Jump to content

Continued Cruising and the 28 day rule?


gemmaze

Featured Posts

Which confirms that because no-one here is agreeing with you, you have taken umbrage.
And to honest you have also been abusive to members.
Frankly The NBTA have done themselves no favours, as has been pointed out numerous times on this forum, and a little bit of research would have shown you that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

one of the forum member gave me this knowledge last week which I am happy to pass to others..

slander is defamation using spoken words (or such transient communication), libel is written word. (or something permanent)

 

I would say the plaintiff has not faced any damage to reputation(was nothing to begin with), and I have merely exercised my freedom of expression... me lordy. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Graham Davis said:

Which confirms that because no-one here is agreeing with you, you have taken umbrage.
And to honest you have also been abusive to members.
Frankly The NBTA have done themselves no favours, as has been pointed out numerous times on this forum, and a little bit of research would have shown you that.

Actually you are wrong, the members who understood the original question have answered it in depth and very helpfully without making personal insults.

You then go on to totally contradict yourself by bringing the NBTA into the thread, which brings no answer in law to the original question.

No I have not been abusive towards anyone other than stand my ground in defence of their abusive behaviour towards me in the first place.

  • Greenie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

this is a moderated forum, and mods are fair... I suggest to report 'abusive' posts and let mods decide.... otherwise you will be here whole night 'defending' your reputation. 

This has been moderately interesting thread nevertheless, thanks op... good night... 

 

  • Greenie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, restlessnomad said:

one of the forum member gave me this knowledge last week which I am happy to pass to others..

slander is defamation using spoken words (or such transient communication), libel is written word. (or something permanent)

 

I would say the plaintiff has not faced any damage to reputation(was nothing to begin with), and I have merely exercised my freedom of expression... me lordy. :)

You have along with others in this thread have written information about me that is untrue and attempted to present it as fact that caused me alarm and distress.

 

I suggest you read up on the law a bit more before shooting your mouth off online and trying to pass it off as freedom of expression.

Protection from Harassment Act 1997

Malicious Communications Act 1988

Computer Misuse Act 1990

  • Unimpressed 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, gemmaze said:

You have along with others in this thread have written information about me that is untrue and attempted to present it as fact that caused me alarm and distress.

 

I suggest you read up on the law a bit more before shooting your mouth off online and trying to pass it off as freedom of expression.

Protection from Harassment Act 1997

Malicious Communications Act 1988

Computer Misuse Act 1990

cool... you can report me/my post and let the mod/judge decide... 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, gemmaze said:

They were not used at the same time in the context as you have presented them though were they!!

One is from the opening post of this thread, and the other was the post that prompted me to reply.

 

I don't know if either of them are true or not and don't really care.

 

I will repeat my advice: if you do want to set up a new boating/mooring business speak to the CRT business boating team.  If you don't want to do this, why did you say you did?

 

Oh, and speaking as a continuous cruiser of Irish descent, I think the NBTA are mostly chancers too.

  • Greenie 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, gemmaze said:

matty40s Making derogatory unfactual hateful comments based on someones ethnicityincluding Travellers is no different to calling a person of colour the N word, but you and your mate seem to think you can split hairs when it comes to your racisim to suit your own distorted perspectives.

You are no 

Wow, just wow, you talk about setting off a nuclear bomb compared with a no moving canal boat, and then launch into your diatribe against me (again).

I pointed you in the direction where most of your questions could be answered , and warned you that they do indeed hope people risk their homes to make a point in court.

I think your weekly get angry visit will not be worth coming back to next time.

Edited by matty40s
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, gemmaze said:

 

 

I suggest you read up on the law a bit more before shooting your mouth off online and trying to pass it off as freedom of expression.

Protection from Harassment Act 1997

Malicious Communications Act 1988

Computer Misuse Act 1990

I, in my turn, suggest that you read up on the forum's rules and guidelines a bit more, starting with "Members are required to conduct themselves in a civil manner".

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, gemmaze said:

there is a difference between travelling on holiday as Jo Bloggs and a Traveller by Enthnicity.

On what do you base your assertion that the catch-all word ‘Traveller’ implies a certain ethnicity? I ask the question because it doesn’t. 


A traveller may be a Romany Gypsy, or an Irish Traveller, or they may be any person who holds New Age values, (of whatever ethnicity that person happened to originally be).
 

Regardless of their background, a Traveller is so-labelled due to their itinerant or nomadic lifestyle. A ‘Traveller’ who doesn’t travel has no real right to call himself or herself such, regardless of their heritage. 

  • Greenie 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

My goodness, such vitriol,  it's not helpful.

