Well Said Maffi

[alan_fincher]

A bit late in reading and reply..but I fully agree. Its my opinion that a PM is not for general discussion on a public forum..

 

I think point scoring here!!! (If I think at all)

I really don't know why I can be arsed to reply at all.

 

I have not disclosed very much at all about the PM thread, have I? Certainly not quoted any of it?

 

If I were to disclose it you would see I think that I stayed pretty calm and reasonable despite some pretty strong feelings and language used against me.

 

But I don't intend to publish it, so you can keep guessing, and frankly I'm at the point where anyone who thinks I have acted improperly can now stick it where the sun don't shine!

[David Mack]

Yes, more likely than not . This is btw not a rant about any particular individual or lifestyle but I am just curious to know how anyone can afford a boat of any kind, lumpy or otherwise without any visible means. Even a hippy hutch costs thousands and despite working most of my life I could not afford even one of those, neither could I afford a Land Rover nor an expensive chain saw. The boats that I am involved with are all owned and paid for by the great helmsman. I did own a boat once and paid for it with cash from an inheritance. I am extremely jealous I don't mind admitting of anyone who has 'had it off' but I don't read the Express or any other neo facist rag neither do I respond too well to threats. With regard to the gin palaces, I have personal knowledge of some of the owners who moor in Brighton marina and almost without exception the are 'plastic bandits' or slum landlords, not as bad as drug dealers admittedly but almost in my view.

 

Despite working all your life, you could not afford a boat, but the "great helmsman" can. So are you suggesting that the "great helmsman" has sources of income not unlike those of the Brighton Marina dwellers?

[Tuscan]

I really don't know why I can be arsed to reply at all.

 

I have not disclosed very much at all about the PM thread, have I? Certainly not quoted any of it?

 

If I were to disclose it you would see I think that I stayed pretty calm and reasonable despite some pretty strong feelings and language used against me.

 

But I don't intend to publish it, so you can keep guessing, and frankly I'm at the point where anyone who thinks I have acted improperly can now stick it where the sun don't shine!

But you have published that he said pretty strong language against you so there is an implied criticism of him. It's probably valid but as we have only one side of things guess we will never know. The sun hasn't shone.much in the east today

 

Yeh, am quite loyal to people I believe are genuine :-)

Who are you?

Someone who thinks that everyone is entitled to an opinion regardless of whether I agree with it.

[jenlyn]

But you have published that he said pretty strong language against you so there is an implied criticism of him. It's probably valid but as we have only one side of things guess we will never know. The sun hasn't shone.much in the east today

 

Someone who thinks that everyone is entitled to an opinion regardless of whether I agree with it.

I expressed mine. Nuff said.

[Tuscan]

I expressed mine. Nuff said.

Nuff said indeed unless someone has anything to add.

[matty40s]

yeah,

arse

[alan_fincher]

But you have published that he said pretty strong language against you so there is an implied criticism of him. It's probably valid but as we have only one side of things guess we will never know. The sun hasn't shone.much in the east today

I am totally happy if Maffi wants to publish our PM conversation unedited, or ask me to, (although I wouldn't be surprised if the mods edited a few words, based on past form!).

 

But clearly it seems I'm not even allowed to say anything about it.

 

WTF do you want me to say. I am accused of posting my thoughts based on assumption and misinformation, but when challenged, the person making that claim will not back it up. I then receive a PM that I attempt to respond to privately that continues to insist that the whole of a post I have made looks like a personal attack, but not giving me any further option to say why it was never intended as that.

 

All I have tried repeatedly to say is that my intention was never a personal attack on Maffi. Why does this have to be such a problem in some people's eyes.

[Tuscan]

There you go again explaining what Maffis PM contains when the whole point I understood behind a PM is that is exactly what you don't do.

 

No matter it's an individual decision. As Jenlyn said above Nuff Said

[madcat]

Fret ye not,the great helmsman is not a dodgy operator but a hard working human. We are most of us less worrying in real world than we seem on the Internet.

