|
Post by Telemachus on Jan 29, 2017 19:52:43 GMT
Can I reiterate the boats are licensed, insured and have a boat safety (can't have the former without the latter) the LEGISLATION expressly permits licensing a boat without a home mooring mooring restrictions of less than 14 days DO NOT feature in the legislation the boaters continuously cruise but within a limited area to permit access to work / schools they are entirely law abiding citizens and their actions do not in any way contravene the legislation their 'offence' is that some nameless bureacrat has arbitrarily decided that the law requires more movement. That's it. The case for the prosecution. I for one, feel that there is no problem in these circumstances and that millions WILL NOT flock to do the same because boat living 'off grid' is damned hard work Views expressed about 'these people'....'hoards of kids' ......'not paying attention at school' ......'poor life choices' have no part to play in the discussion. Rog I wonder why you missed out the crucial bit about the boat being used bona fide for navigation throughout the period? That is the crux of it.
Conversations on this forum are somewhat fluid(!) and you will find that the various things you mention above in quotes were part of divergent conversations not really related to the original point. If you quote someone out of context then of course you can make people seem to have all sorts of odd attitudes - it is something the media / press are very good at. Do you really want to be like them?
|
|
|
Post by Telemachus on Jan 29, 2017 19:58:23 GMT
I find your post a bit difficult to follow as I'm struggling to get past "ridiculous insinuations". Can you point me to those insinuations, and also if possible how/when I realised I'd lost it, and my attempted cover up? Your post makes perfect sense except that it doesn't seem to relate to anything that went on in this thread. Mainly this: What would be wrong with a family setting up in a caravan in Hyde Park? Again, not an awful problem if there was just one. But if you make it an acceptable way to live, everyone will want a slice and then you end up with Hyde Park being turned into a caravan park and some sections of canal, typically near jobs and in expensive parts of the country, chockablock with static boats aka a linear housing estate, rendering those people who don't want to live in a boat but do want to use the canals for their designed pusrpose ie navigation, unable to do so. My careful rebuttal of a similar post somehow led to your tirade against children, and so on which I took for an admission you'd lost the argument.
Weasel words - "a SIMILAR post". So not actually that post! That post, which simply draws a parallel between canals and parks, was to illustrate why some people don't want the canals turned into a "housing estate". Clearly the allusion was lost on you.
I didn't make a tirade against children, I merely said, contrary to populism, that I don't consider that children are a good thing by default and thus should be encouraged regardless. Of course we need children, but there are sufficient people having them already without there being a need to provide incentives. If there is a population crash then by all means lets encourage more children, but there isn't at the moment.
But of course being a non-populist opinion it is apparently a "tirade" not just an alternative viewpoint!
|
|
|
Post by kris on Jan 29, 2017 20:01:32 GMT
The crt apologists, seem able to ignore the growing body of evidence that crt are trying to ride rough shod over the statutes that govern the waterways. This growing disconcern that crt is showing for the law, causes stress an anxiety for many people. I would say anybody with an interest in the future of the waterways should be concerned. But then it's easier to demonise the group directly effected and bury ones head in the sand than deal with the reality.
|
|
|
Post by mildred on Jan 29, 2017 20:08:37 GMT
If you have a problem with that don't read the thread. Nothing in the thread title gave me any clue that I would find myself reading vitriol. The problem I have is that now I have read it I know that it is there. I suppose that I could block your posts, but I think that I prefer Nick's reasoning that what you post says something about you. If you want to be thought of as nasty, so be it. (I'm half expecting to be dismissed as a fluffy bunny now.)
|
|
|
Post by kris on Jan 29, 2017 20:11:50 GMT
If you have a problem with that don't read the thread. Nothing in the thread title gave me any clue that I would find myself reading vitriol. The problem I have is that now I have read it I know that it is there. I suppose that I could block your posts, but I think that I prefer Nick's reasoning that what you post says something about you. If you want to be thought of as nasty, so be it. (I'm half expecting to be dismissed as a fluffy bunny now.) i don't really care if you think I'm nasty or not.
