|
Post by Telemachus on Jan 27, 2017 17:29:56 GMT
So we come back to only allowing middle aged retirees on the canals do we? What is wrong with young families wishing to live on a boat whilst working/schooling ? The sun rises and sets, despite people paying to stay in one spot for four months in winter. I'm sure the same would apply if we extended the system, to the truly miniscule number who would wish to live the boaty life style all year. Many have been on board, and in the same general area for years, without issue. Now they are hounded. Instead of identifying problems, we should be working to provide solutions. Just saying 'they don't play by the rules' simply isn't good enough. Rog No we don't come back to any demographic bunch in particular - that is the main point, the canals should be available to everyone, not just a specific demographic who "got there first". What is wrong with young families living in a boat whilst working/schooling? Well apart from being dishonestly contrary to what they signed up to, in much of the country not a huge amount. In the W KandA and London, the proliferation prevents other people from enjoying the canals. 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. Simply put, it needs to be made a difficult way of life to stop everyone wanting to do it and thus terminating the use of canals for leisure purposes by the silent majority.
|
|
|
Post by lollygagger on Jan 27, 2017 17:51:41 GMT
It's funny how people express things. Nick paints a picture of lazy no-goods invading picturesque Surrey, where I picture struggling families dealing with muggers in shitty bits of London. Neither of us really know. No, I don't think they are either lazy or no-goods. Well some of them may be, it takes all sorts of course. "They" (generalising) are a group who have found something they like in terms of lifestyle and want to cling on to it even though it is against the law and somewhat selfish. There are a myriad other examples of folk who want to do something, "have a right" etc when in fact it is against the law, against fair play / against social equity. With respect, your view is blinkered by measuring everything in terms of money. It's understandable as you've done alright for yourself, but there isn't room for everyone to be at the top and it's not a necessary part of the whole kaboodle to wish ill on those further down, as it were. You may be well off but you are missing the empathy bit necessary to pull off the trick of being a gentleman. Paragraphs of reasoning doesn't fill the gap.
|
|
|
Post by naughtyfox on Jan 27, 2017 18:00:39 GMT
So we come back to only allowing middle aged retirees on the canals do we? What is wrong with young families wishing to live on a boat whilst working/schooling ? The sun rises and sets, despite people paying to stay in one spot for four months in winter. I'm sure the same would apply if we extended the system, to the truly miniscule number who would wish to live the boaty life style all year. Many have been on board, and in the same general area for years, without issue. Now they are hounded. Instead of identifying problems, we should be working to provide solutions. Just saying 'they don't play by the rules' simply isn't good enough. Rog 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 I would like to see a load of 'Travellers' park their caravans and 4x4s all round Buckingham Palace. How long do you think the 'racist Royals' will wait to have the Police remove them? I'd like to see them be there two weeks, then drive off, leaving all the usual shit behind them - broken refridgerators, smashed TVs, piles of shitty nappies, worn out tyres. Let the Royal Family experience some 'Cultural Diversity'. Oh, Prince Andrew's daughter Eugenie has lip herpes, it was in today's Daily Mail but the article has vanished. Unlike her herpes sore. I should avoid kissing her.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 27, 2017 18:25:38 GMT
How does inventing a preposterous series of events regarding caravans have any effect on canal living?
The fact is that numbers involved are few, and (certainly regarding the K&A, and I'm sure parts of London) there are areas of open land where moored boats would not create (and indeed have not created) a problem for years.
Create zones where moorers have to move between a number of sites.
The possibility for solutions is endless.
The children involved don't get to choose. They deserve the opportunity don't you think.
And of course, all the visitor moorings would remain free for the weekend and holiday boaters to moor and feel superior.
