Not looking good for us

[Arthur Marshall]

5 hours ago, Higgs said:

You can't justify what is wrong, by its usefulness to add money to the coffers. It only leads to tolerating the unethical.   

 

You could argue it's just as unfair that I have to pay to CRT twice what I pay to the farmer for the privelege of sitting in their water. Actually, we all did when we started doing it.

I still don't see how CRT justify charging £1600 for an online mooring with no facilities when the farms charge a quarter of that. But there's no such thing as "wrong", here. A business owner can charge what they like, that's what having a business means. The fact that it's virtually a monopoly makes no difference. Business has no morality, only people do.

I have always thought the licence should cover both moving and mooring (as it did when I started), and then you paid extra to rent your permanent bit of space. I assumed that the EOG payment was just a sneaky way to in effect increase the licence fee, while claiming they weren't.

So, add a mooring element to the licence, discounted by half (same as EOG) to those with home moorings. Scrap the mooring fee altogether. Saves a stack of bureaucracy. Charge for popular town centre moorings.

 

 

[MtB]

2 minutes ago, Arthur Marshall said:

I still don't see how CRT justify charging £1600 for an online mooring with no facilities

 

 

Blimey so cheap! That's SO UNFAIR!

 

https://www.watersidemooring.com/432-tyle-mill-above-lock-l1/Vacancies

 

Currently at £4,083.

 

 

10 minutes ago, IanD said:

As pointed out earlier, for houses and flats and land and boats and marinas and harbours all over the world taxes/fees -- and rent/selling price -- are set by area, because living space is what you're buying.

 

You must ne new around here, not to have seen the number of times in years gorn by when I've proposed exactly this, to be shot down in tatters by widebeam boaters claiming it is perfectly fair, as the can only access half the system. 

 

Which is a false argument of course. No-one forced them the buy a boat too big to fit everywhere. 

 

 

[IanD]

10 minutes ago, MtB said:

 

Blimey so cheap! That's SO UNFAIR!

 

https://www.watersidemooring.com/432-tyle-mill-above-lock-l1/Vacancies

 

Currently at £4,083.

 

You must ne new around here, not to have seen the number of times in years gorn by when I've proposed exactly this, to be shot down in tatters by widebeam boaters claiming it is perfectly fair, as the can only access half the system. 

 

Which is a false argument of course. No-one forced them the buy a boat too big to fit everywhere.

 

 

Nah, I've seen you take incoming flak on this loads of times... 😉

 

Given that most of them (and a lot of narrowboaters) hardly move even on the parts of the system they *could* access, that objection is completely spurious anyway...

Edited February 15, 2023 by IanD

[Allan(nb Albert)]

17 minutes ago, IanD said:

 

As pointed out earlier, for houses and flats and land and boats and marinas and harbours all over the world taxes/fees -- and rent/selling price -- are set by area, because living space is what you're buying. This is generally agreed to be "fair", you get more space in exchange for more money, and the shape of the space doesn't matter -- long and thin or short and fat, in the case of boats.

 

The CART license fee is an exception to this, for no obvious reason I can see...

Are you going to answer the question, yes or no?

 

"Starting from where we are now, where everyone pays the same license fee and plans their finances on that basis, do you think it's fair to increase the license fee (by perhaps 50%) for all those boaters who actually use the canals for boating, in order to reduce living costs for those who don't and just stay in a marina?"

 

Because this is the status quo -- the real world that we live in today -- not some idealised utopia where everything can magically be "fair", like nurses getting paid more than hedge fund managers... 😉

I think you are incorrect in suggesting that everyone pays the same licence fee ...

 

[Mike Todd]

1 hour ago, Bee said:

Fairness is a difficult thing to agree about. Is it fair that we usually pay for 12 months in a marina but spend 3 months a year out cruising?  (Not complaining just pointing out the difficulty of defining fairness) I think the real enemy is the government annual grant not being sufficient to support CRT because of its ideology that demands the user paying. This is sort of OK until it leads to a situation where CRT can't afford to maintain the canals and boaters struggling to pay the bills. 

We used to take a winter marina mooring and then declare CC for the main cruising season, taking a casual mooring as needed to return home.

