Linear Moorings, are they a bleeding nuisance?
Martin Nicholas
I see these moorings as a good thing:
1. Preventing bank erosion.
2. Slowing speeding boats, see above.
3. The occupants are acting, unpaid lengths(wo)men, see above.
BW are at it at Audlem, it seems:
http://www.crewechronicle.co.uk/crewe-news/local-crewe-news/2009/10/21/reeling-audlem-businesses-and-boaters-hit-out-at-permanent-moorings-closures-96135-24976777/
Courtesy of:
http://www.waterwaysworld.com/latestpost.cgi?post=1638
Here's an article (AKA rehashed press release) from NarrowboatWorld
which may explain some of the above:
http://www.narrowboatworld.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=967:new-audlem-marina-taking-shape&catid=2:latest&Itemid=16
After all: "If you're in a hurry don't go by boat!"
Nick
> After all: "If you're in a hurry don't go by boat!"
While I go on the waterways to relax, I have a real problem with this
attitude. Of course it's not about rushing, but a huge part of the
pleasure I derive from boating comes from being able to do things
smoothly and efficiently.
So running the boat at an appropriate speed past a line of moored boats
without being shouted at (and you will be shouted at by some, /whatever/
speed you are doing). Not being blasted into the mud because every 5th
boat in the line has it's engine running to charge the batteries, in
gear, with a great jet shooting across the canal and - most of all -
taking 5 hours to go up Audlem because no-one has heard of setting ahead
or of not putting half a dozen boats all floating around waiting in a
single pound.
Boating might not be fast, but to use that as an excuse for selfish and
anti-social behaviour seems to be an increasing trend.
Not aimed at you Martin - not with those names!
--
Online waterways route planner: http://canalplan.org.uk
development version: http://canalplan.eu
Robert Oliver
holiday. One sees a huge range of boats that are on the canal system from
'gin' palaces to well worn work horses and can speculate on the owners.
As in all walks of life there are always those that spoil things for others.
The only stipulation I would have on online moorings is that the total
length of the moorings should be restricted with a reasonable gap before the
next online mooring.
Robert
"Nick" <3-no...@temporary-address.org.uk> wrote in message
news:87my3b9...@temporary-address.org.uk...
Nicholas D. Richards
<3-no...@temporary-address.org.uk> on Wed, 28 Oct 2009 at 10:03:27
awoke Nicholas from his slumbers and wrote
I do rather enjoy looking at some, but not all, the in-line floating
properties as I go past. If they have all been re-located into off-line
moorings my green eyes will have to become blue. On the other hand some
of the half floating properties do nothing for my enjoyment.
--
Nicholas David Richards -
"O� sont les neiges d'antan?"
Pete Stockdale
"Nicholas D. Richards" <nich...@salmiron.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:Kk5nCYBj...@salmiron.co.uk...
>
> I do rather enjoy looking at some, but not all, the in-line floating
> properties as I go past. If they have all been re-located into off-line
> moorings my green eyes will have to become blue. On the other hand some
> of the half floating properties do nothing for my enjoyment.
Partially - especially in those cases where the mooring is being used as a
primary static dwelling place.
Regards
Pete
www.thecanalshop.com
Tony Haynes
wrote:
> "Nicholas D. Richards" <nicho...@salmiron.demon.co.uk> wrote in messagenews:Kk5nCYBj...@salmiron.co.uk...
>
>
>
> > I do rather enjoy looking at some, but not all, the in-line floating
> > properties as I go past. If they have all been re-located into off-line
> > moorings my green eyes will have to become blue. On the other hand some
> > of the half floating properties do nothing for my enjoyment.
>
> Partially - especially in those cases where the mooring is being used as a
> primary static dwelling place.
>
> Regards
> Petewww.thecanalshop.com
Of course the other argument is, if you choose to moor linearly on a
busy boat road then you make your boat very secure, properly.
