Radio 4 - coming up 17:40

[boatless]

Something about 'bad news for pleasure boat owners'.

<hr width=100% size=1>my opinion is complete rubbish, probably.

 

[Sean]

I heard the last few words. What was it??

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[cameronke]

Hello Boatless (my commiserations)

Afraid I was so busy reading the forums that I missed the news. What happened?

Regards
Cameron

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[sailorman]

typical bbc "hype" only bad news is news.
i am a bbc / radio listener

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[LadyInBed]

The Light Dues report made it to the PM program on Radio 4 this evening. An RYA spokesman clearly came down on the side of the leisure boater.

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[Becky]

Unfortunately I heard the whole thing. Usual sad British reporting, in that the reporter said to an elderly couple in Hamble Marina 'surely you must be well-healed to own a yacht, and £100 will be nothing to you?' Or words to that effect. They were too slow to make a meaningful point, and the RYA representative didn't do much better. He did state that the buoyage system was more for 'boaters' (really don't like that expression) to avoid than as a navigation aid, at least that is what he meant, but we didn't come off at all well. If this is the standard of response from the RYA, I suggest that we get our cheque books ready now.
I suppose that what really gets to me is the British attitude that anyone who gives the slightest indication of being successful is brash, ostentatious and therefore bad, crooked and deserves to be pulled down. Success and any indication of it is deemed to be at the expense of the downtrodden working class. Makes me sick. End of rant.

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[Mik_Mohr]

I heard the whole report. I was very dissapointed. Firstly it was a "slow news day, fill in the time piece", so no real work had gone into any research. Secondly, it was very one sided. The government report stated that pleasure craft owners should bear some of the cost of light dues. The couple they interviewed made their case reasonably well, but anyone not aware of the realities of our hobby would still come away with the impression that all boat owners are rich, so what are they complaining about. My last complaint couples slightly with the first. The RYA chap interviewed barely touched on the unfairness of this "tax". He did get it out, but with little conviction, that the lighting and bouyage system is not only almost exclusively used by maritime business users, but in fact pleasure craft are prohibited from using most of them. The interview pretty much ended there, with no reply required from any of those in power as to why it was fair for pleasure craft owners to be charged for a facility they cannot for the most part, and do not for pretty much the rest, use. It left the boating fraternity looking like a whingeing bunch of retired snobs, squealing about being required to pay, for what seems to the lay man, an understandable "service".

Like Becky, I fear that the battle is lost before it even began.

<hr width=100% size=1>You can lead a student to knowledge, but you cannot make them think.

 

[Tomsk]

Unlike the rest of you Super Rich 'Boaties' ;-) I am a poor downtrodden working class boat owner who has to scrimp and scrape for every penny that the 'Old Tub' demands off me..

Regardless, who currently pays for light boys and light 'navigation' aids? I berth in that wonderful haven Fleetwood Harbour Village. As I understand it all navigation and channel marker bouys in our vacinity are owned and maintained by ABP. Am I not, therefore, paying for this service through my mooring fees?



<hr width=100% size=1>Tomsk -

The learning curve starts at £30,000 and works it's way upwards exponentially

 

[AndrewB]

Yes, ...

... but the new tax is to cover Trinity House buoys, the ones around the coast rather than those maintained by harbour authorities. You don't even use them? Tough, its a rip-off. Like road-tax, no-one seriously believes this fund is going to be used solely to maintain and improve buoyage and lights. More likely a reverse Robin Hood tax, stealing from poor downtrodden working-class boat owners to keep the retired Admirals in Trinity House in the claret to which they are accustomed.

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[webcraft]

Re: Yes, ...

I for one will not pay this tax. My cruising area has very few lights and marks and I would happily live without them rather than pay £100. It's just another version of the poll tax for boat owners - irrespective of income, size of boat or anything else. £100 IS a lot of money to me - I would rather pay an Offshore subscription to the RNLI and buy a couple of in-date flares.


I suggest a campaign of civil disobedience on this one if it's introduced. I reckon they'll give up pretty quick if everyone deregisters from the SSR (currently the only proposed method as far as I am aware of identifying the victims of this tax)

- 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>

 

[sailorman]

Re: Yes, ...

re-register under a "flag of converience" , may-be u.s.a. u can then use / hold halon then

<hr width=100% size=1>