Anti social behaviour

[carlt]

Nobody is going to condone it but advertising it publicly and using obcene language on a public forum isn't a good way to deal with it I don't think.

 

People in glass houses, shouldn't throw shit:

 

I reckon living on a boat, on a footpath is a choice and the reality is that people walk their dogs on footpaths and they will shit and piss. This to me is a fact. If I lived in a house I would have a go at the owner if a dog shat by my door but when you don't own the land by your own doorstep I don't think you have that right. By all means complain to the land owner.

[Keeping Up]

There are many reports of Wiels disease from rat urine. Human faeces contains many pathogens and all of us handle wet ropes, have to go into the canal occasionally, or use canal water for washing our boats and other non-food uses.

I reckon it's a good letter that you have written there, but personally I would delete the sentence referring to Weils disease.

 

As topics on this forum frequently demonstrate, discussions frequently wander off-topic after being diverted by a comment which is only an auxiliary to the main arguiment. In this case, if the text of your letter were to end up being debated publicly by BW and/or the Council, the debate could be (possibly deliberately) diverted into a discussion on aspects of Weils disease. The council could issue a statement that the number of rats was being increased by the presence of boaters, the residents could respond that human faeces cannot be a source of Weils disease, BW could state that they will be introducing new mandatory requirements for boaters to wear gloves when handling ropes, NABO could respond that there cannot be a danger from Weils disease if 200 boaters have been using the canal water for washing their boats without catching it, and Charles Sterling could start selling a new range of Galvanic Isolators which are the only ones in the country to have been independently certified as able to guard against rats in the earth connection. One can only imagine how the Daily Mail would report the debate!

 

Oops, sorry, did I remember to mention how discussions have been known to wander off-topic?

Edited March 26, 2010 by Keeping Up

[stickleback]

Chris, excellent letter - send it! And I'd be fascinated to hear the result.

 

Stickleback

[Leonie]

I like your letter and I like the fact that you are willing to be proactive about a serious problem which most would turn a blind eye on. I don't agree with naming and shaming the boater and am happy to see you haven't risen to that bait.

 

I hope the boater in question takes your letter in the manner it's intended and heeds the good advice therein.

 

It is possible, I suppose, that the boater didn't really realise how unacceptable their behaviour was or was genuinely caught short and felt they had a lack of options. Whatever his excuse, he needs to know it's inexcusable in reality.

[Chris Pink]

It is possible, I suppose, that the boater didn't really realise how unacceptable their behaviour was or was genuinely caught short and felt they had a lack of options.

 

That's my hope.

[steelaway]

As I cycled home I have just witnessed a liveaboard emptying his porta-potti off the back deck of his boat.

 

 

What do you think I should do about this?

 

 

 

Well - What go's around comes around.

 

 

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.

 

 

As was said earlier in this thread and defended by you - Live and let live.

 

He might have been using the potty as a bucket and all he tipped over the side was water.

We only have your word on this mis-demeaner, should we believe it or have you exaggerated the situation Mr Pink

[deletedaccount]

That is pretty grim. I don't mind if people piss of the sides ocassionally, but emptying a shit filled buckt of chemicals into the canal is completely out of order.

 

Good letter and the right aproach. Nice one chris imo.

[Guest wanted]

Well - What go's around comes around.

 

 

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.

 

 

As was said earlier in this thread and defended by you - Live and let live.

 

He might have been using the potty as a bucket and all he tipped over the side was water.

We only have your word on this mis-demeaner, should we believe it or have you exaggerated the situation Mr Pink

 

And by writing a letter, Chris has given the opportunity for explaination before reporting it.

[Chris Pink]

Well - What go's around comes around.

 

 

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.

 

 

As was said earlier in this thread and defended by you - Live and let live.

 

He might have been using the potty as a bucket and all he tipped over the side was water.

We only have your word on this mis-demeaner, should we believe it or have you exaggerated the situation Mr Pink

 

Hey, Mr Away with the Fairies. I didn't realise that you were such a fan. The collected sayings of Pink. Thank you so much.

