Hear! Hear! Trevor! Well said and well written. I 100% support your deep and sincere feelings, which are along my own thoughts!
What I want to know is, where are all the other "ordinary" people that should be supporting you wholeheartedly? I would like to see some evidence that you and I are not the only ones with these thoughts! Regards, ~Allan~ --- In [email protected], Trevor <listsandst...@...> wrote: > > Adrian Stott wrote: > > >> 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. > > > 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] >
