On Tue, 29 Jun 2010 15:14:26 +0100, Trevor <[email protected]> wrote:
>Oh, OK - I can see exactly what you are getting at now - you want to >alter just those rules that affect you personally and, presumably, just >in order to lower your own boating costs. Not so. That's one benefit I'd be pleased about, of course. However, I'd also like to improve the logic and equity of the system, and to achieve a charging arrangement that would provide increased revenue to the navigation authority. I think my suggestion does all those. >What I cannot see is how this sits with your recent article about the >folk living in a community on the K&A - surely they are only doing the >same as you want to do, i.e., change the rules to suit themselves? Everyone is able to propose changes in the rules. That's one of the benefits of democracy. Another is being able to oppose suggested changes one doesn't like. I think towpath squatting is a bad thing (for several reasons, which we can skip here). So I've said so, and provided my reasoning. OTOH, I think the current system of navigation charges is daft and unreasonable, so I've proposed a different one, and provided my reasoning. There's no inconsistency there. >You simply cannot sit on both ends of the same see-saw, well not at the >same time, Adrian Of course not. And I haven't tried to. > - even ex planning directors are subject to the same >rules as the common herd :-( Are you sure? Rats! >If your arguments are to hold water then I guess the same should happen >with the roads - we could have cheaper licenses for cars incapable of >pulling four adults up Chidock (sp?) Hill and close those motorways, >roads and lanes which we don't use personally, get rid of the railways, >airports, harbours and buses that the majority of the population never >use, etc. I'm afraid your comparisons don't work. A car might not be able to carry an overload up a steep hill, but presumably it can get up that hill with just its driver on board. I'd call that being able to use that hill road, so no justification there for a less expensive road licence. It isn't roads that I "don't use personally" that I would subtract from the ones I would pay for access too. It's roads that my car is unable to use. There are some vehicles which are unable to use motorways (e.g. those incapable of achieving a speed of 40 miles/hour). I feel they should not pay towards the motorways. And I think many of them don't. For example, I suspect quite a few are tractors and similar. But I admit to not knowing much about how they are taxed. Perhaps a farmist could enlighten me? People don't need a licence to use a bus, train, or airport, so your references to those facilities aren't relevant here. As I've said, I believe the key question is what you are/should be paying for when you buy a boat licence. My answer is "unlimited use of the waterways the boat is able to use, for a specified period". If you disagree, what's your alternative answer, please? Adrian Adrian Stott Tel. UK (0)7956-299966
