Easter hols and prices on or off

I made my feelings clear the other day regarding fulltimers using club sites in a way that is outside the ethos of  the touring/holiday/leisure purpose of the club.

However, at this time, it's good that the club is looking after its members and made sure they're safe. The club's action is also showing social responsibility in providing a base for them which cuts down on travelling and thus the risk of spreading infection.

I'd not wish the club to have acted any differently in the current circumstances.

You really have no idea why the full timers chose their lifestyle. I suspect that there is more than one reason. 

Before I met my OH I intended to do similar albeit for 10 months of the year. I would have kept my home (although a smaller one). Was I considering saving money? Not likely on mainstream sites. Site fees would likely have matched local rents for a small property near me.

agree 100 pct, my gripe is, that this group clearly discussed how they could reduce overheads by not paying peak period site fees, they floated the idea that maybe they shouldnt on here, and lots of people fell for it, so now, as i understand from the OP they have full facilities including laundry and who know's just how long they can stay.

OP has stated they are willing to pay, but why pay if you can perhaps dupe the club into not charging peak rates. Not in the spirit of things if you want my opinion

I am not interested in why they chose the nomadic life style as long as they are totally self sufficient , glad you would have been sensible as i suggested

Before I met my OH I intended to do similar albeit for 10 months of the year. I would have kept my home (although a smaller one)

You need to read the OPs posts as they have  now stated they do not have any facilities except water waste and EHU

No, JVB, they have since told us that the facilities block is open for their use.

I do think there's been a lot of confusion in this thread, not helped by incomplete information at the start. 

In my view, the club has acted correctly in allowing them to stay in view of their circumstances. However, I also think that, for their part they should acknowledge that they are being allowed a period of grace and since, presumably, they would have been willing to pay whatever the fees were in normal circumstances, they should be prepared to do so now (and from what I can make out they say they are willing to anyway, in spite of the "floated idea" of getting a reduction.)

Have to say, though, that I'm still more interested in how Ruby and OH are faring! 

think the boot is on the other foot, this is what the OP posted on the 27th

No utilities block fully open for our use

apology accepted

I understand your thoughts, Ruffs, but I'll not fan the flames.

As was said the other day, once this is all over, the club should perhaps look at the way sites are being used.

I understood that those who have been given sanctury by the club on the sites they are on was on useing their  own facillities basis if they have evertyhing on site as they state, then there is not a case for the fees to be any less than as advertised

Disagree entirely with the original OPs post wanting, or even thinking about a reduction in site fees.

Nomadic, travellers, call them what you will. I'm happy, as they should be that they have somewhere in isolation instead of roaming willy-nilly around the country. Both happy for them and for me.👍🏻