Red diesel meeting at Sharpness 29/10 - Long!
Steve Davis
length!
The 'red diesel' meeting organised by John Chard 'Stokie No1 - Fuel Afloat'
took place as planned in Sharpness on 29 October. The key speakers were
David Drew (MP for Stroud and with a keen interest in canals particularly
the Cotswold restoration) and David Lund (British Marine Federation rep for
the South West). There were around 125 attendees, some from as far away as
Stoke. Richard Fairhurst the new editor of Waterways World attended and will
be publishing details of the meeting; this may be accompanied by some form
of campaign.
The key points to emerge from the meeting were:
1. Time is short. Discussions regarding the derogation of red diesel for
pleasure boats is already underway between the UK Govt and the EU.
2. Although red diesel will remain legal for non-propulsion uses (e.g.
heating and electricity generation) it is thought that most canal side
vendors of diesel will opt to supply 'white' only as the low volume of 'red'
sales would not justify the installation of a second tank.
3. Low sulphur white diesel as used in road vehicles may not be suitable for
some marine engines as 'red' has a higher lubricating oil content. One
attendee said he had a letter from Perkins confirming that white diesel
would damage the injector pump on his engine by wrecking the rubber seals.
The strong advice was to check your engine for compatibility with 'white'.
4. The intent of the derogation of red is to 'level the playing field'
across Europe. If applied in the UK, pleasure boats will go from having some
of the cheapest diesel in Europe to the most expensive. Hardly a level
playing field.
5. David Drew MP referred to a recent Parliamentary Question on the subject
which highlighted the potential difficulties of defining 'pleasure' and
'commercial' boats in the UK. Is a hire boat pleasure or commercial?
6. About 15 million litres of red diesel are sold for each year in the UK
for 'pleasure' boating purposes. In Govt terms, the extra revenue raised if
red diesel goes is not great.
7. David Drew suggested that the Govt may see the derogation as 'unnecessary
and difficult'. The revenue involved is peanuts, many people could get upset
and it could be complex to administer. He suggested that all boaters contact
their MP expressing their views.
He pointed out that the letters must contain hard facts and not just emotive
opinion.
It is important to marshal the arguments (i.e. a big whinge is unlikely to
work!), The letters should also provide individuals' stories (e.g. pensioner
on fixed income may be forced from boat, vintage engine will be wrecked, why
should I pay white diesel prices to heat my boat? etc). He also suggested
that letters to the national press could help; nationally the issue has been
invisible to date.
8. Additional information is available on the RYA and IWA web sites.
So, go for it! Time is running out! Get the facts and commit your feelings
clearly to your MP.
Steve Davis
Graham Frankland
news:3ta0upF...@individual.net...
large snip
> 2. Although red diesel will remain legal for non-propulsion uses (e.g.
> heating and electricity generation) it is thought that most canal side
> vendors of diesel will opt to supply 'white' only as the low volume of
> 'red'
> sales would not justify the installation of a second tank.
The opposite will happen in many harbours where mainly fishing boats are
based, they won't bother to have a second pump for leisure users so it will
have to be carried in cans from the nearest garage which, in some remote
areas, could be miles away.
Graham.
Nick Temple-Fry
<gfranklandattiscali.co.uk> wrote:
>The opposite will happen in many harbours where mainly fishing boats are
>based, they won't bother to have a second pump for leisure users so it will
>have to be carried in cans from the nearest garage which, in some remote
>areas, could be miles away.
>
>Graham.
>
Indeed, probably the one valid argument the yachtsman has, that it
will not be economic to supply white diesel (seperate pumps/tanks) in
areas outside of yachtie conurbations. This represents a safety issue
plus an invitation to break the law.
It represents pointless government = the cost of makeing the change +
plus the cost of enforcing the change negates the 'benefit' of the
change.
My summer cruise this year was 39 days, of which only one night was
spent on a marina berth. Counting on my fingers I spent £23 on diesel,
at least half of which still resides in my tank/cans. So I can make
back the money by just spending one more night at anchor.
Mind you I can see it coming as an awful shock to that increasing
number of 'yachtsman' who can't sail,who wont work the tides, who
always go to windward with a rolled up headsail.
John Wilson
supply/compatibility with engines (though that is solvable by separate
additives), I can't help feeling that anything which discourages big
planing power boats from being used has to be good. Bear in mind that
it does not have to be that big a planing powerboat to use a thousand
gallons to do a cross-channel jaunt - I'm not a green nutter but by
any reasonable standards this is environmental mayhem.
John Wilson
jwilsonNO*SP...@yachtsnet.co.uk
Remove characters from e-mail address to reply
www.yachtsnet.co.uk - full service online yacht
brokerage with full details and multiple photos
of all boats. Free classified adverts for small
boats and genuinely useful marine links.
Philip Allum
abroad will simply top up there instead of here if 'there' is cheaper.
The net result of that for the treasury, will be a loss of VAT not an
increase in fuel tax revenue.
