes a business based pitch to the CAMC (which the CAMC has already acknowledged as worthy of consideration) rather than just a badly evidenced demand to local authorities or the government. It has also been supported by far more people than the few hundred that the 2012-1016 petitions attracted - an indication of how things are changing and the wisdom of the CAMC keeping an open mind.
With the current petition we are not talking about demands on LAs for significant investment with no guarantee of return but about a potential change to the business model of the CAMC to meet foreseen changing demand. That obviates the argument regarding economic benefits to towns as there is no demand on them to spend money. It also overcomes the numbers problem in that positive action by the CAMC to ensure it remains relevant to the increasing number of motorhome owners is the most likely way to maintain booking levels.
3 -
Thanks you your honest reply MHP and yes things are indeed changing, MH will at some point equal or maybe outnumber caravans? who knows. But the club so far gives equal treatment to both and provides club sites that both can use quite happily and so two points, one using money from all members to give one 'side' (can't think of a better word) more benefits is to my mind not fair. Two the club is very good (?) at providing club sites and very financially successful at doing this, to my thinking more of the same is probably better and would the club be as successful in providing these stop overs?
My last point is would club members who like the club sites actually use these stop overs? Are there not two different types of LV user?
1 -
So I didn’t cherry pick the paragraphs but, instead, highlighted those relevant to this thread?
1 -
My last point is would club members who like the club sites actually use these stop overs? Are there not two different types of LV user?
No, we use all types of sites, CL's, Club Sites, Aires etc. If the stop over is where we want to go at a price we like we will stay there. For a long stay of 3 or 4 nights a club site may suit better if its in the right place, shorter stays or just an overnighter en-route an Aire or CL etc.
1 -
Thank you.
I agree that the club has to maintain equality of treatment. Personally I see no reason at all why sites with facilities only for the disposal of waste and obtaining fresh water should be exclusive to motorhomes, just because that is the case on the continent. I thought I had posted that on the original thread but can't find it so maybe did so on a similar thread on another forum.
I definitely did say on the original thread (second post) that obviously a business case would have to be made. The success of more of the same may be called into question by the changing market (as so many retailers are finding). If the direction indicates a preference for alternative sites then success may depend on providing them instead.
I agree with MichaelT that motorhomers would use such sites. The closest we currently have to them, in terms of both restricted facilities and proximity to towns, are rallies and longer holiday sites. As I said (again other thread) our camping revolves mainly around them already but we use club sites and CLs at other times.
0 -
Possibly it’s what you owned up to but, as you didn’t address it to me in the way you did with the 'cherry picking' comment, I couldn’t be sure.
I'm not convinced the whole article was relevant to the subject of this thread although you certainly helped clarify thinking. Thanks for that.
0 -
This Club is a big business and has spent millions (re branding, change of name, installation of grids for waste, etc) . to encourage motorhomers to pay annual membership subs and stay at Club sites - in order to to generate income for the business.
If the supporters of this petition eventually achieve their aim of a widespread network of Aires, that will without doubt encourage motorhomers not to pay annual membership subs and not to stay at Club sites. Just like the situation in France.
So why on earth why do the authors of this petition hope that this Club would give any sort of support - even moral support- to a plan which would reduce its income and shrink its customer base in that way? Big business doesn't do things like that.
3 -
Sorry not to be clear. I am used to using forums where one can reply to multiple posts with a single answer, which this software doesn't seem to support. Whilst I bodged answering multiple posts (using copy/paste) where I mentioned cherry picking I neglected to carry that through subsequently.
Regarding relevance, as I said I originally posted the article not to address the main subject of this thread but the specific point regarding the legislation covering camping in caravans (motorised or towed) and sleeping in HGVs.
0 -
Right👍🏻
0 -
That isn't quite what the petition author is asking for is it? Whilst previous petitions (to government) have asked for a separate network, the difference with the current petition is that it seeks integration into the CAMC network, hence the first paragraph (my highlighting):
We ask the club to move with the times and to look to own or manage overnight motorhome parking areas that provide necessary facilities for the disposal of waste and obtaining fresh water.
The petition suggests a way of maintaining customer base and income, in the face of a changing member profile, by provision of alternative style sites but does not ask that those sites should be open to all rather than just to CAMC members.
0 -
I agree fully (and said the same on page 1)
0 -
are you saying these new stop overs would/could be for members only?
0 -
Does that not imply that the club digs deep into its pockets to set up and run aires for MHs which would then be let out at a fraction of the cost of 'proper' site pitches? If they were priced as per other sites, they wouldn’t be used and if they were cheap, the club would lose income from other sites as well as probably not being able to recoup the cost of setting up the aires.
Where is the business sense in that and where is the petitioner's well thought out and drafted business plan? If that business case can be proved, I'll gladly rethink my whole stance.
3 -
Where is the business sense in that and where is the petitioner's well thought out and drafted business plan?
Exactly.
And exactly what I said on page 1 of the first thread and page 2 of the second thread.
And the petitioner, if it isn't MHP under a pseudonym, has not contributed at all, but must be aware of the debate.
The whole thing smacks of "I've bought a M/H but now want my sites cheap/free"
It's ok saying the club needs to move with the times and cater for the new breed of motorhomer, but there is a basic underlying cost of buying land near POI's, making it habitable, complying with regs, providing water/waste/bins/cwp etc, controlling access & collecting fees. It's impossible to see how that can be done cheaper than current sites, there is no business plan, its just a pie in the sky wish list....
4 -
Mhparking, The direction of travel for this Club in recent years has been the move towards inclusiveness - motorhomes, caravans, tents, pods and lodges on the one site. Do you really think the Club is going to backtrack on that trend and "own or manage" sites solely for motorhomers.- and antagonise everyone else ? Dream on !
3 -
TT and ET, you’ve both told it like it is. Those are true responses to the case, such as it is, made in the petition without being sidetracked into the irrelevancies which have dogged the two threads.
3 -
agree with all of that and TW's post.
1
