Continuous cruiser

[carlt]

I could be very direct and lay it out very simple but I think the next time you come up that stretch you will receive the welcome you deserve!

 

 

 

 

You doubt he would associate with me?

Based on what?

Based on the threat, perhaps?

[Naughty Cal]

Likewise do keep up...

 

No need.

 

I dont make empty threats towards members who dont share the same opinion as mine.

[OffGridManc]

No need.

 

I dont make empty threats towards members who dont share the same opinion as mine.

 

Empty threats?

I don't need to make any threats.

There are a few people sitting with me on this boat very offended by Daves attitude and judgement of their circumstances.

I am merely pointing out he will get the welcome he deserves.

I am sure he will have all the facts to hand when they speak to him.

No threat just a statement of the facts.

If you are going to judge people then you can explain yourself.

Simple really do keep up!

Edited February 5, 2010 by OffGridManc

[Naughty Cal]

Empty threats?

I don't need to make any threats.

There are a few people sitting with me on this boat very offend by Daves attitude and judgement of their circumstances.

I am merely pointing out he will get the welcome he deserves.

I am sure he will have all the facts to hand when they speak him.

 

How very convenient that you happen to have an offended party with you.

 

Grow up and until then p*ss off

[mayalld]

My 1st narrowboat was at the sea cadets.

My second boat was at Adamsons.

So I did'nt actually move from the sea cadets but dont worry I wont hold your confusion against you.

As to how I know the owner of your old moorings, he surveyed my boat.

 

So, once again you are hopelessly wrong.

 

Peter Hopley isn't my landlord now, and he has never been my landlord.

 

He was, briefly, a tenant at Warble Wharf himself, but he sure as hell wasn't my landlord.

 

I'll have to ask Bryn if he knows who you are.

[carlt]

As I said jog on.

Considering the origin of that phrase you rather show your true colours.

 

This is merely a discussion forum and your threats are not welcome.

 

 

Edited to say: Oh what a surprise, you've edited it out.

Edited February 5, 2010 by carlt

[mayalld]

Empty threats?

I don't need to make any threats.

There are a few people sitting with me on this boat very offended by Daves attitude and judgement of their circumstances.

I am merely pointing out he will get the welcome he deserves.

I am sure he will have all the facts to hand when they speak to him.

No threat just a statement of the facts.

 

So which boat are you sitting on?

 

You said that you don't have a boat at the moment.

[Naughty Cal]

I could be very direct and lay it out very simple but I think the next time you come up that stretch you will receive the welcome you deserve!

 

I would call that a threat

[mayalld]

I would call that a threat

 

As would I.

 

I think he had better explain himself now, because if he continues to make threats, I will involve the police.

[Naughty Cal]

He seems to have vanished

[magnetman]

The highest number of votes in all categories was from people who feel that its 'seriously extracting the proverbial'

 

This, to me indicates a problem.

 

However, use of this type of language might be why people get so hot under the collar and bothered and start throwing handbags around.

 

maybe the poll should have included works like "a bit out of order" or "something we don't like" things might have turned out better without the death threats and punch ups.

 

just a thought.

 

edited to correct somefing

Edited February 5, 2010 by magnetman

[sebrof]

If and when BW decide enough is enough and are unable to get a boater to comply, they can then withdraw the licence and tell the boater to be off BW water in 28 days or be craned, I believe a court order is required but BW seek and obtain them all the time.

It would then be for the boater who's licence is refused or withdrawn to take BW to court. It amazes me that this has not happened. Surely if they are so convinced of the legality of their case those who choose to llive this way have a huge vested interest in clubbing together to fund a test case, establishing their rights and there's an end to it. Over to Alan.

There is a constant chorus of "BW are acting illegaly to take someones home" you see it forlornly written on the sides of boats which are the subject of action, you see it on this forum. The constant discussion as to the meaning of this or that bit of legalese in a vacuum of actual case law. Now supposing, (in the absence of a Clapham omnibus) the man on the Bathampton narrowboat is presented with this hobsons choice, he and all his chums are CONVINCED this is not legal. So why not challenge it? Clubbing together to once and for all establish the legitimacy of their position would be the biggest investment they could make in their futures. Do it for Gods sake! Instead of putting little notices on the side of the boat bemoaning this illegal act, put it before a judge. Why not? Please, someone give me a credible explanation for why this has not happened.

 

You have obviously never tried to get a large group of people to stump up the cash to fund a legal action.

 

It is MUCH more difficult to do than you glibly imply.

 

S

[Chris Pink]

The thing is I'm directing my ire at an isolated incident of one anti-social person rather than tarring a whole section of society.

 

 

Which visitor mooring are you talking about? Which boat?

