"Graham Keens" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >My understanding of Fair is as an a verb
Oops. "Fair" is actually an adjective (unless you mean the fun variety, where it is a noun). > - free from favoritism or >self-interest or bias or deception; or conforming with established >standards or rules. Since we are talking about changing the established rules, your last phrase can't apply. However, I'll go along with the rest. I think, though, that you have left out various other things, such as "the punishment should fit the crime" (i.e. you should pay the cost of what you buy, consume, or impose). Trouble is, though, the current "consultation" is mired in self-interest. BWAF is a body of people most of whom represent organisations of boat owners who mostly own recreational narrow boats. Unsurprisingly as a result, the BWAF proposals are hugely biased in favour of those with recreational narrow boats. >Therefore I believe that the charges I pay to perform my chosen task >should equate to the value I get from it. After all, I am a PAYG >customer for Voda nad Orange and if I want more minutes or texts from >my phone supplier, it costs me more. If I use it less I then pay less. I accept that PAYG is fair. Provided that in a monopoly provider situation what you pay is closely related to the cost of provision (this isn't necessary where there is a properly-working market with several significant providers, as competition will tend to drive prices down towards the cost of provision). On the waterways, BW has in effect said that the cost to it of a boat navigating a km of waterway is £nil. So there is no justification for usage-related charges on waterways (except in special cases such as where back-pumping is needed, or where there is congestion). >Currently I am having to pay more to use my boat less and it does not >fit my understanding of Fair. Sorry, I don't understand. What situation are you referring to? >I agree with the earlier posting about the removal of the 'end of >garden' part of BWs charging system for both those on private moorings >or those within a marina which pays BW wholesale rates for connection. >After all, BW have told me that my EOG licence is because my boat is >occupying their water whilst it is on my mooring. I also believe it is >still occupying their water when I am weekending around the system. >Why should my mooring be an extra charge. Your road tax disk is evidence of your right to drive around on the roads as much as you like. However, you must still pay to park on the (side of the road) in busy areas. In exactly the same way, the right to navigate and the right to occupy a mooring are very different things, which you acquire separately and surely are rightly charged for separately. >If the licence fee for all craft was increased accordingly then you >would have the situation where the people who wish to purchase a >mooring ONLY pay for that mooring to who-ever they contract to supply But that is exactly what is happening now. You seem to have overlooked that for an on-line mooring there are two parties involved in making the supply. One is the riparian owner, who provides the tie-up points and access by land; the other is BW, which provides the mooring space in the water. >it. Continuous cruisers are welcome to continually travel the system >without the security of a mooring to return to as long as they do >continuously cruise. When they stop doing that, they should pay for a >mooring until they start again (as most do over winter) Continuous cruisers are in effect using public moorings (maybe quite a few different ones over the course of a year, but often very few or even one) in place of (paid) long term moorings. This is a much greater use of public moorings than is made by someone with a long-term mooring. I feel that that difference should be paid for. Adrian . Adrian Stott 07956-299966
