Natalie Graham

That is like saying why do companies and organisations need security officers because theft is illegal. Is it better for taxation to go to providing people to ensure that the law is compiled with or to pay for court cases when it isn't? I think a very good case could be made that a job which works to ensure people are not discriminated against, victimised, harrassed or excluded altogether from the workplace is more of a "real job" than making wire wheels for luxury sports cars, to use the example you quoted earlier. At a time when jobs are more scarce it is even more vital that people are treated equally. Your comment about minorities becoming the victims of mass hatred show just how far diversity and equality understanding needs to progress. I would love it to be the case that equality and diversity officers were not needed but there is a long way to go in our society before that becomes the case. It is strange, isn't it, how you rarely, if ever, hear women, members of minority racial groups, people with disabilities, gay, lesbian or transgendered people bemoaning the existence of diversity and equality provisions? As an aside, on the topic of wire wheels, I needed new wheels for a bike I am restoring. I contacted the major producer of such things in the UK and received a very abrupt reply that they couldn't make the size I needed. I then contacted the Italian manufacturer of the rims and they told me that the UK company would be able to supply them. I responded that they had said they could not and the very helpful Italian people quoted me a very reasonable price, which even with the carriage charge from Italy was lower than I would have had to pay from the UK company. The only snag was the Italian company was about to take their annual holiday and would be closed for the next four weeks. It is odd how companies in countries such as Italy with four week holidays, or France with a 35 working week can compete against foreign imports yet in the UK, they go out of business. Look at the car industry. How is it that Renault, Peugeot, Citroen, WV, Mercedes Benz, Fiat, Seat etc can carry on manufacturing whereas UK companies have all gone? It has to be more than simply competition from overseas.

But then you are in the fortunate position of not being someone who might find the services of an equality and diversity officer essential. The attitude that these roles are not needed is, sadly, indicative of just why they are important for so many people.

Is it "done" for U-boats to have fenders down when moving?

From the second quote I very much doubt the first is true.

I did think the idea that the human body could not withstand the rigours of travelling above 4mph was disproved with the coming of the railways. 4 mph is a brisk walking pace. The speed limit is set to make sure people travel slowly. If BW had felt 4 mph was too "fast" I am sure they would have set the limit at 3 mph or whatever they felt appropriate. If it was 3 mph I am sure we would still have people saying that was too fast.

I'm not so sure that BW wouldn't be more of a liability than an asset though.

Can any boat, operating within the speed limit of 4mph, be said to be travelling quite fast?

Hmm, who would want to buy the canals?

Probably being polite because it was before 9 pm and they couldn't call it the names they thought of when they saw it.

The post to which the comment you quoted referred to a jogger who kicked any dogs which ran towards him. That seems fairly random to me, especially as said jogger was also presumably running towards the dog. If I still had a dog I would say don't complain if you follow it. I don't see any excuse for kicking any dog. People have complained about dogs acting aggressively towards people. Well if they experience strangers kicking them they are going to react accordingly next time someone comes towards them. If the dog comes into your living room maybe it is invading your space but if it merely comes near you on a narrow towpath then it is no more invading your space than you are invading mine if you walk past me on the towpath. This is not the first time you have referred to dogs "sniffing arses". Do you really find a problem with this as I can't ever say I have experienced it from dogs? Maybe you should ask Soldthehouse if you can borrow his carbolic soap. Of course not, you might have to be friendly in return and that would spoil your image.

Or else you might get the snagged on that board hanging from the wall.

I have an irrational fear of balloons. Yes, even I know that is mad, but then that is why it is called an irrational fear. If, for example, a small child comes near me with a balloon I freeze. But I don't assert that children should not be allowed to have balloons because of my phobia. I didn't force my dog's behaviour onto anybody, I am as entitled to enjoy taking my dog for a walk on the towpath as much as anyone else using it. Why should other people force their behaviours onto me by expecting me to put my dog on a lead when they come near? If they don't want to be near the dog turn round and go the other way. (Not that in all the years of owning a dog did I ever encounter anyone who said that I should put my dog on a lead which rather puts into perspective some of the anti-dog sentiments on this thread.) Dogs are a fact of life, if you go for a walk on a canal towpath you are likely to encounter them so if that is a problem to you don't go where you will meet dogs.

