Should the waterways provide for housing overspill?

[carlt]

Of course, now that all the christians have gone, we can just convert all their churches into something useful, like providing cheap housing for the poor.

 

Seems like a christian thing to do. I can't believe they didn't think of it, when they were here.

[Lady Muck]

What the hell is wrong with you people? Is the point being made so scary that you need to pick irrelevant holes in it rather than continue a sensible discussion? I refuse to believe that any of you are too thick to grasp what is being said.

 

Perhaps you could have articulated it better - I'm guessing you move for about 3 or 4 hours every fortnight, but you are making a continuous journey - not shuffling not back and forth? Seems fine to me, don't know any patrol officer that would disagree with that TBH.

[ymu]

Perhaps you could have articulated it better - I'm guessing you move for about 3 or 4 hours every fortnight, but you are making a continuous journey - not shuffling not back and forth? Seems fine to me, don't know any patrol officer that would disagree with that TBH.

I could have originally, yes. But either I've failed to articulate it properly 4 times now, or there are some remarkably stubborn minds here.

 

In terms of distance-travelled, we do in 3-4 weekends what the average holiday-maker would do in a day. We're probably fairly typical for a non-retired CCer - 'stay and play' rather than 'hit and run' because we have forever to see the cut (and what's around it), but the bills can't wait (especially if you live on a boat!).

 

The average CCer travels no further in a year, and does no more locks, than the average holiday-maker. If anyone wants to dispute that, I gave my workings earlier. It's lock passages which matter, if the most expensive/difficult problems are lock maintenance and water supply.

 

If there were no liveaboards needing boating facilities (diesel, water, rubbish, Elsan) every day of the year, then demand for these facilities would drop by at least two-thirds and become much more seasonal. Basic economics suggests that holiday-makers (including boat-owning leisure boaters) would either find fewer of these facilities available to them, especially outside peak months, or that they'd be paying a lot more for them.

 

Basic simple modelling. GCSE maths and half a brain paying attention. Not difficult to grasp the argument - but apparently easier to play dumb by objecting to the way it was expressed. This place all over.

[sueb]

I did start a thread about the missing facilities. Maybe I am one of the few to find these gone. Rubbish disposal is in short supply on southern GU. non now at Cowley or Uxbridge

Sue

[ymu]

Aye. We've been in near-deserted territory for months. We've been using the same boatyard for diesel since August, and lugging diesel and coal in by hand because the fuel boats couldn't get above Hatton locks for months die to ice and closures. It is due in part to a long ice and the fact that the yard between us and them doesn't take cards and it's easier to go to the other yard than it is to find cashpoint... but it's still a full day's cruise between yards where we are now, although we are thankfully back in fuel boat territory now.

[Nightwatch]

You only need to 'pay your way' with a mooring if you need a mooring. If you don't, there is no need for you to pay extra for the exclusive use of it.

 

There's no way it is more expensive than living on land. The cheapest flat we could find within cycling distance of Oxford was £900/month bills included (including phone and internet). Even if we had a mortgage on a £30k boat, we'd be struggling to spend anything like that. It works out as about £500/month including maintenance and contingencies.

 

A little pricer than a two bed terrace in Brum (given that we bought it before prices went insane) and a lot cheaper than a one-bed flat in Oxford.

 

Of course, if you insist on wasting money on a shiny boat, your costs will be different.

 

 

You can claim housing benefit on boats. Housing benefit exists so that rich people can ghettoise themselves in rich areas and not pay all the costs of it. If they had to pay their employees and service workers enough to live where they worked, they wouldn't be any richer than anyone else. And London wouldn't exist in its current form.

Ymu.

 

As you included my post with your post, does this mean the 'you' throughout your post is directed at me?

 

Just asking so that I can then inform you of my position if you need it.

 

What an opinionated person you are. There is no reasoning, or is there?

 

Martyn

[ymu]

No, Martyn. None at all. I just blurt out random unevidenced opinions and repeat them every time I spot a post that might disagree.

