"Bru Peckett" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >Bruce wrote ...
>> Wasn't this what the Waterways Trust was originally meant to be if it >> hadn't lost its way under Robin? TWT was actually a failure from the word "go". It was supposed to be a (voluntary) membership organisation, but almost no-one wanted to be a member. After it became clear it wasn't going to fulfill its original purpose, it was sidetracked into running museums (not very well). TWT is an idea the time for which never arrived. >If one applies the pure commercial principles (got it!) to BW's operations >then the problem of continuous moorers will never be dealt with in a >satisfactory manner. There is no commercial benefit in actually tackling the >problem. If a way can be found to extract an increase in income from the >activities of that group of users so be it, if not the problem will be >effectively ignored. No commercial benefit? I don't think so. At the moment, BW gets no mooring fees from CCs. If it added the equivalent of ten-months mooring rent to what it now gets from each, it would have a tidy new sum. That looks mighty like a commercial incentive to me. David Cragg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >Maybe all licenced boats should be required to have a working transponder >fitted when they are licensed. This must broadcast their positions daily to >the BW automatic recording system. Boats without working transponders after a >first time warning would be removed from the waterways or their owners fined >for lack of... just like those without a TV license. BW could run the scheme >under the slogan 'Big Brother (BW) is looking out for YOU!' Much too modest. Require each owner to show up, in a suit and tie having shaved that day and had a haircut that week, at the local BW office at 7:00 every day. "Waterways -- if you love them, you'll love their rules". Adrian . Adrian Stott 07956-299966
