Unreasonable?

[O'Mali]

Yes.

 

 

 

Like me, they hadn't had a lot of sleep, and were tired. Surely you have experienced the phenomenon where your sleep has been disturbed, such that even when the disturbance stops, you still can't settle.

I have and under these circumstances, you would not have seen me until at least 10/11am if it was that bad. Surly not all the boaters around you had to be up and some where by 8am.

 

Any chance of posting the photos Dave?

[mayalld]

I have and under these circumstances, you would not have seen me until at least 10/11am if it was that bad. Surly not all the boaters around you had to be up and some where by 8am.

 

Any chance of posting the photos Dave?

 

I will try and remember later.

 

There were two other boats affected, and both were up by 8am.

[luctor et emergo]

 

 

Thank you Carl

 

Well, accepted by the rules as well.

 

As it happens, the occupiers of all the boats who had been affected were up and about at 8am, so the question of people who wanted a lie in wouldn't arise (apart from those on the offending boat, and I'm not sure that they were deserving of any particular consideration here)

 

 

Democracy is two wolves and a lamb deciding on what to have for lunch....

 

[mayalld]

Democracy is two wolves and a lamb deciding on what to have for lunch....

 

Well, indeed, but we aren't talking about democracy here.

[Chris Pink]

Well, indeed, but we aren't talking about democracy here.

 

I do hope you will excuse me if disagree with you slightly.

 

I have read this topic and, to a certain extent, i have sympathy with you. After all no-one likes noise when one expected quiet.

 

But taking aside the alleged removal of the gate, and much as it pains me to point this out, we have no corroboration of your statement it seems to me that this revellers were simply exercising their right to enjoyment and the jolly company of their friends.

 

Much as I would like it if it did, the canal does not belong to you. As you so rightly point out, democracy is not at issue here, and the sympathy of your fellows on this forum does not give you the right to insist that these people do not exercise that freedom we all value so much.

[mayalld]

I do hope you will excuse me if disagree with you slightly.

 

I have read this topic and, to a certain extent, i have sympathy with you. After all no-one likes noise when one expected quiet.

 

But taking aside the alleged removal of the gate, and much as it pains me to point this out, we have no corroboration of your statement it seems to me that this revellers were simply exercising their right to enjoyment and the jolly company of their friends.

 

Much as I would like it if it did, the canal does not belong to you. As you so rightly point out, democracy is not at issue here, and the sympathy of your fellows on this forum does not give you the right to insist that these people do not exercise that freedom we all value so much.

 

It is, indeed, true that my account is uncorroborated, and as I have failed to take a close up shot of the gate off its hinges with the lock in place, and have no proof positive of;

• The volume
  
• The crappiness of the music
  
• The time it ceased
  

 

You are, to that extent correct.

 

I would hope, however, that (for the purposes of this discussion) you might be prepared to dispense with the need for evidence that would stand up in court, and accept my word that the gate was removed, and the extent to which they caused a disturbance is factual.

[Chris Pink]

OOh i love it when you do lists, Dave.

 

Why shouldn't they play music that presumable was chosen more for the fact that they liked it than that you didn't?

 

and i think you'll find that 2am is considered a fairly conventional time to call a halt to revels in this century.

 

So what you are saying is that if hadn't removed a gate in an unconventional way - and you have yet to inform us whether the alleged gate was replaced without damage - then your moan is a gratuitous grumble based entirely on your, with all possible respect, narrow minded ideas of what constitutes party?

[magpie patrick]

OOh i love it when you do lists, Dave.

 

Why shouldn't they play music that presumable was chosen more for the fact that they liked it than that you didn't?

 

and i think you'll find that 2am is considered a fairly conventional time to call a halt to revels in this century.

 

So what you are saying is that if hadn't removed a gate in an unconventional way - and you have yet to inform us whether the alleged gate was replaced without damage - then your moan is a gratuitous grumble based entirely on your, with all possible respect, narrow minded ideas of what constitutes party?

 

A point of order Chris

 

while it is practical to get a vehicle through a gate by lifting the gate off it's hinges, those who have done so KNOW they were taking a vehicle where the land owner had effectively instructed them not to take it. Locks are a matter of protocol as well as matter of enforcement. That is. That gate is locked, I shouldn't go through it

 

On our work parties we regularly take gates off hinges because the land owner has given us permission, it's easier than him turning up with the keys, but if a bunch of revellers did it?

