NBTA protest

[Athy]

See above - I have extended my previous post.

[Tam & Di]

No, that bit is an opinion. Don't forget most of us are on this forum because we have an interest in canals and boats so the thought of a boat being your only home might seem attractive.

 

Now I'm going to sound like a stuck record but how many people do you think could live on a boat?

 

But how many of the vociferous NBTA members would move voluntarilly into a flat at a reasonable rent? Where their neighbours work locally in 9-5 jobs? Where they are no longer part of a gang, living extremely cheaply and sticking two fingers up to the organisation whose land they are using? I suspect it would be very few if there was no pressure. At the moment they have the option of moving their boat to some area where they could continue their lifestyle with little hassle, albeit individually rather than en masse, but they refuse that option.

[bassplayer]

 

But how many of the vociferous NBTA members would move voluntarilly into a flat at a reasonable rent? Where their neighbours work locally in 9-5 jobs? Where they are no longer part of a gang, living extremely cheaply and sticking two fingers up to the organisation whose land they are using? I suspect it would be very few if there was no pressure. At the moment they have the option of moving their boat to some area where they could continue their lifestyle with little hassle, albeit individually rather than en masse, but they refuse that option.

Yes, it takes a very rare (and brave) breed of person to prefer a lifestyle which breaks away from the one we have been conditioned to believe is 'normal'.

[Arthur Marshall]

Yes, it takes a very rare (and brave) breed of person to prefer a lifestyle which breaks away from the one we have been conditioned to believe is 'normal'.

Or desperation combined with opportunity.

[cereal tiller]

 

But how many of the vociferous NBTA members would move voluntarilly into a flat at a reasonable rent? Where their neighbours work locally in 9-5 jobs? Where they are no longer part of a gang, living extremely cheaply and sticking two fingers up to the organisation whose land they are using? I suspect it would be very few if there was no pressure. At the moment they have the option of moving their boat to some area where they could continue their lifestyle with little hassle, albeit individually rather than en masse, but they refuse that option.

Excellent post!

 

Sums the situation up perfectly.

 

Thank you

 

CT

[bassplayer]

Or desperation combined with opportunity.

If that was the case for some of them, would that be a problem for you?

[Hawkmoth]

Is this really true? I have seen no statistics on the subject but I'm very surprised.

You may not see any statistics to prove it, but just think, one is a depreciating asset, the other almost certainly appreciating. Which would you take for preferance?

Bob

[magictime]

No, they are synonymous. An organisation which is not making a profit by accident rather than by design is "non-profitable" or, more commonly, "unprofitable". A "Non profit-making" organisation is so on purpose.

 

It may be that by convention or stipulation, "non-profit-making organisation" is used specifically to describe organisations that aren't run for the purpose of making a profit. That's fine. I'm just pointing out that a competent English speaker who is unaware of any such convention or stipulation, but who knows what "non-", "profit" and "making" mean, would interpret the term as leaving open the question of whether the organisation is purposefully not making a profit.

 

Otherwise, after all, the claim that "A 'Non profit-making' organisation is so on purpose" would be tautologous - equivalent to "an organisation that makes no profit on purpose does so on purpose".

[Athy]

 

It may be that by convention or stipulation, "non-profit-making organisation" is used specifically to describe organisations that aren't run for the purpose of making a profit.

Yes, it is.

 

 

 

Otherwise, after all, the claim that "A 'Non profit-making' organisation is so on purpose" would be tautologous - equivalent to "an organisation that makes no profit on purpose does so on purpose".

No, it wouldn't.

You may not see any statistics to prove it, but just think, one is a depreciating asset, the other almost certainly appreciating. Which would you take for preferance?

Bob

Obviously the boat, because I'd own it. I would not own the flat, I would be paying rent for it because I could not afford the purchase price of the flat.

Which is why I bought the boat. Because I could afford to. Quod erat demonstrandum.

[magictime]

No, it wouldn't.

 

Let me put it this way:

 

Either the term "a non-profit-making organisation" doesn't imply, as you claim, that the organisation purposefully is not making a profit;

 

or it does imply that the organisation purposefully is not making a profit, and so putting "is so on purpose" on the end leaves you with a tautology.

 

If I'm missing something, I wish you'd explain what it is rather than just firing three-word responses at me. It all feels a bit like Monty Python's Argument Clinic at the minute.

[magnetman]

No it doesn't !!

[Athy]

 

Let me put it this way:

 

Either the term "a non-profit-making organisation" doesn't imply, as you claim, that the organisation purposefully is not making a profit;

 

or it does imply that the organisation purposefully is not making a profit, and so putting "is so on purpose" on the end leaves you with a tautology.

 

If I'm missing something, I wish you'd explain what it is rather than just firing three-word responses at me. It all feels a bit like Monty Python's Argument Clinic at the minute.

When you write "purposefully" do you perhaps mean "on purpose"? I do like the idea of the organisation pursuing their goal of not making a profit with zeal and determination, but I am not sure that that was your intended meaning.

Edited May 12, 2016 by Athy

[magictime]

When you write "purposefully" do you perhaps mean "on purpose"?

 

Right you are. I let my terminology slip there, didn't I? Let's try that again, then:

 

Either the term "a non-profit-making organisation" doesn't imply, as you claim, that the organisation on purpose is not making a profit;

or it does imply that the organisation on purpose is not making a profit, and so putting "is so on purpose" on the end leaves you with a tautology.

[Athy]

"Claim" implies that there is some doubt. Do you not believe me?

Edited May 12, 2016 by Athy

[Nightwatch]

Has 'not for profit' been mentioned?

