BW advisory forum - blimey

[cotswoldsman]

Raise in licence fees is no surprise, everything else is going up. As a CC'er the extra £150 seems a bit unfair but guess it would put an end to a lot of the arguments that you hear.

 

The part that bothers me is this

 

Quote

 

and the forum wants tighter enforcement with the suggestion that user groups should establish a program of regular volunteer patrols to assist British Waterways in its enforcement of the 14 days rule.

 

Unquote

 

This would be very much open to abuse and the nosy parker brigade would have a field day!!!! As BW Wardens at present are the only people who can issue tickets and can only do so 14 days after they themselves have seen the boat do I read from this that now the nosy parker brigade will be able to issue tickets?? Would be a bit like neighbourhood watch issuing parking tickets.

[carlt]

and the forum wants tighter enforcement with the suggestion that user groups should establish a program of regular volunteer patrols to assist British Waterways in its enforcement of the 14 days rule.

 

Unquote

 

This would be very much open to abuse and the nosy parker brigade would have a field day!!!! As BW Wardens at present are the only people who can issue tickets and can only do so 14 days after they themselves have seen the boat do I read from this that now the nosy parker brigade will be able to issue tickets?? Would be a bit like neighbourhood watch issuing parking tickets.

I can't see them ever being able to issue tickets (though nothing would surprise me) but groups of vigilante curtain-twitchers, gleefully reporting their "catch" is very likely.

 

BW could issue a sticker, to stick on the side of the busybody's boat, like Baron von Richthofen (predating Godwin's Law, I might add), everytime a criminal is brought to justice.

[cotswoldsman]

I can't see them ever being able to issue tickets (though nothing would surprise me) but groups of vigilante curtain-twitchers, gleefully reporting their "catch" is very likely.

 

BW could issue a sticker, to stick on the side of the busybody's boat, like Baron von Richthofen (predating Godwin's Law, I might add), everytime a criminal is brought to justice.

 

What you mean have a sticker of a boat put on the side of the boat to indicate a kill, or in this case every time you have managed to have BW issue a ticket. Do you think that they will be able to report you soon for having a dirty boat and lowering the tone of the neighbourhood.

[Chris Pink]

I haven't followed the interminable rumblings on this thread but i assume you're all talking about this;

 

http://www.british-waterways.org/media/doc...eport_Aug08.pdf

 

rather than the narrowboatworld report.

[fuzzyduck]

My random 2c worth

 

So we're picking on the CCers again. Magic! Kind of makes me wonder just whom and where some of the publicity about continuous moorers came from.....

 

I think the question asked earlier bears repeating "Just who exactly are the BW advisory forum?"

 

I'm guessing as commercial licences aren't mentioned, that the BMF and that other shower APCO(?) are in there.

 

Interesting that the end of rivers only licenses is called for, do I remember reading somewhere that this would require an act of parliament?

 

Oh and widebeams are a target too, who saw this coming?

 

All in all, at the end of a quiet season (anecdotal evidence only, but lots of it) where it seems the number of boats up for sale is increasing, and prices are dropping, builders are going to the wall, BW in their infinate wisdom announce they're going to increase prices even more, and encourage the sort of people a fair proportion of us go boating to get away from.

 

What a bunch of retards.

 

I find I'm getting more and more fed up with the whole inland boating scene, and I spend more and more of my time pee'd off.

 

Looks like it might be time to head for the salty stuff.

[Chris Pink]

"Just who exactly are the BW advisory forum?"

 

Well they do not contain representative from any of the groups they spend time talking about; surely they should include a representative of so-called 'continuous cruisers' or 'continuous moorers' (now apparently an official BW designation).

 

So, a brief reading; if those with no home mooring are 10% and of those an unspecified percentage are the ones to be labelled 'continuous moorers' there can't be much financial reward in concentrating on them.

 

all you wide-beam owners quaking then?

[Lady Muck]

All in all, at the end of a quiet season (anecdotal evidence only, but lots of it) where it seems the number of boats up for sale is increasing, and prices are dropping, builders are going to the wall, BW in their infinate wisdom announce they're going to increase prices even more, and encourage the sort of people a fair proportion of us go boating to get away from.

 

Those extortionately priced yacht style narrowboats that builders are experimenting with suddenly don't seem so daft do they?

 

<fast forwards to 2012>

 

 

P Diddy boards his £500,000 narrowboat following his gig at Cropredy.

 

 

Well they do not contain representative from any of the groups they spend time talking about; surely they should include a representative of so-called 'continuous cruisers' or 'continuous moorers' (now apparently an official BW designation).

 

So, a brief reading; if those with no home mooring are 10% and of those an unspecified percentage are the ones to be labelled 'continuous moorers' there can't be much financial reward in concentrating on them.

 

all you wide-beam owners quaking then?

 

This BW marina moored boater is quaking. Lets see.... I originally paid £2k a year (in 2006) I now pay £3k a year. Theres a limit to what I can afford.

Edited September 5, 2008 by Lady Muck

[fuzzyduck]

all you wide-beam owners quaking then?

