Jump to content

Jenna Patel

Featured Posts

3 hours ago, nick_theboatman2 said:

Nope. There are however some Roma and Irish Travellers who _are_ protected but everyone else are regarded as "New Travellers" who Thatcher decided were scumbags.
We are also Masters of our boats. We do have the power of arrest, of course. 

 

1/

I think you need to learn to read, especially what the Act really says, not what you think it does.

2/

Ever heard the term "barrack room lawyer", because boy do you come over as one!

  • Greenie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Graham Davis said:

 

1/

I think you need to learn to read, especially what the Act really says, not what you think it does.

2/

Ever heard the term "barrack room lawyer", because boy do you come over as one!

1. I can thank you.
It says

"CHAPTER 2
PROHIBITED CONDUCT
Discrimination
13
Direct discrimination
(1) A person (A) discriminates against another (B) if, because of a protected characteristic,
A treats B less favourably than A treats or would treat others."

So if the Protected Characteristic is a mental health disability (which it usually is especially when the person has been persecuted by some who frequent this forum - and (without giving the details) this is confirmed in the mental health consultant's report as expert evidence to the Court) the person [here] who is spouting vitriole against such a person is engaging in prohibited conduct.
Period.

2. "Mr Brown, you are an accomplished litigant" (Lord Justice Jackson, 23-7-2013). By the way he was the second most senior judge in the judiciary at the time. 
I've learned a thing or two since then. 
And in particular where some of the prejudice originates from. 

This is becoming a little repetitive. Pack it in.
 

Edited by nick_theboatman2
  • Greenie 1
  • Unimpressed 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, nick_theboatman2 said:

"Mr Brown, you are an accomplished litigant" (Lord Justice Jackson, 23-7-2013).

 

 

Do you not think that he may have meant that like the 'little boy who cried wolf' its time you were ignored ?

He possibly used 'accomplished' when he actually meant 'a vexatious litigant'

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, Alan de Enfield said:

 

 

Do you not think that he may have meant that like the 'little boy who cried wolf' its time you were ignored ?

He possibly used 'accomplished' when he actually meant 'a vexatious litigant'

No Alan it was when I was presenting a case and he was not cutting meany slack which he might of done (and was obligated to do) if I was an uninformed litigant in person.
And since then I have been asked to provide opinions to several very experienced barristers, been peer reviewed on several subjects and complemented on the quality of my work by a number of solicitors. The Professor of Law at one leading uni law school said that I was significantly better equipped than he to do one specific piece of work relating to navigation on inland waterways. The navigation authority was CRT as it happens.
Perhaps you had also look up "vexatious" - because when a team (of which I am a member) supports multiple people that isn't "vexatious".
I will however point out that you, sir, are highly offensive. But then you always have been.

  • Greenie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 hours ago, Graham Davis said:

 

1/

I think you need to learn to read, especially what the Act really says, not what you think it does.

2/

Ever heard the term "barrack room lawyer", because boy do you come over as one!

 

bring back national service, that's wot I say  ......................  there'd be a little more respect for the rest of society and a little less anti-social free-thinking loutery.

  • Greenie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

31 minutes ago, Murflynn said:

 

bring back national service, that's wot I say  ......................  there'd be a little more respect for the rest of society and a little less anti-social free-thinking loutery.

So there has been some rather rabid comments in this thread and regrettably some hate speech; and some robust responses (from me - please excuse the robustness but if that is what it takes, that is what it takes).
The attack on me I'm not concerned by. What I am concerned with are the three aspects of (a) noting that a failure to challenge encourages the hate speech and conversely to challenge, explain and lay out why the comments are so hateful may slowly filter through and things might improve; (b) for everyone else watching this dialogue, for them to be clear that this sort of conduct is not acceptable and the perpetrator will be pulled up by way of challenge, every time; and (c) that for the observer seeing this dialogue thinking to themselves "really, is that how it is?" (seeing what the hate-speakers are saying) need to see not simply "what the other side thinks" but what the law _actually says AND means_. We've seen enough traffic through teh Casework Team to know what the law says, and what it doesn't say, what others would like it to say and what others pretend it says (when it doesn't). Itinerant Live Aboard boaters have very little by way of protection and are inherently vulnerable. So it is not surprising that we rely on what little we do have to the best of our abilities, and we get tough. It has been explained to me by a run-of-the-mill established community person (that's "house dweller" to you) that they are absolutely disgusted by the way that certain people carry on against the itinerant boat-dwelling community. I have replied saying "well in all walks of life there are the "normal" people and the scumbags..." but this is a question of degree. Certainly the Women and Equality Select Committee was scandalised by the way that boat-dwellers are treated by some sectors of society. And to try to protect the itinerant  boat-dwellers from the scumbags is what the NBTA does. And I am proud to be one of the founders.
Going back to what this thread started as, to conduct a study of how to "improve the towpaths", I hope that this thread casts some light on the rather murky background to towpath life.

