"Garry George" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >Sizism is the same as CC`s, as long as it is not you who are >suffering then the blame is theirs.
Not so. Sizism is discriminatory pricing based on an arbitrary and irrelevant parameter. Charging CCs more reflects that they are (on average) currently using public moorings a lot more than non-CCs, and thus are getting away without paying for moorings. If they want to use public moorings more, then I think they should pay for the privilege. Moorings cost. >Seen a boat moored for >more than 14 days....crush the boat, it has NO Rights to be there. Actually, BW's sanction for this is to start charging the boat £25/day as a mooring fee. The only boats that get crushed are those that have no licence at all, even after frequent warnings, and, when they are craned out, are found to have no market value either. >But then a boat that has a wide beam, here`s the maths to say it`s >not right to charge more. Correct. It isn't right, and I have shown why. So, are you saying that it *is* right, in which case please explain why you think so. Or are you saying that it isn't right, but wider craft should be charged more anyway? Which would seem a tad unjust to me. No-one has produced "the maths" to explain why it is not right to charge CCs more. I think that is because it is impossible, and that it is right. >What is needed on the waterways is the one thing that is >missing....to be together in what we DON`T want. OK. I don't want channels full of mud, I don't want channels empty of water, I don't want overhanging trees, I don't want locks that don't work, I don't want hsitis. etc. >You`ve rattled on about >CC`s and now they are thinking ( hic ) about charging for honey pot >moorings to stop the CC`s from over staying. If something is being over-used, and you want to increase availability (which I do, because I think queueing is wasteful and inconvenient, and thus unacceptable) you have only two choices: 1. Increase the supply 2. Reduce the demand But increasing the supply of moorings at honeypots is typically very expensive. So reducing the demand is usually the better alternative, at least in the short/medium term. I think that the fairest way to reduce demand, and to help fund an increase in supply, is to charge for the moorings. What's your alternative? >Each time that we want something to be fair Please define "fair". It is a term a lot of boaters keep throwing about, but no-one seems to be able to say what it actually means. I think it is very *un*fair to charge large boats more. They impose no added costs on BW, and their cruising ranges are smaller so they should actually pay less. I'm sure you agree? >We are now >going through a time when we all should be looking to the future of >the waterways, not the short sighted me, me, me way. Which is why I have been campaigning extensively for BW to be provided with a major capital endowment, to invest to provide a larger and dependable source of long-term revenue. >£50 is not a a large amount to put towards the maintance of the >waterways, £50 this year, £100 next year, £200 ... Read BWAF's actual proposals. And in any case that extra money extracted from owners of wider boats would *not* be extra revenue for BW, and so would *not* be paying for extra maintenance. BW has already set the amount of its total take from boaters. BWAF makes it clear that that extra money from wider boats would simply to go towards reducing the charges (i.e. share of BW's take) for narrow boats. That isn't a cause that I feel deserves my support. Adrian . Adrian Stott 07956-299966