I don't know if there are any figures for red diesel usage on sea going
vessels versus British waters only consumption but I doubt that the
treasury will see any meaningful benefit. How many canal boats will it
take to compensate for the loss of VAT on all those gas guzzlers who are
within a few hours steaming of European ports. It will make a booze
cruise even more worthwhile.
In message <43705e58...@news.euro1net.com>, John Wilson
<jwi...@no-spam-please-yachtsnet.co.uk> writes
--
Philip Allum
Pete Verdon
> Philip Allum <p...@eurogrove.com> wrote:
>>Regardless of size, consumption, etc., those of us who take our boats
>>abroad will simply top up there instead of here if 'there' is cheaper.
> If red diesel is a thing of the past in the EU, where will you top up
> your tanks abroad?
More or less anywhere, since road diesel in the UK is one of the most
expensive in Europe.
Pete
Graham Frankland
news:A8GwGnC$iGcD...@eurogrove.demon.co.uk...
> Regardless of size, consumption, etc., those of us who take our boats
> abroad will simply top up there instead of here if 'there' is cheaper. The
> net result of that for the treasury, will be a loss of VAT not an increase
> in fuel tax revenue.
>
We were paying up to 1.17 euro per litre in Spanish and French west coast
marinas this summer, which isn't all that much dearer than Tesco white here.
The diesel consumed on the trip would far outweigh any cost saving per litre
consumed by any power boat. The saving on wine though may just tip the
balance!
Graham.
Nick Temple-Fry
assistance for a Brixham based yacht that had 'broken down' due to a
fuel leak leading to empty tanks. The problem was resolved by a can of
diesel from a fishing boat.
Presumably in the future
1) The yacht would be prosecuted on arrival in Brixham for using red
diesel
2) The fishing boat will be prosecuted for supplying red diesel to
someone not entitled to use it.
3) The coastguard will be prosecuted for aiding and abetting the yacht
and the fishing boat to break the law.
Nick
Stefan
fry.COmpletely.UnKnown says...
Sounds a good argument why everyone should be paying duty on fuel,
farmers and fishermen included. OK, I'm convinced.
Ronald Raygun
> Sounds a good argument why everyone should be paying duty on fuel,
> farmers and fishermen included. OK, I'm convinced.
Me too. It's high time fishermen rediscovered sails, and farmers oxen.
Iain Hibbert
> On Tue, 08 Nov 2005 10:15:22 +0000, Pete Verdon
> <use...@verdonet.organisation.unitedkingdom.invalid> wrote:
>
>>Martin wrote:
>>More or less anywhere, since road diesel in the UK is one of the most
>>expensive in Europe.
>
> but the saving is nothing like you had using red diesel.
>
> Better to bring back other fluids :-)
Ok so I've been away (from usenet) for a couple of years, and it seems to
be the same old people talking the same old malt..
on topic, I just bought 119 litres of (green) diesel cost me 76 euro.
Incidentally I dont really understand why fishing boats should be exempt
when yachts are not. Commercial vehicles using the roads are not exempt,
are they?
I'm sure I recall that DERV is "Diesel Excise for Road Vehicles" or
somesuch, I think it can't apply to non road vehicles (which is why
vehicles not used on the roads do not have to pay it!)
iain
oh, this is a test in disguise
Philip Allum
<m...@privacy.net> writes
snip
>
>but the saving is nothing like you had using red diesel.
Agreed, but it's still be a saving over buying white diesel in this
country and the treasury will lose what benefit it had.
For me it's not much of an issue. My boat lives on a swinging mooring,
a good four hours away from the nearest fuel barge which, under normal
circumstances, I would visit before taking off for foreign climes. The
only difference for me will be that I'll top up the tank after I get to
the continent instead of before I go. I haven't got my logbook to hand
to check but I would be very surprised if I bought more than 100 litres
this year (slightly more than usual) so any change won't cost me a
fortune.
My point is that the treasury will lose my contribution to VAT without
any gain on fuel tax and the increase in the VAT and the same will apply
for everyone who has the opportunity to buy abroad. If this comes into
effect, the treasury will gain the fuel tax from those forced to buy
white diesel and lose the VAT from those who are able to buy abroad. No
prizes for guessing which group the majority of gas guzzlers belong to.
How many people chugging along the canals with a fuel consumption of
less than 2 litres per hour is it going to need to compensate for the
loss of VAT from someone with a couple of thousand horsepower to feed?
I don't know the answer to that but I suspect that the gain will not be
worth the bureaucracy.
>
>Better to bring back other fluids :-)
That goes without saying.
--
Philip Allum
Chris Lowe
>
> Incidentally I dont really understand why fishing boats should be exempt
> when yachts are not. Commercial vehicles using the roads are not exempt,
> are they?
>
> I'm sure I recall that DERV is "Diesel Excise for Road Vehicles" or
> somesuch, I think it can't apply to non road vehicles (which is why
> vehicles not used on the roads do not have to pay it!)
