BW vs Davies

[Minos]

Carl is toying with you!

Oh, I know! And it's so entertaining!

 

He even admitted to his actions - he just doesn't like the name used for them.

 

He insists I should grow up - and then posts insults. He insists that he is debating the issues - and then uses ad hominem attacks instead.

 

His first response to me, in another discussion, was that his higher post count was sufficient to put me in my place. I didn't realise at the time that he genuinely believes it.

 

The bottom line is that the guy HATES being contradicted and simply can't handle it. He lashes out with every simplistic tool ever used in a forum flame war: ridicule, insults, trying to rise above it, declaring he has won, demanding endless explanations and references - anything he can think of. Except for digesting the contradiction and refuting it.

 

Come to think of it, I haven't been called a Nazi yet. Still - there is time. I'll put the kettle on while I wait.

[carlt]

Oh, I know! And it's so entertaining!

 

He even admitted to his actions - he just doesn't like the name used for them.

 

He insists I should grow up - and then posts insults. He insists that he is debating the issues - and then uses ad hominem attacks instead.

 

His first response to me, in another discussion, was that his higher post count was sufficient to put me in my place. I didn't realise at the time that he genuinely believes it.

 

The bottom line is that the guy HATES being contradicted and simply can't handle it. He lashes out with every simplistic tool ever used in a forum flame war: ridicule, insults, trying to rise above it, declaring he has won, demanding endless explanations and references - anything he can think of. Except for digesting the contradiction and refuting it.

 

Come to think of it, I haven't been called a Nazi yet. Still - there is time. I'll put the kettle on while I wait.

Mods, could you shut him up, please?

 

I have tried to redirect him to a thread I created, especially for him to justify his accusations, rather than continue to pollute this one, but he doesn't seem willing to move.

[grahoom]

The bottom line is that the guy HATES being contradicted and simply can't handle it. He lashes out with every simplistic tool ever used in a forum flame war: ridicule, insults, trying to rise above it, declaring he has won, demanding endless explanations and references - anything he can think of. Except for digesting the contradiction and refuting it.

 

I take it you didn't read the rest of mayalld post that goes into quite a lot of detail in showing how what you've stated is incorrect.

 

That it's not Fraud - at all.

[RichardN]

Carl is toying with you!

 

Planning law is rather more complex than "residential mooring" or "leisure mooring"

 

In fact, there are at least 4 different categories of mooring;

 

1. Mooring with residential PP or a certificate of lawful use.
2. Mooring without PP or Certificate of Lawful use, but which would get a certificate.
3. Mooring without PP or Certificate of Lawful use
4. Mooring with explicit planning conditions prohibiting residential use.

Only the first would be billed as a residential mooring.

 

Whilst use of type 4 for residential use is "unlawful" (as opposed to illegal), no actual offence is committed simply by living there. It is doubtful whether any offence would be committed if the boater sought to conceal from BW that he was living there, because BW is not a planning authority. An offence would be committed if the boater told porkies in response to a statutory enquiry from a planning authority, and an offence would be committed if the boater failed to comply with an enforcement notice.

 

Type 3 isn't even unlawful, merely unauthorised. No permission exists, but equally no prohibition exists, and in the absence of enforcement action, the boater is doing nothing wrong. He must be truthful with statutory enquiries, but that is it.

 

Type 2 is in an even stronger position, because whilst the site doesn't have residential permission, it has been used residentially for so long that the planning authority can no longer take enforcement action, and would be obliged to issue a certificate of lawful use.

 

Clearly, setting up home without planning permission involves an element of chance and the risk that you will have to leave, but it isn't illegal.

 

The following, lifted from Oxford City Council, provides a good summary;

 

 

 

Off-topic. The Oxford quote is just about planning permission. If you are carrying out any building works in the bricks and mortar world then the Building Regulations (and possibly a load of other laws) may apply and a whole new set of rules come into play.

[Nine of Hearts]

He even admitted to his actions - he just doesn't like the name used for them.

