On 18 Sep 2008, at 11:10, Bob Wood wrote: > 2008/9/18 Adrian Stott <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > >> Well, that would fail. Council Tax is, er, a tax. BW's charges are >> the price of a service. > > Your argument falls almost at the first hurdle. BW's charge is a > 'licence' and is payable whether or not you use its services.
Hmmm. Semantics, surely? Many folk pay a 'service charge' to live in a block of flats and this is typically the same year on year whether the management company just mows the grass round the building or puts a new roof on. I pay a 'road fund licence' for the car whether I do 1,000 miles or 20,000, but that's really just a tax. The question is, whether BW's position as a 'monopoly supplier' should constrain its ability to try and generate extra revenue from those users it perceives, rightly or wrongly, to be able to pay more [widebeamers] or wishes to discourage [continuous moorers]. > On that account I saved myself the bother of reading the rest. I bet you did :-) Baz