AFAIK DERV stands for Diesel engined road vehicle
but I agree with the sentiment
Stefan
no....@localhost.localdomain says...
Although cattle are supposedly significant contributors to global
warming. It's all that methane they produce, apparently. I guess you
can't win.
Ronald Raygun
> In article <9H1cf.3292$Lw5....@text.news.blueyonder.co.uk>,
> no....@localhost.localdomain says...
>>
>> It's high time fishermen rediscovered sails, and farmers oxen.
>
> Although cattle are supposedly significant contributors to global
> warming. It's all that methane they produce, apparently. I guess you
> can't win.
Humbug. All the spare food they wouldn't eat if they didn't exist would
turn into methane anyway. And any methane they produced while not out
working could be collected and used to fuel the fires which boil the vats
in which cattle are turned into beef stew when they retire.
Philip Allum
<m...@privacy.net> writes
>On Tue, 8 Nov 2005 14:41:46 +0000, Philip Allum <p...@eurogrove.com>
>wrote:
>
>>In message <i521n1tololbprlon...@4ax.com>, Martin
>><m...@privacy.net> writes
>>snip
>>>
>>>but the saving is nothing like you had using red diesel.
>>
>>Agreed, but it's still be a saving over buying white diesel in this
>>country and the treasury will lose what benefit it had.
>>
>>For me it's not much of an issue. My boat lives on a swinging mooring,
>>a good four hours away from the nearest fuel barge which, under normal
>>circumstances, I would visit before taking off for foreign climes. The
>>only difference for me will be that I'll top up the tank after I get to
>>the continent instead of before I go. I haven't got my logbook to hand
>>to check but I would be very surprised if I bought more than 100 litres
>>this year (slightly more than usual) so any change won't cost me a
>>fortune.
>
>in my fuel since I started buying diesel from petrol stations, nor
>have I had odd volatile chemicals that aren't diesel. In a Dutch boat
>magazine test of diesel sold in boat harbours only one sold real
>diesel.
>
>I use less than 30 litres a year, most years.
Going off at a slight tangent, around 20 years ago, there was almost
exactly the same debate in Germany over aviation fuel for 'sport planes'
which wasn't subject to fuel tax and which the government wanted to tax.
Pretty well every 'personality' with a pilot's licence had their say, at
great length, in the magazines and newspapers. I don't remember the
outcome.
--
Philip Allum
Ric
supply of tax free fuel. They should pay tax like every other engine user.
Frankly the best answer would be to ban red diesel altogether. Farmers
already get enough subsidies.
Nick
lots of people if you ban it.
This issue is that fuel tax was originally seen as part of the charge
motorists pay for using the national road network. Therefore, users of
fuel offroad, whether for construction plant, generators or boats, were
considered not to have to pay the road charge. Since then the purpose
of fuel tax has morphed into a form of general taxation, and latterly as
an environmental measure to discourage carbon emissions.
Together with this is the problem of evasion caused by having a lower
taxed version of essentially the same product. There is no lower tax
petrol, although for the few users who qualify (international flights in
piston engined aircraft and commercial petrol powered boats) there is a
drawback scheme to recover the duty. The number of heating users as
well as farmers and commercial boats would make a drawback scheme for
gas oil impractical and it would probably lose more to fraud than the
cost to the Treasury of red diesel use on road. Instead, Customs
recently introduced a raft of additional regulations to deter illegal
use of red diesel.
Given that fuel duty is now part of general taxation, there seems to be
no particular reason why pleasure boats should use lower taxed fuel, any
more than the new diesel light aircraft should use untaxed Jet-A1. I
guess the arguments have to be safety (possible increase in the use of
petrol on boats, the need to carry DERV from fuel stations where the
only port supply is red) and pragmatic (no net gain to the Treasury,
difficulty in defining commercial craft). You could even argue that
safety might be enhanced if coded boats were eligable for red diesel!
Nick
Tony of Judicious
Having extensively sailed in NW Scotland for more than 30 years, once north
of the large marinas on the Clyde I cannot think of anywhere in NW
Scotland, the Orkney and Shetland islands and NE Scotland that could be
expected to supply to supply white diesel.
Stefan
to...@deletethis.thoward.plus.com says...
>
> Having extensively sailed in NW Scotland for more than 30 years, once north
> of the large marinas on the Clyde I cannot think of anywhere in NW
> Scotland, the Orkney and Shetland islands and NE Scotland that could be
> expected to supply to supply white diesel.
>
If there is demand, supply will be forthcoming.
Nick
If there is enough demand...
I can see either no provision, or perhaps the fuel berth will keep a
handful of 20 litre jerricans at maybe £30 each, plus deposit,
reflecting the lack of volume. It will not be too much of an issue for
yachts as I rarely need to fill up during a week's trip (though I might
choose to for peace of mind), and if I did, 20 litres would be plenty.
