Petition for wide beam owners

[MtB]

Just now, WotEver said:

Yes it does.

(is this the five minute argument?)

 

This isn't argument, it's contradiction...

[rusty69]

1 minute ago, WotEver said:

Yes it does.

(is this the five minute argument?)

I have a feeling it will be longer than that (but not wider)

[Alan de Enfield]

Just now, WotEver said:

Yes it does.

(is this the five minute argument?)

Depends - Have you paid the 20% up-charge for being a fatty ?

[matty40s]

3 hours ago, Mike the Boilerman said:

 

And by the argument of some in this thread, if you put your 36ft x 23 ft cat in say the southern oxford, ....

 

 

That's called a bridge....

[WotEver]

Just now, Alan de Enfield said:

Depends - Have you paid the 20% up-charge for being a fatty ?

How did you know the diagnosis at my last doctors visit? It’s supposed to be confidential. 

1 minute ago, Mike the Boilerman said:

 

This isn't argument, it's contradiction...

No it isn’t. 

[Naughty Cal]

1 minute ago, WotEver said:

Yes it does.

(is this the five minute argument?)

No it isn't.

Ten at least.

If there was a requirement for a BSS even for a short term visitors licence then a lot of the visiting boats just wouldn't bother. Lost revenue for the navigation authority.

Quite frankly a lot of these visiting boats with no BSS are in far better condition then the floating (and in some cases not floating) wrecks that apparently have one!

[WotEver]

Oh, ok. 

I could only afford the 5 minute argument. 

[Alan de Enfield]

1 minute ago, WotEver said:

How did you know the diagnosis at my last doctors visit? It’s supposed to be confidential. 

FOI request (along with a plain brown envelope containing photos)

[WotEver]

Just now, Alan de Enfield said:

a plain brown envelope containing photos

Of my doctor? She’s hot. 

[rusty69]

1 minute ago, WotEver said:

Of my doctor? She’s hot. 

Maybe she should see a doctor!

[MtB]

6 minutes ago, WotEver said:

 

No it isn’t. 

 

Yes it is....

[mrsmelly]

29 minutes ago, peterboat said:

My issue with the whole "consultation" was that it was geared to give them the result they wanted, and as Nigel has said CRT can do what they want anyway so they didnt have to waste any money at all.

My issue with the increase is as follows the way DVLA work is that all new cars would require the new higher/lower license the old cars remain the same, CRT should have employed the same system it would have been fairer because we would then have choice! What they have done is set themselves up as a little empire dictating to us what they want to do, what they have forgot is that they dont own that empire the country does they are just looking after it for us. I suspect this empire if it continues like it is will be very short lived.

We all know what happens to little Empires dictating to the majority don't we. We vote em out 

[carlt]

21 minutes ago, peterboat said:

My issue with the whole "consultation" was that it was geared to give them the result they wanted, and as Nigel has said CRT can do what they want anyway so they didnt have to waste any money at all.

 

It also sets boater against boater as CRT/BW have successfully done on so many occasions.

"I moor in a marina so I agree with BW/CRT that we should reduce towpath moorings"

"I moor on the towpath so we should charge CCers more for their licence."

"I am a CCer so we should crane out and cut up the boats of CMers"

"I've got a thin boat so fat boats should have a higher licence fee"

"I've got a mock Hudson and my butler has just quit".

 

[adam1uk]

22 minutes ago, peterboat said:

My issue with the whole "consultation" was that it was geared to give them the result they wanted, and as Nigel has said CRT can do what they want anyway so they didnt have to waste any money at all.

The consultation didn't give them the result they wanted, though, as the most popular option among respondents was that boats should be charged by area; CRT then decided on a smaller increase for widebeams.  Or are you saying that the consultation should have been binding, and widebeams should pay even more?

[Naughty Cal]

2 minutes ago, adam1uk said:

The consultation didn't give them the result they wanted, though, as the most popular option among respondents was that boats should be charged by area; CRT then decided on a smaller increase for widebeams.  Or are you saying that the consultation should have been binding, and widebeams should pay even more?

There shouldn't have even been a consultation as CRT had already decided what they were going to do.

[Jess--]

16 minutes ago, TheBiscuits said:

There is a safety declaration form that you have to fill in if you do not have a BSS certificate and want to visit CRT waters.

that would be the declaration that they refused to accept for a boat I was interested in that had spent some time completely submerged. the boat in question had gas appliances but no bottles (pigtails would have been cut to render the whole gas system unusable), a non functioning engine, a diesel tank full of water and no batteries or functioning electrics. (and about 8 inches of silt throughout the inside of the boat)

the plan was to crane the boat in, tow it on a 4 day journey (4 days was absolute max the trip could normally be done in one long day with a single boat) before lifting the boat out again for a total refit.

