Should marina moorers need licences?

[George94]

 

<conspiracy theory> Going back to your point about price elasticity. Are CRT and their provisional IWA friends trying to turn the cut and boats into a Veblen product. </conspiracy theory>

 

You don't know how right you are, Sabcat.

 

I have just seen the minutes of another CART meeting:

 

Chairman: "I'm not too impressed by the results of your NAA idea, Bright Spark. Marinas are losing money and threatening to close down, and the slight increase in boats on the canal compares very poorly with other consumer indicators, like new car sales, which are at record levels."

 

Bright Spark: "Fear not, oh Chairman. It's a sound economic principle, from that well-known American economist, Thorstein Veblen."

 

Chairman, sotto voce: "Never 'eard of 'im".

 

Bright Spark: "Our only problem was that we didn't raise costs enough. My in-depth research, in a pub in Little Venice, suggests that boaters are very well-off, and want to be able to boast about how much their moorings cost. So, I propose we raise the NAA to 100%, and triple the annual licence fee. That'll bring in loads of nice City types, and get rid of some of the riff-raff."

 

Chairman: "I like the sound of that. All in favour say "Aye".

 

Motion carried. Exeunt to the pub.

[jenlyn]

No doubt the pub will be the three locks

[Sabcat]

 

You don't know how right you are, Sabcat.

 

I have just seen the minutes of another CART meeting:

 

Chairman: "I'm not too impressed by the results of your NAA idea, Bright Spark. Marinas are losing money and threatening to close down, and the slight increase in boats on the canal compares very poorly with other consumer indicators, like new car sales, which are at record levels."

 

Bright Spark: "Fear not, oh Chairman. It's a sound economic principle, from that well-known American economist, Thorstein Veblen."

 

Chairman, sotto voce: "Never 'eard of 'im".

 

Bright Spark: "Our only problem was that we didn't raise costs enough. My in-depth research, in a pub in Little Venice, suggests that boaters are very well-off, and want to be able to boast about how much their moorings cost. So, I propose we raise the NAA to 100%, and triple the annual licence fee. That'll bring in loads of nice City types, and get rid of some of the riff-raff."

 

Chairman: "I like the sound of that. All in favour say "Aye".

 

Motion carried. Exeunt to the pub.

 

The meeting was staged. An FOI request has thrown up this:

 

Draft Communique from the Provisional IWA

 

Almost 70 years ago, in 1946, the IWA was born from an act of gentrification of the inland waterways. Today we are ending this project. The shiny boater in the form of the IWA is now history.

 

We, that is all of us who were organized in the IWA until the end, are taking this step jointly. From now on, we, like all others from this association, are former IWA militants.

 

We stand by our history. The IWA was the revolutionary attempt by a minority of people to make the inland waterways a playground for the rich . We are proud to have been part of this attempt.

 

The end of this project shows that we were not able to succeed on this path. But this does not speak against the necessity and legitimacy of getting the oiks and their scruffy boats off the water. The IWA was our decision to stand on the side of those people struggling against those that would make boating an enjoyable and affordable pass time open to all.

 

For us, this was the right decision to make.

 

From now on we will holiday in Provence.

 

 

The meeting and it's publicly released minutes was nothing more than a veil to hide the real intention of the policy. To prevent the draft becoming published policy of the Provisional IWA. The project continues.

[Higgs]

How can it be,"... their own water...."? we seem to agree that they cannot own water. Much the same as my water company at home you are charged for the supply. Of course they could reasonably argue that if you don't want to pay for it, they wont supply it any more then of course your 'marina' would then be known as a 'field'

 

They can't. It's just an expression.

 

It's their managed water outside the marina. But, you are forgetting one point, the connection is paid for. If you want to continue with analogy of supply, that's ok, it's paid for, as your household customer pays for connection. Let's talk about the space beyond that customer's threshold. Who's is it? The water suppliers or the householders. I think we can both agree, it is the householders.