The power boats might have more of a problem.
Nick
Tony of Judicious
This year I crusied the outer Hebrides for a week without seeing another
yachts. IMO in this area there is insufficent demand. I did get some red
from a fisherman's tank in N Uist, which, presumably, I could not do if
this was implemented.
Iain Hibbert
> This issue is that fuel tax was originally seen as part of the charge
> motorists pay for using the national road network. Therefore, users of
> fuel offroad, whether for construction plant, generators or boats, were
> considered not to have to pay the road charge. Since then the purpose
> of fuel tax has morphed into a form of general taxation, and latterly as
> an environmental measure to discourage carbon emissions.
>
> Together with this is the problem of evasion caused by having a lower
> taxed version of essentially the same product. There is no lower tax
> petrol, although for the few users who qualify (international flights in
> piston engined aircraft and commercial petrol powered boats)
I dont understand why 'commercial' suddenly appears there..
> Given that fuel duty is now part of general taxation, there seems to be
> no particular reason why pleasure boats should use lower taxed fuel,
frankly, I dont see why commercial vehicles should be considered
differently to pleasure vehicles. Commercial vans still pay fuel duty,
Commercial Trucks still pay fuel duty, Commercial Cars still pay fuel
duty.
It seems that the gummint is trying to divide and conquer here.. and
realistically I would support just removing fuel duty exemptions
altogether instead of half hearted measures.
Yes, all the bigger fishing boats and many pleasure boats would just go
elsewhere in the EU as is their right, but if the government really cared
about that then they might reduce the general taxation. I suspect they
would not.
iain
Ric
"Martin" <m...@privacy.net> wrote in message
news:8de3n1tbp2di78cut...@4ax.com...
> and fishermen?
Absolutely - they're a bunch of whingeing oversubsidised environmental
vandals. Most of them are only out there destroying the sea and seabed
because of the subsidies they enjoy. Ban all subsidies to them.
Nick Temple-Fry
<to...@deletethis.thoward.plus.com> wrote:
>This year I crusied the outer Hebrides for a week without seeing another
>yachts. IMO in this area there is insufficent demand. I did get some red
>from a fisherman's tank in N Uist, which, presumably, I could not do if
>this was implemented.
Tony please admit that this was some form of frivolous retail therapy
indulged in to help overcome your deep sense of inner frustration. It
is quite incomprehensible to any city based MP used to bussing their
mistresses around on free travel passes that you could possibly have
had any serious need for diesel fuel.
Please seek an alternate means to sublimate these urges. May I suggest
buying National Lottery tickets instead.
Nick
Sandy Morton
<osamab...@grubbycave.com> wrote:
> > and fishermen?
> Absolutely - they're a bunch of whingeing oversubsidised
> environmental vandals. Most of them are only out there destroying
> the sea and seabed because of the subsidies they enjoy. Ban all
> subsidies to them.
Best comment i have seen on any newsgroup for a long long time - and
if you had include farmers it would have been perfect.
--
A T (Sandy) Morton
on the Bicycle Island
In the Global Village
http://www.millport.net
Ric
>
> Best comment i have seen on any newsgroup for a long long time - and
> if you had include farmers it would have been perfect.
I am happy to include farmers in the same bracket. They receive subsidies to
destroy the hedgerow habitats of our song-birds, poison our rivers with
fertilizer and insecticide runoff thereby ironically destroying fish stocks
for the sea-vandals, get more cash to convert beautiful heather covered
hills into barren wastelands of subsidised sheep-droppings, and so on.
Farmers are even bigger whingers and tax-fiddlers than fishermen. At least
fisherman can't write off a brand new BMW as a "tool" against tax! The
environmental damage that farmers do is bad enough in the UK, but is even
worse in France and Spain where the EEC subsidies are even more absurd.
Ban all agricultural and fishing subsidies immediately. It was done in NZ
years ago - and the country flourished as a result.
Banning subsidies would also solve another problem - it would allow poor
countries to export their alimentary products to us on a level playing
field - so there would be less incentive for them to illegally seek entry to
the EEC and would also contribute to lessening terrorist threat.
Duncan Heenan
"Ric" <osamab...@grubbycave.com> wrote in message
news:43725cb2$0$21302$8fcf...@news.wanadoo.fr...
food grown by farmers?
Ric
> As you consider Farmers to be such villains, can I assume you never eat
> any
> food grown by farmers?
Unfortunately I have to eat food grown by subsidised EEC farmers as I live
in the EEC. I would far rather eat food grown by unsubsidised farmers
outside the EEC, but they cannot export to the EEC on a level playing field.
Ian Sandell
<to...@deletethis.thoward.plus.com> wrote:
I think that you could, provided that you informed C&E (whatever they
are called now) and pay the duty.
Ian
ChrisR
> Ban all agricultural and fishing subsidies immediately. It was done in NZ
> years ago - and the country flourished as a result.