[Ray T]

Here we are, Athy, just for you:

 

[Athy]

Has 'not for profit' been mentioned?

Yes, as a less elegant synonym for "non profit-making".

Here we are, Athy, just for you:

 

Thank you, Ray! Have a greeno.

[Alan de Enfield]

I earlier posted the articles of association of C&RT - this part may be considered relevant :

 

3. Powers
To further its objects the Trust may:

3.1 accept a transfer of any of the property, assets, undertaking, functions, responsibilities of any navigation authority, harbour authority or conservancy authority; and of any other person undertaking similar activities or functions or activities or functions that can conveniently be combined with such activities and functions;

3.2 act as trustee of any trust comprising real or personal estate and which, in the opinion of the Trust is calculated to further the aims and objects of the Trust and as such trustee carry out such trusts on the terms and conditions imposed in the instrument creating the same;

3.3 make reasonable charges for the use of the Inland Waterways it holds in trust, owns, operates or manages (including use by any ship or boat), and for the use of any services and facilities (including land set aside for specific purposes);

3.4 do any of the things that the British Waterways Board had power to do at the date of incorporation of the Trust (12 October 2011) that are conducive or incidental to the attainment or furtherance of the objects and carry on any trade provided that in doing so the Trust must not undertake any trading activity save in so far as either the trade is exercised in the course of the actual carrying out of an object or is ancillary to the carrying out of the objects or which is not expected to give rise to taxable profits;

 

Section 3:3 may be of interest to those amongst us who have decided that C&RT cannot charge for use of services and facilities

[bassplayer]

I earlier posted the articles of association of C&RT - this part may be considered relevant :

 

3. Powers

To further its objects the Trust may:

3.1 accept a transfer of any of the property, assets, undertaking, functions, responsibilities of any navigation authority, harbour authority or conservancy authority; and of any other person undertaking similar activities or functions or activities or functions that can conveniently be combined with such activities and functions;

3.2 act as trustee of any trust comprising real or personal estate and which, in the opinion of the Trust is calculated to further the aims and objects of the Trust and as such trustee carry out such trusts on the terms and conditions imposed in the instrument creating the same;

3.3 make reasonable charges for the use of the Inland Waterways it holds in trust, owns, operates or manages (including use by any ship or boat), and for the use of any services and facilities (including land set aside for specific purposes);

3.4 do any of the things that the British Waterways Board had power to do at the date of incorporation of the Trust (12 October 2011) that are conducive or incidental to the attainment or furtherance of the objects and carry on any trade provided that in doing so the Trust must not undertake any trading activity save in so far as either the trade is exercised in the course of the actual carrying out of an object or is ancillary to the carrying out of the objects or which is not expected to give rise to taxable profits;

 

Section 3:3 may be of interest to those amongst us who have decided that C&RT cannot charge for use of services and facilities

 

Paying for services and facilities is one thing as we pay for them out of our boat licence fees (and additional fees for hook up's etc).

 

Regarding 'land set aside for a specific purpose'...Where do they define what special purpose is? Where is this land? Is there a list?

[Alan de Enfield]

Paying for services and facilities is one thing as we pay for them out of our boat licence fees (and additional fees for hook up's etc).

 

Regarding 'land set aside for a specific purpose'...Where do they define what special purpose is? Where is this land? Is there a list?

 

I think you may be (deliberately ?) misreading section 3:3

 

3.3 make reasonable charges for the use of the Inland Waterways it holds in trust, owns, operates or manages (including use by any ship or boat), and for the use of any services and facilities (including land set aside for specific purposes);

 

They can charge for the use of the waterway (boat licence) AND charge for the use of facilities and services. I suppose (in theory) that could include the use of water points, elsans, visitors moorings etc etc - who is going to be the 'smart alec' that wants to 'rock that boat'?

 

[bassplayer]

 

I think you may be (deliberately ?) misreading section 3:3

 

3.3 make reasonable charges for the use of the Inland Waterways it holds in trust, owns, operates or manages (including use by any ship or boat), and for the use of any services and facilities (including land set aside for specific purposes);

 

They can charge for the use of the waterway (boat licence) AND charge for the use of facilities and services. I suppose (in theory) that could include the use of water points, elsans, visitors moorings etc etc - who is going to be the 'smart alec' that wants to 'rock that boat'?

 

Conversely you might be misreading it (putting 'and' in capitals doesn't make it less ambiguous). So where is this 'special purpose' land then? I'm intrigued.

[magictime]

"Claim" implies that there is some doubt. Do you not believe me?

 

Erm... no. That's why I've spent my last four or five posts arguing that, on a common-sense reading of the term, "non-profit-making organisation" just means "organisation that is not making a profit" (the question of whether the non-making of profits occurs by accident or by design being left open).

 

Here we are, Athy, just for you:

 

 

Is that what he's been doing?

[treddieafloat]

Begining to wish I'd never mentioned the not for profit idea

[cuthound]

About 20 years ago I decided to get a business degree, to supplement my electrical engineering one and hopefully further my career.

 

It was during the first lecture that I came across this term, when several of my classmates announced that they worked for a "not for profit" organisation. Everyone of them worked for a charity, local authority or the NHS.

[MtB]

And it is, of course, fiendishly difficult to make neither a profit nor a loss in any given year. So when a 'not-for-profit' organisation makes a profit (or loss) by accident (i.e. every single year), the profit is labelled a 'surplus' and a loss is labelled a 'deficit'.

 

Over extended periods of time, the surpluses and deficits are supposed to balance each other out.