Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 28, 2017 20:16:17 GMT
I am stunned by how judgementally you write.
We clearly don't, and never will agree.
Why should 'what you want' take precedence over anyone else's desires.
I repeat, the people concerned are living on fully legal and licensed boats, working and schooling their children, but just wish to keep the journey to school/work, tolerable.
The actual legislation specifically permits this lifestyle. The problem is in your head.
Rog
replying to Telemachus
|
|
|
Post by Telemachus on Jan 28, 2017 20:31:35 GMT
I am stunned by how judgementally you write. We clearly don't, and never will agree. Why should 'what you want' take precedence over anyone else's desires. I repeat, the people concerned are living on fully legal and licensed boats, working and schooling their children, but just wish to keep the journey to school/work, tolerable. The actual legislation specifically permits this lifestyle. The problem is in your head. Rog replying to Telemachus As i already explained, it is nothing to do with what I want, it is to do with what the vast majority want. When you live in a structured society as we do, there have to be rules and priorities. If you want to live in a society where everyone does what they want, I can recommend Somalia. And when you say "fully legal and licensed boats" you are incorrect (for some people) since a precondition of licence issue is the "bona fida for navigation" bit. If you sign up for that but don't honour it, not only are you dishonest but of course your licence is invalid. As you say the legislation does permit "this lifestyle", that being a CCing lifestyle, not one of static residence.
|
|
|
Post by Telemachus on Jan 28, 2017 20:37:03 GMT
I have say this thread is interesting if not surprising. Anyone who holds a different view to me seems unable to resist having a personal dig or insult. Clearly in you chaps' (who disagree with me) opinion, there must be something wrong with anyone with a different view to yourselves and/or different opinions are not acceptable. So I think I need to amend my "sweary chip-shouldered weirdos" to "sweary chip-shouldered bigoted weirdos". Rog you need to edit your signature.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 28, 2017 20:42:21 GMT
They do move around!
The issue is that recently distances have been introduced that never were. And I repeat, NO DISTANCE IS MENTIONED IN THE LEGISLATION.
Again you judge people without compassion.
If a ferry crossing a waterway between two points is bona fide navigating, my choice to travel between Bath and Bathampton and commute to work, so that my views from my home change regularly, is equally so.
I apologise to everyone else for hogging this 'discussion'. I'll leave it now, as I think my point is made, whether others will listen or not.
Rog
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 28, 2017 20:45:24 GMT
I have say this thread is interesting if not surprising. Anyone who holds a different view to me seems unable to resist having a personal dig or insult. Clearly in you chaps' (who disagree with me) opinion, there must be something wrong with anyone with a different view to yourselves and/or different opinions are not acceptable. So I think I need to amend my "sweary chip-shouldered weirdos" to "sweary chip-shouldered bigoted weirdos". Rog you need to edit your signature. Stick your tar brush up your arse!
|
|
|
Post by Telemachus on Jan 28, 2017 20:51:56 GMT
They do move around! The issue is that recently distances have been introduced that never were. And I repeat, NO DISTANCE IS MENTIONED IN THE LEGISLATION. Again you judge people without compassion. If a ferry crossing a waterway between two points is bona fide navigating, my choice to travel between Bath and Bathampton and commute to work, so that my views from my home change regularly, is equally so. I apologise to everyone else for hogging this 'discussion'. I'll leave it now, as I think my point is made, whether others will listen or not. Rog No distance is mentioned in the legislation. No distance is mentioned anywhere as a minimum distance. Lots of people wish it was, since that would introduce certainty. What the legislation means, in my interpretation, is that the primary purpose of having the boat on the waterway is to navigate with it. Of course that is just my interpretation but I would ask what the dissenters think the intended meaning behind the legislation was - after all, the words weren't put in there just to fill out the page. The ferry argument is a red herring. The sole purpose of the ferry is to navigate, it matters not that it is between two points. It is the intention that is relevant, not the detail. Oh and amusingly, it is you who is judging me not vice versa. The irony!
|
|
|
Post by smileypete on Jan 28, 2017 21:07:08 GMT
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. I think that those who put a lot of time effort into the restoration of the canals probably would like to see some sort of intelligent balance here. Using emotive language about 'linear housing estates' and 'annexing public space' and the ludicrous analogies doesn't really help your side, all that's needed is a bit more flexibility for boat dwelling families in term time. Hardly what you are trying to imply. Now though you yourself 'bat for the other team' you have to agree that we were all children once, and helping families with children is A Good Thing, surely...
