--- In [email protected], Adrian Stott <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > "bty465680" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > >I use the term 'customers' lightly as we all 'own' the waterways as > >tax payers and should have our say, but this is no longer possible. > > There is no illogic in being both an owner and a customer at the same > time. They are different roles, with different rights and > responsibilities. > > For the system to work it should be difficult to duck responsibilities > but easy to exercise rights. Unfortunately, at present, IMHO, the > former is rather too easy, and the latter rather too difficult. > > Adrian > > > Adrian Stott > 07956-299966 >
You are, I suppose technically correct. I work for a shop, and from time to time I do purchase items from the shop (electrical retail). I do have the same rights as a customer if the product fails and go throught the same processes to resolve such situations. I don't think it would go down too well with my employer if I had to complain though, but that situation is slightly different as I actually participate in the running of the store and have some control myself. With BW, they should adopt a role of custodians of the Waterways, on our behalf, as they are a nationaised concern. They should provide everyone and anyone (as taxpayers) with appropriate access to the waterways for a reasonable fee, which could be calculated as a proportion of enjoyment obtained. Every walker, cyclist, fisherman, and of course boater gains enjoyment from the use of the canal system when they use it in their chosen way, and it should be reasonably easy to calculate how many visitors use the waterways and when and how often they use it. The costs of running the waterways is plainly obtainable, and there is much income from waterside properties etc that BW own. The remaining costs should then be shared equally between EVERY user, the non-boaters and boaters paying the same per calculated use per hour. It must not be forgotten that boaters are also tax payers and already pay a fair share towards the waterways prior to any licence fee. If it is calculated that say 2 million use the canals each week, then each tax payer should pay one two millionth of the cost per week after the other income has been calculated. That is EVERY tax payer, not just the two million that use it. If it is found that boaters actually use the canal at an hourly rate higher than other users, and I would dispute that they actually do, apart from perhaps when asleep, then a licence could be charged acordingly. Moorings would be charged seperately, but not auctioned to the highest bidder, but treated as part of the other income and at a rate to allow anyone who wants a boat to be able to afford it. The shiney boat brigade would go in to marinas anyway, leaving the on line moorings for thoe of us who are forced to survive on lower incomes. On line moorings should be encouraged, not dispised, they add to the colour and diversity of the waterways, and slow the pace down to a level that it used to be. More slipways should be built and should be available free to all to encourage new boaters to prevent the average age of boaters rising. Smaller boats should be allocated free or cheaper licences as they used to be (it used to be £2 for a day licence, now it's £10). Just an idea, we all do OWN the waterways, but are treated as the worst customers to be exploited as much as possible. That is my opinion anyway.
