The Anonymous Bard
-
Posts
434 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
1
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Gallery
Blogs
Store
Posts posted by The Anonymous Bard
-
-
Deeply shocked and saddened to have just learned of this terrible news, I had the pleasure of meeting Steve on a number of occasions both at Glascote and Crick and he was a very genuine chap.
Deepest sympathies to his wife, his daughters, his friends and all of those who knew him.
R.I.P Steve.
-
Just wondering what is going on with CaRT, I haven't visited this forum for some time (due to a certain ego-centric forum repellent who's a$$ I nailed to a plank on certain occasionS and whom I am sure will crop up shortly) but I have emailed them this evening regarding questions on an angling forum regarding their Waterways Wanderers Scheme only to get an auto-reply stating that their inbox is full?
Dear CaRT,
As both a narrowboater and an angler I am seeking some specific answers to questions regarding your Waterway Wanderers Scheme.
I am currently discussing this on a prominent angling forum and my first impressions are that few, if any anglers, have even heard of this.
In particular I would like to ascertain:
1) Of the £20 pounds asking fee what structure is in place to ensure re-investment in angling?
2) What percentage of this £20 will be re-invested to the direct benefit of the paying anglers?
3) How will any re-investment take place?
4) What research has taken place to support any intended re-investment?
5) Given that anglers in general appear totally unaware of this charge to fish canal waters which are not under the control of an individual club (where they would previously have enjoyed free fishing) what attempts will you be undertaking to raise their awareness?
6) How do you intend to enforce/bailiff this scheme?
7) In the event of an angler not being in the possession of a licence in a required area be found, what would be the outcome considering the lack of awareness?
I would be grateful if you could reply by number as opposed to statement to ensure that everything is covered and which will assist in challenging any particular answers.
Kind Regards, -
We popped in there after Crick today for the first time since re-opening and at first I wondered if it was going to be the same old problem as before when first choice of meal was unavailable but pleased to report that food was very good indeed with friendly staff and brisk trade both inside and outside the pub.
Looks like someone really wants to make a go of it and very much worth a try... good luck to them.
-
That's the point I was trying to make - the "all drugs are bad" brigade sit with a glass of wine in one hand and a cigarette in the other and feel holier than thou just because they don't indulge in substances that our rather random laws have deemed bad whilst abuse of alcohol causes massive harm to our society.
So which ones are good then... and why?
-
See above.
-
Well no reply so I guess I should settle for the peaceful way ahead and live and let live for another day... wouldn't want to get accused of trolling now.
-
Evidently not, in your case.
Zzzzzzzzz... Zzzzzzzzz...
-
No I was offering an "agree to differ" route back to discussing your original point, rather than the abusive content of your op, but as you say...
I guess you'll just continue with your pathetic trolling.
Lol... nothing ever changes does it?
-
And if you hadn't used abusive language, in your original post, it would have stayed that way, it's as simple as that.
You insulted people.
I criticised something somebody said using a word that you find unacceptable but I found appropriate.
There is a distinction that makes what you said personal abuse and what I said an impersonal criticism.
If aimed at me, I would not take "you're talking bollocks" personally as it is an attack on something I said, not the person I am.
Dismissing a whole group as " dumb, nose pierced, benefit drawing idiots..." is, however a insult that has no bearing in fact. Just an ill-informed personal snipe.
I have removed the word that has upset you so much (bless) and replaced it with "rubbish" as that is just as appropriate.
Now if you'd like to defend your original post, instead of throwing a hissy fit at one word, then I am happy to join in.
I thought you were stepping out... didn't last long did it!
No I completely disagree, In my mind I insulted a group of unidentifiable people of whom none have stepped forward to complain as belonging to such a group, if they do I will duly apolgise and feel happier for knowing that I may have been wrong.
You used what I and I am sure others would consider offensive terminology against an individual forum user which you have now removed and you appear to me to want to re-discuss the whole thing again whilst discarding your earlier comments?
What is this... a kind of "can I have a second chance?" re-edit?
My original post has been defended in my reply to wanted, earlier on you were stating that you had made the mistake of feeding the troll and now you're back again?
I'm quite happy with the way things sit.
-
Whilst I know that Carl is more than capable of sticking up for himself I support his stance here. You clearly wanted to stir things up because of the last sentence in your first post. I challenge you to ignore the rest of your OP and explain what you mean by it...
I'll expand a little further back to the last two sentences as I think it might provide a broader answer.
