Oh come on

 [CYNICAL MODE]

 

Surely it is much easier to clock up your 100 (or whatever the figure is)
daily checked boats by doing it in a marina - an hour's walk around the
marina and that is 100 boats checked and ticked off.  To do a similar number
of boats on the towpath or on linear moorings is much harder work and takes
an awful lot longer.  I would also suggest that checking the towpath boats
is more likely to result in finding some unlicensed boats - and that of
course will create its own additional paperwork load.

 

[/CYNICAL MODE]

 

I remember the owners of a small boatyard telling me a couple of years ago
that they were visited once a month and each time the same thirty boats were
checked  yet two hundred yards up the cut were 3 unlicensed craft
permanently moored that were never looked at!

 

 

Malcolm

 

 

 

From: [email protected] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of David Cragg
Sent: 31 July 2007 15:33
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [canals-list] FW: K&A

 

Maybe it's BW sniffers week. There was one round our Marina who was
arranging to visit another 30 miles away. This checking must cost a fortune
what with pay, insurance, car allowance and mobile phone bills. Is it profit
driven like the BSC as in no unlicensed boats found = boot? Couldn't help
thinking our checker might be better employed near Manchester, Oxford or
maybe London than in Shires marinas. (Thinks - Wonder if he does BWML ones.)



Sue Burchett <[EMAIL PROTECTED] <mailto:sue%40navvy.freeserve.co.uk>
> wrote:

Subject: K&A

We met BW man with clip board checking boats today at Hungerford. There are
no concessions for overstaying on 24hr moorings as there are no problems on
the K&A and he hasn't heard of any problems on the Thames.
We have heard that there is a recurring problem at Midgham and you know the
situation on the Thames.
We hope to be at Reading at the weekend.
Sue

Sue nb Nackered Navvy

---------------------------------
Need a vacation? Get great deals to amazing places on Yahoo! Travel. 

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

 



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Reply via email to