|
|
|
Post by naughtyfox on Jan 29, 2017 20:12:28 GMT
Can I disabuse you of one point? Being gay is not a "lifestyle choice". OK, I'll accept that and stand corrected. However it is a valid point that you were once a child, your parents were once children, your grandparents were once children, and so on and so on for millennia, yet it has been decided, for whatever reason, to make you the point at which your genetic code hits the buffers. The central tenet of Darwinism is "survival of the fittest" and for whatever reason, God or nature has decided that you personally flunked the exam. Genetics is a subject that does interest me, and I would recommend books by Richard Dawkins such as 'Unweaving the Rainbow' (that's no pun about gay activities, it's to do with how rainbows are made) or, as has been mentioned earlier today, 'The Selfish Gene'. Old books but still valid. 'Gays' may indeed be able to have children, but simply don't want them through a variety of reasons and not necessarily anything to do with their physical or mental state. Not all heterosexuals want children - does that mean they have 'flunked'? Even today scientists are at a loss to know how genes 'work' in plants and animals (and in the organisms in between). The last I heard was that it is darned near impossible to work it all out as there are so many genes and when operating together they can make different genes or groups of genes behave in certain ways, and also that each human contains an average of 2 kilogrammes of bacteria and viruses which contribute their own gene pools into the running of the human. It is so incredibly complicated that it may be a very long time into the future that humans get to figure it out. A percentage of the population of a species is 'gay', yes, but no-one knows why. It could be a quirk, or something to fit into the grand scheme of what we might call 'Mother Nature'. Surely, mostly a consequence of a genetic combination, sometimes due to other issues, environment/upbringing/circles of social mixing. Perhaps Thunderboat should have a special 'Gay' thread, somewhere nearby the 'Stoppages' thread which hasn't been much of a bubbling cauldron, as even I get a bit fed up with the persecution. Perhaps I'm getting old and cranky but gays have never bothered me, they are a minority and so what if they don't always have anything to do with children, many gays have contributed handsomely to society in other ways. I'm impressed that Nick is patient enough to tolerate the jests, as also with other members of Thunderboat who make light of the teasing. It could be looked at like this, that gays without children have indeed passed the "survival of the fittest" test as they've made it, a life without snotty brats and changing nappies that stink to High Heaven. Like a side line in a railway shunting yard.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 29, 2017 20:12:43 GMT
Bona fide used for navigation = living on board to absorb and enjoy the british countryside and changing your garden views every two weeks.
It's only your view that it isn't bona fide navigation (and more importantly the faceless bureacrats).
If C&RT are so certain that the life is illegal, why do they not clarify the matter in court, rather than revoking licences?
You obviously don't realise that some of your 'throw away' comments appear to some as condescending, judgemental, and lacking compassion.
I hope this isn't your intention.
Rog
|
|
|
Post by Mr Stabby on Jan 29, 2017 20:13:38 GMT
If you have a problem with that don't read the thread. Nothing in the thread title gave me any clue that I would find myself reading vitriol. The problem I have is that now I have read it I know that it is there. I suppose that I could block your posts, but I think that I prefer Nick's reasoning that what you post says something about you. If you want to be thought of as nasty, so be it. (I'm half expecting to be dismissed as a fluffy bunny now.) Well, that's up to you. But now you have ascertained that posts on this thread may not meet with your personal approval, could I just respectfully suggest that you fuck off?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 29, 2017 20:13:38 GMT
Nothing in the thread title gave me any clue that I would find myself reading vitriol. The problem I have is that now I have read it I know that it is there. I suppose that I could block your posts, but I think that I prefer Nick's reasoning that what you post says something about you. If you want to be thought of as nasty, so be it. (I'm half expecting to be dismissed as a fluffy bunny now.) i don't really care if you think I'm nasty or not. Says a bit about yourself, does it not...