 

But...

 

I don't give a monkey's toss whether you believe me or not.

 

...and you are completely right, it is only an allegation and I would be most happy if he responds to my letter telling me I was wrong.

 

I didn't realise that you had actually witnessed people crapping on the bank at Bugsworth during the late night playing of Nessun Dorma, I appear to have misunderstood.

[choogh]

That is pretty grim. I don't mind if people piss of the sides ocassionally, but emptying a shit filled buckt of chemicals into the canal is completely out of order.

 

Good letter and the right aproach. Nice one chris imo.

 

I think that one should mind their own business.... literally. Untreated sewage is a fertiliser, the canal were built with a 1 mph flow, to stop them stagnating, calculate the amount of water in your pound. The sewage is miniscule.. Yes, but what if everyone did it.!! .Well you and yours don't and wont. but the very few "caught out" can do little harm.

 

The French canals are largely pump out free... Do they have a problem ? NO..

[magpie patrick]

I think that one should mind their own business.... literally. Untreated sewage is a fertiliser, the canal were built with a 1 mph flow, to stop them stagnating, calculate the amount of water in your pound. The sewage is miniscule.. Yes, but what if everyone did it.!! .Well you and yours don't and wont. but the very few "caught out" can do little harm.

 

The French canals are largely pump out free... Do they have a problem ? NO..

 

That's the best piece of fiction I've read this week, 1mph would be a heck of a rate of flow on a canal, and they weren't designed with such a flow, in fact, you can often observe canals flowing backwards, i.e upstream if the wind is in the right direction.

 

Back to the point. Chris, I take my hat off to you, send the letter

[choogh]

That's the best piece of fiction I've read this week, 1mph would be a heck of a rate of flow on a canal, and they weren't designed with such a flow, in fact, you can often observe canals flowing backwards, i.e upstream if the wind is in the right direction.

 

Back to the point. Chris, I take my hat off to you, send the letter

So there is a flow, the flow, read your books, was designed into canals by the builders to stop stagnation, not too create a tidal flow!!! And as for fiction.. read the Chancellors budget speech.

[carlt]

The French canals are largely pump out free... Do they have a problem ? NO..

Actually they do have a problem which is why you are required to have a holding tank, if cruising the French canals, now.

 

Also in the, virtually, non-tidal Med you are not allowed to pump out in harbour, but have to use a holding tank and pump out when underway.

 

So there is a flow, the flow, read your books, was designed into canals by the builders to stop stagnation,

If you do read the books you'll know that the Llangollen is unusual, in that it has a flow, whereas the others, apart from the trickle of leaky locks, are essentially stillwaters.

Edited March 26, 2010 by carlt

[Chris Pink]

read your books

 

Can you supply a reference to this please.

 

It is my impression that the builders of canals made every effort to conserve water and although yes, there is a flow, it is nothing like 1mph and is down to use of locks and leakage.

 

There is a back pumping scheme along the whole length of the Kennet and Avon and quite a vigorous upstream flow can be observed at busy times.

[choogh]

Actually they do have a problem which is why you are required to have a holding tank, if cruising the French canals, now.

 

Also in the, virtually, non-tidal Med you are not allowed to pump out in harbour, but have to use a holding tank and pump out when underway.

And just how many pump out stations are there?.. I'm not suggesting that a free for all sewage ditching is agreeable, it's not and the facilities MUST be used. But as usual, the "folk" on here get on their "high horses", pontificate with no known wisdom. Live and let LIve.

[magpie patrick]

So there is a flow, the flow, read your books, was designed into canals by the builders to stop stagnation, not too create a tidal flow!!! And as for fiction.. read the Chancellors budget speech.

 

I don't want to hijack Chris's thread, so if we take this debate further, lets move to another thread, but canals did not have a gradient designed into them. They get one if you use the locks or there is surplus water running weir, but throw a stick into a canal where no boats are moving and the stick doesn't move

 

Aside from anything else this means the guy tipping his turds into the cut will find them hanging around his own boat for a while

Edited March 26, 2010 by magpie patrick

[carlt]

And just how many pump out stations are there?.. I'm not suggesting that a free for all sewage ditching is agreeable, it's not and the facilities MUST be used. But as usual, the "folk" on here get on their "high horses", pontificate with no known wisdom. Live and let LIve.

