senator

In the not so distant future we will get a parking fine through the post if we stop on a double yellow for 2 minutes in a back road at 2 am to post a letter, we will get our speeding fine through the post as soon as we hit 73 mph on the motorway, at 12.01am on the day our car tax is due, which we don't remember anymore as there is no tax disc, we will get our fine for non payment. Not a lot you can do if you have to do it but if you choose to do it, like boating, why would you bother if you are going to be subjected to the above type of scrutiny. Much as those in power would love more power and will sell the extra revenue stream, I rather think it will result in an early adoption of full national park status, given there will be no boats anyway.

Initial success of people semi agreeing with you may have gone to your head a little Robin I understand your principles but at present there is only the courts that can issue a fine, maybe the BA could issue an invoice for breach of contract but and it is a big but. DO YOU REALISE WHO WOULD BE IN CHARGE OF THIS NEW POLICE STATE? There are some good ideas in there Robin but finance through penalty charge is not really the way to go for a leisure activity in my mind. If what you do is essential then the state can get away with it, you have to drive, you have to park, you have to have electricity, you have to have a bank account, etc. You do not have to go boating. Implement your ideas and I am fairly certain that people just wouldn't. The result of which would be a rather negative impact on the tolls pot.

Great Ideas Robin but I think you are going to have to sell them to the Thames and the Canals first. Once there are outdated 1st generation versions of the system second hand you can possibly start thinking about the Broads. Alternatively I can go down the thinking of another forumite. Sell it to Holland, that way a derogation from the Broads Authority can have a freebie holiday in a 5 star hotel for a week on the basis of looking into how the Broads can be improved and will then come back and buy it as their discovery.

I'm guessing that most places that have adopted technology and prospered from it had a few similar voices. The thing with the Broads is it seems to be the majority. Can the Broads be made "Better"? of course they can, Do the core people that use the Broads now want that? is a very different question. I suppose it depends whether you want an industry for the next 10 years or the next 100.

Just read Robins initial post and thought to myself, brilliant but good luck, there are those that see the TV as a new fangled gismo. Then I read the rest

The first Clive will polish out between hires, he is used to it. Captain Ron is cut, the turn was to early and the bow was shy of the quay, would have had to have another go to get along side unless the wind was blowing him on. I know I have watched Happy Jax do it often enough. All the crashing skippers know exactly what they are doing and can turn their boat on a sixpence. They have total control don't you know.

Now they are predicting what is going to happen in 80 years but at the end of October they were predicting a really cold November due to the strongest el nino in 50 years, apparently warning signs are the south pacific temperatures rising. Well the temperatures rose in the pacific and we have had the record hottest November on record. If they can't predict what is happening next month how can what they predict for 80 years time have any credence whatsoever?

Correction, Yorkshire is now a lot closer to the Broads as long as we all keep our diesel engines, problem will be if you rely on sails to get from one side of the Broads to the other.

Wouldn't really matter then as long as all are paying the same, I really can't see anyone arguing that they want to pay more. As long as it is one rate then everyone sings from the same hymn sheet. Large sail would be the only ones seeing an upward adjustment so you would have to get them on board but if they have a small boat as well it will likely all even out and the benefits to the boat owning community, be that hire or private, and the long term big voice that would be gained, surely would be worth any minor discrepancies and even be beneficial to those that may loose out in the short term.

