Light Dues

P

ponapay

Well-Known Member
Joined
30 May 2001
Messages
394
Location
Scotland
Visit site
Whilst I believe that everyone should pay for what they use I do not see Trinity House's logic in saying that ALL Uk registered yachts/boats should pay for light dues.

Firstly Trinity House covers only England and Wales, so presumably no Scottish boat will be charged. And why should they charge those boats not berthed in UK or using UK waters.

I keep my boat in the Baltic and would expect to pay for light dues there.

It seems fairer to me that any charge should be levied through harbour dues, and only those that are NOT the home port. This would be difficult but not impossible to police.

Any views?



<hr width=100% size=1>
 
It is a waste of time looking for logic in the balderdash that emanates from trinity house.
This is purely about revenue generation and empire building.

The bureaucrats need to justify their existence and compulsory licensing is jolly wheeze to create hundreds of jobs at the expense of all boat owners (who are assumed by the government to be loaded and can (a) afford it and (b) will get no sympathy from the rest of the population.

If you read the cr*p that Trinity house circulated as part of the "consultation" exercise you would realise what a carve up it really is.

If TH has a funding crisis it is self induced. They reduced the dues paid by commercial shipping in the 1990's for reasons they never explained. In any event, the dues paid by commercial shipping are insignificant.

TH (along with many other government departments) has a significant pension liability. Any sensible management in a monopolistic position would have recognised this problem before cutting prices but hey, they are only civil servants after all and not answerable to anyone.

TH has also suggested that most leisure sailors would not object to paying. Dont ask me where they got this from.

Most European countries cover the cost of navigation aids from commercial shipping and general taxation. however, tony bliar and his cronies are on a crusade for social re-engineering and so having sorted out the toffs and their bally fox hunting, he has got yacht owners (rich b******s) in his gun sights...and he will justify it on safety grounds (more nanny state interference).

I wonder if he will extend the principle of paying for navigation aids to say, cyclists who currently use the roads (and all attendant traffic lights, signs, cycle paths etc) f.o.c.

I bet more cyclists die each year as a result of accidents on the road than leisure sailors on the water but as iss his policy...go for the soft targets.

We had better face the facts, whatever we or the RYA say, compulsory licensing is inevitable because they need the cash, they need to create employment and they need to protect us from ourselves because, apparently, the sea can be dangerous and they are worried that, in the words of Michael Caine, "not a lot of people know that".



<hr width=100% size=1>My drinking team has a sailing problem
 
Ian,

I agree why should we pay for something we do not use. Indeed we are encouraged to keep out of bouyed channels, Harwich Harbour Authority puts out a harbour guide with a yacht track with waypoints to encourage leisure craft to keep well clear of the buoyed channel. Its a bit like asking pedestrians to pay road tax but stay on the path?
As you point out on the Crouch we pay for a harbour plaque and as far as I know some of this money goes towards upkeep of the buoys as Trinity House passed the responsibility to the Harbour Authority. So on the Crouch we would have to pay twice for something we do not use. Like you I am retired and hope to get more use out of my yacht but the average yachtman only leaves the river maybe twice a year as its impossible to go any further in a small boat in a weekend.
Clearly the leisure boat owner could find himself as an easy target for all manner of Authorities once we are all on a data base, light dues, river tax, environmental tax, boat tax, speeding tax, congestion tax, anchoring tax, radio tax, GPS tax and one that we will get soon, fuel tax.
The freedom of the open road has long gone and how much longer will our freedom on the water last.

Happy Days!
Trevor



<hr width=100% size=1>
 
Another bloody tax. I wanted to have a good rant about this but to be honest I just feel sick.

<hr width=100% size=1>My Mum say's I'm not a fat b@st@rd, just heavy boned.
 
You seem to be labouring under several misaprehensions.

Firstly I should say that the proper place for this thread is in the Scuttlebut Forum where you will already find several threads on this subject.

If you read those threads you will see that its not "All Boats" that may have to pay.

Lastly I think you'll find that it is the GLA that will attempt to raise these fees & therefore Scotland will be included in any attack of this nature.

I offer no opinions here as I have made my feelings known elsewhere but I just thought that you should be aware of the full information.

Martin

<hr width=100% size=1>
 
No misaprehensions

I see no reason why a post of interest to practical boat owners should not be posted here and dismiss your first sentence accordingly.

As to GLA promoting the fees, it appears in all the publicity I have seen that it is Trinity House. Look at March PBO to see the response from Director of Operations of TH - he clearly believes it to be TH.

If as P Melson states TH is a private corporation why does he feel he has a right to obtain data provided for a completely reason to that for which it was given.

Would there be a breach of human rights if our data was given to a private organisation (albeit a QUANGO) by a govrenment department? I believe there would.

And I am sure that all owners of boats over 26 feet (PBO and YM) would be horrified to know that just because they registered (either SSR or Part 1) that their data could be passed on without their authority.

<hr width=100% size=1>
 
Re: No misaprehensions

I will be deregistering from the SSR if this comes in, and will refuse to pay in the best Scottish Poll Tax tradition.

One good thing about a boat is that you can always leave the country . . .

- Nick

<hr width=100% size=1><font size=1><A target="_blank" HREF=http://www.bluemoment.com>http://www.bluemoment.com</A></font size=1>
 
Re: No misaprehensions

From my understanding the information collected by MCGA under SSR can only be used for the original purpose for which it was intended. There is no reference on the MCGA SSR form that the information collected may be passed to other bodies for other purposes. If MCGA pass the information on to TH (or anybody else) for other purposes then I think they could well be in breach of Data Protection Regulations - we could all sue MCGA!!!





<hr width=100% size=1>
 
Re: No misaprehensions

The DVLA holds an enormous amount of data has anybody got a list of all the government bodies and companies that now have direct access to this data.

I tried to transfer my insurance onto a new car but was told by the insurance agent it was not registered with the DVLA and that was by a computer link as my data was being entered into the agents computer.
Maybe, just maybe this explains some of the junk mail we all get for car and house insurance.
So I can see no reason for a register of boat owners to be any different.

Trevor


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

Other threads that may be of interest

W
Downsizing to your boat.
2
Replies
28
Views
714
Wansworth
W

Share this page

Top