Rog
|
|
|
Post by kris on Jan 27, 2017 18:33:29 GMT
How does inventing a preposterous series of events regarding caravans have any effect on canal living? The possibility for solutions is endless. Rog The only solution Crt are interested in is a certain element of livaboard boaters leaving the water. Your alright if you keep your boat in a marina and come out for two weeks now and again. But not if you want to live on the cut. I think we should welcome the newcomers moving on. Yes some won't like it and leave. But some will stay and be the next generation of boaters. After all the days of people retiring with golden plated pensions, wanting to buy a narrowboat are gone for ever.
|
|
|
Post by lollygagger on Jan 27, 2017 19:06:35 GMT
How does inventing a preposterous series of events regarding caravans have any effect on canal living? The possibility for solutions is endless. Rog The only solution Crt are interested in is a certain element of livaboard boaters leaving the water. Your alright if you keep your boat in a marina and come out for two weeks now and again. But not if you want to live on the cut. I think we should welcome the newcomers moving on. Yes some won't like it and leave. But some will stay and be the next generation of boaters. After all the days of people retiring with golden plated pensions, wanting to buy a narrowboat are gone for ever. CRT's intentions seem to be a mystery. I wonder whether their actions amount to much more the empire building within the organisation. If you were the legal department with it's £2m (or whatever) budget, pulling back from their weird court actions and using the legal legal avenues avaiable would turn a gold leaf encrusted mini empire into a few parking wardens. If anywhere needed a clean sweep at the top...
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 27, 2017 19:26:22 GMT
On the subject of civilians acting like police. I got a letter from 'Speedwatch' claiming I was exceeding the 30 mph limit through a viilage a while back. The letter was unsigned and had the Thames Valley Police logo on the top of the letter. I've asked them to provide the following information. 1) Actual speed recorded by the camera. 2) Last calibration date of camera. 3) All other personal information held on the database relating to the alleged event. 4) Full list of parties who have access to the data on the database (e.g. insurance companies, police etc) 5) Length of time the data will be retained on the database. Apparently 'Speedwatch' will forward the data to the police and if you receive a third warning you get targeted by the police (not sure exactly what that means). Don't get me wrong, I'm all for road safety. However I do wonder if most of these schemes are run by retired people with nothing better to do than target people who are probably paying their pensions.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 27, 2017 20:04:26 GMT
On the subject of civilians acting like police. I got a letter from 'Speedwatch' claiming I was exceeding the 30 mph limit through a viilage a while back. The letter was unsigned and had the Thames Valley Police logo on the top of the letter. I've asked them to provide the following information. 1) Actual speed recorded by the camera. 2) Last calibration date of camera. 3) All other personal information held on the database relating to the alleged event. 4) Full list of parties who have access to the data on the database (e.g. insurance companies, police etc) 5) Length of time the data will be retained on the database. Apparently 'Speedwatch' will forward the data to the police and if you receive a third warning you get targeted by the police (not sure exactly what that means). Don't get me wrong, I'm all for road safety. However I do wonder if most of these schemes are run by retired people with nothing better to do than target people who are probably paying their pensions. I'm religious on 20-50mph limits, after that anything goes (within reason) it's in those zones you are most likely to get tugged by a van, camera or bothered by the sort of thing you hav received. Over NSL it will most likely be plod in a car or on a bike (excluding motorways which are no fun to drive like a penis if there is any amount of traffic on anyway) The do gooding speed vigilantes I see regularly on my way home from work are the retired folk of Isham or Finedon, depending on the route I take. You would think they'd rather stay in and watch countdown than be out in the cold playing pretend coppers.
|
|
|
Post by Telemachus on Jan 27, 2017 20:38:37 GMT
No, I don't think they are either lazy or no-goods. Well some of them may be, it takes all sorts of course. "They" (generalising) are a group who have found something they like in terms of lifestyle and want to cling on to it even though it is against the law and somewhat selfish. There are a myriad other examples of folk who want to do something, "have a right" etc when in fact it is against the law, against fair play / against social equity. With respect, your view is blinkered by measuring everything in terms of money. It's understandable as you've done alright for yourself, but there isn't room for everyone to be at the top and it's not a necessary part of the whole kaboodle to wish ill on those further down, as it were. You may be well off but you are missing the empathy bit necessary to pull off the trick of being a gentleman. Paragraphs of reasoning doesn't fill the gap. This seems a funny response as I haven't mentioned money at all. Society has to have rules and those rules should apply to everyone regardless of wealth. So i would be just as "anti" a very rich person who built a house in the middle of a beauty spot without planning permission, as I am with anybody rich or poor who annexes a bit of towpath to live on. As to my personal wealth, well I bothered to pay attention at school and uni, and made some good life choices. If you expect me to feel guilty that I have more money than a family living on the cut well sorry, I don't. Certainly I wouldn't be selfish enough to bring children into the world without being reasonably secure, and a lifestyle based on living somewhere which was an illegal place to live, IMO isn't a secure one. If that makes me unempathetic and not a gentleman then so be it (in fact I don't even think I Want to be a gentleman!)