 

When this became a problem we took a year-round marina contract on the basis that (a) we would have longish periods when nowhere near the marina and (b) we wanted the comfort of knowing that it would be available when we wished to return 'home'. 

 

In most of the matters we have discussed on this thread one buys a right/permission not paying a toll on usage. I cannot see how 'fairness' is an issue here as the choice is not really a moral one. Each of us makes a choice based on what suits us best, given that the suppliers are free to make their own rules.

[IanD]

11 minutes ago, Allan(nb Albert) said:

I think you are incorrect in suggesting that everyone pays the same licence fee ...

 

Doesn't matter -- of course it varies with boat length, but not whether you leave the marina or stay in it. And as I said, there are a few exceptions, but these don't change the overall picture.

 

Please stop evading the issue and answer the question -- do you think permanent marina dwellers should pay a lower fee and boaters who use the system to go boating should pay a higher fee than they do today?

 

Because that will be the direct result if your "unfairness" is corrected... 😉

Edited February 15, 2023 by IanD

[Mike Todd]

15 minutes ago, MtB said:

 

 

Blimey so cheap! That's SO UNFAIR!

 

https://www.watersidemooring.com/432-tyle-mill-above-lock-l1/Vacancies

 

Currently at £4,083.

 

 

 

You must ne new around here, not to have seen the number of times in years gorn by when I've proposed exactly this, to be shot down in tatters by widebeam boaters claiming it is perfectly fair, as the can only access half the system. 

 

Which is a false argument of course. No-one forced them the buy a boat too big to fit everywhere. 

 

 

And no-one is forced to moor in a marina with an NAA . . . 

[MtB]

3 minutes ago, Mike Todd said:

And no-one is forced to moor in a marina with an NAA . . . 

 

indeed. Those who object in principle are free to moor out on the cut and move every two weeks or even, shock horror, pay CRT 100% instead of 9% for an online mooring and never move, just like in their 9% marina.

[Orwellian]

44 minutes ago, Allan(nb Albert) said:

At the risk of repeating myself - 

 

It is unfair that anyone who does not bring a boat onto CRT waterways should have to pay licence fee.

 

I have never suggested that this unfairness can or should be corrected.

 

... and yet, again, it seems that defence of this unfairness is based on CRT losing revenue should the unfairness be removed.

 

But how is it unfair if landowners/developers/moorings operators freely build & connect marinas by entering into a NAA and attract moorers who accept the t&cs of the mooring provider? Nobody has coerced anyone.

[MtB]

3 minutes ago, Orwellian said:

But how is it unfair if landowners/developers/moorings operators freely build & connect marinas by entering into a NAA and attract moorers who accept the t&cs of the mooring provider? Nobody has coerced anyone.

 

 

C'mon stop being logical. It's so unfair of you to take unfair advantage.

 

 

[IanD]

3 minutes ago, Orwellian said:

But how is it unfair if landowners/developers/moorings operators freely build & connect marinas by entering into a NAA and attract moorers who accept the t&cs of the mooring provider? Nobody has coerced anyone.

I suspect that Allan and Higgs think it's unfair because they think that they should pay less and other people should pay more... 😉

 

(as opposed to me thinking exactly the opposite...)

[Allan(nb Albert)]

16 minutes ago, IanD said:

Doesn't matter -- of course it varies with boat length, but not whether you leave the marina or stay in it. And as I said, there are a few exceptions, but these don't change the overall picture.

 

Please stop evading the issue and answer the question -- do you think permanent marina dwellers should pay a lower fee and boaters who use the system to go boating should pay a higher fee than they do today?

 

Because that will be the direct result if your "unfairness" is corrected... 😉

Pleased that you have finally agreed that it is an "unfairness".

 

Well done!

[IanD]

2 minutes ago, Allan(nb Albert) said:

Pleased that you have finally agreed that it is an "unfairness".

 

Well done!

No, that's why it was in quotes -- that's conventionally how they're used when you think a word is either wrongly used or misunderstood.

 

Are you going to answer the question or not?