 

Not me, my little 27 footer is pretty cheap to license anyway. and If necessary I'll just go back to using short term licenses. (ah the joys of a marina with riparian rights)

 

However, I can't see the big boys with the 70 foot cruisers on the Trent etc being very happy, and they have money and connections.

 

Oh, and look APCO are there, little surprise then, that the boats that cause the most wear and tear will continue to pay the same (but less) and in return will receive more "services" from BW if this stands.

Edited September 5, 2008 by fuzzyduck

[tidal]

Thanks Chris

 

I wondered if I had asked an awkward question at first

[Richard Fairhurst]

I haven't followed the interminable rumblings on this thread but i assume you're all talking about this;

 

http://www.british-waterways.org/media/doc...eport_Aug08.pdf

 

rather than the narrowboatworld report.

 

Can I really emphasise the above?

 

NBW is talking about BWAF proposals - at that stage nothing more, and with a 2010-2012 target date.

 

But this afternoon - i.e. after the NBW report - BW announced it's actually planning to adopt some of them next year - that is, the continuous cruising and wide-beam surcharges.

 

http://www.waterwaysworld.com/latest.cgi#784

[sueb]

Can I really emphasise the above?

 

NBW is talking about BWAF proposals - at that stage nothing more, and with a 2010-2012 target date.

 

But this afternoon - i.e. after the NBW report - BW announced it's actually planning to adopt some of them next year - that is, the continuous cruising and wide-beam surcharges.

 

http://www.waterwaysworld.com/latest.cgi#784

Consultation is out of the window then. It is going to be great for the pensioners. Where do BW think people on fixed income can find all the extra money required?

Sue

[greywolf]

When canals such as the lichfield canal are eventually opened do the necessary have to be run by BW? as these could become viable to run independently as the prices charged go up,after all it is the trust that owns or leases the land over which the canal runs and the excavation is done by volunteers? It might provide some small opposition to the conglomerate and make local authorities think as to weather they should take these amenities under there control.This may of course be a case of out of the frying pan and into the fire i serpose Or more reasonably a charitable trust.I only ask this because as this goes on only the rich will be able to boat on the canals. As for the hire boats ,they also will go by the board as there prices exceed what people will be able to afford.

[sociable_hermit]

Tricky, this.

 

I'd always thought that the canals ought to be a national concern until I saw the difference between the Soar and the Avon. LANT and UANT do a wonderfuil job with the Avon and it's nowt to do with BW, as far as I can tell.

 

The risk with privatisation is that the people most likely to be attracted to the canals, and most likely to put in the most competitive bids, are aggressive companies interested only in the bottom line, rather than friendly outfits looking after the waterways and the heritage that goes with them. BUt in the case of new / re-construction schemes where the people involved have obviously worked hard and have higher motives than profit, I'd have thought it was a great idea. The catch is that it won't make the Government much money.

[Big John]

Consultation is out of the window then. It is going to be great for the pensioners. Where do BW think people on fixed income can find all the extra money required?

Sue

Agreed! Don't know where we will find 6.6%+£150 from. Our pension only goes up by 3.5%, irrespective of inflation. My willingness to pay has not increased, and I'll argue with anyone who says it has.

 

I note that NABO, RBOA, IWA & DBA all said their governing bodies are against a CC charge, yet user groups are to be consulted! What nonsense! I hope said user groups will get their acts together. Why was APCO's rep listed first I wonder? And why are hire companies increases capped again?

 

I wonder how much the BW executives & directors' pay increases will be next year? I doubt they will be taking pay cuts in order to help maintain the waterways!

I didn't notice cotton wool in Robin Evans ears on his all-expenses paid trip around the country with Mr. Salem, so it must have been ear plugs!

 

:lol:

[sueb]

When canals such as the lichfield canal are eventually opened do the necessary have to be run by BW? as these could become viable to run independently as the prices charged go up,after all it is the trust that owns or leases the land over which the canal runs and the excavation is done by volunteers? It might provide some small opposition to the conglomerate and make local authorities think as to weather they should take these amenities under there control.This may of course be a case of out of the frying pan and into the fire i serpose Or more reasonably a charitable trust.I only ask this because as this goes on only the rich will be able to boat on the canals. As for the hire boats ,they also will go by the board as there prices exceed what people will be able to afford.

Look at the state of the Basingstoke if you think it is a good idea for a canal to be run by the local authority.

Sue

[sociable_hermit]

I do think that local authorities ought to contribute to BW's coffers from their Council Tax revenue, on a towpath mileage basis, and preferably with an added weighting for inner city areas. Why? Because urban towpaths are used by local people for dog walking, fishing, cycling, drug-taking, spray painting, fly-tipping and for running away from the Police. Some people benefit from the canals, and ought to contribute towards their upkeep as a result, whilst others mess them up and ought to be paying for the damage. [i know the oiks are the ones least likely to pay taxes, but that's a separate debate]. Why should someone in a largely canal-free area of the UK (such as, let's say, Kent) be subsidizing the canals by exactly the same amount as someone living in Birmingham who uses the towpaths every day?