I call any person with a travelling backeground and low moral values a 'gippo', not a gypsy, of which, sadly there are very few, in my youth they used to travel with ponies sleepng in bowtops, or even 'benders' [tarpaulins over hazel hoops. Casual workers, vendors of home made clothes pegs etc.

I view 'travelers' as guys with a white pick up. They might live in 'traveller sites' small brick bungalows with a yard, in towns.

Some have a few kiddies ponies / coloured cobs.

Edited by LadyG
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Some may find the Governments definition of 'Traveller' of interest.

 

The context here is regarding school children of 'Travellers' and the legal requirement for schools to provide teaching for any traveller children as they pass thru the catchment area.

 

NOTE : Part B

 

This advice gives information for parents and carers of Gypsy, Roma and Traveller children and those who work with them in schools and local authorities. It is important for schools and local authorities to understand the culture of children and young people from Gypsy, Roma and Traveller communities as this reduces the risk of underachievement or exclusion of the pupil.

The best opportunities are found when parents/carers, schools and local authorities understand each other and plan and work together in the interest of the child.

The advice explains what the law says and describes some good ideas about school attendance for Gypsy, Roma and Traveller pupils.

 

The term ‘Gypsy, Roma and Traveller families’ means:

• a)

i. Gypsies inc. Romanies, Romanichals, Welsh Gypsies/Kaale, Scottish Gypsies/Travellers;

ii. Irish Travellers, Minceir;

iii. Roma from Eastern and Central Europe;

iv. Showmen (Fairground people);

v. Circus people;

vi. Boat Travellers/Bargees;

vii. New Travellers or New Age Travellers; and

 

• b) the parent/carer is engaged in a trade or business of such a nature that requires them to travel from place to place.

 

This advice on school attendance only applies to families who meet the criteria at both a) and b) above. In this advice the term ‘travelling’ means travelling as part of the parents’/carers’ trade or business. It does not mean travelling as part of a holiday or extended holiday.

 

Boaters / Bargees are only travellers if their work requires them to travel around the country - it does not include 'workers in the city' or on the K&A; who choose to live on a boat because it is cheap, and, because they happen to be a member of a 'club' with 'Traveller' in its name does not make them 'travellers'.

 

It is oft quoted that NBTA stands for "No Boats Travel Anywhere"

Edited by Alan de Enfield
  • Greenie 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, gemmaze said:

I may just be someone who owns land next to the canal researching the possibility of providing leisure moorings without falling foul of the law but your bigot perspective refuses you to see such possibilities.

Managing to 'stay under the radar' because you managed to pay a license and move every two weeks does not make you above anyone else or of any superior social standing, all you have done is served yourself frankly.

Ironically if someone had dropped the N bomb you would be banished but dropping a slur towards Bargee Travellers appears acceptable behaviour.

 

Just ignore him Gemma.  There's a group of members on this forum who do little but trolling.  Because they've been here a long time and they're relatively well known, they seem to get a free pass to continue.  Make no mistake, if a new member posted in such an inflammatory way, the response would be very different.

  • Greenie 1
  • Unimpressed 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, gemmaze said:

Actually you are wrong, the members who understood the original question have answered it in depth and very helpfully without making personal insults.

You then go on to totally contradict yourself by bringing the NBTA into the thread, which brings no answer in law to the original question.

No I have not been abusive towards anyone other than stand my ground in defence of their abusive behaviour towards me in the first place.

Well said.  I neither agree nor disagree with you.  I thought you asked an interesting questions, which I tried to respond to.  As did others.  Sadly, some forum members chose to make a series of unfounded assumptions about your intentions and used that as a reason to bully you.  As I said, ignore them.  They like the sport.

56 minutes ago, WotEver said:

On what do you base your assertion that the catch-all word ‘Traveller’ implies a certain ethnicity? I ask the question because it doesn’t. 


A traveller may be a Romany Gypsy, or an Irish Traveller, or they may be any person who holds New Age values, (of whatever ethnicity that person happened to originally be).
 

Regardless of their background, a Traveller is so-labelled due to their itinerant or nomadic lifestyle. A ‘Traveller’ who doesn’t travel has no real right to call himself or herself such, regardless of their heritage. 

Actually Irish Travellers are a protected ethnic group in law.  Irrespective of whether the individual has settled in one place.  https://www.equalityhumanrights.com/en/gypsies-and-travellers-simple-solutions-living-together

 

This is of course different to a Bargee Traveller, which is anyone who wants to call themselves that.  But I think that's where there confusion lies.

  • Unimpressed 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, doratheexplorer said:

Actually Irish Travellers are a protected ethnic group in law.

But nobody in this thread has referred to "Irish Travellers".  The term "Travellers" has been used several times and, as I explained above, and as Alan's government link shows, it is a catch-all word for those who indulge in an itinerant or nomadic lifestyle. 

