[canals-list] Re: Working narrowboats to pay the £50 "broad" beam surcharge?! (XP)

[rb999sb]

--- In canals-list@yahoogroups.com, Adrian Stott <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> "rb999sb" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
> 
> >--- In canals-list@yahoogroups.com, Adrian Stott <reply@> wrote:
> 
> >> What is being proposed is a fee that varies with your cruising 
> >range,
> >> i.e. how many km of waterway you can access from your home 
mooring.
> >>
> >Interesting if your home mooring isn't on BW waters.
> 
> No problem.  You would still pay BW for all of its waters that you
> could cruise to from there.
> 
> Especially no problem if this way of charging spread across all the
> waterways (i.e. those run by other authorities than BW too), as the
> complete (physical) cruising range could then be used in the charge
> calculation.  
> 
> >A long term mooring is no use to a CCer as it would get hardly any 
use. 
> >It would just create an artificial shortage of moorings and drive 
the 
> >cost of moorings up.
> 
> True.  But it is of use to the continuous moorers, and it is those
> that I think would get one (and a conventional licence) if all CCers
> paid a mooring component in their charges 
> 
> Adrian
> 
> .
> 
> Adrian Stott
> 07956-299966
>
Continuous cruisers and continuous moorers are two separate species 
and should be treated as such. Altering the charges for one to 
control the other is ridiculous.
Sue