Interesting Petition Part 2

And where is that post? I've been through all your posts and I can find no mention of your's giving a list of the things done by the club solely for the benefit of caravanners

+1

Sorry Michael that should have read caravan & M/H owners, or better still "members of both the CC and the C&CC". However the petition is still divisive IMO.

No idea what the difference is but if the "couple" who run Britstops managed to open 200 new stops this year, just  think what could be achieved if even a small percentage of the folk who signed that petition became a bit more proactive and offered some practical support!

250,000 registered motor homes is 45 percent of touring vans

Surely your %age is wrong, peedee,  as there are over double the number of caravans to M/Hs. The actual figure should be about 30%.  (250,000 while the same estimate for caravans is 550,000). Still substantial but a fair bit lower than you were trying to make out.

I think that sometime facts are irksome. 30% of units might be motorhomes and 10% of those might use aire facilities in UK if they suited them for a night or two. 

Well spotted Nellle, I was in a hurry to go out and realised what I had done to late to correct. No matter it is still not an insignificant number of leisure vehihicles to ignoore. I bet the Club would'nt mind recruiting them all. CS didn.t spot it, just came up with some totally irrelevant comment of cars on the road.

peedee

Thank you to MichaelT for starting this thread and to Rowena for posting the CAMC response.

It is heartening to see that the CAMC was willing to examine the merits of the petition and to provide a considered, and constructive, response.

I don't think anyone would realistically expect change in the short term but to have it recognised that the idea might have its place in the future is far more positive than knee jerk rejection.

Nellie, replying purely out of courtesy...certainly not out of interest.

my full post on page 6 (and JVBs subsequent post which quoted it in full) are Deleted User as I used the word 'rubbish' in the first para, which now seems to be a banned word

you also quoted the post, but selectivly used the second part of the post.....which appears to have been allowed.....but makes no sense on its own.

the first part, which contained said 'word' explained the reason for the second part....

this reason (the caravan MOT subject) has been mentioned many times in the thread but, as expected, has been dismissed.....by caravanners...

had you read the full post you would have understood, but you chose only to quote the line to make your point.....wrongly.

had you quoted the whole post, like JVB, which contained the 'word', then the full quoted post would have been removed.

oddly, JVBs reply has been allowed to stand, but has no meaning as it replies to 'blank' post....

if you're going to be selective when quoting posts, you need to ensure you've read, understood and remembered the whole post.

if you had, there would have no need for this inquest and your mate could have save himself a few of his '+1's.

my last word on this. 

MHP - Glad your taking heart from Ro's post. I read it as a typically political response so wouldn't hold my breath too long.