# Cl's being tightened up



## olley (May 1, 2005)

hi just phoned and booked in at a cl at the vulcan arms and was asked for my CC no. he said they have tightened up recently and are doing spot checks.

Olley


----------



## zaskar (Jun 6, 2005)

olley said:


> hi just phoned and booked in at a cl at the vulcan arms and was asked for my CC no. he said they have tightened up recently and are doing spot checks.
> 
> Olley


Good!


----------



## 88724 (May 9, 2005)

Hi Zaskar

You are glad that some of your fellow motorhomers cannot use CL's?

I find that a very sad attitude to take.


----------



## 2point (Jun 10, 2005)

They can use the CL's by joing the club like everyone else. That is fair.


----------



## JockandRita (Jun 1, 2005)

George,
We don't have a problem with our fellow MH'rs using CC Cl's, if like us, they have paid the appropiate membership subs. 

The Cl network is for members only. 

We do believe that the C&CC operate the same rule on their Cs.

J & R.


----------



## DABurleigh (May 9, 2005)

I would much rather the CC and C&CC businesses had not stipulated the condition that their CLs and CSs were for the exclusive use of their respective members. But they did, and for understandable reasons.

Given that they did, which prevents the sites being used by other organisations such as MHF, I think I have a right to be peeved when I can't get on a CL because it is full, occupied by non-CC members.

Yes, it has happened. I drove to a CL, stopped and got chatting, and the caravan owners looked mystified when I mentioned the Caravan Club. I forgot to pursue at the time how they knew about it other than the CC sign at the entrance. 

I can only recall once being asked to show my CC card, though I do usually proffer it early on.

I think any issue of CL network administration costs coming from membership fees is more minor. 

Dave


----------



## zaskar (Jun 6, 2005)

So that makes at least 3 of us the are "very sad".  

Finishing for the weekend now on a lovely quiet MEMBERS ONLY CL in Cheshire.  

Goodbye George. Have a nice weekend.


----------



## 88724 (May 9, 2005)

Hi 2point 

Of course they can there is no disputing that, however to celebrate that other motorhomers cannot (temporarily) use CL's is a poor attitude, it would be churlish of me to celebrate that Zaskar being a non subscriber will not be able to access and use certain parts of this site. 

It would not be nice for me to say Good!  

The path of the righteous man is beset on all sides by the inequities of the selfish and the tyranny of evil men. Blessed is he who, in the name of charity and good will, shepherds the weak through the valley of darkness for he is truly his brother's keeper and the finder of lost children; and I will strike down upon thee with great vengeance and furious anger those who attempt to poison and destroy my brothers and you will know I am the Lord when I lay my vengeance upon you.


----------



## 2point (Jun 10, 2005)

The irony that being a member here for £5 allows you to download the locations of all the CL, CS's and French Passion sites without being a member of the organisations that have invested in setting those schemes up fully supports the 'good' reaction.


----------



## DABurleigh (May 9, 2005)

I can't see anything wrong with being pleased about the upholding of fair play.


----------



## 88724 (May 9, 2005)

Hi all

I am not really discussing the rule (that as always been there and always been ignored, once this pogrom is over everyone will be back using them member or not)

Only the part that celebrates someone else losing out

Dave, you I and many others made donations to this site freely and at no time did we ever expect to be treated better or get more than a non donater (?), I Paid far more by donation than it as cost me for subscription (and my subscription cost double being made in February) and I still dont want any more than the next guy/gal

I also will not celebrate their loss, regardless of whethor I like them or not


----------



## 2point (Jun 10, 2005)

You can only lose something you had in the first place. By not being members they are not entitled to stay, therefore not losing out.

Those losing out are those who have paid and are prevented from using the facilities they have paid for by a freeloader taking advantage of the system.


----------



## 88870 (May 10, 2005)

GeorgeTelford said:


> The path of the righteous man is beset on all sides by the inequities of the selfish and the tyranny of evil men. Blessed is he who, in the name of charity and good will, shepherds the weak through the valley of darkness for he is truly his brother's keeper and the finder of lost children; and I will strike down upon thee with great vengeance and furious anger those who attempt to poison and destroy my brothers and you will know I am the Lord when I lay my vengeance upon you.


Gulp .... 8O George L Jackson on a roll! :lol:


----------



## Invicta (Feb 9, 2006)

I entirely agree that one should join the CC , C&CC and anything else that provides services etc to members and that includes this site!

What people fail to remember is that organisations have overheads, indemnity insurance is a good example. I am the secretary of a local group that was set up over eight years ago to campaign to keep health services local (www.chek.org.uk).

For any activity such as holding a march or having a stand on council ground, we have to have, as with all other organisations, indemnity insurance cover for £5 million. That cost us a premium of over £800 / annum.

Do owners of CLs and the like have to carry indemnity cover I wonder?


----------



## 88724 (May 9, 2005)

Hi 2 point

Non members have *always stayed *at CL's and CS's

So it as always been and so it will come to pass, normal service will soon be resumed.

Fair play could also be interpretted as being that anyone as the right not to join the club and will still be able to stay at the CL' and CS's anyway, ie to be fair you can save your membership fee, there is no inequity there.

Hi Leigh

Its a fantastic (semi) biblical quote

Just the one part was appplicable here though

*Blessed is he who, in the name of charity and good will, shepherds the weak through the valley of darkness for he is truly his brother's keeper and the finder of lost children*


----------



## relay (May 9, 2005)

We've been asked for our membership number on several occasions - offhand can think of two CLs near Brecon and one near Birmingham. This was in the last year. Never stayed at any CSs (though we're members of both clubs) not sure why. When we were on a CL at Coleshill a man got chatting to me about what i thought of the location, facilities etc and then said he was an inspector for the CC so they do check on membership etc. 