>
> Banning subsidies would also solve another problem - it would allow poor
> countries to export their alimentary products to us on a level playing
> field - so there would be less incentive for them to illegally seek entry
to
> the EEC and would also contribute to lessening terrorist threat.
>
>
If farming and agricultural subsidies were removed there would be no need to
tax red diesel and general taxation could (not would) be reduced as well.
Food prices would rise a little and quite a few government economies could
but wouldn't be made.
As I use very little red diesel I don't really have an axe to grind.
ChrisR
Dan
LOL! I cruised the 'busy' bit (South of the Skye Bridge) and saw only 4
yachts. All on the same day and all well south of Oban.
Davie
1. Most farmers would be delighted to have subsidies stopped. But most of
the public want cheap food. Best not forget it was the government who
introduced the subsidies many years ago to feed the ancestors of those
moaning about it now. Instead of whinging about it why not get off your butt
and put forward alternative proposal???
2. If the answer is to import from wherever then you eat it coz by and large
I would not if I could help it.
3.Get rid of the safety regulations imposed on them and the processors then
they could possibly compete with these countries.
4.The farming system now employed in New Zealand would not stand a chance in
this country because of all the so called environmentalists and animal
welfare groups.
Sorry this is off post but then again it was not me who started to criticise
farmers and indeed fishermen.Perhaps the whingers here could concentrate
there efforts in a more appropriate newsgroup and put something constructive
together to resolve the issue.
Finally,the email address might just say it all
"Ric" <osamab...@grubbycave.com> wrote in message
news:43725cb2$0$21302$8fcf...@news.wanadoo.fr...
>
> >
Ric
> Why not grow your own?
I do.
And I have recently planted an olive tree in my garden so I have sent a
letter to Brussels demanding an olive-growers subsidy. I am thinking of
planting some rice seedlings in the boggy bit by the compost heap so that I
can claim a rice subsidy. I may even get a sheep to keep on the roof of the
house where I will spray it with a hosepipe and throw a few ice cubes at it
so that I can claim a hill farmers subsidy. If I they agree, I might be able
to afford a brand new BMW like other farmers.
Ric
the 70s, there was initially enormous hardship as farmers had to use their
land for its true economic worth. Many landowners could not survive as
sheepfarmers because their land was wholly unsuited to farming sheep - they
were previously only able to farm sheep because they were subsidised.
Instead, they had to investigate new uses of their land. They grew vines,
which thrive on poor, dry soil and sunshine (just the conditions sheep don't
like). Suddenly they became more successful than before...
And NZ had and still has far superior animal welfare legislation than the
EU.
NZ greatly benefitted in the long term through the abolition of farm
subsidies. Uneconomic land which was previously only farmed because of
subsidies was returned to the wild, benefitting wildlife and hence tourism.
The money saved from the subsidies was used to lower taxes, which boosted
the economy.
Agricultural subsidies are wrong and immoral, and should be stopped asap.
Ian Johnston
<duncan...@tiscali.co.uk> wrote:
> As you consider Farmers to be such villains, can I assume you never eat any
> food grown by farmers?
Ah, the old "never criticise a farmer with your mouth full" argument.
Logically it's on the same level as "never criticise the Yorkshire
Ripper while using goods carried on an HGV", though I prefer "never
criticise a townie with your hand in his pocket" as my reply ...
Ian
Ian Johnston
<steve...@noreply.com> wrote:
> So, go for it! Time is running out! Get the facts and commit your feelings
> clearly to your MP.
Personally I think it's a load of unjustified whining about a long
overdue change. I was reading Motor Boat and Yachting in my vet's
waiting room recently: those pages not taken up with complaints about
increasing fuel prices were made up of adverts for expensive boats -
something at 30 grand was described in a review as a budget
entry-level boat.
The most laughable argument was that there would be serious safety
problems as yotties would risk running low on a crossing to France in
order to fill up there. They did not point out that this would imply a
similar safety problem in the other direction at the moment.
I can't imagine it would be too hard for sellers to charge different
prices to different classes of user, just as LPG suppliers charge
additional duty if the tanker is delivering for road use rather than
domestic use.
So I am all in favour of this move. Who knows, maybe a few yacht
owners will find out what those big cloth things are for ...
Ian
Davie
discuss sailing issues in this group. Last post on the matternews:43739966$0$6687$8fcf...@news.wanadoo.fr...
james
I dont approve of the proposed changes.
But every cloud... blah blah
If Red diesel is not available.... My costs will increase about 50 pounds a
year.
I might have to economise..... Cut out a half pint of beer a week
The mindless twats in sunseekers and the like.... will suffer.
It aint ALL bad
Tony of Judicious
Once I get S of Ardnamurchan I start panicking about the Col Regs
Ric
Last post on the matter
Good. You are obviously a bit dim.
Kevin
> a year.
> I might have to economise..... Cut out a half pint of beer a week
> The mindless twats in sunseekers and the like.... will suffer.
