|
Post by lollygagger on Jul 4, 2017 14:44:39 GMT
Nick stated his view earlier that he doesn't like people living on boats on the canal. This is what "informs" or I would say willingly blinkers his attitude to anyone who sees canals as more vibrant and interesting places. He just wants them out of his way so he can hurtle round on his holidays.
His attitude to life from what I've read goes along similar lines. Very little tolerance for anyone who thinks differently to him as he sees them not as people with rights to live how they wish, but people who are wrong.
I think with that in mind it's a waste of effort to discuss anything beyond say battery charging with him as he simply doesn't have the imagination to see other points of view in any other terms than being wrong.
|
|
|
Post by Telemachus on Jul 4, 2017 15:08:10 GMT
No problem. But I think you should be careful of publishing libellous statements on the internet - libellous because they are defamatory and untrue. If CRT were so minded they could demand you withdraw your defamations, giving you a time limit or face prosecution - a prosecution that you would lose, and it could cost you everything. Just trying to be helpful... I think suing Kris for libel would be rather similar to suing me for libel- an action which would cost tens, if not hundreds of thousands of pounds and might, if it ended up with us being forced to sell everything we owned, raise a few grand in damages. But you don't necessarily sue someone for financial gain. You can sue someone to ruin them and make them sorry they ever insulted you. But as we've said, hopefully CRT have better things to do.
|
|
|
Post by Telemachus on Jul 4, 2017 15:13:35 GMT
Nick stated his view earlier that he doesn't like people living on boats on the canal. This is what "informs" or I would say willingly blinkers his attitude to anyone who sees canals as more vibrant and interesting places. He just wants them out of his way so he can hurtle round on his holidays. His attitude to life from what I've read goes along similar lines. Very little tolerance for anyone who thinks differently to him as he sees them not as people with rights to live how they wish, but people who are wrong. I think with that in mind it's a waste of effort to discuss anything beyond say battery charging with him as he simply doesn't have the imagination to see other points of view in any other terms than being wrong. You are lying, I have never said I don't like people living on boats on the canal. Why make up lies? Can't you make up a counter argument based on truths? No, I suppose not. i don't have any problem with CCers. Why would I? I only have a problem with selfish people who think it's OK to annex some public space for their personal and exclusive use, ie CMers. And to be honest I don't have a huge problem even with them most of the time - we have a few round our way near Fazeley, they don't really cause a problem. But when you allow such behaviour to be unrestrained, you end up with boats permanently moored near places of work, transport links etc. These people are not boaters, they just happen to have a house that floats, and they bring nothing of vibrancy or interest to the canals.
|
|
|
Post by Telemachus on Jul 4, 2017 15:14:58 GMT
By supporting crt Nick you are complicit In their illegal actives, so I ask again are you paid by crt or shoosmiths? I don't support CRT in their illegal activities, I do support them in their legal activities. Surely even you can grasp that concept?
|
|
|
Post by lollygagger on Jul 4, 2017 15:19:07 GMT
This is a bit strong. You are lying, I have never said I don't like people living on boats on the canal. Why make up lies? What did this mean then? ...I want the canals to be a historic transport and leisure system, not a linear housing estate. Intertwined with gobbledygook stating that this makes you right - by law.
|
|
|
Post by kris on Jul 4, 2017 15:21:37 GMT
What did this mean then? ...I want the canals to be a historic transport and leisure system, not a linear housing estate. Intertwined with gobbledygook stating that this makes you right - by law. watch it Nick will sue you for libel.
|
|
|
Post by Telemachus on Jul 4, 2017 15:22:44 GMT
What did this mean then? ...I want the canals to be a historic transport and leisure system, not a linear housing estate. Intertwined with gobbledygook stating that this makes you right - by law. This means that I don't want the canals lined with endless boats that never move, populated by people who are not interested in boating but just want cheap accommodation. If you think that is the same as not wanting any liveaboard boaters, then you are thick.