CRT insisted that the only possible way the boat could be licensed (even on a temporary basis) was for it to have a BSS inspection

[Naughty Cal]

24 minutes ago, Jess-- said:

that would be the declaration that they refused to accept for a boat I was interested in that had spent some time completely submerged. the boat in question had gas appliances but no bottles (pigtails would have been cut to render the whole gas system unusable), a non functioning engine, a diesel tank full of water and no batteries or functioning electrics. (and about 8 inches of silt throughout the inside of the boat)

the plan was to crane the boat in, tow it on a 4 day journey (4 days was absolute max the trip could normally be done in one long day with a single boat) before lifting the boat out again for a total refit.

CRT insisted that the only possible way the boat could be licensed (even on a temporary basis) was for it to have a BSS inspection

From the CRT website:

https://canalrivertrust.org.uk/enjoy-the-waterways/boating/licensing-your-boat/choosing-and-buying-your-licence/short-term-visitor-licences

They do have the right to refuse a visitors licence if they don't think the boat is safe.

"We have the right to refuse access onto our waterways for any boat that we think may present a safety risk to other waterway users. In purchasing a short term visitor licence you agree to allow our employees or an appointed surveyor to carry out a safety check at any reasonable time. If we believe your boat is dangerous, you will have to remove it from the waterway.

To qualify for a licence your boat must have one of the following:

• a current certificate to show compliance with our Boat Safety Scheme requirements
• a current Declaration of Conformity with the EU's Recreational Craft Directive

We will issue a short term visitor licence without either of the above if you are able to satisfy the conditions contained within the Boat Condition Declaration - please complete the separate Application Form. Licence fees can be found on the Useful Downloads page."

[Parahandy]

11 hours ago, blackrose said:

Surely if he's selling them within 5 years he's breaking the law? You want increased licence fees for law abiding boaters on that basis? 

Did you report the guy? 

I see he has one advertised on Ebay just now for £120k , I spotted it earlier today . I don't know about Breaking the Law , I certainly wouldn't have thought

any Law was being broken ? I honestly don't think CRT know the half of what is going on and in many respects I have lost faith in them a long time ago , I

don't want to start any rant because I have never had a bad experience with either BW or CRT , its just Managerially sometimes you wonder

 

[Steilsteven]

As the amount of boats wider than narrow boats ( those that will be affected by the extra levy ) represent approximately one sixth of the total boats registered with CRT the outcome was a foregone conclusion anyway. After all we all feel better with the knowledge that someone else will have to pick up the tab.

Keith

[Steilsteven]

18 hours ago, Mike the Boilerman said:

 

This is a false argument. If these boats can only reach say, 25% of the system they must be using the bit they are trapped in 4 times as much.

And taken to extreme this line of reasoning says someone buying a truly vast boat i.e. too big to fit though any lock, should pay nothing as they can't go anywhere. Clearly not fair.

 

 

That would make it a houseboat I suspect.

A licence isn't payable for using the canal, it's payable for floating on it.

Keith

[Steilsteven]

19 hours ago, Mike the Boilerman said:

 

Fully explained in Post 13.

No that was just your opinion.

[MtB]

Just now, Steilsteven said:

No that was just your opinion.

Correct. My opinion was fully explained in Post 13, as I said. 

I know you are one of the few who hold that all boats whatever size show pay the same licence fee.

[zenataomm]

It's just horses for courses and as such is merely fodder for bitching amongst boat owners.

If I still had a wide beam I'd be arguing I should get a rebate as I can't use all of the system.

With my narrow boat head on, I'd say everyone should pay for the amount of water they occupy width wise as well as length wise.

I'm very self centred and can enjoy a bit of stirring. 

[Chop!]

When we bought our pair, it was Glenda who talked me into buying shorter boats, as I'd always wanted full length working boats. Her reasoning was that they would be a 'go anywhere' pair. We would have the space provided by a widebeam, but would be able to access anywhere on the system, short, long, narrow and wide locks.

The down side was having to pay half as much again to license the butty.

If I had insisted on full length boats, we would have been limited to where we could go, but would still have needed to pay one and a half licenses.

[zenataomm]

14 minutes ago, Chop! said:

When we bought our pair, it was Glenda who talked me into buying shorter boats, as I'd always wanted full length working boats. Her reasoning was that they would be a 'go anywhere' pair. We would have the space provided by a widebeam, but would be able to access anywhere on the system, short, long, narrow and wide locks.

The down side was having to pay half as much again to license the butty.

If I had insisted on full length boats, we would have been limited to where we could go, but would still have needed to pay one and a half licenses.

Count your blessings, when I had a pair in the 80s I had to pay full whack for the butty none of this paying half as much. 

Compare that to paying the licence equivalent on The Thames to a canoe!  A 72ft 6" canoe!

Added to this the first attempts at a Safety Certificate were being introduced with about as much fore thought and common sense as now. In order to be legal my non converted Butty should have been carrying something like a 35Kg fire extinguisher in the cabin. Try using the drop down table with one of those cuddling up to you. There were no exemptions for historical boats regarding licence or Safety Certificate.