Wanted
-
Posts
2,528 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
91
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Gallery
Blogs
Store
Posts posted by Wanted
-
-
10 minutes ago, David Mack said:
Couldn't they be more precise than that? Or did you pass through locks 98 and 99 during the delivery?
I was living on a leisure mooring at the time, wanted to at least try and make it look like we weren’t blagging it!
-
42 minutes ago, Alway Swilby said:
Before boat life I lived in a house on Green Lane just up from the Fox. The Hanwell flight got me into boating. My dad took me for walks along the flight when I was about 5. I remember seeing working boats being towed by little towpath diesel tractors. Once a boater offered us a ride to Brentford but my dad declined the offer saying something about having to be home for tea. I don't think I ever forgave him! I've taken a boat down there a few times now and found it most enjoyable.
That’s a great story. Thanks for sharing.
The stretch between the flight and Brentford is a lovely bit, in fact my Son’s Birth certificate states his Birth address as ‘Between lock 100 and lock 97 of the GU Canal’ proud of that!
-
1
-
-
58 minutes ago, Halsey said:
If you need me, I’ll be revolting against the shackles of capitalism in order to free the proletariat from exploitation at the hands of the Bourgeois.
surely your sub text should read "Bourgeoisie" - but what do I know I'm just a prol ?!
I’m pretty sure that Bourgeois can be used as a noun or adjective, but happy to be corrected... unless it’s by the stinking bosses, they can do one...
if the tap tap is out for maintainance that’s good and even better if it’s going to be joined by more facilities.
Maybe one day we can finish the job and link it to the Thames... good use of that big school playing field right?
-
So word is that the water point at the slough basin has been turned off by the CRT. They claim lack of use.
I would argue that if
A) if more were done re dredging then more would come down there
B ) where was the consultation
C) what cost is there to an under used tap?
I feel for those that do make the mission down the arm and worry that this trend for use it or loose it will rapidly spiral and lend itself to subjective opinions leading to perminant changes that effect boaters.
-
Shout up for the Hanwell Flight. When you’ve been hoofing it from town and through bulls bridge, the flight is some welcome London Greenery.
Oh, and a pint of Timmy Taylor’s in the Fox at the bottom is a win as well!
Not my pic
-
1
-
-
On 26/12/2018 at 12:17, 8 Hairy Feet said:
There is a world of difference between locks as a "fashion choice" and locks worn by a conscious man or woman. Personally I don't have a problem with anybody wearing their hair(or lack of same) as they choose.
Exactly, I know a couple of practicing Rastafarian’s quite well and when I had crusty dreads neither gave a shit. Miriam used to retwist them a bit now and then because she thought I was too scruffy!
-
- Popular Post
- Popular Post
Ex dread head here, when I cut them off I found an old spliff amongst them that had worked it’s way from behind my ear..
-
1
-
4
-
On 29/10/2018 at 23:21, Athy said:
Crikey, who wired it up, Wyatt Earp?
Years of showman wiring, patching up with whatever was to hand and no real future proofing, I would almost guarantee that about twenty people have all tried to ‘improve’ over time.
-
I carry my Fluke Volt stick pretty much everywhere I go, I am always in old buildings and spaces where layer upon layer of dubious wiring can catch you out.
If you ever want to see 'interesting' wiring then come and look in the belly boxes of my showman's trailer, I have all but re-done it now bit but bloody hell, those guys could make things work, but they didn't care how!
The old system seemed to be, Green is Earth and or neutral, red or black is live and brown if modern is live but if old is neutral. If wire is wrapped in white tape it is probably earth unless its in the kitchen area where it is almost certainly live. If all 3 wires were black then assume all were live and don't lick anything.
-
2
-
-
23 minutes ago, Dyertribe said:
Fair enough, however my comment still stands. The bad guys will ensure it can't work.
Not trying to be difficult, but I am lost. You made up and attributed an idea of what my utopia looks like (of which I have no idea by the way), you then said it would never work and now there are bad guys who are gonna make sure of it.
Am I going mad, what has any of this got to do with me or the quote about my caravan?