|
|
|
Post by Telemachus on Jan 28, 2017 21:14:31 GMT
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. I think that those who put a lot of time effort into the restoration of the canals probably would like to see some sort of intelligent balance here. Using emotive language about 'linear housing estates' and 'annexing public space' and the ludicrous analogies doesn't really help your side, all that's needed is a bit more flexibility for boat dwelling families in term time. Hardly what you are trying to imply. Now though you yourself 'bat for the other team' you have to agree that we were all children once, and helping families with children is A Good Thing, surely... On the children thing... no actually, I disagree. One thing the world is not short of is people and children. The planet is infested with them to the extent that it can barely support the current population and certainly the current rate of population growth is unsustainable. So in my opinion having children is a luxury and a somewhat selfish one if you have more than a couple. People want children for entirely selfish reasons and I don't see why I should subsidise them, any more than they might want to subsidise my glider/car/boat etc. So no, encouraging families to have children when they can't support them is definitely A Bad Thing.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 28, 2017 21:18:50 GMT
I think that those who put a lot of time effort into the restoration of the canals probably would like to see some sort of intelligent balance here. Using emotive language about 'linear housing estates' and 'annexing public space' and the ludicrous analogies doesn't really help your side, all that's needed is a bit more flexibility for boat dwelling families in term time. Hardly what you are trying to imply. Now though you yourself 'bat for the other team' you have to agree that we were all children once, and helping families with children is A Good Thing, surely... On the children thing... no actually, I disagree. One thing the world is not short of is people and children. The planet is infested with them to the extent that it can barely support the current population and certainly the current rate of population growth is unsustainable. So in my opinion having children is a luxury and a somewhat selfish one if you have more than a couple. People want children for entirely selfish reasons and I don't see why I should subsidise them, any more than they might want to subsidise my glider/car/boat etc. So no, encouraging families to have children when they can't support them is definitely A Bad Thing. This post of yours sums you up so well.
|
|
|
Post by JohnV on Jan 28, 2017 21:19:27 GMT
I have said on many occasions that I don't believe that for most parents with school age children and full time employment that it is possible to CC within the spirit of the regulations and that they really ought to have a permanent mooring for that portion of their lives. Yes it is possible for those who have occupations that do not require the regular commute and are capable of home educating their children. For those very few it is a brilliant life for them and their children, wandering the length and breadth of the system.
When the numbers involved were very small the "problem" of semi static boats was either not noticed or was ignored as peripheral. As the numbers have kept growing ....... well !!!
|
|
|
Post by JohnV on Jan 28, 2017 21:22:32 GMT
On the children thing... no actually, I disagree. One thing the world is not short of is people and children. The planet is infested with them to the extent that it can barely support the current population and certainly the current rate of population growth is unsustainable. So in my opinion having children is a luxury and a somewhat selfish one if you have more than a couple. People want children for entirely selfish reasons and I don't see why I should subsidise them, any more than they might want to subsidise my glider/car/boat etc. So no, encouraging families to have children when they can't support them is definitely A Bad Thing. This post of yours sums you up so well. On his point about it being a bad thing to encourage couples to have children when they can't support ....... I agree totally ....... it is a stupid thing for any society in an overcrowded land.
|
|
|
Post by Telemachus on Jan 28, 2017 21:29:07 GMT
On the children thing... no actually, I disagree. One thing the world is not short of is people and children. The planet is infested with them to the extent that it can barely support the current population and certainly the current rate of population growth is unsustainable. So in my opinion having children is a luxury and a somewhat selfish one if you have more than a couple. People want children for entirely selfish reasons and I don't see why I should subsidise them, any more than they might want to subsidise my glider/car/boat etc. So no, encouraging families to have children when they can't support them is definitely A Bad Thing. This post of yours sums you up so well. Jolly good. I presume you mean having opinions based on rationality, facts and science, not on hysteria and populism.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 28, 2017 21:30:34 GMT
This post of yours sums you up so well. On his point about it being a bad thing to encourage couples to have children when they can't support ....... I agree totally ....... it is a stupid thing for any society in an overcrowded land. It was the 'The planet is infested with them...' quote that made me comment.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 28, 2017 21:32:28 GMT
This post of yours sums you up so well. ... not on hysteria ... I refer you to my above post.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 28, 2017 21:40:04 GMT
I think that those who put a lot of time effort into the restoration of the canals probably would like to see some sort of intelligent balance here. Using emotive language about 'linear housing estates' and 'annexing public space' and the ludicrous analogies doesn't really help your side, all that's needed is a bit more flexibility for boat dwelling families in term time. Hardly what you are trying to imply. Now though you yourself 'bat for the other team' you have to agree that we were all children once, and helping families with children is A Good Thing, surely... On the children thing... no actually, I disagree. One thing the world is not short of is people and children. The planet is infested with them to the extent that it can barely support the current population and certainly the current rate of population growth is unsustainable. So in my opinion having children is a luxury and a somewhat selfish one if you have more than a couple. People want children for entirely selfish reasons and I don't see why I should subsidise them, any more than they might want to subsidise my glider/car/boat etc. So no, encouraging families to have children when they can't support them is definitely A Bad Thing. That's quite a clumsy way of stating the case for limiting population growth! I don't think people are inherently selfish for wanting more than a couple of kids, we are after all only a few millennia into our evolution and old habits die hard! Most people do not think in binary terms like you over the decision to have kids. The reasons will be many and varied across a huge social spectrum. Despite what you may think benefits and not having any other hobbies are not the usual prime motivator! I'm unusual, we waited till we were fairly financially stable, in a home that could support a family without inflicting ourselves on our neighbours, we had a suitable vehicle to cart a dwarf and it's kit about, we were both settled and doing well at work - and in my wife's case completed her degree. All the above meant I was 35 before our child appeared on the scene. It doesn't make me a better or cleverer person than someone who has struggled to get by starting a family under different conditions than those we are fortunate to be in. Taking lots of other factors into account means I don't want another. I appreciate most that start or want a family and in particular to grow those families do so for totally different reasons, why can't you?
|
|