 

And the students next door have had one complaint for loud music late. I appreciate that in the basin Dave was not working the next day, but in my case I did point out that while their first lecture was umpteen hours away, I was leaving at seven am.

 

And, given our mutual tendency to get at daggers drawn, I will quote one more example, years ago, in Bali, I was staying in a motel style place and catching an early flight when a bunch of aussie students held a party outside. It was clear that one of them thought they were on the patio outside their own room: they weren't. I finally got up and asked them to move, the girl who'd made the mistake said "but I'm only next door, whet difference would it make". The difference,as I explained, was that moving in front of her own room would show she was trying not to be a nuisance.

 

If Dave had had this problem with a bunch of boaters on their own boats (not on the bank) so be it, life sucks sometimes, but (assuming Dave's account is correct) this lot didn't give a flying shit about anyone else. That's what would get my goat

[Chris Pink]

I do hope i might disagree with you on a couple of points without causing offence to you or anybody else Graham would rather i didn't name.

 

It is my impression, from reading Dave's well reasoned and persuasive arguments that it was the behaviour of the boat he complained about to BW.

 

The alleged (after all we don't want to risk offending those who are not here to defend themselves) gate incident is not really a pertinent part of Dave's complaint.

 

He has complained about; the type of music, its volume and the time that they finished. Whilst I know in my heart that Mr Mayall is the most reasonable of men, I do think that this activity is the right of those engaged in it.

 

I do again agree that maybe they were a little tardy in clearing up their rubbish but, again, we don't really know whether they cleared up after Mr Mayall had left the scene.

 

And there are certain elements on this forum who, upon hearing this tale, immediately jump to the sort of conclusions we have heard in this topic, stopping only just short of calls for illegal acts.

 

Whilst I am sure that Mr Steelaway is, in this country of freedom, allowed to hold his obnoxious right wing views, his conclusion that people defecated on the bank can only really be described as scurrilous.

 

 

A point of order Chris

 

while it is practical to get a vehicle through a gate by lifting the gate off it's hinges, those who have done so KNOW they were taking a vehicle where the land owner had effectively instructed them not to take it. Locks are a matter of protocol as well as matter of enforcement. That is. That gate is locked, I shouldn't go through it

 

On our work parties we regularly take gates off hinges because the land owner has given us permission, it's easier than him turning up with the keys, but if a bunch of revellers did it?

 

And the students next door have had one complaint for loud music late. I appreciate that in the basin Dave was not working the next day, but in my case I did point out that while their first lecture was umpteen hours away, I was leaving at seven am.

 

And, given our mutual tendency to get at daggers drawn, I will quote one more example, years ago, in Bali, I was staying in a motel style place and catching an early flight when a bunch of aussie students held a party outside. It was clear that one of them thought they were on the patio outside their own room: they weren't. I finally got up and asked them to move, the girl who'd made the mistake said "but I'm only next door, whet difference would it make". The difference,as I explained, was that moving in front of her own room would show she was trying not to be a nuisance.

 

If Dave had had this problem with a bunch of boaters on their own boats (not on the bank) so be it, life sucks sometimes, but (assuming Dave's account is correct) this lot didn't give a flying shit about anyone else. That's what would get my goat

 

Whilst re-reading your most eleqent and well thought out reply, i could not help but notice that you think the behaviour of your Australians (if i may call them such) and the behaviour of Mr Mayall's revellers were somehow constructed purely for the purpose of pissing you off. Interesting.

 

In return may i give you an anecdote of my own;

 

I was playing music on the towpath on day at a volume i considered to be both enjoyable and reasonable, certainly not too loud to converse. A boat moored next to me, got his barbeque out and the owner moaned about the music. When i pointed out to him that 3 of the people sat near my boat were vegetarians and that his burning of flesh was equally, if not more, offensive, he got quite rude and failed to see our point of view. I do not believe that this boat was called Mr Jinks.

 

I would ask you to consider this tale and compare it to your own and Dave's experiences.