 

In other words, the marina is a private place too, and you don't need a licence to be in it. Don't confuse the cost of connection with the licence, it tends to miss by a mile the bone of contention.

Edited February 1, 2016 by Higgs

[MtB]

 

They can't. It's just an expression.

 

It's their managed water outside the marina. But, you are forgetting one point, the connection is paid for. If you want to continue with analogy of supply, that's ok, it's paid for, as your household customer pays for connection. Let's talk about the space beyond that customer's threshold. Who's is it? The water suppliers or the householders. I think we can both agree, it is the householders.

 

In other words, the marina is a private place too, and you don't need a licence to be in it. Don't confuse the cost of connection with the licence, it tends to miss by a mile the bone of contention.

 

 

May I enquire whether you are in a marina? And if so, is your boat licenced?

 

Thanks...

[Jerra]

 

In other words, the marina is a private place too, and you don't need a licence to be in it.

Can you suggest a way that CRT could keep a check and prevent lots of boats using the canals without incurring massive extra costs? I would think if no license was required more and more weekend boaters would take the line of being caught is minimal I won't get a license. Then if you rely on the current enforcement as some suggest you will need a massive increase in staff making it expensive.

[Higgs]

 

 

May I enquire whether you are in a marina? And if so, is your boat licenced?

 

Thanks...

 

 

Yes, yes and yes.

[MtB]

 

 

Yes, yes and yes.

 

 

 

But you just said a boat in a marina doesn't need a licence (in post 404). I'm confused...

[jenlyn]

 

 

May I enquire whether you are in a marina? And if so, is your boat licenced?

 

Thanks...

Obviously not picked up on that previously then? do you not read anythIng before posting?

[Higgs]

Can you suggest a way that CRT could keep a check and prevent lots of boats using the canals without incurring massive extra costs? I would think if no license was required more and more weekend boaters would take the line of being caught is minimal I won't get a license. Then if you rely on the current enforcement as some suggest you will need a massive increase in staff making it expensive.

 

 

It wouldn't occur to me to not have a licence. In other parts of this thread, I've dealt with your anxieties.

[jenlyn]

 

 

It wouldn't occur to me to not have a licence. In other parts of this thread, I've dealt with your anxieties.

I have a sneaky suspicion some of them don't read.d

 

Oh, and they admit it as well lol. Couldn't make it up could you.

Comical.

Edited February 1, 2016 by jenlyn

[MtB]

 

 

It wouldn't occur to me to not have a licence. In other parts of this thread, I've dealt with your anxieties.

 

 

Why would I wade through 400+ posts before commenting? No-one else does!

[Machpoint005]

With 21 pages of righteous indignation about a non-issue to plough through, I'm not surprised.

[Higgs]

 

 

 

But you just said a boat in a marina doesn't need a licence (in post 404). I'm confused...

 

 

They don't. But, they do. It's complicated. The number of posts in this one thread in which I have gone over the reasons why I think it is my conviction that they don't. I can see that I will have to open a thread and lay it all out. It is not a finished job, yet.

 

Thinking about the NAA, it is not very good for marina owners and it is not very good for moorers.

[MtB]

 

 

It wouldn't occur to me to not have a licence. In other parts of this thread, I've dealt with your anxieties.

 

 

Which post would that be then?

 

Approximately 50% of the posts in this thread are yours and they all say the same thing... Did you change the record for one of them?

[NigelMoore]

But you just said a boat in a marina doesn't need a licence (in post 404). I'm confused...

 

Higgs is promoting a principle, wherein holding a boat licence where not needed is based on free choice.

 

Boats on the moorings I used to run had always been accepted by BW as needing no licences; a few boats maintained year-round licences so they could go on trips whenever the tide allowed and the impulse took them; some took out short-term licences when they wished to go cruising, others never bought a licence because they were fitting their boats out and were not in a position to go cruising – or had no wish to do so even if able.

