Leaderboard

It's interesting that when asked whether a 17 fold increase in licence fee was likely you rubbished the idea and yet didn't give any valid assessment of how much you thought the licence fee would go up by, even though the poster asked for your opinion. The problem faced is that the canal system was renovated from decay and dereliction by others, starting with Tom Rolt, Robert Aickman and Charles Hadfield. It wasn't created as a business opportunity by either British Waterways or CRT since had the above three individuals not taken action there would now be no viable canals in the country. You seem to have the approach that CRT should be pursuing a business agenda to attract people onto the canals by giving them favourable terms whereas the agenda for CRT is to maximise income from whatever source to maintain a national asset. Your objection to an automatic income stream is not valid, how else can they make any plan for maintenance if they have no certainty of what their income will be. By relieving the vast majority of boat owners from any requirement for a licence except for the few weeks that most boat owners actually use the cut, the loss of income would rapidly lead to the demise of the canals (again!). I'm old enough to remember the derelict and trashed canals, are you? Your hope for the DEFRA grant to be 'secured for the future' is precisely that, a hope, and one that is unlikely to be realised by a Government that is intent on cutting costs throughout its sphere of influence. The current Grant arrangements run until 2027 (another 11 years) and for a Government that isn't financing other far more important elements of society (Mental Health Care, Elderly Care, etc) I wouldn't hold out too much hope for the arrangement to continue. I couldn't see much chance of a successful case for the Grant being made by CRT if they had ditched a source of income such as the contractual requirement for marina boats to be licenced, why would any Government agree to bail them out when they have abandoned a guaranteed income source? As has been repeatedly said in the past, if you don't wish to licence your boat in a marina, use one of the marinas that are exempt or alternatively use those who will store your boat on a hardstanding where a licence fee is not payable, as I have travelled around I see that idea becoming more popular.

I don't do anything other than enjoy my boating

By the same token, I don't have any children of school age so why is the tax that I pay used to subsidise schooling? I'm paying for something that I don't use, how unfair is that . Let the people with children pay the entire cost of schooling (by your argument). On the other hand I think that education is generally a good thing so, with an altrustic side and as part of a society that agrees with this, I'm content for the taxes I pay to be used towards education. It is far better that a large number of people pay a small amount for an amenity rather than a small amount of people try to pay a large amount. Much the same goes for the canal system, if the cost of maintaining the entire system was loaded on just the people who are out and about on it then in a very short space of time the model would collapse and we would return to the dereliction of the canals. Without the canal, the marina would disappear and everyone would be worse off. Perhaps you could encourage some entrepreneur to dig a lake somewhere unconnected to the canal system (there are loads of flood plains where instead of building houses like they do now they could build marinas) you could keep your boat there without any worry of having to pay anything to CRT, all the profits would go to the marina owner, all good really. I wonder why so few entrepreneurs do this.

I've put all my toys back in the pram now, there have been some interesting support from members, so I'll give it a chance. I guess it takes time to get used to a forum. I have a lot to offer, and even after 57 years of boating I clearly have a lot to learn. Thanks guys, Richard.

Douglas Adams: "I love deadlines, I love the whooshing noise they make as they go by."

Makes me feel ill. And all that dreamy music along with it as though this is a wonderful thing. It's just sad; "they" are wrecking one of the loveliest stretches and one of my very favourite locks with this awful development. I wrote and protested, even although I knew it would do no good.

They know me and they know I am a member of this forum ...... that kind of says it all doesn't it?

Nothing safer about a bowvthruster if you know how to handle a boat properly there is no advantage to having a bowthruster.

I have been to London five times in my 61 years. The last two times were taking daughter in to Uni and bringing her out 3 years later nearly twenty years ago now. You live on a boat?, it moves so why the hell are you there. Remember if the world had piles they would be in London

Patronising twaddle.

Many Years ago when we were younger and fitter we tried for a fastest attempt down Hatton Locks. There were about eight of us and the ground crew if not working gates and paddles were running. Being on a hire boat less than full length we got to a sequence that the top gates were shut and the bottom paddles open before the boat had stopped. We thus reckoned that at no time was the boat not moving either horizontally or vertically. Out eventual time was 80 minutes (1hr 20mins) which we reckoned could not be beaten by any kind of a margin. I would add that every gate and paddle was closed after we used them. Have looked it up and found that the date was 31st Dec 1985, picture: As a matter of comparison about the same time we (Different crew) tried the same up the Wolverhampton 21, our time was 90 minutes (Slower filling locks) Tim