-
1
-
-
1 hour ago, Dyertribe said:
Because your vision of Utopia was the same vision (in my mind) that the USSR had.
Problem is not everyone is good, trustworthy, hard working and if not everyone is singing from the same hymn sheet than it is doomed to failure.
oh, I thought that might be the case, bit odd though innit? making up a version of someone else's utopia and then knocking them for it.
I have been pretty clear on the theology that I try to subscribe to, communism isn't it.
-
5 minutes ago, Dyertribe said:
Well, everyone was supposed to get the same wages, all equal etc, and it all went to hell in a hand basket
yes it did, but I am unsure what that has to do with anything I have said?
-
On 26/08/2018 at 12:16, Dyertribe said:
Worked well in the USSR didn’t it?
eh? whats that got to do with my post?
-
17 minutes ago, nicknorman said:
It may be a hypothetical situation within your present urban western 1st world gamut of experience. Living in a city you are shielded from many of the harsh realities of life. Plenty of food is shipped in, power is cabled in, your excrement shipped out and all done in a fairly transparently to you. In Star Trek they have eliminated money and everyone has what they need, because technology has given them a plentiful supply of everything. Great. Only trouble is it is Science Fiction - a false idea of reality just as your urban environment is. Every time you eat an avocado, some indigenous peoples in South America are booted off their ancestral land which is then burnt and turned into avocado groves by Big Business. Of course all you see is the yummy green stuff.
As to virtue signalling, you could just have said you were away working for 2 weeks. But no, not virtuous enough so you have to include the superfluous detail that you were helping a kid. If you had been travelling around with a suitcase of wares to doorstep sell, it wouldn’t have seemed quite so good, even though the consequence to your family would have been identical.
Once the bubble of plenty is burst, true genetic behaviour comes out and as I said, human behaviour reverts to protecting and trying to benefit those closest to us.
And this is why you don’t come across as a very nice person Nick. I have been enjoying a debate with lots of people of differing opinions without this constant need to direct personal insult, yet it seems the only way in which you can discuss anything.
I mention kids because you did, I can only draw from my experience and as that is my vocation then I think it’s fair to use that as an example.
Given that I live in the middle of nowhere with not even a pub with 10 miles and I have had to dig my own shit pipe into the ground and plumb in my own macerator, plumb in my own water I don’t get your blathering about Avocados.
I made a decision to not get into personal spats with anyone on here anymore so here ya go, your ball, enjoy it.
-
1
-
-
14 minutes ago, nicknorman said:
I do. You talk the talk - somewhat unrealistically IMO. But I ask you this. If there was an emergency life-threatening situation in which people were going to die, and you had to choose between saving the life of your own child and leaving another child to die, or saving the other child and leaving your own to die, which would you choose?
I think we can be fairly confident that it would be the former. And that is the nub of the issue. People will always want what is best for their own little clan and are prepared to sacrifice the wellbeing of other clans to achieve it. That is human nature. The “let’s all be pals and share nicely” idea only works when there is plenty to share. When there isn’t, it immediately goes back to dog eat dog and survival of the fittest.
I’d like to think I at least do my best to walk the walk as well Nick.
I am not particularly interested in trying to prove myself when confronted with made up scenarios. But at risk of virtue signalling..., I have spent the last two weeks away from my wife and kids working with someone else kid. That particular kid is experiencing unimaginable trauma given their circumstance and I have made it my mission to try and help. I return to my own family tonight for three days before returning.
I have no idea what I would do put under the pressure you describe and maybe, probably defiantly I would help my kids first, but that is a false set of circumstances in which it is unfair to develop a theory on.
The human race would be non exsistant by now if your theory were true.
-
1
-
-
54 minutes ago, Gareth E said:
OK it's a pipe dream, but an important one to you.
I myself am way to the right of centre, I'm all for deconstructing much of the welfare state. I believe in natural selection and survival of the fittest. I believe that welfare should first and foremost be provided by family, backed by community and charity, it should not be a role for government. Government's role should slimmed down which would allow individuals, families and communities, however they choose to organise themselves, greater means. There would be no special concessions for this group and that group, just a simple set of laws that everyone understands, rigorously enforced equally, to everyone, regardless of their family situation, gender, ethnicity or sexuality.