(The above sounding far better with a slight Franch Accant.... )
Tone (ooh la la)
Martin Nicholas
Not sure I equate "hurry" with "smoothly and efficiently".
I had no problems at Audlem when I went down last December 19th, apart from
getting stuck on a submerged object in Lock 8. :-)
Tony Brooks
"Tony Haynes" <irishcan...@googlemail.com> wrote in message
news:1c7cd7ec-3bb4-453c...@k4g2000yqb.googlegroups.com...
Tone (ooh la la)
Absolutely correct and I would add that you accept the movement caused by
boats passing is one of the prices you pay for mooring there.
The BW regulations are quiet specific over speed limits and if people want
to moor online than their choice should not be to the detriment of others
who are acting within the bylaws. Boaters should be free to pass PERMANENT
at the speed allowed NOT one forced on boaters because of their presence. If
this was the case I suspect there would be less opposition to online
moorings. However it is clear that the mooring provision is totally
inadequate on most sites, even BW ones and it is equally clear that the
boast moored at such sites are, in the majority, inadequately secured.
I make a distinction between permanent moorings and temporary mooring on
pins etc. we should all slow for theses.
I get fed up with the " If you go on the waterways why hurry" brigade who
always trot that one out in these discussions. I do not advocate speeding
but there are occasions where peoples lives away from the waterways affects
their life on the waterway and they should be free to travel up to the
permitted speed (remember we should never produce a breaking wash) without
being impeded by online moorings - sometimes breasted up and dramatically
reducing the navigable channel.
Tony Brooks
Adrian Stott
<reply...@mgn.org.uk> wrote:
>BW seem to want to shunt those on linear moorings into marinas.
>I see these moorings as a good thing:
>
>1. Preventing bank erosion.
>2. Slowing speeding boats, see above.
>3. The occupants are acting, unpaid lengths(wo)men, see above.
It seems from user group discussions that most boaters disagree with
you.
They note (among other things):
- Lines of moored boats turn the channel into a linear boat parking
lot, which isn't the type of place where those boating want to spend
their time.
- The presence of large numbers of linearly-moored boats usually
detracts from the scene, rather than adding to it.
- The "slow down" problem already mentioned
- The restriction of the channel
- Interference with channel maintenance, including dredging (ha ha)
BTW moored on-line boats *don't* prevent bank erosion; they actually
accelerate it. And since they are usually moored when they are not
occupied, the occupants generally aren't present to do anything, even
if they did feel like it.
AFAICS the occasional boat moored on-line is accepted. However, it
does seem to be the general opinion that long-term moorings should
usually be off-line.
Adrian
Adrian Stott
adr...@unspam.ca
Pete Stockdale
"Adrian Stott" <adr...@spam.com> wrote in message
news:p4uie5tra1qanrolr...@4ax.com...
I feel my description of you is vindicated as stated in the Lightbulb thread
(:-)
Regards
Pete
www.thecanalshop.com
Pete Stockdale
CRISTOFF
moored boats, at a reasonable speed, without any comment from the
boaters aboard, except a cheery wave or greeting and then some pillock
pops their head out and starts yelling like a fish wife about your
speed. Then you look closer and either their licence is out of date,
or non existent or they have half a yard of slack on the ropes so
their boat is bouncing around like a yellow plastic bath duck
Chris
Tony Haynes
The one that made me nearly fall off the counter in mirth, was the pre-
recorded, movement-actuated 'message' that came from a tatty cruiser
at Newbold. That must have really wound his neighbours up.
Tone
Brian on Harnser
disagree with you" User groups have not asked most boaters. Other than
that I broadly agree.
As for the "slow Down" and Tony's point about mooring on a motorway. If
you park up in a lorry park just of the motorway its no good
complaining about the noise of the traffic going past at 70 MPH.
User groups can't claim they represent us.
--
Brian traveling on Harnser
http://nbharnser.blogspot.com/
sue
I did reply to you in the other place but you didn't come back. The
user groups are made up of users. If you don't like what they say,
join and put your oar in. What you may mean is user groups don't
represent you. They certainly represent me.