 

It's how things are done around here, right?

[Nightwatch]

No, Martyn. None at all. I just blurt out random unevidenced opinions and repeat them every time I spot a post that might disagree.

 

It's how things are done around here, right?

Nope. Not always.

 

Martyn

[GUMPY]

Rubbish disposal is in short supply on southern GU. non now at Cowley or Uxbridge

 

 

Cowley has gone?

I think you will find it has moved to the other side of the bridge

[Dominic M]

Ymu:,from all that you write it is obvious that you are bridge hopping. You're entitled to defend that, but not to try and dress it up as anything else. From your long and sometimes irate responses, one might deduce that the Lady doth protest too much.

[Guest]

I'm not saying all people that live on boats live in squalor, no more than saying that all people living in houses live in squalor. Poverty can strike at any time irrespective if you live afloat or in a house.

 

Albert.

Exactly.

[ymu]

Ymu:,from all that you write it is obvious that you are bridge hopping. You're entitled to defend that, but not to try and dress it up as anything else. From your long and sometimes irate responses, one might deduce that the Lady doth protest too much.

Could you evidence that, please? I know sources are frowned on here, but you just libelled me and I'd like to know how strong your case is before I consult my lawyers, because it's still a bloody lucrative complaint to make in the UK courts ...

 

 

I have never come across so many selfish individualists in one place before. Jebus.

 

I'm not saying all people that live on boats live in squalor, no more than saying that all people living in houses live in squalor. Poverty can strike at any time irrespective if you live afloat or in a house.

 

Albert.

It's often more obvious more quickly on a boat though. A house won't get cut off if the bills aren't paid. A boat becomes difficult to live on the moment the money runs out, especially if it's not got much solar/wind power going for it. It's a lot less secure than a house if your financial world has a habit of falling apart because all utilities have to be paid for upfront, or need fuel to get to them essily.

[Minos]

What the hell is wrong with you people? Is the point being made so scary that you need to pick irrelevant holes in it rather than continue a sensible discussion? I refuse to believe that any of you are too thick to grasp what is being said.

 

There is a difference between being unable and being unwilling to grasp and address the issue. There is a difference between people who want to discuss issues, and people who want to read flattering adulation telling them how clever they are for being right all the time.

 

This place has a rich seam of people desperate to take personal offence at other people's disinterested arguments, and keen to respond accordingly. It means you get crap debates - but by god, it is entertaining.

 

We need a popcorn smilie.

 

You only need to 'pay your way' with a mooring if you need a mooring. If you don't, there is no need for you to pay extra for the exclusive use of it.

 

There's no way it is more expensive than living on land. The cheapest flat we could find within cycling distance of Oxford was £900/month bills included (including phone and internet). Even if we had a mortgage on a £30k boat, we'd be struggling to spend anything like that. It works out as about £500/month including maintenance and contingencies.

 

A little pricer than a two bed terrace in Brum (given that we bought it before prices went insane) and a lot cheaper than a one-bed flat in Oxford.

 

Of course, if you insist on wasting money on a shiny boat, your costs will be different.

And there's the rub. As with anything else, you get what you pay for. Or what you think you're entitled to get without paying. Or you don't get what you pay for because people who don't pay are hogging it. Just pick your fight and enjoy the floorshow.

 

I agree completely that a boat is a cheap home (or second home) and if you behave yourself with it, there is no reason why you can't enjoy it anywhere you like. With each decision, there is a cost-benefit calculation to make: convenience versus price; rules versus personal intentions. It takes a certain amount of maturity to understand that with every decision comes a cost, especially when that cost is paid by someone else.

 

You can claim housing benefit on boats. Housing benefit exists so that rich people can ghettoise themselves in rich areas and not pay all the costs of it. If they had to pay their employees and service workers enough to live where they worked, they wouldn't be any richer than anyone else. And London wouldn't exist in its current form.