Edited March 23, 2010 by Chris Pink

[steelaway]

I do hope i might disagree with you on a couple of points without causing offence to you or anybody else Graham would rather i didn't name.

 

It is my impression, from reading Dave's well reasoned and persuasive arguments that it was the behaviour of the boat he complained about to BW.

 

The alleged (after all we don't want to risk offending those who are not here to defend themselves) gate incident is not really a pertinent part of Dave's complaint.

 

He has complained about; the type of music, its volume and the time that they finished. Whilst I know in my heart that Mr Mayall is the most reasonable of men, I do think that this activity is the right of those engaged in it.

 

I do again agree that maybe they were a little tardy in clearing up their rubbish but, again, we don't really know whether they cleared up after Mr Mayall had left the scene.

 

And there are certain elements on this forum who, upon hearing this tale, immediately jump to the sort of conclusions we have heard in this topic, stopping only just short of calls for illegal acts.

 

Whilst I am sure that Mr Steelaway is, in this country of freedom, allowed to hold his obnoxious right wing views, his conclusion that people defecated on the bank can only really be described as scurrilous.

 

 

 

 

Whilst re-reading your most eleqent and well thought out reply, i could not help but notice that you think the behaviour of your Australians (if i may call them such) and the behaviour of Mr Mayall's revellers were somehow constructed purely for the purpose of pissing you off. Interesting.

 

In return may i give you an anecdote of my own;

 

I was playing music on the towpath on day at a volume i considered to be both enjoyable and reasonable, certainly not too loud to converse. A boat moored next to me, got his barbeque out and the owner moaned about the music. When i pointed out to him that 3 of the people sat near my boat were vegetarians and that his burning of flesh was equally, if not more, offensive, he got quite rude and failed to see our point of view. I do not believe that this boat was called Mr Jinks.

 

I would ask you to consider this tale and compare it to your own and Dave's experiences.

 

 

 

If you had read the thread properly you would have realised this reference was in reply to Carlts statement.

You are accusing the op of being unreasonable in his complaining and even defending these 'revelers' even though you have no first hand evidence.

You are acusing a long standing member of this forum of being unreasonable and even lying about the circumstances - Unbelievable

IMHO both of your replies are a complete load of B***cks.

[gaggle]

If you had read the thread properly you would have realised this reference was in reply to Carlts statement.

You are accusing the op of being unreasonable in his complaining and even defending these 'revelers' even though you have no first hand evidence.

You are acusing a long standing member of this forum of being unreasonable and even lying about the circumstances - Unbelievable

IMHO both of your replies are a complete load of B***cks.

 

So What ?

its hardly a crime , get out of this python sketch.

[Allan(nb Albert)]

On 1/4/2010 BW is launching a consultation on continuous vegetarians (CV's).

 

Current proposals are -

 

• You may not be a CV for more than 14 days.
  
• No more than two CV's per boat.
  
• CV's must not moor within 100 meters of non-CV boats.
  
• To obtain a BSS certificate boats must now be fitted with a working BBQ.
  
• CV's may not operate any equipment that produces music.
  
• For the purposes of licencing vegans will be counted as CV's.
  
• For the purposes of licencing CV's will be treated as commercial craft
  

 

Its no use responding to the consultation - BW have already made up its mind.

 

Does that get out of the python sketch?

Edited March 23, 2010 by Allan(nb Albert)

[Guest]

OOh i love it when you do lists, Dave.

 

Why shouldn't they play music that presumable was chosen more for the fact that they liked it than that you didn't?

 

and i think you'll find that 2am is considered a fairly conventional time to call a halt to revels in this century.

 

So what you are saying is that if hadn't removed a gate in an unconventional way - and you have yet to inform us whether the alleged gate was replaced without damage - then your moan is a gratuitous grumble based entirely on your, with all possible respect, narrow minded ideas of what constitutes party?

I can see no problem, unless of course they made light pollution.

[carlt]

I can see no problem, unless of course they made light pollution.

I guess that depends on what they had for tea.

[Bob the welder]

Well I'd have gone and joined in, and then in the morning helped clear the mess up, nought like a good party.

p ss head . :lol:

[mayalld]

It is my impression, from reading Dave's well reasoned and persuasive arguments that it was the behaviour of the boat he complained about to BW.