Sue
krystyna@googlemail.com Mike & Krystyna Wooding
Thta's as may be Sue, but I would guess that the greater majority of boaters
are either not on line at all, or do not subscribe to newsgroups per se.
That is what I think Brian was meaning.
I may agree with many things said on newsgroups, but I would never say that
they represne me in anything when it matters.
Mike
--
Mike & Krystyna Wooding
nb Draco: http://www.draco.me.uk
Blog: http://dracostravels.blogspot.com
Draco Crafts: http://www.dracocrafts.co,uk
Tiny
>
> - Show quoted text -
The boats moored between the locks at Audlem are OK. They add to the
scene - though one who morrs opposite the 48 hour mooring can run his
engine/generator which spils the ambience.
But further down the Shroppie are the linear mooring that go on and
on. They seem to get longer each year and the odd marina might do some
good but as the moorings are private can BW insist boats go from these
linear to a marina.
As it is I must admit to only slowing past these moorings if there is
definate evidence of life on a boat. (But slow as normal for towpath
side moored boats.)
Incidentally I see there is a proposal for a marina near B54 on the
Shroppie. As this is the area where all those nice fishermen have
contests on the 'Soundley Canal' a marina with 200 boats many of which
might venture out at weekends when the fishermen fish should be fun!
Will the fishing clubs oppose such a marina and will BW support them
or prefer the dosh from the boats and the marina?
sue
No it was User groups that were mentioned not news groups, which are
completely different.
Sue
Tony Haynes
The main problem with user groups is not whether they represent users,
but whether BW takes any notice of them. The EA have a somewhat better
track record.
Tone
krystyna@googlemail.com Mike & Krystyna Wooding
I accept the correction Sue, but still say that just because I may belong to
a User Group it does not necessarily say I agree with everything they
say/stand for. In fact, as you well know, I resigned from one because of
this very thing.
sue
Not every one at a User group meeting agrees with one another,
especially BW :-))
Sue
Tiny
>
> - Show quoted text -
Sound like an illness - ....Does BW disagree with you? Then try new...
Shame there isn't an operation to get rid of the more disagreeable
bits - a few names come to mind.
Adrian Stott
<irishcan...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>The main problem with user groups is not whether they represent users,
>but whether BW takes any notice of them. The EA have a somewhat better
>track record.
In your dreams, perhaps.
Adrian
Adrian Stott
adr...@unspam.ca
Tony Haynes
> On Sun, 1 Nov 2009 01:37:59 -0800 (PST), Tony Haynes
>
> >The main problem with user groups is not whether they represent users,
> >but whether BW takes any notice of them. The EA have a somewhat better
> >track record.
>
> In your dreams, perhaps.
>
> Adrian
>
> Adrian Stott
> adr...@unspam.ca
I can't remember you appearing at a single EA WWG meeting at Reading,
when the lock keepers' cottages were saved, and boat licence fees were
fought down from initial proposals, for example.
Come to think of it, thanks for not being there.
Tone
Adrian Stott
<irishcan...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>On Nov 3, 9:31�am, Adrian Stott <adr...@spam.com> wrote:
>> On Sun, 1 Nov 2009 01:37:59 -0800 (PST), Tony Haynes
>>
>> <irishcanaldrif...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>> >The main problem with user groups is not whether they represent users,
>> >but whether BW takes any notice of them. The EA have a somewhat better
>> >track record.
>>
>> In your dreams, perhaps.
>>
>> Adrian
>I can't remember you appearing at a single EA WWG meeting at Reading,
>when the lock keepers' cottages were saved, and boat licence fees were
>fought down from initial proposals, for example.
Shame about your memory.
When I was representing DBA, I attended almost every EA national user
meeting for about eight years.
You should have put "saved" in quotes. There was never any risk of
the cottages being demolished. They are no longer needed for
lock-keepers (who could live anywhere), and selling them would (and
should) have raised revenue for EA that could have been spent on the
navigation.
