MBY & Appeasement

[Gludy]

Re: aha envy......

I must disagree with you Brendon.

When people make a point, for example, referring to a particular faction with vested interests and you ask them to clarify what faction they mean, then all you are seeling is clarification to continue the discussion.

When people constantly refuse to answer simple questions, then it becomes impossible to have the discussion go anywhere.

As regards my history on the forum, I am maybe most known for the jet discussions - these were technical discussions that were informative to me and many others. I think my reputation is that I seek to move a discussion onto something and maybe some do not want that - that just wish to stay in the mist


<hr width=100% size=1>Paul

 

[hlb]

Re: aha envy......

Yeh but the rest of us manage to say what we think with maybe half a dozen posts. With you and Happy it takes eighty.../forums/images/icons/laugh.gif

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

 

[Gludy]

Re: Spot-on......

Tom
As ediror of MBY I am frankly disgusted with that remark from you.

You have failed to answer straight simple questions from me and then have the nerve to join in the discussion from the wings in that manner.

It takes my breath away that you could do that. You told me you were busy and could not answer at that time - now you join in in a sort of witch hunt.

Frankly, this may please you, I am on the point of leaving the forum for good that is how disguested I am with you.

All I have done is honestly and openly ask clear questions of you because you are in my opinion damaging UK boating. This is a valid point of view and deserves answers.

You fail to answer and then pop up as part of the witch hunt campaign. Wow, at leaset I know have evidence of the sort of people I am dealing with here.

<hr width=100% size=1>Paul

 

[Planty]

Re: Spot-on......

I think the debate with myself re my continued subscription to MBY, just got reconciled! IMHO this months ain't worth much anyway, Boat International, here I come!! Paul

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[Andrew_Fanner]

Re: aha envy......

>>>
the Government lose more than £4000million a year through the illegal use of Red Diesel
>>>

Sure this isn't a typo?

Red 35ppl
White 80ppl

Assuming all the balance is tax (not an unreasonable estimate)

45p tax "lost" per litre

£4000M tax lost = 888,888,888 litres or almost 20 million gallons. Someone somwhere is fibbing methinks, or has really fluffed the research. Or the problem is vast. If my sums are right thats several hundred thousand tonnes.

<hr width=100% size=1>Two beers please, my friend is paying.

 

[hlb]

Re: aha envy......

Oi. I never said that.../forums/images/icons/laugh.gif

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

 

[TomIsitt]

Re: Spot-on......

Hold on a minute...if there's been a witch-hunt here, I have been on the recieving end of it, not you. Nobody's been demanding that you be sacked fom your job or making personal remarks about how you're single-handedly going to be responsible for the death of our "sport".

If you feel you have to leave the forum just because I happened to agree with someone else (not you), then so be it. But I do agree with Brendon that maybe your bullish attitude, and the need always to have the last word, could be a reason why not everyone wants to enter into a seemingly endless debate with you when most people have had their say on this subject and moved on.

I haven't joined in this debate because we've been over all this before...many times. I do not propose to deconstruct the MBM Charter because, although I have many reservations about the validity of some of the points, I don't think it would be a positive step. The motorboating world needs to put up a united front (taking into account everyone's views, not just yours, or mine).

We need the RYA to use every weapon in their political arsenal to pursuade our Government to go into bat for us. If we're very lucky the Government will try and get us an extension of the derogation. If we're even luckier, the Eurocrats will grant that extension. And when that derogation expires (be it in 2007 or shortly thereafter) let's hope that the RYA and the BMF have pursuaded the Treasury to give us some kind of concession so that we don't have to pay road-fuel prices.

Will blockades and civil disobedience endear us to the Government and get them to make a strong case to Brussels on our behalf? I doubt it. Can the general public be pursuaded as to the legitimacy and justness of our cause (cheap fuel for rich people...don't think that they'll see it any other way). Unlikely.

So what to do? We've got two and a half years, so we don't have to rush into anything. Personally, I think we should see what the RYA (love them or hate them, they're our best chance) has to say, and then lend our whole-hearted support to them. They are the ones dealing with the Government on a regular basis, they are the ones who negotiated that last extension of our derogation, and they are the ones most likely to get us out of this mess. And yes, I've had a pop at the RYA in the past, but we will need their expertise to help us. And by all means sign the MBM petition...I have, and I hope most of you have too.

But if we fail in our attempts to get an extension of the derogation (and I'm pretty sure we will), I am still of the opinion that parity with Europe's waterside fuel prices is what we should aim for. I'm not saying any of this is going to be easily, or cheaply, achieved. I'm saying that some kind of parity would be a solution that would satisfy the government, the Eurocrats and most (but obviously not all) motorboaters.

