pearlygeoff

I don't give a toss what you and those like you think. I'm prepared to stand up to an illegal and systematised abuse by an arrogant unaccountable authority regardless of the consequence. You, and your ilk, would do nothing. If you encountered a person being abused or in distress you would pass on by saying, 'We don't want to get involved do we dear' I don't want your help and I'm not interested in what you think. My complaint was correct; their behaviour was unlawful. None of you can, actually, address what I say you can only respond with inaccurate and nonsensical abuse. BW/CRT, and other abusing authorities get away with it because of people like you. Cowardly bores hiding behind their keyboards incapable of independent original thought or understanding. What are you frightened of?

My comment was perfectly reasonable. Yours, as always, is hysterical, overblown, exaggerated and inaccurate hyperbole. If you choose to think women are beyond criticism because they're women you are, obviously, deluded. As to 'irrational and capable of violence' that is totally untrue and you are an attention seeking liar.

Why is anything said that you don't agree with a rant? A common, and overused 'putdown' by people who don't like to hear the other's point of view and are seeking to provoke.. Anyway, the next bit after what you quoted says:- 6.4 The result is that CRT require GDM to acquire and pay for a home mooring which he cannot afford and would not use at all. He could then do exactly what he wants to do. It was conceded on behalf of CRT in the course of argument that if GDM acquired a home mooring for Pearl he would be left undisturbed provided he did not infringe the 14 day requirement which would be the case if he behaved as he wished to as described at the end of para 5.8. 6.5 This would be of no advantage whatever to CRT. They charge exactly the same for a continuous cruising licence as they do for a home mooring licence. The home mooring would most probably be in a private marina so the fees for that would not benefit CRT. They would be payable to the marina owners (Marina owners do pay a small charge to CRT for the water supply via the canal but it is not significant). 6.6 The result would be that by paying about £25 a week (which he can ill afford) to a third party with no significant advantage to CRT, for a mooring he does not want and would not use, GDM would be free to do what he told me he wants to do. So would any other resident boat owner who could afford a mooring. This would do nothing to ease the overcrowding in certain areas which is causing the concern. In practice, as I know from living permanently on the towpath for 20+ years, is that if you have a mooring you are left alone ( and most boats claimed to be overstaying 'continuous moorers' were boats with a home mooring or claiming to have one but the agenda was to blame it all on those without a home mooring). The fact that this was of no advantage to CRT indicates that the intention was, as I know, to push people into marinas to encourage marina development. (Marinas then taken over by BWML). The '£25 per week' mooring fee was suggested by CRT. As I have a 72ft boat the charge would be at least £50). Incidentally I had a mooring in a marina paid by housing benefit because we were forced to do this, and the payment was stopped as I was open with them that we were forced to have a mooring which we didn't need or want, and was strictly speaking 'unlawful' and had no choice but to claim housing benefit as it was a rental charge for a residential use but I was not going to permanently occupy it. It was necessary to be allowed to stay in an 'area' and not be compelled to traverse the waterway system like some 19th century vagrant or the Wandering Jew as a licence requirement. I was perfectly entitled to remain in the area due to medical appointments and investigations, which was my argument (not as presented by my legal representatives) but was not allowed this as I was questioning the reasonableness and legality of their actions. In other words their actions became spiteful and personal as is their common practice.

Of course, this doesn't apply if the 'managers' are female as they must never be criticised, questioned or challenged - or got rid off. Therein lies the main problem - unaccountable 'placewomen' with no knowledge or experience of what they are overseeing. And who is to blame for that? People like you with your hysterical pseudo liberal, truth denying, agenda. Perfectly ok to invent the concept of continuous cruising though, and the requirement for a continuous journey travelling in one direction. But that doesn't affect you does it so it's all right. The change - re boats with a mooring - was made because the judge in my 'trial' said that all I had to do was get a 'false' mooring and then I could do as I liked. CRT were not going to allow me that 'get out' (as they, subsequently, did not abide by an undertaking to the court) so they changed the rules for everyone. Such is the extent of their spite against someone they were determined to 'get rid off' at all costs. Speaking of costs - £125,000 and rising. My crime being my daring to question what was unlawful, agreed by the judge in my case and the case of Paul Davies. But, of course, I made it all up, didn't I. Or is it I'm 'mentally ill'? You still haven't got a clue have you. If you'd spent about 8000 days and nights living on the towpath observing the changes in enforcement/harassment and questioned what was happening in meetings, correspondence and complaints procedures and subsequently become a target then you might have a better understanding of things. That applies to all of you. You are ignorant of what goes on and refuse to listen to evidence that doesn't suit your entrenched and preferred viewpoint. Cue personal insults.

Sorry to hear that, Dave. We've had our silly fallouts which mean nothing but seem an inevitable part of forum 'debate'. Life's hard and we all need sympathy and support from time to time. You have mine.

That's not hypothetical. That's what happened. That was part of my complaint from 2007 onwards.

Once again not accurate. If you're going to comment on my situation at least get the facts right. You do this by reading what I have written - that's how you learn things, you do the research. This thread relates to litigation, in that light you (as in y'all) might like to read my information about court transcripts and the letter from the Solicitors Regulation Authority. You don't get good information from hearsay and gossip which most people seem to rely on (I could say especially women but that would only set Arthur off again).

You obviously haven't read it (5 minutes?) and have no idea what the dispute was about. Like most people on here you don't want the truth to interfere with your prejudices. Carry on with your endless ill informed diatribes with your fellow keyboard commentators; remember there are very few of you so what you say matters not a jot. Totally inaccurate.

So glad to see you're beginning to understand the 'problem', at last. Read my website and you'll learn a lot more. (Though you may not be welcome on here anymore).

But not for calling someone you've never met and, possibly, mistaken for someone else, a 'repulsive oaf'. No further comment - I'll only get banned again.

How very pathetic. How very pointless. How very typical of the closed minded clique that thrives on 'back slapping' and brooks no debate. What's up? Has someone come into the 'lounge bar' that you think should be in the public bar. According to your stereotypes that is. Another pedantic pratt. Do you know what NABO is? Or the IWA? Do you have knowledge of the canals and those who use them? Actually, I'm speaking to the wrong person - you don't know much about what goes on as you don't live on your boat and are, seemingly, unaware of all the arguments and unlawful abuses of the last few years. You prefer to fiddle while Rome burns.

Not another one. Athy claimed not to know who nbta were, I questioned his ignorance. I have no interest in the removal of boats etc. Perhaps you should read what is said before you respond. Another pompous sycophant.