Alf Roberts

for once Gordias, i agree with you. these termd and conditions take 1,000s of law-abiding boats into enforcement and there just isn't the money to take them all to court in the near future ( even if there was the will)

of course, there are many many types of people on the canals. to label all the people affected by CRT's actions as people after a 'free ride' is a nasty and disgusting thing to say. but.... as you say ..... no surprises there

there speaks the voice of daily mail style ignorance. 'more and more people who expect a free ride ' - and where exactly did they spring from? Benefit Street? or Eastern europe? the reality, cheers Gareth, is that the people you are rubbishing, are young families trying to make it work, or hard workingmiddle aged men who left their houses. since when has living on a boat been a 'free ride?. licence, insurance, BSS, fuel, maintenance - all free, huh?

I never knew this simple fact but applying it to the towpath changes I am familiar with, it's absolutely true. thank you

Disingenuous untruth. Compared to the people you were dismissing to in your first posts - the ones most affected by the current purge on liveaboards - you are well off ( the words I used, not wealthy ).

no. they weren't. they asked for a set of laws, Parliament said no and forced then to change them. everything they have done since, and these terms are the latest thing, is to try and subvert the will of parliament. they get away with it simply because people invest authority in their behaviour. there was no requirement, before 1995, to have a home mooring.

so your thesis is only the well off should be allowed to use the canal system? well that's ok....for you....mind you're going to need very deep pockets when your licence fee has to cover 4,000 court cases.

if it's a fiction, half the shipping in the world ( at least) is labouring under a fiction. Why do you think Lloyds and the Admiralty set up the 64th shares conventions in the first place? Mayall fiction falls at the first hurdle. The financial interests and contractual conditions are the business of the parties and HMRC, no-one else. once again saying it's so don't make it so

OK. That's enough. what is the accountability ? is it judicial review ? Is this applicable? or does one have to challenge Defra (how?) and then apply for judicial review?

Surely the issue of Tony's court case is important enough to residential boaters that they should have been involved in some capacity, even if to publically support CRT and give their reasons. Outside of the rights or wrongs of the case it is still a vital issue for liveaboard boaters and inconceivable that a national organisation wouldn't have a view. If he was a member at the time (Tony hasn't confirmed this) then they also have a duty to support and represent him regardless of personal opinion. All of these points (whatever the reasons behind them) make them unfit for purpose in my opinion.

So my earlier impression was correct. You have no positive input you just want to be nasty to Tony. Fair enough. Nothing I have heard so far makes me want to join the RBOA.

That's my impression too. Which is why I'd be interested to hear positive input from Frangar.... ...when he stops sulking.

Most of the difficulties seem concerned with cutting down on false positives. It's false negatives that should give some worry.

Gosh. That wasn't an invitation to a fight it was a genuine question. Pot. Kettle and Black. I'll take that answer as 'nothing' then?

I'd be interested to hear your view of what positive contributions she has made.

I am struggling to remember his name but the RBOA chair came to a campaigning meeting we organised a few years ago. His ineffectual and platitudinous manner is probably the main reason I'm not a member when perhaps I should be. My overwhelming imoression was that they were not interested in the issues of boats without moorings and of those with moorings they wouldn't approach any issues of contention, leaving me wondering what exactly it was they did do barring selling stickers. I am not really surprised they didn't offer Tony any support.

Tony's post are of interest to me as I would expect RBOA to be supportive of his case. very much so in fact. frangar's posts are just so much nasty noise but that doesn't make Tony's any less relevant. so, Tony, were you a member at the time? and what was their stance?

less flour.

makes perfect sense to me.

check out AirBnB then PM a few people who live in London to check them out.

you thought you could simply write ill-founded malicious untruth and have it accepted whole? sounds like you are eminently qualified to write the reply.

oh, don't be ridiculous. Allan Richards who wrote the NBW article wrote posts #3 and #5 here reporting the Facebook post. he's retold that story ( his journalism ) and added some comment and extra information ( that's not in here ). so how exactly is this article 'lifted from here' ? trying looking beyond the end of your prejudice.