Adrian
Adrian Stott
adr...@unspam.ca
Tony Haynes
>
> When I was representing DBA, I attended almost every EA national user
> meeting for about eight years.
>
When was it that you stopped representing the DBA again.... and why?
Oh.. and I didn't claim that the cottages would be demolished. They
were saved for the keepers from being asset stripped. But you weren't
at those meetings were you?
Tone
Adrian Stott
<irishcan...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>On Nov 4, 9:09�pm, Adrian Stott <adr...@spam.com> wrote:
>
>>
>> When I was representing DBA, I attended almost every EA national user
>> meeting for about eight years.
>
>When was it that you stopped representing the DBA again.... and why?
After I'd been a director of it for about ten years, I decided it was
time to stand aside and did not run for re-election
>Oh.. and I didn't claim that the cottages would be demolished. They
>were saved for the keepers from being asset stripped. But you weren't
>at those meetings were you?
See Waterways World 2008 July, page 105.
Adrian
Adrian Stott
adr...@unspam.ca
krystyna@googlemail.com Mike & Krystyna Wooding
>
> You should have put "saved" in quotes. There was never any risk of
> the cottages being demolished. They are no longer needed for
> lock-keepers (who could live anywhere), and selling them would (and
> should) have raised revenue for EA that could have been spent on the
> navigation.
Chicken feed in the nature of things, far better to look after the staff,
but of course you wouldn't care about that would you?
Mike
--
Mike & Krystyna Wooding
nb Draco: http://www.draco.me.uk
Blog: http://dracostravels.blogspot.com
Draco Crafts: http://www.dracocrafts.co.uk
Brian on Harnser
> Adrian Stott wrote:
>
>>
>> You should have put "saved" in quotes. There was never any risk of
>> the cottages being demolished. They are no longer needed for
>> lock-keepers (who could live anywhere), and selling them would (and
>> should) have raised revenue for EA that could have been spent on the
>> navigation.
>
> Chicken feed in the nature of things, far better to look after the staff, but
> of course you wouldn't care about that would you?
>
> Mike
I always think that when I visit places like Cadburys and Saltaire
where they became great companies who looked after their workers, I
think there may be a connection.
David Long
Harnser <br...@notharnser.info> writes
not all have built model villages for them (with restrictions, for
example, which forbade pubs...), but they built schools, churches,
libraries etc., to improve the 'quality' (i.e, sobriety and compliance)
of their work-forces. I don't think there was that much altruism in it
for most.
--
David Long
Sankey Canal Restoration Society http://www.scars.org.uk/
A Road to Wigan Pier Webcam: http://www.scars.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/webcam/
St. Mary's Church: http://www.acny.org.uk/venue.php?V=15337&P=1
Brian on Harnser
> In message <006f0738$0$23816$c3e...@news.astraweb.com>, Brian on Harnser
> <br...@notharnser.info> writes
>>Mike & Krystyna Wooding explained on 05/11/2009 :
>>> Adrian Stott wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> You should have put "saved" in quotes. There was never any risk of
>>>> the cottages being demolished. They are no longer needed for
>>>> lock-keepers (who could live anywhere), and selling them would (and
>>>> should) have raised revenue for EA that could have been spent on the
>>>> navigation.
>>>
>>> Chicken feed in the nature of things, far better to look after the staff,
>>> but of course you wouldn't care about that would you?
>>>
>>> Mike
>>
>>I always think that when I visit places like Cadburys and Saltaire where
>> they became great companies who looked after their workers, I think there
>> may be a connection.
>>
> Many companies 'looked after' their workers, once upon a time. They may not
> all have built model villages for them (with restrictions, for example, which
> forbade pubs...), but they built schools, churches, libraries etc., to
> improve the 'quality' (i.e, sobriety and compliance) of their work-forces. I
> don't think there was that much altruism in it for most.
work force seemed to succeed in business
David Long
The point I was making that the ones we know about who did things in a
big way, such as those you mentioned, were only doing what many other
companies did in some form. Not all succeeded in business, and their
motivation was profit, not philanthropy. They also carried on their
business in a very different world, in which the wealthy believed they
could buy their way into Heaven. I don't think that's a motivation
you'll find in many businesses these days.
