NBTA London Legal Rights Meeting

[Alf Roberts]

However, on the rights and responsibilities I'd raise a question mark. It is a very legalistic view to to say we have a right to absolutely anything we choose so long as it isn't illegal. Put it another way there is a need for responsible behaviour when exercising one's right - away from canals there is often nothing illegal about driving past a school at 30mph but it can be downright irresonsible. I think ACC came onto the scene promoting this concept. I would hope the NBTA would, in some small way, promote the idea of being a good neighbour (which isn't the same thing as being a pushover) and if they do I would applaud it.

 

There are all sort of responsibilities that make living together in cooperation easier. Some of them are laws like the 8pm to 8am generator law but completely unenforced so become social responsibilities. Another would be a responsibility to keep the towpath tidy and, to some, a responsibility to promote liveaboard boaters as a valued part of canal life. There's a responsibility not to walk on by if you find a fellow boater in difficulties.

 

But I don't think these are the remit of this meeting. I also think it wrong to criticise the NBTA for not making these explicit in a meeting about legal matters.

 

There is also an argument for the moral responsibilities of CRT - for instance the new Welfare Officer*. How about some balance?

 

* The appointment of a welfare officer is due in part to the lobbying of NBTA

[Alf Roberts]

If you want to ask a useful question it's why, in latter years, it seems to be necessary to have so much representation. As Cotswoldman points out, life was a lot quieter under BW - at least until Sally Ash started her crusade, egged on by Simon 'Satan' Salem.

 

It seems that CRT is much more prepared to make kneejerk reactions to perceived problems. Is this a sign of the times? a modern culture reflecting political short term-ism?

 

I think a lot of it is to do with the fact that BW had a lot more inherent authority, rather like the Docks Executive or the Railways, that was largely eroded once the greed brigade moved in in the property mismanagement of the 90s and early 2000s. This authority came from a body of legislation and an official presence that, largely, behaved with dignity. CRT, in contrast, seem to me to rush around like headless chickens, in fact doing almost anything rather than maintain a canal network.

 

£2.5 million for unenforceable enforcement. £1.5 million for signage that will end up at the bottom of the cut.

 

An underspend of £30 million on steady state maintenance. Dredging that was once a routine operation now a rare and over-bureacratic event.

 

Something is rotten in the state of Denmark.

 

You cannot blame the NBTA for all of this. They are a natural reaction to it.

[David Schweizer]

If you want to ask a useful question it's why, in latter years, it seems to be necessary to have so much representation. As Cotswoldman points out, life was a lot quieter under BW - at least until Sally Ash started her crusade, egged on by Simon 'Satan' Salem.

 

It seems that CRT is much more prepared to make kneejerk reactions to perceived problems. Is this a sign of the times? a modern culture reflecting political short term-ism?

 

I think a lot of it is to do with the fact that BW had a lot more inherent authority, rather like the Docks Executive or the Railways, that was largely eroded once the greed brigade moved in in the property mismanagement of the 90s and early 2000s. This authority came from a body of legislation and an official presence that, largely, behaved with dignity. CRT, in contrast, seem to me to rush around like headless chickens, in fact doing almost anything rather than maintain a canal network.

 

£2.5 million for unenforceable enforcement. £1.5 million for signage that will end up at the bottom of the cut.

 

An underspend of £30 million on steady state maintenance. Dredging that was once a routine operation now a rare and over-bureacratic event.

 

Something is rotten in the state of Denmark.

 

You cannot blame the NBTA for all of this. They are a natural reaction to it.

 

If you want project a rational and reasonable image, may I suggest that you refrain from personal insult. Irrespective of your personal view of Simon Salem, inserting "Satan" into his name totally negates anything relvant you might have sought to say.

Edited October 4, 2014 by David Schweizer

[Alan de Enfield]

 

There are all sort of responsibilities that make living together in cooperation easier. Some of them are laws like the 8pm to 8am generator law but completely unenforced so become social responsibilities.

