Trevor <[email protected]> wrote: >Adrian Stott wrote: > > > 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.
I agree that BW isn't yet dealing with enough of them. However, surely we should encourage it when it deals with *any* of them? >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 claims its powers are somewhat limited. So, users have now asked it to review its bylaws, and by doing so to get the powers it needs. BW has agreed, and has started the review, but all the work has been in-house so far. Consultation will occur later in the process, we're told. > >> 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 Er, does that mean the same as "you noticed an implication of my words I hadn't thought of"? >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. I doubt that. I think that in most cases if Person A decides that the higher nav charges have discouraged him from continuing to own his junky boat, I suspect Persons B, who is likely to be similar to Person A, will find it unattractive to buy the boat and pay the same charges. More likely that the boat will be scrapped. > 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. "Reasonable" is in the eye of the beholder. If Person B buys the boat and doesn't licence, ensure, etc. it, then then BW should remove the boat from its waters (see above), and should recover the costs of doing so from Person B. >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. Not understood. > > 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! Hey - it's nice to be perfect for once! >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? Although it wasn't copied into your posting, I had previously noted that for some types of use (e.g. walking on the towpath) it is uneconomic to levy usage charges. Your examples are all of that type. >All of these places belong to the people of the UK - and so do the >waterways! The identity of the owner of an item has nothing logically to do with whether a usage charge should apply. >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 - Nope. It separates those who are willing to pay from those who are not. For example, many people (whether poor or not) will wastefully water their lawn for hours if they pay for their water by the month, but will water it seldom and efficiently once the pay for it by the litre. >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 Obviously you don't know my friends. > > 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. I do think that BW could be doing a number of things better. However, I'm very pleased that it has realised that free use of the waterways would be a serious mistake. What does "improve the boater's lot!" mean? To me, it would include eliminating the dredging and vegetation cutting backlog, making sure all the equipment always works properly, and preventing squatting. For that, though, BW needs more revenue. I think it is better to pay enough for a well-run waterway. You can buy a rotten egg for much less than a fresh one, but would you want to eat the former? >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!" I'm afraid that might be a waste of time, as under current government rules the local authorities have even less money than BW does >Before you wrote that last paragraph [about making enforcement economic] 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.. BW provided some at the latest London user meeting, but I didn't take notes. However, I'm sure BWL would send you a copy if you asked. It has found that enforcement can produce revenue, and so has hired a new enforcer for the Lea Valley. He should be able to show some early good results, as squatters are everywhere. Adrian Adrian Stott 07956-299966