 

That's because the term you used, as has been stated many times, was incorrect. Whilst it is not logically viable to refute someone's views on planning law because they can't read or understand properly what ad-hominem means, it doesn't necessarily follow that their views are therefore correct.

 

Come to think of it, I haven't been called a Nazi yet. Still - there is time. I'll put the kettle on while I wait.

 

Isn't this predictive ad-hominem??? Your arguments are invalid, because any minute now, you're going to call me a Nazi...

Edited May 20, 2011 by Nine of Hearts

[KenK]

There's a lot in this, when I cruised the Oxford canal 20 years ago and it was crowded and slow, mooring was easiest out of town, getting into Oxford and Banbury was difficult. and that's 20 years ago and every time I've been back it's been worse.

 

Bath and Bradford-on-Avon are similar, there are simply not enough moorings for the hire boats. Like a recent thread on the Llangollen, they all go at more or less the same times at more or less the same place. To the extent that it is easily possible to plan a journey on these waterways to avoid all of that.

 

Maybe some attention to the numbers of hire boat licences (and attendant planning permission) issued in already overcrowded places would be more fruitful than making a target of liveaboards. or staggering turn around days?

 

If I counted correctly I think there are now ten hire boat companies between Foxhangers and Bath. Thats a lot of boats in a fairly short stretch of canal and many will be hiring for the first time. They want a nice hard clear side with rings to moor against not the K&A blind leap of faith into the undergrowth, banging in pins and walking the plank to get ashore.

 

Ken

[deletedaccount]

Perhaps if we paved over the canal and rented out go-carts instead?

[KenK]

Perhaps if we paved over the canal and rented out go-carts instead?

 

Like your thinking, up and down the Bath flight could be fun.

 

Ken

[Sir Nibble]

In my experience the nice built up wharf moorings seem to be taken up by a mixture of hire boats, private "weekender" boats, CCers and local liveaboards with no particular group predominant but space at a premium. Obstruction of waterpoints by casual mooring appears to be pretty equally spread between all groups except hirers (bless them).

[mayalld]

Oh, I know! And it's so entertaining!

 

He even admitted to his actions - he just doesn't like the name used for them.

 

 

The interesting point is that whilst Carl and I don't agree on many things, we do both seem to enjoy the verbal sparring with each other. From my point of view, I enjoy it because I feel we both take a very similar line when it comes to being very precise with language.

 

I supect that the problem here is that Carl is being precise in his use of words, whilst you aren't.

 

You say "Fraud", meaning "being economical with the truth, so as to mislead somebody else". Carl uses the term in its strict legal sense.

 

So, going to BW and saying "I am not going to live on the boat", even if it is a stonking great lie does not amount to "fraud" as defined in law.

[Chris Pink]

He lashes out with every simplistic tool ever used in a forum flame war: ridicule, insults, trying to rise above it, declaring he has won, demanding endless explanations and references - anything he can think of. Except for digesting the contradiction and refuting it.

.

 

But Mr Minos, you have just committed the civil offense of libel in accusing Carl of fraud.

 

Your protestations do not hold water.

[Allan(nb Albert)]

But Mr Minos, you have just committed the civil offense of libel in accusing Carl of fraud.

 

Your protestations do not hold water.

 

Own up Chris you just want someone to say 'like BW's canals'

[journeyperson]

Some bad news John I will be in Birmingham area for a while later this year, after I leave London area, remembering that I can only moor for 24 hours in any popular area as I am a CCer. I know my place!!!!

 

I can vouch for your cruising credentials, we passed on the Bridgewater a couple of years ago when you were heading for the Lancaster. You were definitely moving and were nowhere near a bridge at the time .

[ymu]

From listening to the debates at user group meetings, the only time continuous cruisers or continuous moorers ever get mentioned is in relation to hogging prime mooring spots. I don't think mooring away from the 'honey pots' attracts the same level of attention.

Yeah, but why do they assume that they are CCers Alnwick? For the most part, they're not. BW issues most overstay tickets at honey-pot sites for obvious reasons (more bang for the enforcement buck). And they issue more overstay tickets to those with home moorings than those without.

