MBY & Appeasement

[Planty]

Re: Full and frank exchange of ....ummm

Ditto the fight bit, some years ago I employed a young chap, happily married, nice home, cracking chap, ready to start a family, even had the "nursery" decorated. One night rang me to say not feeling to well. I awoke next morning to a call from his wife "Steph has died, Meningitis!"

Unknown to me she asked for his sperm to be taken and then fought anonymously to have his baby by AI. Laws used to stop her as he had not signed a piece of paper, she wanted to fight, no money!! I started a public trust fund to fight for her, TV, Radio, Media the lot, fought against "Dead Mans Baby??" Headlines, but raised 6 figure sum and won. Her name of course Diane Blood! There are rights and wrongs to this story but I knew all the facts and fought to the death or for the dead, literally.

I wouldn't like us to just roll over and capitulate on this one far from it. Paul

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[Joe_Cole]

Re: Full and frank exchange of ....ummm

I've been following your posts for a while now and am astonished at your continual moan about boaters not sticking together. The more I see of what you are saying is that you are right and no other view is acceptable, indeed other views must be expressed by people who in some way are not "proper" boaters. Your determination to man the barricades and fight what you see as the good fight is all very well but perhaps you should really find out what others think and maybe you should consider taking on board some of the other views which have been expressed.

Whether you like it or not the simple fact of the matter is that Joe Public will be astonished to hear how much cheap fuel is used to power leisure craft. Many of the public would think that obscene amounts of fuel are used by some boats, some of the figures which have appeared on this site show more fuel being used in a weekends "play" than some will use in their car in a year. All this adds to the widely held view that many boaters are indeed from the "I'm all right" brigade.

The political reality of your approach is that if you do not compromise then you are likely to make the case for the opposition

Fight it your way if you wish.....but your efforts are very likely to be counter productive.

Joe

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[poter]

A slightly different perspective

As one who will not be particularly affected by a diesel increase, I would never the less be very pissed if we allow the twats to put another useless tax on a commodity that boating people use for pleasure.
Especially as the revenue raised will be negligible & will almost definitely cost more to regulate & collect.
I already do the Taxman’s job for him by filling in a yearly novel.
Just who do they think they are?

The faceless government lackeys who just go along and dream up more & more ways of raising tax revenue to fill the exchequer, is an affront to us all. And we should be putting across a united argument, otherwise we loose.

Just look how scared Tony was when there was a possibility of a petrol/diesel protest again, he stated ‘the increase in duty will now be reviewed’. …Bull sh1t……Nothing to do with popularity or spin!!!!

Come on all lets fight these idiots in power, I’m all for a blockade>

poter



<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[Gludy]

Re: Full and frank exchange of ....ummm

"The political reality of your approach is that if you do not compromise then you are likely to make the case for the opposition "

First I try my best to make points and ask for specific but I do find that people produce mist rather than a counter argument.

Secondly why on earth do you assume that me wanting to fight our corner means that I will not compromise. I can assure you that any fight normally involves some compromise and I would back any reasonable compromise - HOWEVER I do not wish to abandon a lot of boaters and follow appeasement.

Compromise is taking a position somewhere between your position and the other persons - to adopt a doubling of the fuel price and adbandonment of any of the practical problems that should be placed in the way of government is not compromise - its appeasement and the compromise would come somewhere worse than twice the price an same as road fuel.

What may be upsetting you is that I express my views firmly - I invite detailed counter points but get very few. I have fought many campaigns and won most - I frankly hate fighting but will do so if I feel strongly enough. What I do expect is boaters to stick together and frankly I am surprised by some selfish attitudes.

"Whether you like it or not the simple fact of the matter is that Joe Public will be astonished to hear how much cheap fuel is used to power leisure craft. Many of the public would think that obscene amounts of fuel are used by some boats, some of the figures which have appeared on this site show more fuel being used in a weekends "play" than some will use in their car in a year. "

I agree with you - but that is ignorance and ignorance can be fought - if you advocate giving into impressions and ignorance then what a state we have reached

"The political reality of your approach is that if you do not compromise then you are likely to make the case for the opposition
Fight it your way if you wish.....but your efforts are very likely to be counter productive."

