Report Unlicensed Boats!

[Malarky]

B*gger, you're absolutely correct, so................. The Strand (get out of that clever move)

A ticket to Bank, but then I'll be on the wrong side, so I concede.

[Marc Harris]

I totally agree, there are far more uncivil ways of dealing with the website, some of which are actually illegal, and some merely highly annoying........but effective.

 

I would provide a short list of effective methods but will not cause both the moderators and the forum the resultant grief.

 

And of course I would strongly advise against the use of such methods

 

That's a shame, as it's getting boring entering random numbers and rude suggestions in the form and submitting it!

[Sir Nibble]

But still you won't answer the question...Is there a point at which you will say "Enough!" and protest at what you see as a state-endorsed injustice?

The devil, being unable to attend, sends his advocate to spin that one around.

Is there a point at which you will say "Enough!" and protest at what you see as a flouting of perfectly reasonable rules.

Which of us has the right to impose our own standards upon others? On the other hand, does society as a whole not have the right to set boundaries (through the medium of our elected representatives) and expect them to be adhered to? Who is really culpable, one who flouts the rules laid down for us all, or one who points at them and says "Ahem".

[carlt]

The devil, being unable to attend, sends his advocate to spin that one around.

Is there a point at which you will say "Enough!" and protest at what you see as a flouting of perfectly reasonable rules.

Which of us has the right to impose our own standards upon others? On the other hand, does society as a whole not have the right to set boundaries (through the medium of our elected representatives) and expect them to be adhered to? Who is really culpable, one who flouts the rules laid down for us all, or one who points at them and says "Ahem".

If you read through the thread you will see that Amduck asked this question and I was quite willing to answer.

 

I am not imposing my will on others. Anyone who wishes to use the snitchline is perfectly entitled to. I am not imposing my standards on anyone. I am merely stating them, for anyone to agree or disagree.

 

The reason the question I ask Dave is important is; if the answer is no, there is no issue, or state injustice, that he would protest, to the point of civil disobedience, then he has every right to criticise my actions.

 

If the answer is yes, there are issues he would protest, to the point of civil disobedience, then he is being a hypocrite, criticising my actions (though not my beliefs).

 

I believe fox hunting is wrong and am glad it was outlawed but I defend the pro-hunting lobby's right to protest and disrupt, in order to highlight, what they believe, is a state injustice.

[Sir Nibble]

If you read through the thread you will see that Amduck asked this question and I was quite willing to answer.

 

I am not imposing my will on others. Anyone who wishes to use the snitchline is perfectly entitled to. I am not imposing my standards on anyone. I am merely stating them, for anyone to agree or disagree.

 

The reason the question I ask Dave is important is; if the answer is no, there is no issue, or state injustice, that he would protest, to the point of civil disobedience, then he has every right to criticise my actions.

 

If the answer is yes, there are issues he would protest, to the point of civil disobedience, then he is being a hypocrite, criticising my actions (though not my beliefs).

 

I believe fox hunting is wrong and am glad it was outlawed but I defend the pro-hunting lobby's right to protest and disrupt, in order to highlight, what they believe, is a state injustice.

I never meant to argue against you Carl (nor for you for that matter) I suppose my point is that there comes a point when one persons conduct is such as to entitle society at large to challenge their freedom to act in that way. Whether that person is the evader or the "snitch" is subjective and to place the snitch beyond the pale is to defend the evader whether you like it or not. Similarly, it is difficult to condemn the evader without climbing into bed with those whose methods you may find distasteful. The upshot of all this is that the idea is devisive, unfortunately, that is probably all it is.

[Chertsey]

I confess I was sufficiently concerned about invoking Godwin's Law as to self-curtail a point I wanted to make. The slippery slope involved isn't about throwing bricks through windows; it's about the culture of becoming informers. It's about the potential for the state to divide and rule and turn individuals against each other and into agents of the state.

 

All the time we have a relatively benign government, and prima facie legitimate grievances, this might not seem to matter. But once that culture is established it's available to be used for any means.

 

I know someone whose mother turned her own mother in to the Nazis. The ability to do that doesn't come out of the blue, but must be cultivated over years, even decades, starting with eminently reasonable and legitimate causes.

[Sir Nibble]

I know someone whose mother turned her own mother in to the Nazis.

That must be very very difficult to live with.

[chris w]

I believe fox hunting is wrong and am glad it was outlawed but I defend the pro-hunting lobby's right to protest and disrupt, in order to highlight, what they believe, is a state injustice.

