|
Post by Clinton Cool on Jul 13, 2017 8:11:04 GMT
Surely not them twats who go out at the weekend in their yoghurt pots seemingly unable to stay below 4 miles an hour. Usually some fat bloke with tattoos with a pig of a wife and fighting dog on board. Oh the irony...
|
|
|
Post by TonyDunkley on Jul 13, 2017 8:58:43 GMT
Two items on the IWA's list of suggestions are quite blatantly aimed at subverting existing legislation.
The first is directed at S.17 of the 1995 Act :
• Fees for licences could be significantly increased (to an amount that would be similar to paying for both a licence and a mooring at present). A substantial discount (back down to current licence fee levels) would then be available to boaters who pay mooring fees to CRT or third parties or are genuinely continuously cruising. Other discounts could continue to be available as now, eg for electric propulsion, historic boats, museum boats, towed butties and licences for short disconnected waterways.
In other words - "the concession [17(3)(c)(ii)] that Parliament approved to relieve boaters who intend to move about frequently and regularly from the obligation to have a mooring available to them will cease to have effect by way of having an annual mooring fee included in the cost of a Licence issued to anyone who does not already pay for a mooring".
The second is equally outrageous in it's disregard of statute, and, in effect negates the limitations on registration fees imposed under S.4(1) of the 1983 Act, and the obligation to issue a PBC imposed under S.6(1) of the 1971 Act :
• “Rivers only” licences should only be available to boats which due to their size are genuinely restricted to the river on which they are based. There should also be a proviso that boats issued with those licences could not declare themselves as continuously cruising.
In other words - " we are abolishing PBC's for any craft other than those which are too big to enter the canal system from any of our scheduled river waterways, and any boaters owning craft of dimensions which will permit entry into the canal system will be obliged to pay an annual mooring fee (for NOT mooring on/to C&RT property/land) inclusive with the fee we will charge for the PBC we are misrepresenting as a Licence."
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 13, 2017 9:13:01 GMT
Two items on the IWA's list of suggestions are quite blatantly aimed at subverting existing legislation. The first is directed at S.17 of the 1995 Act : • Fees for licences could be significantly increased (to an amount that would be similar to paying for both a licence and a mooring at present). A substantial discount (back down to current licence fee levels) would then be available to boaters who pay mooring fees to CRT or third parties or are genuinely continuously cruising. Other discounts could continue to be available as now, eg for electric propulsion, historic boats, museum boats, towed butties and licences for short disconnected waterways.In other words - "the concession [17(3)(c)(ii)] that Parliament approved to relieve boaters who intend to move about frequently and regularly from the obligation to have a mooring available to them will cease to have effect by way of having an annual mooring fee included in the cost of a Licence issued to anyone who does not already pay for a mooring". The second is equally outrageous in it's disregard of statute, and, in effect negates the limitations on registration fees imposed under S.4(1) of the 1983 Act, and the obligation to issue a PBC imposed under S.6(1) of the 1971 Act : • “Rivers only” licences should only be available to boats which due to their size are genuinely restricted to the river on which they are based. There should also be a proviso that boats issued with those licences could not declare themselves as continuously cruising. In other words - " we are abolishing PBC's for any craft other than those which are too big to enter the canal system from any of our scheduled river waterways, and any boaters owning craft of dimensions which will permit entry into the canal system will be obliged to pay an annual mooring fee (for NOT mooring on/to C&RT property/land) inclusive with the fee we will charge for the PBC we are misrepresenting as a Licence." It makes you wonder whether those who run the IWA actually represent the wishes of boaters. They seem to be more like CRT's right arm to me.
|
|
|
Post by kris on Jul 13, 2017 9:21:31 GMT
Was it last year or the year before that the iwa spent lots of money smoozing parliment. Oh I mean lobbying parliment, crt managment just happened to be at the events as well.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 13, 2017 9:30:44 GMT
Was it last year or the year before that the iwa spent lots of money smoozing parliment. Oh I mean lobbying parliment, crt managment just happened to be at the events as well. That's a yearly event.
|
|
|
Post by kris on Jul 13, 2017 9:33:11 GMT
Was it last year or the year before that the iwa spent lots of money smoozing parliment. Oh I mean lobbying parliment, crt managment just happened to be at the events as well. That's a yearly event. well that explains why no MP's have shown an interest in representing boaters interests.
|
|
|
Post by Allan on Jul 13, 2017 9:51:08 GMT
It is worth noting that IWA provide a secretariat service to the All Party Parliamentary Group for Waterways. This group has never followed up on its report in which it was critical of Waterways Partnerships. It has also never properly reviewed how C&RT is performing.
|
|
|
Post by NigelMoore on Jul 13, 2017 9:52:03 GMT
One wonders how thoroughly thought through the IWA document was. It is a return to the sixties concept of a single cruising/mooring licence, but with discounts if you already pay for a mooring, or are continuously cruising - but what of those who do not qualify for those discounts?
This has to be the most outrageous absurdity yet; aside from the same perceived difficulties controlling who qualifies as a CC’er, the universal remedy is that offenders will only lose their discount! In other words you will be able to park up wherever you like for as long as you like, because if paying the full whack you are paying for that ability. Let chaos reign, so long as the coffers swell?