Anyway, that's the kind of person you're dealing with here. If that makes me an idiot, someone who is doing irreparable damage to the UK motorboating scene, and someone who deserves to be sacked to expressing a sincere and heart-felt opinion, then I'm sorry. And if you leave the forum for good, I'm sure there will be many of us who will miss your lively debating style.


<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[tcm]

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

Nice post AF, but you are being a bit lefty. Fact is that taxes have increased many times over since income tax was introduced. Bad King John was ripping cash out of the population at the rate of ...3%.

Currently, we pay over 40% in tax, rather than under 34 % the fastest rate of tax increase. Of course, we need some taxes to pay for those things that we cannot buy individually - defence is a good example.

But much other state machinery is questionable. Education, health, social security are all examples. Horror - would we ask people to fend for themselves? Well, yes, to a degree, and we already do.

To get food and water, there is no option but to use the private sector. There's no free National Food Service, and no free Water Service either. Yet these aspects of uk life have improved beyond recognition - unlike the others mentioned above.

Tax is inevitable, but high tax is not. The concept of "fair and reasonable" tax is one brought along recently, and it is sems fashionable to ridicule those who would aim for lower taxation - "aha" says the man on the Today program to Michael Howard "so - You's Lower Public Expenditure hm?"

Yes, i would. Taxes are higher - much higher - than before the invention of the telephone, radio, television, computers, mobile phones, internet. All these are ideal ways in which to reduce tax in real terms, whereas we have the same mechancism -or much larger- that assume none of these devices, so a huge public sector in centralised and local areas still behaves as though it takes a day or a week for news from places a few hundred miles from central government to be heard about, when these days we'll all see it on commercial TV within the hour. Same as we eat commercially-grown and distributed food within a week of it being harvested.

There are now 600,000 more civil servants than there were two years ago, and Camden council employs more than 75,000. I wonder what they do? There are fewer than 1000 teachers in camden, so a huge cut in public expenditure need not cut any teachers. You could double the number of teachers, or double their salaries, and still cut taxes.

In fact, you could double the salary of teachers, and elminate income tax and council tax, turf out large numbers of public sector workers to fuel a private sector that is crying out for decent staff and already supports a huge recruitment sector dedicated towards trying to spread around a limited number of people towards a huge number of vacancies. Vote for me!






<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[tcm]

Re: Aw!

ok then planty, let's have a protest! Let's all trundle up to parliament and toot horns, or blockade something. Er tell you what, let's not take your's cos it's called "Damn the Expense!" so we'll go on mine. Oops, no, that won't work either bit much, we'll go on Gludy's boat er well that's a bit new and posh as well, er has anyone got a crap boat that scoff loads of diesel? Oh heck...

Is there anywhere to sign up for fuel that costs the same as when er before we found a load of oil in the north sea? I thought it was gonna be dead cheap, not dead expensive.

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[Gludy]

Re: Spot-on......

I have resigned the forum but because you have finally deemed to respond I will respond directly to you post and no more.

"Hold on a minute...if there's been a witch-hunt here, I have been on the recieving end of it, not you. Nobody's been demanding that you be sacked fom your job or making personal remarks about how you're single-handedly going to be responsible for the death of our "sport"."

I have never demanded or hinted that you be sacked, I have not made personal remarks about you. In fact when it was pointed out you do not own a boat instead of joining in, I pointed out that what you do is your concern .. its does not matter if you have three heads and blue skin etc, all that matters is the policy you advocate. So where things could have gone personal I tried to bring it back to the issue.

Nor have I or anyone else that I have seen stated "how you're single-handedly going to be responsible for the death of our "sport" - I do not know hwere that comes from.

"If you feel you have to leave the forum just because I happened to agree with someone else (not you), then so be it."
No - I have resigned because of your behaviour. mi am more than capable of holding my own in any discussion.

"But I do agree with Brendon that maybe your bullish attitude, and the need always to have the last word, could be a reason why not everyone wants to enter into a seemingly endless debate with you when most people have had their say on this subject and moved on."

Thats simply not true - the only way the thread becomes long is because I answer every point put to me and other continue to contribute. No one is forced to enter into any debate. The thread was clearly about your policy in MBY and you kept totally silent unitl the one messagae where you joined in on a personal point about me - you did not write one single word on the questions or policy issue.

"I haven't joined in this debate because we've been over all this before...many times."
No you have not - you have only just advocated the policy of putting forward a doubling of the price and it has not been discussede endless times at all - so the very subject of the thread has not been discussed endlessly.

"I do not propose to deconstruct the MBM Charter because, although I have many reservations about the validity of some of the points, I don't think it would be a positive step. The motorboating world needs to put up a united front (taking into account everyone's views, not just yours, or mine)."

Then why on earth did you advocater a double price policy which shoots down almost every charter point!!!!
That is not a united policy - that is not taking into account everyone's views - it is double talk.