 

No real basis for confusion, MtB.

 

[Jerra]

I have a sneaky suspicion some of them don't read.d

I have read it an the only suggestion I remember from the "I shouldn't have to pay for a license" faction is that there is already an enforcement system. It is obvious IMO that if you are going to rely on the enforcement system it is going to have to be beefed up costing money on top of the loss of license fee.

 

Sorry but having read all 413 posts I am not ploughing back through them when Higgs could either have given his post number that covered it or outlined it as quickly as his non reply of having already covered it.

[Higgs]

 

 

Which post would that be then?

 

Approximately 50% of the posts in this thread are yours and they all say the same thing... Did you change the record for one of them?

 

 

You haven't read as much as you make out.

[Jerra]

 

Higgs is promoting a principle, wherein holding a boat licence where not needed is based on free choice.

 

Boats on the moorings I used to run had always been accepted by BW as needing no licences; a few boats maintained year-round licences so they could go on trips whenever the tide allowed and the impulse took them; some took out short-term licences when they wished to go cruising, others never bought a licence because they were fitting their boats out and were not in a position to go cruising – or had no wish to do so even if able.

 

No real basis for confusion, MtB.

 

So non ever left the marina without a license? What a wonderful collection of honest upright citizens.

[John V]

So non ever left the marina without a license? What a wonderful collection of honest upright citizens.

 

The moorings I am on do not require a license, to the best of my knowledge of the several hundred boats here, my narrow beam cruiser is the only boat with either a BSS or a license. Your sarcastic comment is a very stupid and offensive remark

 

 

eta and offensive

Edited February 1, 2016 by John V

[Jerra]

 

The moorings I am on do not require a license, to the best of my knowledge of the several hundred boats here, my narrow beam cruiser is the only boat with either a BSS or a license. Your sarcastic comment is a very stupid remark

And not one has ever or will ever leave the marina/mooring without a license?

[John V]

And not one has ever or will ever leave the marina/mooring without a license?

 

Yet again you expose your appalling ignorance of the real world.........the moorings I am talking about are not on a CRT waterway

[Higgs]

I have read it an the only suggestion I remember from the "I shouldn't have to pay for a license" faction is that there is already an enforcement system. It is obvious IMO that if you are going to rely on the enforcement system it is going to have to be beefed up costing money on top of the loss of license fee.

 

Sorry but having read all 413 posts I am not ploughing back through them when Higgs could either have given his post number that covered it or outlined it as quickly as his non reply of having already covered it.

 

 

What you do is use the device that CRT use to make sure the marina moorers have licence in the first place, but it will be used to make sure people don't leave the marina without a license. It will cost nothing to CRT to work it this way.

 

CRT rely on the T&C's of the marina. in short, now, you can read in the NAA; the marina cannot deal with boats that do not have a licence. The marina, to protect the contract obligations, will do the work for CRT and make sure all the moored boats have a licence. Any boater there that feels they don't won't to buy one will be shown the proverbial door and kicked out onto CRT territory.

[jenlyn]

And not one has ever or will ever leave the marina/mooring without a license?

Possibly, not everyone is as devious as you seem.

(Sometimes I feel this forum would benefit from a "gene pool").

[NigelMoore]

So non ever left the marina without a license? What a wonderful collection of honest upright citizens.

 

So we all were. Didn’t you believe such as we existed?

 

Of course, movement was under my control, and exit/entry times were restricted by tides as well, but there was truly never an issue.

 

Boats did not need to cruise the canal either – they could choose to trip up or down the Thames, and when entering the Thames Locks on their return they just needed to explain to the lock-keeper that they were going straight into my dock.

 

Of course the situation you postulate could happen [and doubtless does], but the same applies to portable unpowered craft, and to boats using slipways, or moored in backwaters. If caught, unlicensed boats would be subject to prosecution regardless of where they went subsequently.