Journalism plumbs new depths

[MtB]

Ah I see. Thanks Alan.

 

So NBTA are out to 'get' Mr Symonds it seems. He certainly seems to be the focal point of a lot of bile and hatred from reading stuff written about him on FB.

 

All seems faintly pointless though. If they succeed in getting him sacked over this (the apparent goal) I'm sure CRT will replace him and the policy regarding enforcement will remain the same.

[Athy]

knowing where the truth lies.

 

 

Aye, there's the rub: who's telling which?

[cuthound]

Aye, there's the rub: who's telling which?

Usually it is somewhere between the two versions, however in this case he either said or he didn't.

Given that he reportedly said it more than once I am surprised no one managed to capture it on their phone.

[Arthur Marshall]

Usually it is somewhere between the two versions, however in this case he either said or he didn't.

Given that he reportedly said it more than once I am surprised no one managed to capture it on their phone.

And maybe, as has already been suggested, it was just said humourously and someone with a particular agenda picked up on it. Much the same has been said about me because of my tendency to play accordions, but I wouldn't want them condemned for it.

ETA if he'd said "those total f***ing bas***ds who call themselves sodding CCers", it might be regarded as more serious. As it is, it's storm in teacup time.

Edited May 8, 2016 by Arthur Marshall

[Wanderer Vagabond]

I cannot comprehend an organisation who seriously claim to be victimised because they are travellers, at the same time that they claim to be victimised for not travelling enough, and in both instances by the same authority.

 

I think in the context of the canals they need to think of a different title for themselves, perhaps Alternative Culture or something similar.

 

I do recall pretty much the same scenario back in the 1990's when very much the same people were living in converted coaches. Now personally I would have no real objection to someone rocking up in a converted coach, parking up outside my house for a night or two then moving on, but that wasn't what they were about. IF they found a lay-by which they didn't get moved on from it quickly filled up with others and then of course there became the problem of waste and how to deal with it. The chances of them actually 'travelling' became more remote the longer they stayed somewhere until the sites became permanent (example at the top of Haldon Hill in Exeter). Now if a big, bad property developer said that, regardless of planning permission, he was going to put up a whole load of residential properties in the middle of a national forest oddly enough he would be berated and yet when these people do the same and if criticised it 'shows prejudice against "traveller" culture'.

 

The actions of these 'travellers' back in the 1990's directly resulted in Section 60 of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994. I rather hope that the current canal'difficulties' don't result in more legislation.

Edited May 8, 2016 by Wanderer Vagabond

[costalot]

Ah I see. Thanks Alan.

 

So NBTA are out to 'get' Mr Symonds it seems. He certainly seems to be the focal point of a lot of bile and hatred from reading stuff written about him on FB.

 

All seems faintly pointless though. If they succeed in getting him sacked over this (the apparent goal) I'm sure CRT will replace him and the policy regarding enforcement will remain the same.

I could envisage this being a win-win issue for NBTA if they raise it in public with CRT at the MK meeting. If the manager's employment is terminated, then they are likely to deride CRT for employing scurrilous and contemptible individuals who are part of the culture. If CRT take no action and defend the manager they will probably deride CRT for being contemptible.

 

Either way they would score political points in a combative relationship.

 

It wouldn't be my strategy for moderating CRT's approach...... But then they aren't me! :-)

[Arthur Marshall]

I think in the context of the canals they need to think of a different title for themselves, perhaps Alternative Culture or something similar.

 

I do recall pretty much the same scenario back in the 1990's when very much the same people were living in converted coaches. Now personally I would have no real objection to someone rocking up in a converted coach, parking up outside my house for a night or two then moving on, but that wasn't what they were about. IF they found a lay-by which they didn't get moved on from it quickly filled up with others and then of course there became the problem of waste and how to deal with it. The chances of them actually 'travelling' became more remote the longer they stayed somewhere until the sites became permanent (example at the top of Haldon Hill in Exeter). Now if a big, bad property developer said that, regardless of planning permission, he was going to put up a whole load of residential properties in the middle of a national forest oddly enough he would be berated and yet when these people do the same and if criticised it 'shows prejudice against "traveller" culture'.