Soi Joe I am asking you a direct question - do you think that the starting position advocated by MBY is a good starting position that will be responded to with simple acceptance by government or do you think that govermenet would try to reach a compromise?

What exactly would you do to counter the deregulation?

Which points out of the MBM charter do you disagree with?

Now there - I am again inviting direct comment to try and get a sensible debate - please compromise and answer half the questions?

By the way, the best tactic is not manning barricades - its attacking.

<hr width=100% size=1>Paul

 

[Joe_Cole]

Re: Full and frank exchange of ....ummm

Before I spend time answering your questions I need to understand your position.

"agree with you - but that is ignorance and ignorance can be fought - if you advocate giving into impressions and ignorance then what a state we have reached"

What is the ignorance which you allege? Is it that Joe Public is ignorant of the fact that leisure boaters use large amounts of fuel at what will be perceived at a ridiculously cheap price. How do you justify this? Or are they ignorant of something else? Please advise.

"HOWEVER I do not wish to abandon a lot of boaters and follow appeasement."

When did you decide that you were going to take this up for other boaters? What mandate do you have to speak on behalf of other boaters?

What appeasement? It's another view which you happen not to agree with surely?

"What I do expect is boaters to stick together and frankly I am surprised by some selfish attitudes."
If you want boaters to stick together then why don't you do more to find out what the majority think, rather than just pressing your views? It may be that boaters think that other matters are more important, or that they think that you have a very weak case. Many have suggested that it may be more appropriate and effective to keep a low profile, do you agree?

What selfish attitudes are you talking about? I have seen different views, but not selfish ones.

I am firmly of the view that Joe Public would view the large amounts of fuel which are used by some leisure craft as obscene, selfish, astonishing (use whatever word Joe Public would think appropriate). How do you justify this fuel consumption? How would you explain it to the public in a way which would gain support?

How would you get a politician to justify his support for what will be seen as an over indulging special interest group?

I have seen very little to make a really well supported arguement against an increase. I believe that your case is weak and has not been put together very convincingly. If you can't convince fellow boaters (and you have already complained that many are not supporting your case) how will you convince Joe Public and the politicians?

I would also add that I do appreciate your patronizing and thorough explanation about the nature of compromise, but then I too have slipped into patronizing...../forums/images/icons/smile.gif

I will answer one point. You ask what I would do to counter the deregulation. At the moment I would do nothing; because the case that has been put together so far seems to be so weak. I started off against the removal of red diesel. I would say that I am now agnostic. The more I look at the arguements being put forward against it.....well I think you can see my standpoint.

Joe

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[oldgit]

Re: aha envy......

I wondered when that one would be disinterred. As every one knows who has never met me,I have enough chips on my shoulder to keep a whole TV garden show going for a whole series.
I really really do enjoy watching a nice fast large boat going by and good on the chap who has bought it.Hopefully one day that will be me.All I ask is for him not to tell me that his world will end if fuel goes up and that the whole of boating UK uses 15 GPH.
We all make sacrifices to keep our boats running of whatever size,mine happens to be running a 10 year old car,but when I bought my present boat and hopefully my next,there will be a fair old margin of error built in on running costs.Surely every one does this.Err maybe not then.
If petrol goes up are we to assume that the owners of Azures and Astons will plead special cases or will they go and buy that nice twin turbo A8 diesel which does 40 mpg and get on with their life.

<hr width=100% size=1>If it aint broke fix it till it is.

 

[Gludy]

Re: Full and frank exchange of ....ummm

What is the ignorance which you allege? Is it that Joe Public is ignorant of the fact that leisure boaters use large amounts of fuel at what will be perceived at a ridiculously cheap price. How do you justify this? Or are they ignorant of something else? Please advise."

Specifically, the ignorance I alledge, is from the joe public you speak about that has no understanding of the problems involved as outlined very well in the ten point MBM charter.

