Equality Commision Investigates C&RT

[mayalld]

 

 

I didn't say that you wanted a mooring. Rather that you want moorings to be made available wherever those who have children want to be.

 

I think the point as far as the authorities is where can these children be moored that will enable them to get to school regularly and without destroying the family unit, i.e. allowing jobs etc to continue

 

I'm not arguing from a position of privilege. That presumes that I have what I have simply through the luck of the draw. I didn't. I worked damned hard, and continue to do so in order to ensure that I am not beholden to anybody changing the rules to suit me. That isn't privilege, it's taking responsibility.

 

I would suggest that the boater with children has taken some responsibility by at least putting a stable roof over their children's heads. Your privilage is having the education and qualifications that allow you to be able to attain that lovely position of not being beholden to anyone.

 

My "privilege" comes at the expense of work being 90 minutes drive from home.

 

That is a choice you make. I know that the boaters with families would love to be in the position to make that choice to drive 90 minutes to work. You probably spend more on fuel for the car in a month than they have available for fuel for their boats in a year.

 

It is unfortunate that you don't know where New Mills is, as it is a charming little town in the Peak District, with excellent transport links to Manchester. You might like it there (Kiki who used to post here liked it so much that when they sold the boat, they settled there, half a world away from home in Cape Town).

 

As to why we should discuss house dwellers; We should discuss them, because the discussion is about the disconnect between what PEOPLE want, and what they can actually have. Whether they live aboard, or ashore, this is about people.

 

I am not sure you are right, here specifically this thread was about children, protecting them and making sure we do the best that can be done for them. Most of us are lucky and able to make sure our children have the best education we can find. This thread started as being about parents who are struggling to do the same thing.

 

As a house dweller, I may have many different wants about where I live. In the end, several of the locations that I might want are not available to me for various reasons. That is just life.

 

No it is not just life as you put it. It is to do with what your education and privilege have bought you and the failure of society to look after children who are not in such a privileged position.

 

Why should that simple truth be any different for a boat dweller. Why do you imagine that living aboard suddenly gives people an entitlement to live in the exact location that they want.

 

Trouble is it is not a simple truth, it is something the privileged like to wheel out and say to or about those that are struggling in this country of England.

 

 

And again you claim that I am privileged.

 

I'm not privileged. My education didn't give me qualifications that got me to where I am now. I got to where I am now, not by having the right qualifications, but by starting at the lowest most menial jobs, and teaching myself how to do the next job up.

 

The problem that you have is that you are arguing from a starting point that just doesn't hold up.

 

I am saying that nobody has a fundamental right to either get a land-based property or moor their boat exactly where they want, in order for their child to get to a particular school.

 

You are talking about uprooting children from a particular school by forcing their parents to move. The point is that the parents never had a legitimate right to be there in the first place.

Despite what people might believe there are employment opportunities available away from the south

 

Only for the privileged apparently

[KevMc]

Despite what people might believe there are employment opportunities available away from the south

I'm sure there are .. some for clog repairers, flat cap weavers, whippet trainers, extras in Corrie and Emmerdale .....

 

Plus real work of course

[Athy]

I'm sure there are .. some for clog repairers, flat cap weavers, whippet trainers, extras in Corrie and Emmerdale .....

 

Plus real work of course

You forgot the workers in the pie factories.

[mayalld]

You forgot the workers in the pie factories.

 

Hmm, pies!

 

Yes, there are lots of jobs in the North.

 

I know that when we advertise for people who need to use MS Office competently, and be comfortable with providing basic IT support, at AfC band 5, we get VERY few applicants.

 

Of course, the fact that they will have to work for me could have something to do with it!

[hounddog]

 

And again you claim that I am privileged.

 

I'm not privileged. My education didn't give me qualifications that got me to where I am now. I got to where I am now, not by having the right qualifications, but by starting at the lowest most menial jobs, and teaching myself how to do the next job up.

 

I am afraid that the ability to do that is a true privilege and not one available to the large majority of people.

[Alan de Enfield]

 

I am afraid that the ability to do that is a true privilege and not one available to the large majority of people.

 

Corrected for accuracy :

 

"I am afraid that the ability to do that is almost purely down to your attitude to work, and that is (potentially) available to a large majority of people if they are so inclined".

[hounddog]

Even one of your sneering inconsideration for the less well advantaged should see the flaws in that. If anyone and everyone, as your fatuous comment implies could rise through the ranks of any profession or trade then we would, as an end result, have all chiefs and no workers.

[Geo]

 

And again you claim that I am privileged.

 

I'm not privileged. My education didn't give me qualifications that got me to where I am now. I got to where I am now, not by having the right qualifications, but by starting at the lowest most menial jobs, and teaching myself how to do the next job up.

 

The problem that you have is that you are arguing from a starting point that just doesn't hold up.

