roger

I dont think there are any stats. I tried to compile stats some time ago but I faced the attitude of people who 'control' the hierarchy of the waterways. It was clear they did not want change. I could go deeper than this but then I will risk the ire of some at the expense of their misunderstanding of how the equations work. As for the other question, I dont think it is a issue of what we would like to see, because much of it actually comes to an extent from fairly simple common sense and observation. There is one big issue, and that is there is a difference in opinion as to what should be provided because one kind of provision can easily be another person's barrier. But if we can see that there is an effort to make some sensible provisions, we can also help to ensure that it is the most sensible approach that is used, thus lessening any potential conflicts for users. I think there is a massive historical misperception that encourages an idea of not wanting changes to the waterways. But the utterly, most ironic leverage, in this matter is that the waterways end up shooting themselves in the foot. For the waterways were made quite wholly accessible from the very beginning. Even later canals had beautifully level towpaths, innnovative bridge designs, the lot. Why is this? Look at ramps, turnover bridges, etc. The canal engineers built comprehensive accessibility across the canal system. Their graceful structures and innovative designs were amazing. It was an amazing project that was conceived by the canal engineers, for a different type of mobility. That was the boat horse. Of course it was to help waterways operations work smoother, which is the point most people tend to look at. But if we discount that perspective then we are looking at an amazing design that was incredibly innovative. This has been lost to quite an extent through historical destruction and historical ignorance. If it had been people bow-hauling the canal boats, I do not think there would have been such comprehensive provision, because for example where bow-hauling existed the towpaths were usually not of such good design. The paradox is that people seem to think that there shouldnt be any changes to the waterways for disabled users. One of my arguments, which has been lost on a lot of people, is that we are simply taking the waterways back to what they were before. Which is what I thought was what people wanted. Ah, the problem is, when 'disability' comes into the factors, people dont really want to know. They'd rather not see changes. But its so prelapsarian because it harks back to an age that in fact doesnt exist, whilst denying an age that actually existed, but wiped off canal history. Its just the old attitude towards disability, the more hidden it is, the better.

Not exactly true. Being registered as disabled meant one had a green card (not the USA workpermit ok?) the green card scheme was disbanded many years ago. It was left to councils and or relevant organisations to determine whether to implement their own registration schemes. Councils still 'register' disabled people otherwise they wouldnt know who needed adaptations and equipment or assistance. Some councils may have registration cards, most dont. Councils need records so that disabled people can benefit, for example, from extra facilities or services the council may offer. Other things (independent of the public services - like applying for a disabled railcard, or extra financial benefits if one happens to be blind) need to be verified by the council, a doctor or ENT's as proof that one is disabled. Most of the legislation concieved under the DDA is no longer applicable, its now the Equality Act 2010.

Dont know the name but it had a riveted iron hull with elm bottom. Having just read this thread on these Harefield boats, I just thought it odd that this one had been cut up and scrapped this week. It seems to me all these boats made their way to the Basingstoke/Harefield about the early sixties. (edited to remove irrelevant info)

An interesting thought - surely some of the Basingstoke boats (http://www.britishpathe.com/record.php?id=1184) must have come from the same batch as those abandoned at Harefield?? Perhaps those in the best condition went on to the Basingstoke?? If that is indeed the case, the only sad note is that this week one of these boats was scrapped after being abandoned by its owner. Roger

See also: http://www.londoncanals.co.uk/lvenice/lv01m.html and here: http://www.londoncanals.co.uk/movies/01m.html

This film shows why Progress is a historic, and therefore very important, boat. I remember Progress when it was a liveaboard barge at Cowley, always thought it had been taken away to be restored. Now I know where she is - on the bottom of the Troy Cut! How very sad. http://www.britishpathe.com/record.php?id=5464 PS - British Pathe's website doesnt say where this film was taken, but its clearly the top lock at Hatton. The ceremony was of course the Duke of Kent at the official re-opening of the Hatton flight in 1934. The great irony is that Progress could not make her way along the canal as originally hoped (the improvement works were never finished - and have never been finished I must add) Progress had to be taken to Hatton yard by road.

