2008/9/24 Adrian Stott [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Continuous cruisers are in effect using public moorings (maybe quite a > few different ones over the course of a year, but often very few or > even one) in place of (paid) long term moorings. This is . I feel that > that difference should be paid for. > > This is nonsense. In so much as we are entitled to moor anywhere on the canal system except where we are restricted, what you are effectively saying when you assert that continuous cruisers make 'a much greater use of public moorings than is made by someone with a long-term mooring' is that continuous cruisers make much more use of the canals than those in paid long term moorings. Errr, yes... we know that. It's because they're continuous cruisers. This means they are cruising continuously.
However this assertion doesn't support any argument that they should pay more. But you don't feel that either, do you? Because as you admit, you 'feel' the difference should be paid for. Yours is an emotional response, not a rational one. And if the argument is on that level why should I support your contention that charging wide beam craft additional charges is 'unfair' when I might feel it's just? (Though actually I don't) Steve [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
