> Personally I favour the approach that the licence system > needs a complete > overhaul and that the licence for any boat should be > proportional to the > cruising range of that boat from its home mooring
Trouble with that is where do you stop. I know where you are coming from, but I could argue that when I had Badger, whilst the boat could cruise anywhere I could only cruise within 7 days of the home mooring as I could only get 2 weeks holiday and my weekends were too busy. Therefore I could demand a 90% reduction in license fee! Equally the boat wasn't suitable for tidal waters so that's those bits out (inc. the Lanky). Etc. Payment by length was always, realistically, simply a means of charging the "better off" more money. I don't see anything to justify the wide beam premium. I do, however, see a justification for the continuous cruisers premium - solely to make sure they're paying the same as everyone else! I reckoned in the last couple of years I had Badger I was paying more to BW through my mooring fee than through the license. The overhaul I've suggested previously would be for BW to remit all connection fees for marinas (other than a small "permission fee", the "non service" part of their own mooring fees, etc. and add it to the license fees. That way everyone would be paying an equal share of the cost of the system. Glen