 

The alleged (after all we don't want to risk offending those who are not here to defend themselves) gate incident is not really a pertinent part of Dave's complaint.

 

He has complained about; the type of music, its volume and the time that they finished. Whilst I know in my heart that Mr Mayall is the most reasonable of men, I do think that this activity is the right of those engaged in it.

 

Chris, I feel sure that if I were to mention my experiences of a horde of rampaging Vikings sweeping through town, raping and pillaging, you would defend their right to do as they do just to be contrary!

 

The gate incident (the gate was eventually replaced, although the process has loosened the post to which the gate is locked, so cannot be described as "without damage") was, as you rightly surmise, not the core of my complaint. It was a subsidiary example of the lack of consideration these people have for others.

 

Similarly for the debris on the bank the next morning.

 

My comments about the type of music were, I admit, slightly tongue in cheek. There was however a semi-serious point in there. Some music is more obtrusive than other types, and this was exactly that.

 

The core of my complaint was indeed the boater (not the boat, it was an innocent lump of metal). He was clearly running the "party", and he had invited the van dwellers to attend, removing gates in the process.

 

Whilst it is indeed the right of people to have a good time with their friends, and to play music that I dislike, it is not their right (notwithstanding the conventional time for such events to conclude) to do so in a manner which causes a disturbance to others until 2:30 am.

 

I was playing music on the towpath on day at a volume i considered to be both enjoyable and reasonable, certainly not too loud to converse. A boat moored next to me, got his barbeque out and the owner moaned about the music. When i pointed out to him that 3 of the people sat near my boat were vegetarians and that his burning of flesh was equally, if not more, offensive, he got quite rude and failed to see our point of view. I do not believe that this boat was called Mr Jinks.

 

Indeed, it would not be.

 

I have no objection to people playing music. Expecting library style silence 24/7 is unreasonable. Expecting a rural location to be reasonably quiet at gone midnight is not (IMV) unreasonable.

 

In a like fashion, you militant veggie friends would be unreasonable to expect everybody else to avoid cooking meat any where near them. OTOH, if the other boater had gone out of his way to wave bacon 3 inches from their nose it would be a different kettle of mung beans.

[Chris Pink]

If you had read the thread properly you would have realised this reference was in reply to Carlts statement.

You are accusing the op of being unreasonable in his complaining and even defending these 'revelers' even though you have no first hand evidence.

You are acusing a long standing member of this forum of being unreasonable and even lying about the circumstances - Unbelievable

IMHO both of your replies are a complete load of B***cks.

 

Now now Mr Away (with the fairies), try and keep this respectful and polite. It is not that i defend 'these' revellers, I have never met them, it is that i defend their right to revel.

 

I did not accuse them of 'crapping on the bank', now did I?

 

And if you had read the thread properly, as I am sure you did and it is mean to make fun of your reduced intelligence, you would see that the topic title is 'Unreasonable?'. Now please forgive me if I am wrong but i understood this as a request for my opinion, humble though it might be.

 

I did not, and would not, accuse Mr Mayall of lying, i am sure he is incapable of that and my qualification about this alleged action was intended so that i might comment about the rest of Dave's question.

[Chris Pink]

Chris, I feel sure that if I were to mention my experiences of a horde of rampaging Vikings sweeping through town, raping and pillaging, you would defend their right to do as they do just to be contrary!

 

The gate incident (the gate was eventually replaced, although the process has loosened the post to which the gate is locked, so cannot be described as "without damage") was, as you rightly surmise, not the core of my complaint. It was a subsidiary example of the lack of consideration these people have for others.

 

Similarly for the debris on the bank the next morning.

 

My comments about the type of music were, I admit, slightly tongue in cheek. There was however a semi-serious point in there. Some music is more obtrusive than other types, and this was exactly that.

 

The core of my complaint was indeed the boater (not the boat, it was an innocent lump of metal). He was clearly running the "party", and he had invited the van dwellers to attend, removing gates in the process.

 

Whilst it is indeed the right of people to have a good time with their friends, and to play music that I dislike, it is not their right (notwithstanding the conventional time for such events to conclude) to do so in a manner which causes a disturbance to others until 2:30 am.