My views will be considered extreme by many in the U.K. but look around the world; this is the way that the majority of it operates.
I'm not an all out anarchist like you appear to be, but find the extent of government and its associated laws exhausting. So, I pick and choose which laws I obey, following the ones that are sensible for the safety and consideration of others, but ignoring the rest.
On paper it would be easy to draw parity between our stances, the thing that I find sadly lacking in your pipe dream is the compassion, and unlike Nick who feels that whenever I talk about care and humanity I am virtue signalling, what I actually believe in is a very natural and honest realisation that we have never been a species that has progressed by means of ‘survival of the fittest’
our survival does and has always relied on deep symbiosis and no matter how hard the capitalists and neoliberalists push this warped agenda it has gone way past the point where we will only ever see it’s faults laid bare.
The reality is that I’m not fully opposed to some of the fall out of your stance, but rather than survival of the fittest, I propose that we recognise that we are as smart as our least smart member, it should be our desire to want to make that person smarter.
If we are all in a sinking boat, is it not wise to share the bilge pump?
(And that Ladies and Gents is possibly the best call back to boating you will ever see on this site..
)
-
35 minutes ago, KevMc said:
If it really worked, why aren't those places still in a state of anarchy? (I can't vouch for your yard)
It’s a good question, I think that Anarchy is more of a fluid movement and that to try and Pin it to regular constructs doesn’t work.
In some one of these examples it was a means to an end, in others communities it is very much alive. Walk down to the real end of the diagonal Del mar in Barca and ask old old person if they think Anarchy is not in place.
Intereting places like Zomia are held together by Anarchy, it’s fundamental for the peace of the region, largely made up of people fleeing authoritarian regimes. The will for it to succeed is very real.
Our yard? Yeah, to be fair currently being overruled by the Tiny Dictator..
-
1
-
-
11 minutes ago, nicknorman said:
Maybe it’s the hair?
When was the last time anarchism worked? Hmmm, I think it was just before the Stone Age IIRC.
If the wig fits..
You think wrong,
Revolutionary Catalonia
Zomia
Strandzha Commune
Free territory (Ukraine)
Shinmin Autonomous Region
Paris Commune
My own yard!
Apologies to the OP, It has just dawned on me that I am leading this waaaaaay OT, and in true Anarchist form am in breech of the forum (ghost) rules of discussing politics.
interesting discussion though!
-
1
-
-
2 minutes ago, Gareth E said:
I'm sure you've thought this all through, you come across as being passionate with your beliefs. Tell me this: if the ownership of a home would not be an option, does this extend to other things. For example, how about cars or if they aren't allowed any more, bikes. Would these all be owned by the government? would each citizen receive an allocated time to use one, a ration if you like? How about clothes, would people own these or would they all be pooled? How about leisure activities, would people be allowed to own the likes of skis and fishing rods? Would leisure activities even be tolerated?
I'm genuinely interested because I can't see how preventing ownership of things could do anything other than catapult us back into the dark ages. I speak as someone who personally doesn't care much for possessions. I have my near 40 year old motor bike which if a possession can be loved, I do, but other than that I don't really give a toss. I value having free time more than material goods. Consequently I don't have much money, but I don't need much.
Thing is, whilst most people think I am not realistic, I am fully aware that I doubt we will ever see my beliefs in action, or at least in my life time. The only thing I can do is to try and live in a way that emulates as many of those things as possible.
The bit that changes everything in your question for me is the bit about Government, as I said to Richard, I consider myself an Anarchist, there would be no Government. Self rule and DIY culture, seizing the means of production and living like humans and not robots.
-
1 hour ago, nicknorman said:
Im going to ask Admin if we could have a greenie type thing for Virtue Signalling. I could have given it a really good workout in this thread!
https://www.spectator.co.uk/2018/07/the-awful-rise-of-virtue-signalling/
Something quite Trump-esque about you. Not sure if it's the repetition or the overreaction.