 

I would be grateful if you could point me to which Waterways Act encompasses the law that quotes the 8pm-8am generator 'rule',

 

It is unenforcable because there is no such law.

[Guest]

Not at all. You're entitled to whatever opinion you like.

I am saying that the treatment meted out on here at various times means I would never bring an enterprise to its table.

And I'm not alone in that.

For instance this thread, tony Dunkley's thread, Pillings lock, braunston marina. The various criticisms of surveyors and boatyards in some cases simply because the OP gained an immediate sympathy which is then very difficult to shift.

The reception NBTA has had on this thread is a case in point. All it did was announce a meeting. Look at Mayalld's content free slagging.

How about Barby? It got such bad treatment that its very name attracts vitriol. But recent anecdotal evidence shows that to be deeply flawed.

Would you suggest the owner of Barby runs that gauntlet simply to put his point of view ? Or would you think him wise to keep his own counsel and let people make up their own minds?

You raise some valid points, but I think you will find I can often be the first to say 'hang on there is often two sides to a story' when people come on slagging canal trades people's work. The accusers often take umbridge when it's done citing the right of free speech but when pushed they either go off sulking or subsequently admit they haven't even discussed the problem with the business concerned before coming on here to slag them off. There have been some classic examples of people having to slope off with their tale between their legs when the tradesperson involved has actually come onto the forum to give their side of the story. So I would say if the business has got something valid to offer in their defence then it can work for them yes.

 

Sadly we have also seen similar when people post about how they or somebody who they/know/moors near them has been badly treated by CRT, it would be easy to take some stories on here at face value but a little further enquiry or information from somebody else can expose the fact that we haven't actually been given the whole story but we are still expected to join in the criticism of CRT when actually it may actually have acted appropriately in a particular. That is not me saying they don't get things wrong yes they do, but the way some boaters portray them would lead some to believe the waterways are been run by the Stasi.

 

Thus a number of forum members have become a sceptical bunch and sometimes it either doesn't come across very well or it gets people's backs up when people remain a tad suspicious and this can lead to a bit of conflict.

 

The other problem the forum has is that some members have a 'history' with other members and quite often this emerges in the form of writing off their contribution purely on the basis of who has posted it rather than what the post contains. You see it happen commonly with a number of members contributions but notably it happens to Carlt and Mayalld, when sometimes if people read what has been posted rather than react because of who the poster is they might actually understand the point being made and (god forbid) might actually agree with it.

Edited October 4, 2014 by The Dog House

[Alf Roberts]

I would be grateful if you could point me to which Waterways Act encompasses the law that quotes the 8pm-8am generator 'rule',

 

It is unenforcable because there is no such law.

Why is it that whenever there is a 'rule' someone is looking for ways to circumnavigate it, why can we just not adhere to the rules where they are clearly defined and work to the 'spirit of the rule' if there is some question as to its meaning ?

 

Its not rocket science and we all have to live together - be a good neighbour and keep your engine quiet at night.

It's part of the terms and conditions.

 

You hold that all terms and conditions are unenforceable because they aren't in the Waterways Act.

Edited October 4, 2014 by Alf Roberts

[Alan de Enfield]

Alf Roberts, on 04 Oct 2014 - 2:54 PM, said:

 

It's part of the terms and conditions.

 

You hold that all terms and conditions are unenforceable because they aren't in the Waterways Act.

 

So - you do accept that it is not covered by law then and your statement was therefore incorrect ?

 

C&RT are legally obliged to issue a licence if you meet the 3 conditions under the 1995 Act section 3.

 

Nigel More has explained on a number of occasions about the licence T&C's and their 'enforceability'

 

Are you suggesting that all of C&RT's T&Cs are enforcable ?

Edited October 4, 2014 by Alan de Enfield

[Alf Roberts]

So - you do accept that it is not covered by law then and your statement was therefore incorrect ?

 

C&RT are legally obliged to issue a licence if you meet the 3 conditions under the 1995 Act section 3.

 

Nigel More has explained on a number of occasions about the licence T&C's and their 'enforceability'

 

Are you suggesting that all of C&RT's T&Cs are enforcable ?

