C&RT Council - PJS Election Broadcast

[Cosmic]

Editing this...

Edited March 2, 2012 by Cosmic

[WotEver]

Several candidates thought that they had to present a complete curriculum vitae, <huge snip> That left a smallish number, of whom I selected four who actually emphasised BOATS and NAVIGATION when stating their priorities.

I followed exactly the same exercise with similar results. Have a Greenie.

 

Tony

[Athy]

Well thank you Guv. We Springwoods (or in my case ex-Springwoods) should stick together.

[jelunga]

Theres a house on the old Great North Road there with the wonderful address 'No1 Yorkshire'

 

(Its also where the cops put their roadblock during the strike back in 1984/85 )

 

SAM

Ryde

IOW

What about Five Mile Bottom?

[Athy]

I know a place called Six Mile Bottom. Is yours the Jewish trader's version? "Six Mile, but to you moy boy, Five Mile".

[jelunga]

I know a place called Six Mile Bottom. Is yours the Jewish trader's version? "Six Mile, but to you moy boy, Five Mile".

Maybe my version went on a diet.

PS

Just checked. It is Six Mile Bottom on the A11 in Cambridgeshire as you say. Time downgraded it in my mind

Edited March 2, 2012 by jelunga

[Cosmic]

OK, let me clarify;

 

You have stated that London Boaters are (sic) an offshoot of "LILO".

No I didn't. What I said was "London Boaters was originally (several years ago, before my time) a group within LILO..."

 

And LILO, you will recall (as you yourself quoted it) state "And in case you were wondering, LILO isn’t an organisation, just a loose network of boaters who are interested in living sustainably on the waterways and high seas"

 

It is my view that LILO waves the low impact flag, despite the fact that, by and large, their lifestyle is not, objectively low impact, and that they are just as much about beating the regulatory system

You are entitled to your view of LILO. However, whatever its origins may have been in the past, this is certainly not what London Boaters is about today. And if your view (whether justified or not) of a loose network of boaters with whom I have not associated myself is your sole justification for the attacks you have made against my campaign, then it really is not good enough.

 

By extension, I suspect that LB has similar motives, to paint itself as something other than what it is.

You suspect it? By extension of what? You are seeking use your purely personal opinion of LILO as your sole justification for your attacks against LB and my campaign. You would have us believe that, merely because you suspect that LB's motive is in some way unclear, you consider it reasonable to attack pretty much every aspect of its activities? I'm sorry but that simply doesn't hold water.

 

You are clearly a reasonably intelligent person and you could be expected to carry out some amount of research to satisfy yourself that your suspicions are more than mere prejudice. In fact you have done just that. You have quoted from LILO's website, and you have mentioned in your posts about documents stored on LBs website. It is therefore not a reasonable assertion that your actions stem from a mere suspicion about LB's intentions.

 

Let us now come to the methods you use. For example, in one place, you said

London Boaters is (rightly or wrongly) identfied with an opposition to the present CCing rules, yet you choose not to get bogged down in discussion of that issue. Why on earth would you identify with a group, yet be unwilling to discuss this issue?

The vagueness in your words is significant. You assert that LB is identified^{[by whom?]} with an opposition to the present CCing rules. Even though you acknowledge that this identification (if it exists at all) may in fact be wrong, you insinuate that, because of it, I should be prepared to discuss some subject of your choosing, and that I was being evasive by refusing to do so.

 

You then went on to badger me about this subject, even after I had told you that I was going to address it on my blog. At one time, you even described my request for patience (I do have a life outside here) as a cop out. And then, to cap it all, when I did post on your chosen subject, you ignored it completely. I would have been happy to engage in an honest debate with you, but it would appear that that is the last thing you wanted.

I make no suggestion as to your own views or motives, and I'm sorry if it appears that I did.

I'm sorry, I misread this. I originally took it for an apology.

 

I have included here some further examples of your suggestions as to my views and motives.

[mayalld]

The vagueness in your words is significant. You assert that LB is identified^{[by whom?]} with an opposition to the present CCing rules. Even though you acknowledge that this identification (if it exists at all) may in fact be wrong, you insinuate that, because of it, I should be prepared to discuss some subject of your choosing, and that I was being evasive by refusing to do so.

 

You then went on to badger me about this subject, even after I had told you that I was going to address it on my blog. At one time, you even described my request for patience (I do have a life outside here) as a cop out. And then, to cap it all, when I did post on your chosen subject, you ignored it completely. I would have been happy to engage in an honest debate with you, but it would appear that that is the last thing you wanted.

 

It took you so long to actually come back and talk about it here that I had moved on.

 

I can't actually recall when you did come back and talk about it (was it during the week when I was on holiday with little internet access?)

