Adrian Stott wrote: >> Trevor <[email protected]> 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. > Quite so. Which is why BW should be applauded with respect to its > recent increased effort to remove unlicensed boats from its waters. > Many removed are scrapped, as they are unsaleable. Fine - if it were a reasonable proportion of those craft which *are* presently unlicensed - but this proportion is, from BW's own figures when placed against even the numbers reported on this group, minuscule - and this is likely to remain so when the amount of time and effort that goes into each court action is so great. *Many*, in my view, is a very subjective word and one probably dreamed up by BW's publicity organ rather than being at all close to the truth of the matter - and I cannot think that you would believe that this was the proper word to use in this instance. BW faces very similar fences to those that local government have to hurdle when dealing with land-based travellers, and I appreciate that. But, if a vessel is illegally moored, then BW probably already has the right to be able to move that vessel to a safe place after serving appropriate notice (as local councils can do). That BW fails to either obtain, or use, those powers is why there is a problem. >> 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. > Why? On your own argument, those that remain have decided to keep > paying. No, you twist my words, Adrian; I expected better from you :( My argument is that those who leave, are forced for purely financial reasons from, the waterways will have a very limited value in their craft and these craft will be bought cheaply by 'A.N. Other' and are therefore more likely to remain on the water in an unlicensed state. All BW will have succeeded in doing is to remove the people who could afford to live on the water *and pay a reasonable licence fee* and replace them with people who, to put it frankly, don't give a damn about licences, insurance or a BSC. BW does not win - indeed it loses revenue from one who would have paid and gains a future liability which, when taken overall, will cost them perhaps five times the cash (and probably more) that they lost from the person they displaced. >> 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'. > Indeed, the waterways are owned by the nation. But, as with every > non-essential thing the nation owns, they need to produce a return. > Or, at the very least, they need to be run with financial efficiency. > That precludes giving away their benefits when those benefits can be > sold. Charging for the waterways is also the fairest way to prevent > their being over-used (because the only other approach is some kind of > arbitrary, and thus inherently unfair, rationing). No - you are totally, completely, and absolutely 100% wrong, Adrian! When did you last walk, free of all charges, through an English park? Have you ever sat on a beach and enjoyed the sea? Have you ever walked through a National Park? Ever crossed the Brecon Beacons, walked the South Downs or the moors in Cornwall, Devon or Yorkshire, visited the Lake District? Have you strolled through Forestry Commission woodland, and enjoyed the sounds, smells and sights of nature - or through National Trust land? When were you ever required to pay money to do these things (other than have to pay to park your Rolls)? Where is your *return*, that profit (which, unfortunately, appears to drive you so much) sought, or gained, from these places? Where is your *run with financial efficiency* - other than that their operation and availability to the public (and that is *all* of the public - not just those people with oodles of available cash swilling around in their trouser pockets) should be run efficiently and in a non-wasteful manner? Sure, before you jump to your keyboard I'll agree that the Forestry Commission plants and sells trees, but the public are allowed to use the land nevertheless - and still at no charge at all (not even to park in many places!). All of these places belong to the people of the UK - and so do the waterways! Your thesis *that raising charges is fair and done to prevent over use* is nothing more that the argument of a man, with too much cash, wanting to reserve his favoured place by excluding those who cannot afford it - no, you may not be a NIMBY in terms of what happens to the house next door - but you *are* a man who wants to reserve a part of a national treasure to himself and to his rich friends - and to the total exclusion of the hoi-poloi who cannot achieve your own financial standing - I never thought I would say this here, but this is an attitude that I personally find quite disgusting in this day and age - sadly, you are a Century out of place in your thinking, Adrian; you may get your wish but I will have nothing but pity for you should it ever happen :( >> 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 think you're blaming the victim there. BW has of late been forced > to reduce its staffing, as a result of unexpected and arbitrary cuts > to its financial support from government. Which is, of course, why BW has its 'new' 2020 vision - but, in the end, nothing will happen through it to improve the 'boater's lot. This is because BW is a weak organisation and has little appreciation of what it should be doing - providing and maintaining, a resource in the same manner as those authorities who own, maintain and allow free public access to the examples given above. Yes - BW has a more expensive resource than most of them - but then it should have opened up negotiations with those authorities, whose land it passes through, decades ago. It should have said "Hey, we are providing you with a beautiful river / canal and as your people are using it we feel you should be coughing up some cash to help us to maintain it - as you would have done if it was yours!" To negotiate from such a weak position takes guts, drive, determination and staying power - all of which the present and past boards seem to have signally lacked in their own drive to personal enrichment as, of course, their political masters have shown them the way. > BW's problem with enforcement is that it uses a poor way of doing that > enforcement. It it appropriately penalised those found keeping > unlicensed boats, or mooring them unsuitably, the revenue from those > penalties should not only pay for the enforcement activity, but also > provide substantial additional revenue to BW. And I *do* blame BW for > its poor enforcement approach. I suspect I have already answered this above - apart from your continued claim that by so doing BW will have profited financially from their activities in this field - which I very seriously doubt. Before you wrote that last paragraph did you ever ask about the real costs of their actions - against the monies they gained? As a man who is apparently motivated by the power and advantages gained by money, I sincerely hope that you did and that you can quickly provide us with those figures.. If I am wrong in my assumption that BW would have lost overall, in real terms, from <<appropriately penalising those keeping unlicensed boats, or mooring them inappropriately>> then I will, of course, not only apologise profusely but I will also promise to paint, spit and polish, any vessel I am in that may find itself close to your presence (I'll also cut my hair and trim my beard - and, if there is an 'r' in the month, even take a bath!) :-))>> Trevor [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