I recall the new owners at the garden centre I worked at debating whether the fruits on the decorative chili house plants were edible or not. Daft owners' kid decided to eat one to find out. he was running round the place screaming and fanning his mouth for about fifteen minutes.

Maybe the jogger is going to say hello when he passes. Not everyone wants random strangers running up and greeting them so he should be kept off the towpath too. To keep properly fit a dog needs a free running exercise, not to just walk along on a lead. I don't see why people with dogs should have to keep them restrained in order to appease the few who don't like dogs. I had a dog for 16 years and one of our favourite walks was along the canal towpath and I never had him on a lead on there. Strange thing but in all that time I never encountered a single person who objected to him or threatened to attack him as he passed them. Much as I loved my dog and had 16 years of great enjoyment with him I would not have another dog and the reason is the negativity towards dogs and dog owners such as that displayed by some posters on this thread. Dogs have been a part of human society for thousands of years. They are not robots and do think independently. A great many people derive an enormous amount of pleasure from their dogs. I really can't understand the intolerance towards them that exists in some people or the attitude that all dogs are about to attack people given the chance.

Why should it? Is there a regulation that requires dogs to be on a lead on canal towpaths? Perhaps there ought to be one to prevent people running along the towpath kicking dogs at random.

So why is it OK for the jogger to attack the dog running towards him by kicking it, but not OK for the dog to attack the jogger running towards it? Best that people train their dogs to get in first and attack joggers without waiting to find out if they are friendly or not first.

I do like the comparison with the National Trust as a model for British Waterway, in light of the fact that, recently, the National Trust for Scotland was found not only to have no complete list of what they actually owned, but also to have no costed programme for maintenance. Sounds the perfect set up for BW.

Was this memo about his redundancy payoff?

If anyone is interested in seeing well designed cycle routes, created by non-cyclists, there is a wonderful album of them here. This also illustrates why I avoid cycle paths and much prefer the roads. Edited to add that February 2009 on the link above has a good example of a canal side cycle route.

Or they could stop turning the towpaths into mini roads like the one in the picture. The BW person quoted says they have had a large increase in the number of people using the towpaths as a route to work. Sorry but the towpaths are not suitable as commuter routes. On the roads with a touring bike loaded with camping gear I cycle at between 15 and 20 miles an hour on average. That isn't speeding from a cyclist's point of view but it is from the point of view of someone on a canal towpath who sees a bike heading towards them at that speed. So if I am being told that the towpaths are a better alternative to the roads and I have no prior knowledge of the canals I would be likely to expect that I can cycle that way on the towpaths. In my view too many of these cycle routes are dreamed up and promoted by non-cyclists who don't realise that their users aren't going to be all family groups pottering along at a pace to suit the toddler on a little pink bike with stabilisers like in the photos they put on the leaflets. If the canal were promoted for speedboats and jet-skiers then people using those boats as they are intended wouldn't necessarily be acting irresponsibly but they would be acting in a manner which conflicts with other users. It isn't the individual cyclists who are at fault, it is the promoters and developers who are encouraging a type use which is incompatible with the existing usage. Sustrans should never have been allowed to adopt any of the towpaths either. They have developed a lot of routes on disused railway lines and maybe if they had done the same along disused canals that would have been OK, but just as it would be inappropriate to develop cycle routes along railway line that are in use it is just as inappropriate to do so long canals that are in use.

If I was you, I would ask again ... ... 3 times!

Which makes it all the more baffling to me why, freed of the restriction on width that gave rise to this design, people build "narrowboats" to 10' or 12' beam.