"Will blockades and civil disobedience endear us to the Government and get them to make a strong case to Brussels on our behalf? I doubt it. Can the general public be pursuaded as to the legitimacy and justness of our cause (cheap fuel for rich people...don't think that they'll see it any other way). Unlikely."

I happen to agree with you on this - any campaign needs public support to win and that will not be forthcoming.

"So what to do? We've got two and a half years, so we don't have to rush into anything. Personally, I think we should see what the RYA (love them or hate them, they're our best chance) has to say, and then lend our whole-hearted support to them."

They are also advocating a doubling of the fuel and I feel do not represent motor boaters - I am also not reneweing my membership to that orgianisation. I do however think that someone should bang their heads together because like it or not our biggest voice in government has fadopted an appeasement policy already.

"But if we fail in our attempts to get an extension of the derogation (and I'm pretty sure we will), I am still of the opinion that parity with Europe's waterside fuel prices is what we should aim for. "

If you begin with a parity position you start from a position that has already used up the charter points and capitulated. If we aim for somethin we do not concede it from the outset!

"I'm not saying any of this is going to be easily, or cheaply, achieved. I'm saying that some kind of parity would be a solution that would satisfy the government, the Eurocrats and most (but obviously not all) motorboaters."

It may be the best we can get but how we get there is critical and we shall not get there by starting from that position.

"Anyway, that's the kind of person you're dealing with here. If that makes me an idiot, someone who is doing irreparable damage to the UK motorboating scene, and someone who deserves to be sacked to expressing a sincere and heart-felt opinion, then I'm sorry."
I do not know where this sacking is coming from - Yes I beleive you are doing damage to the UK motor boating industry and simply wanted to debate that with you. The fact that you ran away from that deabte but joined in with just one post that backed the growing standard forum witch hunt was terrible behaviour for an editor.

"And if you leave the forum for good, I'm sure there will be many of us who will miss your lively debating style."

If you look back over the thread you will see that time and time again I try to bring the subject back to both sides answering questions honestly and openly.

My style is honest enough when asked by 'Old Git' to be straight with him and tell him that I considered his views selfish and why - I always strove to get the points answered. In fact, even in responding to your post here, I have attempted to answer every question you put to me.

This forum does not need my style at all - it will not miss it either because it does not want uncomfortable questions asked and does not want to have proper discussions - this does not apply to all forumites but there is a faction that always gets in and it ends up as standrad forum witch hunt - it was you joining in that instead of answering any questions that did it for me.

I do not think you do not care - in fact I stated that I did not doubt your sincerity you, in my view, made a mistake, in advocating a policy - in effect formulating policy on the hoof. That is not the end of the world, nor will it cause UK motor boating to cease ... it would be something positive if you accepeted that to be the case and regreted advocating that policy at this stage ... if I have done no more than make you really think and be more cautious about the subject, then something has been achieved by the my forum presence.

I shall only respond on this thread to posts by you my other forum presence is over and I will move on.













<hr width=100% size=1>Paul

 

[Benny1]

Re: Aw!

TCM,

I would not bother too much. I tried a reasoned argument on the "Red Deisel - An Idea" thread and it got ignored.

I think we all appreciate the issue and the probable efffects, but as you say you need to look at it from a realistic standpoint, consider the best and most probabale outcome and fight tooth and nail for that.

If you go all out for something which is just not realistic 99 times out of 100 you will end up with nothing.

Mind you, this could generate another 15 paragraph reply repeating the same points again.

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[tcm]

Re: benny: a response

well, in response to your post i would like to cut and paste it on to a new post, and then drone on ad nauseam responding to each little bit in fine detail, except that i can't be bothered.

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[Benny1]

Re: benny: a response

Make that a 25 paragraph reply...

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[PaulF]

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

Matt,
You actually missed out the area we are taxed after tax deducted. Like every time we spend on services and products. Then there is our pension finds, also recently plundered. Then GB makes noises about us having to plan more for our futures, ensuring of course that MP's pensions are suitably stacked up.

We ARE shafted in all directions by the powers that be. The trouble is 'Turkeys dont vote for Christmas'

This discussion has created immense heat in some quarters, please all take a step back.

We are here because we love playing with boats. Our common interest must be the goal, and it wont be decided this week, or next. Paul.

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[Deleted User YDKXO]

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

Well said, you've got my vote next week. Pity, the Tories dont have the balls to say the same

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[Observer]

On witch hunts etc...

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

Anyway, that's the kind of person you're dealing with here. If that makes me an idiot, someone who is doing irreparable damage to the UK motorboating scene, and someone who deserves to be sacked to expressing a sincere and heart-felt opinion, then I'm sorry.