 

The BW L&S consultation revealed that only 7% of CCers were on honey-pot moorings at any one time.

 

So, people are whinging about CCers causing them problems when it is not - it is piss-takers, many of whom have taken mayall's advice and got a cheap mooring somewhere so they can freely abuse the rules anywhere else safe in the knowledge that ignorant bigots will assume they are CCers and their little scam can continue untroubled by any of these ridiculous measures being brought in to tackle the myth of CCing as the root of all evil.

 

Insanely stupid behaviour.

[mayalld]

Yeah, but why do they assume that they are CCers Alnwick? For the most part, they're not. BW issues most overstay tickets at honey-pot sites for obvious reasons (more bang for the enforcement buck). And they issue more overstay tickets to those with home moorings than those without.

 

 

 

Given that boaters with home moorings outnumber those without 9:1 it is hardly surprising.

[GUMPY]

So, people are whinging about CCers causing them problems when it is not - it is piss-takers, many of whom have taken mayall's advice and got a cheap mooring somewhere so they can freely abuse the rules anywhere else safe in the knowledge that ignorant bigots will assume they are CCers and their little scam can continue untroubled by any of these ridiculous measures being brought in to tackle the myth of CCing as the root of all evil.

 

Well, are there 9 times more tickets issued to those with home moorings or not?

If there are then your stats prove your case.

If however there are not 9 times more tickets issued to those with home moorings then as a percentage there are more tickets issued to CC than to those with a home moorings

but that wouldnt be as good to shout about now would it!

[blodger]

Well, are there 9 times more tickets issued to those with home moorings or not?

If there are then your stats prove your case.

If however there are not 9 times more tickets issued to those with home moorings then as a percentage there are more tickets issued to CC than to those with a home moorings

but that wouldnt be as good to shout about now would it!

yes but it would be a higher percentage of roughly 10% of perpetrators so makes no difference to where the problem majoritively lies with those who have a home mooring

[Chris Pink]

Well, are there 9 times more tickets issued to those with home moorings or not?

If there are then your stats prove your case.

If however there are not 9 times more tickets issued to those with home moorings then as a percentage there are more tickets issued to CC than to those with a home moorings

but that wouldnt be as good to shout about now would it!

 

You really are not very bright are you? Or maybe it's willfull misunderstanding, the person looking for a visitor mooring doesn't care about the percentage, they care about the numbers and whether it's 90% or 70% of you continuous moorers causing the issue is irrelevant it's the number of boats after the same spot. So even if, say, people without home moorings caused twice as much problem per capita they still would not be the major cause.

 

Do keep up, and lime green Dave at the back there too.

[Allan(nb Albert)]

yes but it would be a higher percentage of roughly 10% of perpetrators so makes no difference to where the problem majoritively lies with those who have a home mooring

 

Here are some figures for the Westen end of the K&A obtained from BW. They are about six months old -

 

The number of boats on the Kennet and Avon Canal which have legal action pending – 152′.

BW’s categorisation of the individual reasons for legal action:

Licensing Enforcement – 119;

Mooring Enforcement – 15;

Overstay Enforcement – 7;

Continuous Cruising Enforcement – 8

Other – 3

Edited May 20, 2011 by Allan(nb Albert)

[Spesh]

You really are not very bright are you? Or maybe it's willfull misunderstanding, the person looking for a visitor mooring doesn't care about the percentage, they care about the numbers and whether it's 90% or 70% of you continuous moorers causing the issue is irrelevant it's the number of boats after the same spot. So even if, say, people without home moorings caused twice as much problem per capita they still would not be the major cause.

 

Do keep up, and lime green Dave at the back there too.

You're really not capable of engaging in debate without being rude and offensive, are you? There's a perfectly sensible response in the middle there, what on earth is gained by topping and tailing it with condescending drivel? Yep, I know there have been plenty of other posts from plenty of other posters that this applies to just as much, you just seem to particularly excel at it (and no, that's not a compliment!).

