Licensing for pleasure craft.

Your post & responses lead me to two questions.

1) What planet are you from?

2) Why are you on the wind up?

Martin

<hr width=100% size=1>
 
<However, we have all seen at some time or other those who don't even bother to carry even a modicum of life saving necessities>

Where have we seen this? I for one don't go rummaging about on other peoples' boats looking for their safety equipment. The only place I have seen it is in media reports which are always "dramaticised" and rarely accurate. Please advise how you have managed to see boats without a "modicum of life saving necessities", are you some sort of inspector Rhumpole?

<hr width=100% size=1>
 
Lack of equipment

Recently I was on a well equipped offshore yacht but a closer inspection revealed no
1)Fray Bentos
2)Pot Noodles
3)Cauliflowers
4)Marmite

all it had were a couple of packets of brown rice and a mouldy old carrot. IMHO this craft was not seaworthy and should have been impounded immediately

<hr width=100% size=1>
 
While agreeing with Rhumpole doesn't appear to be the fashionable thing to do, I can see some sense in his arguments.

I always tend to approach these things (Licensing, Red Diesel, Light Dues etc) with a non-boaters eye. My experience is that whenever I take someone out on the water for the first time, they are (to say the least) surprised that you can take out a leisure boat of any type, price, size or weight with NO COMPULSORY TRAINING WHATSOEVER.

Moose's comment about road driving standards not being improved by licensing is frankly bizarre. Are you really saying that things would be no worse with everyone's little brother taking to the road on their 17th birthday having never had a lesson??

It would be interesting to see whether insurance premiums would come down if all boaters had to do some form of compulsory basic training...I suspect not!

You need a license to operate cars, motorcycles, trucks, planes & helicopters (even for leisure purposes). Why not boats???

So shoot me /forums/images/icons/smile.gif

Graham.


<hr width=100% size=1>"I am a bear of very little brain and long words bother me" - A A Milne.
 
Is'nt that a different argument ..

Rhumpole's original argument is taxation of leisure craft. Your's is certifying the competence of the user ..completely different arguments IMHO

<hr width=100% size=1>
 
<blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr>

It seems an anomaly to me that with the current Government's pursuit of taxing virtually everything they can, that they appear (so far anyway) to have left the many thousands of small privately owned pleasure craft dotted all around our coast free of this burden.
- However, it also seems to me that it is only right and fair that those with (sometimes very large) private craft, of all types, should be prepared to be taxed like the motor car, and to be licensed to use the vessel and its ancilliary equipment. In this respect the United Kingdom is now out of step with the rest of Europe. This would undoubtedly raise standards of seamanship and provide the necessary "income" for the future safety of our beloved coasts.

<hr></blockquote>

These are just vacuous ramblimgs. If you want to be taken seriously, you should:

(a) with respect to taxation, identify: what purpose any new tax would serve; how it would be assessed; how it would be collected; how much it would cost to collect; how much tax revenue would be raised; any possible and probable negative impacts;

(b) with respect to regulation, identify: what harm exists that regulation would address (with reference to verifiable statistics); how regulation would alleviate that harm; how much it would cost to implement and administer; any possible or probable negative impacts.

Until you have done that, you are doing no more than flying kites and your opinions deserve no respect.

<hr width=100% size=1><A target="_blank" HREF=http://aflcharters.co.uk>Dream Dancer</A>
 
That's how I first read it too, but Rhumpole refers to Licensing as being a way of increasing standards of seamanship. Surely the only way to do that is training. If opening your wallet makes you a better sailor, I'd be Ben Ainslie /forums/images/icons/wink.gif

Maybe I was lead more by Moose's reply than Rhumpole's original post.

Anyway, shouldn't it be Rumpole, without the "h"...?

<hr width=100% size=1>"I am a bear of very little brain and long words bother me" - A A Milne.
 
It's all assumption. Just because you imply something, it does not mean it is true. I am sure you are the kind of person who loves statistics and they show UK boating does not need any legislation. If it aint broke don't try to fix it.

The loss of life in pleasure boating is thankfully a very rare occurrence, I believe this is due to the vast majority of "sailors" being responsible when it come to their own and their crews safety. The tiny minority who may not be so safety conscious are the same minority who would probably ignore any legislation anyway. It would just be another way for the government to enforce and FINE the innocent by moving the goal posts and making the innocent guilty.

I truly believe the current governments policy on law and order is....
If you can't catch the criminal, criminalise the people you can catch./forums/images/icons/mad.gif


<hr width=100% size=1><A target="_blank" HREF=http://static.photobox.co.uk/public/images/45/99/10714599.s.jpg?ch=97&rr=16:00:39>Nirvana</A>
 
Never mind all that......

....I'd like to know a bit more about YOU !

Coming in here to our nice friendly forum and stirring up trouble....no bio...doesnt even say if you own a boat or not....username doesnt seem right either..should be Rumpole if you want it to justify the piccy you're using of that esteemed humourous character I know and love. Just did a google search on Rumpole...11,800 entries found....Rhumpole...only 1 and thats this forum and this thread.

Nope, sorry, not good enough..show yourself man (or woman) .....you have to earn the right here to be contentious........

<hr width=100% size=1><A target="_blank" HREF=http://www.boatsontheweb.com/> Website, Photo Gallery, Chat Room, Burgees</A>
 
Rumpole

Yes; very suspicious.

Rumpole's wife, Hilda, is of course the original She Who Must Be Obeyed (putting aside Conan Doyle ftb). Now, I don't know who originally introduced the acronym SWMBO to these forums, but tcm must, surely, be a prime candidate - and he's very quiet, just now. It's all starting to make sense.................../forums/images/icons/wink.gif

<hr width=100% size=1>Je suis Marxiste - tendance Groucho
 
Re: Rumpole

Nah .. TCM would have been much more humerous .. think he's hired a trawler and is trying to do a copper sweep from the Solent to Gibraltar

<hr width=100% size=1>
 
Re: Rumpole

Have to say I wasn't sure if it was a wind up but having read through all rhumpoles post and the post by the other new user (sorry can't remember the name) I'm convinced it is. How else could one person get it so wrong???

on the subject of rhumpole v rumpole, any connection to the scottish island of Rhum? play on words maybe.

Now who on this site is Scotish and likes to wind people up?

<hr width=100% size=1><P ID="edit"><FONT SIZE=-1>Edited by jac on 24/08/2004 10:43 (server time).</FONT></P>
 
Trouble is .....

Any money collected will go into the overall melting pot and NOT benefit direct to boating fraternity.

Better to stay with Habour dues etc.

I for one do not agree with taxing the boater .... why ? As soon as you do that - legisaltion wll start pouring out from the hidden depths of Govt .... restricting the last known literally free sport we have .....


<hr width=100% size=1>Nigel ... and of course Yahoo groups :
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/gps-navigator/
 
Re: Rumpole

Pas moi .. anyway .. and now for the revelation of the century


<font color=red>Claymore is not Scottish</font color=red>

<hr width=100% size=1>
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

Top