>
>
> It aint ALL bad
>
competition for marina spaces, so lower charges for the remaining boats, so
less income for marinas and less investment, leading to a slow down in new
marina builds. Do you really want to pay substantially less for your parking
over the next few years? Good god man, think of the children.
Alan Frame
> Ah, the old "never criticise a farmer with your mouth full" argument.
> Logically it's on the same level as "never criticise the Yorkshire
> Ripper while using goods carried on an HGV", though I prefer "never
> criticise a townie with your hand in his pocket" as my reply ...
I prefer the more prosaic:
"Never criticise someone until you've walked a mile in their shoes.
That way when you do criticise them, you're a mile away and you have
their shoes"
rgds, Alan
--
99 Ducati 748BP, 95 Ducati 600SS, 81 Guzzi Monza, 74 MV Agusta 350
"Ride to Work, Work to Ride" SI# 7.067 DoD#1930 PGP Key 0xBDED56C5
Davie
Dim maybe but not atotal F*****g ASSH**Enews:4373b11b$0$6650$8fcf...@news.wanadoo.fr...
Pete Verdon
> So I am all in favour of this move. Who knows, maybe a few yacht
> owners will find out what those big cloth things are for ...
I'm not worried about the minimal cost increase, but the supply problems
people are talking about seem real, if fishing boats are to remain
eligible for red.
Pete
Ian Johnston
Like I said, it won't be a problem. Two prices. Same as LPG - if they
put it in a tank with a gas take off for central heating they charge
you the domestic duty, and if they put it in a tank with a liquid take
off for cars they charge you road fuel duty.
Ian
Pete Verdon
> On Thu, 10 Nov 2005 22:20:59 UTC, Pete Verdon wrote:
>>I'm not worried about the minimal cost increase, but the supply problems
>> people are talking about seem real, if fishing boats are to remain
>>eligible for red.
> Like I said, it won't be a problem. Two prices. Same as LPG - if they
> put it in a tank with a gas take off for central heating they charge
> you the domestic duty, and if they put it in a tank with a liquid take
> off for cars they charge you road fuel duty.
That works, as long as a) every little fishing harbour installs the new
kit and b) the physical difference for detection purposes (ie the red
dye) is abandoned.
Pete
james
"Kevin" <kcr...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:113165551...@spandrell.news.uk.clara.net...
Ian Johnston
<use...@verdonet.organisation.unitedkingdom.invalid> wrote:
> Ian Johnston wrote:
> > Like I said, it won't be a problem. Two prices. Same as LPG - if they
> > put it in a tank with a gas take off for central heating they charge
> > you the domestic duty, and if they put it in a tank with a liquid take
> > off for cars they charge you road fuel duty.
>
> That works, as long as a) every little fishing harbour installs the new
> kit
What new kit? All sales at full duty unless boat is certified
commercial...
> and b) the physical difference for detection purposes (ie the red
> dye) is abandoned.
Agreed on that one.
Ian
Stefan
david.sc...@virgin.net says...
> The answer is simple then go back to NewZealand and leave us in peace to
> discuss sailing issues in this group.
What's this "us"? I've never noticed you here before your one recent
post on the subject of farming.
Stefan
osamab...@grubbycave.com says...
> And I have recently planted an olive tree in my garden so I have sent a
> letter to Brussels demanding an olive-growers subsidy.
You are out of date. They don't subsidise production any more. They
subsidise by the hectare. You don't actually have to grow anything. In
fact at one point, farmers got paid for refraining from growing
anything. I wish that applied to my line of work.
Ric
"Davie" <david.sc...@virgin.net> wrote in message
news:opPcf.47$D03...@newsfe5-gui.ntli.net...
> You do tempt me.
> Dim maybe but not atotal F*****g ASSH**E
I thought you'd made your last post? You seem a bit indecisive too.
Ric
"Pete Verdon" <use...@verdonet.organisation.unitedkingdom.invalid> wrote in
message news:3thvefF...@individual.net...
> I'm not worried about the minimal cost increase, but the supply problems
> people are talking about seem real, if fishing boats are to remain
> eligible for red.
Here in the Mediterranean it works very simply - a boat is designated either
"private" or "commercial", depending on its use. They fill up with the same
fuel from the same pump, but are just charged at different rates. There are
some smaller marina pumps that won't offer fuel at commercial rates, but
this is not a problem as most commercial boats get filled up by tanker at
they quayside anyway.
Nigel
>I think it absurd that there is a boat lobby that attempts to justify a
>supply of tax free fuel. They should pay tax like every other engine user.
>
> Frankly the best answer would be to ban red diesel altogether. Farmers
> already get enough subsidies.
I always find it curious that not taxing somebody/thing is seen as a
subsidie. Just because car drivers get mugged everytime they fill up,
doesn't make it wrong not to mug boat owners.
Nigel
"james" <ja...@english.not> wrote in message
news:dl089p$242$1...@nwrdmz01.dmz.ncs.ea.ibs-infra.bt.com...