-H


----------



## 2point (Jun 10, 2005)

Two wrongs don't make a right. The fact that checks are being made indicates there is a problem, otherwise why bother?

The 'something for nothing' brigade is not for me I'm afraid, I wholly beleive in you get what you pay for, by cheating the system you are cheating other people. Which is the greater evil?


----------



## Scotjimland (May 23, 2005)

GeorgeTelford said:


> Non members have *always stayed *at CL's and CS's
> So it as always been and so it will come to pass, normal service will soon be resumed.


People have always broken laws and always will do but in doing so they don't make it legal.

I understand why some CL owners 'turn a blind eye' and why many ex club members continue to use them after leaving the club, after all why pay £30 to a club when you can "get away" with not paying ? 
Doesn't make it right though.. 
My understanding is that '5 van sites' are licensed by the local council and being a member of the 'club' isn't optional but a pre requisite to circumvent planning regulations. ?


----------



## 88974 (May 11, 2005)

I have only ever stayed on a C.L. once, and when I was booking it I was asked for my club number, I assumed that this was normal practice, something that I agree with. If C.L.'s or C.S's are for club members then people not members of the club should not be allowed to stay there. If I have paid membership to say a swimming club and was not allowed in because the pool was full of non members I would be outraged particularly when they had not paid a premium for the pleasure. Why bother joining a club if you have no benefits, or non members can avail of the same benefits as a member. Just because non members got away with staying on c.l.s in the past does not make it right, about time they have tightened the rules.


----------



## fdhadi (May 9, 2005)

Lets look at this from another direction,

George has car insurance (estimated cost to him around £6000 in 20yrs), *imagine* i didn't (nil in 20yrs).
So George has no problem with this. 

I wonder if George would have a problem if i bumped his car,or would he say well done for getting away with it for so long?

Same but different perhaps?


----------



## wotto (May 1, 2005)

There has been many post in the past were both clubs have been slated and people have said they will never renew their membership for whatever reason.
What i find strange people are quite happy to still use their sites (cls/css).
It seems to me its down to that old disease short arms-deep pockets.


----------



## 88724 (May 9, 2005)

Hi Fhardi

Not even in the ball park, in fact it aint even the same sport 

a much nearer analogy would be the subs here, I pay ( and donated more money before there was even subs) Zasker as chosen not to. If he gets the boot from here for not paying, I will not post a celebratory Good!  

I am hoping no-one will be excluded from anything, but if they are I will not be celebrating


----------



## 2point (Jun 10, 2005)

That analogy needs extending -

Zasker being here is the equivilent to driving past the site and sitting at the gate. He has the same view and breathes the same air but there are exclusive benefits that are inside the gate that he must be a member of the club to pay for. By jumping over the gate and sampling the benefits without being a member he is being a thief and taking what does not belong to him.

If he got caught doing so I would certainly say 'good'.


----------



## 88724 (May 9, 2005)

Hi 2 point

Zaskar is on this site, he is not sitting outside looking in and I am happy for him to be here.

If and when he cant post because of not being a subs payer I wont be saying Good!

Cant think of any more ways to say it, so I had better leave it at that


----------



## 88927 (May 10, 2005)

Hi guys

kands throws bucket of cold water :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: 

Can we calm it down please, we are in danger of getting polarised here and I do not think we are really wanting to do that do we???

Trouble is with a topic like this, is that it can very quickly turn to other matters and get personal.
Personally I would agree with the camp that suggests only members of an organisation should be able to use its (the clubs) facilities, this seems wholly fair and reasonable to me.

Thanks in advance

Keith


----------



## thefman (May 1, 2005)

pulp fiction on mhf cool!


----------



## fdhadi (May 9, 2005)

Have to agree with Gorge here,

We pay subs but their free to post. :? 
How about charging non subbies a small fee: ie £1 per 24hrs if they wish to post.
Soon pass the £10 subs then.
Just a thought.


----------



## DABurleigh (May 9, 2005)

"My understanding is that '5 van sites' are licensed by the local council and being a member of the 'club' isn't optional but a pre requisite to circumvent planning regulations. ?"

The restriction for a CL or CS to be for its members use only comes from the CC & C&CC, and NOT from planning regulations. See Page 9 of:
http://www.defra.gov.uk/wildlife-countryside/issues/caravan/caravan-guide.pdf
"Paragraph 5 sites - Exempted organisations issue certificates stating that the site has been approved for use by its members. People who are not members of the organisation may also use the site, unless there is an agreement between the site owner and the organisation that use
is restricted to members."

It is a pity that a win-win workable scheme is not in place that is equitable to CL owner. CC organisation/members and non-members, perhaps through differential pricing.

Dave


----------



## olley (May 1, 2005)

They can't even agree to use each others sites, so what chance of them agreeing to anything else.

They both protect their little kingdoms with little thought for their members.

Olley


----------



## Scotjimland (May 23, 2005)

DABurleigh said:


> People who are not members of the organisation may also use the site, unless there is an agreement between the site owner and the organisation that use is restricted to members."


Hi Dave, 
thanks, once again you ferreted out the appropriate legislation .. :wink:

From the above statement the CL owners have obviously entered into a contract with the club to restrict access to members only .. breaching that contract would mean losing their CL membership with the club.

If the club agreed to mixed use that would be ok but clearly they haven't.. which is odd as they are quite happy to let non members use most club sites :?

Have I understood this correctly ?


----------



## DABurleigh (May 9, 2005)

Yes


----------