|
|
|
Post by Mr Stabby on Jan 29, 2017 20:15:46 GMT
OK, I'll accept that and stand corrected. However it is a valid point that you were once a child, your parents were once children, your grandparents were once children, and so on and so on for millennia, yet it has been decided, for whatever reason, to make you the point at which your genetic code hits the buffers. The central tenet of Darwinism is "survival of the fittest" and for whatever reason, God or nature has decided that you personally flunked the exam. Perhaps Thunderboat should have a special 'Gay' thread, somewhere nearby the 'Stoppages' thread which hasn't been much of a bubbling cauldron, as even I get a bit fed up with the persecution. What persecution?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 29, 2017 20:16:22 GMT
Nothing in the thread title gave me any clue that I would find myself reading vitriol. The problem I have is that now I have read it I know that it is there. I suppose that I could block your posts, but I think that I prefer Nick's reasoning that what you post says something about you. If you want to be thought of as nasty, so be it. (I'm half expecting to be dismissed as a fluffy bunny now.) Well, that's up to you. But now you have ascertained that posts on this thread may not meet with your personal approval, could I just respectfully suggest that you fuck off? Back to form eh...
|
|
|
Post by kris on Jan 29, 2017 20:16:45 GMT
So I'm supposed to be concerned what people on an Internet forum that I don't know think of me? I think it would say more about me if I gave a fuck what you thought . I'll say it again for the hard of understanding, this is an unmoderated forum. If you don't like it, there is cwdf.
|
|
|
Post by smileypete on Jan 29, 2017 20:21:32 GMT
Weasel words - "a SIMILAR post". So not actually that post! That post, which simply draws a parallel between canals and parks, was to illustrate why some people don't want the canals turned into a "housing estate". Clearly the allusion was lost on you.
I didn't make a tirade against children, I merely said, contrary to populism, that I don't consider that children are a good thing by default and thus should be encouraged regardless. Of course we need children, but there are sufficient people having them already without there being a need to provide incentives. If there is a population crash then by all means lets encourage more children, but there isn't at the moment.
But of course being a non-populist opinion it is apparently a "tirade" not just an alternative viewpoint! Dunno, maybe it was this post: Regardless, there is still no intrinsic reason why the waterways should be prioritised for navigation. But it is a matter of what the general viewpoint is. Just as there is no reason why Hyde Park shouldn't be levelled and a traveller encampment be installed, or blocks of flats built. People want rural / park environments preserved for leisure purposes they don't want it transformed into accommodation, which would amount to the public space being annexed by the relative few who would end up living there. It is just the same on the canals. A survey of the population would show that most people want it reserved primarily for leisure use. The few thousand who want to live statically on the waterways are an extreme minority. It seems in your mind that allowing some flexibility to families on the K&A equates significantly to world population issues. I suggest you spend some of your time actaully learning about the history of the K&A and the UK's population demographics. Either you can try and make a difference or at least become better informed, but just moaning isn't going to improve things.
|
|
|
Post by smileypete on Jan 29, 2017 20:23:13 GMT
Nothing in the thread title gave me any clue that I would find myself reading vitriol. The problem I have is that now I have read it I know that it is there. I suppose that I could block your posts, but I think that I prefer Nick's reasoning that what you post says something about you. If you want to be thought of as nasty, so be it. (I'm half expecting to be dismissed as a fluffy bunny now.) Well, that's up to you. But now you have ascertained that posts on this thread may not meet with your personal approval, could I just respectfully suggest that you fuck off? No, YOU fuck off, you complete waster, YOU'RE the problem here!!!
|
|
|
Post by smileypete on Jan 29, 2017 20:24:05 GMT
Perhaps Thunderboat should have a special 'Gay' thread, somewhere nearby the 'Stoppages' thread which hasn't been much of a bubbling cauldron, as even I get a bit fed up with the persecution. What persecution? Just FUCK OFF, and take your tiny mind with you, ok?
|
|