<hr></blockquote>

As 'witchfinder general' I should make it clear that I consider:

1. yes - you're an idiot; and
2. yes - you should be dismissed (or resign).

You are absolutely entitled to express a "sincere and heart-felt" (sic) opinion as a private individual. However, as editor of a large circulation boating magazine which: (a) may be taken to represent the views of its readership; and (b) may reasonably be expected to espouse the interests of its readership, you should, in my view, refrain from expressing such an opinion if it is reasonably likely or possible that such views could be damaging to the interests of a large section of that readership. It is, or should be, self-evident (even to you) that your comments in the April editorial (subsequently lamely justified as 'humour') were at least unhelpful. At worst, they were (or will be) highly damaging. That would have been the case if you had written the comments spontaneouly (e.g. on this forum). As it is, and what makes matters far worse, is the fact that they appeared in an editorial, to which, it could be expected, you had given some serious consideration.

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

But if we fail in our attempts to get an extension of the derogation (and I'm pretty sure we will), I am still of the opinion that parity with Europe's waterside fuel prices is what we should aim for.

<hr></blockquote>

There is no strategy more sure to succeed than expecting to fail. You don't explain exactly what you mean by "parity" or the fact that it represents a quintupling (as a minimum) of the present rate of duty. How does "I am still of the opinion that parity with Europe's waterside fuel prices is what we should aim for" reconcile with your statement that you have signed the MBM petition (to keep the derogation). You say (or write) one thing when you mean another (as you claim you did in relation to your April editorial). Your objection to the loss of derogation seems to be no more than a token rather than a conviction. How the hell do you hope to persuade the other side in any discussion, argument or debate if you fail to give even an impression that you believe in the position for which you're arguing?

I do not see loss of the derogation as a foregone conclusion. It may represent your private opinion but you should have the sense and good judgment not to express it publicly, or at least not as part of an editorial policy statement. Does the present lower rate of duty on red diesel create a serious distortion of competition? If not, why is 'harmonisation' necessary? There is a weight of public opinion building against bureaucratic meddling from Brussels (and 'harmonisation' for its own sake is a pretty good example) which may well help to underpin resistance. Unless there is some compelling argument on competition grounds (or similar), why does it matter if the UK (and Ireland) have lower rates of diesel duty for leisure boating. It helps to counter-balance the VAT incentives which we know some south European countries offer to leisure boaters.

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

So what to do? We've got two and a half years, so we don't have to rush into anything. Personally, I think we should see what the RYA (love them or hate them, they're our best chance) has to say, and then lend our whole-hearted support to them. They are the ones dealing with the Government on a regular basis, they are the ones who negotiated that last extension of our derogation, and they are the ones most likely to get us out of this mess.

<hr></blockquote>

Partly right, except sitting back and leaving it to the RYA is not enough. What we should do (and what I would expect MBY and MBM to do) is use every opportunity to present the arguments to the RYA or to government (or whoever) to at least try to ensure that the 'right' arguments are heard. The best approach, in my view (although willing to consider others) would be to apply steady, firm pressure, based, principally, on a 'balance of risks' argument - i.e. "this is the potential gain (theoretical increase in duty revenue) but these are the potential risks (contraction of marine industy, boaters driven abroad, cost and complexity of administration etc). Is it worth taking the risk?".

There is so much that you, with the resources of MBY, could be doing - could still do. As I posted above, your present editorial policy constitutes an utter dereliction of your responsibilities to your readers. I don't know who will "get us out of this mess" but it certainly won't be you - at least not with your present policy.



<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[PhilF]

Re: On witch hunts etc...

Where did you lot learn manners.
You might not agree with his views, or editorial, but you have no right to be rude and abusive.
Leave the forum, cancel your subscription, become a raggie, sell your Boat, do what you like, but lets not desintigrate to the lowest common denominator.


<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[Benny1]

Re: On witch hunts etc...

Agreed,

Good journalists stir things up and write what they think of a situation, with a balanced explanation, especially in a column.

If Tom just wanted to write what the readers wanted to hear perhaps he should go and work on the Daily Mail, but he seems to have a mind of his own, which can only be commended.

Since when does the editor of a privately (in this sense I mean not owned by the state) owned magazine have to be bullied about what is written in the mag. Surely any influence on what the editor writes can and should come only from the publishers. If they are unhappy then they can take action, but they do not seem to be.

If I were you I'd all stop bickering on here and if you want to take direct action do it somewhere more meaningful. If you want to influence the media by bullying, perhaps you should all change your surname to Campbell.

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[Planty]

Re: On witch hunts etc...

Cancelling tomorrow for definite.

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[Aardee]

Re: On witch hunts etc...

Oi PhilF,

Why should we have him!!!

Graham (Raggie) /forums/images/icons/smile.gif

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