I don't think this needed to be expressed in such a dialectical manner, but that's beside the point. Historically, the rich 'ghettoised themselves' further away from the industrial and service centres than the poor. They still do it now. In national terms, higher income earners do tend to commute further. The statistics are available in Social Trends.

[Dominic M]

Could you evidence that, please? I know sources are frowned on here, but you just libelled me and I'd like to know how strong your case is before I consult my lawyers, because it's still a bloody lucrative complaint to make in the UK courts ...

 

Ha ha! You'll be taking out a super injunction next. What is the "libel" out of interest?

Edited May 22, 2011 by Dominic M

[RLWP]

Excellent, another legal threat

 

YMU, the recognised course of action is to take action against the forum where libel is posted rather than individuals. This is what your lawyers will recommend

 

Richard

[Dominic M]

I hereby indemnify the forum against any supposed libel I have published in this particular post that defames YMU or any other humour free member with a handle that sounds like a fast food chain.

[ymu]

And there's the rub. As with anything else, you get what you pay for. Or what you think you're entitled to get without paying. Or you don't get what you pay for because people who don't pay are hogging it. Just pick your fight and enjoy the floorshow.

 

I agree completely that a boat is a cheap home (or second home) and if you behave yourself with it, there is no reason why you can't enjoy it anywhere you like. With each decision, there is a cost-benefit calculation to make: convenience versus price; rules versus personal intentions. It takes a certain amount of maturity to understand that with every decision comes a cost, especially when that cost is paid by someone else.

 

 

I don't think this needed to be expressed in such a dialectical manner, but that's beside the point. Historically, the rich 'ghettoised themselves' further away from the industrial and service centres than the poor. They still do it now. In national terms, higher income earners do tend to commute further. The statistics are available in Social Trends.

 

I know why the rich ghettoise themselves, Minos, and I know why they like to set up their businesses where they want to live. It's why I reserve the right to get tetchy when they moan about a benefits system that only exists to subsidise their lifestyles. If it ain't chutzpah, it takes stupidity to a whole new level.

 

Same as I get a bit tetchy with people who complain about others living on their boats without also saying that they're happy to pay 25% more for their licence fee and fuel in return for getting rid of liveaboards. Or, of course, to tell me how their lives wouldn't get more expensive if the facilities they need were getting a fraction of the use.

 

Excellent, another legal threat

 

YMU, the recognised course of action is to take action against the forum where libel is posted rather than individuals. This is what your lawyers will recommend

 

Richard

What legal threat, you lunatic?

 

There was a . It had a meaning.

 

But I would kind of like people to stop making up ridiculous ad hominems. I spend most of my time arguing with people who take truth seriously and this is like entering some bizarre adult kindergarten.

 

I hereby indemnify the forum against any supposed libel I have published in this particular post that defames YMU or any other humour free member with a handle that sounds like a fast food chain.

But can you back-up your nonsensical ad hominem? Or do you want to just admit right now you have nothing useful to say?

[RLWP]

<Richard ponders whether being called a lunatic is libel or slander...>

 

Richard

 

I'm sorry, I don't always read all of your posts, and assume that you are being forthright all the time

[carlt]

<Richard ponders whether being called a lunatic is libel or slander...>

 

I think the onus is on you to prove that what was said was untrue.

 

Dodgy ground, in this instance, I think....

[Dominic M]

 

But can you back-up your nonsensical ad hominem? Or do you want to just admit right now you have nothing useful to say?

Apart from the fact that an ad hominem cannot be nonsensical, you are unable to defend your position in plain English and resort to a cheap attempt at intellectual bullying. What is your useful contribution to this topic? Self obsessed me me me drivel that does nothing to address the original question.

[ymu]

If you don't bother reading every post, then you should be a bit more careful with the assumptions you make about why people make the arguments they do.

 

Dominic's post concluding that my insane ravings prove that I am a bridge-hopper are ludicrous aimed at someone who posted this earlier in the same thread. And the fact that he could even post something so pathetically wrong suggests that he cannot deal with the argument itself - he is reduced to mindless, irrelevant insults, which serve only prove him to be mindless.

