Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 28, 2017 12:24:33 GMT
what the future holds post this i dunno, he wants to take people with PTSD on life changing treks abroad. Patty, this is something that I have a view on. Not sure whether to start a fresh thread, add it to the mental health thread or PM you. Something for tomorrow, as I now need to get back to rebuilding a scaffold tower.
|
|
|
Post by lollygagger on Jan 28, 2017 12:28:36 GMT
I only employed people who could play musical instruments. That's me done for then ππ Cant even play a pair of spoons but you've seen what I can electro-mechanical engineerππ Do concur with what your saying tho.... Perhaps I'm guilty of inverted snobbery, but I don't think so. I enjoyed working with proper engineers, but if I'd employed them they'd have been better qualified than me and probably argue. Best company I worked for in terms of engineers was Vodafone who employed mostly female graduate engineers. Their head of one area was the campest gay man with pink hair. 20 years ago this sort of personnel attitude crossed over well with my own, they seemed to be cherry picking imaginative odd balls as a deliberate policy.
|
|
|
Post by Telemachus on Jan 28, 2017 13:58:16 GMT
You still haven't explained what it's got to do with living on a boat on the cut. The implication from nicks comment was that the people causing problems on the cut are academic underachievers. Which is obviously to any sane person a load of bollocks. Sorry this was posted in reply to foxys post above, lollygagger posted while I was writing it. No that was not a rational implication of what I said. The conversation had moved on at that point, to those generally well off and those not. For the record I don't see any correlation between underachievers and cut-problem-causers. People who create problems come from all walks of life ranging from the "I've got nothing to lose" to the "Do you know who I am?".
|
|
|
Post by patty on Jan 28, 2017 14:27:01 GMT
what the future holds post this i dunno, he wants to take people with PTSD on life changing treks abroad. Patty, this is something that I have a view on. Not sure whether to start a fresh thread, add it to the mental health thread or PM you. Something for tomorrow, as I now need to get back to rebuilding a scaffold tower. Okey dokey...I did ask if he'd consider a fresh challenge..."and mum came to"....he said..... "You've got to be bleep joking".....I'll take that as a no then! The other guy in the challenge has PTSD and its been somewhat interesting...actually his tales are incredible
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 28, 2017 15:26:51 GMT
You still haven't explained what it's got to do with livinin on a boat on the cut. The implication from nicks comment was that the people causing problems on the cut are academic underachievers. Which is obviously to any sane person a load of bollocks. Sorry this was posted in reply to foxys post above, lollygagger posted while I was writing it. No that was not a rational implication of what I said. The conversation had moved on at that point, to those generally well off and those not. For the record I don't see any correlation between underachievers and cut-problem-causers. People who create problems come from all walks of life ranging from the "I've got nothing to lose" to the "Do you know who I am?". It very clearly was the implication, even if unintended. As soon as young families are mention, the judgements are produced, with no basis in fact. These families have licensed boats (therefore insured and boat safetied). Their only 'crime' is that they wish to shuffle about in an area which gives access to work and school. They move around to enjoy a new view every however many days, and many have been living that lifestyle for many years, and have made friends as they have done so. The legislation does not mention moving ANY distance, and the proviso was SPECIFICALLY included to permit boats to be licensed without a home mooring. A couple we chatted to were both teachers. But they wished to live a 'travelling life' whilst they could. Entirely possible to be done, and why should they not? What is it to anyone, if in term time, they have to restrict themselves to a limited stretch of canal. I know people with boats that never leave the Ashby canal, and why should they. Rog
|
|
|
Post by kris on Jan 28, 2017 17:18:21 GMT
Yes I know who you are Nick. Your a bitter old queen, with an inflated opiion of your own inteligence, superiority and entitlement.
|
|
|
Post by Telemachus on Jan 28, 2017 17:43:20 GMT
Yes I know who you are Nick. Your a bitter old queen, with an inflated opiion of your own inteligence, superiority and entitlement. Is your chip giving you some bother?
