Caravan and Motorhome club website

[Costers]

It’s Fujitsus new system called Foreground.

Fujitsu aren’t having a very good time at the moment.

 

[maingate]

Yes, I understand that, and as someone who intends to become a full-timer at some point, I agree that the situation in this country is pretty poor, but I'm not sure that attacking CAMC for running their club their way is valid.

I'm not as fully involved in this as many of you - maybe I should become more so - but my understanding is that what used to be to some degree tolerated has been made "illegal" by that sly and evil Patel woman.

I have parked up in laybys before and have never been questioned or moved on. My understanding now is that it's up to us to ask permission from the land owner (eg, Council) before parking, but no action is likely to be taken unless we refuse to move on if asked. I think there's something about the number of vans involved too.

Yes, CAMpRA are doing good work. It is taking too long, and it will take more time, but surely it's the law in this small-minded country that needs to change first.

The 'evil Patel woman' did not bring in the changes to the Law all by herself. It came into force after the blight on our communities caused by the irresponsible and sometimes law breaking traveller people causing all kinds of problems. A similar law had been enacted in Ireland that caused many more Irish travellers to come over to the UK mainland. Landowners demanded change, something you would have shouted for had you ever had your life blighted by these people. I am not blaming all traveller people, just the wrong'uns among them.

 

[colinm]

Not really sure I'd be happy with 75% of paid members having to put with behaviour only 25% want.

But if there are lots of other places offering the facilities required I don't see the problem. Why is access to CAMC so important?

Why do you consider that offering a service to members is something that 75% have to put up with just because they might not vote for it? As a member of the C&CC I've not once had to use their service when not booked on a site, but I have no problem with them offering it, same as dog walking facilities, have never taken a dog to a C&CC site but I'm not anti them having the facilities.

 

[AndyWill64]

Why do you consider that offering a service to members is something that 75% have to put up with just because they might not vote for it? As a member of the C&CC I've not once had to use their service when not booked on a site, but I have no problem with them offering it, same as dog walking facilities, have never taken a dog to a C&CC site but I'm not anti them having the facilities.

OK, in the cases of dogs and kids, a high percentage of members will have one or both, so I don't see any issue there.

But allowing access to the facilities, for example, could mean any number of extra vehicles moving around the site where children could be playing, bringing disturbance and any number of people into the facilities, reducing the time available for those already on site, and making more work for the wardens keeping them clean.

Obviously, exact numbers are not known, maybe the vehicles would need to park up and people walk from reception, and maybe it wouldn't be an issue at all, but as a CAMC member I would prefer rule changes like that to be put to the vote. If the vote passes that's great, then it's up to individuals to decide whether to renew their membership or not.

To exaggerate a point a little, you can buy books at WH Smith, but this discusion seems like complaining that Boots don't sell them. Different clubs and sites have different rules and policies, so they appeal to different groups of people. There's nothing wrong or unfair in that.

It's already beem stated that the facilities are available elsewhere, so again, why is access to CAMC or their decision not to allow it so important?

It's also been stated that most members wouldn't care either way. What is that based on?

 

[mariesnowgoose]

It's already beem stated that the facilities are available elsewhere, so again, why is access to CAMC or their decision not to allow it so important?

It's also been stated that most members wouldn't care either way. What is that based on?

Because, to put it simply, there are nowhere near enough of these "facilities" in the UK!

In comparison to our European cousins over the Channel, we are a veritable desert for aire-type facilities and, putting it mildly, living in the blummin' Dark Ages.

And, as a motorhome owner AND a member of the C&MC I would definitely feel discriminated against if not allowed to use the club's facilities without booking onto the site(s) for a minimum of 2 nights (is it still a minimum 2 nights booking, or has the rule changed now?).

What if I'm travelling past to another UK destination, maybe to another C&MC site where I am actually booked for a stay, and don't want to stop over at a particular C&MC site of the way, but just need to use the facilities before travelling onwards? Whatever - I shouldn't have to justify my reasons for wanting to do this! The whole attitude of this particular "club" (club?! Ha! Nowadays that's more of a joke than it ever was!).

It makes absolutely no sense - "club"-wise or business-wise!

 

[mariesnowgoose]

OK, in the cases of dogs and kids, a high percentage of members will have one or both, so I don't see any issue there.

But allowing access to the facilities, for example, could mean any number of extra vehicles moving around the site where children could be playing, bringing disturbance and any number of people into the facilities, reducing the time available for those already on site, and making more work for the wardens keeping them clean.

Obviously, exact numbers are not known, maybe the vehicles would need to park up and people walk from reception, and maybe it wouldn't be an issue at all, but as a CAMC member I would prefer rule changes like that to be put to the vote. If the vote passes that's great, then it's up to individuals to decide whether to renew their membership or not.

It wouldn't make more work for the wardens if organised and regulated properly - if it did, the bottom line for an outfit like C&MC (i.e. top heavy, way more unnecessary Chiefs than Indians) would be in frontline (sharp-end) "staff savings" - i.e. keep employing fat-salaried, clueless bods at Head Office and keep the minimum (in terms of both salaries and physical numbers of staff working on the actual sites) that they think they can get away with.

