Actually Guy, what you say makes a lot of sense in more ways than one. I would be one of those paying the excees 50% but it is a simple way to operate and to police, probay enabling BW to reduce their admin staff and reducing overheads!
I hope you are all keeping well. Haven't seen you, or your other half for a very long time now! Kindest regards to you all, ~Allan~ (Pengalanty.com) --- In [email protected], "Guy Morgan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Strudwick.Family" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: <[email protected]> > Sent: Saturday, September 20, 2008 8:25 AM > Subject: Re: [canals-list] Re: I dont want to pay more make him pay more > > > >I don't think there is an answer to this debate that will not > > disadvantage one group or another. The choices we have are, we all > > suffer or we all suffer with some suffering more than others. Talk of > > radical new ways of calculating the licence fee ain't going to happen > > because they need large investments by BW or boaters or both. > > > > What we need to do is try continue to do is make government understand > > that a waterway without boats is dead and they need to pay more to keep > > the waterways alive. What we as boaters need to do is agree on a > > proposal and push BW and government to adopt it. All that is happening > > is that we are divided by self interest and BW and the government can do > > what they like. > > > > At the moment we have two choices the existing system or the revised > > system being offered by BW. The revised system is flawed as BW don't > > understand their own waterways but that could be corrected. Unless > > someone comes up with a new system which is farer to all and is cheep > > for BW to implement and run, I suggest that's it. The choice I suggest > > is ours. > > > > > > Paul > > > > Personally I think that there should be a flat licence fee with no regard to > length or width of boat given that the effect of both those parameters on > the infrastructure is marginal. That licence should (as it does now) > entitle the holder to use the waterways 365 (366 in a leap year) days a > year. > > There should be a supplement of ay 50 % on the licence payable by those who > are neither genuine continuous cruisers nor mooring holders, entitling them > to a semi-continuous-mooring option. In effect legalising towpath > shuffling but getting a financial return from it. > > Hmmm rereading the first para does it sound like I was in favour of the > Comunity Charge? maybe the fact that I don't call it the Poll Tax is a > giveaway. > > Guy > > > -- > Guy Morgan > First Light Services > nb Virgo, WFB, Stockton, GU >