 

The key thing to remember is that this would only be successful if the expenditure were guaranteed by law, including increases in line with inflation. Because Local Authorities are mostly concerned with reducing their taxes in order to increase their share of the votes, rather than actually doing anything of any long term benefit to anyone. Assuming that local authority involvement is an automatic cure-all is sadly incorrect. It would need to be set in stone.

[greywolf]

I live in Birmingham,i do not see them trying to reduce taxes to attract the votes.but then i have not voted in a general election since labour abandoned socialism and a local election for as long as i can rember .The canal tow path in the city center is well looked after and can and is used as a short cuts.As for Kent not paying for facilities elsewhere i totally agree i look forward to not having to contribute to London and the south east in general that is irrelevant to the rest of the country, Dome, Olympics, the high speed link, Tate Modern, etc, unfortunately we all have to pay for things that we will use very rarely if at all.I very rarely see any fishing going on in The city center but there may be a few misguided anglers around and entering and exiting the network is problem as far as short cuts are concerned.I can only think of 6 pubs along that stretch and one of them is closing down.I do think the people of Birmingham largely ignore the canals as they do the various conferences that go on in our city,close Broad street on the other hand and you would probably get a riot. Not that your wrong in that assertion just that the benefit to the city populace in general may be less than you think. The Birmingham Fazley canal is probably more generally used for walking eg the area by the dog and Dublet than the central parts.

[fender]

Despite the BWAF sub licensing groups' apparent spread of representives I see there is one boating club that is over-represented (percent of members on the BWAF sub group) and there are vested interests in radical changes to the waterways scene including the removal of lower class boaters, CC'ers etc. There are also many private consultations with the BW management at top level, which many of the other representives dont have. One might as well sit back and let these people take over, because BW isnt going to listen to anyone else.

Edited September 6, 2008 by fender

[fuzzyduck]

Cool, according to the link Richard posted, I face a 17.7 percent price increase next year.

 

And you'll still be able to get 4 or more of my boat in a widebeam lock. Looks like I might be going back to short term licences on general principle.

 

I'm not just annoyed, I'm actually incandescent with rage right now.

[stickleback]

Do CC'ers need to pay for a mooring or not? It was my understanding that they don't - and therefore are using all BW provided facilities, constantly, as much as online moorers who are paying perhaps £1500 p.a. for the privilege Marina moorers will generally be using facilities provided by the marina, except when out of cruising - possibly a few weeks / months a year at most. On that basis, the boaters getting most value from the present situation are the cc'ers and those getting least are marina moorers.

 

But ALL boaters are paying a lot each year already - surely increases will force more and more people to give up their boats and an inevitable law of diminishing returns will result. A 9% increase is not very good if, say, 15% of licence / mooring payers leave the system - a net reduction in income.

 

So what would BW do then - increase licences / moorings further to recoup the loss? And another 20% leave the canals - eventually leaving a handful of cc'ers and no one else. Surely it's best to make sure that EVERYONE using the canals pays their share - licence evaders, fishermen(people??!), cyclists, dog walkers - boaters must be the smallest proportion using the system yet get stung for the lot.

 

Stickleback

[fuzzyduck]

Walkers etc do pay through the government's grant to BW.

[greywolf]

It will be interesting to see what they officially set inflation at this year 10%? or the official government assessment.

[moggyjo]

I like this bit from BW regarding wharfs.

 

"Britain is covered with castles that were built in medieval times when people had to protect themselves from invaders, but there are no longer battles, and no one is suggesting that we restore them to their original function. Why should it be different for canals?

[sueb]

Do CC'ers need to pay for a mooring or not? It was my understanding that they don't - and therefore are using all BW provided facilities, constantly, as much as online moorers who are paying perhaps £1500 p.a. for the privilege Marina moorers will generally be using facilities provided by the marina, except when out of cruising - possibly a few weeks / months a year at most. On that basis, the boaters getting most value from the present situation are the cc'ers and those getting least are marina moorers.

 

But ALL boaters are paying a lot each year already - surely increases will force more and more people to give up their boats and an inevitable law of diminishing returns will result. A 9% increase is not very good if, say, 15% of licence / mooring payers leave the system - a net reduction in income.

 

So what would BW do then - increase licences / moorings further to recoup the loss? And another 20% leave the canals - eventually leaving a handful of cc'ers and no one else. Surely it's best to make sure that EVERYONE using the canals pays their share - licence evaders, fishermen(people??!), cyclists, dog walkers - boaters must be the smallest proportion using the system yet get stung for the lot.

 

Stickleback

A lot,but not all, of ccers are retired on a fixed income or the poorer of society. What are they going to do when they can't pay the licence fees? Food & fuel will come first, no money for licences at the end of the year.

Sue

[fender]

A lot,but not all, of ccers are retired on a fixed income or the poorer of society. What are they going to do when they can't pay the licence fees? Food & fuel will come first, no money for licences at the end of the year.

Sue

 

We'll all congregate outside a particular crusing club and beg off its rich members!

 

(better not do that they'll have Salem down in a flash serving section eights!)