Sally Ash to Retire

[PaulG]

As you have not the wit to understand a post, an explanation seems to be required :-)

 

It gave me a giggle to read the above posts and come across one that stated "Nasty, spiteful and totally unnecessary." (See? Quote marks for the pedants) after making nasty, spiteful and totally unnecessary remarks about that article. I then had a wee look back over the thread and found even more "Nasty, spiteful and totally unnecessary." remarks about the K&A residents (and, yes I am one of them) from people who have not really a clue about which they speak.

 

And then I pop back on to see the last few "Nasty, spiteful and totally unnecessary." remarks.

 

Remember. The canals are for ALL.

 

Lump it!

 

PS Have fun :-)

You're just making stuff up.

I did say that the Allan Richards article on NBW was "nasty, spiteful, and totally unnecessary."

I stand by that - IMHO it is.

 

Exactly where did I say anything that was nasty, spiteful, and totally unnecessary?

[Athy]

What a thoroughly unpleasant, snide and badly written piece....

 

Just about sums up the' freeloaders, we do what we want' attitude of Kanda

 

Indeed, one could safely assume that it would be, simply because of the site that it is on. A site that serves no purpose other than to make NBW look good.

 

What galled me was the the way the info was given, and by whom. Very bad form

 

What an unpleasant, nasty little article.

 

It staggers me that CRT engage with boaters at all when this sort of spiteful and destructive attitude seems to exist in some who claim to represent boaters.

 

They represent a very small group of people who are determined to use whatever loophole in the law they can find to keep their boat in the same location for years

 

I often wonder why some of the editorial staff who write for the above rag bother with boating.

 

Alan to save you the trauma of visiting such dark, dank places

 

As said above, of course you can do it legally. If you choose do do it illegally, the stress serves you right. The problem surely is that people choose to live on boats when they either can't actually afford to do it legally or simply don't want to. if the former, it's the same as squatting in houses and that's another issue...

 

A visit to the K&A will clearly show that living in one small area on a CC declaration is entirely possible to sustain and whilst in theory it is riding for a fall in practice it is quite easy. Similarly the towpath fitout debris left lying in hedgerows, the shit tank contents poured into the bushes and ownership of certain mooring spots. Quite simply, there are no consequences to this behaviour so why the hell not?

 

I've just been reminded why I don't read that forum.

 

The Kanda lot seem to want to do as they please, regardless of everyone else.

 

**Nasty, spiteful and totally unnecessary.**

 

Doctor heal thyself.

 

And this is just from this thread. Never mind what I have read over the years about the K&A.

Must agree with most of your sentiments, Flip - but several of the points you make have been said already, though that does not diminish their validity.

Apart, that is, from "Doctor heal Thyself" - surely "Physician"?

[churchward]

In my very limited experience of Sally I thought she was courteous and, despite having been in the job for many years, still surprisingly enthusiastic. Yes also fairly single-minded but that surely has to go with the territory. I always felt she did what she thought was best for the canal system as a whole and not for any "personal agenda" reasons, the latter of which is so often the primary motivator these days. It will be funny if her successor causes KandA to rue the day!

Indeed it could be a case of having to be careful what you wish for.

 

Even if you are happy to see the back of the outgoing person there is no guarantee that the new incumbent will be to anyone's liking in fact as you say it may be worse in their eyes.

 

Personally I think she was a decent person in the role and worked hard for the canals. So I think she will be missed.

[Guest]

churchward, on 02 Apr 2014 - 4:20 PM, said:

Indeed it could be a case of having to be careful what you wish for.

 

Even if you are happy to see the back of the outgoing person there is no guarantee that the new incumbent will be to anyone's liking in fact as you say it may be worse in their eyes.

 

Personally I think she was a decent person in the role and worked hard for the canals. So I think she will be missed.

 

Lets face it - anybody charged with that role is going to face animosity from a hard core of boaters as nicely demonstrated by the KANDA article. They can be the nicest and most professional person going but once you start trying to tackle some of the problems that exist you are going to alienate a hard core of dissenters - the only way to avoid that is to say 'tell you what guys, do what you like'.

[Paul G2]

As you have not the wit to understand a post, an explanation seems to be required :-)

 

It gave me a giggle to read the above posts and come across one that stated "Nasty, spiteful and totally unnecessary." (See? Quote marks for the pedants) after making nasty, spiteful and totally unnecessary remarks about that article. I then had a wee look back over the thread and found even more "Nasty, spiteful and totally unnecessary." remarks about the K&A residents (and, yes I am one of them) from people who have not really a clue about which they speak.