 

Just now, nick_theboatman2 said:

National Service? They bumped me out of Officer Training at Dartmouth. So I serve my community a different way.
Longest way up, shortest way down....
 

 

  • Greenie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Graham Davis said:

No Mr Brown you still come over as I suggested.

As in reasonably intelligent and therefore all the better at playing the system to the advantage of their mates and at the expense of society in general perhaps?

Edited by nicknorman
  • Greenie 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

39 minutes ago, nick_theboatman2 said:

So there has been some rather rabid comments in this thread and regrettably some hate speech; and some robust responses (from me - please excuse the robustness but if that is what it takes, that is what it takes).
The attack on me I'm not concerned by. What I am concerned with are the three aspects of (a) noting that a failure to challenge encourages the hate speech and conversely to challenge, explain and lay out why the comments are so hateful may slowly filter through and things might improve; (b) for everyone else watching this dialogue, for them to be clear that this sort of conduct is not acceptable and the perpetrator will be pulled up by way of challenge, every time; and (c) that for the observer seeing this dialogue thinking to themselves "really, is that how it is?" (seeing what the hate-speakers are saying) need to see not simply "what the other side thinks" but what the law _actually says AND means_. We've seen enough traffic through teh Casework Team to know what the law says, and what it doesn't say, what others would like it to say and what others pretend it says (when it doesn't). Itinerant Live Aboard boaters have very little by way of protection and are inherently vulnerable. So it is not surprising that we rely on what little we do have to the best of our abilities, and we get tough. It has been explained to me by a run-of-the-mill established community person (that's "house dweller" to you) that they are absolutely disgusted by the way that certain people carry on against the itinerant boat-dwelling community. I have replied saying "well in all walks of life there are the "normal" people and the scumbags..." but this is a question of degree. Certainly the Women and Equality Select Committee was scandalised by the way that boat-dwellers are treated by some sectors of society. And to try to protect the itinerant  boat-dwellers from the scumbags is what the NBTA does. And I am proud to be one of the founders.
Going back to what this thread started as, to conduct a study of how to "improve the towpaths", I hope that this thread casts some light on the rather murky background to towpath life.

 

 

 

 

You repeatedely keep banging on about 'ITINERANT BOATERS' and I, and I'm sure all others, wouuld agree that there should be no predudice shown against them, they are law abiding and get on with life.

 

The people you appear to claim to represent are anything but, they are NON-Itinerant, and, in many cases despite having agreed and signed up to meet certain criteria they fail to do so, showing that maybe there 'word' is worthless.

There are facilities readily available to them if they want to live in a commune and rarely move, it could even make life easier for 'your' NHS Nurse and save her walking miles down a muddy towpath.

 

We are simply going around in circles. I will never agree with you and vice versa so on this thread, I'll leave the last word to you.

  • Greenie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

48 minutes ago, Alan de Enfield said:

 

The people you appear to claim to represent are anything but, they are NON-Itinerant, and, in many cases despite having agreed and signed up to meet certain criteria they fail to do so, showing that maybe there 'word' is worthless.

 


Ain’t that itself a statement based on a lack of understanding, and therefore prejudice?

Unless you are privy to any of the circumstances of the ‘many cases’ how can you judge?
 

There’s such a broad range of issues, to write them off as worthless is prejudiced. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Goliath said:

Ain’t that itself a statement based on a lack of understanding, and therefore prejudice?

 

They agreed to the licence condition, that if they did not have a home mooring they would comply with the legal requirements in the "British Waterways Act 1995 S17(3) (C) (II)" and the boat would be used for Bona Fide navigation during the life of the licence. etc etc etc.

Once the licence was issued there was no need to do what they agreed to do with various reasons given as to why they are now unable to comply.