I meant that I have what could be perceived by some as a bigoted, stereo typical opinion of "antis", whether justifiably so or not and I acknowledged back in post 12 that this was not always the case... I was happy to confirm that my non-stereo typical anti existed and that it was a case as originally stated in post 5 that I had never personally met one of them by the waterside.
I'm happy with that, if this is perceived to be bigoted then I will be none the worse for wear and just as happy with it.
The last sentence itself was introduced to encourage a lively (not an abusive or foul languaged) discussion, it's as simple as that.
Lovely thread,
Could you confirm the species of crayfish involved? Hopefully you didn't just move a nest of signals when you should have taken them out and bludgeoned them with a brick
Lol... no, they were very definitely our own native species and not the Signal.
-
Not at all and I stand by what I said.
Sue's contradictory attitudes to fox hunting and fishing are truly bizarre.
The language I used was entirely in keeping with your disparaging comments about a group of people you have judged, purely because they disapprove of your hobby.
Ignorant, judgemental, offensive and ill-informed twaddle,. and you know it, hence the "That should get it going!" tacked on at the end.
You do this time and time again and then accuse others of resorting to language and behaviour that you have already used.
Classic trolling.
Despite your pseudo intellectual forum name you are boorish, ignorant and a stirrer.
I have made my comment about the fishing issue, which is obviously a minor matter to you as it actually doesn't differ greatly from yours, and your OP stands as testament to you being a complete hypocrite.
Again... transparent, flimsy and petty cat calling.
You cannot point to where the type of language introduced by you had actually been written by me prior to it and you know it.
You amazingly then try and imply that I have met sueb on a "virtual" basis when all that we would have done is exchanged opinions on a discussion forum despite the fact the the statement you are so predictably overlooking and incorrectly jumped on in your abusive manner from post 5 clearly states that I was referring to physical meetings of people at the waterside.
C'mon Carl... clearly whatever it is that you accuse me of doing time after time doesn't seem to cause the amount of fuss of where you yourself were quite recently with a an ex-forum member/s (?) now does it?
Whatever the pattern I personally don't subscribe to past members views on this though I do question if a pattern is developing?
If you... or anyone for that matter, can't interract in a forum discussion without being or becoming abusive then why not follow the very excellent advice given at the bottom of your own posts and simply hit the ignore button?
You're actually becoming the source of amusement now with your petty personal insults, i'm sure that more will follow and will laugh those off later.
Edited for typo.
-
If fishing were banned tomorrow would you still help to conserve the environment?
That's a good question.
Without doubt I would be as interested in protecting the environment but would I have gotton off my backside and undertaken the level of work which has been put in over the last weekend?
Probably not to be honest although I am certain that I would participate to some degree.
Carl... nothing less than I had anticipated really.
It's not about sueb or her attitude towards fishing, if you wish to storm in with language based on that which you used then don't come moaning if the reply contains the same regardless of whether or not you think that I have nothing better to do than recall the contents of previous forum discussion.
Actually, now you come to mention it wasn't that the one where you became abusive for no apparent reason and accused me of trying to trip you up until I challenged you... where you were then unable to demonstrate no such thing?
Good evening.
Edited to add: Yes this was the thread, post no.45 but then given your comments and recollections of previous forum discussion then I guess you already knew this or is this just a simple case of others not meeting your personal standards which you refer to in your quoted post during that discussion?
http://www.canalworld.net/forums/index.php?showtopic=39422&st=40
-
1. I think we share the same opinion on anglers and you might agree, if you read my post properly.
2. Oh and why start a discussion and then patronise someone for wanting to join in?
1. The fact that you have failed to read my post properly in the first place has led to your first comment.
In your initial post you run with my quote that I have never met anyone who is "anti" and then refer to someone in an attempt to overturn the point except the person you refer to I HAVE NEVER MET!
It's not rocket science, there will doubtless be a number of ladies by the name of Julie living in Lancarshire and I have never met them either yet I don't question their existence, simply as in the point I had made about me never having met an "anti" under the circumstances being discussed and not implying that these people don't exist which appears to be the idea that you taken from the posting and run with.
2. My apologies if my reply came across as patronising, it was actually meant to be offensive in the same context that I had taken the introduction of the terminology, by you, to be in post 6... I know I shouldn't stoop to that but on this occasion at least I thought that if you are happy to dish it out then you should be equally capable of taking it in return.
