Jump to content

The National Bargee Travellers Association has slammed plans to raise licence fees on canals like the Kennet and Avon


Alan de Enfield

Featured Posts

2 minutes ago, Goliath said:

So in turn a home moorer should not pay a license if they don’t use it?

(Don’t  use the system that is)

 

Correct, and they don't require one unless it is part of the commercial contract with the mooring provider.

 

I never needed a licence when we had a mooring nr Burton On Trent (Shobnal). I never required a licence when we were in Newark marina.

There are dozens of marinas / moorings where you do not pay for a licence unless you 'go out'.

  • Greenie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Alan de Enfield said:

 

No, not fair.

 

CM / CCers pay nothing and use the facilities 20, 30  more ??? times more than a HMer.

so to be 'fair' the CM / CCer should be paying £1500 / £2000 more than a HMer to be on the waterways.

 

You seem to be struggling with the concept of "pay by use" (user pays)

The issue is not just "pay per use", it's the hugely imbalanced costs between those with a home mooring -- typically about £3k-£4k year for mooring + license? -- and those who CC (or claim to) -- typically about £1k per year for license.

 

This is a very strong encouragement to liveaboard boaters-in-name-only (BINOs?) to claim they are CCers but ignore the rules and stay in one place, because it's 3x-4x more expensive to have a mooring.

 

One consequence of this is that CART lose a lot of revenue, the other is that the vast majority of boaters are p*ssed off by the CM p*ss-takers -- who are the only real winners here (along with "real Ccers", see below).

 

Adding a CC surcharge (e.g. +100%) would bring in more revenue for CART, reduce the BINO incentive to CM because a mooring is now only 1.5x-2x more expensive and has many benefits, and will reduce CM resentment among the majority of boaters -- so a lot of positive sides.

 

On the negative side, "real CCers" who actually go boating would also be penalised, though as CART say there is some justification for this (increased use of system).

 

Whether the positives of a CC surcharge outweigh the negatives is what this debate is all about, and different people have different opinions about this. However given that CCers are outnumbered by 5:1 I think it's crystal clear which way the consultation will go...

Edited by IanD
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, IanD said:

However given that CCers are outnumbered by 5:1 I think it's crystal clear which way the consultation will go...

 

 

I'm not so sure. 

 

CCers, CMers and everything in between have a massive incentive to respond to the survey, but amongst the majority of Home Moorers I think apathy reigns. I doubt more than one in ten HMers will even be aware there is a survey, let alone spend 20 minutes filling it in. 

 

 

  • Greenie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, MtB said:

 

I'm not so sure. 

 

CCers, CMers and everything in between have a massive incentive to respond to the survey, but amongst the majority of Home Moorers I think apathy reigns. I doubt more than one in ten HMers will even be aware there is a survey, let alone spend 20 minutes filling it in. 

 

I agree that the turnout will be low, like a lot of things like local elections that people don't care about -- but since I believe all licenced boaters were informed about the consultation by email or SMS (if they have it) they will be aware of it.

 

But even if far fewer take part than CCers and CMers, they're still going to be in the majority -- maybe as low as 2:1 instead if 5:1, but that's still way bigger than the 52:48 which was used to justify a *far* bigger change not so long ago... 🙂

 

We'll see just how the vote went when the results are published... 😉

Edited by IanD
Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, Alan de Enfield said:

 

Correct, and they don't require one unless it is part of the commercial contract with the mooring provider.

 

I never needed a licence when we had a mooring nr Burton On Trent (Shobnal). I never required a licence when we were in Newark marina.

There are dozens of marinas / moorings where you do not pay for a licence unless you 'go out'.

Personally I’m quite happy with that

 

Mind, it don’t feed the coffers

 

Edited by Goliath
Link to comment
Share on other sites

For the reasons I set out I fear peterboat will turn out to be right and the result WILL be 52/48 in favour of the status quo, plus the same percentage across the board. 

 

Whether this will agree with the decisions CRT have probably already made and are half way through writing the software for, I rather doubt ! 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, IanD said:

Peter, you're talking complete b*llocks.

 

If I wanted an empty canal so I can enjoy quiet cruising, why would I keep suggesting ways to change the license fee in favour of less well-off boaters, to prevent them being priced off the canal, and to extract more money from well-off boaters like me?

 

I've lost count of the number of times I've suggested this but it seems you somehow failed to read any of them, and just attribute views to me which are the exact opposite of those I actually hold.

 

In fact what you want -- a flat fee rise for everyone so you don't have to pay a lot more as a "persecuted" wideboater -- would help to do exactly what I want to avoid, which is drive poorer boaters off the canals.

 

Are you a sock puppet for TWC?