 

 

 

Indeed, it would not be.

 

I have no objection to people playing music. Expecting library style silence 24/7 is unreasonable. Expecting a rural location to be reasonably quiet at gone midnight is not (IMV) unreasonable.

 

In a like fashion, you militant veggie friends would be unreasonable to expect everybody else to avoid cooking meat any where near them. OTOH, if the other boater had gone out of his way to wave bacon 3 inches from their nose it would be a different kettle of mung beans.

 

My reading of the human rights act makes no reference to a right to rape or pillage. So I must, relucantly, disagree. As for being contrary, contrary to what? Like my response to Mr Fairies above, your post title says it all;

 

unreasonable? Yes, you are being unreasonable.

 

unreasonable about the music - yes - you couldn't resist could you - i might also find your playing of Nessund Dorma at concert hall volume more 'obtrusive than others' but I will not complain if that is your taste. (Please excuse the pun)

 

so unreasonable about the noise level - yes - rural area? gosh. Is there a sign at the outskirts of Manchester or whichever grimy northern conurbation you inhabit saying 'SHHH'. If a tractor had gone by at 6 in the morning would you be posting 'unreasonable?' on this forum?

 

unreasonable about the time? - yes - whereas your body clock might have been trained in line with worker's expected diurnal rhythm you have no right to impose that on anyone else.

 

 

Further you have stated that you complained about the boater to BW - even though you could only identify the boat, not the boater - this, along with the alleged removal of the gate, are the only things unreasonable.

 

 

 

Militant vegatarians? Does that make you a militant sleeper? If mr Rivendell (and a less appropriate match of boat name to owner i have never come across) has a right to burn flesh, and I agree he does, then I have a right to engage in lawful recreational pursuits too.

 

You do remind me of him. He was quite infamous for a while.

Edited March 24, 2010 by Chris Pink

[magpie patrick]

Whilst re-reading your most eleqent and well thought out reply, i could not help but notice that you think the behaviour of your Australians (if i may call them such) and the behaviour of Mr Mayall's revellers were somehow constructed purely for the purpose of pissing you off. Interesting.

 

No Chris, that what wasn't what I meant. I meant that, when I pointed out to them they were inconveniencing me, they couldn't see that even though the action of moving to their own patio would only have a small effect on the noise levels, it would have the effect of them being see to be considerate, while refusing to move did the exact opposite

 

On Dave's partygoers, all rights are restricted by responsibility, a right to revel if fettered by consideration for others moored in a quiet location, just aa a right to moor outside a night club is fettered by consideration of others right to pour out drunkenly at 3am.

 

But I, (non vegetarian) would be with you on the radio v BBQ argument, and indeed made exactly the same point at Sharpness last summer while queitly playing my mandola on the front deck amid the smoke and burning flesh smell from three boats away (yes, they were making terse comments about people who dared to play a musical instrument outdoors, even though they had a radio on the roof and were fumigating the place)

[Mrs Humdinger]

People are in general very inconsiderate - they will do what they want and not give a flying stuff about anyone else. We once lived in a first floor apartment in a Spanish tourist resort - long story. The apartment underneath used to get rented out to holidaymakers, and one lot kept lighting a BBQ right underneath my balcony. As we had the patio doors open (it was August) the whole of the apartment quickly filled with smoke. After the third night on the trot, I popped my head over the railings, and politely asked if he could move the BBQ round the corner a little so that the smoke wasn't blowing directly into my home. He said he couldn't as he'd already lit it, and anyway, he'd paid good money for the privilege and was going to have his BBQ exactly where he wanted it.

 

We gave up and went to the pub, coming home very late indeed with several friends in tow, and spent an awful lot of time walking up and down on the tiled floor in our stilettoes!

[AlanH]

My reading of the human rights act makes no reference to a right to rape or pillage. So I must, relucantly, disagree. As for being contrary, contrary to what? Like my response to Mr Fairies above, your post title says it all;

 

unreasonable? Yes, you are being unreasonable.

 

unreasonable about the music - yes - you couldn't resist could you - i might also find your playing of Nessund Dorma at concert hall volume more 'obtrusive than others' but I will not complain if that is your taste. (Please excuse the pun)

 

so unreasonable about the noise level - yes - rural area? gosh. Is there a sign at the outskirts of Manchester or whichever grimy northern conurbation you inhabit saying 'SHHH'. If a tractor had gone by at 6 in the morning would you be posting 'unreasonable?' on this forum?

