Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 8, 2019 9:13:28 GMT
Bullshit. He's just like you tries to shut up people who disagree with him. Its not rocket science ! I rather think it is you who attempts to "shut people up", in order to continue your nonsensical behaviour of hiding under CRT's radar in the hope you're not noticed.Β Your rather silly attempts to ridicule those who go out of their way to help others says more about you than those you like to demonise.Β Where have I ridiculed anyone?
|
|
|
Post by kris on Apr 8, 2019 9:14:52 GMT
How have I tried to shut people up ? I'm just exspressing my view,it seems your trying to censor me. Yes, he's desperately afraid CRT will suddenly see him. I'm afraid they already know who he is , but as long as he keeps paying Β£9000 protection money for his mooring he'll be alright.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 8, 2019 9:15:17 GMT
How have I tried to shut people up ? I'm just exspressing my view,it seems your trying to censor me. Yes, he's desperately afraid CRT will suddenly see him. What? Under the radar?? Umm I think you are confused again dear.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 8, 2019 9:16:01 GMT
I rather think it is you who attempts to "shut people up", in order to continue your nonsensical behaviour of hiding under CRT's radar in the hope you're not noticed. Your rather silly attempts to ridicule those who go out of their way to help others says more about you than those you like to demonise. Where have I ridiculed anyone? Ah, there lies the problem perhaps. You're so busy attempting to demonise those attempting to help others, that you fail to notice your own behaviour.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 8, 2019 9:17:38 GMT
Yes, he's desperately afraid CRT will suddenly see him. What? Under the radar?? Umm I think you are confused again dear. I'm not confused. π
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 8, 2019 9:18:21 GMT
Eta.
Anyway this is circular and pointless (why am I not surprised).
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 8, 2019 9:25:00 GMT
Demonized? Eta. Anyway this is circular and pointless (why am I not surprised). Yes, I've noticed recently that you have elected yourself as the resident pedant on here. A case of "Cwdf creep" slowly being brought in. (ooops, you edited the post.) Sorted that for you in order to avoid confusion π
|
|
|
Post by NigelMoore on Apr 8, 2019 9:29:12 GMT
. . . as long as he keeps paying Β£9000 protection money for his mooring he'll be alright. It doesnβt necessarily follow; if another agenda looms larger in importance than income, authorities will be prepared to forego the latter. Alistair Trotman is facing ever increasing efforts by the EA to remove his boats, for example, even though he pays close on Β£12,000 /year in registration fees. For the EA that is a drop in the bucket compared to what they spend on legal actions, and they would prefer to remove a cause of so many very public complaints about the vessels. CaRT, as BW before them, would also rather remove boats perceived to be problems than to continue enjoying any income from them.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 8, 2019 9:32:49 GMT
Demonized? Eta. Anyway this is circular and pointless (why am I not surprised). Yes, I've noticed recently that you have elected yourself as the resident pedant on here. A case of "Cwdf creep" slowly being brought in. (ooops, you edited the post.) Sorted that for you in order to avoid confusion π It wasn't a spelling correction. I posted "Demonized?" simply because it seems a harsh word to use. Criticising yes but demonizing no. Anyway I think its spelt with an S in English as you wrote it. I then deleted it as engaging will simply lead to another personal attack. Oh well never mind
|
|
|
Post by kris on Apr 8, 2019 9:33:52 GMT
Whilst I understand the situation with overcrowding in London and hence people's concerns over the cut filling up with mobile homes balenced on boats. The reaction of some people on this thread is understandably protective which is a perfectly human reaction. But whilst I want cart to manage the situation, I want them to do it legally. Not in a questionable fashion, the ends do not justify the means. Nobody wants the waterways to fill up with unsafe floating structures, but if this chaps home has a safety certificate and insurance then, then it should be liscenced not forced off the water because of what seem to be mainly aesthetic reasons.
|
|
|
Post by JohnV on Apr 8, 2019 9:34:49 GMT
It is an important subject .... and it would be nice to argue sensibly.
If it is being called unsafe and unsanitary living conditions then one presumes (yes I know ass etc) that the council health/housing/whatever they call it nowadays, should be involved. I would imagine however, like most cash strapped councils they are trying to stay safely out of the way.
If it is a genuine case of an unsafe boat then there should be a paper trail ..... until it is produced it will go down as yet again some over officious jobsworth is trying to curry favour with his bosses and possibly leading them yet again into the vastly expensive and nonproductive actions that we have seen so many times in the past.
I wonder if we will ever find out how much that debacle with "Planet" cost CRT's coffers
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 8, 2019 9:35:17 GMT
Whilst I understand the situation with overcrowding in London and hence people's concerns over the cut filling up with mobile homes balenced on boats. The reaction of some people on this thread is understandably protective which is a perfectly human reaction. But whilst I want cart to manage the situation, I want them to do it legally. Not in a questionable fashion, the ends do not justify the means. Nobody wants the waterways to fill up with unsafe floating structures, but if this chaps home has a safety certificate and insurance then, then it should be liscenced not forced off the water because of what seem to be mainly aesthetic reasons. I think/hope we all agree with that.
|
|
|
Post by kris on Apr 8, 2019 9:35:27 GMT
. . . as long as he keeps paying Β£9000 protection money for his mooring he'll be alright. It doesnβt necessarily follow; if another agenda looms larger in importance than income, authorities will be prepared to forego the latter. Alistair Trotman is facing ever increasing efforts by the EA to remove his boats, for example, even though he pays close on Β£12,000 /year in registration fees. For the EA that is a drop in the bucket compared to what they spend on legal actions, and they would prefer to remove a cause of so many very public complaints about the vessels. CaRT, as BW before them, would also rather remove boats perceived to be problems than to continue enjoying any income from them. It was a tongue in cheek comment about Andrews situation.
|
|
|
Post by kris on Apr 8, 2019 9:40:01 GMT
Whilst I understand the situation with overcrowding in London and hence people's concerns over the cut filling up with mobile homes balenced on boats. The reaction of some people on this thread is understandably protective which is a perfectly human reaction. But whilst I want cart to manage the situation, I want them to do it legally. Not in a questionable fashion, the ends do not justify the means. Nobody wants the waterways to fill up with unsafe floating structures, but if this chaps home has a safety certificate and insurance then, then it should be liscenced not forced off the water because of what seem to be mainly aesthetic reasons. I think/hope we all agree with that. I don't think I've ever met a boater who wants the network to fill up with unsafe floating structures, not even the boaters who are members of NBTA believe it or not? I've met a lot of boaters who want crt to manage the waterways impartially within the law.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 8, 2019 9:41:27 GMT
I wonder if we will ever find out how much that debacle with "Planet" cost CRT's coffers From a very reliable source formerly within, just over half a million in total (over two years), but they refuse point blank to acknowledge that.
|
|