Edited February 15, 2023 by IanD

[Midnight]

1 minute ago, MtB said:

 

 

C'mon stop being logical. It's so unfair of you to take unfair advantage.

 

 

Is it fair the boaters moored (not much else they can do) in Yorkshire should have to pay the same license fee as those with access to the full system. 😆

[Alan de Enfield]

2 minutes ago, Midnight said:

Is it fair the boaters moored (not much else they can do) in Yorkshire should have to pay the same license fee as those with access to the full system. 😆

 

Maybe you could convince C&RT  that you are on an 'unconnected' part of the system and you could claim the discount.

[dmr]

Im currently moored on the Rochdale but I really don't like doing locks, I want lock free cruising, so propose that my licence fee should be proportional to the length of the pound that I am moored on. Sounds fair and resonable to me.

[beerbeerbeerbeerbeer]

2 minutes ago, dmr said:

Im currently moored on the Rochdale but I really don't like doing locks, I want lock free cruising, so propose that my licence fee should be proportional to the length of the pound that I am moored on. Sounds fair and resonable to me.

I think you should look to Westons Cider for sponsorship 👍

[Midnight]

4 minutes ago, Alan de Enfield said:

 

Maybe you could convince C&RT  that you are on an 'unconnected' part of the system and you could claim the discount.

We are on an 'unconnected' part of the system - it's so unfair 😪
... but the beer's good!

[Allan(nb Albert)]

Just now, IanD said:

No, that's why it was in quotes -- that's conventionally how they're used.

 

Are you going to answer the question or not?

I thought it was in double quotes but no matter.

 

So if you think its fair, why are you posing a question that assumes the opposite?

[IanD]

23 minutes ago, Midnight said:

We are on an 'unconnected' part of the system - it's so unfair 😪
... but the beer's good!

And presumably cheap... 😉

 

 

7 minutes ago, Allan(nb Albert) said:

I thought it was in double quotes but no matter.

 

So if you think its fair, why are you posing a question that assumes the opposite?

 

The question here is not what's "fair" or "unfair" bacause that's pretty much impossible to define, as this thread has shown.

 

You're avoiding, wriggling, diverting, answering a question with a question -- anything to avoid actually giving an answer. Brexiteer tactics all over again... 😉

 

The obvious conclusion to be drawn is that -- like Higgs -- you *do* think that static marina dwellers should pay less and moving actual boaters pay more, but -- unlike Higgs -- you aren't willing to admit it.

Edited February 15, 2023 by IanD

[MtB]

24 minutes ago, Midnight said:

... but the beer's good!

 

That's so unfair!!!

 

 

35 minutes ago, Midnight said:

Is it fair the boaters moored (not much else they can do) in Yorkshire should have to pay the same license fee as those with access to the full system. 😆

 

Of course it's fair. Nobody forced you to buy a license with all the associated T&Cs explaining the license just gets you the right to float on CRT water.

 

 

[Midnight]

8 minutes ago, MtB said:

 

Of course it's fair. Nobody forced you to buy a license with all the associated T&Cs explaining the license just gets you the right to float on CRT water.

 

Water??? You have water?

[Allan(nb Albert)]

27 minutes ago, IanD said:

And presumably cheap... 😉

 

 

 

The question here is not what's "fair" or "unfair" bacause that's pretty much impossible to define, as this thread has shown.

 

You're avoiding, wriggling, diverting, answering a question with a question -- anything to avoid actually giving an answer. Brexiteer tactics all over again... 😉

 

The obvious conclusion to be drawn is that -- like Higgs -- you *do* think that static marina dwellers should pay less and moving actual boaters pay more, but -- unlike Higgs -- you aren't willing to admit it.

I do not agree in this instance that "fair" and "unfair" are impossible to define in this instance.

 

A leisure boat licence allows a boat to use CRT waterways. If a boat does not use CRT waterways then it is unfair to require it to have a licence. 

 

Edited February 15, 2023 by Allan(nb Albert)

[MtB]

14 minutes ago, Midnight said:

 

Water??? You have water?

 

 

[Midnight]

29 minutes ago, MtB said:

 

 

That must be where the water from the Huddersfield Narrow goes