Stop EU banning red diesel use for Narrowboats. sign UGov petition here

[Hawkmoth]

 

I am tempted to use the abominable ROFL to describe Dave Mayall's entry into this "we'll find a loophole" hypocrisy.

 

 

I'm still waiting to your reason for calling me a hypocrite. Or is name calling all you do for people who disagree with you on a discussion forum?

[Doorman]

The argument that motorists pay a lot more than the cost of road maintenance is a little specious, Mike. For example, a study conducted in Germany published in 2012 determined that the true cost as a result of vehicle use in the UK was £815 per person. That is because you are failing to take into account the cost incurred by the NHS through accidents, the cost of police and emergency services, the cost of the pollution and environmental damage, and the cost of the contribution vehicles make to climate change. So motorists are in fact subsidised by the taxpayer. Just thought I'd throw that in to the mix.

Specious it might be Dominic, but a valid point none the less.

 

As users of fuel that is taxed twice, vat on top of duty, I would imagine that motorists contribute very fairly towards the invisible costs that you quote. I'm sure the average motorist pays more than £815 per annum when you add 'road tax' to the duty and vat incurred through fuel purchase.

[OldGoat]

 

Very probably, but leaving aside the various posts suggesting ways to get around the law (of which I firmly do NOT approve), it is an entirely legitimate aim for boaters to seek to retain the status quo on the taxation of diesel. Indeed it is always a legitimate aim for anybody to lobby and campaign against a change to taxation that will be to their detriment.

 

In the case of our use of red diesel, the facility to use red for propulsion was lost, and whilst people argued against it (because they didn't want to pay more), it was not an argument that could be sustained. The old "road duty" argumnent was specious, and financially painful as it is, there isn't a valid argument against it.

 

The present situation with splits, however, is a pragmatic approach to retaining fairness.

 

It is the undisputed situation that rebated fuel can presently be used for domestic purposes, and whilst that situation remains the case, boaters should be enabled to use rebated fuel for domestic purposes.

 

Due to the previous regime, and due to the present split arrangements, very few boats are fitted with dual tanks and to do so would be an expensive modification that would likely outweigh many years of rebate for most boaters. Indeed with the way that taxes change there is every prospect that at some future date the availability of rebated domestic fuel may cease, so it is not ecomomically viable for most boaters to fit dual tanks.

 

There is also the legitimate aim in allowing the current system that moving to a two tank setup will inevitably cause more boaters to refil from cans rather than from canalside outlets or fuel boats, with a resultant increase in spillages into the canals with an associated environmental impact.

 

Dual tanks, IMHO would be rather pointless as it ignores the point that waterside (or on the water) suppliers are VERY unlikely to install two sets of tanks - their fuel sales profits are slender at best.

 

Your point about environmental impact is very important and was significant in HMRC's decision in the first place.

[carlt]

 

 

Your point about environmental impact is very important and was significant in HMRC's decision in the first place.

and yet, as I said earlier, the potential for a real environmental incident lies not in an odd careless boater splashing a few ccs out of their jerry can but the odd careless boater or operator pumping gallons of diesel into the cut by leaving a pump unattended.

[Jerra]

The duty, is for propulsion, the use is domestic.

The point I was trying to make (obviously unsuccessfully) was it is fuel duty not propulsion fuel duty. HMRC and the gov website do not mention road or propulsion. So as far as I can see it depends on the individual if they want to/can alter the system to use fuel of one duty level for domestic fine. If they can't/don't want to then they are forced to use a fuel of a different duty level. Nothing to do with the duty level being for propulsion.

 

Cars which run on gas pay a different level of duty and it is still for propulsion. Petrol engined boats may have a by product (heat, electricity) from their petrol engine but again the duty is just plain fuel duty not road or propulsion duty.

Edited July 22, 2013 by Jerra

[Paul C]

The point I was trying to make (obviously unsuccessfully) was it is fuel duty not propulsion fuel duty. HMRC and the gov website do not mention road or propulsion. So as far as I can see it depends on the individual if they want to/can alter the system to use fuel of one duty level for domestic fine. If they can't/don't want to then they are forced to use a fuel of a different duty level. Nothing to do with the duty level being for propulsion.

 

Cars which run on gas pay a different level of duty and it is still for propulsion. Petrol engined boats may have a by product (heat, electricity) from their petrol engine but again the duty is just plain fuel duty not road or propulsion duty.