Why is it that whenever there is a 'rule' someone is looking for ways to circumnavigate it, why can we just not adhere to the rules where they are clearly defined and work to the 'spirit of the rule' if there is some question as to its meaning ?

 

Its not rocket science and we all have to live together - be a good neighbour and keep your engine quiet at night.

[jenlyn]

You raise some valid points, but I think you will find I can often be the first to say 'hang on there is often two sides to a story' when people come on slagging canal trades people's work. The accusers often take umbridge when it's done citing the right of free speech but when pushed they either go off sulking or subsequently admit they haven't even discussed the problem with the business concerned before coming on here to slag them off. There have been some classic examples of people having to slope off with their tale between their legs when the tradesperson involved has actually come onto the forum to give their side of the story. So I would say if the business has got something valid to offer in their defence then it can work for them yes.

Sadly we have also seen similar when people post about how they or somebody who they/know/moors near them has been badly treated by CRT, it would be easy to take some stories on here at face value but a little further enquiry or information from somebody else can expose the fact that we haven't actually been given the whole story but we are still expected to join in the criticism of CRT when actually it may actually have acted appropriately in a particular. That is not me saying they don't get things wrong yes they do, but the way some boaters portray them would lead some to believe the waterways are been run by the Stasi.

Thus a number of forum members have become a sceptical bunch and sometimes it either doesn't come across very well or it gets people's backs up when people remain a tad suspicious and this can lead to a bit of conflict.

The other problem the forum has is that some members have a 'history' with other members and quite often this emerges in the form of writing off their contribution purely on the basis of who has posted it rather than what the post contains. You see it happen commonly with a number of members contributions but notably it happens to Carlt and Mayalld, when sometimes if people read what has been posted rather than react because of who the poster is they might actually understand the point being made and (god forbid) might actually agree with it.

What a patronising p###K you are!

 

For the benefit of the mods, that word is plank:-)

Edited October 4, 2014 by jenlyn

[MtB]

This seems to happen more and more here. A post containing just a quote of a previous post. Why does this happen?

 

MtB

 

(Referring to post 108)

Edited October 4, 2014 by Mike the Boilerman

[Alan de Enfield]

Mr Roberts - If you are implying that I am looking for ways to circumvent the rules - look again.

 

I have not said that you (or I) should run a generator after 8pm, or that anyone should break the law, rules or 'guidance' - I purely pointed out that you incorrectly said it was a law,

 

Presumably you did not have a debating society at your school where you had to be able to be able to debate either side of an argument, and provide evidence to support your case ?

Edited October 4, 2014 by Alan de Enfield

[MtB]

.

Edited October 4, 2014 by Mike the Boilerman

[Guest]

What a patronising p###K you are!

For the benefit of the mods, that word is plank:-)

And still he wobbles on like a parrot or a broken record.

 

I just love the way you append each of your offensive posts with a little 'smiley' , just why do you do that, because it sure makes you look well......er what's the word....oh yes patronising.

 

Ed .. And yes I nearly forgot, Thankyou for proving the exact point I was making.

Edited October 4, 2014 by The Dog House

[Graham Davis]

So be it. Sort of justifies my view about the keyboard warrior....

 

If the cap fits......................................

Beyond that, the only matter I'd like to address at the moment is the issue of rights versus responsibilities. We each have a responsibility to comply with the law. Beyond that, we have a right to do absolutely anything we choose. So a discussion of legal rights must, of necessity, be a discussion of responsibilities.

 

Really?

[jenlyn]

And still he wobbles on like a parrot or a broken record.

I just love the way you append each of your offensive posts with a little 'smiley' , just why do you do that, because it sure makes you look well......er what's the word....oh yes patronising.

Ed .. And yes I nearly forgot, Thankyou for proving the exact point I was making.

Your welcome TDP.

[Guest]

Your welcome TDP.

It will come in handy so thanks.

[alan_fincher]

I am quite shocked that Alan is one of those who formed an opinion 4 years ago and is unable to change it.