You know full well that your comments are both welcomed and invited along with anyone elses but when they are delivered in the manner that one certain comment was then you have set your own tone for kind of reply which you can expect.
-
You don't like the "antis" passing judgement and making assumptions about your pastime and then do exactly the same thing here...assuming that being anti fishing means one sits around watching tv and not acting on their concerns is, imho, a "lazy opinion"
Considering Sueb's attitude to fishing and the work she has done with the WRG I think that is evidence that you are talking bollocks here.
I have spent hundreds of hours on the banks of the Idle, Torn, Itchen, Leam etc, with the BTCV, clearing up old discarded tackle, bin bag after bin bag of litter, peg markers that haven't been removed after a match, nests of line dumped after a tangle...
I'm not an "anti", btw, though I don't see the point (I like to eat my quarry so only catch the lumpy water fish) but what you have written is just as ill-informed and judgemental as those you condemn.
Good for you too... bollocks or no bollocks.
Sueb's contribution is very admirable and i'm not aware of her attitude to angling either for or against but as you referred to this on the back of my comment "i've never in my entire life met an "anti" that was there on the bamks muckin in and actully doing somrethimg constructive!" i'm not really sure of the relevance as I haven't met her, which in turn enforces my statement regardless of whether you agree with it or not.
That, sir... in my opinion hangs the bollocks firmly on the end of your own nose.
It's too nice out there today and as much as I would like to enter into a marathon of dialogue with you I really can't see the point as you will fail to change my opinion as much as I will change yours but feel free to poddle on, i'm sure you will.
-
Something that the antis are not prepared to see (in their closed minded bigotry) is that anglers contribute to the quality of the waterways in many ways; by reporting deteriorating water condition, pollution events etc; by organising clean ups in abused locations; by actively taking part in reclamation projects.
Ditto... but then it's easy for them to hold a lazy opinion as they watch morning tv as they endure the torment and torture, having time to consider all that is wrong with the world yet doing little about it, whilst awaiting "sign on" time!
Must be Hell!
Edited to add: For signing on and a couple of other things and...i've never in my entire life met an "anti" that was there on the bamks muckin in and actully doing somrethimg constructive!
-
A up Andy... good man that chap!
Wellies were my first point of call today as I felt the cold water around my chest!
-
Well...
Having completed my first ever work party weekend (post bath... aching back reminding me) on my local lake which I have recently re-joined having last fished it some thirty years ago as a lad I can honestly say that despite naturally defending the genuine angler in general... whilst trying to keep an open mind, I have witnessed a truly broader perspective.
In the re-constructing of a "peg" which we happened upon that housed a nest of thriving crayfish amongst the tree roots which lay below it we then spent most of the morning dragging said nest in saturation below the very cold water to a point of almost submersion until we could rest it in a safe place where they could then continue to thrive.
Aaaah... but if we weren't there, interfering in the first place, we wouldn't have had to?
I should say that the crayfish have begun to thrive because of the water quality which in turn has improved as a result of the angling club's persistence in persuading the local farmer (who's natural lay of land drains into the lake after any significant rainfall) to moderate his use of pesticides and crop enhancing chemicals.
Big deal?
Yes the fish would have been netted and re-housed elsewhere should any plans develop for the land area but...
As the club in question has mortgaged the lake over a period of twenty years in the face of opposition that wanted to fill it in and build a housing estate (to the gratitude of the factory which previously owned it and drew water for cooling via means of the pump house which is still in situ) the trustees of the club have put their own roofs and necks on the line as guarentor's.
Where does this leave the "antis" who's only consideration seems to be that a fish (or the wider environment, although I have rarely if ever seen evidence of the wider environment being referred to by the "antis", presumably because they are incapable of thinking that far ahead?) doesn't experience any pain as they often perceive it to be?
Looking on in judgement and ignorance as they gently lean on their tillers (or not?) as they themselves pump damaging gasses into the atmosphere which their minds seem to be so blissfully ignorant of in their pursuit of their own enjoyment?
Some people seem to speak out in their defence of "compassion" whilst inadvertently adding to the problem.
What did you do today to help things?
Please... this is not a rant but some balanced, objective comment for those against in the face of the above would be most welcome.
Edited for a missed space and the fact that I envisage "antis" as dumb, nose pierced, benefit drawing idiots...
That should get it going!
-
The following article, revealing the depth (!) of the problem, appeared in the Daily Express a couple of days ago.
