|
|
Post by kris on Nov 17, 2018 16:00:40 GMT
Because you never have needed a mooring to liscence a boat yet. Your the one you kept mentioning the "true" spirit of the 1995 legislation,so I thought you might be in possession of some facts that no one else is. Well I’m happy to learn. I always thought the 1995 act came about because lots of ‘boaters’ got together to get a change in the law so they didn’t have to have a home mooring. I thought that was because they wanted to explore the system, so wouldn’t need a home mooring. Are you saying that wasn’t the intention behind the 1995 act? If so, what was the history behind it? Do your own research, it's all been gone through many times on this forum and analworld. Most inteligent people do their research before they hold forth on an Internet forum as if they know what they are on about. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 17, 2018 16:05:43 GMT
This is wrong. So basicly you are demanding people abide by something that isn't defined clearly? How much does one take out of Society? How much does one put into Society? Do we want to live in such a Society? Can we live outside such a Society? All very fuzzy. I hate that. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 17, 2018 16:08:35 GMT
As far as I am aware the 95 act was a deliberate move to cause a problem in the future which would then be solved by privatisation of inland waterways.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 17, 2018 16:09:03 GMT
Well I’m happy to learn. I always thought the 1995 act came about because lots of ‘boaters’ got together to get a change in the law so they didn’t have to have a home mooring. I thought that was because they wanted to explore the system, so wouldn’t need a home mooring. Are you saying that wasn’t the intention behind the 1995 act? If so, what was the history behind it? Do you own research, it's all been gone through many times on this forum and analworld. . Has it? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 17, 2018 16:27:00 GMT
As far as I am aware the 95 act was a deliberate move to cause a problem in the future which would then be solved by privatisation of inland waterways. I’m sure that’s where we are heading, but I doubt that was the intention behind the 1995 act (without any decent references to go by!). If you are right, that would mean NABO (who had a part to play in finalising the act) didn’t have ‘boaters’ interests truly at heart? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 17, 2018 16:31:12 GMT
wasn't it all to do with some legal person who fancied retiring onto a boat and cruising round the system and had some influence in the construction if the Act. Obviously most peoples retirements are about 20 years so if in 20 years time it started to unravel then its not that serious. From a personal point of view.
What is quite ironic in a basic canal infrastructure sense is that people who have the means and time to cruise around all the time are somehow seen as having a right to pay less hard earned cash towards the upkeep of the canal system whereas people who prefer or need to hop about in a local area and probably have less means are the ones who should be paying more.
Quite odd really.
Reintroducing tolls would seem quite a sensible approach with regional variations in costs. And loads more residential moorings for people who want to live on a boat even if the costs are similar to living on land.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 17, 2018 16:39:11 GMT
As far as I am aware the 95 act was a deliberate move to cause a problem in the future which would then be solved by privatisation of inland waterways. I’m sure that’s where we are heading, but I doubt that was the intention behind the 1995 act (without any decent references to go by!). If you are right, that would mean NABO (who had a part to play in finalising the act) didn’t have ‘boaters’ interests truly at heart? In the interests of fairness I should probably show my cards  I know how to write sentences but I have not got a fekkin clue about anything ! |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 17, 2018 16:43:29 GMT
wasn't it all to do with some legal person who fancied retiring onto a boat and cruising round the system and had some influence in the construction if the Act. Obviously most peoples retirements are about 20 years so if in 20 years time it started to unravel then its not that serious. From a personal point of view. What is quite ironic in a basic canal infrastructure sense is that people who have the means and time to cruise around all the time are somehow seen as having a right to pay less hard earned cash towards the upkeep of the canal system whereas people who prefer to hop about in a local area are the ones who should be paying more. Quite odd really. Reintroducing tolls would seem quite a sensible approach with regional variations in costs. For years I have been saying how I like the Irish system. It’s basically pay as you go. However the cost of making all of our locks automated would be huge. Also the traditionalists would frown upon it. I don’t think it addresss the topic issue though. What is ‘society’ (snigger) going to do with the liveaboard boaters who are probably doing little harm to the snobs who I suspect are just jealous of their lifestyle? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 17, 2018 16:58:38 GMT
I’m sure that’s where we are heading, but I doubt that was the intention behind the 1995 act (without any decent references to go by!). If you are right, that would mean NABO (who had a part to play in finalising the act) didn’t have ‘boaters’ interests truly at heart? In the interests of fairness I should probably show my cards I know how to write sentences but I have not got a fekkin clue about anything ! What? All of it? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 17, 2018 17:03:09 GMT
I don't think its about "society".
I believe (rightly or wrongly) that you get people in influencial positions who follow personal agendas. They don't have a wider society view they have a narrow personal view and they follow this up with changes to suit their agenda if they think this will benefit their short term political aims.
Its nothing to do with the greater good of society its just personal shit and in a lot of cases personal conflict.
You raise an interesting point in suggesting people are jealous of the boat dwelling lifestyle. I reckon that's bollocks. Its easy to think that just because I like being on the water all the time everyone else must be yearning for that but at the end of the day it's entirely probable that a huge majority of people would prefer to live in a house and have a boat for playing with then if the weather is shite just say "sod that I can't be arsed so shall stay in the house and watch telly".
If its nice the option to go on the boat is available.
I've been on the Thames around Marlow this weekend. Lovely weather nobody about (which is good). I'm glad they don't put small wood stoves in gin palaces or people might start using them out of season
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 17, 2018 17:05:32 GMT
In the interests of fairness I should probably show my cards I know how to write sentences but I have not got a fekkin clue about anything ! What? All of it? All of it. Sorry about that. I even made up the SIS bit. Obviously if I did work for "them" I would not be authorised to mention it anyway so its impossible that it could ever be true. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 17, 2018 17:51:53 GMT
What? All of it? All of it. Sorry about that. I even made up the SIS bit. Obviously if I did work for "them" I would not be authorised to mention it anyway so its impossible that it could ever be true. I don’t recall the SIS bit, did I miss something? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 17, 2018 17:58:18 GMT
You did not miss anything.
|
|
|
|
Post by naughtyfox on Nov 17, 2018 18:58:14 GMT
Liveaboard boaters who moor 'in-line' along canals are like caravanners who park up on disused railways. It's unnatural, and reminiscent of crows on a lamb's carcass.
|
|
|
|
Post by kris on Nov 17, 2018 19:12:39 GMT
Liveaboard boaters who moor 'in-line' along canals are like caravanners who park up on disused railways. It's unnatural, and reminiscent of crows on a lamb's carcass. WTF are you on about foxy? |
|