 

unreasonable about the time? - yes - whereas your body clock might have been trained in line with worker's expected diurnal rhythm you have no right to impose that on anyone else.

 

 

Further you have stated that you complained about the boater to BW - even though you could only identify the boat, not the boater - this, along with the alleged removal of the gate, are the only things unreasonable.

 

 

 

Militant vegatarians? Does that make you a militant sleeper? If mr Rivendell (and a less appropriate match of boat name to owner i have never come across) has a right to burn flesh, and I agree he does, then I have a right to engage in lawful recreational pursuits too.

 

You do remind me of him. He was quite infamous for a while.

That is merely your opinion. Mine is that these people were being unreasonable. If it is unreasonable to run a generator after 8pm then it is unreasonable to play loud music until the early hours.

I think that your posts do not reflect your true opinions but show your ardent desire to disagree with Dave.

[kiki]

People are in general very inconsiderate - they will do what they want and not give a flying stuff about anyone else. We once lived in a first floor apartment in a Spanish tourist resort - long story. The apartment underneath used to get rented out to holidaymakers, and one lot kept lighting a BBQ right underneath my balcony. As we had the patio doors open (it was August) the whole of the apartment quickly filled with smoke. After the third night on the trot, I popped my head over the railings, and politely asked if he could move the BBQ round the corner a little so that the smoke wasn't blowing directly into my home. He said he couldn't as he'd already lit it, and anyway, he'd paid good money for the privilege and was going to have his BBQ exactly where he wanted it.

 

We gave up and went to the pub, coming home very late indeed with several friends in tow, and spent an awful lot of time walking up and down on the tiled floor in our stilettoes!

 

 

OMG now you have set yourself up for some attack as well. I suggested a similar thing and oh deary me I got the full blast of "do you mean its right to do the same thing" blah blah - you gotta watch your back on this forum Mrs H, seems those of us who enjoy a bit of payback are going to come under fire. Best take your coat now.

[journeyperson]

My reading of the human rights act makes no reference to a right to rape or pillage. So I must, relucantly, disagree. As for being contrary, contrary to what? Like my response to Mr Fairies above, your post title says it all;

 

unreasonable? Yes, you are being unreasonable.

 

unreasonable about the music - yes - you couldn't resist could you - i might also find your playing of Nessund Dorma at concert hall volume more 'obtrusive than others' but I will not complain if that is your taste. (Please excuse the pun)

 

so unreasonable about the noise level - yes - rural area? gosh. Is there a sign at the outskirts of Manchester or whichever grimy northern conurbation you inhabit saying 'SHHH'. If a tractor had gone by at 6 in the morning would you be posting 'unreasonable?' on this forum?

 

unreasonable about the time? - yes - whereas your body clock might have been trained in line with worker's expected diurnal rhythm you have no right to impose that on anyone else.

 

 

Further you have stated that you complained about the boater to BW - even though you could only identify the boat, not the boater - this, along with the alleged removal of the gate, are the only things unreasonable.

 

 

 

Militant vegatarians? Does that make you a militant sleeper? If mr Rivendell (and a less appropriate match of boat name to owner i have never come across) has a right to burn flesh, and I agree he does, then I have a right to engage in lawful recreational pursuits too.

 

You do remind me of him. He was quite infamous for a while.

 

I think most reasonable people would consider those views to be unreasonable.

 

"Is there a sign at the outskirts of Manchester or whichever grimy northern conurbation you inhabit saying 'SHHH'.

 

And that is just inflammatory. "Please keep this debate nice and polite and refrain from personal attacks . . ."

[Athy]

A neat little description of Manchester though. AND it's on t'wrong side of t'Pennines.

[journeyperson]

A neat little description of Manchester though. AND it's on t'wrong side of t'Pennines.

 

Greetings From Lancashire oh noble son of York, how fair your county sits beneath an azure sky. How are you today? Well, I trust. And your family?

 

Please note: I am keeping this post nice and polite and refraining from personal attacks . . .