Cobblers you are looking to persecute CCers who are often the poorest boaters, most widebeams are on suitable canals where big boats belong, yet you keep on wittering on about space! I can turn my boat around on ropes the canal is that wide! The length of a boat matters not the width on proper waterways. When you ha actually owned a boat for a couple of years people might take you serious with your ideas

Edited by peterboat
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Goliath said:

Personally I’m quite happy with that

 

Mind, it don’t feed the coffers

 

Most people are happy with a solution which means them paying nothing or less -- except a few weirdoes like me 😉

 

But as you say, this doesn't feed the coffers, and if some people pay less then others will have to pay more to make up...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

32 minutes ago, peterboat said:

Cobblers you are looking to persecute CCers who are often the poorest boaters, most widebeams are on suitable canals where big boats belong, yet you keep on wittering on about space! I can turn my boat around on ropes the canal is that wide! The length of a boat matters not the width on proper waterways. When you ha actually owned a boat for a couple of years people might take you serious with your ideas

Cobblers again Peter, I'm not "trying to persecute CCers", just pointing out why a CC surcharge is likely to happen -- for which you can blame the CMers, not me.

 

Unlike you I'm actually trying to protect the poorest boaters by loading fee increases onto the better off instead of hitting everyone equally.

 

The space argument is one you don't like because it means you paying more. Charging this way is used in almost all land and marine cases around the world for very good reasons (simple and "fair"), the UK canals are an anomaly/exception.

 

If you actually read what I wrote, I said that -- like "real CCers" suffering due to CMers -- "real WBers" like you and Blackrose would suffer, largely due to the antics of the new liveaboard wideboaters in honeypot areas who are messing up moorings for everyone else.

 

And it's obvious from a lot of your postings (and others) that having owned a boat for years is no guarantee of putting forwards ideas that make sense (except for the benefit of you and your mates) or are backed up by reality, so perhaps lecturing me on that basis isn't such a good idea... 😉

Edited by IanD
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Lady C said:

It is not much fun walking alongside a derelict canal.  Also I think that many towpath walkers enjoy seeing boats, especially moving boats.

Best ask the ones along the Montgomery canal, un restored section where they want to ban boats

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, peterboat said:

Because their is still a waterways minister and the waterways still operate under laws passed by parliament?

Sorry but that doesn't mean CRT's waterways are owned by the public. Just check the Land Registry.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, MtB said:

 

 

Do you really not know what 'granular' means? 

 

Or is it the term "accounting" with which you are unfamiliar?

 

 

Ho ho. 

Yes, I'm aware of "granular". It means in the form of grains. "Accounting" too, it means adding up my income, taking a bit off and showing it to the taxman. Isn't that right?

But I had not previously encountered the two together.

Bet you knew that really.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, Athy said:

Ho ho. 

Yes, I'm aware of "granular". It means in the form of grains. "Accounting" too, it means adding up my income, taking a bit off and showing it to the taxman. Isn't that right?

But I had not previously encountered the two together.

Bet you knew that really.

 

imagine an accounting task needing separating into loads of tiny but definitely separate little tasks, like grains.

 

Have a think about what it might be termed....

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, MtB said:

 

imagine an accounting task needing separating into loads of tiny but definitely separate little tasks, like grains.

 

Have a think about what it might be termed....

 

 

Yes, I get the picture (yes, we see), as Paul C. had already explained it.

In answer to your second sentence...er, nit-picking? Making work for yourself? Tedium?...unless you can get a computer to do it, of course - they aren't easily bored.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Orwellian said:

Sorry but that doesn't mean CRT's waterways are owned by the public. Just check the Land Registry.

State owned, but in effect its Charles toy, so maybe I should send him a letter complaining about CRTs bad management of his waterways? I suppose Charles is head of state and we are the state so it's still ours :lol:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Arrr there any canal related things which get royal patronage ?

 

It is almost like nobody cares about such a wonderful national asset. 

 

 

Ma

Maybe these over privileged parasites have never experienced the true joy of crawling along a ditch in box section metal tube with a diesel engine at one end of it. 

 

I suppose they probably know about yotting in the med. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, MtB said:

 

imagine an accounting task needing separating into loads of tiny but definitely separate little tasks, like grains.

 

Have a think about what it might be termed....

 

 

 

Granular and granularity were adopted as software speak a fair few years ago, and more recently have become a part of general "newspeak". I have observed that a lot of newspeak arrives via the software and technology route.

In software it originally meant taking just the bits of code that you actually need (from a "code library") rather than just a huge lump of code, or at least thats what it meant the first time I heard it, so it is the degree to which something can be split into smaller components.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Some of the old maps like they have on the NSL National Library of Scotland are quite interesting as they outline parcels of land and indicate the acreage. 

 

Not that this shows ownership but it can help build a picture of the overall position regarding ownership of land.

 

I've not checked any canals but it might be interesting to have a look. 

I'll have to have a look at the Oxford Canal just out of interest and see if it is one long thin piece or if it is in separate parcels. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Orwellian said:

The following extract from The Trust Settlement between Government & CRT should help confirm the ownership question. Note the words in 1.1.

Screenshot_20230318-171602_1.png

Indeed it does 

C&RT are trustees (guardians) not  owners .

  • Greenie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It depends what you mean by "Owner".

 

"Estates in Land" come in a variety of levels. Does the leaseholder of a flat "own" the flat?

 

One school of thought is estates in land grant a right to occupy and/or use under various terms rather than actually owning it. The crown actually owns it all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • 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.