Jump to content

Chris Pink

Member
  • Posts

    8,598
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    39

Everything posted by Chris Pink

  1. I guess I do owe you an apology really, especially as the heavyweight hypocrites are now in the room. Your moaning about boaters "getting away with something" when you are squirming trying to "get away" without paying your due taxes has been fairly mild so I apologise for using you as a scapegoat
  2. he's not waving his shotgun around, he's waving his willie around.
  3. Has he said that? or is this the legendary Mayall psychic powers again?
  4. And I'd like you to either retract or produce evidence for your allegation about my boat use please. To return to the OP briefly, I have recently been told that Paul Griffin issued this boat with a Rivers licence as their movement was sufficient to satisfy the law. That is was subsequently taken away and a court order granted on those grounds implies strongly to me that this action wasn't defended and moreover, if it had been defended, CRT would have stood a good chance of losing.
  5. They are perfectly free to use red diesel for heating etc. it just has to be in a separate tank. I am tempted to use the abominable ROFL to describe Dave Mayall's entry into this "we'll find a loophole" hypocrisy. And I would like someone to tell me where I can get red petrol for my strimmer please.
  6. I think two tanks is the way to go. No ambiguity. no nonsense. red in engine tank = tax evasion = fine. Anything else is faffing around. And if HMRC faff around people will take the piss. Don't get me wrong though. I've nothing against tax evasion. It's hypocrisy that I'm objecting too.
  7. Quickly please Mr P, put us out of our misery
  8. Crap = you don't agree. How articulate you are. but wrong (again) you don't explain how you see yourself as more deserving that a camper van owner. I do realise this is going to take you some time to form the words. No hurry.
  9. Once again you are reading things into my posts that I didn't say in order to prop up your entrenched point of view. I have no need whatsoever to 'get away' with anything. Is this personal abuse a sign that you are losing the argument? If you are going to make assumptions and allegations about my personal circumstances then please back this up with factual evidence. BW were given powers to deal with the situation you describe, as I described above. Those powers were limited, intentionally, so as not to criminalise liveaboard boaters but simply to make them satisfy simple conditions that were also intended, not by or BW's solicitor but by Parliament because they are supposed to be representative of everybody, to make the canals available to everybody, not just a narrow band of users typified by yourself.
  10. Nobody's asking you to pay "road fuel duty" on your boat diesel. As you seem to be hard of understanding I'll explain again: you pay "road fuel duty" on fuel that goes into a 'road' vehicle (following so far?) If you were to pay full duty on your boat fuel instead of trying to 'get away with it', it wouldn't be 'road fuel duty" it would be duty on boat fuel. Being obtuse to save yourself, illegally, a few pounds of tax is plain silly. Amongst other yes. For avoidance of doubt; You, lyraboat, are a hypocrite. What go to all that effort and mess to avoid £2 (tops) a can? No I wouldn't. What I would probably do is buy 500litres of white diesel from a fuel merchant. if you want to use reduced duty fuel to run your heating and power generation then fit a 2nd tank. For you to whinge about paying duty on fuel put in your propulsion tank is, in my opinion, a rather shallow and ineffectual way of trying to avoid paying the tax you should by paying. Boats in Europe seem to grasp the principle, it's not complicated. As for the rest of your argument. I refer you to camper vans. directly analogous. If they want to use red diesel for heating and power they need a 2nd tank, end of story. unfortunately, the government, who set the rates, refer to it as 'road fuel duty' - that's just laziness because all other fuel duty changes in line with it. But I an understand why the Mailheads are confused.
  11. Exactly. Theft by tax evasion is achieved by keeping a low profile. I must admit Mr Kennedy, I've not seen you wading in the mob so I won't accuse you of hypocrisy like many on this thread. I have no problem if you want to defraud the government. What does exercise me is the hypocrites who use the phrase 'something for nothing" when referring to someone else but expect 'something for nothing" to run their boats on.
  12. It was but to extrapolate and say that it was only intended for for that purpose and not to enable those who do have a home area to behave within the same law is as I say simplistic. There is no hint of such a concept, wording, whatever. BW have come up with plenty of stuff since "continuous cruiser", "progressive journey", 'neighbourhood". The fact remains these concepts are not in the 1995 Act and to impute that as incompetence is like me saying the Theft was never intended to stop me stealing, they just didn't word it right. (see the fuel duty thread) if you want to call yourself a simpleton that's up to you, I called your opinion simplistic - It's that's your idea of logic it's no wonder you're so confused about the 1995 Act. indeed. They asked and Parliament said 'no'. For you and CRT to say they say 'no' but intended to say 'yes' is Looking Glass stuff. The Bill was debated for 8 years plenty of time to get that wording right. Your use of language shows exactly your bias " clear the towpaths" of " towpath dossers". That's a lot of people you just insulted there Tam both in 1995 and now. Maybe you, and BW think like that. Parliament put you right and said "the canals belong to everybody" as long as they satisfy on of two simple conditions.
