Wiltshire Voices: Live-aboard boaters.

[KenK]

Worth noting that most of the footage was shot in the flatlands where you will never ever see a hire boat moored.

Is this post a worm on the end of a hook waiting for a bite?

 

Ken

[TNC]

 

 

This is basic geography, there is no K and A 'ring'.

 

 

We have been to Bath three times....all as part of a ring!

[KenK]

We have been to Bath three times....all as part of a ring!

 

Yes we tried to do the Severn twice weather closed in both times, one day.

 

 

Ken

[DaveC]

I'm not sure why you feel the need to shout. Given that without the Trust the canal would not exist. The Trust does work with C&RT to help maintain and improve the canal, there are regular work parties. We have an ongoing commitment to improve and restore much of the canal infrastructure. As on the Shropie visitor moorings require the cooperation of C&RT it is not high on their list of urgent jobs.

Just as a matter of interest did you help with that work?

 

Ken

 

 

Not shouting, just using a slightly larger font that makes it easier to see what I am typing so I hopefully don't need to edit to correct spellings.

 

To answer you question Ken, yes, I have helped with work on the canal. I joined the K & A C T in the late 1960s (how about yourself?) but I gave up my membership a couple of years ago for reasons I will not go into on a public forum.

 

Believe me, it was difficult to be a member of the K & A C T as well as an employee of the BWB in the 1970s.

 

Dave

[Chris Pink]

Not like you Dave, to be so brief. So, do BW/CRT pay money to the council?

 

In Wiltshire it's the other way round, Wilts County Council pay a grant to CRT to maintain (yes, maintain) the canal in Wiltshire.

 

I wonder where that money goes?

[Guest]

You can enlarge the font without inflicting it on the rest us.

 

Just press control and plus or control and move your mouse wheel forward.

[DaveC]

You can enlarge the font without inflicting it on the rest us.

 

Just press control and plus or control and move your mouse wheel forward.

 

 

Thanks for that Martin - easy when you know how!

 

Dave

[Chris Pink]

We have been to Bath three times....all as part of a ring!

 

I'll let Sally Boats know, they can add it to their advertising.

[luctor et emergo]

We have been to Bath three times....all as part of a ring!

 

That's more than some of the resident cc'ers...

 

 

(Naughty Luctor, go and stand in the corner.).

[churchward]

Absolutely outrageous, this is the kind of behavior you would expect from big corporate companies bullying those who dare question their ethos or product.

 

CART clearly have an agenda.

 

 

Very worrying indeed.

leaving the content of the particular email aside I think we shall see CRT assert themselves much more than BW did and with greater bite. CRT are not tied by being a government body like BW was. For instance as a government body BW could not really sue anybody for publishing unfounded accusations or insults to them. CRT on the other hand have no such restrictions.

[Guest]

Thanks for that Martin - easy when you know how!

 

Dave

 

No worries....

[Ex- Member]

leaving the content of the particular email aside I think we shall see CRT assert themselves much more than BW did and with greater bite. CRT are not tied by being a government body like BW was. For instance as a government body BW could not really sue anybody for publishing unfounded accusations or insults to them. CRT on the other hand have no such restrictions.

 

Well it's clearly an organisation that's more interested in protecting it's own image by attemping to stifle debate, it's clearly on a witch hunt and to me that's an organisaion not to be trusted an any way shape or form, it really is shameful and sinister IMO

[TNC]

I'll let Sally Boats know, they can add it to their advertising.

 

Will that get rid of some of the problem?

[Chris Pink]

it would certainly get rid of some of the Sally boats.

[Wanted]

Just a quick reminder that these are humans we are discussing all with opinions equally as valid as our own. I once saw a sign that read 'you are not in a traffic jam, you are the traffic jam. Those that want the waterways to only conform to their view of how it should be would soon find themselves without a cut to float on.

 

Embracing diversity will be the solution...

[Guest]

 

Can I just ask who authorised the release of Sally's email into the public domain.

 

Apologies if this point is covered earlier.

[alan_fincher]

 

Can I just ask who authorised the release of Sally's email into the public domain.

I can't answer that but it was already firmly in the public domain on Facebook before it appeared on CWDF.

 

Not the same subject, obviously, but I have this answer from Sally in respect of anything to do with the SE moorings consultation......

 

I’m happy for you to post anything I write to you onto the forum and am extremely grateful to you for helping with this.

 

...... which seems very fair.

 

I think she probably has to be realistic that emails that go to several external people are quite likely to find a public airing.