 

The actions of these 'travellers' back in the 1990's directly resulted in Section 60 of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994. I rather hope that the current canal'difficulties' don't result in more legislation.

Big bad property developers are being encouraged to build on greenbelt sites. The actions of the '90's travellers were used as an excuse to clamp down on many traditional freedoms - one of the problems then and now being that land that should be available for travellers to stop isn't there - even if they own it. Of course, then it was a legal obligation to make such land available, but it still wasn't (so they couldn't move on even if they wanted to). And so I can sympathise with those who want the same sort of lifestyle afloat without being forced to move unless and until they want to. There really should be a way in any civilised culture of accomodating them (it isn't a huge number, after all), and if the will was there, then there would be.

[Dave_P]

 

Well the NBTA are clearly fairly intrinsically linked to the accusations against Matthew Symonds, (the subject of the thread), and NBTA are waging a fairly heavy publicity war against CRT in multiple places right now, so I can see where Stella is coming from.

 

I find it hard to know what to think about the original topic now, as we have two sides each claiming something different, and, with no intended disrespect to either, there seems to be little way of anybody not actually present at the time of the alleged comments knowing where the truth lies.

 

What is undeniable fact is that not everything NBTA says in pursuits of their campaigns for live aboard boaters is true, but I think for balance you could say that not everything CRT say is also true either!

I started this thread and I stand by what I said. The article was printed with a complete absence of journalistic integrity. CRT or Matthew Symmonds were given no opportunity to respond to a 'serious' allegation. The whole article was simply hearsay and an obvious hatchet job.

 

Since then the thread has wandered off-topic to discussion about all manner of enforcement issues.

[Wanderer Vagabond]

Big bad property developers are being encouraged to build on greenbelt sites. The actions of the '90's travellers were used as an excuse to clamp down on many traditional freedoms - one of the problems then and now being that land that should be available for travellers to stop isn't there - even if they own it. Of course, then it was a legal obligation to make such land available, but it still wasn't (so they couldn't move on even if they wanted to). And so I can sympathise with those who want the same sort of lifestyle afloat without being forced to move unless and until they want to. There really should be a way in any civilised culture of accomodating them (it isn't a huge number, after all), and if the will was there, then there would be.

I would agree that property developers are trying to build on greenfield sites, but they still need planning permission to do so. I think, as I said previously, that there needs to be a different term for the 'travellers'. Back in the 1990's it was 'New Age' to differentiate them from the Romany type travellers. The significant difference is that the 'New Age' travellers didn't actually want to travel, they wanted to create an alternative culture, it was the Romany type of traveller who was looking for sites on which they could stop whilst travelling. You could say that the Romanies were the Continous Cruiser equivalent whereas the New Age were the Continuous Moorer equivalent.

 

This idea of accomodating people on the canals who don't want to move is all very well if you totally ignore the views of those who live ashore on the bankside. I recently waited around in Oxford to try to get onto the Thames (failed) and during my stay there I was confronted by a resident who, as I returned to a mooring told me, "You aren't mooring there, you've already had your fortnight", so those ashore are aware of the current limitations. If CRT were going to tell the people of say, Bathampton, we are going to permanently authorise these people to stay there I would suggest that there may be letters written to MP's with the possibility of future legislation .

[Allan(nb Albert)]

I started this thread and I stand by what I said. The article was printed with a complete absence of journalistic integrity. CRT or Matthew Symmonds were given no opportunity to respond to a 'serious' allegation. The whole article was simply hearsay and an obvious hatchet job.

Since then the thread has wandered off-topic to discussion about all manner of enforcement issues.