-
29 minutes ago, Richard10002 said:
Are you saying that government “owns”, (controls?), all property, and distributes it at no cost as it sees fit? Are you also saying that government “owns” all companies and runs everything, and distributes as it sees fit?
If so, who gets the lovely big detached house in the country, and who gets the little terrace in the arse end of a whole variety of places?
If so, who gets to be in the government that makes all these decisions for us?
Have you looked at how the Soviet Union has evolved? I don’t know a great deal about it, but, in the scenario you seem to desire, there will be some people running the show, and living lives of luxury, and others doing what they are told, and living lives somewhat less than luxurious.
Whatever the case, it would be nothing like the utopia that you think it would be. Human nature would take care of that, and disappoint you again.
What Government?
22 minutes ago, Richard10002 said:Firstly, given that you know they are questions, I don’t see why it should be difficult to respond. Add the missing question marks, and read with a higher pitched inflection towards the end of the sentence, and I’m sure you could answer. In my opinion, your answer is a cop out
Secondly, I wasn’t suggesting that you had suggested that people should live like you do.... but you are making it quite clear that they could, if they chose to - aren’t you?
What you are doing is suggesting a wholesale change to the way the country runs, where the government control and dictate everything. In this scenario, I am guessing that people get what they are deemed to need, with less choice than currently exists - as I say, I’m guessing. Can you explain how it would work?
The issues is all of the assumptions that are being made, I am not a Marxist, I consider my beliefs as an Anarchist, there would be no Government.
-
48 minutes ago, nicknorman said:
Ah so you are in the same group as all those Civil Servants / Whitehall mandarins / members of the government and opposition. When are you getting your knighthood?
I would neither want nor accept one, I don’t really understand your point.
11 minutes ago, Richard10002 said:So..... in this particular scenario, you are suggesting that nobody actually needs a house to live in, they just need a caravan in a yard.
So why all the concern about landlords and their capitalist profiteering. If people have a choice between a caravan in a yard, and a house or flat rented from a landlord, and they choose the latter, who are you to tell them they are wrong.
Having said that.... can you imagine how the rents for caravans in yards would rocket if people chose this option. You would then be moaning about profiteering caravan and yard owners.
You are posing your questions as statements of fact and I’m finding difficult to respond, if you have made your mind up then we can’t discuss.
Nowhere have I suggested that people should live in the way I do, I was responding to a specific question.
But yes, I believe that choice would be increased given that ownership would not be an option.
-
30 minutes ago, Richard10002 said:
And going bust would continue to help the community interest.... how???
I agree with your ethics and stuff, but if you are happy to cease to exist ..........
I can't run a company that only considers it's finance, the finance is a third of our consideration, we could be making millions, but if we caused untold damage to the environment and shat on the people around us then how rich would we really be.
I can't help but feel that if you agree with the ethics yet don't live by them then you are acting disingenuously. How does that make you feel?
Most counter argument to mine at the moment seems to be trying to shoehorn the ideas I have presented into what we already know, it wont work, we need wholesale change, and the only way I see that coming anywhere near that is to push for a complete change in how we count our wealth.
-
3
-
-
2 hours ago, Athy said:
It doesn't sound as if Foxy and Moggy are!
plenty more where they come from..
1 hour ago, Gareth E said:Well that's fine then. I'm wondering though, whether you'd see a risk to the security of your family as an acceptable risk, in order for the changes you seek to go ahead?
I consider my family to be more at risk under the current regime, its a question of balance
53 minutes ago, Richard10002 said:Are you saying that landlords should let people live in their properties for free. They will all obviously give up being landlords and all of those people who can’t buy a home will be homeless. If that is your goal, good luck with it.
Thus, fundamentally, your goal is to see all of the poor and vulnerable on the streets.
I am saying that the ownership of property is the problem, there wouldn't be landlords. nobody would be on the streets
Come friendly bombs, and fall on Slough, (the basin) isn’t fit for humans now..
in General Boating
Posted
I agree and in the spirit of socialism together we shall change it!
Solidarity comrade