 

I am saying that nobody has a fundamental right to either get a land-based property or moor their boat exactly where they want, in order for their child to get to a particular school.

 

You are talking about uprooting children from a particular school by forcing their parents to move. The point is that the parents never had a legitimate right to be there in the first place.

 

 

Of course you are privileged, you have enough money to own a boat, a luxury to the vast majority of the population, you have enough money to live in New Mills in a house you own, albeit probably with a mortgage, at least you can get one, I know it well, you have enough money to be able to afford the luxury of driving 90 minutes to work. Yes like most of us you worked hard to attain this privileged position. But you still live in a privileged position where you can easily get personal credit if you want it, you pay your house fuel bill on direct debit or by whatever manner you chose thus getting cheaper fuel. You do not have to put 50p in the slot for gas and electric at an exorbitant rate. Your life compared to the poorer of this country is a bed of roses.

 

Like you I am privileged, I started in London many years ago with an overdraft, ah I was already privileged I could get a loan, and worked my way up, studied as I went, got qualifications as I went, spent many hours studying late at night and in the early mornings. But most importantly people helped, guided and supported me, I did not do it alone. Nor I suspect did you although I suspect it might feel like you did. Today I spend more of my time trying to find somewhere to invest the money safely at a reasonable rate than I do working, well not quite . So yes I am privileged. But I owe a duty, to the poorer of this world. Maybe you do as well.

 

Could these people have done what you have done, I suspect not otherwise they would have done it. But that makes no differences to the fact that we should do something to take, enable, empower or whatever word you like to use the children out of the bottom layer of society. Thus in our country they are a special case and we need to make special provisions for them.

Edited November 22, 2016 by Geo

[Athy]

Even one of your sneering inconsideration for the less well advantaged should see the flaws in that. If anyone and everyone, as your fatuous comment implies could rise through the ranks of any profession or trade then we would, as an end result, have all chiefs and no workers.

Not so. Let us rephrase your statement in post number 255:

 

"The ability to try and do that is available to the large majority of people".

 

Now it rings true, doesn't it? Of course we wouldn't have all chiefs and so workers, because some would, through ability and assiduousness, rise higher than others.

 

I see nothing either "sneering" or "fatuous" in Alan's posts. Perhaps you could either explain these observations or amend them.

[IanD]

 

CCing is not compatible with children attending school (unless it's a boarding school).

 

PERIOD.

Surely it is, in the same way as for other travellers or families who have to move around?

 

What it isn't compatible with is children attending the same school all the time who belong to parents who don't have access to transport -- private or public -- which can get them there from a boat that's moving around an area.

 

I expect that a boat moving around some areas like Birmingham and Manchester could meet the CC rules and allow the parents to get the kids to school by public transport -- though this might take a lot of time and effort, it's probably not impossible.

 

But for parents who choose to moor somewhere this isn't possible and don't want to pay for a permanent mooring (or one isn't available) -- yes, CCing is not compatible with having children, unless they home educate them which is something some landlubbers choose to do.

[beerbeerbeerbeerbeer]

 

CCing is compatible with children attending school.

 

PERIOD.

Shout that again, I'm not sure it was heard

 

 

 

ETA: sorry, I got that trick off PaulC, altering a quote.

Edited November 22, 2016 by Goliath

[hounddog]

Not so. Let us rephrase your statement in post number 255:

 

"The ability to try and do that is available to the large majority of people".

 

Now it rings true, doesn't it? Of course we wouldn't have all chiefs and so workers, because some would, through ability and assiduousness, rise higher than others.

 

I see nothing either "sneering" or "fatuous" in Alan's posts. Perhaps you could either explain these observations or amend them.

 

I can only refer you to the post above yours that puts in more eloquently than I can.

 

I stand by my remarks. I have no time for those who look down on the disadvantaged as being 'workshy' or 'lazy'. You, I, Alan have tremendous advantages given to us by our background, our health, our education, our intelligence, our motivation and, pay attention now, our good luck not to have fallen into many of the pratfalls of life. To sneer at those who can't sit in Dave Mayall's chair is simply wrong and I will challenge it wherever I see it.

 

Lastly:

 

I will thank you not to rephrase my statements. I mean what I say and I say what I mean. Not your impression of what I should have said.

Edited November 22, 2016 by hounddog

[Athy]

 

 

 

I will thank you not to rephrase my statements. I mean what I say and I say what I mean.

No need to thank me, then - though I appreciate the offer.

Of course members have the right to express their opinions, and because we are a varied group of people, those opinions can be startling, even unpalatable, to other members. Thee is nothing wrong with that, as this is a discussion forum, and we can't have a discussion if everyone agrees with each other all the time.

BUT:

You are steering very close to "personal insults" in at least one of your posts. Please steer carefully.

