Mike Todd

You have found someone to insure against wear and tear?

You overstate your case: Firstly, it is clear that sometimes a 'speaker' will be deliberately offensive, or at least knowingly so. It is not only in the head of the receiver. Secondly, choice implies a conscious ability to control but in some cases the feeling of being offended is, to say the least, an instinctive reaction. Thirdly, you assume that the characteristic that is the subject of the offence is capable of being changed. You would need to prove that this is universal, not just in some cases. That said, there can be cases where, for ulterior motives, folk 'discover' that they have been offended, sometimes well after the event. The process of devising a word to describe a section of population leads to that word being considered offensive (often not because the word is inherently offensive but because it has become shorthand for abuse) it then becomes politically incorrect and a new word is coined. Unless behaviour and attitudes fundamentally change then that new word also becomes shorthand for just the same abuse and it too joins the non-PC backlist. And so on. The real need is to see society's attitudes changed, whatever the terminology used. Sometimes the need is to realise that the superficial aggregating people according to a visible characteristic is itself just plain wrong and the result of, or leads to, prejudice. If I burn myself when playing with a match then I quickly learn not to play with matches. If I am badly treated by someone with red hair and then proceed to consider all red headed people in the same way, then that is prejudice. This is all closely related to the common fallacy in the use of statistics, especially the arcane art of correlation, Just because two variables are correlated is not proof that there is a causative link. Indeed, the underlying mathematics of statistical correlation is that of Null Hypothesis. You have to start with a reasoned link and then determine how likely it is to have arisen by accident. If that probability is low then you are justified in resorting to your initial hypothesis - but that must be one for which, independently of the statistical analysis, you have good reason to believe may have a causative link. In other words, my 'learning' about matches is only justified if I believe that my hurt is caused by burning material, but my prejudice about people with red hair is not unless I can demonstrate a reasonable causal link that the possession of red hair is related to that behaviour - generally not the case. That said, there are always those who spoil the case for others. Just because we find one person impersonating a hard luck story by begging on the street corner should not lead us to ignore the fact that most people who resort to begging really do have a hard luck story.

Firstly, 'freedom of speech' is neither absolute not unrestricted. The law - rightly in my book - places limits on what can be said, especially in respect of 'protected characteristics'. In particular, it must not be said in a way that a reasonable person might consider to be threatening or liable to create a breach of the peace or be an incitement to illegal activity. Secondly, we have to be clear what is meant by 'freedom of speech'. It is not unlimited and does not necessary include absolutely everything that is said (or written or email or twittered etc) It pertains to the right to express views in general terms about matters of common interest, not abusive personal remarks about or to an individual, justified on the basis of 'freedom of speech'. It may be permissible to stand on a soap box at Speakers Corner and express a view that all Cornishmen (but not women) are a superior race and everyone else would bow down to them, but if I then went up to you at the next lock and demanded, with menaces, that you back out of the lock that you have just started to pass through so that I can assert my right of superiority, doing so in inelegant (aka abusive) language, then there is no defence in law that I know about, at least in this country - it seems to be different on the other side of the Pond, judging by selective reporting of tweets from a certain residence in Washington.

Don't forget the RCD limit on the number of persons on board . . .

Those who have never had a real clogged prop seem not to appreciate just how heavy waterlogged material can get. A 'puffer' jacket may feel light and airy when being worn but just try lifting one that is in the water.

Ooooh - that';s coming close to stereotyping and racial discrimination. Best report it to a Mod . . . Ahhh . . .

What was added was to the range of conditions that make access difficult, but, as I understand it, access is still the purpose.

Sounds from the quoted newspaper report that the matter is a bit more complicated than initially suggested. The objection by CaRT is - at least ostensibly - not on whether the water route is OK but the use of the wharf by additional vehicles. It also says that the matter is being reviewed so perhaps a little of of pressure from that well-known environmentalist DjT, might help!

Linking in with the Blue Badge may not be as straight forward as might be hoped. There are anecdotal reports that some LA's are making it much harder for people to get a BB, even those who have had them for a long time (much the same as with the benefit system). It costs LA's to administer and they might end up trying to recover some of those from CaRT (were it to adopt the BB officially) so that boaters generally would pay for it. Someone turned down for a BB on the basis that they are not sufficiently immobile when it comes to walking, might have specific needs with regard to getting on or off a boat. The BB is intended primarily to reduce walking distances for the person registered - I am not sure that there are many places where a specific Accessible Mooring can do just that. At the moment, for the relatively rare places where there are designated moorings (whether they are actually any more accessible is a moot point), it would seem overkill - I am not sure if there is much evidence of abuse (which is what the BB scheme is devised to deal with) I'd rather keep with a flexible approach that CaRT generally are quite good at handling than risk the consequences of formalising it.

With cars there is an established system (that costs all of us via the Council tax) to register those entitled to certain benefits marked by the display of a Blue Badge. In general the active policing of that scheme has ensured that it maintains widespread respect and that anyone parked with a Blue Badge in a place not generally available is not vilified as a consequence. Alas there is no such scheme for boaters - I suspect that the criteria would need to be different as well. It is always worth remembering that not all conditions which are accepted as indicating persons needing such assistance are actually visible, certainly at a quick sighting.

Just remember that those pretty roads that we use to get to the shops, work, cinema ro wherever were once just tracks across someone's lands. Driving up the M6 you only have permission to do so. And don't start on parking outside your own house . . . Looks like we will get a lot of that in the next few years. Always the consequence of a lack of proper scrutiny when one party is too dominant. It is not necessarily that the original idea is wrong but new legislation is notoriously hard to get right without causing undue unintended consequences.

Whilst I am quiet concerned about the proposed change (esp the criminalisation) it does not directly widen the impact for boaters since it hinges on whether or not the boater has a licence. As has been argued above, the loss of a licence (or the failure to apply for one) would make one on the land without permission. Whilst the consequences might be more sevre, it is just the same people to whom this would apply as the proposed criminal trespass only kicks in when there is no licence.

We really enjoy helping someone who us obviously finding if hard to work out what they should ge doing, or teaching anyone really. Hence, we would be much worse off if everyone had to pass a degree in boating before being let out on their own. I can still remember sone of the hashes we made of manoeuvres on our first hire trip over 50 years ago! Moored boaters were mo st sympathetic and contributed much to our learning curve.

And a bit wider as well - towpath generally and sometimes a ransom strip on the offside, or so I understand

I don't recall the details but I do know that RCD requires an actual stability test - ie loading to a specific angle.