private mooring fees?

[MtB]

11 hours ago, tats said:

It's only a bit of watter...............

 

This attitude is so common. 

 

Just because the 'bit of watter' is there, it doesn't mean it happened by accident. The costs involved in making sure the bit of water is actually there are astonomical, and fees collected from boaters cover barely 10% of those costs IIRC. 

 

It reminds me of the flawed argument that train tickets should be free, as "the train is going there anyway, whether I get on it or not".

[ditchcrawler]

1 hour ago, MartynG said:

I think the license  fees are already high in the sense of not being good value considering what little and poor quality facilities are provided in return  . eg sometimes no or insufficient waste disposals bins and toilet facilities that might have been acceptable 50 years ago but should have been replaced or substantially refitted more than once over the last several decades . 

 

Yet the boats  still come in numbers that don't seem to be diminishing.

 

 

But if you compare them to the other large waterway in the UK they are well ahead. The Broads don't have any waste facilities at all. Try the Great Ouse that is very limited as well

At the end of the day boating is not compulsory, if you dont think it gives you value for money don't do it. I don't think paying £15 a night to park a caravan is value for money so I dont do it, or riding in a Gondola in Venice.

[Alan de Enfield]

There is an obvious answer to anyone not prepared to work to C&RTs rules and / or pay C&RTS prices.

 

Just do what 300,000+ other boaters do.

[Higgs]

 

4 minutes ago, Alan de Enfield said:

There is an obvious answer to anyone not prepared to work to C&RTs rules and / or pay C&RTS prices.

 

Just do what 300,000+ other boaters do.

 

Ok, I give up - what's that?

 

 

Edited March 8, 2020 by Higgs

[Alan de Enfield]

1 minute ago, Higgs said:

 

 

Ok, I give up - what's that.

 

 

 

Get off C&RTs waters.

 

Even on the Inland waterways there are 80,000+ boats registered, of which only about 30,000 are on C&RT waters.

Plus well over 250,000 around the coast.

[MtB]

5 minutes ago, Alan de Enfield said:

 

Get off C&RTs waters.

 

Even on the Inland waterways there are 80,000+ boats registered, of which only about 30,000 are on C&RT waters.

Plus well over 250,000 around the coast.

 

Careful now Alan, you'll set off the "I don't want to pay CRT fees, but I still want to use their waters, services and facilities" brigade...

 

Oh....

[Higgs]

1 minute ago, Mike the Boilerman said:

 

Careful now Alan, you'll set off the "I don't want to pay CRT fees, but I still want to use their waters, services and facilities" brigade...

 

Oh....

 

Anything on CRT managed water is the business of CRT. Anything that isn't, isn't.

 

 

[Alan de Enfield]

10 minutes ago, Higgs said:

 

Anything on CRT managed water is the business of CRT. Anything that isn't, isn't.

 

 

 

Does that include C&RTs water that flows into and fills Private marinas ?

[Higgs]

Just now, Alan de Enfield said:

 

Does that include C&RTs water that flows into and fills Private marinas ?

 

Water is not owned, it is managed.

 

 

[Arthur Marshall]

34 minutes ago, Alan de Enfield said:

 

Does that include C&RTs water that flows into and fills Private marinas ?

Now that's another one that's been done to death. I still find it peculiar that after apparently being on the site a while, and appearing to have a love of boating, the OP posts his first ever contribution by explaining how crap it all is, and successfully reigniting arguments that have bored us all to death already and got a few people banned.

I think he's Algernon Johnson's sock puppet just trying to distract us from the fact that narrowboats and especially widebeams are natural repositories for the mutated coronavirus, which now successfully moves between biodiesel and humans. The only one if us who is safe is Peterboat, and that won't last because it's in the process of being carried by sunbeams.

Edited March 8, 2020 by Arthur Marshall

[Chewbacka]

37 minutes ago, Higgs said:

 

Water is not owned, it is managed.

 

 

Try telling that to security if you walk out of Tesco with a pallet of bottled water?

[Alan de Enfield]

8 minutes ago, Chewbacka said:

Try telling that to security if you walk out of Tesco with a pallet of bottled water?

But you are paying for the bottles and the pallet - the water is FoC.

[MtB]

2 minutes ago, Alan de Enfield said:

But you are paying for the bottles and the pallet - the water is FoC.

 

Indeed. And Higgs is paying for delivery of the water into his marina and active maintenance of the levels by CRT. Amongst other stuff. 

