On 21/02/07, Susan Burchett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > The BSS ... What I am > > intrigued about is why it might have been conceived as a 'money > > spinner'. Who amongst those who put it in place stood to gain from > > the process? > > BW. They and EA formed the scheme. The examiners pay a lot for their > training and the privilege of being examiners. BW could see all these > thousands of boats that would require certificates and could see a profit > margin. Unfortunately it didn't work like that. > Boating since before bss and seen the cock ups. BW can't even prove that > it > has saved any lives or accidents.
I opposed the introduction of the BSS and at the time attempted to obtain from BW statistics about the number of accidents it was thought the scheme would prevent, in order to compare it to the amount of accidents on BW waters caused by direct failure of BW equipment. Both figures were unavailable. When pressed, BW resorted to that hoary old chestnut that it was all to do with 'EU harmonisation.' . I don't agree that the test was introduced as a money spinner. Or at least only in the most general sense. The fact was that immediately prior to its introduction the canals were populated with many boats which would, by today's standards, be considered tatty. Some of you call them 'squat boats' - a term I find distasteful and insulting since it was only because of the commitment of these sort of boaters to the canals, that the canals had ever survived at all. But BW had at that stage formulated a long term policy about the people it wanted to attract the canals, and the way it would do it. Part of this process was one of clearing up the canals, much overdue because at the time I'm talking about, even some of today's honeypot sites were quite shabby. Now I cannot claim that the scheme was a direct part of this policy. It may well have been nothing more that the natural inclination of any bureaucracy to want to legislate. At the time, however, I felt no great no great groundswell of opinion in favour of the scheme either from those using the cut, or those administering it; and so I have come to believe that its primary purpose was to tidy up the canals in advance of the attracting the wealthy middle classes. For better or worse, and I couldn't possibly comment, that has been a singularly successful policy. Steve [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