Nick
> You should have put "saved" in quotes. There was never any risk of
> the cottages being demolished. They are no longer needed for
> lock-keepers (who could live anywhere), and selling them would (and
> should) have raised revenue for EA that could have been spent on the
> navigation.
Can I just double-check this one please, I'm getting confused. When BW
are given money for navigation they should, instead, spend it on buying
property.
When EA have waterside property that is part of the environment that is
one of the attractions of the waterway, they should sell it and spend
the money on navigation.
Is that right?
I'm sure you'll explain why - it's all to do with market clearing, isn't
it?
--
Online waterways route planner: http://canalplan.org.uk
development version: http://canalplan.eu
Pete Stockdale
"Nick" <3-no...@temporary-address.org.uk> wrote in message
news:87k4y43...@temporary-address.org.uk...
> Can I just double-check this one please, I'm getting confused. When BW
> are given money for navigation they should, instead, spend it on buying
> property.
>
> When EA have waterside property that is part of the environment that is
> one of the attractions of the waterway, they should sell it and spend
> the money on navigation.
>
> Is that right?
>
> I'm sure you'll explain why - it's all to do with market clearing, isn't
> it?
I think we ought to have had multibenefitting assets as far as lock cottages
are concerned.
BW retain ownership and rent out the properties.
They then have the benefit of the revenue ad infinitum.
We then retain the benefit of the attraction side of the asset.
If some wise spark then comes along and can prove that lock keepers working
from lock cottages is a good move,
then this option remains open to BW.
Alas - in most cases, this option would appear lost.
Regards
Pete
www.thecanalshop.com
Nick
Absolutely. And if EA want to do revisit moving the lockkeepers out in
future that's what they should do. It also means they keep control over
the property. If you look at what's happened to many of the Straford
barrel-roofed cottages you can see the advantage of this policy.
Tony Haynes
> On Wed, 4 Nov 2009 13:22:15 -0800 (PST), Tony Haynes
>
No thanks
Tone
krystyna@googlemail.com Mike & Krystyna Wooding
Excepting that the River Thames is a river! - which is subject to oft times
severe flooding and high water flows. OK, so many/most of the weirs are
automatic, but NOTHING can compare to having a man on the spot with
knowledge of the water and the ability to override/control the automatic
weirs, etc. Oh - that would be the lock keeper in his lock-side/weir side
house would it not?
Mike
--
Mike & Krystyna Wooding
nb Draco: http://www.draco.me.uk
Blog: http://dracostravels.blogspot.com
Draco Crafts: http://www.dracocrafts.co.uk
Pete Stockdale
"Mike & Krystyna Wooding" <mikeand krys...@googlemail.com> wrote in message
news:7ljekvF...@mid.individual.net...
>>
>> Absolutely. And if EA want to do revisit moving the lockkeepers out
>> in future that's what they should do. It also means they keep
>> control over the property. If you look at what's happened to many of
>> the Straford barrel-roofed cottages you can see the advantage of this
>> policy.
>
> Excepting that the River Thames is a river! - which is subject to oft
> times severe flooding and high water flows. OK, so many/most of the weirs
> are automatic, but NOTHING can compare to having a man on the spot with
> knowledge of the water and the ability to override/control the automatic
> weirs, etc. Oh - that would be the lock keeper in his lock-side/weir side
> house would it not?
Precisely - you have been paying attention (:-)
Regards
Pete
www.thecanalshop.com
Adrian Stott
krys...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>Nick wrote:
>> "Pete Stockdale" <peter....@btopenworld.com> writes:
>>
>>> "Nick" <3-no...@temporary-address.org.uk> wrote in message
>>> news:87k4y43...@temporary-address.org.uk...