Further there is a simple assumption that the higher the tax rate the more tax income will be raised. Again, as pointed out by MBM there would probably be a tax loss.

Almost all of us are ignorant on many issues and need to be educated on them before we can make an informed decision.

I wrote;- "HOWEVER I do not wish to abandon a lot of boaters and follow appeasement."

Ypo responded:- "When did you decide that you were going to take this up for other boaters? What mandate do you have to speak on behalf of other boaters?"

Adopting a starting point that advocates a doubling of the fuel cost is abandoning a lot of boaters who could not afford that. That is what MBY has argued in the current issue. I am stating very clearly that that is appeasement and abandons many boaters. My argument is that we should not do that.

I put forward, as a starting basis of a discussion leading to action, the ten point MBM charter. I argue this is a good starting point. How you can twist this into me assuming a mandate to speak on behalf of boaters amazes me. I woish to see the formulation of an agreed policy.

"What appeasement? It's another view which you happen not to agree with surely?"

I am amazed that I have to spell this out to you. Starting out by giving in on the ten MBM charter points and OFFERING to accept a doubling of the fuel price is not compromise. Compromise is a a solution that lies somewhere between towp points. I have used the english word correctly, it is you that are playing with them.

"What selfish attitudes are you talking about? I have seen different views, but not selfish ones."

The remarks by 'Old Git' are just based on the 2- 3 gph he uses and he is ignoring many other users who simply cannot afford the hike - when asked many specific questions by me he simply does not give a direct answer - I regard those views expressed by him as selfish.


"How would you explain it to the public in a way which would gain support?"
I do not think the issue is big enogh to involve Joe public. I think that we have to use the ten point charter as a base and demostrate the problems to the politicians.

"I believe that your case is weak and has not been put together very convincingly. If you can't convince fellow boaters (and you have already complained that many are not supporting your case) how will you convince Joe Public and the politicians?"

What in the ren point charter do you disagree with? I keep asking this of Old Git, Of the MBY editor and others but no one ever responds.

"I would also add that I do appreciate your patronizing and thorough explanation about the nature of compromise, but then I too have slipped into patronizing....."

I really think you have it wrong as regards the difference. You seemed more concerend with my direct style rather than what I say. I repeat compromise is fine and you accused me of a no compromise policy even though I have never eluded to that in any post. Giving in as proposed by MBM is not compromise and that is what I started this thread on.

"I will answer one point. You ask what I would do to counter the deregulation. At the moment I would do nothing; because the case that has been put together so far seems to be so weak. I started off against the removal of red diesel. I would say that I am now agnostic. The more I look at the arguements being put forward against it.....well I think you can see my standpoint. "

So what points in the ten point charter do you disgaree with?








<hr width=100% size=1>Paul

 

[Gludy]

Re: aha envy......

I must syat I do not respect your tactics here

You totally misquote me, for example you claim that I wrote that I was truing to convince you that "the whole of boating UK uses 15 GPH.".

This is not what I wrote, what I wrote what that many sea going cruising boats use a lot more that your 2 - 3 gph and what is going to be very hard hit are sea going crusing boats.

Then you make claims but do not answer any questions I ask - you work in mist and cloud.

It was you that claimed YOU spoke for most UK boaters I counter claimed that you were ignoring the marine motor cruising market.

I even orgainised a poll on the red diesel forum to solicit opinions.

Frankly debating with you is impossible because you never clarify your points when asked to or answer questions.

You are simply now absurdly stating that everyone should have factored in a 300% to 400% price rise and have the nerve to tell those who struggle with their 33 foot marine cruiser that it's their fault.

Most boaters are not even aware of the issue - many of those who are think it cannot possibly happen."

"If petrol goes up are we to assume that the owners of Azures and Astons will plead special cases or will they go and buy that nice twin turbo A8 diesel which does 40 mpg and get on with their life. "

Petrol going up 300% to 400% would hurt a lot of people - your assumption that anyone with a marine crusing boat is in the same class as those owning "Azures and Astons" shows that you are totally out of contact with reality and must have one hell of a chip on your shoulder.