Hosepipe bans as early as Spring?
-
maybe I was putting too generous an interpretation on this - I took that comment to mean he had saved me from spending a whole load of cash (as I would be just too tempted and I would buy one)!
Lol!
Watch this space, I trust that if he didn't mean that and there is an opposing view from PaddingtonBear he will be eager to post it rather than letting us all interpret it as irresistible temptation towards an S M Hudson boat (carrot, dangle...).
-
Your son has done you a favour then.
Really?
On the basis of... ?
-
I'll go easy, just to start things off
Are there no dedicated forums for drow ning maggots, and hurting fish, that you can go to? We like to boat...
I can’t help but think that the human brain, despite its evolution of thousands of years, sometimes works like a partitioned computer drive and isolates selective data… on the one hand it’s ok to hold an opinion that something is hurting something else yet on the other hand it’s perfectly ok to jump on our boats in the pursuit of what we consider leisure and enjoyment (liveaboards excluded) and then go on to collectively pump tons of carbon into the environment in the name of pleasure and not for one minute consider that there will be any consequences or that anything will suffer, or even that we are a contributor in any way… I’m not sure how you would balance that?
Not a criticism of your comment in any way, just an observation.
Food for thought all the same…
-
But be very aware that there is no correlation between a good website, facebook page or show and a good boat.
I agree.
One of the good things about Steve's open weekend is that you always get to see many boats, last year there were literally dozens of not only the boats but their delighted owners too in addition to boats in various different stages of completeion and you can physically see for yourself and make your own judgement on the quality of work, some of the owners boats are brand new and some are many years old so you're not just getting the glossed up "show version".
I think Steve's own website is fairly basic to be honest although you can get an estimate of cost from it, i'm not sure about Facebook as i'm not on there myself but the Flickr site that we work is an independent appreciation and nothing to do with Steve himself.
-
They are sometimes advertised in the boatimags (Waterways World and canal Boat). Steve Hudson in particular always advertises his. We have been to one and it's very worthwhile, lots of boats to see. I think it's usually in June.
He certainly puts on a good show... 2011 was the last weekend in July IIRC, well worth a look along with many other buildres.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/50005139@N08/sets/72157627268026048/
-
Never mind Brindley. I want to know why there is a child impaled on a pole, just in front of your engine room...
Lol!
I couldn't make out what that was myself until looking at some other pictures taken at the same spot, different boat but it looks as though it's the No Parking sign.
I'd be surprised if there hadn't been a few good ghost stories circulating over the years at The Swan just up the road...
http://www.flickr.com/photos/50005139@N08/4920633293/in/set-72157624018893692
Edited to add that it didn't take long to look one up (rumour, not ghost!).
Quote taken from the following link,
"If you stay until dark, watch out for the lady ghost who reputedly appears in the mirror in the bar. But we’re not fooled, this pub couldn’t be spooky if it tried: besides, any real ghost worth its salt would probably only want a bag of crisps and a pint and to be as sociable as everyone else."
http://www.towpathtalk.co.uk/news/an-amble-with-a-pub-on-the-trent-mersey-canal
Steve Hudson
in General Boating
Posted · Edited by The Anonymous Bard
I don’t think it would be out of place to relate one of many great memories of Steve here.
Several years ago I took my elderly parents to the Crick Show on the Bank Holiday Monday.
We had just got into the ground shortly after the show opened for the day when the public announcement was made that the show was being closed on health & safety grounds due to the very high winds… The look of disappointment on my parents’ faces said everything!
As we slowly made our way back to the disabled parking area we passed Steve’s two land based exhibits just as he was closing the bow doors and judging by the look on his face he wasn’t best pleased about the announcement either… And who would be after all that effort?
Seeing an opportunity I quickly nipped up the steps and had a quick word where I explained that we’d travelled a fair distance and before I had even finished what I wanted to say he was opening up the cabin doors again whilst nodding down to my parents to come up and have a good look around before helping them up the steps and explaining to them that he would have to close the cabin doors behind them due to there now being a liability issue if he let members of the public on and anything, however unlikely, were to happen.
After helping them into the boat they were then told to take as much time as they liked whilst he attended to other things elsewhere and added with a wry smile that he would check they weren’t still aboard when it came to craning the boat back onto the wagon.
All in all, it transformed their day from a tiresome waste of time to feeling like they had experienced the red carpet treatment.
I think that pretty much says it all, a true gentleman.