Hi Trevor, I don't think we have ever met but I wholeheartedly agree with your very full and descriptive argument (Debate) written here.
Would it not be a good idea to suggest to Adrian (And others like him,), that if Adrian doesn't like what is going on, he shuts up spouting at the BW meetings, where he is NOT THE AVERAGE representative of the users *ordinary people* on the canals and gets himself (The minority) off the canals and goes and spouts somewhere else? I have no time for the NIMBY brigade. There are many people like me, who like a quite life on the canals, in general try to keep to the regulation and at the same time abhor the beauocracy being brought onto the canals these days. It is not akin to canal life. I cannot afford any more, (Being on my pension, which becomes less in value as each year passes!) Why should the canals be limited to the pastime of the more wealthy of society? It should not be governed by out-pricing the amenities for ordinary people, like me. Are the fishermen, cyclists and walkers going to be out-priced too, I ask myself? Trevor - I support you and your fair reasoning and debate on this subject wholeheartedly. Now! I guess I have blotted my copybook and will probably irritate the wrath of others, (Who shall remain nameless,) who would like to see us all off the canals, or so it seems! Regards to you Trevor, ~Allan~ --- In [email protected], Trevor <listsandst...@...> wrote: > > This argument does not hold water - some boaters may well take up > another hobby but there is absolutely no guarantee that these craft will > either be taken abroad or scrapped. > > A much more likely scenario is that these craft will fail to be properly > maintained, that more will fail or ignore their BSC and end up > unlicensed - and in the hands of the very people that some here so > obviously despise. > > BW will *not* be ahead; revenue from those able and willing to pay may > possibly go up temporarily - but the end result will inevitably be self > defeating. > > It occasionally comes across to me, as I read posts to this group, that > some of these people appear to be those who who would like the system > (and that system is one which we should always remember is actually > owned *by* the nation, and is therefore *for* the nation, and which was > certainly not originally intended to be reserved for just for a > privileged few) to be their *personal* preserve, and thus free from the > presence of the common man - there are, or so it seems to me, more than > a few archetypal NIMBYs present 'on the cut'. > > BW, as we read here at regular intervals, is quite unable to maintain > the system properly; their available manpower 'on the ground' continues > to diminish at regular intervals - and that includes those whose duty > was once to police both the system and licenses. > > I do share Sue's concerns about the people who BW regularly see at their > meetings, the true voice of the (dare I use the word 'common' again?) > canal user is not at all made representative by Adrian's presence, > despite his obvious personal belief that it is. > > This situation will only change when the greater number of regular canal > *users* (not *moorers*) shake off their present apathy and become a more > organised body of people speaking with a common (*that* word again, > sorry) and powerful voice. These organisations exist now, in one form or > another, they should be joined and supported - not just by membership > but by taking part, on a local and national level, and certainly before > the NIMBYs take over the waterways. > > BW cannot carry all the blame - they can only listen to those who speak. > > Trevor > > Adrian Stott wrote: > > BW's charges (except for moorings) are now well below the > > market-clearing level, as evidenced by the continuing increase in the > > number of boats. So, BW increases its navigation charges to the point > > of maximum revenue. A number of current boaters will decide to take > > up another hobby, but BW will still be ahead (fewer boats, but more > > revenue from each on average). The waterways will be less crowded. > > > > Also might consider transit charges for overly-busy (e.g. Braunston > > flight) or water shortage routes, to encourage less traffic there and > > more on lightly-used ones. > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] >