 

And then I pop back on to see the last few "Nasty, spiteful and totally unnecessary." remarks.

 

Remember. The canals are for ALL.

 

Lump it!

 

PS Have fun :-)

 

Talk about lacking wit, you certainly showed up for this battle unarmed, didn't you? I'm going to go out on a limb here and guess that reading for comprehension was never one of your strong points.

 

Most of the quotes that you copied in your first post on this thread were criticizing two written articles and the person who wrote them. Have you read the articles in question? Do you think that those articles are above reproach, or are they perhaps inviting discussion and debate?

 

What you are doing is quoting legitimate criticism of very controversial writing and trying to somehow define that as bigotry against ALL of the people who inhabit K&A. Your attempts at victimhood don't even rise to the level of laughable; pathetic is about the best you can achieve.

[Alan de Enfield]

Once 'things' have been allowed to 'slip' it becomes very difficult for an organisation (or even an individual) to suddenly start to enforce the rules and 'play hard'.

 

It is much easier for 'a new broom' to come in as Mr Nasty and enforce the rules.

The actions in the first 100 days of a new person in a job tend to set the direction for the future.

 

I would imagine that the new 'Sally Ash' will come in and want to make a name for him/her self and the p-takers will rue the day.

[sueb]

I wonder what will happen to the department of silly ideas?

[David Schweizer]

As you have not the wit to understand a post, an explanation seems to be required :-)

 

It gave me a giggle to read the above posts and come across one that stated "Nasty, spiteful and totally unnecessary." (See? Quote marks for the pedants) after making nasty, spiteful and totally unnecessary remarks about that article. I then had a wee look back over the thread and found even more "Nasty, spiteful and totally unnecessary." remarks about the K&A residents (and, yes I am one of them) from people who have not really a clue about which they speak.

 

And then I pop back on to see the last few "Nasty, spiteful and totally unnecessary." remarks.

 

Remember. The canals are for ALL.

 

Lump it!

 

PS Have fun :-)

 

As one of the people from who's post you selected one sentence. I suggest that you check your facts. I have lived within a mile of the K&A for thirtyfive years and helped to raise some of the money which enabled it to be restored. I also know that at least two of the other posters have or used to keep thier boats within a few miles of Bradford on Avon.

 

For you to suggest that we do not know what we are talking about is simply wrong. Over the years I have watched the K &A change from a waterless ditch to a fully operational waterway, and now have to witness all the work that we did being taken advantage of by a few people who care little about the canals and even less about the environment in which they live,

 

We used to keep our boat on the K&A but decided to move when the freeloaders moved in. I used to love the K&A but I rarely even bother to walk along it these days, as it is no longer a particularly pleasnt experience.

Edited April 2, 2014 by David Schweizer

[churchward]

 

Lets face it - anybody charged with that role is going to face animosity from a hard core of boaters as nicely demonstrated by the KANDA article. They can be the nicest and most professional person going but once you start trying to tackle some of the problems that exist you are going to alienate a hard core of dissenters - the only way to avoid that is to say 'tell you what guys, do what you like'.

It is certainly true that in the role you are never going to please everyone and anyone would have to develop a thick skin and be determined to drive the CRT policies for the overall good of the waterways even with some of the more mad-cap factions against them. I do hope though that the new person takes a leaf out of Sally's book and engages with as many boaters as possible via associations or individually.

 

I would hate the position to be "do what you like" or appeasement of these hard core dissenters as you put it as this would be just surrendering the future of the waterways to the extreme wishes of a few and against the interests of the well-being of the canal system we all love.

 

As one of the people from who's post you selected one sentence. I suggest that you check your facts. I have lived within a mile of the K&A for thirtyfive years and helped to raise some of the money which enabled it to be restored. I also know that at least two of the other posters have or used to keep thier boats within a few miles of Bradford on Avon.

 

For you to suggest that we do not know what we are talking about is simply wrong. Over the years I have watched the K &A change from a waterless ditch to a fully operational waterway, and now have to witness all the work that we did being taken advantage of by a few people who care little about the canals and even less about the environment in which they live,

 

We used to keep our boat on the K&A but decided to move when the freeloaders moved in. I used to love the K&A but I rarely even bother to walk along it these days, as it is no longer a particularly pleasnt experience.

