Continuous Cruisers

[John Orentas]

Bit surprised no-one has noticed that the 147% proposed license increase has been dropped (page 43 Waterways World). However the bad news is that we are all to be charged an extra 4.6% on our licenses from April. (page 54).

[DHutch]

Continuous Cruisers, For the very last time

Ahhhh, but it the the CC threads where always so much fun......

[Paul Evans]

Bit surprised no-one has noticed that the 147% proposed license increase has been dropped (page 43 Waterways World). However the bad news is that we are all to be charged an extra 4.6% on our licenses from April. (page 54).

Hooray! Just goes to show what a reasoned and orchestrated campaign can do. Would the proposal have been dropped if a range of organisations, groups and individuals had not pointed out and demonstrated the weaknesses (total wrongness would be a better description) in the assumptions made by BW? I think not.

[bottle]

BW has done what it set out to do, it was nothing to do with CCers, they are now going to charge the "boat share" groups 147% more.

 

They did not like it when the ombudsman stopped it a little while ago.

 

It's called 'distraction strategy'

 

 

Oh and ps they haven't finished yet.

Edited November 13, 2005 by bottle

[dragonflygirl]

... they are now going to charge the "boat share" groups 147% more.

 

 

Boo Never mind, we hope to be CCers one day

[Maffi]

Bit surprised no-one has noticed that the 147% proposed license increase has been dropped (page 43 Waterways World). However the bad news is that we are all to be charged an extra 4.6% on our licenses from April. (page 54).

 

That snippet came out in October, John.

 

 

4.6% doesn't seem much compared to 147%. But when wages are increasing by about 2-3% it's seem too much. I wonder how much BW salaries have increased.

 

Continuous Cruisers, For the very last time

Ahhhh, but it the the CC threads where always so much fun......

 

Are CCer's going away?

[Sue]

Nope Maffi!

 

And it's official now...

 

link

 

[gralyn]

Hooray! Just goes to show what a reasoned and orchestrated campaign can do. Would the proposal have been dropped if a range of organisations, groups and individuals had not pointed out and demonstrated the weaknesses (total wrongness would be a better description) in the assumptions made by BW? I think not.

 

Am I being naive - but I feel that the regular increase has spread the income extected from 147 % increase for continuous cruisers across the rest of us.

[fender.]

Are CCer's going away?

 

Never!

[NB Willawaw]

I know it won't be popular or palatable view, but in a country where there is an increasing division between the haves and the have-nots, boating is seen as a leisure activity for the haves.

 

Licence increases and the abolition of subsidised diesel is only the beginning.

 

Have you ever considered that this could be deliberate to stop the proles from utilising the loophole of cheaper (relatively) boat housing rather than struggle with spiralling housing costs (i.e. reduced residential moorings at increased cost; attempts to increase costs for continuous cruisers to regulate numbers and maximise revenue, etc.

 

Perhaps I'm just being cynical !

[Maffi]

Am I being naive - but I feel that the regular increase has spread the income extected from 147 % increase for continuous cruisers across the rest of us.

You said "regular increase", I assume that you were expecting that anyway.

 

Had the proposals for a 147% increase gone ahead would BW have still increased licences across the board?

[gralyn]

You said "regular increase", I assume that you were expecting that anyway.

 

Had the proposals for a 147% increase gone ahead would BW have still increased licences across the board?

 

Yes that should be expected but not by as much

[Maffi]

Yes that should be expected but not by as much

 

Maybe, maybe not.