 

 

See

 

"only marked gas oil used for propelling pleasure craft is subject to the full duty rate and that used for non propulsion purposes can still benefit from the reduced rate." from http://customs.hmrc.gov.uk/channelsPortalWebApp/channelsPortalWebApp.portal?_nfpb=true&_pageLabel=pageExcise_ShowContent&id=HMCE_PROD1_029598&propertyType=document 4.1

 

Its fuel duty, for the propulsion element of the fuel use.

[frangar]

Never have I seen so many people wanting to give away so much money! Some people on here really must have it burning a hole in their pockets!!

 

If the powers that be do make us run on white then how long will it take for all the traces of red from tanks to disappear?

 

What about those owners who don't use their boats much....it could take years...

 

Hope no one thinks of being nice to their local farmer in the meantime.....

 

Cheers

 

Gareth.

[mayalld]

Never have I seen so many people wanting to give away so much money! Some people on here really must have it burning a hole in their pockets!!

 

If the powers that be do make us run on white then how long will it take for all the traces of red from tanks to disappear?

 

What about those owners who don't use their boats much....it could take years...

 

Hope no one thinks of being nice to their local farmer in the meantime.....

 

Very silly indeed.

 

I have no wish whatsoever to pay a brass farthing more in taxes than I am obliged to.

 

Neither do I have the slightest intention of evading the payment of taxes that I am obliged to pay, no matter how much I may dislike that tax.

 

In any case, you may well be crowing too soon. If white becomes the rule, you will probably find that you are obliged to drain your tanks, and replace your filters to remove traces of red completely.

[Graham Davis]

As I said earlier, the trace of red isn't that important now. It is nothing more than a "marker". An Inspector will check for the chemical trace that may be present.

[Chris Pink]

I'm still waiting to your reason for calling me a hypocrite. Or is name calling all you do for people who disagree with you on a discussion forum?

 

I guess I do owe you an apology really, especially as the heavyweight hypocrites are now in the room. Your moaning about boaters "getting away with something" when you are squirming trying to "get away" without paying your due taxes has been fairly mild so I apologise for using you as a scapegoat

[frangar]

As I said earlier, the trace of red isn't that important now. It is nothing more than a "marker". An Inspector will check for the chemical trace that may be present.

So how long before the chemical trace disappears?.....I'm guessing that will be quite a while too'

 

Cheers

 

Gareth

[Graham Davis]

Not as long as the red dye, as it chemically bonds with the diesel, whereas the dye doesn't.

There are actually several dyes added, so they can also tell who manufactured the base fuel, for example.

[GUMPY]

So how long before the chemical trace disappears?.....I'm guessing that will be quite a while too'

 

The system (trace and dye) actually enables them to tell what percentage of red is in the tank with alarming accuracy.

 

When France switched from red to white I believe there was a grace period after which there were some high profile visits to marinas where they tested the fuel in the filters not the tanks and fines were issued to transgressors.

[Hawkmoth]

 

I guess I do owe you an apology really, especially as the heavyweight hypocrites are now in the room. Your moaning about boaters "getting away with something" when you are squirming trying to "get away" without paying your due taxes has been fairly mild so I apologise for using you as a scapegoat

Cheers, half hearted apology accepted.

I do feel that you use of the word 'moaning' with respect to NCCC, isn't germain. They are breaking the rules, all I'm doing is complying with the rules as they are at the moment, and trying to not have them changed.

Admittedly I don't like having to pay propulsion diesel prices for my propulsion fuel, anyone who says they do should have their head read, but I do pay.

However, why should our government, at the behest of the EU change the rules again? In my, and many other cases, it would mean quite a bit of expense.

First another tank, with its associated pipework.

Second, and most important, my main means of electrical generation would have to use white diesel.

For those with limitless pockets that is no hardship, they won't be paying that price to the exchequer, they can afford a cocooned diesel genny. I can't.

It will probably, among other side effects, spawn a plethora of noisy, canalside gen sets. The small petrol ones are bad enough for noise, but the diesel ones are even noisier..

What are your thoughts on what the boatyards will do? Put in second tanks? I doubt it. So we'll almost certainly be paying £1.60 a ltr. With it being available at supermarkets at about £1.40, there will be a great temptation to fill cans with its attendant risk. I have heard it said that garages limit customers to 1 can. I've filled 8 without question before now.