 

I'm not sure what a pm is supposed to do but I make sure I don't put anything in one that would cause me grief if others reed it. If somebody treads on my tail then they're gonna get the reaction up front on here publicly, an online version of standing on the wheelie bin all fluffed up and hissing at the invading moggy from two doors down.

[alan_fincher]

[Removed as I'm bored by it now].

Edited June 1, 2013 by alan_fincher

[madcat]

I hope I didn't tread on your tail. I'm not surprised your had enough. If somebody has a go in public you have the tooth and claw option but how best to deal with an angry pm I don't know. I operate on the what you see is what you get basis and don't know what to do about the secret squirrel stuff.

[Maffi]

I disagree with much what Maffi has written. How long does he want to stay on public moorings in Oxford exactly? If one were to take his "sightseeing" rationale to it's logical conclusion, one could moor up in Paddington Basin or some other popular London mooring for years on end... Maffi's solution seems to be a bit like a selfish land grab - "I got here first and I'm staying, now f-off!"

 

I do agree with Maffi on his definitions of mooring charges vs. punitive fines, and I'm with him that the fines are disproportionate, but unfortunately we live in a world with a growing population and like it or not it's happening on our waterways too. Just because someone gets to a popular mooring early shouldn't necessarily give them the right to stay there for lengthy periods at the expense of others who may want to visit. Yes, queuing and first come-first served is part of our culture, but then so is something called sharing!

 

 

You have taken what I said and changed it to suit your own agenda. The point of my article is that it is preposterous for the CRT to expect anyone to see Oxford in 48 hours!!! It has nothing to do with Land grab. If you need lessons on how to read I will gladly give you some, however if you want to write on this subject for NBW then please do so don't go piggybacking off other peoples work.

 

In your second paragraph you seem to be infering that I am suggesting that if I arrive on a 48 hour mooring I can stay as long as I like. This couldn't be further from the truth. What I am saying is that if you want to moor at the nice places you have to arrive when there are spaces available these days thats mid-afternoon. If I moor at 3 I am not going to move at 8 or 9 because you think I should 'share'!

 

I wont overstay but by the same token if I have planed to stay 48 hours, for what ever reason, then I will be staying. Someone that arrives just before dark wanting to stay 48 hours will probably stay 60 hours because when their 48 hours is up it will be getting dark and they will want to stay until morning.

Edited June 2, 2013 by Maffi

[Maffi]

Indeed. It stinks of jealousy and assumptions. FYI i choose to shave my head, and a large bloke with tattoos...and may appear that i do not hold a normal job. When i get my boat will i be subject to assumptions that i am a drug dealer or not licensed?

 

Of course! Haven't you caught on yet.

[Maffi]

yeah,

arse

 

Seconded!

[Hawkmoth]

And herein lies the problem, doesn't it? How can CRT enforce the current rules when, apart from overstay charges, the only sanction that appears to be available to them seems to be to attach a "PATROL NOTICE" to the door of an offending boat? Not very effective.

 

I'm sure we've all seen offending boats out on the system blocking a space for days or weeks on end with PATROL NOTICE still attached. There was one such offender moored on the Elsan point at Hawkesbury for 10 days last summer for example.

 

I'd be very interested to hear proposals for alternative sanctions to fines/charges for boaters who just don't care and deliberately overstay. The only one I can think of is to deny the next license application, but this does not unblock the space right now for other boaters (like at Hawkesbury). In addition, denying the next license has no teeth if the offender is planning to sell the boat during the current licence term, so flogging your boat to your mate becomes an easy way to dodge that sanction.

 

MtB

But do you really think that the new rules can and will be enforced?

I await with interest.

[Tuscan]

Think we need more "volunteers" like budget bus above with shaven head and tattoos!! (:-

[Hawkmoth]

Indeed. It stinks of jealousy and assumptions. FYI i choose to shave my head, and a large bloke with tattoos...and may appear that i do not hold a normal job. When i get my boat will i be subject to assumptions that i am a drug dealer or not licensed?