That was the whole point of the one size fits all argument. Get rid of sail, get rid of hire multipliers, get rid of set size up to costs. all pay the high extra rate currently charged for motor boats over a given size of £9.04 m2 from 1m2 to 100m2 Starter boats would be cheaper, small boats like canoes and sailing dinghy's would be cheaper, those running large sail boats would be slightly worse of but not dramatically, large motor boats would be much the same. Overall there maybe a minor adjustment to the £9.04m2 rate to balance the income. Once done there would only be one voice when it came to boat owners instead of everyone arguing from their own perspective, as long as Packers can set boaters at each others throats he will always end up winning , remove the camps and he has to deal with everyone

And under the same scenario of a small business but looking at the tiny amount it puts on a hire, lets assume full occupancy of the boats for 4 months of the year to set a bench mark. that £7000 would amount to £40 per boat per weeks hire, once again only my opinion but I would guess that is enough to make a difference to their bookings. Edited as forgot the difference between a week and a month

Possibly but you can't live on your balance sheet, going back to small yards being a lifestyle choice that pays a wage. If they have lets say 10 boats that would under standard toll conditions cost them £5k total yet under the multiplier are costing them £12k you are effectively taking £7k out of that wage. To my mind that could well be enough to decide whether they carry on or cash in.

Everyone is entitled to there opinion Strowager but I can't say I will be holding my breath over the fact I am about to get a reduction in my tolls as I live 170 miles away and as such can't use my boat as much as locals can, or for that matter I can't see the locals being happy about paying more for their tolls as they are closer and as such probably use their boats more. Everyone has different usage and mine will be significantly different to someone who has retired and is free to spend months on their boat. to that ends all pensioners should pay a lot more. 90% of the hire fleet will be out of the water now until March. The hire companies put their boats out for roughly 6 months of the year, all the boats will only be out on hire for a couple of those months, yet it is seen as right that just because it is a business they should pay more than twice as much as anyone else, I can see the sentiment behind it but putting myself in business shoes I wouldn't be a happy bunny. The businesses that are making good money in the boating side have diversified and capitalised on other tourist based streams of income to supplement their hire boat side, for the smaller yards it is a lifestyle choice and not an easy one to make any money from, a massively asset rich business that if they are lucky pays a decent wage but will return nothing until they sell up and retire.

I don't think the Spanish pay a tourist tax in Spain though Peter. I guess an attempt could be made to extract such a tax from foreign visitors but, although they obviously do come, I have a suspicion it is not in sufficient numbers to make a difference. What you say about land based visitors reflects what I was trying to say. the whole of the Broads tourist industry revolves around the Broads themselves, Hotels in Wroxham pay nothing to the Broads Infrastructure, how about Sutton Staith Hotel? At least Barndsons do pay a toll, which is currently more than double that of a private craft, how is that fair when the rest of the Broads tourist industry pays nothing? Is there an argument for the enforcement of a contribution from all tourist businesses within the Broads area. It could be a tiny amount per business that could make a huge pot for the maintenance of the Broads.

Maybe Strowager but then I drive my car on the public road for business yet pay the same as the chap going to the shop behind me. I am assuming that they do pay business rates on the premises they operate from and wages to the staff they employ, both of which feed back to the local area and the taxes they pay will also form part of the grants paid to the BA. from central government. Would it be fair for Barndsons to have to pay for the Broads when the sea front hotels in Yarmouth have paid nothing for their promenade, pier or in fact any other attraction around them. They do of course have to maintain their their basins which includes dredging which I believe, although I am happy to be corrected, they have to pay a license for. Not sure if that is to the BA or the EA

I wasn't advocating removing them, JM purely stating from a personal perspective them not being there could possibly be benificial to me as a private boat owner. My view is that they are an essential part of the Broads, providing not just customers for businesses but also a high percentage of future boat owners. How many of us started as a hire customer. I know I did and don't think I would ever have got into boating without it.

Without doubt Strowager but as most Broads owners own one vessel with a few having two it is not exactly enough to bring any negotiating power to the table. I know if I had 40 boats I would be looking for a quantity discount even without further benefits to surrounding businesses. Personally a Broads without any hire boats I could see as a bonus but I think most would see them as essential in the whole scheme of things. one other thing being those in house facilities are actually providing employment for local people

Possibly a bit of an extreme solution to the stag and hen boats Poppy?