 

You obviously haven't read the latest report on foxes in the country, (see last Sunday's Times) which even the anti-hunt lobby representatives acknowledge is correct, viz:

 

1. Many, many more foxes are now being killed (by shooting)

 

2. Due to the inaccuracy inherent in any shooting, many foxes are only painfully injured or maimed for life or die a slow lingering death

 

3. Pregnant vixens do not emit any odour and so dogs wouldn't pick up their scent. A clever ruse on the part of nature. Unfortunately, bullets don't decide on their victim by sense of smell.

 

4. Hunts are even more popular now than they were before the ban and are thriving despite the fact that the dogs cannot attack the fox.

 

 

To use an analogy, the operation was a success but the patient died!!!

 

Chris

[grahoom]

You obviously haven't read the latest report on foxes in the country, (see last Sunday's Times) which even the anti-hunt lobby representatives acknowledge is correct, viz:

 

1. Many, many more foxes are now being killed (by shooting)

 

2. Due to the inaccuracy inherent in any shooting, many foxes are only painfully injured or maimed for life or die a slow lingering death

 

3. Pregnant vixens do not emit any odour and so dogs wouldn't pick up their scent. A clever ruse on the part of nature. Unfortunately, bullets don't decide on their victim by sense of smell.

 

4. Hunts are even more popular now than they were before the ban and are thriving despite the fact that the dogs cannot attack the fox.

 

 

To use an analogy, the operation was a success but the patient died!!!

 

Chris

 

Far from banning hunting with hounds, the legislation has increased it. Hunters have devised ways of circumventing the ban. Some shoot the fox before the hounds tear it. Others use eagles to kill it. Metahunters chase the scent, not the fox. Jack Russells are no longer sent to earth when a fox goes to ground. The police have difficulty in keeping up with the hunt to enforce the law. There are now more urban than rural foxes.

 

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/l...icle4965117.ece

 

kind of goes to show that the Government's ban on fox hunting wasn't really a full measure, but was quite possible mainly as a means to appease some people to gain some votes (after all it was in their manifesto when they got into power in 1997 and it took them a long time to actually "ban" the hunt).

 

So, I'd say in general, the "ban" has helped the hunters a great deal, if it's become more popular then the stories of the horses and the hounds all having to be killed because of the ban was nonsense, and the hunts are still going on...

 

Kind of sums up how this Government works really.

[carlt]

You obviously haven't read the latest report on foxes in the country, (see last Sunday's Times) which even the anti-hunt lobby representatives acknowledge is correct, viz:

 

1. Many, many more foxes are now being killed (by shooting)

 

2. Due to the inaccuracy inherent in any shooting, many foxes are only painfully injured or maimed for life or die a slow lingering death

 

3. Pregnant vixens do not emit any odour and so dogs wouldn't pick up their scent. A clever ruse on the part of nature. Unfortunately, bullets don't decide on their victim by sense of smell.

 

4. Hunts are even more popular now than they were before the ban and are thriving despite the fact that the dogs cannot attack the fox.

 

 

To use an analogy, the operation was a success but the patient died!!!

 

Chris

The use of foxhunting as an example was not an invitation to start that particular debate on this thread.

 

[Bagpuss]

The use of foxhunting as an example was not an invitation to start that particular debate on this thread.

 

 

Shame, I had a few expletives about foxhunters ready to post.

[carlt]

Shame, I had a few expletives about foxhunters ready to post.

I've started a new thread just for you!

[homer2911]

But still you won't answer the question...Is there a point at which you will say "Enough!" and protest at what you see as a state-endorsed injustice?

 

Yep, that's the point where I start objecting, campaigning, lobbying the Government etc. Ooh, and then I can try and vote them out if th.ey don't do anything.

 

It's called democracy I beleive

[chris w]

The use of foxhunting as an example was not an invitation to start that particular debate on this thread.

 

 

 

I didn't know YOU were the issuer of the invitations

 

You need to read the whole Times article, the online bit is only a synopsis. The anti-hunt lobby are tearing their hair out because the ban has made the lives of foxes even worse (as we all said it would who already live in the country)

 

Chris

Edited October 22, 2008 by chris w

[carlt]

I'm not, that was the point.

 

Your return to the site is accompanied by a noticeable drop in your debating form, Chris.

 

Steering a thread off-topic isn't your usual tactic.

