Not looking good for us

[MtB]

Just now, Midnight said:

That must be where the water from the Huddersfield Narrow goes

 

Probably right.

 

Looking at my globe, its downhill all the way. 

 

[Mad Harold]

On 14/02/2023 at 15:35, Orwellian said:

But are floating on water provided by CRT and using a marina that wouldn't be there if it wasn't for the adjacent canal. Is your figure an annual one? 

Ah yes, but there is water and water.

This is obviously high quality CRT water. 😜

[Orwellian]

44 minutes ago, Allan(nb Albert) said:

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. 

 

You're correct. It allows it but doesn't require it. So if you pay for it why wouldn't you use it? If you don't that's your free choice. I pay my Council Tax but I don't use the library nor the swimming pools but I don't moan about it being unfair.

[beerbeerbeerbeerbeer]

51 minutes ago, Allan(nb Albert) said:

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. 

 

 

Fair or no, it seems reasonable that;

if a boat is kept on water which is CRTs water then expect to pay a license
if the water is not CRTs then CRT cannot charge for a license

 

I have always thought;

if the source of water in a marina is from CRT then expect to pay a license

if the source of water is from private land then no license is required until venturing out onto CRTs waters

 

 

 

[Allan(nb Albert)]

3 minutes ago, Goliath said:

 

Fair or no, it seems reasonable that;

if a boat is kept on water which is CRTs water then expect to pay a license
if the water is not CRTs then CRT cannot charge for a license

 

I have always thought;

if the source of water in a marina is from CRT then expect to pay a license

if the source of water is from private land then no license is required until venturing out onto CRTs waters

 

 

 

The marina owner pays for the water under the NAA as part of the 9% of gross income from mooring fees. The assumption is made that the marina is 100% occupied.

 

This cost is, no doubt, passed on to boaters in mooring fees.

[Arthur Marshall]

1 hour ago, Allan(nb Albert) said:

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. 

 

Usage has nothing to do with it.  The licence just allows you to be somewhere on CRTs water, with some other conditions added. You could, I suppose, argue that it allows you to use CRTs water, rather than the waterways.

 

[Rob-M]

Perhaps CRT should review the discounts available and remove some of them, why should someone with an electric drive and a whacking diesel generator to charge their batteries get a discount.

[Allan(nb Albert)]

37 minutes ago, Orwellian said:

You're correct. It allows it but doesn't require it. So if you pay for it why wouldn't you use it? If you don't that's your free choice. I pay my Council Tax but I don't use the library nor the swimming pools but I don't moan about it being unfair.

You are required to pay council tax to a LA because you have a house within its area.

 

You are required to have a licence because you use a boat in CRT's "area".

 

Would it be fair to pay council tax to a LA if your house was in another LA's area?

 

3 minutes ago, Arthur Marshall said:

Usage has nothing to do with it.  The licence just allows you to be somewhere on CRTs water, with some other conditions added. You could, I suppose, argue that it allows you to use CRTs water, rather than the waterways.

 

You use the marinas water which they have paid for.

[Allan(nb Albert)]

5 minutes ago, Rob-M said:

Perhaps CRT should review the discounts available and remove some of them, why should someone with an electric drive and a whacking diesel generator to charge their batteries get a discount.

They reviewed discounts a few years back. As they have followed up the 13% price hike by announcing yet another consultation you may get your wish.

[Orwellian]

3 minutes ago, Allan(nb Albert) said:

You are required to pay council tax to a LA because you have a house within its area.

 

You are required to have a licence because you use a boat in CRT's "area".

 

Would it be fair to pay council tax to a LA if your house was in another LA's area?

 

What a strange argument. A boat in a marina connected to a CRT waterway is not in another waterway authority area is it? If it's on an EA or a Broads waterway CRT don't require it to have one if their licences. I see you've avoided the 'allow/require' point.

[peterboat]

3 hours 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. 

 

 

Nobody forced you to buy a clog! I have a boat appropriate to the system I am on, narrowboats are the wrong boat for up here so stop whining and whinging about nowt

[Allan(nb Albert)]

3 minutes ago, Orwellian said:

What a strange argument. A boat in a marina connected to a CRT waterway is not in another waterway authority area is it? If it's on an EA or a Broads waterway CRT don't require it to have one if their licences. I see you've avoided the 'allow/require' point.

Not strange at all. In the case of a marina, the "authority" is the marina owner. 

[matty40s]

35 minutes ago, Allan(nb Albert) said:

 

You use the marinas water which they have paid for.

The marina dug a hole after BW decided to start charging a fee for every boat moored on its water along with floating in its water. If you are lucky enough to be in a marina before this charge came in, you just pay for floating when you exit the marina entrance

. 

[beerbeerbeerbeerbeer]

1 hour ago, Allan(nb Albert) said:

The marina owner pays for the water under the NAA as part of the 9% of gross income from mooring fees. The assumption is made that the marina is 100% occupied.

 

This cost is, no doubt, passed on to boaters in mooring fees.

..yes, I see that

 

so Higgs should really be moaning at the marinas for charging him for use of the water when he’s already paid a license to use the water?

not the other way around, 

 

 

[Orwellian]

56 minutes ago, Allan(nb Albert) said:

Not strange at all. In the case of a marina, the "authority" is the marina owner. 

