|
|
Post by kris on Jun 30, 2017 19:38:29 GMT
I was thinking about the "consultation" over the liscence review. It seems Crt are using it to increase liscences we'll over the inflation rate. 25% is suggested figure, I don't know how accurate this is. What I was thinking was I wouldn't mind a 25% increase if It was going to be spent on maintenance of the waterways. What do you think?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 30, 2017 19:54:18 GMT
I'd be amazed if they can get away with a 25% license fee increase or are you specifically talking about boats wider than ~7ft ?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 30, 2017 19:57:08 GMT
Would be interesting to know who "suggested" 25%. It has a distinct whiff of bullshit to me but I don't really know that much about the subject.
|
|
|
|
Post by Mr Stabby on Jun 30, 2017 19:58:53 GMT
Personally, I think the more a boater cruises, the cheaper the licence should be. Gongoozlers don't go to see canals, they go to see moving boats. Nobody visits a preserved steam railway on a day when trains aren't running, nobody visits a Formula One racetrack when Hamilton, Vettel etc aren't driving around, nobody visits a theatre to look at an empty stage. We are the actors who make the canals come to life.
All narrowboaters who cover 300 miles a year should get a free licence, and this should be subsidised by increased licence costs to boaters who never move their floating cottages out of the marina.
|
|
|
|
Post by Delta9 on Jun 30, 2017 20:04:44 GMT
Personally, I think the more a boater cruises, the cheaper the licence should be. Gongoozlers don't go to see canals, they go to see moving boats. Nobody visits a preserved steam railway on a day when trains aren't running, nobody visits a Formula One racetrack when Hamilton, Vettel etc aren't driving around, nobody visits a theatre to look at an empty stage. We are the actors who make the canals come to life. All narrowboaters who cover 300 miles a year should get a free licence, and this should be subsidised by increased licence costs to boaters who never move their floating cottages out of the marina. People that never leave the marina shouldn't pay anything at all. |
|
|
|
Post by kris on Jun 30, 2017 20:10:32 GMT
Would be interesting to know who "suggested" 25%. It has a distinct whiff of bullshit to me but I don't really know that much about the subject. you don't actually read threads you post in, do you? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 30, 2017 20:11:03 GMT
I was thinking about the "consultation" over the liscence review. It seems Crt are using it to increase liscences we'll over the inflation rate. 25% is suggested figure, I don't know how accurate this is. What I was thinking was I wouldn't mind a 25% increase if It was going to be spent on maintenance of the waterways. What do you think? Throwing more money into the black hole isn't the answer, accountability of CRT's mismanagement is. |
|
|
|
Post by Mr Stabby on Jun 30, 2017 20:14:49 GMT
Personally, I think the more a boater cruises, the cheaper the licence should be. Gongoozlers don't go to see canals, they go to see moving boats. Nobody visits a preserved steam railway on a day when trains aren't running, nobody visits a Formula One racetrack when Hamilton, Vettel etc aren't driving around, nobody visits a theatre to look at an empty stage. We are the actors who make the canals come to life. All narrowboaters who cover 300 miles a year should get a free licence, and this should be subsidised by increased licence costs to boaters who never move their floating cottages out of the marina. People that never leave the marina shouldn't pay anything at all. Yes they should, because 1) They aren't proper boaters, and do nothing to animate the waterway scene, and 2) They are generally stinking rich and so can afford to pay more than impoverished boaters such as myself. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 30, 2017 20:21:14 GMT
Personally, I think the more a boater cruises, the cheaper the licence should be. Gongoozlers don't go to see canals, they go to see moving boats. Nobody visits a preserved steam railway on a day when trains aren't running, nobody visits a Formula One racetrack when Hamilton, Vettel etc aren't driving around, nobody visits a theatre to look at an empty stage. We are the actors who make the canals come to life. All narrowboaters who cover 300 miles a year should get a free licence, and this should be subsidised by increased licence costs to boaters who never move their floating cottages out of the marina. People that never leave the marina shouldn't pay anything at all. The point is that they are paying for the option to leave the marina. It's their choice if they don't. I'm all for building marinas with no connection to CRT waters if that's what people want, BTW, I also agree that those who travel around the system a lot should get Equity rates and have that offset against the licence fee. Actually come to think about it, what do RCR charge for towing and repairing boats? Seriously, some people just look at the financial aspects, this is where it's all gone wrong. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 30, 2017 20:23:06 GMT
People that never leave the marina shouldn't pay anything at all. Yes they should, because 1) They aren't proper boaters, and do nothing to animate the waterway scene, and 2) They are generally stinking rich and so can afford to pay more than impoverished boaters such as myself. I thought the SAS pension was quite good.  |
|
|
|
Post by Mr Stabby on Jun 30, 2017 20:29:24 GMT
Yes they should, because 1) They aren't proper boaters, and do nothing to animate the waterway scene, and 2) They are generally stinking rich and so can afford to pay more than impoverished boaters such as myself. I thought the SAS pension was quite good. HMRC confiscated my SAS pension when I was caught at Dover trying to import 26 tonnes of cannabis resin.  |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 30, 2017 20:30:59 GMT
I thought the SAS pension was quite good. HMRC confiscated my SAS pension when I was caught at Dover trying to import 26 tonnes of cannabis resin. Aha, so you are Delta9 then...  |
|
|
|
Post by kris on Jun 30, 2017 20:41:27 GMT
I thought the SAS pension was quite good. HMRC confiscated my SAS pension when I was caught at Dover trying to import 26 tonnes of cannabis resin. i thought your speciality was smuggling immigrants. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 30, 2017 20:43:46 GMT
Would be interesting to know who "suggested" 25%. It has a distinct whiff of bullshit to me but I don't really know that much about the subject. you don't actually read threads you post in, do you? Never. |
|
|
|
Post by kris on Jun 30, 2017 20:44:32 GMT
you don't actually read threads you post in, do you? Never. ive noticed. |
|