Possibly but then tourism although not directly into BA funds brings spend into Norfolk, it is for this reason that all the staffed tourist information offices exist so maybe the local councils should contribute towards any tourism required spend to support their businesses and ultimately the tax yield they take from them? Plus the Yacht stations do charge for their services, can't pretend to know whether they turn over a profit or a loss but again maybe that is something to be looked at to see if they could be exploited in a more profitable way. Really do apologise for trying to bring some joined up thinking to the argument but from what I can see at the moment A certain member of the Secret Society runs his empire to suit himself. The resource of the Broads should be run for a far greater purpose than self gratification.

You are of course right but having said that the amount of fuel burned by broads boats is a pretty small amount and although it is not paid directly to the Broads I expect the money collected in tax on the fuel in some way feeds back into grants paid to non national parks and the likes. It goes into Government at one end, gets diluted and depleted and comes out the other but it still gets paid.

Maybe Stern to is more common up North, we don't see it down south much but if that is the case keep the width times length, currently a 15' beam boat does pay 33% more than a 10' beam and thinking about it it could also be a bit unfair on a canoe or rowing boat. that said canoes, rowing boats and small dinghy's would benefit by the scrapping of the unfair small boat rates. If the extra rate of £9.05m2 was used then a 3m canoe would be £13.58 per year. a 3m rib would be a much more acceptable £38 per year, so all the starter stuff would be cheaper, even a 3m sail boat is going to be better off. I would be paying exactly the same as I am now, the people that needed it would pay less, the people that bring in money to the surrounding area would pay less, absolute win/win all round, all you have done is got rid of the unfair subsidies from boats, many of which can acctually reach all parts of the Broads including under Potter. And before anyone starts about motor boats cause a need for dredging, how much is currently being spent the other side of potter and in fact on closed private broads? think you will find no or mostly sail traffic in these areas. Oh and JM, I most definitely am not advocating that Sail power pays more than Diesel, purely the same fee for the same water.

remember you are up against a master human psychologist, would make it a lot harder for him if there were no groups to set at each others throats and all toll payers spoke with one voice

Any boat that does not pay the same rate as the toll given for length x width. there should be no difference for propulsion, sail/motor/oars and why is there a different rate if your boat is smaller, get rid of the upto 5 m2 or 7 m2 or whatever other size they choose. All boats should be exactly the same preferably by length only as this is the only bit that matters against the bank, why would it be right for a 60' narrow boat to be able to take up the moorings of two 30' broads cruisers but still pay the same toll by virtue of being half the width?

Definitely two sides to the same argument but I know if I was a hire company I would be putting forward the revenue generated within the Broads area by the tourists attracted by their boats. Flip side I suppose would be there are a damn sight more caravan's, B&B rooms and holiday let apartments than boats and the BA does not have to do anything for these but the infrastructure of the Broads needs to exist anyway to support the private boats. If you then go to the argument that the hire boats use the facility's more so should pay more you go back to the argument that any boat that can't fit under Yarmouth bridges should pay less as they are using less facility's. That will run out the argument that it is their own choice to have a boat that doesn't fit but then it is everyone's choice not to use their boat 7 days a week 365 days a year, as they are perfectly entitled to do. Remember there are now far more private boats than hire boats on the Broads so a simple adjustment to remove subsidies from those boats currently not paying the real rate paid by motor boats would more than make up the shortfall from the removal of hire multiplier.

Much as I love the idea I have a feeling that it might face some opposition from people who have friends within the secret society called the BA. Every boat, whatever the propulsion, should be charged the same rate and on a length only basis. how much simpler can it get. Why does the width matter, with exception to the very, very few BA moorings that are stern to the width makes no difference at all to the BA, marinas yes but BA no. Scrap the multiplier for Hire companies, after all they are a business that directly benefits the Broads area, in any other form of commerce they would have negotiated a reduction from the standard rate, certainly not an increased payment. Make up the balance by charging any currently subsidised craft the same price as everything else.