 

But he does not accept this should be paid for. 

 

 

[Alan de Enfield]

Just now, Mike the Boilerman said:

 

Indeed. And Higgs is paying for delivery of the water into his marina and active maintenance of the levels by CRT. Amongst other stuff. 

 

But he does not accept this should be paid for. 

 

 

 

I know, I was being a bit naughty in post 58, but in light of Post 57 it just had to be done.

[David Mack]

If people think that licence and moorings are too expensive, why are we all boating in craft which are on average around twice the length of the boats that I boated on and saw all around me when I was boating 40-50 years ago? 20ft cruisers and 30ft narrow boats were widespread as privately owned and hire boats, enjoyed by families at significantly lower cost than today's 50-60 ft narrow boats.

[Higgs]

18 minutes ago, Alan de Enfield said:

 

I know, I was being a bit naughty in post 58, but in light of Post 57 it just had to be done.

 

That's quite alright, but water isn't owned. As soon as I find it, I'll even post your post, in which you state the determining factor that roughly equates to a notional idea of ownership. It is the land over which the water sits. Go to a lock that separates the waters 'of' CRT and that of the Thames, and separate the two. The water is managed, it is not owned.

 

 

[Alan de Enfield]

Just now, Higgs said:

The water is managed, it is not owned.

Agreed.

[Bee]

1 hour ago, Mike the Boilerman said:

 

This attitude is so common. 

 

Just because the 'bit of watter' is there, it doesn't mean it happened by accident. The costs involved in making sure the bit of water is actually there are astonomical, and fees collected from boaters cover barely 10% of those costs IIRC. 

 

It reminds me of the flawed argument that train tickets should be free, as "the train is going there anyway, whether I get on it or not".

You are right, Keeping a bit of canal open in raw cash terms is very expensive but there are many businesses and people who depend on it. I have no idea what that is worth, Interested parties come up with scarcely believable figures for these things and the tourist industry will say its billions, likewise the country sports people will tell you that grouse shooting is worth millions. Same as railways, the Government tells us that HS2 will bring 'investment' to the North worth a made up figure times 10. Their argument will be that the user pays and not the taxpayer, that sounds OK but canals tend to attract either the better off or the penniless on awful old boats and trains only the better off or the very cunning who can plan ahead to get a cheaper ticket. Afraid its down to politics, higher taxes, cheaper canals and railways, lower taxes, more expensive and people like me don't use railways or the British canals.

[Higgs]

47 minutes ago, Mike the Boilerman said:

 

Indeed. And Higgs is paying for delivery of the water into his marina and active maintenance of the levels by CRT. Amongst other stuff. 

 

But he does not accept this should be paid for. 

 

 

 

The water in at least one marina I know of was already there as a body of water. All that has changed is, there is now a pathway of water from one body of water to another, for the purpose of business. The previously isolated body of water had always been able to keep itself wet.

 

 

Edited March 8, 2020 by Higgs

[Graham Davis]

35 minutes ago, Higgs said:

 

 The water is managed, it is not owned.

 

And the managing of it costs money!

[MtB]

33 minutes ago, Higgs said:

 

The water in at least one marina I know of was already there as a body of water. All that has changed is, there is now a pathway of water from one body of water to another, for the purpose of business. The previously isolated body of water had always been able to keep itself wet.

 

 

 

Ah right, so this should apply to ALL marinas, obviously. Silly me. 

 

 

[Higgs]

30 minutes ago, Graham Davis said:

And the managing of it costs money!

 

So, now we may have established, CRT do not own water, but have a responsibility to manage it.

 

 

Edited March 8, 2020 by Higgs

[Athy]

2 hours ago, Higgs said:

 

Water is not owned, it is managed.

 

 

Yet I have known CART refer to "our water".

[Higgs]

5 minutes ago, Mike the Boilerman said:

 

Ah right, so this should apply to ALL marinas, obviously. Silly me. 

 

 

 

There is a little bit more to it than that, of course. The argument will be reliant on what is private property, and therefore what cannot be considered subject to a CRT demand for licencing.

 

 

3 minutes ago, Athy said:

Yet I have known CART refer to "our water".

 

I would tend to treat that as a figure of speech.

 

 

Edited March 8, 2020 by Higgs

[Alan de Enfield]

1 minute ago, Higgs said:

I would tend to treat that as a figure of speech.

Agreed, like 'our marina' or 'my mooring'.