 

On topic, there doesn't seem to be much to be gained from debating these particular numbers because they can be used to support or debunk any claim. I'm also not sure why it really matters. If you want to stop at a nice location and can't because it's taken by a bunch of boats ignoring a posted time limit said overstayers shouldn't be there and should be dealt with. Who cares whether they have moorings or not?

Edited May 20, 2011 by Spesh

[ymu]

You really are not very bright are you? Or maybe it's willfull misunderstanding, the person looking for a visitor mooring doesn't care about the percentage, they care about the numbers and whether it's 90% or 70% of you continuous moorers causing the issue is irrelevant it's the number of boats after the same spot. So even if, say, people without home moorings caused twice as much problem per capita they still would not be the major cause.

 

Do keep up, and lime green Dave at the back there too.

Indeed. It would seem now that the severity of the problem caused to others is now a moral issue, not a practical one.

 

Make your minds up, hard-of-thinking types. What exactly are you trying to solve here and why?

[blodger]

Indeed. It would seem now that the severity of the problem caused to others is now a moral issue, not a practical one.

 

Make your minds up, hard-of-thinking types. What exactly are you trying to solve here and why?

If you want to stop at a nice location and can't because it's taken by a bunch of boats ignoring a posted time limit said overstayers shouldn't be there and should be dealt with. Who cares whether they have moorings or not?

The contention has been that the overstaying is caused by Cmers & Ccers but statistics show otherwise so the caring is to rectify the villification and blaming of those who do not have a home mooring.

[ymu]

If you want to stop at a nice location and can't because it's taken by a bunch of boats ignoring a posted time limit said overstayers shouldn't be there and should be dealt with. Who cares whether they have moorings or not?

The contention has been that the overstaying is caused by Cmers & Ccers but statistics show otherwise so the caring is to rectify the villification and blaming of those who do not have a home mooring.

Precisely. It's the same sort of mindless prejudice that has made seasonal work impossible for travellers, so now the curtain-twitchers sneer at the immigrants who have replaced them.

 

These people do my head in with their ignorant whinging from a position of extreme privilege and entirely unearnt, overblown sense of entitlement. Independence for the north and the midlands and automatic asylum for workers who need to escape these petty saboteurs. It's the only way to get through to some of these selfish preeners. Give them what they say they want.

[sueb]

If you want to stop at a nice location and can't because it's taken by a bunch of boats ignoring a posted time limit said overstayers shouldn't be there and should be dealt with. Who cares whether they have moorings or not?

The contention has been that the overstaying is caused by Cmers & Ccers but statistics show otherwise so the caring is to rectify the villification and blaming of those who do not have a home mooring.

When boats are overstaying it doesn't matter if they have home moorings or not and I suggest that boaters don't know the difference.

[Spesh]

Indeed. It would seem now that the severity of the problem caused to others is now a moral issue, not a practical one.

 

Make your minds up, hard-of-thinking types. What exactly are you trying to solve here and why?

If I'm one of the hard-of-thinking types you refer to (and it's good to see another person not able to post without resorting to snide comments) the answer is that nobody was trying to solve anything, it was simply a discussion about the meaning of a relevant piece of legislation and how a court case might clarify that piece of legislation. I suppose the only thing attempting to be solved is therefore uncertainty about the meaning of that law. That's in the interests of anybody impacted by that law is it not?

 

If you want to stop at a nice location and can't because it's taken by a bunch of boats ignoring a posted time limit said overstayers shouldn't be there and should be dealt with. Who cares whether they have moorings or not?

The contention has been that the overstaying is caused by Cmers & Ccers but statistics show otherwise so the caring is to rectify the villification and blaming of those who do not have a home mooring.

But there's no reason why that needs to be discussed here. It wasn't an issue in this thread until someone decided to quote some statistics about overstaying which have nothing at all to do with the meaning of the relevant statute, which is what was being rationally discussed before it all went to pot. Who is to blame for over staying is a separate topic so can't it be discussed in a separate thread?