[Guest]

I can't answer that but it was already firmly in the public domain on Facebook before it appeared on CWDF.

 

Not the same subject, obviously, but I have this answer from Sally in respect of anything to do with the SE moorings consultation......

 

 

 

...... which seems very fair.

 

I think she probably has to be realistic that emails that go to several external people are quite likely to find a public airing.

 

The original email was not to you though, nor were the replies from her recipients. The confidentiality disclaimer at the end of her email would say different too.

 

The plus side of course is that she has been willing to nail her colours to the mast, all be it when she did she may not have appreciated it was going to be nailed all over the mast of the Good Ship CWDF.

[alan_fincher]

The original email was not to you though, nor were the replies from her recipients. The confidentiality disclaimer at the end of her email would say different too.

 

The plus side of course is that she has been willing to nail her colours to the mast, all be it when she did she may not have appreciated it was going to be nailed all over the mast of the Good Ship CWDF.

Slightly confused.

 

I have not s far published anything from Sally, even stuff sent to me directly, which I have permission to. I would not have published this without permission, but others had long before CWDF got it.

 

If stuff is already "nailed all over the mast" of both Facebook, and the K&A Community Boating website, then I can't see that it appearing here after that makes a heap of difference.

 

Incidentally, the only confidentially disclaimer I can immediately see in there has nothing to do with CRT or Sally Ash. I can see one for Wiltshire Council, which might have made a case for removing the stuff originating from them, but if there is a CRT one, I'm not seeing it.

[Guest]

Slightly confused.

 

I have not s far published anything from Sally, even stuff sent to me directly, which I have permission to. I would not have published this without permission, but others had long before CWDF got it.

 

If stuff is already "nailed all over the mast" of both Facebook, and the K&A Community Boating website, then I can't see that it appearing here after that makes a heap of difference.

 

Incidentally, the only confidentially disclaimer I can immediately see in there has nothing to do with CRT or Sally Ash. I can see one for Wiltshire Council, which might have made a case for removing the stuff originating from them, but if there is a CRT one, I'm not seeing it.

 

My post wasn't an accusation that you personally had published something to the public domain, I was just asking who had, and who gave the permission for all involved in Sally Ashes' email exchange.

 

The public domain includes more than just CWDF

 

By way of example - If I sent am email from the NHS to the local authority (External) doing so did not constitute it was OK for it to published on the internet,

[Chris Pink]

so speaks the man who is quite happy to grab the first image he can find on Google. with no regard for that copyright to try and make a point.

 

Hypocrisy.

[alan_fincher]

My post wasn't an accusation that you personally had published something to the public domain, I was just asking who had, and who gave the permission for all involved in Sally Ashes' email exchange.

 

The public domain includes more than just CWDF

 

By way of example - If I sent am email from the NHS to the local authority (External) doing so did not constitute it was OK for it to published on the internet,

I ran a long thread on here before where it was debated whether it was OK to put emails from CRT into the public domain, (assuming of course that they were generic, and didn't contain personal information).

 

It was much argued about, but the broad consensus seemed to be that it was not any kind of breach of copyright, but that it was good practice to seek permission before doing so, (and yes, I know some disagreed, but I'm not a lawyer, and that seemed to represent the majority of views from people who seemed "sound").

 

I'm certainly not convinced any permission is required, and in a case like this, I suspect she might not have given it anyway (!)

 

I don't know who was the first to leak this, but it seems likely to have been someone included in the recipients that was not CRT.

[jenlyn]

I ran a long thread on here before where it was debated whether it was OK to put emails from CRT into the public domain, (assuming of course that they were generic, and didn't contain personal information).

 

It was much argued about, but the broad consensus seemed to be that it was not any kind of breach of copyright, but that it was good practice to seek permission before doing so, (and yes, I know some disagreed, but I'm not a lawyer, and that seemed to represent the majority of views from people who seemed "sound").

 

I'm certainly not convinced any permission is required, and in a case like this, I suspect she might not have given it anyway (!)

 

I don't know who was the first to leak this, but it seems likely to have been someone included in the recipients that was not CRT.

It came originally from a freedom of information request. I believe to the council involved.

Edited January 31, 2013 by jenlyn

[johnmck]

Caprifool. You naughty, naughty person. Now just look what you have started!

[alan_fincher]

It came originally from a freedom of information request.

Yes,

 

I've just worked that out, and am now trying to hold back my amusement about the last few iterations of this conversation.

 

It is indeed in the public domain, because Nick Brown (National Bargee Travellers Assosciation) made the FOI request!

 

Whatdotheyknow.com Linky