|
Post by kris on Aug 1, 2017 8:39:53 GMT
I was talking to another boater who attended one of these meetings today. He confirmed the feeling that it's a done deal, Crt already have decided what they are going to do and this process is just window dressing. He suggested he'd heard a figure of 15% increase for widebeams (not officially.)
|
|
|
Post by peterboat on Aug 1, 2017 9:07:46 GMT
I was talking to another boater who attended one of these meetings today. He confirmed the feeling that it's a done deal, Crt already have decided what they are going to do and this process is just window dressing. He suggested he'd heard a figure of 15% increase for widebeams (not officially.) I am hoping for a north south split with up here having a reduction as our waterways are designed for very large boats and are very much underused
|
|
|
Post by kris on Aug 1, 2017 9:13:52 GMT
I was talking to another boater who attended one of these meetings today. He confirmed the feeling that it's a done deal, Crt already have decided what they are going to do and this process is just window dressing. He suggested he'd heard a figure of 15% increase for widebeams (not officially.) I am hoping for a north south split with up here having a reduction as our waterways are designed for very large boats and are very much underused lets hope so, from what this boater said though it looks like they are just regurgitating the Crt/iwa line of waterways weren't designed for widebeams ( southern centric) when he pointed out that the waterways in the north where wide originally they where surprised. He is a wide beam owner and pointed out he can't navigate all of the system so is in effect paying more already, they where surprised and had no awareness of this.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 1, 2017 10:26:42 GMT
I was talking to another boater who attended one of these meetings today. He confirmed the feeling that it's a done deal, Crt already have decided what they are going to do and this process is just window dressing. He suggested he'd heard a figure of 15% increase for widebeams (not officially.) I am hoping for a north south split with up here having a reduction as our waterways are designed for very large boats and are very much underused Do you think that's likely? Even as described in their own 'window dressing' the purpose was to simplify the system. I honestly can't see any strong argument for increasing licence fees for widebeams, but I fear that will be part of it. Rog
|
|
|
Post by lollygagger on Aug 1, 2017 15:08:23 GMT
I am hoping for a north south split with up here having a reduction as our waterways are designed for very large boats and are very much underused Do you think that's likely? Even as described in their own 'window dressing' the purpose was to simplify the system. I honestly can't see any strong argument for increasing licence fees for widebeams, but I fear that will be part of it. Rog How could anyone find £x per ft complicated or find a way to simplify it? It's pathetically patronising to think anyone would swallow that but they seem to think if they dress up a price hike with outwardly positive statements that's good enough. The people who WILL swallow it are the non-boating public simply because they have no idea what the current system is. Perhaps such baloney is aimed over our heads.
|
|
|
Post by kris on Aug 1, 2017 16:07:40 GMT
Do you think that's likely? Even as described in their own 'window dressing' the purpose was to simplify the system. I honestly can't see any strong argument for increasing licence fees for widebeams, but I fear that will be part of it. Rog How could anyone find £x per ft complicated or find a way to simplify it? It's pathetically patronising to think anyone would swallow that but they seem to think if they dress up a price hike with outwardly positive statements that's good enough. The people who WILL swallow it are the non-boating public simply because they have no idea what the current system is. Perhaps such baloney is aimed over our heads. it does beg the question, who do they think they are fooling?
|
|
|
Post by tadworth on Aug 1, 2017 20:42:23 GMT
Most boaters believe what CaRT tells them.
Unless you delve into it, the idea that CaRT publishes licence terms and conditions that are based on a lie, and licences that are fraudulent is hard to believe.
|
|
|
Post by Telemachus on Aug 1, 2017 21:16:08 GMT
We seem to be happy to accept licence fees based on length. Why? In which case why not beam too? No-one screams about Thames licensing based on area. The fat boat owners are just whinging because they might have to pay a fair price for their fat boats. Bring it on, I say.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 1, 2017 21:23:06 GMT
We seem to be happy to accept licence fees based on length. Why? In which case why not beam too? No-one screams about Thames licensing based on area. The fat boat owners are just whinging because they might have to pay a fair price for their fat boats. Bring it on, I say 😂🤣😂🤣😂🤣. Attempting to use the Thames as the basis for your view about licensing on canals, shows your complete ignorance and stupidity of the whole issue. Do you ever base your views on anything other than made up bullshit? No, obviously not. If it don't fit, make it. 😂🤣😂
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 1, 2017 21:24:21 GMT
We seem to be happy to accept licence fees based on length. Why? In which case why not beam too?/quote] ...because they don't take up any more space on the pilling..
|
|
|
Post by Telemachus on Aug 1, 2017 21:34:47 GMT
We seem to be happy to accept licence fees based on length. Why? In which case why not beam too?/quote] ...because they don't take up any more space on the pilling.. Is that the pillings lock marina? Anyway, what has space taken up on the piling got to do with licensing? Just shows the mindset of a Continuous Moorer.
|
|
|
Post by kris on Aug 2, 2017 4:45:46 GMT
Is that the pillings lock marina? Anyway, what has space taken up on the piling got to do with licensing? Just shows the mindset of a Continuous Moorer. Twat
|
|
|
Post by peterboat on Aug 2, 2017 7:59:16 GMT
We seem to be happy to accept licence fees based on length. Why? In which case why not beam too? No-one screams about Thames licensing based on area. The fat boat owners are just whinging because they might have to pay a fair price for their fat boats. Bring it on, I say. I suggest you take a run up to our waterways Nick then you will realise how stupid narrowboats look on there, they were designed for proper boats not toys and to be honest wide boats dont use any more of the facilities than your toy one, This review is designed to extract more money from us that is all boaters, you will no doubt have an increase as well, more than likely yogurt pots will be the only winners [for a short time] from this review
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 2, 2017 8:10:50 GMT
Considering the 'suggestion' that the review was to simplify a complicated licensing system (curious really because all but C&RT found the system simple) the obvious solution would be to charge 'go anywhere' size narrows for that multi waterway privilege, and charge a reduced rate for boats that, by their size have a restricted navigational choice.
Simple and fair.
But we all know the review is about increasing income, pure and simple.
I actually wouldn't mind that much, if they'd just be honest about their motives.
Rog
|
|
|
Post by kris on Aug 2, 2017 8:23:17 GMT
I actually wouldn't mind that much, if they'd just be honest about their motives. Rog thats the crux of it for most boaters I think. Not only are they being dishonest about the motives, they are treating people as if they are stupid. The arrogance is quite incredible. The encouraging thing for me is I talk to more and more boaters that are disgruntled with crt, it seems the penny is dropping. Hopefully this converts into action against Crt, before its to late.
|
|