Jerra

As I said before it depends on the attitude of the mind that reads it. I am still waiting for your proof I am a serial offender. Any reason why you haven't provided it as you seemed so confident I am a serial offender?

Please point me to several posts where I have in your opinion displayed an I am all right jack attitude. I have done it no more often than you. However, as I said you frequently read the worst into posts and when challenged make sweeping untrue assertions as you have now.

Yet again merely commenting on a possible reason for why we have never had difficulties. however if you are the sort of person who always looks for problems in what people say then you might read it differently. Not my fault if you did.

I didn't suggest you could move often, I merely explained a possible reason for my not noticing that pumpouts were so thin on the ground. Don't jump to conclusions and read my reply to Ruthierruthruth.

Which is probably why we have not had a problem finding pump out facilities.

I am not good on canal geography but are there really places that are three hours in any direction to find a pump out? We never seem to have to go far before we find one when needed.

You seem to lack comprehension. No need to look back at anything. You clearly don't care about the canals and boating, hence such comments as let them rot. So all you have to do is explain why you keep coming on a forum about something you clearly don't care about. It is a little illogical don't you think?

In other words, you don't give a damn about the canals and their continued existence. Why on earth do you bother coming on a discussion forum about something you don't care about? To quote a certain super market chain "every little helps.

OF course and reducing the income of CRT makes using the canal even more difficult as maintenance decreases. As far as I know, these are ones which don't need an access agreement because either they were created before the agreement was introduced or they have a historic right because of things like being a wharf. If you can prove there is a marina which was created after access agreements were introduced you have a point if not the argument doesn't hold water (pun intended). Because they didn't need an access agreement. It really is simple to understand. If your business needed to negotiate an access you have to agree to boats being licenced. It isn't a choice to allow boats without a licence if you need a new access. There is if they needed to negotiate access. They made an agreement with CRT as the farce at Pillins showed they might escape for a time but eventually, they do need to ensure boats are licenced and they pay their dues to CRT. If you are talking about those with historic rights I am sure any business running the canals would want to have the same agreement for all. However, imposing conditions retrospectively doesn't happen. I am not sure of the point you are trying to make. How do you suggest CRt ensure boats leaving the marina are licenced, insured and safe (safety certificate) without such an agreement? You start by saying "Boaters have a problem.... being able to use the canals" so you obviously want good functioning canals. Clearly, you don't want less maintenance, in fact probably more. So can you suggest a more cost effective way of ensuring any boat that leaves the marina is licenced? I doubt it! So by arguing against insisting on a licence in marinas, you are arguing in favour of the canals degenerating and being worse for boaters and boating. Realistically which would you prefer no NAA and the vast loss of income or canals degenerating more slowly and being available for slightly longer? I know which I would choose. Have you ever been in business? We found with the two jewellers shops you made pragmatic agreements with your suppliers. To not do so made the business less viable. All an NAA is is a pragmatic agreement between CRt and the marina entered into voluntarily by the marina. The developers of the marina could have weighed up "do we want the marina here and sign an NAA or should we move to waters that aren't CRT controlled". Clearly, those with an NAA chose CRT waters. It is a simple common business practice. I look forward to you giving a detailed description of one of two things, your choice. a) How CRT maintain the canals in their current state let alone a better condition with drastically reduced income. b) How CRT make up the loss of income that you are pressing for. Assuming you can do neither then your opening statement re boaters having a problem rings hollow. If you don't have an answer to either of my last two points you clearly don't give a damn about boaters being able to use the canals, as without more income let alone the loss of income you are pressing for the canals will rapidly cease to be navigable. So the ball is in your court, choose a) or b) and give a detailed answer. Failure to do so clearly shows you have no interest in the survival of the canals as a navigable system.

The agreement regarding the marina and CRT has nothing whatever to do with licence conditions. IIRC there are three licence conditions and they have nothing to do with any business agreement between the marina and CRT. So basically I don't understand why you are trying desperately to link the two. I realise you won't accept this but I spent 40 years trying to get recalcitrant young folk to understand things so I might as well try with you. CRT have a problem, they need to ensure all boats (well as far as is reasonably possible) are licenced. They go for the most cost effective solution. That is to come to an agreement with a business that produces a win-win situation. All perfectly normal and legal. They agree with the business that the business can have a private entrance to their system (as opposed to lifting boats over the bank) in return the business agrees to have a requirement in its T&Cs that boats must be licenced. All perfectly normal and fully legal. Just as it is legal for a business to lay down conditions in its T&Cs e.g motor vehicles must be taxed and insured. What law has been broken? What business agreement is not normal? Why do you consider such everyday practices make CRT like the mafia?

So despite your wild assertion, you quote no laws broken and yet liken them to the mafia. Totally illogical. The situation with the marinas breaks no law it is a business agreement to allow the marina access to the canal. The marina like all businesses decides if the agreement suits it and its business. Nothing wrong or illegal merely pragmatism by both sides. I am off out for the day so will have to reply later.

The difference is simple the mafia kills, robs, etc. CRT doesn't. Which of the many laws of the country have CRT broken? Does the number of laws broken equal those broken by the Mafia? Was the mafia formed by a legally elected government (albeit elected by a minority of voters)?