 

Have you spoken to them? Do you know why they are moored there?

 

What reason do you have for calling them antisocial?

[romarni123]

As long and intresting that this is, I think it has now gone beyond debate into verbal abuse and threats to one person.Everyone can have their opinion we dont have to agree,but if you cant make your arguments without making what can be seen as threats then perhaps you should JOG ON.

[mayalld]

The highest number of votes in all categories was from people who feel that its 'seriously extracting the proverbial'

 

This, to me indicates a problem.

 

However, use of this type of language might be why people get so hot under the collar and bothered and start throwing handbags around.

 

maybe the poll should have included works like "a bit out of order" or "something we don't like" things might have turned out better without the death threats and punch ups.

 

just a thought.

 

edited to correct somefing

 

That may well be true.

 

The wording was chosen so as to try and keep it fairly light hearted, but it seems that it isn't a subject that people (probably me included) can discuss without it getting heated.

 

Whilst I was realistic that it is a subject that polarises opinion, I have to say that I certainly didn't expect dark threats about the kind of welcome I can expect, and am extraordinarily dissapointed.

 

I have locked horns with many people here, and in most cases I feel I could still say "what the hell, lets have a beer". In the rare cases where I don't feel that I could even do that I have never felt inclined to threaten people as has happened to me here.

[deletedaccount]

Which visitor mooring are you talking about? Which boat?

 

Have you spoken to them? Do you know why they are moored there?

 

What reason do you have for calling them antisocial?

 

I know the bloke. It's not worth going into tbh.

 

He was having trouble with his engine, but that was well before xmas. It could still be broken I guess.

[OffGridManc]

As would I.

 

I think he had better explain himself now, because if he continues to make threats, I will involve the police.

 

I don't have to explain anything.

Get the police involved no offence has been committed so you would be wasting their time.

You have lied about this so called over staying in the areas you claim it goes on with such rife.

You have no evidence.

My brothers boat is the boat we are on.

In an ideal world Leisure boaters seem to think they can just turn up and get a mooring.

If not everyone else is guilty.

Believe it or not you could still turn up and not get a mooring regardless of this so called overstaying anyway.

Peter Hopley is your Landlord by the way.

If people feel you are lying about them its only right you explain your lies to their faces.

Your reality you created it.

So not the threats you claim like a little drama queen.

Goodbye.

Edited February 5, 2010 by OffGridManc

[saltysplash]

I don't have to explain anything.

Get the police involved no offence has been committed so you would be wasting their time.

 

 

Oh I dont know, Maybe no assault but I seem to see a 'course of conduct' in your words.

 

 

Can I just say at this point that I prefer Costco To Tesco

[gaggle]

dave is being a bit of a drama queen though and phylis , well phylis likes to yap .

[Ange]

Is it just me or is this thread getting a bit random?

 

But .. does it matter .. course not!

 

[Chris Pink]

Is it just me or is this thread getting a bit random?

 

But .. does it matter .. course not!

 

 

It's been random for 23 pages, Ange;

 

Dave put his point of view, several people told him why he was wrong.

 

Dave repeated his point of view, several people told him why he was wrong.

Dave repeated his point of view, several people told him why he was wrong.

Dave repeated his point of view, several people told him why he was wrong.

Dave repeated his point of view, several people told him why he was wrong.

Dave repeated his point of view, several people told him why he was wrong.

Dave repeated his point of view, several people told him why he was wrong.

Dave repeated his point of view, several people told him why he was wrong.

 

Then they all got bored and went off to watch paint dry.

[mayalld]

I don't have to explain anything.

Get the police involved no offence has been committed so you would be wasting their time.

You have lied about this so called over staying in the areas you claim it goes on with such rife.

You have no evidence.

My brothers boat is the boat we are on.

In an ideal world Leisure boaters seem to think they can just turn up and get a mooring.

If not everyone else is guilty.

Believe it or not you could still turn up and not get a mooring regardless of this so called overstaying anyway.

Peter Hopley is your Landlord by the way.

If people feel you are lying about them its only right you explain your lies to their faces.

Your reality you created it.

So not the threats you claim like a little drama queen.

Goodbye.

 

They were threats, plain and simple. Pathetic, idle threats made by a very silly and inadequate person who is unable to handle any disagreement without resorting to threats of violence.

 

Believe me, the police will deal with threats of violence, and you can be prosecuted for it.

 

As to your stories of boats that you have owned, and boats that you are posting messages from, frankly sunshine you're telling porkies. You didn't have boats moored where you claim to have had boats, and you weren't posting from your brother's boat.