The bit on rivers is risible; as though the provisions of primary statutes can be ignored – has the IWA finally bought into and adopted the BW/CaRT institutional ethos that unimpugnable UDI has taken place, with the autocracy running a legally isolated province rejecting the common law basis of its mother country?
|
|
|
Post by Telemachus on Jul 13, 2017 10:25:14 GMT
I think it's a very real possibility that there will be increased liscence fees for cc'ers. Crt managment and the iwa are in each other's pocket. Look at the situation with widebeams, the iwa have been banging on about them for awhile. Low and behold they are one of the targets of the "independent" Liscence review. Ricco is right it is social cleansing. Social cleansing of widebeams. What's not to like about that?
|
|
|
Post by Telemachus on Jul 13, 2017 10:28:46 GMT
Don't forget this is just the IWA's suggestion, not CRT's. I too can't see it happening although I suppose there could be a trend towards it over time. But also I think your "handful of boaters" is wrong, lots of CCers cruise long distances. But equally lots want to stay in one general area due to work etc, and it is them who would be "targeted". have you got any figures Nick for all these cc'ers who stay in one area you keep going on about? No but we have quite a few round our way - the same boats seen on the stretch between Fradley and Fazeley every time we go out. Surely anyone who has a job or kids in school and is CCing has to stay withing a reasonably small area? Currently they can of course comply with the CC guidlines but not with the IWA's proposals.
|
|
|
Post by Telemachus on Jul 13, 2017 10:31:59 GMT
Two items on the IWA's list of suggestions are quite blatantly aimed at subverting existing legislation. The first is directed at S.17 of the 1995 Act : • Fees for licences could be significantly increased (to an amount that would be similar to paying for both a licence and a mooring at present). A substantial discount (back down to current licence fee levels) would then be available to boaters who pay mooring fees to CRT or third parties or are genuinely continuously cruising. Other discounts could continue to be available as now, eg for electric propulsion, historic boats, museum boats, towed butties and licences for short disconnected waterways.In other words - "the concession [17(3)(c)(ii)] that Parliament approved to relieve boaters who intend to move about frequently and regularly from the obligation to have a mooring available to them will cease to have effect by way of having an annual mooring fee included in the cost of a Licence issued to anyone who does not already pay for a mooring". The second is equally outrageous in it's disregard of statute, and, in effect negates the limitations on registration fees imposed under S.4(1) of the 1983 Act, and the obligation to issue a PBC imposed under S.6(1) of the 1971 Act : • “Rivers only” licences should only be available to boats which due to their size are genuinely restricted to the river on which they are based. There should also be a proviso that boats issued with those licences could not declare themselves as continuously cruising. In other words - " we are abolishing PBC's for any craft other than those which are too big to enter the canal system from any of our scheduled river waterways, and any boaters owning craft of dimensions which will permit entry into the canal system will be obliged to pay an annual mooring fee (for NOT mooring on/to C&RT property/land) inclusive with the fee we will charge for the PBC we are misrepresenting as a Licence." It makes you wonder whether those who run the IWA actually represent the wishes of boaters. They seem to be more like CRT's right arm to me. They represent the wishes of some boaters. In fact I'd go so far as to say they respresent the wishes of perhaps the majority of boaters. Bear in mind the huge marinas stuffed full of boats that go out rarely, if ever. These are the sort of sunday afternoon boaters who like the IWA's proposals. And there are a hell of a lot of them! Its just that when out and about on the waterways other than bank holidays, one tends to see the more visible CCing live aboards etc, not the hidden hordes!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 13, 2017 10:44:46 GMT
It makes you wonder whether those who run the IWA actually represent the wishes of boaters. They seem to be more like CRT's right arm to me. They represent the wishes of some boaters. In fact I'd go so far as to say they respresent the wishes of perhaps the majority of boaters. Bear in mind the huge marinas stuffed full of boats that go out rarely, if ever. These are the sort of sunday afternoon boaters who like the IWA's proposals. And there are a hell of a lot of them! Its just that when out and about on the waterways other than bank holidays, one tends to see the more visible CCing live aboards etc, not the hidden hordes! You really are a thick cunt aren't you. Did you not notice that this had not been drawn up by it's membership?
|
|
|
Post by Telemachus on Jul 13, 2017 10:55:09 GMT
They represent the wishes of some boaters. In fact I'd go so far as to say they respresent the wishes of perhaps the majority of boaters. Bear in mind the huge marinas stuffed full of boats that go out rarely, if ever. These are the sort of sunday afternoon boaters who like the IWA's proposals. And there are a hell of a lot of them! Its just that when out and about on the waterways other than bank holidays, one tends to see the more visible CCing live aboards etc, not the hidden hordes! Did you not notice that this had not been drawn up by it's membership? So what, that doesn't mean a good chunk of the membership doesn't approve of it.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 13, 2017 10:57:39 GMT
Did you not notice that this had not been drawn up by it's membership? So what, that doesn't mean a good chunk of the membership doesn't approve of it. You fucking thick twat.
|
|
|
Post by kris on Jul 13, 2017 10:58:28 GMT
Did you not notice that this had not been drawn up by it's membership? So what, that doesn't mean a good chunk of the membership doesn't approve of it. so your talking on behalf of the iwa's membership now?
|
|