The provision of pump-out facilities is still inadequate and is having to catch up with legislation but it always surprises me that an argument of "They do it, so why shouldn't we?" is offered.

 

France is attempting to rise to standards that we already have in place.

[Chris Pink]

And just how many pump out stations are there?.. I'm not suggesting that a free for all sewage ditching is agreeable, it's not and the facilities MUST be used. But as usual, the "folk" on here get on their "high horses", pontificate with no known wisdom. Live and let LIve.

 

I am happy for you to defend this action.

 

If you read my letter you will see the local facilities - 4 options in a 9 mile pound- additionally there at least 2 foul sewer manholes easily accessible.

 

(Edit: I just realised I forgot one elsan not half a mile from his boat - although through 2 locks but easily wheeled down

 

so 5 elsans in a 9 mile pound is pretty good.

 

and one marina at Dundas who used to allow disposal but I'm not sure whether they still do since BW put in an elsan in the basin )

 

You appear to be the one on a high horse here, I came to seek opinion.

Edited March 26, 2010 by Chris Pink

[tidal]

Aside from anything else this means the guy tipping his turds into the cut will find them hanging around his own boat for a while

 

One of the few upsides to this tale

[blackrose]

I was thinking about this and i don't think you can jump to conclusions like this. I, for instance, will take my cassettes to be emptied at a time when i think there won't be many people around. One likes to be private about these things.

In general yes, but I don't think that living near someone for almost 5 years without ever having observed them emptying their toilet could be viewed as jumping to conclusions. In this case I've come to a reasonable conclusion over a very long period of time..

Edited March 26, 2010 by blackrose

[Chris Pink]

In general yes, but I don't think that living near someone for almost 5 years without ever having observed them emptying their toilet could be viewed as jumping to conclusions. In this case I've come to a reasonable conclusion over a very long period of time..

 

It doesn't bother you then?

[alan_fincher]

the canal were built with a 1 mph flow, to stop them stagnating,

Sorry,

 

I've no idea what books you have read, (perhaps you'd like to tell us), but that statement is frankly piffle.

 

Other than where explicitly doubling as water supplies, or where they are actually canalised rivers, most UK canals flow not a single jot, beyond the mild movement caused by normal use of locks, and leakage.

 

Even if they flow, (which they don't), wouldn't it just mean s**t passing along at 1 mph, rather than just staying were it got tipped ?

[blackrose]

Begs the question. What do other live aboards do with their potties ? Miles from anywhere, no sanitary stations, no pumpouts, too cold to go ashore.

 

Just curious.

 

Simon

 

They either move their boat to a pump out or elsan point, or if they have cassettes they take them to the nearest elsan point by car, bike, or if they are close enough like me, by trolley.

 

When is it ever too cold to go ashore?

[choogh]

Sorry,

 

I've no idea what books you have read, (perhaps you'd like to tell us), but that statement is frankly piffle.

 

Other than where explicitly doubling as water supplies, or where they are actually canalised rivers, most UK canals flow not a single jot, beyond the mild movement caused by normal use of locks, and leakage.

 

Even if they flow, (which they don't), wouldn't it just mean s**t passing along at 1 mph, rather than just staying were it got tipped ?

 

www.hydrology.org.uk/Publications/imperial/4_20.pdf

[Chris Pink]

www.hydrology.org.uk/Publications/imperial/4_20.pdf

 

Well interesting though this reference is, firstly it directly contradicts your assertion that canals have built in flow gradients, secondly on a brief reading it implies that one of the main problems with canal ecology is oxygen depletion caused by eutrophication.

 

Given this, i assume that now you agree with the consensus view that throwing shit in the canal (or even s**t = what on earth is s**t Alan?) contributes to low water quality and is therefore Not a Good Thing.

Edited March 26, 2010 by Chris Pink