I hear you. It is a sad situation. The K&A around Devizes was lovely when I lived that way and I hope in some places at least still is (I have not been there for 20 years) I played a small part in the K&A restoration in my younger days and did my bit with some navying and fund raising.

[David Schweizer]

I hear you. It is a sad situation. The K&A around Devizes was lovely when I lived that way and I hope in some places at least still is (I have not been there for 20 years) I played a small part in the K&A restoration in my younger days and did my bit with some navying and fund raising.

 

The K&A around Devizes is still much the same as it always has been, and we still visit that part of the canal. It is the section between Widbrooke on the eastern outskirts of Bradford on Avon and Claverton towards Bath which has a preponderance of residential boats all pretending to be continuously cruising. Many of them have been there for years and have never moved out of that twelve mile section.

[churchward]

 

The K&A around Devizes is still much the same as it always has been, and we still visit that part of the canal. It is the section between Widbrooke on the eastern outskirts of Bradford on Avon and Claverton towards Bath which has a preponderance of residential boats all pretending to be continuously cruising. Many of them have been there for years and have never moved out of that twelve mile section.

Good to know the old stomping ground is much the same.

 

I raised an eyebrow when reading the Kanda article in the OP link when it talks about "liveaboard boaters without a home mooring" They seem to have invented a new definition rather than saying CCers. Might they be who you are describing I wonder?

Edited April 2, 2014 by churchward

[Sir Nibble]

It is not so long ago that certain time limited visitor moorings were residential, hogged by the same boats all year bar fetching water. You would run out of fingers and toes counting "gone for water" notices on roofs and in well decks waiting to reserve moorings. At places the names of boats were painted on piling to establish ownership. Live aboards had taken ownership of the canal by means of a "fu<k you" landgrab. Canals for all my arse! Since the spotlight went on the situation has somewhat improved with more movement and cessation of the barefaced theft of some spaces for permanent use. (in Sidney gardens Bath there is an ideal mooring spot complete with bollards now "no mooring" where once there was a permanent resident). The moment the pressure is eased then the same people will resurface vindicated and take over again. What is wanted by some is for no one to take over from Sally Ash and hand ownership of the waterway back to the "community".

I raised an eyebrow when reading the Kanda article in the OP link when it talks about "liveaboard boaters without a home mooring" They seem to have invented a new definition rather than saying CCers. Might they be who you are describing I wonder?

Liveaboard boaters shuttling between two stolen moorings would be more accurate

[cotswoldsman]

Good to know the old stomping ground is much the same.

 

I raised an eyebrow when reading the Kanda article in the OP link when it talks about "liveaboard boaters without a home mooring" They seem to have invented a new definition rather than saying CCers. Might they be who you are describing I wonder?

I think you might find that "without a home mooring" is the correct term. Sally is one of the people within CRT that is working hard to try and get away from calling all boater "without a home mooring" as "Continuous Cruisers" for the simple reason that genuine Continuous Cruisers feel it is time to get away from blaming everything onto Continuous Cruisers (hope that makes sense)

[Starcoaster]

I've spoken to and dealt with Sally a reasonable number of times over the last few months, as my workload for the waterways press has increased. I have found her to be incredibly responsive, not afraid to answer hard or very direct questions, and very quick to get you the answer/contact/result needed. Considering all the other balls she is juggling, I think she does a hell of a job, whether I agree with everything CRT does or Sally thinks on any given matter or not.

[churchward]

I think you might find that "without a home mooring" is the correct term. Sally is one of the people within CRT that is working hard to try and get away from calling all boater "without a home mooring" as "Continuous Cruisers" for the simple reason that genuine Continuous Cruisers feel it is time to get away from blaming everything onto Continuous Cruisers (hope that makes sense)

I see, new speak eh? I have read about that.

 

I don't see that your assertion that everyone blames CCers for all ills is a valid one. Even if it was true changing the name won't make that go away.

 

As far as I can tell people still have CC licences but you may be able to correct me on that too.

Edited April 2, 2014 by churchward

[carlt]

 

 

I don't see that your assertion that everyone blames CCers for all ills is a valid one. Even if it was true changing the name won't make that go away.

 

When people who own wooden boats get a bit paranoid we try to get our vessels called "boats built from rigid fibrous vegetable matter" so as to distance ourselves from yoghurt pot owners.

[cotswoldsman]

I see, new speak eh? I have read about that.