 

 

You need to read the whole Times article, the online bit is only a synopsis. The anti-hunt lobby are tearing their hair out because the ban has made the lives of foxes even worse (as we all said it would who already live in the country)

There is a thread running now that is more relevant than this.

[mikevye]

Had a real bummer last night. Donned the camouflage and face paint with the intention of getting the number of an unlicenced boat thats been on the Ashby for months. Waited until dusk wrapped up the sarnies and thermos took the dog with me just in case there was any violence involved and made my way towards the mooring. The Ba$%&rds had moved how inconsiderate is THAT!!!!!!!

[Malarky]

Ooh, and then I can try and vote them out if th.ey don't do anything.

 

It's called democracy I beleive

 

I think you'll find that BWB employs people on very high wages "temporarily" to get round complaints, and is probably amazed at how many of these staff they end up keeping! The government on the other hand vote themselves out so they don't have to do anything, or if you get anywhere with an MP they are promptly promoted out of your way! Another canny tactic is to install registered junkies or known drug dealers in your area, and avoid any exposure by claiming an operation is in progress, so the information is confidential.

 

It's called democracy I beleive.

[carlt]

Yep, that's the point where I start objecting, campaigning, lobbying the Government etc. Ooh, and then I can try and vote them out if th.ey don't do anything.

 

It's called democracy I beleive

Absolutely!

 

Democracy also allows for peaceful protest and a certain level of civil disobedience.

[chris w]

I'm not, that was the point.

 

Your return to the site is accompanied by a noticeable drop in your debating form, Chris.

 

Steering a thread off-topic isn't your usual tactic.

I don't have tactics.... I have strategies............. you have tactics.

[Chertsey]

Absolutely!

 

Democracy also allows for peaceful protest and a certain level of civil disobedience.

 

Ah yes. I shall never forget nearly crashing the car when I heard Jack Straw on the radio, ages ago when he was Home Secretary, condemning people who were peacefully (but embarassingly) protesting at some Chinese state visit. His point was along the lines of, this is a democracy, so people shouldn't feel the need to do that sort of thing.

 

He was wrong of course. Democracy does not *allow for* peaceful protest and a certain level of civil disobedience - it *requires* it. Otherwise what we have is no more than an elected dictatorship.

[US Marines]

I don't have tactics.... I have strategies............. you have tactics.

Ah - a big pitcher man - balls or alcohol ?

[chris w]

Ah - a big pitcher man - balls or alcohol ?

 

Balls - hic

 

How come you get to spend so much time on here, shouldn't you be off invading a democracy somewhere?

[US Marines]

How come you get to spend so much time on here, shouldn't you be off invading a democracy somewhere?

We're currently having a bit of well deserved R&R and resting on our laurels after all our recent successes.....

[Tusses]

I live off side in a house.

 

I had a boat with 'EOG' moorings

 

I hit hard times and couldnt afford to license AND pay mooring fees for my boat, so I had to sell it.

 

I am narked that there are at least 10 boats within a 5 minute walk that 'live' or 'store' there boat tow path side and have got away with it for years. (many many more if I walk a bit further) some licenced, some not - although that makes little difference as there are no long term moorings around here yet they moor long term ! and dont pay !

 

I would have liked to have kept my boat until I could afford to use / licence it again, but I am not the type of person who will 'cheat' the system.

 

Nor am I the type who would snitch.

 

before I sold my boat, I spoke to the moorings officer and asked why I should pay and others dont ? 'Because my boat would be siezed and taken out of the water' was the answer. !

 

I dont see it happening much round here.

 

I dont mind them not paying , as long as I dont have to either !

 

It is well known that patrol officers do little about the hard core evaders. A lot of BW staff admit openly that there is little they can do once they get to a certain point up the system.

 

So it remains for the 'easy targets' to carry on paying - or now being fined if they are late paying !

 

ok ...

 

little rant over ....

 

carry on

 

[Malarky]

I'm sorry to hear that Tusses, all the best with your latest boat project, best get a crane for storage though!

 

Similar thing happened to me, but they told me it would be ok while I was sorting it out, then took my boat, bollarded my access, and claimed the offside of the canal as theirs, now their boaters use my field, one stole my house(unfortunately abandoned, so legally squatted for 18 years, then mysteriously burnt down useing accelerants, acording to the fire brigade) BW stole my back garden, tools, equipment and car, then atacked me on several occasions using a registered mentally ill warden with a shovel, my life is made unbearable if I go near the place!

 

rant not over!