>>>> Can I just double-check this one please, I'm getting confused.
>>>> When BW are given money for navigation they should, instead, spend
>>>> it on buying property.
>>>>
>>>> When EA have waterside property that is part of the environment
>>>> that is one of the attractions of the waterway, they should sell it
>>>> and spend the money on navigation.
>>>>
>>>> Is that right?
>>>>
>>>> I'm sure you'll explain why - it's all to do with market clearing,
>>>> isn't it?
It's actually to do with the powers of the organisations concerned.
EA does not have the power to invest in real estate; BW does. So if
EA releases cash by a sale, it can do one of two things: Let the
Treasury take it, or spend it on the waterway (i.e maintenance). If
BW releases cash, it can either spend it immediately on the waterway,
or invest it to produce future income it can spend on the waterway.
>>> BW retain ownership and rent out the properties.
>>>
>>> They then have the benefit of the revenue ad infinitum.
>>> We then retain the benefit of the attraction side of the asset.
If you are going to make an investment, you should aim for the best
(risk-adjusted) return you can get. AIUI BW has found that, in
general, income from renting out lock cottages produces a smaller net
return (especially after considering the cost of maintaining these old
and often not-well-built structures) than selling the cottages and
putting the capital into other investments.
When BW sells a lock cottage, the cottage generally continues to
exist, so we still "retain the benefit of the attraction side".
>>> If some wise spark then comes along and can prove that lock keepers
>>> working from lock cottages is a good move,
>>> then this option remains open to BW.
BW has hardly any lock keepers. However, if it decided that it needed
to add one at a particular lock, and that he needed to be resident
(both parts of which are very unlikely), it could always buy back the
cottage and rent it to the keeper.
>> And if EA want to do revisit moving the lockkeepers out
>> in future that's what they should do. It also means they keep
>> control over the property. If you look at what's happened to many of
>> the Straford barrel-roofed cottages you can see the advantage of this
>> policy.
EA proposed disposing of its cottages on long-term leases, not selling
them, precisely so it could retain the control you mention (while
still releasing capital).
>Excepting that the River Thames is a river! - which is subject to oft times
>severe flooding and high water flows. OK, so many/most of the weirs are
>automatic, but NOTHING can compare to having a man on the spot with
>knowledge of the water and the ability to override/control the automatic
>weirs, etc. Oh - that would be the lock keeper in his lock-side/weir side
>house would it not?
No.
He could live anywhere reasonably near to his work, perhaps with
electronic access to the river conditions if necessary (although I
believe these are now continuously monitored centrally).
In any case, when a resident lock keeper is off duty, he's off duty.
What if he's at the pub, or a party, or away for the weekend, at the
time you think he should be clambering around weirs? Much more
sensible to have 24-hour coverage, split among several staff who are
trained for the job and near enough to get there in half an hour or so
at times when the lock is not staffed.
On Thu, 05 Nov 2009 20:16:06 GMT, Brian on Harnser
<br...@notharnser.info> wrote:
>I always think that when I visit places like Cadburys and Saltaire
>where they became great companies who looked after their workers, I
>think there may be a connection.
At the time these businesses started, it was the practice to pay
workers relatively little in cash, and give them other things such as
a house, subsidised food, etc. This was partly to ensure that the
employees were likely to stay put, because they would lose their homes
if they quit.
Today, such paternalism doesn't go down well. Most people apparently
prefer to be paid mostly in cash, so they can choose their own houses,
food, etc. rather than being forced to use only what the
"looking-after" employer gives them.
They don't much like forelock-tugging these days either.
Adrian
Adrian Stott
adr...@unspam.ca
Nick
> BW has hardly any lock keepers. However, if it decided that it needed
> to add one at a particular lock, and that he needed to be resident
> (both parts of which are very unlikely), it could always buy back the
> cottage and rent it to the keeper.