 

I don't see that your assertion that everyone blames CCers for all ills is a valid one. Even if it was true changing the name won't make that go away.

 

As far as I can tell people still have CC licences but you may be able to correct me on that too.

Don't really want to argue on this thread as it is about Sally but you are wrong there is no such thing as a Continuous Cruiser Licence my licence is the same as yours but indicates I do not have a "home mooring" as I am on my phone I am unable to check but from memory the 1995 Act only refers to boats without a "home mooring" and the 2 words Continuous Cruiser are not mentioned I notice CRT now use the term Non Compliant Boaters" so that means it now also includes boaters with moorings that do not comply.

[churchward]

When people who own wooden boats get a bit paranoid we try to get our vessels called "boats built from rigid fibrous vegetable matter" so as to distance ourselves from yoghurt pot owners.

Ah I see! This could be fun. having leafed through my Thesaurus how about this for continuous cruiser

 

Timeless Philanderer or

 

Everlasting Coquette

[jenlyn]

Don't really want to argue on this thread as it is about Sally but you are wrong there is no such thing as a Continuous Cruiser Licence my licence is the same as yours but indicates I do not have a "home mooring" as I am on my phone I am unable to check but from memory the 1995 Act only refers to boats without a "home mooring" and the 2 words Continuous Cruiser are not mentioned I notice CRT now use the term Non Compliant Boaters" so that means it now also includes boaters with moorings that do not comply.

I used some of his posts from here on Monday, to make a point. Lot's of mumbling and head shaking, lol.

[churchward]

Don't really want to argue on this thread as it is about Sally but you are wrong there is no such thing as a Continuous Cruiser Licence my licence is the same as yours but indicates I do not have a "home mooring" as I am on my phone I am unable to check but from memory the 1995 Act only refers to boats without a "home mooring" and the 2 words Continuous Cruiser are not mentioned I notice CRT now use the term Non Compliant Boaters" so that means it now also includes boaters with moorings that do not comply.

Yes indeed you could be right we do all indeed pay the same licence. when are we going to see the ACC renamed then? After all it is no longer a valid term.

 

It may be better for those without a home mooring to help create a positive image rather than continually complain (more CCing, Arf!) about being the down trodden.

[mayalld]

As you have not the wit to understand a post, an explanation seems to be required :-)

 

It gave me a giggle to read the above posts and come across one that stated "Nasty, spiteful and totally unnecessary." (See? Quote marks for the pedants) after making nasty, spiteful and totally unnecessary remarks about that article. I then had a wee look back over the thread and found even more "Nasty, spiteful and totally unnecessary." remarks about the K&A residents (and, yes I am one of them) from people who have not really a clue about which they speak.

 

And then I pop back on to see the last few "Nasty, spiteful and totally unnecessary." remarks.

 

Remember. The canals are for ALL.

 

Lump it!

 

PS Have fun :-)

Yes, the canals are for all those who are prepared to abide by the rules.

 

And let's cut the crap about what the rules are. No matter how much you try to redefine the rules as "whatever I want to do" the overwhelming majority know what the rules are.

 

None of the remarks quoted were unnecessary. They were all a fair comment on a particularly nasty personal attack on a member of this forum (presumably written by another member)

 

The person who wrote the article on the k and a site ought to be ashamed of himself.

[carlt]

Yes indeed you could be right we do all indeed pay the same licence. when are we going to see the ACC renamed then? After all it is no longer a valid term.

The "Association of Compliant Boaters Who Don't Have a Home Mooring" just doesn't have the same ring to it, though.

 

However, if CCers (sorry CBWDHAHMers) don't wish to be singled out for attention perhaps a more inclusive association representing all boaters might be a better idea....

[Thorfast]

I have looked at the Kanda website on only one or two occasions - it quickly became obvious it is merely a propoganda site for a bigoted minority, so have ignored it ever since. I will continue to do so

[jenlyn]

The "Association of Compliant Boaters Who Don't Have a Home Mooring" just doesn't have the same ring to it, though.

 

However, if CCers (sorry CBWDHAHMers) don't wish to be singled out for attention perhaps a more inclusive association representing all boaters might be a better idea....

There are those that talk, and those that do the walk. (hands Carl the microphone) :-)

[alan_fincher]

I notice the apparent author of the piece has just been on the forum, but logged off again without making any comment in this thread.

I wondered if they might say something to justify the tone of their article, (which is not unusual for ones published elsewhere!), but it seems they would prefer to say nothing about this themselves at this time.