As will the mindful folk in their Sunseekers
Dan
About the what? ;-)
Nick
> On Thu, 10 Nov 2005 22:57:18 UTC, Pete Verdon
> <use...@verdonet.organisation.unitedkingdom.invalid> wrote:
>
>
>>Ian Johnston wrote:
>
>
>>>Like I said, it won't be a problem. Two prices. Same as LPG - if they
>>>put it in a tank with a gas take off for central heating they charge
>>>you the domestic duty, and if they put it in a tank with a liquid take
>>>off for cars they charge you road fuel duty.
>>
>>That works, as long as a) every little fishing harbour installs the new
>>kit
>
>
> What new kit? All sales at full duty unless boat is certified
> commercial...
>
What is commercial? How about an owner of a coded charter boat taking
it for a private trip? Similarly, the owner/instructor of a one man
sailing school does a trip for friends for food, fuel and marina costs only.
How about bareboat charter - it would be odd (and difficult to enforce)
if the charterer can fill up with red whilst a private owner has to use
white. Maybe the fuel supplied by the charter company would be red, but
if bought enroute it would have to be white.
Nick
Ric
"Nick" <do....@use.this> wrote in message
news:43747814$0$38041$5a6a...@news.aaisp.net.uk...
> What is commercial? How about an owner of a coded charter boat taking it
> for a private trip?
In most of the world beneficial owners of charter boats are no longer
allowed to use them privately. They are obliged to charter their own boat,
with a recognised contract, transferring money into an escrow account for
the duration of the charter, at the end of which the money is transferred to
the boat. Rules have been tightened considerably in recent years in the
charter business - private owners found their own commercial charter boats
get big fines if they haven't done the paperwork correctly.
Nick
I hadn't heard of this - which countries enforce this? I guess it would
be OK for a boat which is chartered to third parties for the majority of
its time, but what happens if the owner just charters say for a
fortnight per year over Cowes week to defray some costs? It is an awful
lot of admin for no benefit.
Also, is there any requirement to charge yourself a market fee? Leaving
aside the admin, it would be easy to pay a break even fee and so achieve
commercial status at no cost.
Nick
Graham Frankland
news:5sp8n11qqdk3uv7b3...@4ax.com...
> --
> Martin
Some countries have different pumps for commercial and leisure and not all
ports have both.
Graham.
Graham Frankland
> legally abroad.
> --
> Martin
Came across a guy in France two years ago who had pissed the Customs
officers off. Because of his attitude they thoroughly searched the boat and
then fined him and charged VAT/duty on ALL his red - tank & cans - because
he didn't have a receipt to prove he purchased it outside the country.
Graham.
Stefan
says...
>
> <ducks and runs>
>
It's a fair cop. I'm mostly doing freelance work from home while I'm
doing a postgraduate degree part-time, and this NG is a bit of
socialising as working from home can be a bit insular. Sad but true.
Alan Frame
> Ric wrote:
> > In most of the world beneficial owners of charter boats are no longer
> > allowed to use them privately.
[]
> Also, is there any requirement to charge yourself a market fee? Leaving
> aside the admin, it would be easy to pay a break even fee and so achieve
> commercial status at no cost.
What do you mean 'charge yourself a market fee'?
If an owner wants a boat /delivered/ from one place to another, they
normally have to *pay* a delivery crew.
At least that's my cunning plan for when I get a big boat in a SIPP ;-)
rgds, Alan
--
99 Ducati 748BP, 95 Ducati 600SS, 81 Guzzi Monza, 74 MV Agusta 350
"Ride to Work, Work to Ride" SI# 7.067 DoD#1930 PGP Key 0xBDED56C5
Nick
> Nick <do....@use.this> wrote:
>
>
>>Ric wrote:
>
>
>>>In most of the world beneficial owners of charter boats are no longer
>>>allowed to use them privately.
>
> []
>
>
>>Also, is there any requirement to charge yourself a market fee? Leaving
>>aside the admin, it would be easy to pay a break even fee and so achieve
>>commercial status at no cost.
>
>
> What do you mean 'charge yourself a market fee'?
>
> If an owner wants a boat /delivered/ from one place to another, they
> normally have to *pay* a delivery crew.
>
> At least that's my cunning plan for when I get a big boat in a SIPP ;-)
>
> rgds, Alan
Nick
Alan Frame
> Alan Frame wrote:
> > If an owner wants a boat /delivered/ from one place to another, they
> > normally have to *pay* a delivery crew.
> >
> > At least that's my cunning plan for when I get a big boat in a SIPP ;-)
> Nice one - let us know how you get on.
Alas, it'll be a while yet...
I wonder if you could get away with the SIPP owning the boat via a
'shipping company' registered in the IOM/BVI - no corporation tax - and
if you are non-UK domiciled, then it's even better.