 

 

Keep yer hair on!

 

A day's cruising is nine hours (on average, over the year). We rarely move more than 2-5 miles, because we keep a car with us and it saves a lot of cash if I can walk back. And there is nowhere on the cut that this is not in accordance with the guidelines.

 

So we do the equivalent of a day's cruising (excluding stops for water and rubbish, which are lengthy, another reason we don't often do long days), every 6-8 weeks. Or 15 days a year with visitors.

 

We bought our boat from Pelsall and we're moving slowly down to Keynsham, to spend next summer with my sister and her kids, and my mum. Then to London to see the in-laws and round the Fens for my brother and his two kidlets in Cambridge. Then maybe as close to Kendal as we can get to see my dad easily.

 

So that's ... <counts on fingers> ... a five to six year plan at the pace we move.

 

See what I mean about us just not speaking the same language? 'Continuous' is not meant literally.

 

My clients could be anywhere, but mainly the very expensive SE,and mostly via the internet, and he keeps my life chaos in order so we figured we didn't really need to live anywhere. Hence, permanent holiday and no mooring needed. We're lucky, I know.

 

Apart from the fact that an ad hominem cannot be nonsensical, you are unable to defend your position in plain English and resort to a cheap attempt at intellectual bullying. What is your useful contribution to this topic? Self obsessed me me me drivel that does nothing to address the original question.

Sorry, but ad hominem which is obviously false, even about the irrelevant target it attacks, and which is obviously false to everyone who is reading (and retaining) the thread, is nonsensical. Which is why I'm pointing and laughing at you.

 

[Dominic M]

 

Which is why I'm pointing and laughing at you.

 

That's OK YMU. There's a similar person in Banbury who does that with the traffic. Perhaps you're related.

[RLWP]

If you don't bother reading every post, then you should be a bi<snip>

 

Maybe. Perhaps I'm just weak, but life is short and my attention span is too

 

Richard

 

I think the onus is on you to prove that what was said was untrue.

 

Dodgy ground, in this instance, I think....

 

I'll bet there's a test online I can take

 

Ricvhard

[carlt]

 

I'll bet there's a test online I can take

 

Definitely! I found one on a Jehova's Witness site though quite why they feel the need for a test is beyond me.

 

This one is more fun, though...

Which Looney Tunes character are you?

 

It turns out I'm Wile E Coyote.

You are intelligent, sophisticated, and the physical personification of the can-do attitude. No matter how many times something blows up in your face (figuratively or literally) or prized project collapses around you, you will pick yourself up and try, try again. There is a good chance that you are very skilled in problem solving and would probably make a fine engineer. Your main weaknesses (and this is likely obvious to everyone but yourself) are your overconfidence and complete lack of perspective. When you inevitably fail at a task (you cant possibly achieve all of the lofty goals you set for yourself), you tend to take it personally. If you are not careful, you can become thoroughly obsessed with what is not really a very meaty goal. Try taking a step back from time to time and figure out for yourself if it is really worth it, or if your talents could be best put towards a more rewarding goal. Also, your desire for things to work out the way youve planned can make you a bit gullible.

Edited May 22, 2011 by carlt

[RLWP]

Bugs Bunny!

 

You have all the sophistication and charm one would expect from such a high-class hare. Very upbeat and generally laid-back, you are remarkably calm and peaceful even in the midst of the most stressful of situations. On those rare occasions that your anger is aroused, your retaliation usually results in embarrassing the aggressor and laying-bare how foolish he or she really is -- rather than doing any real harm. You likely have many friends and more than a few admirers and would make an excellent leader, if you had any interest in being one. But, being a leader would require hard work and attention to detail, both qualities you are lacking in. In fact, if you are not careful, your laid-back attitude will often lead you to drift through life completely oblivious to the changes happening around you. You also tend to have a horrible sense of direction.

 

See, that's what I've been trying to tell you

 

Bugs

Edited May 22, 2011 by RLWP