----- Original Message -----
From: "Mike Stevens" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, May 23, 2006 11:01 PM
Subject: Re: [canals-list] Re: Licence fee debate - The final chapter
(for now)
Those considerations (both Steve's and Julian's) aren't actually
anthing to
do with pay per use, but with pay per potential use. What the
advocates of
pay per use want is payment per lock-mile, quite possibly at a
differential
rate where busy canalsw are more expensive to use. And this would not
be on
top of the licence fee but instead of it (or possibly on top of a much
smaller licence fee). Not that I'm particulayl impressed with the
advantages of the system, which would mean that people who leave their
boats
moored on their official on-line moorings for 50 weeks of the year
would get
away very cheaply, when, to my mind, they ought to be paying a heck of
a lot
for the inconveniencde they give to people who actually move about.
------------------------------------------------
What inconvenience do you mean, Mike?
Phil
:-)
SPONSORED LINKS
| Sports fund raising | Sports psychology degree | Sport psychology college |
| Sport psychology course | Sport nutrition | Outdoor recreation |
YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
- Visit your group "canals-list" on the web.
- To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
- Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