Thats a nice picture! I have some of when he was steering the boats. I have found an online link to the news article about Giles: http://www.camdennewjournal.com/news/2010/...s-real-treasure

In today's edition of the Camden New Journal is the shocking news that Giles Higgitt, the popular leader of the Pirate Club on the Regents Canal in Camden, died of cancer last week. The canal world has been strangely silent on this....... It must be mentioned that Giles offered so much opportunity for young people and without him many would never have had an introduction to the canals or canal boating. As the Camden New Journal says, he was the "Mother Theresa of Camden Town." Despite many setbacks in his life, he always spent time "helping others get out of the house, to have a good time and learn new things." His problems set him out in good stealth to be successful in his later life - and he gave many destitute youngsters a ray of hope at a time when society seems to be offering them none. Roger

I think if you are disabled and you are own your own on the canals it is more likely you will face issues. If you are often with others it is more likely that the perception of one's disability has much less impact. That is why it is important to share experiences. As a deaf/aspergerers I would like to know how I can reduce the rather vile reactions I get from some canallers which I find appaling. Im sure several canallers find me 'appaling' but then that is because they dont understand disabilities. It is like Thats Life where Esther Rantzen exposed attitudes by her film of a man with speech problems who encountered a lot of vile reactions when asking for directions. Canallers who know me well have said to me frequently, "its because these other boaters cant understand your disability, and they dont want to understand either."

BW didnt want to know when two of us spent hours trying to contact their emergency phone line, and when I was told I should take BW to court for breaching the XXX act (dont want to mention that said act in case someone makes a joke) they (this being EB's own department) refused point blank to meet with the mediators and it just showed me that BW doesnt want to know and just doesnt care. BW doesnt like it when some (eg cc'ers) 'break' their 'laws.' On the converse it is anally retentive and utterly inept when it comes to complying with external legislation that behoves upon it. Yes BW hopes we'll all just give up and go away.

language is a funny thing, all sorts of assumptions can be inferred from it - except the original meaning!

I'm interested by the suggestion that we shouldn't divide ourselves off in 'segregation,' but CWF is a PUBLIC forum, hence I dont see how "segregation" would occur. The idea of a section (within the virtual pub or general boating whichever) would however make it perhaps easier for those of us who would like it, whilst at the same time welcome feedback from others. If someone wanted to discuss a topic without getting "drowned out" by other forum users' input then this would be the place, as some topics could fairly well be quite sensitive. It doesnt mean that jokes or being funny are not allowed, but on some threads I've seen, as soon as someone posts a new topic, a CWF user drifts in with uneccessary comments which I'm sure sometimes dents the confidence of the originator.

Could we have a section for disabled waterway users please? There are quite a number of us who are users of this forum including one of the mods. Thanks.

They've got a slightly overdesigned albeit historical boat, called Henley which recklessly navigates the section from Kew to Richmond!! Anyone who has had the misfortune to meet this boat will know what I mean. Should the PLA imposes VHF on the Teddington to Brentford section they will have to provide someone with VHF equipment, and BSL ability. In my case this would be in accordance with the requirements of the Disability Discrimination Act. That will be an expense which the PLA will have to meet.

Hawkesbury IWA rally in the 1980's the crew of President misunderstood a situation and took to it that I should be adominshed enormously. I serioulsy remember their aggro very well. I have NEVER forgotten them or their complete and utter violence towards me. Nowadays their kind of action would be seen as hate crime. It is high time some of these boaters (and their noted personalities) moved into the 21st century - especially after a noted waterways couple's shocking attitude and attempt to denigrate my integrity at a recent waterways rally. The problem is a lot of people on the waterway dont understand things. Despite the apparent openess there are a lot of closed and biased minds. The waterways DO NOT belong to able bodied people only! Or shiney boats. Or traditional boats. Or working boats. They belong to everybody and as such everybody should treat everyone else with the same amount of respect as they would glady get.