 

I am satisfied that LB is primarily about opposition to the CCing rules. It began as an offshoot of a movement (LILO) that devotes as much blurb to fighting officialdom as to its stated purpose. It invited a rep from the KandA group to give them a talk on just that subject when it was first set up.

 

So....

 

I identify LB as a pro-CMer pressure group. You don't want to discuss that, and you seem afronted that I should actually presume to press you to discuss a subject of my choosing. If you want people to vote for you, you have to respond to what people ask.

[Cosmic]

It took you so long to actually come back and talk about it here that I had moved on.

Your first post on my thread was on 23rd January at 7:49pm

I posted a link to my answer on 25th January at 12:05pm

 

So I kept you waiting for one day, sixteen hours and twenty-two minutes.

 

In that period, despite my having asked for a little patience while I composed the post, you pestered me at least three times for an answer. And then, as I said, when the answer came, you ignored it.

I can't actually recall when you did come back and talk about it (was it during the week when I was on holiday with little internet access?)

If you are referring to the fact that I was not involved in this forum for a few weeks immediately after this, that is entirely due to the fact that pretty much every post I made was greeted with your unjustified unpleasantness. It didn't take long before I gave up coming here altogether. If there is anyone else from LB on here, they will be able to attest that I was still as active as ever in other areas, just not here.

 

Your attitude has been damaging, not only to my campaign but to me personally. That is why I am making such an issue of it now.

I am satisfied that LB is primarily about opposition to the CCing rules. It began as an offshoot of a movement (LILO) that devotes as much blurb to fighting officialdom as to its stated purpose. It invited a rep from the KandA group to give them a talk on just that subject when it was first set up.

As I said, a bit before my time. LB was set up in 2008 (or so I'm told). My first involvement with the Lea and Stort campaign was at the BW meeting which, IIRC, was a year ago today. BW said that they wanted to deal with a single group rather than lots of individuals and so it was suggested that, because LB was already in existence in some form, that it would be sensible to use that as the group.

So....

 

I identify LB as a pro-CMer pressure group. You don't want to discuss that, and you seem afronted that I should actually presume to press you to discuss a subject of my choosing.

It's not just me. You have been told that this is not the case by several other posters, and yet you persist with it because, regardless of the fact that you are wrong, it suits your purpose to perpetuate the falsehood.

If you want people to vote for you, you have to respond to what people ask.

Your election address states

I ... will use my voice to represent the prevailing view ahead of my own views.

 

However, the tenacity with which you cling to your own views, despite their having been proven false, time after time, by numerous people, shows that you will do no such thing. If you want people to vote for you, you have to tell the truth.

[Higgs]

Mayalid's views may not be out of kilter with the prevailing views. I think some groups do not want to participate within the framework of the guidance on CC'ing.

Edited March 2, 2012 by Higgs

[mayalld]

Your attitude has been damaging, not only to my campaign but to me personally. That is why I am making such an issue of it now.

 

My attitude is that my considered opinion based on what I can discover about LB is that it is a group that is in broadly in support of CMers. I have stated my view, and I have at various times explained what it is that leads me to believe that.

 

I do not believe that supporters of those who flout the rules should be on the council, and where I believe that somebody is seeking election who has the backing of such a group, then of course I will wish to draw attention to it, and urge others not to support that person. Do you imagine that standing for election should be all about advancing your views, with nobody allowed to challenge them, or call you out on a hidden agenda. My attitude can only damage your campaign if you are unable to satisfactorily rebut what I say about LB

 

However, the tenacity with which you cling to your own views, despite their having been proven false, time after time, by numerous people, shows that you will do no such thing. If you want people to vote for you, you have to tell the truth.

 

I am absolutely truthful. On this forum, I am beholden to nobody, and as such I can argue for MY views, which I do with tenacity as you say. In the council I have comitted to represent other peoples views, and will do so with a similar tenacity even if I may not actually share them.

[PiRSqwared]

 

(much as the Green Party is as much about hard line socialism as ecological policies)

 

 

Sorry, as bit of a lefty I object to that. The green agenda is regressive and anti human. It seeks to fetter the best thing that ever happened to this big bit of rock on which we live - the human race. It dresses up discredited theories such as Malthusianism in apparently radical clothes. It is disgusting and desrves to be pilloried at every turn.

[paddy r]

"I do feel, Reg, that any Anti-Imperialist group like ours must reflect such a divergence of interests within its power-base."

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

sorry

[Cosmic]

Mayalid's views may not be out of kilter with the prevailing views. I think some groups do not want to participate within the framework of the guidance on CC'ing.

