Adrian Stott wrote:
> "tiamiboat" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
> 
>> I have to agree with Brian's comment about the time following up on 
>> reports of apparently unlicensed craft. For every complaint and 
>> report from good people like yourselves I have to spend time 
>> composing a suitable response having completed an investigation 
>> involving the team on the ground. Quite often the boat is actually 
>> licensed but not displaying. 
> 
> Then clearly there should be a hefty fine for non-displaying.
> Certainly hefty enough to pay you for following up the reports.

But spare a thought for those of us not lucky enough to live on our 
boats.  Licenses often only arrive a few days before the previous ones 
expire.  It's a 180 mile round trip to the boat.

I'm *not* visiting just to put the license fee on in the very narrow 
window I have between not having next year's license and not having a 
valid license.

I've never really got this bit about displaying the license for a 
mainstream canal boat.  Not since computers came in, anyway.  After all, 
if I was licensed last year, and I've not bought one this year, where am 
I likely to have vanished my boat to.

If simple terror and intimidation of those without a license can work 
for the TV people I don't see why it can't work for BW.  In fact, if BW 
took a leaf out of the TVL people they could start picking on all those 
millions of people who claim to not have a boat, but we know better.

Reply via email to