Edited November 22, 2016 by Athy

[Guest]

 

I can only refer you to the post above yours that puts in more eloquently than I can.

 

I stand by my remarks. I have no time for those who look down on the disadvantaged as being 'workshy' or 'lazy'. You, I, Alan have tremendous advantages given to us by our background, our health, our education, our intelligence, our motivation and, pay attention now, our good luck not to have fallen into many of the pratfalls of life. To sneer at those who can't sit in Dave Mayall's chair is simply wrong and I will challenge it wherever I see it.

 

Lastly:

 

I will thank you not to rephrase my statements. I mean what I say and I say what I mean. Not your impression of what I should have said.

Kudos to you, sir.

[hounddog]

No need to thank me, then - though I appreciate the offer.

Of course members have the right to express their opinions, and because we are a varied group of people, those opinions can be startling, even unpalatable, to other members. Thee is nothing wrong with that, as this is a discussion forum, and we can't have a discussion if everyone agrees with each other all the time.

BUT:

You are steering very close to "personal insults" in at least one of your posts. Please steer carefully.

 

If I can't have a discussion with a moderator without that moderator throwing his authority around because he disagrees with what I say, I am not any more interested in this discussion.

[beerbeerbeerbeerbeer]

 

If I can't have a discussion with a moderator without that moderator throwing his authority around because he disagrees with what I say, I am not any more interested in this discussion.

Stay with it Hounddog.

[Murflynn]

Shout that again, I'm not sure it was heard

 

 

 

ETA: sorry, I got that trick off PaulC, altering a quote.

that must be a crime, although I'm, not sure which law forbids it.

[Athy]

 

If I can't have a discussion with a moderator without that moderator throwing his authority around because he disagrees with what I say, I am not any more interested in this discussion.

I have seen no sign of any moderator "throwing his authority around". Have you? If you have, how did you determine his motivation? Perhaps the intelligence with which you, correctly I'm sure, credit yourself extends to clairvoyance?

[beerbeerbeerbeerbeer]

that must be a crime, although I'm, not sure which law forbids it.

Just messing.

[Paul C]

 

If I can't have a discussion with a moderator without that moderator throwing his authority around because he disagrees with what I say, I am not any more interested in this discussion.

 

Its not because he disagrees with what you say, but because you're resorting to personal insult rather than debating the topic under discussion. If you have to resort to personal insults, or even steer close to it, readers may conclude it is because you are unable to form a coherent argument on the topic at hand.

 

Or to put it another way, if your point of view has any validity, then it should be sufficient on its merits alone and you should be nowhere near needing to personally insult anyone.

[beerbeerbeerbeerbeer]

 

Its not because he disagrees with what you say, but because you're resorting to personal insult rather than debating the topic under discussion. If you have to resort to personal insults, or even steer close to it, readers may conclude it is because you are unable to form a coherent argument on the topic at hand.

 

Or to put it another way, if your point of view has any validity, then it should be sufficient on its merits alone and you should be nowhere near needing to personally insult anyone.

And you should never say anyone is bonkers and wear their pants on their head because that would also imply you have no argument.

[WotEver]

Why shouldn't I wear my pants on my head? It's not illegal is it?

[beerbeerbeerbeerbeer]

This time of year it's two pants cold.

 

Which would mean you have even less of an argument.

[spadefoot]

 

I do not deny that work can be a 'serious factor' in the decision making process, but, as the boat owner will be aware when they declare to be CCers (no home mooring) the use of 'I work in the locality so need to stay close' is neither acceptable to C&RT, nor is a 'protected characteristic' in law.

So who is implying that it is?

it is just one of the factors, of which there may be many, which should or could influence a person's choices as to which part of the country they would like to live.

[Graham Davis]

Graham, does it not occur to you, that some of those finding it very difficult to find land-based accommodation in their home town, have turned to boats in a possibly desperate (and possibly misguided) attempt to secure some half decent accommodation for themselves & family?YES

Do you not listen to the news? YES

Did the recession pass you by? NO IT DID NOT.

Have you not heard of the austerity drive? YES.

Have you not noticed people sleeping rough? YES

Have you not spotted the small clusters of tent dwellings around town parks & in woods & along the canal edges? NOT PERSONALLY

Do you have any idea of the sort of accommodation that some poor buggers are expected to put up with?YES, ESPECIALLY CONSIDERING WHAT ONE OF MY JOBS USED TO BE.

You can't deny that it is "a" factor. I do not know why people give other reasons, you would have to ask them A diversion seems low on a list of possibilities.

 

Funnily enough my son and his then (non-working) partner and their 2 children wanted to move to the Bath area from Cardiff so that the children could go to the Steiner school in that area. Due to his epilepsy my son could only get a minimum wage job as a care worker, but guess what? He managed to find a house to rent in Frome and send his children to school, and get to Bath every day to work.

It is possible if you really want to do it.