Hmm, 'Spending a year curcumnavigating, for tax purposes'... ;->
A friend works in banking on the IOM, and says it's not uncommon for
even deckhand-level superyacht crew to run things (by satphone) through
one-man companies registered there.
Floatything
"Pete Verdon" <use...@verdonet.organisation.unitedkingdom.invalid> wrote in
Har Har - oim cleverer than you den cus us farmers has got usselves ur idden
supply of red dye so we cun make us own :-)))
Wurzelthing
Ian Johnston
wrote:
> As will the mindful folk in their Sunseekers
That's like a courteous BMW driver - fine in theory, unknown in
practice.
Ian
Ian Johnston
wrote:
> Tony of Judicious wrote:
Presumably he's misspelling "Coll Wrecks".
Ian
Nick Temple-Fry
>How do you think the rest of Europe copes?
Martin - this is the UK, it would be totally inappropriate to wonder
how johnny foreigner does things.
Davie
> post on the subject of farming
I have posted Stefan but mostly for advice. Fairly new to sailing, 5 years
and know/have my limitations. I would post if I thought my limited knowledge
experience would assist anyone. Learned loads from you guys and this news
group so I thank you and everyone else for that. I read posts daily!!! No
one is perfect but when stupid comments are made about individual groups of
society( whom I actually earn a living from, i.e pays mortgage, kids at
Uni, boat etc etc) outwith the"essence" of this group without providing a
possible solution then hell mend them.
I am sorry to have used the word "us" but maybe a bit of a learning curve
for you to. There must be loads of people like myself who read newsgroups
including this one who never post because of inexperience, lack of knowledge
or whatever. As I have said my contributions are minimal, maybe one day when
confidence and knowledge builds, but I read everyday and as such felt I was
part of this group.
All I say is just give everyone a chance be it sailors, fisherman or indeed
farmers. The world is not perfect but idiots like Ric and stupid comments
from other well known contributors will, or cannot, add any value because
they criticise without bringing forward possible solutions.
Finally, I apologise to you for thinking I am, or even could be a part of
this group and promise never to use the term "us" again!!! Kinda reminds me
of the sailing club I joined.
>
.
Kevin
> this group and promise never to use the term "us" again!!! Kinda reminds
> me
> of the sailing club I joined.
>
Oooh, good response.
Do the right thing Stefan <g>
Keith
<alan....@acm.org> writes
>Nick <do....@use.this> wrote:
>
>> Alan Frame wrote:
>
>> > If an owner wants a boat /delivered/ from one place to another, they
>> > normally have to *pay* a delivery crew.
>> >
>> > At least that's my cunning plan for when I get a big boat in a SIPP ;-)
>
>> Nice one - let us know how you get on.
>
>Alas, it'll be a while yet...
>
>I wonder if you could get away with the SIPP owning the boat via a
>'shipping company' registered in the IOM/BVI - no corporation tax - and
>if you are non-UK domiciled, then it's even better.
>
You're opening a can of tax worms, Alan...
--
Keith replace nospam with ilf0rd
james
"Nigel" <jass...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:43745fed$0$23295$db0f...@news.zen.co.uk...
politicians?
Stefan
david.sc...@virgin.net says...
> Finally, I apologise to you for thinking I am, or even could be a part of
> this group and promise never to use the term "us" again!!! Kinda reminds me
> of the sailing club I joined.
>
It was your self-appointed role as spokesman for the rest of us that I
objected to. Particularly since you were abusing someone for doing
exactly the same as you had just done i.e. posting off-topic.
Your argument appears to be that farmers need or deserve subsidies
because you earn a living off them. Are you surprised not everyone finds
that a very convincing reason?
Kevin
no.
Shame
"Alan Frame" <alan....@acm.org> wrote in message
news:1h5v3vq.k64r2tsbqy4gN%alan....@acm.org...
Davie
> It was your self-appointed role as spokesman for the rest of us that I
> objected to. Particularly since you were abusing someone for doing
> exactly the same as you had just done i.e. posting off-topic.
My apolgies
>
> Your argument appears to be that farmers need or deserve subsidies
> because you earn a living off them. Are you surprised not everyone finds
> that a very convincing reason?
Not "off them" but within the industry
Stefan
david.sc...@virgin.net says...
>
> > It was your self-appointed role as spokesman for the rest of us that I
> > objected to. Particularly since you were abusing someone for doing
> > exactly the same as you had just done i.e. posting off-topic.
>
> My apolgies
>
Gracious of you & accepted.
Ric
"Davie" <david.sc...@virgin.net> wrote in message
news:986df.339$TL4...@newsfe1-win.ntli.net...
Ric and stupid comments
What "stupid comments"? I argued that farmers (and fishermen) should not
receive subsidies, anymore than those of us from any other profession who
also have mortgages and families to support. You rudely told me to go back
to New Zealand, and then unwisely boasted that it would be your last post on
the matter. What is wrong with arguing against the wholly injust subsidies
to farmers, which are paid with taxes on other workers who earn their living
by entirely honest means?