Exact numbers are known, unless you think the C&MC doesn't know how many members it has on its books?

Have you asked any wardens what they think of the way the club operates? That's if you can find the decent ones! I have.

Wildcamping seems not to be your "thing"? Your comments suggest that, at least to me, because you wouldn't be needing to questioning the logic in the first place. Just sayin'

 

[AndyWill64]

Because, to put it simply, there are nowhere near enough of these "facilities" in the UK!

In comparison to our European cousins over the Channel, we are a veritable desert for aire-type facilities and, putting it mildly, living in the blummin' Dark Ages.

And, as a motorhome owner AND a member of the C&MC I would definitely feel discriminated against if not allowed to use the club's facilities without booking onto the site(s) for a minimum of 2 nights (is it still a minimum 2 nights booking, or has the rule changed now?).

What if I'm travelling past to another UK destination, maybe to another C&MC site where I am actually booked for a stay, and don't want to stop over at a particular C&MC site of the way, but just need to use the facilities before travelling onwards? Whatever - I shouldn't have to justify my reasons for wanting to do this! The whole attitude of this particular "club" (club?! Ha! Nowadays that's more of a joke than it ever was!).

It makes absolutely no sense - "club"-wise or business-wise!

Ah, I see. It's all about what "I" want.

This is a wild camping group, many of whom may be CAMC members and share the same opinion. But does anybody here know what percentage of CAMC members are also wild campers?

The lack of facilities (disputed elsewhere in this thread) has no direct bearing on the decision of CAMC. Unless and until the leaders change their mind or put it to the membership this discussion is pointless.

BTW, I've stayed at a number of sites for just one night over the past couple of years.

 

[mariesnowgoose]

Ah, I see. It's all about what "I" want.

This is a wild camping group, many of whom may be CAMC members and share the same opinion. But does anybody here know what percentage of CAMC members are also wild campers?

The lack of facilities (disputed elsewhere in this thread) has no direct bearing on the decision of CAMC. Unless and until the leaders change their mind or put it to the membership this discussion is pointless.

BTW, I've stayed at a number of sites for just one night over the past couple of years.

Please don't take offence, but I'm beginning to think you might actually be a C&MC "plant" sent here to promote the club!

However, I certainly take (slight) offence at the "what I want" comment. Seems to me it's more about what you want - no facilities available to C&MC members unless they stay overnight on a site - whether they want to or not.

If you're so interested in "how many wild campers are C&MC members", maybe you could find out and let us know - it would (seriously) be very interesting to find out - and I rather suspect you might be quite surprised!

 

[AndyWill64]

Please don't take offence, but I'm beginning to think you might actually be a C&MC "plant" sent here to promote the club!

Not at all. I just like to consider the (reasonable) wants and needs of others, not just my own.

 

[mariesnowgoose]

Not at all. I just like to consider the (reasonable) wants and needs of others, not just my own.

Then it's a strange way to approach the "wants and needs" or others to be discussing why members of a motor homing club are being discriminated against, and defending that club.

Just how do you think that members using club facilities, but not staying overnight on sites, is going to seriously affect the experience of members who are staying at those sites overnight?

If C&CC are doing it successfully - which they appear to be doing already - what is so special about the C&MC site offerings that they don't feel the need to offer the same access for their members? After all, they charge enough already for membership and site bookings, so what make them so elitist?!

 

[AndyWill64]

Please don't take offence, but I'm beginning to think you might actually be a C&MC "plant" sent here to promote the club!

However, I certainly take (slight) offence at the "what I want" comment. Seems to me it's more about what you want - no facilities available to C&MC members unless they stay overnight on a site - whether they want to or not.

If you're so interested in "how many wild campers are C&MC members", maybe you could find out and let us know - it would (seriously) be very interesting to find out - and I rather suspect you might be quite surprised!

Apologies, no offense intended, which is why I said (generic) "I" and not "you".

It's not about what I (me) want - I've hopefully made it clear it should be up to the members to decide.

My question was the other way around - how many CAMC members are also wild campers.

 

[mariesnowgoose]

By the way, that's why is posted "good!" when I heard about their ransomware episode.

The C&MC need to seriously get their whole business house in order and start treating their members as valued members, and their members of staff at the sharp end as valued members of staff.

 

[mariesnowgoose]

My question was the other way around - how many CAMC members are also wild campers.

And as I said; if you can find that out it would be a very interesting statistic to have (sic).

Most of the members on this forum - and also on the sister site, motorhomer.com - will have done, or do, a mixture of wild camping and staying on sites.

It's just always been easier for those with motorhomes/campervans to wild camp in Europe than the UK. They are 100% more welcoming over the Channel than anywhere in the UK.

Since ****** and the 90 day rule it has become even more of an issue to find "aire"-type facilities in the UK, because many people who used to wander off to Europe at will and stay for as long as they wanted (wild camping or otherwise) are now restricted by this.

Many now look to travel around the UK in between their 90-day jaunts abroad, and wouldn't it be nice (and civilised!) to start having their occasional "aire" needs catered for here in a similar fashion?

