CL usage.

Given the demographics of the membership, the time the exemption was devised, there may be very little awareness of the reality of the 21st century employment situation and the economy in general. For those fortunate enough to have guaranteed incomes via pensions and leisure time to spend that disposable income on, all very well and good.

One of the reasons for buying our caravan and joining the club (it's not really a club, but a commercial organisation in the 21st century) is to be able to use sites and CL's when my work takes me away from home.

2 years ago the government introduced draconian measures against people not in employment in companies of more than 2 employees, otherwise known as self employed. Under that policy the ability to claim against tax accommodation, travel, subsistence as larger companies do was withdrawn. All travel, accommodation and subsistence has to come out of wages after tax. To give a perspective, my average costs of travel, accommodation, subsistence since I went on my own many years ago due to being over qualified, too experienced to be an employee,  runs at £38k per annum using hotels and pubs. I spend 5 nights per week away from home, often for 9 months per year when fortunate to actually have work, sometimes overseas that air fares now have to come out of my wages. Considerably less in the 2 years since being penalised by the Chancellor. If I were to be an employee of a large company those 'expenses' would be claimable by me as an employee and my employer able to claim against tax.

Day rates, when you work as a sole entity you generally get paid only when you work on a daily basis, no holiday pay, no sickness pay, no healthcare, paternity/maternity leave, pension scheme; have been driven down by about 40% in the last 2 years. 

In order to be able to work in this environment one has to keep costs to a minimum. Hence CLs and sites at off peak rates where occupancy is low. CLs are grateful for the income, as is the 'club'.

In simple economic terms in respect of the OP. 66.6% of the income generated by the CL is from workers, who are benefitting from being employed. Would you prefer them to be unemployed and claiming benefits (they can't claim for 6 months, hence why the official figures bandied about show high 'employment'. There are approx 2.7m people in this group, that the figures don't capture)? Subsequently not contributing to society and local economies. 

Who would begrudge someone working to feed their families and using a CL to keep their heads above water? Hopefully not many!!

If I'm fortunate to pull off the next opportunity I may be on a CL you are holidaying on. I promise not to ruin your break by not being there during the day.

I suppose it will always be the case that someone will try to justify breaking the rules. If five people were using a CL as a work base and therefore precluding its legitimate use for recreation/holidays would you think that would be acceptable. It is certainly not in the spirit of the reason that CL’s exist.

The decline in CLs indicates times are a changing.

The rules from 60 years ago are due a review. Rules should reflect reality on the ground, would you agree? From your avatar the aircraft was designed, built and operated for a set of rules at at a point in time. Does that remaining aircraft fly today, or have the rules been reviewed over time and reflection of an aircraft hitting the ground?

Are CLs being used exclusively by workers precluding holidaymakers? The example in this discussion says no. Do you know different? Have you been prevented from using a CL by someone not on holiday? If so, how do you know they were not on holiday? Did you get them evicted? Have you got rule breakers drummed out of the club for every, any and all breaking of the rules, regardless? If not, why not. Have you followed every rule to the letter? Or have you challenged rules that are not fit for purpose or are obsolete and required changing or re-writing or retracting altogether.

Was a gradual decline in the spirit of the reason for CLs to exist? In another thread we learn in 1986 there were 5000+ CLs, currently half that number. A 50% decline in 33 years. 

The spirit of the reason for CLs to exist was to enable people to enjoy the countryside. Society and the economy was different back then, times have changed, rules in society change, surely the rules of the CAMC should keep apace with the needs of the membership.

I'm not aware of being on a CL where people have been denied use for holidays. Are you? I always advise a CL owner if I'm intending using their facility whilst working away from home. Not one has raised a concern in any regard thus far. Perhaps, collectively, we are ensuring no one is inconvenienced by someone working being present, with an understanding of the rules and a realisation of reality.

I await my admonishment for your perception, with proof of any rule breaking I may have undertaken. 

On a similar vein. I used a CAMC site to attend a funeral, not a holiday break. Used a CL and a site purely to visit a relative on their deathbed, that wasn't a holiday either. Can you quote chapter and verse what rule/s I obviously broke? The CAMC were happy to take my money on those!!

What rules allow attending a wedding, christening, not holidays and staying on a club site / CL whilst in the locale? Doubtless your response will be immediate as you evidently know the rules inside and out.

Or maybe you will reflect in depth and work toward applying your evident capability in the arena of rules and assist the club in meeting the changing needs of members and revising rules accordingly.

Be a positive force for improvement in place of being stuck in the past.

There aren’t many things in life that couldn’t be bettered by a fresh approach, cobwebs cleared & modernising, including attitudes. Evolve or die👍🏻

Guilt your honour.  I have used cl's recently for work purposes and have not had complaints off any of the sites either fromm other campers or owners, I think as long as you are careful not to disturb anyone early in the morning it is nobody else's concern

The problem with you KeefySher is that you cannot accept that I and I suspect the silent majority of members are happy with the rules they signed up for when joining the club.

I'm happy for KeefySher to use the sites has he does. I couldn't care less whether the person on the next pitch is going to work or sight seeing when they leave in the morning cos it has no impact on me in the slightest.

And like instruction books & manuals, I suspect that most never read the rules before or after they join.

When I was working II made occasional use of both CLs and club Sites for short stays away. None of the sites I ever used were fully occupied,, and to the best of my memory the was on CL that I was the only visitor and another where there was was myself and one other unit. If this upsets other members then I better had resign my membership.

Not a problem for me challenging outdated rules created when the commercial enterprise that is now the CAMC was a club. That's how we evolve and flourish.

You haven't replied to my specific points in respect of rules and what you do about infringements you know of. Wonder if you turn a blind eye.

Weren't we once told that this sort of use was fine but running a business or trading from the site was taboo?

As the club deems it acceptable for members to stay on club sites when working (as a pizza delivery operative, for instance), why should CLs be any different?