If you, break you habit and, answer just one question tell me how the owner of a £40k boat who has struggled to keep it going, worked on it every weekend facing a 400% increase in fuel cost that puts his fuel costs to the level of a 60 footer today, can survibe such a hike - your views show you do not care about these power boaters who are the backbone of boating. These people cannot escape to the med, they simply have to take a huge loss on their boat and get out of boating.

Frankly, unless you can clearly answer my questions and clarify your points, future responses to you are a complete waste of my time.




<hr width=100% size=1>Paul

 

[oldgit]

Re:Choice of fuel.

So nothing to do with reliability,availability,resale value or economy then.
Recent boat viewing journeys down to your neck of woods indicate that the view from your boat window is rather different from mine.
Not sure how many of the old converted lifeboats,P32,s ,northerners and Colvics in the the boatyards around me will be packing up boating in the near future.
There is more than one world of boating out there.

<hr width=100% size=1>If it aint broke fix it till it is.

 

[Gludy]

Re: Full and frank exchange of ....ummm

Joe, you wrote:-
"I will answer one point. You ask what I would do to counter the deregulation. At the moment I would do nothing; "

Does this mean you disagree with what was written in MBY about starting from a position of a doubling of the fuel price and therefore by so doing refuting most of the points in its suster MBM mags ten point charter? That by any standards is doing somethin, in my view something harmful - so I hope your remark means you disagree with what they have done.

<hr width=100% size=1>Paul

 

[Joe_Cole]

Re: aha envy......

Paul,

You are fighting the wrong people and not answering the questions which have been put to you.
You have told us all what an able and experienced campaigner you are so I'll just let you get on with it in your own sweet way. Good luck with it.

Joe

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[BrendanS]

Re: aha envy......

Very few people are responding, and if you want a campaign you need people on your side. There have been several on here that have posted they don't read threads with more than about 10 posts in them, and many more have stated they don't read long posts. If you want more interaction, don't diss people who disagree with you (poeple aren't going to respond to you if you hammer anyone that does), don't keep stating the same thing in longer and longer posts, and don't keep posting the same thing in numerous different threads. If your current arguements aren't working, think about fine tuning them, and going for soundbites that people can associate with.



<hr width=100% size=1>Catapultam habeo. Nisi pecuniam omnem mihi dabris, ad caput tuum saxum immane mittam.

 

[poter]

Re: Soundbites... how about-

'We shall fight them on the beaches,
We shall fight them in the air.... etc. etc.

or:

'The public will believe anything, so long as it is not founded on truth'

and last but not least

'Cynics regarded everybody as equally corrupt... Idealists regarded everybody as equally corrupt, except themselves'

I like that one.

poter

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[Gludy]

Re: aha envy......

You are probabaly right in what you say but I am not trying to start a campaign - my opening post on this thread was simply about the policy being advocated on MBY.

I try not to diss opponents but frankly I am so amazed at the selfish attitudes of some that I really do not care any more.

I once organised a campaign that involved alot of factory owners needing to cooperate together - I led the campaign but some pointed out on the way that the group had no right to speak for them .... we simply responded to say thats fine but we will carry on taking on behalf of those that want to fight ... we won a battle which was of benefit to all, except a few power hungry cibil servants, but I never forgot how some people on our side who chose not to join in went out of their way to spoil it for the rest - almost joining with the enemy to stop us. They just could not see the writing on the wall even when it was in ten foot high and right in front of them.

Boating is no different



<hr width=100% size=1>Paul

 

[Gludy]

Re: aha envy......

Joe - I answered your questions but as expected you failed to answer mine




<hr width=100% size=1>Paul

 

[BrendanS]

Re: aha envy......