That might be true of some groups, but I don't believe that this is a popular view within LB

 

My attitude is that my considered opinion based on what I can discover about LB is that it is a group that is in broadly in support of CMers. I have stated my view, and I have at various times explained what it is that leads me to believe that.

LB is a group that tends to go about its business without trying to create a public persona. Maybe that is a failing, but that's not the way we work. For example, you have referred to the content of the LB website. However, this isn't something we use much, other than a place to store the documents that people send in. The "latest news" page, for example, was last updated six months ago, and the "picture of the week" on the front page is from a similar time.

I do not believe that supporters of those who flout the rules should be on the council

Neither do I. I did post a link to what I have said on that subject but,despite what I said there, you persist in trying to portray me as someone who supports people who flout the rules.

and where I believe that somebody is seeking election who has the backing of such a group, then of course I will wish to draw attention to it, and urge others not to support that person.

However, you need to ensure that your belief is accurate, otherwise it just looks as if you're trying to smear me. You really haven't made much of an effort to verify the veracity of your view (by asking me, for example). Also, where (at least three) other people have pointed out that your view is wrong, you have ignored that. So, it looks to me that that is exactly what you are doing.

Edited March 3, 2012 by Cosmic

[Cosmic]

It seems there may be people on here who are unsure what London Boaters actually does, so here is the agenda for tomorrow's LB meeting, along with some notes to explain roughly what is going on

 

Updates and discussions on:

 

1)Locality / HACT work

BW is encouraging us to work with these two organisations to explore the possibilities for developing

facilities through social enterprise.

 

2) Community Organisers

Update on the appointment by Locality of two employees to explore the issues affecting communities on

and around the waterways, and to work with us to identify solutions to these

 

3) Credit Union

Update (from me) on the work some of us have been doing on the provision of community-based financial

services

 

4)Olympic Moorings

We have been working with BW to identify the needs for moorings during the games, and to encourage them

to provide the necessary facilities in a way that maximises the long-term benefit to boaters

 

5) Lee Marshes Campaign?

Planning permission has just been granted for basketball courts for the Olympics, next to an area that

has been earmarked for temporary moorings for 40-50 CCers. They may no longer be able to stay there.

This is an external campaign that is nonetheless relevant to us.

 

6) Boat workspace opportunity?

I think a commercial facility is being set up to provide space for boaters to work on their boats.

 

7) LILO event on K&A / skills workshops for London

It has been suggested that we arrange skills workshops covering engine maintenance, 12 electrics, solar

panel installation etc.

 

8) AOB

[Athy]

It seems there may be people on here who are unsure what London Boaters actually does,

.

 

There may be people on here who are not interested either. My votes have already been cast.

[gaggle]

In the council I have comitted to represent other peoples views, and will do so with a similar tenacity even if I may not actually share them.

 

 

And the pigs flew above the frogs that busily preened the feathers upon thier backs , i have voted mr fincher no1 because i think he will do as he says and yourself no 2 because i think you will not do as you say , its funny that you are even pretending you will robustly put anyones view first if it differs from yours, but you have my vote , the circus is coming to town.ROLL UP ROLL UP.

[PhilR]

I've voted for three candidates who have a robust and genuine interest in the future of the waterways. People who suddenly come out of the woodwork at electioneering time would never get my vote unless they have some genuine issues to represent. - this does not appear to be the case with most new candidates.

 

This is a secret ballot so I won't say who I voted for ...................

[Cosmic]

I've voted for three candidates who have a robust and genuine interest in the future of the waterways. People who suddenly come out of the woodwork at electioneering time would never get my vote unless they have some genuine issues to represent. - this does not appear to be the case with most new candidates.

 

This is a secret ballot so I won't say who I voted for ...................

I presume that I fall into this category of "new" candidate, so I'll venture an answer.

 

The most important part (for me, at least) of my election address is "London Boaters is becoming a pioneer of community-based provision of services and facilities for boaters" This is something that is new, both for LB and the waterways in general. So, although we are achieving things in this area that have really exciting possibilities, it isn't something I could have been shouting about even a few months ago. However, I hope I'll have lots of opportunities in the future to do my share of celebrating our achievements and perhaps you'll come to see me as someone with exactly that interest in the future of the waterways you were looking for. If I appear to have come out of the woodwork at election time, that's unfortunate, but it's unavoidable, and I would have been saying the same things election or no election.

[Athy]

Tony, I do not know enough about London Boaters to say whether it is a Good Thing. From what you say (and I have no reason to doubt your veracity), it probably is. But by placing your electoral emphasis on the London area (though I realise that you do link LB to the rest of the waterways), you surely risk restricting your appeal to people who boat in that area - just as Chris Brown appears to have restricted his to boaters up North. I have never taken a boat within 25 miles of London and I am sure that I am far from alone in that respect, so as soon as I saw "London" in your election address I mentally switched off.

