In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Neil Arlidge <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes >TREVOR BURRIDGE wrote: >> I am a little perplexed by the responses from Eugene as it seems is >> Mr Wood ! >> >> If a Trial is anything it is a test bed for something so surely one >> would expect to tinker with it bit by bit until it is right. >> >> Or is the Trial to prove that BW auctioning the moorings is the Right >> thing to do. >> >> What happens if it proves to be too costly to BW are we to believe >> they wont tinker with it to make it profitable. >> >> Come on someone find that loophole and expose it and see if BW don't >> tweak the trial ! >> >> Are there Moorings Touts yet on the Cut ? >> >> Trevor > > >Sally Ash's latest press release, I think she should post here instead of >getting Eugene to do her dirty work: >http://www.tuesdaynightclub.co.uk/Stuff/Pricing%20of%20BW%20mooring%20va >cancies.doc > >So people without internet access are already at a £10-£15 per year >disadvantage. >(so for the three year contract 3 times this amount???) > Not from the way I read the press release. I understand it to mean that an administration fee of £10 - £15 will be charged to cover a year's worth of admin ie postage costs of notifying the person as moorings become available and "keying in" postal applications to the system.
Not IMHO an unreasonable figure to cover the additional costs. Lets face it the bulk of applicants are likely to have access to the imternet by one means or another (including libraries etc). Continuous cruisers, the group most likely to lack internet access are de facto also the least likely to want a long-term mooring aren't they. Cheers Guy -- Guy Morgan nb Virgo, WFB, Stockton GU Defend the waterways. Visit the web site www.saveourwaterways.org.uk