|
|
|
Post by Telemachus on Jan 28, 2017 17:50:24 GMT
No that was not a rational implication of what I said. The conversation had moved on at that point, to those generally well off and those not. For the record I don't see any correlation between underachievers and cut-problem-causers. People who create problems come from all walks of life ranging from the "I've got nothing to lose" to the "Do you know who I am?". It very clearly was the implication, even if unintended. As soon as young families are mention, the judgements are produced, with no basis in fact. These families have licensed boats (therefore insured and boat safetied). Their only 'crime' is that they wish to shuffle about in an area which gives access to work and school. They move around to enjoy a new view every however many days, and many have been living that lifestyle for many years, and have made friends as they have done so. The legislation does not mention moving ANY distance, and the proviso was SPECIFICALLY included to permit boats to be licensed without a home mooring. A couple we chatted to were both teachers. But they wished to live a 'travelling life' whilst they could. Entirely possible to be done, and why should they not? What is it to anyone, if in term time, they have to restrict themselves to a limited stretch of canal. I know people with boats that never leave the Ashby canal, and why should they. Rog I don't think it's worth revisiting yet again what "bona fide for navigation... etc" might mean. But when the primary purpose of the boat is to be parked up on the towpath I think it might be a little hard to justify. However as we know, the only relevant interpretation is one a judge might come up with in court. As to your "why not" point, I come back to the need to make it not an easy option. If it was an easy and cheap option everyone would be doing it and the canals would become clogged up with people looking for cheap and pleasant accommodation whilst not being in the least bit interested in using their boat for navigation, pretty much as is the case in London at the moment. I don't want the canals to become like that. In the same way that I don't want our public parks to be overrun with caravans. So in summary it is less about the impact of the people right now who "take the piss", and more about preventing a proliferation of such behaviour.
|
|
|
Post by kris on Jan 28, 2017 17:55:53 GMT
Yes I know who you are Nick. Your a bitter old queen, with an inflated opiion of your own inteligence, superiority and entitlement. Is your chip giving you some bother? no thanks I had fish and chips yesterday.
|
|
|
Post by smileypete on Jan 28, 2017 18:10:21 GMT
I don't think it's worth revisiting yet again what "bona fide for navigation... etc" might mean. But when the primary purpose of the boat is to be parked up on the towpath I think it might be a little hard to justify. However as we know, the only relevant interpretation is one a judge might come up with in court. As to your "why not" point, I come back to the need to make it not an easy option. If it was an easy and cheap option everyone would be doing it and the canals would become clogged up with people looking for cheap and pleasant accommodation whilst not being in the least bit interested in using their boat for navigation, pretty much as is the case in London at the moment. I don't want the canals to become like that. In the same way that I don't want our public parks to be overrun with caravans. So in summary it is less about the impact of the people right now who "take the piss", and more about preventing a proliferation of such behaviour. Thing is these days the canals are no more a 'transport system' than a ride at disney, they were built for commercial carrying which has all but vanished. They owe there existance largely to the tireless efforts of past volunteers and infusions of cash from present taxpayers, so if they are to be called upon to play a small part in solving society's problems then that's no bad thing in my book. Those who may wish to use the canals for a part time hobby have no greater call on them than those who want to live on their boats I believe. Are you secretly jealous of liveaboards who enjoy a sense of community that your life may lack? If you can do nothing but moan about the latter group without coming up with some new and innovative ideas, perhaps you belong more the the unaccountable group of mostly talentless individuals that currently pass for a management organisation (I expect there are quite a few exceptions to the rule though, mostly in the lower ranks) Sorry to strike a negative note but that's how I see it.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 28, 2017 18:53:53 GMT
Yes I agree with you but.
The logical outcome is that parts of the canal system which are mostly used for residential accommodation should just be infilled and the land used for housing. Would be a much better use of the resource (land which has had water put on top of it at some point).
I feel that dismissing the leisure "I have a house and a boat" side of it is counterproductive.
Personally I have two boats and no land based dwelling option but I can still see both sides.
|
|
|
Post by naughtyfox on Jan 28, 2017 19:05:46 GMT
I think the canals should be left as they are as far as the original architecture stands, but maintained to high standards, and I should certainly like to see disused canals be brought back into use, and new canals constructed - why not? I should also like to see many disused railways brought back into use. These things have been built, and the track beds are just standing there - terrible waste.