[cotswoldsman]

I presume that I fall into this category of "new" candidate, so I'll venture an answer.

 

The most important part (for me, at least) of my election address is "London Boaters is becoming a pioneer of community-based provision of services and facilities for boaters" This is something that is new, both for LB and the waterways in general. So, although we are achieving things in this area that have really exciting possibilities, it isn't something I could have been shouting about even a few months ago. However, I hope I'll have lots of opportunities in the future to do my share of celebrating our achievements and perhaps you'll come to see me as someone with exactly that interest in the future of the waterways you were looking for. If I appear to have come out of the woodwork at election time, that's unfortunate, but it's unavoidable, and I would have been saying the same things election or no election.

 

Tony you were in my top 4. I am not a London Boater but it is good to see someone that is passionate about a cause and someone that is doing something about a perceived problem instead of just moaning and complaining about it. This way of working is something that will be very useful on the CaRT Council.

[alan_fincher]

I've voted for three candidates who have a robust and genuine interest in the future of the waterways. People who suddenly come out of the woodwork at electioneering time would never get my vote unless they have some genuine issues to represent. - this does not appear to be the case with most new candidates.

I'm not entirely sure what the above means.

 

There has never been a controlling Council sat above how the waterways are run before, and certainly nothing you could elect people to to represent your interests as boaters. So, even in this respect, the possibly better known "established" names from the "associations" are all "new candidates".

 

I'm also not sure about "genuine issues to represent", as whilst many of us will come to the table with strong views on what has gone wrong or right in the past, or how things could be improved, these places are not necessarily for people with a given set of issues, or even policies, they are there so that just 4 elected people can do their best to try and look after boat owners interest in the new CaRT organisation.

 

My personal view is that there are not many groups that can claim to be 25% of all eligible boat owners, (whether that be "part owners", "London boaters", "historic boat owners", "Northern boaters", or many other categorisations), therefore 25% of the representation, (i.e. one council place), should not go to someone with a focus on less than 25% of the electorate.

 

Clearly that view isn't shared by all - there are definitely live-aboard boaters that clearly feel all the places should go to live-aboards boaters, even though these are amongst the (admittedly substantial) minority of boat owners generally. Clearly anyone believing that is unlikely to make me a first choice, for instance, but I take comfort that the percentage of live-aboards amongst my supporters is probably fairly representative of the percentage of live-aboards generally.

 

If I currently have an "issue to represent", it is I strongly believe that only 4 private boaters on a council of 35 is under-representation, given the importance of boats, boating, and the large contribution we as a group of people will continue to make to the overall CaRT budget. Let's see that boat owners are ALL looked after, as far as possible, rather than arguing amongst ourselves which are the most important of us!

[Guest wanted]

Tony you were in my top 4. I am not a London Boater but it is good to see someone that is passionate about a cause and someone that is doing something about a perceived problem instead of just moaning and complaining about it. This way of working is something that will be very useful on the CaRT Council.

 

I agree, Tony has demonstrated how he is able to focus on developing and understand the need for community groups to be formed in order to make CaRT work. He would be my No 2 vote if I were able to vote!

 

Dave, whilst you spend a lot of time getting your semantics right, I think you need to step back and look at how collectivly your words come across. For me you seem to be demonstrating that you are unable to represent anyone who wishes to discuss the reality of boating. I find your comments quite discrimminatory. Like it or not groups like LB and LILO are one step ahead of the game as they have established and embraced 'the big society' idea well before having to. It's just in a shape that you don't like.

[Higgs]

I probably haven't got the full picture about what London Boaters are set up for. Aren't some of the issues about boaters collecting around certain popular areas and regions? London, K&A, Oxford.

 

If the localised cruising patterns of some boaters are causing problems, surely this shouldn't be overlooked.

 

Trying to improve local amenities is one thing, but not to fit in with a cruising problem that is self inflicted.

[Guest wanted]

I probably haven't got the full picture about what London Boaters are set up for. Aren't some of the issues about boaters collecting around certain popular areas and regions? London, K&A, Oxford.

 

If the localised cruising patterns of some boaters are causing problems, surely this shouldn't be overlooked.

 

Trying to improve local amenities is one thing, but not to fit in with a cruising problem that is self inflicted.

From what I can see LB recognise that there is a problem and are asking questions and exploring ideas, That is what we want isn't it? I think that LB should be inspirational to those that wish to be heard. I don't have to agree word for word with them but at least they are discussing the problems and helping each other out.