The steerer might be in charge of the boat but I am deaf and i am a steerer and the attitude i get from people is applaing most of the time. They think because i am deaf they can do bloody well what they like and this extends to whiping up the paddles and ingnoring my attempts to signal to them NOT to do this and their attitudes which get worse as they realise i try to communicate in signs. I have found that even famous waterway personalities are just as bad this and my list sadly extends to a number of prestigious preserved boat organisations as well as the usual ignorant/egoist driven hire boaters. In my view the waterways are getting worse in every aspect of social ettiquette because people realise most things can be got away with on the cut and the more insignificant or lower down the social ladder the victims are then so much the better it seems.

More pics at http://www.londoncanals.co.uk/w-ops/calv09.html Few have bothered to display their mooring numbers, thats probably one reason the system is in chaos!

See: http://www.londoncanals.co.uk/w-ops/calv09.html

Slightly changing the topic, but still on disabled boating - One disabled boater was told by a BW patrolman that being in reciept of DLA would make one eligible for a reduced BW licence. Despite this word from a BW authority, I have yet to find anyone in BW agreeing that such an arrangement exists.

Despite doubts surrounding the bridge SONACS apparently agreed with the council that it was not DDA compliant. So there was an impetus to have the bridge removed, when it could have in fact been retained. There are many far worse structures on the canals that break the DDA regulations.

Some cyclists get very aggressive at deaf people. I've been told to f.. off, not be on the towpath, etc. I once grabbed a cyclist for hitting me and waited for the police (naturally someone else at my request called the police who arrived soon after) however the cyclist soon struggled and dashed off at speed off like a evil, slimey, slobbering thief not wanting to be caught. I have never agreed with BW's Two Tings policy. It is a charter for abuse and everytime BW is spoken to about it, they just make excuses - they do not want to know. Despite their cyclist official I havent seen improvements in cyclist attitudes. It doesnt work because for every cyclist that is 'educated' more come onto the towpath totally ignorant. I've been surprised at the number of officials also (including the police and Royal Parks Workers) who have displayed incredibly selfish attitudes and these are some of the people who should know better since they have rules in their own backyards about cycling attitudes. BW are now talking about parallel pathways (towpaths for walkers and cyclepaths for cyclists) so it seems that BW have accepted in some respects that mixed towpath use doesnt work. Obviously an indication that cycling on towpaths doesnt work. It is however time that ALL towpath cycling was banned because of the many dangers it presents.

Proof? The clever tatics used to deflect responsibility away from BW's own duties as required under the DDA. Disability Provision was the repsonsibility of Eugene's department, if anyone wants to know. Despite BW's statements on disability (which are clearly a critical part of the justification for BW director bonuses) BW has great failings in adhering to its own beliefs on what should be done under the DDA and the provisions made out according to its own 'Disability Statement.' (On another matter I do remember Eugene's attempts to wheedle BW out of the mess of the Castle Mills/Jericho affair. Those tatics by Eugene struck me as desperate attempts by BW to cover its mis-management and total imcompetence. I dont suppose no-one noticed seeing they had their lovely BW blinkered coloured glasses on?)

It is clear that BW shouldnt be incompetent. If they are then they cannot be justified as being in charge of the waterways. Incompetence is a serious thing, take for example the failures in the Baby P affair. Or the De Menzes shooting. Incompetence leads to cover ups and liesand systematic failures. It is up to us to ensure that BW is more competent and does what it is expected to do, and for it not to become expert at papering over the cracks.

Eugene might have been someone to you who was open and accountable, but he wasnt - at least to me. Contrary to most people's popular opinion of him, he was just another expert at BW cover ups. I had a lengthy experience of his expertise at cover ups. Its a very boring subject and one that doesnt grab the attention of many canallers. Dave Mayall might have brought attention to this thread but that doesnt mean he would be an accountable BW director. Do keep up the good work anyway it is time BW stopped practising 'thin ethics.' I'm still keen to learn the whys and wherefores of Robin Evans' bonuses.

I think you should work for BW - from what I have read of your posts you would be extremely good at cooking the books and manipulating stuff.