 

Mind there's enough errors of fact in his post, maybe I shouldn't be so surprised.

Where do you get "four years ago" from then? Four years ago I hadn't knowingly had any contact with the NBTA at all.

 

Now apparently one of my errors is to link Pamela Smith to the NBTA - as she has told me that is who she is representing at recent meetings, then it seems if I have this wrong, then so has she.

 

As for no K&A connection, would you deny that a large amount of what is on the K&A Community Boating Website is almost certainly authored by her?

 

I think I am probably more accurate on what I have said than you are, frankly.

 

[Edit for spelling only.]

Edited October 4, 2014 by alan_fincher

[MtB]

 

I am quite shocked that Alan is one of those who formed an opinion 4 years ago and is unable to change it.

 

Mind there's enough errors of fact in his post, maybe I shouldn't be so surprised.

 

 

 

And ANOTHER of these posts simply quoting a previous post, with no content added.

 

How and why are they happening? I'm seeing LOADS of them these days.

 

 

MtB

[alan_fincher]

And ANOTHER of these posts simply quoting a previous post, with no content added.

 

How and why are they happening? I'm seeing LOADS of them these days.

 

 

MtB

I'm this case because I am trying to post from a poxy phone, and I managed to cock up the initial attempt to do a quoted post.

 

Purely operator error!

[Paul C]

I think the engine/generator 8am-8pm rule is in the byelaws

[Captain Zim]

No such thing as *moral* responsibilities, then?

 

Tim

Who's morals? I only ask cos I used to know this girl who lived down the road from me as kids. Well, when I say 'know' it was more like the brother of a friend told me once that he'd talked to her at this gig. Well, when I say talked, I mean shouted and when I say gig, I mean poetry recital, but anyway, the point is...er, what were we talking about? Oh yeah, morals! Well the thing is, you see, she thought it was perfectly acceptable to go out with an extra earing in one ear! You know, rather than the standard one in each ear for girls and definitely none for boys. Unbelievable! Well, I tell you what, if my grandmother had ever found out that I knew someone who was related to someone who once tried to have a conversation with this girl! Crickey!! I'd have been grounded for a year for bringing such shame upon our family I can tell you. Edited October 4, 2014 by Captain Zim

[magpie patrick]

 

So - you do accept that it is not covered by law then and your statement was therefore incorrect ?

 

C&RT are legally obliged to issue a licence if you meet the 3 conditions under the 1995 Act section 3.

 

Nigel More has explained on a number of occasions about the licence T&C's and their 'enforceability'

 

Are you suggesting that all of C&RT's T&Cs are enforcable ?

 

[sigh]

 

So we have someone clearly thinking well of the NBTA (That's Alf) who also mentions that engines and generators should be turned off between 8pm and 8am, and your trying to tell him he's wrong because it isn't actually the law and he said if it wasn't illegal it was alright - which he didn't actually say anyway, who ever is posting as NBTA said that.

 

So to prove Alf has made an incorrect statement, you say he should run his genny when he likes, which isn't what you would like him to do and isn't what he wants to do. All to show that you are right in saying he's wrong...

 

I'm very, very confused

[Alan de Enfield]

 

[sigh]

 

So we have someone clearly thinking well of the NBTA (That's Alf) who also mentions that engines and generators should be turned off between 8pm and 8am, and your trying to tell him he's wrong because it isn't actually the law and he said if it wasn't illegal it was alright - which he didn't actually say anyway, who ever is posting as NBTA said that.

 

So to prove Alf has made an incorrect statement, you say he should run his genny when he likes, which isn't what you would like him to do and isn't what he wants to do. All to show that you are right in saying he's wrong...

 

I'm very, very confused

 

You have lost me completely

[jenlyn]

You have lost me completely

Lol lol

[NigelMoore]

Nice Viognier, this.

 

Are you exercising Olympian restraint over consumption of that MtB, or did you lay down a case of it?

 

[p.s. obtained neighbour approval of 24 hour casked whisky, will be testing week-long treatment next Monday.]