Most of the canals' architecture is cleverly thought out and well-built. Modern architects, to me, have turned out to be massive failures, with no vision for the future.
|
|
|
Post by Andyberg on Jan 28, 2017 19:33:08 GMT
I think the canals should be left as they are as far as the original architecture stands, but maintained to high standards, and I should certainly like to see disused canals be brought back into use, and new canals constructed - why not? I should also like to see many disused railways brought back into use. These things have been built, and the track beds are just standing there - terrible waste. Most of the canals' architecture is cleverly thought out and well-built. Modern architects, to me, have turned out to be massive failures, with no vision for the future. And?
|
|
|
Post by Telemachus on Jan 28, 2017 19:58:18 GMT
I don't think it's worth revisiting yet again what "bona fide for navigation... etc" might mean. But when the primary purpose of the boat is to be parked up on the towpath I think it might be a little hard to justify. However as we know, the only relevant interpretation is one a judge might come up with in court. As to your "why not" point, I come back to the need to make it not an easy option. If it was an easy and cheap option everyone would be doing it and the canals would become clogged up with people looking for cheap and pleasant accommodation whilst not being in the least bit interested in using their boat for navigation, pretty much as is the case in London at the moment. I don't want the canals to become like that. In the same way that I don't want our public parks to be overrun with caravans. So in summary it is less about the impact of the people right now who "take the piss", and more about preventing a proliferation of such behaviour. Thing is these days the canals are no more a 'transport system' than a ride at disney, they were built for commercial carrying which has all but vanished. They owe there existance largely to the tireless efforts of past volunteers and infusions of cash from present taxpayers, so if they are to be called upon to play a small part in solving society's problems then that's no bad thing in my book. Those who may wish to use the canals for a part time hobby have no greater call on them than those who want to live on their boats I believe. Are you secretly jealous of liveaboards who enjoy a sense of community that your life may lack? If you can do nothing but moan about the latter group without coming up with some new and innovative ideas, perhaps you belong more the the unaccountable group of mostly talentless individuals that currently pass for a management organisation (I expect there are quite a few exceptions to the rule though, mostly in the lower ranks) Sorry to strike a negative note but that's how I see it. No I am not secretly jealous (sic) of live aboards. If I wanted to live aboard I could, I'm retired, there is a well equipped boat sitting in the marina waiting for me. But I don't because I have too many other interests that require space. Yes I'd quite like to be able to go for longer holidays in the summer but whilst Jeff is still working I can't (well, only on my own which I don't want to do). It's funny how on here, you can't just hold a different view to others - it's all down to ones secret jealousies etc. Allegedly! Back to the topic in hand, you are right there is no intrinsic reason why the canals must now be used for transport, not accommodation. But first if we consider those who championed the resurrection of the canals through their personal hard graft, I think you'll find they did that so that navigation could be restored, not so that the waterways could be turned into a linear housing estate. 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.
|
|
|
Post by JohnV on Jan 28, 2017 20:10:09 GMT
Thing is these days the canals are no more a 'transport system' than a ride at disney, they were built for commercial carrying which has all but vanished. They owe there existance largely to the tireless efforts of past volunteers and infusions of cash from present taxpayers, so if they are to be called upon to play a small part in solving society's problems then that's no bad thing in my book. Those who may wish to use the canals for a part time hobby have no greater call on them than those who want to live on their boats I believe. Are you secretly jealous of liveaboards who enjoy a sense of community that your life may lack? If you can do nothing but moan about the latter group without coming up with some new and innovative ideas, perhaps you belong more the the unaccountable group of mostly talentless individuals that currently pass for a management organisation (I expect there are quite a few exceptions to the rule though, mostly in the lower ranks) Sorry to strike a negative note but that's how I see it. SNIP < 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.>SNIP I think that is the nub that many seem to miss. It is the majority of canal users that pay the lion's share. Those who wish to live a semi static lifestyle are a small minority paying a small minority of the cost. If they come into conflict with those who foot the bill then they will inevitably lose. They can only exist on the sufferance of the majority, they would do well to bear that in mind. The more visible and noticeable they are and the more strident their complaints, the less likely they are to get the support of the vast majority which they need to survive.
|
|