 

I suppose that I should be flattered that you should set up a new account (and it seems likely to me that you already have another ID here) with the sole purpose of targetting me (BTW, that could well be seen as harrasment, which the police will also interest themselves with)

 

I don't believe that I have some kind of god-given right to find a mooring wherever I go, I accept that it is luck of the draw I would just like to be on a level playing field, where sections of mooring have not been annexed by groups of fake CC-ers.

 

Several times during your diatribes against me, you have been caught out several times with stories that don't add up when compared to what people locally know about local moorers. It all looks like you've tried to research a background story, and missed a couple of nuances.

 

The nail in the coffin must be your insistence that Peter Hopley was my landlord.

 

I know that he wasn't, and who my landlord was, but that information wouldn't be available to somebody researching information on-line.

 

Just for the benefit of others to show where your story falls apart, allow me to explain the landlord position at Warble;

 

Warble Wharf was, when we first moved in, owned personally by one of the directors of Lees Narrowboats. Approximately six months after the demise of Lees Narrowboats, he sold the mooring, with 4 boats in-situ to the MD of a local manufacturing company. That person became our landlord, and our landlord used half the building on site as a storage facility for his company.

 

Shortly after that, Acorn Engineering became a tenant of the other half of the building, and additionally leased 3 moorings from the landlord, which he sub-let to 3 boats. Whilst these 3 boats were tenants of Peter Hopley, the original 4 boats remained as tenants of the main landlord.

 

Acorn Engineering moved back to its original home in Denton within 12 months of arriving, and terminated his lease. All those boaters who had been tenants of Peter Hopley then reverted to being tenants of the main landlord.

 

So, whilst some of the boats at Warble had Peter Hopley as a landlord;

• We never did
  
• those who did no longer have him as a landlord.
  

[alan_fincher]

I suppose that I should be flattered that you should set up a new account (and it seems likely to me that you already have another ID here) with the sole purpose of targetting me (BTW, that could well be seen as harrasment, which the police will also interest themselves with)

Dave,

 

Whilst I can understand your annoyance, do you seriously believe you would get much support from the Police in a claim that someone had set up a duplicate account on an Internet forum for the purpose of giving you a bit of a hard time ?

 

You must be used to part of the Police force with rather more investigative capacity than is my experience around where we live. People who have had break-ins and vehicle thefts and damage seem to have a fair degree of trouble getting any great Police response, unless very obvious leads have been left.

 

(Before anyone comments, that's not intended to be an attack on the efficiency of the Police - more an observation about the actual time they tend to have at their disposal, and how they seem to prioritise limited resources).

[AlanH]

My 1st narrowboat was at the sea cadets.

 

As to basic error its neither here nor there.

The fact of the matter on that stretch of canal you are over stating the facts of the matter.

No he isn't. The fake CCers who moor downstream of the swing bridge at Furness Vale have been there for months - some of them years.

They are a nusiance and are ignoring the rules. There is no doubt about that.

Edited February 8, 2010 by AlanH

[mayalld]

So, given that the bout of "attack him for daring to ask the question" has subsided, I should probably say something about the results.

 

Of course, some on the forum elected not to take part, and made a fuss about their stance, as proof positive that any results would be invalid. Doubtless the same people will vociferously refuse to vote in the next general election, and claim that the result is invalid.

 

Possibly the first thing to say is that I suspect that in trying to word the poll in a reasonably informal fashion, I may have caused confusion. The intent was that each question would actually ask two questions; namely "What is your opinion", and "What do you believe BW's view would be"

 

With that in mind, the first Scenario (Whaley Bridge - New Mills) was really a control question. The journey described is around 2 miles each way, and there is (frankly) not a hope in hell that BW would ever regard it as legitimate. The fact that 21 people (to date) voted as "perfectly OK", and one thought that BW wouldn't object suggests one of thre possibilities;

1. The options were unclear
   
2. Those voting weren't aware of just how close these places are to each other
   
3. Somebody is seriously deluded as to what BW think is OK!
   

The second scenario is 17 miles end to end, and in my view is probably just enough to keep you off the BW radar, whilst being a bit cheeky. As such I would have expected a fair spread of responses. he low numbers in the middle options suggests that most people voting are convinced that their view of the rules is one the BW (deep down) shares!

 

The last scenario was interesting. 34 miles end to end, and 13 locks to traverse each way. Whilst it isn't a HUGE proportion of the system, it is certainly making some effort, and I would imagine that it would be enough to keep people off the radar. I am amazed that so many thought this was seriously taking the XXXX, and would have expected far more of those who don't think it enough to have expressed the view that they accept that even if they don't like it, BW would be OK with it. looking at the figures on this one, it starts to make me look almost moderate and wooly-minded on the CC issue, and that would never do would it?