I started this thread and I stand by what I said. The article was printed with a complete absence of journalistic integrity. CRT or Matthew Symmonds were given no opportunity to respond to a 'serious' allegation. The whole article was simply hearsay and an obvious hatchet job.

Since then the thread has wandered off-topic to discussion about all manner of enforcement issues.

I thought a response had been received and published. Edited May 8, 2016 by Allan(nb Albert)

[tidal]

I thought a response had been received and published.

But that was not the case when the article was published.

 

As an ex-journalist I agree with Dave_P

[mayalld]

I think in the context of the canals they need to think of a different title for themselves, perhaps Alternative Culture or something similar.

 

 

 

They won't do that.

 

The whole point is to use words so as to lay claim to protections afforded to Travellers by claiming to be Travellers.

 

There are no legal protections for people who just want to opt out of society.

[Arthur Marshall]

 

 

They won't do that.

 

The whole point is to use words so as to lay claim to protections afforded to Travellers by claiming to be Travellers.

 

There are no legal protections for people who just want to opt out of society.

Which is fair enough - you can't opt out and then complain you're not protected.

ETA sort or back to square one again - you can't opt out of socially accepted rules (such as travel/mooring patterns) and then complain you're being picked on.

Edited May 9, 2016 by Arthur Marshall

[Alan de Enfield]

Which is fair enough - you can't opt out and then complain you're not protected.

ETA sort or back to square one again - you can't opt out of socially accepted rules (such as travel/mooring patterns) and then complain you're being picked on.

 

That is the problem - 'you' can and then the 'public' (not having any knowledge of the law / requirements) see the 'travellers' as doing no harm and agree that they are being 'cleansed' and support them against the 'authorities'.

[Allan(nb Albert)]

 

That is the problem - 'you' can and then the 'public' (not having any knowledge of the law / requirements) see the 'travellers' as doing no harm and agree that they are being 'cleansed' and support them against the 'authorities'.

The 'Boats are Homes!' petition now has over 30,000 signatures so it would appear that they enjoy some public support.

[TheBiscuits]

The 'Boats are Homes!' petition now has over 30,000 signatures so it would appear that they enjoy some public support.

Excellent news.

 

When does the 'Houseboats need planning permission' campaign start?

 

Is it before or after the 'No stealthy greenbelt development' one?

[MtB]

Or the "Boats also used as homes should pay a higher licence fee" campaign?

[alan_fincher]

The 'Boats are Homes!' petition now has over 30,000 signatures so it would appear that they enjoy some public support.

 

Like all "38 degrees" petitions though, I suspect there are few controls on who can sign it, how many times, or even if they are "real" signatories.

 

Without making any comment on the subject of this (or any other) petition raised in this way, it is not hard to understand why little serious consideration ever seems to be given to petitions like these.

[MankySteve]

The mail not actually racist but number one with racist

[StarUKKiwi]

I started this thread and I stand by what I said. The article was printed with a complete absence of journalistic integrity. CRT or Matthew Symmonds were given no opportunity to respond to a 'serious' allegation. The whole article was simply hearsay and an obvious hatchet job.

Since then the thread has wandered off-topic to discussion about all manner of enforcement issues.

I agree, it was hearsay; there was no right of reply given at all or even corroboration. There have been further posts and Matthew Symonds stands by his statement that he didn't say it; but it was journalism worthy of the S*n or St*r

[Dave_P]

But that was not the case when the article was published.

 

As an ex-journalist I agree with Dave_P

Exactly. A response should have been sought before publishing.

The 'Boats are Homes!' petition now has over 30,000 signatures so it would appear that they enjoy some public support.

I have non-boating friends who signed it and posted the link on Facebook. They had no idea of the complexities behind this issue and just signed because the tone of the argument neatly fitted with their general world-view.

 

I wonder how typical this is among the 30,000 as a very small proportion of my boating friends have signed.

Edited May 10, 2016 by Dave_P