Probably!

The trouble is that many of us only have appearance to judge people on.

I know it's wrong, but have trouble stopping myself from doing the same. I do try.

[Ray T]

Fret ye not,the great helmsman is not a dodgy operator but a hard working human. We are most of us less worrying in real world than we seem on the Internet.

 

I'm not sure what a pm is supposed to do but I make sure I don't put anything in one that would cause me grief if others reed it. If somebody treads on my tail then they're gonna get the reaction up front on here publicly, an online version of standing on the wheelie bin all fluffed up and hissing at the invading moggy from two doors down.

 

Madcat,

 

I wouldn't come to Coventry, there's a women here who put a cat in a wheelie bin and got caught on video

 

Edited June 2, 2013 by Ray T

[Mick and Maggie]

If you need lessons on how to read I will gladly give you some, however if you want to write on this subject for NBW then please do so don't go piggybacking off other peoples work.

Call me myopic, but it seems quite obvious to me that he has just replied to your posting, expressing his own opinion.

 

My 2P

[PaddingtonBear]

christ! I thought I was sometimes rude and mad but I have got nothing on you lot, madcat and alan obviously excluded

[DHutch]

Very now and again NBW does publish something that does make sense and in this case Maffi has said it all.

 

http://www.narrowboatworld.com/index.php/leatest/5798-no-idea-how-to-run-a-waterway

 

I have to admit, I have not read the outcome of consultation, nor have I updated my knowledge of the rules, nor have I as yet changed the way in which I use the canals. I have also not read the majority of this thread.

 

But rightly or wrongly that's my plan for now, if only, because right at the moment I am in Delhi for 6 months.

How so ever I also suspect that the great majority of boat users have also not read the report, and are not aware of its outcome, and that would remain the case for me even if I was boating throughout summer. I have never intentionally left our boat somewhere where it is in the way, taking up a prime mooring unfairly or outside of my (existing?) understandings of the rules, which in the main I have in the past found to be relatively fair, uncomplicated, and to work, the only real exception being when the minority flaunted these rules and where allowed to get away with it.

 

Change the rules to something unfair or unworkable, and you will simply make the minority the majority, and the scope to increase policing and enforcement impossible, will you not?

 

 

 

Daniel

[Guest]

yeah,

arse

Plus one and a dollop of bollocks for good measure...

[NigelMoore]

Change the rules to something unfair or unworkable, and you will simply make the minority the majority, and the scope to increase policing and enforcement impossible, will you not?

 

The cynical would say that this was largely the point, and that fining for increased instances of ‘overstaying’ in lieu of enforcement against fewer instances of obstruction was not only easier, but more profitable. While I might doubt the validity of that imagined posture, I don’t doubt its existence as a motivational force behind the proposals.

[John C]

I suppose its a matter of how far you want to walk as to wether or not the Oxford mooring times are adequate. 48hrs nearest, a short distance away 24hrs (?) and a little farther 14 days. Or, go out onto the Thames, surely enough time?

 

As a regular visitor to Oxford by boat I've moored at all these locations with no problem whatsoever.

 

Re-reading the NBW article I may have missed the authors point, but sod it , I'm posting it anyway.

 

J....

[NB Alnwick]

There has been a lot of hot air flying about in this topic but I know from attending various user group meetings that there is an issue. Marina Owner/Operators and Hire Fleet Owner/Operators are putting enormous pressure on C&RT. What these powerful groups would like to see is ample visitor moorings kept free for use by their smart and wealthy hirers and weekend boaters - what they don't want to see is what they regard as scruffy boats (and scruffy boaters) hogging the nicest moorings and littering the towpath with detritus. And I have been exceedingly conservative in my translation of what they regard as 'non-conformist boaters' - some of the things that I have heard said are far more descriptive than just 'scruffy'.