|
|
|
Post by Telemachus on Jul 4, 2017 15:24:27 GMT
What did this mean then? Intertwined with gobbledygook stating that this makes you right - by law. watch it Nick will sue you for libel. Will he now?! But anyway I take it you are only interested in wailing and moaning and being surrounded by sycophants, rather than actually engaging in a discussion about the merits of your beef with CRT?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 4, 2017 15:25:35 GMT
What did this mean then? Intertwined with gobbledygook stating that this makes you right - by law. watch it Nick will sue you for libel. I don't think Nick will sue, he don't like gurls. He might Roger you though 😉
|
|
|
Post by Mr Stabby on Jul 4, 2017 15:27:58 GMT
What did this mean then? Intertwined with gobbledygook stating that this makes you right - by law. This means that I don't want the canals lined with endless boats that never move, populated by people who are not interested in boating but just want cheap accommodation. Although I would tend to agree with that, it's a symptom, rather than a cause. The problem is the housing situation in the UK, which forces people who would rather live in flats or houses than on boats to live on boats. The answer is to forget the dated idea of "green belts" and fill fields up with as many houses as it takes to house the population.
|
|
|
Post by lollygagger on Jul 4, 2017 15:29:26 GMT
What did this mean then? Intertwined with gobbledygook stating that this makes you right - by law. This means that I don't want the canals lined with endless boats that never move, populated by people who are not interested in boating but just want cheap accommodation. If you think that is the same as not wanting any liveaboard boaters, then you are thick. But I didn't say that, I said you don't like peole living on boays on the canal, which is what you said. Having gone wrong you resorted to calling me a liar and thick. I don't get into name calling, I don't need to when you post such a lot of drivel.
|
|
|
Post by JohnV on Jul 4, 2017 15:35:16 GMT
This means that I don't want the canals lined with endless boats that never move, populated by people who are not interested in boating but just want cheap accommodation. Although I would tend to agree with that, it's a symptom, rather than a cause. The problem is the housing situation in the UK, which forces people who would rather live in flats or houses than on boats to live on boats. The answer is to forget the dated idea of "green belts" and fill fields up with as many houses as it takes to house the population. I sort of agree but I can't with the idea of filling green belts, they are what stops a continuous urban sprawl ...... well slows it down a bit at least
|
|
|
Post by Telemachus on Jul 4, 2017 15:37:43 GMT
This means that I don't want the canals lined with endless boats that never move, populated by people who are not interested in boating but just want cheap accommodation. If you think that is the same as not wanting any liveaboard boaters, then you are thick. But I didn't say that, I said you don't like peole living on boays on the canal, which is what you said. Having gone wrong you resorted to calling me a liar and thick. I don't get into name calling, I don't need to when you post such a lot of drivel. I didn't say that I don't like people living on boays (sic, but let's presume you mean boats). You say I did say that so you are either doing so deliberately (lying) or inadvertently due to an inability to read English (thick).
|
|
|
Post by Telemachus on Jul 4, 2017 15:40:11 GMT
This means that I don't want the canals lined with endless boats that never move, populated by people who are not interested in boating but just want cheap accommodation. Although I would tend to agree with that, it's a symptom, rather than a cause. The problem is the housing situation in the UK, which forces people who would rather live in flats or houses than on boats to live on boats. The answer is to forget the dated idea of "green belts" and fill fields up with as many houses as it takes to house the population. Yes I agree it's a symptom. I'd rather brownfield land was used for housing first, there is loads of it around the midlands. But we are where we are and the reason why static boats line the Regent's but there are no caravans in Hyde Park is simply because one can get away with the former but not the latter. I support CRT in attempting to make the former more difficult.
|
|
|
Post by JohnV on Jul 4, 2017 15:43:45 GMT
Although I would tend to agree with that, it's a symptom, rather than a cause. The problem is the housing situation in the UK, which forces people who would rather live in flats or houses than on boats to live on boats. The answer is to forget the dated idea of "green belts" and fill fields up with as many houses as it takes to house the population. Yes I agree it's a symptom. I'd rather brownfield land was used for housing first, there is loads of it around the midlands. But we are where we are and the reason why static boats line the Regent's but there are no caravans in Hyde Park is simply because one can get away with the former but not the latter. I support CRT in attempting to make the former more difficult. I just wish they would restrict their often over enthusiastic enforcement to areas where there actually is a problem rather than to areas where there is not. As I said earlier, it seems to be a "one size fits all" attitude which doesn't really help. I suppose that's because common sense is not very common
|
|