Michael Clarke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >Surely it would have been better, or even morally better, to freeze the >waiting list (not to add any more names) and then wait until all those >on the list had been satisfied and then run the trial. This may not be >an ideal approach but far less contentious than what has already been >formulated.
The waiting list is several years long, so under your proposal BW would have to wait at least that long before it could undertake reform. However, the moorings availability problem is serious now. It is not reasonable to have to wait that long before it is remedied. As yet another reason why it is urgent to fix the availability problem, look at the following. After receiving complaints from boaters and boating organisations, BW has recently confirmed that mooring contracts are specific to individuals, not to boats. This means that it is no longer possible to "sell the (BW) mooring with the boat". You can sell the boat, but as soon as it changes hands the mooring is going to be offered to the person on the top of the waiting list and the buyer will have to remove the boat from it. But now what happens if you want to sell your boat? If the potential buyer does not already have a mooring, he won't be able to get one except via a waiting list. And, as noted, it may take him years to get to the top of one. That rather reduces the number of potential buyers, doesn't it? Looks like you may have that boat for quite a while. Looks like boat values could plummet. But that situation is clearly unacceptable. There *has* to be a method introduced very soon of making it possible to get a mooring without going through a waiting list. And that is exactly what auctions are. >To put it bluntly, it seems that BW are allowing those with more money >than sense to jump over the waiting list and if I was on the waiting >list, then I would be more than a little annoyed with BW. That's a misunderstanding of the situation IMHO. You can "jump over" a waiting list only if the list remains in place. If the list is terminated, there is nothing to jump over. Also, there seems to be some confusion over what you get by putting your name on a waiting list. What you *don't* get is any rights. In fact, all you get is an expectation that, while the list continues to operate, no-one on the list behind you will get served before you. And the only potential enforcers of that are other people on the list -- the vendor won't care. There is actually no guarantee that those on a list will *ever* get served. Think of the situation where you are queuing for event tickets. Before you get to the front of the queue, the event is sold out. You don't get a ticket, even though (and no matter how long) you were in the queue. The ticket vendor never guaranteed you would. Joining a queue is simply a gamble. Or, before you get to the front of the queue, the vendor notices how long the queue is and puts up the prices of the tickets. No-one promised you the price would stay at what it was when you joined the queue. Or, before you get to the front of the queue, the vendor decides he isn't going to sell tickets from that wicket any more because it is too much hassle. Not uncommon. Which, in effect, it what is happening with moorings here. Or, while you are in the queue, someone in front of you sells his place to someone not previously in the queue for, say, a hundred quid. Have you been mistreated? I don't think so -- you are no farther from the front than you were. Or, while you are in the queue, someone offers the vendor two hundred quid for a ticket if the vendor lets him avoid queueing (this also ensures that he gets one before the event sells out, of course). You *know* that happens. What are you going to do about it? You have no contract with the vendor. Being on a waiting list simply doesn't give you any rights, no matter how much those on the lists may like to think (and say) that it does. And lists are very vulnerable to, ah, manipulation. And they waste a lot of time, effort, and temper. They are, in general, a bad thing IMHO. They certainly aren't fair -- why should someone who has time to wait get priority over someone who has an urgent need now? It seems to me the reverse ought to be the case. Which is what auctions allow. So I see no moral/ethical problem with BW suspending or closing the lists. OTOH, I see a lot of problems in the continuation of the moorings availability problem. Adrian Adrian Stott 07956-299966