If one of the biggest clubs in the UK are set against helping their members to achieve this, then I personally feel they deserve all the flack they're currently getting from myself and others.

 

[AndyWill64]

And as I said; if you can find that out it would be a very interesting statistic to have (sic).

Most of the members on this forum - and also on the sister site, motorhomer.com - will have done, or do, a mixture of wild camping and staying on sites.

It's just always been easier for those with motorhomes/campervans to wild camp in Europe than the UK. They are 100% more welcoming over the Channel than anywhere in the UK.

Since ****** and the 90 day rule it has become even more of an issue to find "aire"-type facilities in the UK, because many people who used to wander off to Europe at will and stay for as long as they wanted (wild camping or otherwise) are now restricted by this.

Many now look to travel around the UK in between their 90-day jaunts abroad, and wouldn't it be nice (and civilised!) to start having their occasional "aire" needs catered for here in a similar fashion?

If one of the biggest clubs in the UK are set against helping their members to achieve this, then I personally feel they deserve all the flack they're currently getting from myself and others.

Yes, I agree with most of that (maybe not the last paragrapgh) but this well drawn-out discussion isn't going to achieve anything.

 

[mark61]

If I were a member of a fancy club, I don't think I'd want you lot coming in emptying ya slop bucket willy-nilly either.

But I'm not, so empty away.

 

[Fisherman]

If I were a member of a fancy club, I don't think I'd want you lot coming in emptying ya slop bucket willy-nilly either.

But I'm not, so empty away.

Don't know about that Mark, you know what they say about empty vessels, anyway they would not let you in

 

[1 Cup]

I exercise the right to not be a member, This is my right ! I explore these islands in the van and some times I have to go to my second or third choice of
park-up.. 6m van.

I think it's the £50,000 volkwagan / vans that dictates the price for memberships ! As what they got for their money is brain-damaged . Sorry no brainpower. Sorry again Lol . A fool and their money is easy parted.


The fools have got it right on Dub meets though ! as it's more old school. So you'll have to look at what they do as a starting point for those websites to be worthwhile. For me and my van.

They know somethings will be needed to be left to improvisation, as you see them more on the back of recovery trucks or side of roads awaiting repair recovery . Lol

 

[Fisherman]

And as I said; if you can find that out it would be a very interesting statistic to have (sic).

Most of the members on this forum - and also on the sister site, motorhomer.com - will have done, or do, a mixture of wild camping and staying on sites.

It's just always been easier for those with motorhomes/campervans to wild camp in Europe than the UK. They are 100% more welcoming over the Channel than anywhere in the UK.

Since ****** and the 90 day rule it has become even more of an issue to find "aire"-type facilities in the UK, because many people who used to wander off to Europe at will and stay for as long as they wanted (wild camping or otherwise) are now restricted by this.

Many now look to travel around the UK in between their 90-day jaunts abroad, and wouldn't it be nice (and civilised!) to start having their occasional "aire" needs catered for here in a similar fashion?

If one of the biggest clubs in the UK are set against helping their members to achieve this, then I personally feel they deserve all the flack they're currently getting from myself and others.

We once used this option on the CCC site at Glencoe Marie.
I asked the warden how often they were asked, and he replied 3 or 4 times a week normally.
And this in one of their smallest busiest sites on a honeypot location.
Let's not forget unlike the many independent sites who allow anyone to use their facilities, this would only apply to members.
Thus limiting greatly how often this would be requested.
You and I and the vast majority on here know fine well why they wont do it.
And it has nothing to do with logistics, thats simply a rouge.
The fact is they despise wild Camping, plain and simple.
Hence why many Motorhome owners have ended their membership.
If a concerted campaign was launched to leave them I would definitely do so.
If it was not for my wife wishing to remain, I would have done so already.

 

[Nabsim]

Apologies, no offense intended, which is why I said (generic) "I" and not "you".

It's not about what I (me) want - I've hopefully made it clear it should be up to the members to decide.

My question was the other way around - how many CAMC members are also wild campers.

I was for several years but as I said earlier I chose not to renew because of their attitude to off site people. It wasn’t only the fact they refuse to consider allowing MEMBERS to use facilities for a fee as a service rather than paying per night but also they actively attack off site campers. There have been lots of instances where CMC workers have told people it is illegal to stay in vehicles not on sites which is a blatant lie.

I struggle with the label of CLUB for both CMC and CCC as neither of them are really members clubs, they are commercial operations answering to shareholders sometimes. Little thought for members.

Most of this is irrelevant anyway because if someone wants to joint something, abide by their rules and pay their prices is is totally their choice. The fact I may not agree is immaterial.

Whatever anyone does just enjoy if

 

[maingate]

Every one of you should be worried about your details being at risk by hackers. It is not juust the C&MC that has been breached. You might want to read what is in my link and start taking measures to keep yourselves safe online.

"The mother of all breaches": 26 billion records found online [Updated] | Malwarebytes

Security researchers have discovered billions of exposed records online, calling it the "mother of all breaches". Check what data of yours has been exposed online with our free tool.

www.malwarebytes.com