|
|
|
Post by Mr Stabby on Jan 27, 2017 20:51:35 GMT
With respect, your view is blinkered by measuring everything in terms of money. It's understandable as you've done alright for yourself, but there isn't room for everyone to be at the top and it's not a necessary part of the whole kaboodle to wish ill on those further down, as it were. You may be well off but you are missing the empathy bit necessary to pull off the trick of being a gentleman. Paragraphs of reasoning doesn't fill the gap. Certainly I wouldn't be selfish enough to bring children into the world without being reasonably secure, and a lifestyle based on living somewhere which was an illegal place to live, IMO isn't a secure one. Plus of course, some types of sex are unlikely to lead to childbirth.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 27, 2017 21:04:27 GMT
With respect, your view is blinkered by measuring everything in terms of money. It's understandable as you've done alright for yourself, but there isn't room for everyone to be at the top and it's not a necessary part of the whole kaboodle to wish ill on those further down, as it were. You may be well off but you are missing the empathy bit necessary to pull off the trick of being a gentleman. Paragraphs of reasoning doesn't fill the gap. If that makes me unempathetic and not a gentleman then so be it (in fact I don't even think I Want to be a gentleman!) Your bottom line of each post you make shows that you are no gentleman - so I'd advise not even trying to be one.
|
|
|
Post by Telemachus on Jan 27, 2017 21:09:09 GMT
Certainly I wouldn't be selfish enough to bring children into the world without being reasonably secure, and a lifestyle based on living somewhere which was an illegal place to live, IMO isn't a secure one. Plus of course, some types of sex are unlikely to lead to childbirth. What, like sex with a condom for example? i suppose it depends on why you think most people have children. Is it because they are bonking away like rabbits and suddenly this baby plops out? Or is it because they decide to have kids, presumably so there will be something to show off to the neighbours / mother in law, someone to look after them when they are old etc? So if the latter then us gay boys can play too. We either adopt a baby (you can usually get a special deal on brown ones from Africa) or we get some girly who is gagging for it to bend over for a few quid ... whilst we reach for the turkey baster of course.
|
|
|
Post by Telemachus on Jan 27, 2017 21:10:10 GMT
If that makes me unempathetic and not a gentleman then so be it (in fact I don't even think I Want to be a gentleman!) Your bottom line of each post you make shows that you are no gentleman - so I'd advise not even trying to be one. Your advice is noted but not necessary thanks. It's never been a matter of question.
|
|
|
Post by lollygagger on Jan 27, 2017 21:30:45 GMT
The wealth thing is that it makes it easy to live within any and all rules. It's always the comfortably off insisting everyone else keeps to them too, but if you have the choice of a shit life or break a few rules what to do?
I crammed my working life into 15 years, but before I got going on life there were times when I was breaking very many rules. Now I'm sitting pretty I don't. There is a direct correlation that someone on a straight path through life might not perceive.
|
|
|
Post by Mr Stabby on Jan 27, 2017 21:34:27 GMT
Plus of course, some types of sex are unlikely to lead to childbirth. i suppose it depends on why you think most people have children. Is it because they are bonking away like rabbits and suddenly this baby plops out? Or is it because they decide to have kids, presumably so there will be something to show off to the neighbours / mother in law, someone to look after them when they are old etc? I can't speak for everybody, but for me I just felt that the stars were aligned, and it was the right decision to take. I was in my late 30s at the time so it wasn't something I rushed into. You've met one of my sons, Sam, we crossed in a lock flight last year, I seem to remember you were single handing at the time? He chatted to you and said you seemed a sound fellah. Does that ring any bells? I certainly didn't bring him into the world to impress the neighbours, and the doctors told me this week that I have little chance of needing care in old age.
|
|