>>I try not to diss opponents but frankly I am so amazed at the selfish attitudes of some that I really do not care any more.<<

There you go again! So easy, you do it without trying. Understand others perspectives, not all posts disagreeing with you are based on selfishness..they may simply disagree with your arguements

<hr width=100% size=1>Catapultam habeo. Nisi pecuniam omnem mihi dabris, ad caput tuum saxum immane mittam.

 

[oldgit]

Peace and love Gludy

Ouch capitals and personal abuse.Always helps with this sort of debate..Hope that you do not have the throttles on that campaign of yours open 2 wide cos a fair number of of boaters will not be able to keep up with you as you disappear at a great rate of knots over the horizon.Hope this helps explain things a bit.
I recommend sailing,wonderfully relaxing./forums/images/icons/laugh.gif

<hr width=100% size=1>If it aint broke fix it till it is.

 

[Gludy]

Re: aha envy......

Brendon I fully appreciate that not all posts are based on selfishness and I have been specific, which is more than can be said for others, about where the selfishness has occured. So I am simply calling a spade a spade and have never accused or in anyway implied that all posts against my arguments were selfish.

"Understand others perspectives,"

I do understand them, just disagree with them. Part of the problem is getting them to clarify what they mean - it turns out that some do not wish to clarify what they mean, they refuse to answer questions and so it becomes impossible to further a debate.

I started this thread on the subject of the MBY appeasement policy, not the entire subject od deregulation - I responded properly to all those who argued against but was shocked by the selfish attitude of just one in particular - like I was shocked by the attitude of some raggies who seem to want to support a full price hike. I suppose dissappointed may be a better word than shocked.

I am not trying to start a campaign nor compete for any popularity stakes. I strongly support the ten point MBM charter as a starting point and have again and again tried to get folks to debate some of those points in the charter.

My strength of feeling on the subject is because of the effect it may have on a whole range of marine cruising friends I have and looking out wider on the whole UK scene, all would be for no real gain in tax yield. In me travelling to the Med a fair amount of low tax avaition fuel will be used to get me to my boat, so there is really no great underlying logic being applied to the subject.

If the situation were reversed and inland boaters using 2 to 3 gph were about to be hit by, say a huge unjust navigation fee, I would be there in support to fight it - I still would be there because I am sure that not all inland boaters have the 'I am allright' attitude expressed in this thread. Faced with such an impending fee it would be beyong my ability to write a post stating that most boaters will not pay it or be effected by it ..... if they have a boat they should factor in such things etc.

There does seem to be a faction of boaters that almost take glee in the deregulation problem - add to that idiotic policies as advocated by MBY and we have a very disjointed UK boating fraternity that seems intent on losing out big time.






<hr width=100% size=1>Paul

 

[Gludy]

Re: Peace and love Gludy

'Old Git'

In calling your views selfish and being honest and open about who I am calling selfish, I do not consider personal abuse. I have expressed an opinion about your views based on your expressed opinions and continued refusal to clarify or answer questions. I also object to the manner in which you totally misquote me when what I wrote is clearly there for others to see as is your refusal to answer or clarify.

I do not have a campaign going - I simply support the MBM campaign so there is no need to worry about how wide I open the throttle - I am not doing other than try to discusss the issues because. it seems I care, a little more than some, about those who consume more than 2 - 3 gph and even extend that caring to those who will not be able to afford having their 2 to 3 gph boat costing the same as a 9 to 12 gph boat

When I purchased my last boat I did factor in what would happen at deregulation time - a move to the Med, I realise that I am lucky to even have that option and care about those who do not have that choice and will be forced out of boating. It seems that my views are echoed very well in the MBM charter but not at all by MBY. I have even asked what points in the MBM charter MBY disagees with. I have asked that question because in advocating putting forward a doubling of price as out starting point actually negates almost every single charter point.

There may be a perfectly valid reason why that question has not as yet been answered - I just hope it gets answered one day.




<hr width=100% size=1>Paul

 

[hlb]

Re: aha envy......

Is anyone reading this twaddle????...../forums/images/icons/laugh.gif

<hr width=100% size=1> Get Yer Flags ear</font color=red>
Haydn