 

Where is the lack of understanding and / or predudice in that ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Goliath said:

The issues are broader than you bang on about. 
You’ve a narrow view of what the NBTA are about.

 

The law is the law  and if one law is at odds with another then one of them needs changing and that has not happened. It seems the NBTA members knowingly entered into a contract that is underpinned by law when they took their license out even though they have no intention of keeping to its terms. They should have the full force of the law thrown at them until HMG changes   one of the laws.

 

In any case how can they claim to be itinerant when it seems the reason for their existence is that the members do not wish to continually move as per their contract.

  • Greenie 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Tony Brooks said:

In any case how can they claim to be itinerant when it seems the reason for their existence is that the members do not wish to continually move as per their contract.

 

Waterways Ombudsman throws out claim :

 

Being in work is not a protected characteristic and is one of the claims oft used as a reason for not being able to move, neither is having problems finding a mooring because you have a wide boat :

 

 

On the issue of whether the Trust had discriminated against the complainants because of their age, and the fact that they work, I did not conclude that it had. Under the Equality Act 2010 age is a protected characteristic. However, I could not see that the Trust could be regarded as having discriminated against the complainants on the basis of their age. The complainants said that the discrimination was based on the fact that they still worked, but being employed is not a protected characteristic. I said that given that the Equality Act prohibited discrimination on the basis of age (apart from any exceptions which must be justified) there could be no link between age and being employed, adding that a person above the state pension age, for example, but still in employment, could equally make the same argument.

Having considered all aspects of the complaint, I did not uphold it.

The complainants said that they had a widebeam boat and that it was difficult to find permanent moorings, but I could not regard that as a reason for the Trust to disapply its continuous cruising guidance.

 

The full story here :

 

 

 

CC Case Appeal Lost G&S Canal.docx

  • Greenie 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Tony Brooks said:

 

The law is the law  and if one law is at odds with another then one of them needs changing and that has not happened. It seems the NBTA members knowingly entered into a contract that is underpinned by law when they took their license out even though they have no intention of keeping to its terms. They should have the full force of the law thrown at them until HMG changes   one of the laws.

 

In any case how can they claim to be itinerant when it seems the reason for their existence is that the members do not wish to continually move as per their contract.

I’m an itinerant and a member of the NBTA, as you’ll know because I’ve stated both before, but I don’t fit your stereotype. 
I could explain why but I don’t reckon I should have to. 
 

Sorry Tony, but your comments are repetition of a very narrow and blinkered point of view. 
 

 


 

  • Greenie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, Goliath said:

I’m an itinerant and a member of the NBTA, as you’ll know because I’ve stated both before, but I don’t fit your stereotype. 
I could explain why but I don’t reckon I should have to. 
 

Sorry Tony, but your comments are repetition of a very narrow and blinkered point of view. 
 

 

You're putting words into people's mouths again. Nobody has ever said that every single NBTA member (including you) behaves like the CMers we're talking about. However the many articles in the press, NBTA attitude and announcements, and Nick's postings on here show that these attitudes are common amongst NBTA members and are strongly backed by the NBTA and Nick.

 

It's like saying "I'm a member of UKIP but I'm not racist, xenophobic or a fascist" -- well that might be true, but you're going to get tarred with the same brush. As the proverb says, if you lie down with a dog you should expect to catch fleas...

 

If you don't agree with the NBTA position we're discussing then say so; if you do agree with it but don't want to admit it, then you can't protest about Tony's posting.

 

The NBTA may well do other good things in the cause of boaters, but that's not what we're discussing here either, it's the NBTA attitude to "Boaters in Bath", and it's one that many other boaters rightly object to.

 

 

Edited by IanD
  • Greenie 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

30 minutes ago, Goliath said:

I’m an itinerant and a member of the NBTA,

 

If you are truly an itinerant (a person who travels from place to place) then this thread and the comments are not about you, if you truly are itinerant and have declared a 'no home mooring' on your licence application, then all respect, and all power to you and those like you.

 

This thread and postings relate to the Non-Itinerants (a person who does not travel from place to place) that are in the South / South West and could be said to have commited fraud (wrongful or criminal deception intended to result in financial or personal gain) by having signed to say they would be compliant but then no intention of complying with the laws required to obtain a boat licence.

  • Greenie 1
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.