Jump to content

Email from cart


bigcol

Featured Posts

4 minutes ago, Machpoint005 said:

Insidious transatlantic influence. I catch trains at a railway station, and I bet you do too!

Ah yes I do, rather than a "train station"? Come to think of it though, "railway station" is not especially logical, as we say "bus station" and not "road station" - unlike the French who do call it a "gare routiere".

Curiouser and curiouser.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, rusty69 said:

Can a typical wide lock on the canal accommodate two historic barges at the same time? 

Fortunately, the canals around me were originally built for commercial traffic (Aire & Calder, Castleford, Goole etc) Had they not been suitable then we probably would not have made the same boat choices. As for can the locks here accommodate more than one  historic barge, then yes as they are both wide and long.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 13/10/2017 at 09:42, Sweeny Todd said:

Not saying you are right or wrong, just wondering at you reasons for it being fair or unfair. I used to have a narrow boat, now I have a historic barge which is wide. I don't use the C&RT facilities any more than I used to, my boat still uses the same length mooring to moor up. The only difference now is that there are many areas of the network as a whole that I am no longer able to travel. It was my personal choice to buy this boat and the trade off between less access to the network and keeping some of the history of the canals alive is worth it to me.

 

It seems only natural that boater A who buys a boat bigger than boater B's boat, say 50% bigger, should pay 50% more in licence fees. 

If boater A chooses a boat so large it won't fit through some of the locks, that is his own silly fault in my opinion and he may not expect a discount due to his silliness. This argument taken to the limit says a widebeam dropped into say the southern Oxford between two narrow locks should pay no licence fee as he can't go anywhere.

Clearly ridiculous.

  • Happy 1
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Mike the Boilerman said:

 

a widebeam dropped into say the southern Oxford between two narrow locks should pay no licence fee as he can't go anywhere.

Clearly ridiculous.

I wonder if that chap whose boat is in the middle of a field does.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

48 minutes ago, Athy said:

Yes, but it does seem to be gaining currency over here. To me, "fill in" is more logical, as the form has gaps for information, and you write that information IN the gaps.

But yet we fit out a boat, which is really fitting it in :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 13/10/2017 at 10:01, Athy said:

I wonder if that chap whose boat is in the middle of a field does.

I doubt it as he chooses not to float in CRT waters.

I wonder if there genuinely IS a market for a marina or private length of water not connected to the network, for people like him who want to live on a boat but never go anywhere.

If he extended his trough to fit another boat in, I bet he would want/need to charge them a licence though, which rather negates the principle dunnit!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

42 minutes ago, bigcol said:

 

Thankyou for the link, I’ve been able to save and will fill in later

The system does seem to accept the survey without the ID . If it is accepted as part of the consultation IMO as a web developer it's flawed. However I would doubt the results will be validated further along the line without an ID parameter but then again this is CaRT and is it really a consultation? In a former life as a marketing manager for a LA I was often asked to produce surveys which would provide the answered required.

Edited by Midnight
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Mike the Boilerman said:

It seems only natural that boater A who buys a boat bigger than boater B's boat, say 50% bigger, should pay 50% more in licence fees. 

If boater A chooses a boat so large it won't fit through some of the locks, that is his own silly fault in my opinion and he may not expect a discount due to his silliness. This argument taken to the limit says a widebeam dropped into say the southern Oxford between two narrow locks should pay no licence fee as he can't go anywhere.

Clearly ridiculous.

We bought our barge knowing that the northern waterways were built for, and are still suitable for a boat of it size. The people that knowingly drop a wide beam onto a canal that was not designed to take it, really can't complain about about lack of movement or demand a discount. The same argument can be used for people that currently get a discount for un-connected waterways. Their choice so why claim a discount. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Psycloud said:

But yet we fit out a boat, which is really fitting it in :)

Good point....but the fittings grow outwards from the sides of the boat towards the middle.

Or do they grow inwards?

Ain't English wonderful?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Athy said:

Good point....but the fittings grow outwards from the sides of the boat towards the middle.

Or do they grow inwards?

Ain't English wonderful?

And that is the most wonderful of all - unlike "isn't" "ain't" isn't a shortened version of 2 other words but has multiple uses/connotations.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Steilsteven said:

 

What I dislike about this whole exercise is that it sets boater against boater.

Keith 

You are not wrong. I don't understand the logic why a 70ft widebeam boat should pay the same licence fee as a 70ft narrowboat, if indeed this is the case 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Sweeny Todd said:

I agree, but I also think this will encourage more CM'ers. Why would someone choose to pay a few thousand pounds a year for a mooring when they can move in a limited area, use all the facilities within this area and still probably be better off than if they were paying for the mooring? In my case they would need to raise my licence by just under 400% to make this a more expensive option than having to pay for my mooring. 

Surly that is what 90% of the boats moored in London are doing, between the Lee and Little Venice but moving every 14 days 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, Mac of Cygnet said:

You can actually fill in the form using that link!  So much for the survey being limited to one per e-mail address. 

Vote early!  Vote often!

see my previous post Mac - a genuine survey would be severely flawed if it did accept completed forms without an ID.

Edited to add
It's so easy set setup validation that would prevent the form action if no valid ID parameter was present that I wonder if this is a bug or just not important i.e. cosmetic survey

Edited by Midnight
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, rusty69 said:

You are not wrong. I don't understand the logic why a 70ft widebeam boat should pay the same licence fee as a 70ft narrowboat, if indeed this is the case 

Perhaps the Length x Beam option is the fairest?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

35 minutes ago, Machpoint005 said:

Insidious transatlantic influence. I catch trains at a railway station, and I bet you do too!

Indeed.

The word station does not need qualification when used in a railway context.

The use of train station (and it pains me even to type those words out) is nearly as annoying as the use of electric when the correct word should be electricity.

 

 

And having posted that I'm off to stand, facing the wall, in pedant's corner.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, rusty69 said:

You are not wrong. I don't understand the logic why a 70ft widebeam boat should pay the same licence fee as a 70ft narrowboat, if indeed this is the case 

I don't understand the logic of boaters being charged by the size of their boat.None of the arguments bear scrutiny.

Keith

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 13/10/2017 at 10:28, Victor Vectis said:

Indeed.

The word station does not need qualification when used in a railway context.

The use of train station (and it pains me even to type those words out) is nearly as annoying as the use of electric when the correct word should be electricity.

 

 

And having posted that I'm off to stand, facing the wall, in pedant's corner.

 

Surely the corner belongs to multiple pedants, so should be pedants' corner.

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Steilsteven said:

I don't understand the logic of boaters being charged by the size of their boat.None of the arguments bear scrutiny.

Keith

 

And this is why they are running the consultation - there is no universally fair option that suits everyone so most likely the decisions will be based on majority vote with weighting towards making the budget work (or vice versa).

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, Victor Vectis said:

Indeed.

The word station does not need qualification when used in a railway context.

The use of train station (and it pains me even to type those words out) is nearly as annoying as the use of electric when the correct word should be electricity.

 

 

And having posted that I'm off to stand, facing the wall, in pedant's corner.

I'll join you in pedants' corner. Athy may join us soon. Mine's a pint.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.