But it's not a boat licencing authority so there's no equivalence to two LAs. The moorer has freely accepted the contract the marina operator has offered which includes a condition that the moorer ensures their boat has a CRT licence. The marina operator has complied with his NAA, they know the boat is insured and has a BSS (if required) because CRT have checked that for them. The moorer has their mooring and can then use the connected waterway as many times as they like or not at all. If the latter then that's their choice, just like me choosing not to use the library/swimming pool I have made a contribution towards. Where's the unfairness?

[matty40s]

37 minutes ago, Goliath said:

 

so Higgs should really be moaning at the marinas for charging him for use of the water when he’s already paid a license to use the water?

 

 

HIGGS will just moan about his marina.

That's it.

[IanD]

3 hours ago, Allan(nb Albert) said:

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. 

 

So you think it's unfair, but other people disagree. Welcome to the real world instead of Utopia... 🙂

 

Regardless of what is fair or isn't, I'm going to ask you yet again the question that you're desperately avoiding answering -- do you think that fixed moorers in marinas should pay less, and that as a consequence boaters who navigate on the canals should pay more?

 

Come on, yes.or no -- at least have the courage of your convictions like Higgs does... 😉

Edited February 15, 2023 by IanD

[Allan(nb Albert)]

43 minutes ago, Orwellian said:

But it's not a boat licencing authority so there's no equivalence to two LAs. The moorer has freely accepted the contract the marina operator has offered which includes a condition that the moorer ensures their boat has a CRT licence. The marina operator has complied with his NAA, they know the boat is insured and has a BSS (if required) because CRT have checked that for them. The moorer has their mooring and can then use the connected waterway as many times as they like or not at all. If the latter then that's their choice, just like me choosing not to use the library/swimming pool I have made a contribution towards. Where's the unfairness?

I think you will find that it was you that introduced the LA analogy. The fact is that a boat in a marina is paying the marina owner to be in the marina. Why should he pay CRT to use its waterways if they are not being used?

 

[Guest]

12 minutes ago, IanD said:

So you think it's unfair, but other people disagree. Welcome to the real world instead of Utopia... 🙂

 

Regardless of what is fair or isn't, I'm going to ask you yet again the question that you're desperately avoiding answering -- do you think that fixed moorers in marinas should pay less, and that as a consequence boaters who navigate on the canals should pay more?

 

Come on, yes.or no -- at least have the courage of your convictions like Higgs does... 😉

 

What I find particularly tiresome about you Mr. D is your prepencity to try and grind people down until the point they say

 

'ok god of all that is knowledgable about our waterways you are correct'.

 

Sometimes just backing off when you have made your point works better.

Edited February 15, 2023 by M_JG

[Arthur Marshall]

2 hours ago, Allan(nb Albert) said:

You are required to pay council tax to a LA because you have a house within its area.

 

You are required to have a licence because you use a boat in CRT's "area".

 

Would it be fair to pay council tax to a LA if your house was in another LA's area?

 

You use the marinas water which they have paid for.

They don't own the water, they rent it, otherwise they wouldn't have a marina, they'd just have a hole in the ground and a nice cafe. If you were being silly, which obviously I'm not, you could argue the boaters rent the water they sit on and the marina pays for the bits in between the boats.

[Momac]

42 minutes ago, Orwellian said:

The moorer has freely accepted the contract the marina operator has offered which includes a condition that the moorer ensures their boat has a CRT licence.

Not all marinas require this.

[Momac]

5 minutes ago, Arthur Marshall said:

They don't own the water...........

I don't think anyone owns the water.

[Orwellian]

5 minutes ago, Allan(nb Albert) said:

I think you will find that it was you that introduced the LA analogy. The fact is that a boat in a marina is paying the marina owner to be in the marina. Why should he pay CRT to use its waterways if they are not being used?

 

Yes but you responded by making a false comparison. The answer is because his mooring contract says he should which, as I keep saying, he voluntarily entered into.

 

Anyway none of these esoteric discussions will solve the CRT funding problem. There is only one way to do that and that is continued taxpayer support. So can I suggest that we all lobby our MP to that effect instead of endless discussions about fanciful licencing regimes and pointless debates about the NAA. And before you ask I have already done that. But he is a red wall Tory so probably doesn't care a jot.

[Allan(nb Albert)]

1 minute ago, M_JG said:

 

What I find particularly tiresome about you Mr. D is your prepencity to to try and grind people down until the point they say

 

'ok god of all that is knowledgable about our waterways you are correct'.

 

Sometimes just backing off when you have made your point works better.

I find the "when did you stop beating your mother" efforts quite amusing.

For the record (and for the forth time) my position is -
 

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

 

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

I can't understand why anyone should get themselves so worked up about this.

 

 

[Allan(nb Albert)]

1 minute ago, Orwellian said:

Yes but you responded by making a false comparison. The answer is because his mooring contract says he should which, as I keep saying, he voluntarily entered into.

 

Anyway none of these esoteric discussions will solve the CRT funding problem. There is only one way to do that and that is continued taxpayer support. So can I suggest that we all lobby our MP to that effect instead of endless discussions about fanciful licencing regimes and pointless debates about the NAA. And before you ask I have already done that. But he is a red wall Tory so probably doesn't care a jot.

Ok let's agree to disagree.

I think the lobby MP's thing was done several months ago by NABO.

17 minutes ago, MartynG said:

I don't think anyone owns the water.

True. It is the supply or removal that is charged for.