 

So I repeat, the word "Travellers" on its own carries no ethnic bias.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, doratheexplorer said:

Just ignore him Gemma.  There's a group of members on this forum who do little but trolling.  Because they've been here a long time and they're relatively well known, they seem to get a free pass to continue.  Make no mistake, if a new member posted in such an inflammatory way, the response would be very different.

dont think you can say that about this thread...

 

A new member who gets multiple posts from multiple members might feel being ganged up (a member who has been here for sometime wont feel so because we are all different with our own individual views), and need to defend himself/herself.

Also middle aged women who have earned 'respect' (actually infantalized) for just being woman (dont swear in front of woman, how can he say this, I am a mother etc).. extend such idea of privilege to online forum which runs by it's own rules and etiquette.... and anything that people wont mind saying to a man is suddenly abusive. 

 

Online forums always have different way of interaction, it affords us to say what we really think(within a limit of course), 'you wont say it to my face' is a dumb thing to say (I usually ask such person 'do you have sex in front of your parent?'), so 'why are you not nice, if you have nothing nice to say, be quiet' etc are really not for online forums. 

 

Edited by restlessnomad
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, restlessnomad said:

dont think you can say that about this thread...

 

A new member who gets multiple posts from multiple members might feel being ganged up (a member who has been here for sometime wont feel so because we are all different with our own individual views), and need to defend himself/herself.

Also middle aged women who have earned 'respect' (actually infantalized) for just being woman (dont swear in front of woman, how can he say this, I am a mother etc).. extend such idea of privilege to online forum which runs by it's own rules and etiquette.... and anything that people wont mind saying to a man is suddenly abusive. 

 

Online forums always have different way of interaction, it affords us to say what we really think(within a limit of course), 'you wont say it to my face' is a dumb thing to say (I usually ask such person 'do you have sex in front of your parent?'), so 'why are you not nice, if you have nothing nice to say, be quiet' etc are really not for online forums. 

 

In your opinion.

9 minutes ago, WotEver said:

But nobody in this thread has referred to "Irish Travellers".  The term "Travellers" has been used several times and, as I explained above, and as Alan's government link shows, it is a catch-all word for those who indulge in an itinerant or nomadic lifestyle. 

 

So I repeat, the word "Travellers" on its own carries no ethnic bias.

Agree.  Hence my point about confusion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, restlessnomad said:

everything I ever say on this forum is my opinion...

I dont know why people feel the need to add IMHO in every other post... feels redundant to me.. 

 

This is an interesting point, and I sometimes add IMHO to my posts.

 

Sometimes it helps clarify though that you are not claiming something as 'fact'. (IMHO). ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, WotEver said:

But nobody in this thread has referred to "Irish Travellers".  The term "Travellers" has been used several times and, as I explained above, and as Alan's government link shows, it is a catch-all word for those who indulge in an itinerant or nomadic lifestyle. 

 

So I repeat, the word "Travellers" on its own carries no ethnic bias.

But the derogatory slur has been used in direct context of the original post (PLANNING LAW) making it a hateful ignorant ethnic slur towards an Ethnic Traveller.

 

The derogatory use of the word Traveler in context synonymous to people of the appropiate recognisable ethic background (beggars belief it has to be explained)

An Irish Traveller which in fact my father is, is nearly always referred to as a Traveler including in law.

 

Bargee Travelers are also a recognised ethnic group through their working lifestyle and are treated as such in law where it is recognised as authentic.

 

Being a Gypsy or Traveller is not an indulgement just as being African is not an indulgement its something you are born with and into hence my contempt for an accepted level of ignorance amongst this forums members when the term 'Traveler' is thrown around in a derogatory slur towards people of that culture.

 

You will notice the screen grabs I have given from a book on Gypsy and Traveller law do not constantly refer to Irish Travellers but to Travellers as the terms is synonymous.

 

The rather interesting book is written by Johnson and Willers.

 

 

image3.jpeg

Edited by gemmaze
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, gemmaze said:

You will notice the screen grabs I have given from a book on Gypsy and Traveller law do not constantly refer to Irish Travellers but to Travellers as the terms is synonymous.

No, the terms are absolutely not synonymous. If your book suggests that they are then I would stop reading it right now as who knows what other inaccuracies it contains. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, WotEver said:

No, the terms are absolutely not synonymous. If your book suggests that they are then I would stop reading it right now as who knows what other inaccuracies it contains. 

Actually in the appropiate context yes they are and I would sooner take the words of Johnson and Willers over yours but by all means read it for yourself.

thank you.

book.jpg

Edited by gemmaze
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.