Bob

[Chris Pink]

I can't be bothered to pick the threads of your attempts to find loopholes because that's what it is, just as surely as your accusations of NCCCCXMers finding loopholes to do what they do - that's why it's germain (sic).

 

I certainly value my time more highly than transporting diesel for a 10% saving.

 

All I will say is that all other European countries have managed to implement this directive. As Loddon says, in France, absolutely nobody tries to get around the law. The UK government just can't be arsed. And I see no ethical, moral or legal reason why boat fuel should be rebated.

 

Even the blundering Mayall can only come up with "I don't want to" and "I'd spill it if I had to fill my own tanks".

[Ray T]

Whilst I was at the Solent sailing at the weekend I was chatting to a local who told me that the marinas around Southampton Water only sell white diesel to pleasure boaters now.

[carlt]

Whilst I was at the Solent sailing at the weekend I was chatting to a local who told me that the marinas around Southampton Water only sell white diesel to pleasure boaters now.

He didn't mention the bunker barges that harbour hop selling hooky red then?

[mayalld]

 

Even the blundering Mayall can only come up with "I don't want to" and "I'd spill it if I had to fill my own tanks".

 

As you have clearly lost the ability to read, let me help you.

 

Your statement as to what I have said is entirely inaccurate and substantially misrepresents what I said.

[Hawkmoth]

 

As you have clearly lost the ability to read, let me help you.

 

Your statement as to what I have said is entirely inaccurate and substantially misrepresents what I said

Nothing new there then.

Bob

[Chris Pink]

As you have clearly lost the ability to read, let me help you.

 

Your statement as to what I have said is entirely inaccurate and substantially misrepresents what I said.

I think you check what your carer is writing for you (maybe if they used easier words?)

 

on the grounds that I don't want to pay more

Which part of "I don't want to" are you retracting now?

 

whilst being detrimental to the marine environment.

I take to mean you would be incapable of filling your tanks without spillage - or is that just everyone else?

Nothing new there then.

Bob

As for you with your nasty little snide comments on the back of Colonel Blimp's coattails... maybe you should try a little harder with that avoiding hypocrisy.

 

Cheers, half hearted apology accepted.

How can I tell?

[BargeeSpud]

Ladies, please. Enough already.

 

 

zyxt.

 

Did you ever thank me for that? Can't remember & can't be a**ed to look it up & check.

 

[magpie patrick]

 

zyxt.

 

 

 

We've been here once already, and even Henk's zzzzzz wasn't the last word!

[mayalld]

I think you check what your carer is writing for you (maybe if they used easier words?)

 

 

Which part of "I don't want to" are you retracting now?

 

 

I take to mean you would be incapable of filling your tanks without spillage - or is that just everyone else?

 

 

There was me labouring under the misaprehension that you had progressed to difficult words. However, if writing in coloured crayon will help;

 

I retract no part of "I don't want to", because it is indeed true that part of my opposition to this is that of self-interest. I already pay rather a lot of tax, and I have no huge degree of enthusiasm for paying any more. You misrepresent me when you say that this is my only argument against it. My argument against it also concerns the unique difficulties that boaters face in attempting to operate a two-fuel system, and the unfairness of a system that will make it unviable for boaters to continue their legitimate use of rebated fuel for domestic purposes.

 

So far as the environmental impact goes; I make no comments on how likely it is that any given individual will spill when using a can. Nor do I claim that spillages don't occur from filling hoses. I merely claim that on average, dispensing 1000 litres of fuel from cans and 1000 litres from a diesel pump, more of the diesel from cans will end up in the canal than from the pump.

 

That is called statistics, that is a big word, and the man who takes you for days out will explain it to you.

[BargeeSpud]

 

We've been here once already, and even Henk's zzzzzz wasn't the last word!

 

Sorry Patrick, that was aimed at the last line in Mr Pink's signature - "And as someone who is going to have the last word; zyxt."

[carlt]

 

I merely claim that on average, dispensing 1000 litres of fuel from cans and 1000 litres from a diesel pump, more of the diesel from cans will end up in the canal than from the pump.

 

That is called statistics.

Sorry Dave but that is not "statistics" that is a guess and my (non-statistical) guess is that it would take a heck of a lot of jerry can sploshes to come close to one fuel dispensing pump incident of the kind I witnessed.