  13. This discussion isn't about road fuel duty, though you are right about the wording for the tax on road fuel. It's about paying duty (at the same rate) for leisure boat propulsion. Perhaps you'd like to call it "leisure boat fuel duty"? There's no loophole there. Sorry.
  14. You shouldn't need the gunwales for ordinary operation (except for round a short cabin, for instance on a motor boat to get to the engine room. ) The coach roof is the operational deck for many situations.
  15. It's very very simple. Either fit two tanks if you want to legally use lower duty fuel for domestic or pay the duty and use the one tank. That's (essentially) the law which will be enforced sooner or later. You wouldn't mess around like that in France. You'd be sitting on the bank with a tax bill to pay in cash before you stepped back on your boat. I don't exaggerate.
  16. Aha, one of the right wing mob wanders into the room aftering lambasting NCCCCMCViXers for "getting away without paying their due" to argue for "getting away" without paying tax on their fuel by "exploiting a loophole" - you'll know the language better then I.
  17. Sorry, both you and Tam are splitting hairs. Parliament (the select committee) told BW to amend the bill and remove the then Section 18 otherwise it wouldn't be passed. And it wasn't just the IWA and RBOA there were objections from others and waterways-aware members of parliament and the lords. And you'll be able to show me where, in the bill, it makes provision to prevent the kind of use you are referring to? It's not like exactly that sort of use wasn't happening at the time. People have always used canals in very local terms both for commercial use and living. All the Act did was but some quantification around that existing use, ie 14 days and bona fide for navigation and satisfying the board. To pretend that all the people involved in the Bill were somehow unaware of these uses is to describe them as idiots, which they were not. The removal of Section 18 about distance, restrictions and no-return indicate the type of distinction you refer to wasn't intended. If "progressive journey" were part of the law it would be in there. See BW vs Moore. You, both, are being simplistic in order to represent a preferred scenario. It just ain't so and furthermore has nothing to do with this case unless it was defended.
  18. Sorry, Patrick, normally you talk sense. In this instance you've made this up. Evidence please that Section 17 c iii b of the 1995 Act was intended as you claim. Or is this just your interpretation. No sorry, you just made that up. There is no such thing as a "Continuous Cruiser licence" nor can there be under current legislation And to the both of you. The canal system does not belong to any subset of it's users. It belongs to all of them. If someone chooses to use the canals in a way consistent with the law but doesn't fit your desired pattern then it is you who are wrong not them. In this case, I would be surprised if there was a defence. CRT would not have needed to produce evidence and the Judge would have no choice but to award the case to them. No they didn't 'cede' the point. They asked for the provision to require a home mooring in the bill, Parliament refused it. That is a bit different.
  19. Nice bit of erroneous assumption there Mr D. I have lived aboard many years, worked boats, lived on them. I always keep the coach roof clear it's a working area, anything else is dangerous and ugly.
  20. Bimbling Pink maidens? You're talking my kind of language there.
  21. Interesting. Lots of high low tech ways of keeping the boat cool but completely missing the obvious.... ...moor under a tree.
  22. Indeed. And there is no valid argument why boats should not pay the full duty on fuel other than 'they never have'. I always laugh at these threads. They provoke a great deal of agreement that tax evasion is a good thing from, usually, the same people who are ready to jump down other's throats for perceived "getting something for nothing" or "getting away" with something. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Last time I filled up my camper I pointed out that I was using 10% for the fridge, 5% for the lights, 10% for the stereo and computer so I shouldn't pay all the tax. The nice man in the petrol station completely agreed with me and rebated the cost of my tankful.
  23. Yes. There is no legal procedure to refuse to license a boat for breaching the terms and conditions. The conditions under which they must license a boat are set out in Section 17 of the 1996 Act. And there are twom neither of which has anything to do with terms and conditions. Anti-social behaviour is a breach of byelaws and thus a criminal offence but that in itself doesn't entitle CRT to remove a license. So, in this case, in my interpretation, what they did was invoke Section 17 of the 1995 Act and, I'm guessing now, I don't think it was defended in court as, as Nick Norman points out, it can clearly be shown to be navigating all over the place. This forum stands witness to that when they stalked the boat.
  24. This post cannot be displayed because it is in a forum which requires at least 10 posts to view.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.