Compulsory purchase it you mean? Sounds unlikely.
>>> And if EA want to do revisit moving the lockkeepers out
>>> in future that's what they should do. It also means they keep
>>> control over the property. If you look at what's happened to many of
>>> the Straford barrel-roofed cottages you can see the advantage of this
>>> policy.
>
> EA proposed disposing of its cottages on long-term leases, not selling
> them, precisely so it could retain the control you mention (while
> still releasing capital).
Interesting. "Selling" is what I've always heard. But "long-term
lease" covers a multitude of sins, including the way my parent's own
their house: on what remains (the vast majority) of a 999 year lease
with no controls on what they do. If you lease something for 30 years
it doesn't really give you much over selling it, does it?
> In any case, when a resident lock keeper is off duty, he's off duty.
> What if he's at the pub, or a party, or away for the weekend, at the
> time you think he should be clambering around weirs? Much more
> sensible to have 24-hour coverage, split among several staff who are
> trained for the job and near enough to get there in half an hour or so
> at times when the lock is not staffed.
In practice it's somewhere between those. I'm a lot more available to
work when I'm not at work because I live within a few minutes of it than
I would be if I lived 50 miles away. Of course, if I'm not on call or
contracted to be available or something there's no guarantee that I will
be. But I'll bet a lockkeeper living in a lock house will keep an eye
on things out of hours more than either a lockkeeper living miles away
or a banker who uses it as a holiday cottage.
> On Thu, 05 Nov 2009 20:16:06 GMT, Brian on Harnser
> <br...@notharnser.info> wrote:
Your newsreader appears to be broken again.
krystyna@googlemail.com Mike & Krystyna Wooding
>
> Today, such paternalism doesn't go down well. Most people apparently
> prefer to be paid mostly in cash, so they can choose their own houses,
> food, etc. rather than being forced to use only what the
> "looking-after" employer gives them.
>
> They don't much like forelock-tugging these days either.
Isn't it strange (no, on thinking about it not) that the Thames lock keepers
we got to know on our 18 months on the river totally disagree with your
summation and comments. They wanted to stay with their houses and also they
were aften on duty out-of-hours manning weirs during high flow conditions,
contary to your statement.
Nicholas D. Richards
<3-no...@temporary-address.org.uk> on Sat, 7 Nov 2009 at 12:12:05
awoke Nicholas from his slumbers and wrote
>Adrian Stott <adr...@spam.com> writes:
>
>
>> On Thu, 05 Nov 2009 20:16:06 GMT, Brian on Harnser
>> <br...@notharnser.info> wrote:
>
>Your newsreader appears to be broken again.
Or is it the poster who is broken again.
I found it quite impossible to follow Adrain, yet again. His use of cut
and paste is impossible to follow.
--
Nicholas David Richards -
"O� sont les neiges d'antan?"
Nick
> In article <874op6e...@temporary-address.org.uk>, Nick
> <3-no...@temporary-address.org.uk> on Sat, 7 Nov 2009 at 12:12:05
> awoke Nicholas from his slumbers and wrote
>>Adrian Stott <adr...@spam.com> writes:
>>
>>
>>> On Thu, 05 Nov 2009 20:16:06 GMT, Brian on Harnser
>>> <br...@notharnser.info> wrote:
>>
>>Your newsreader appears to be broken again.
>
> Or is it the poster who is broken again.
I find it hard to believe that any individual could be so stupid,
particularly after it's been explained to him how it completely breaks
the threading model of Usenet. So I charitably ascribe it to the
software.
Neil Arlidge
> "Nicholas D. Richards" <nich...@salmiron.demon.co.uk> writes:
>
>> In article <874op6e...@temporary-address.org.uk>, Nick
>> <3-no...@temporary-address.org.uk> on Sat, 7 Nov 2009 at 12:12:05
>> awoke Nicholas from his slumbers and wrote
>>> Adrian Stott <adr...@spam.com> writes:
>>>
>>>
>>>> On Thu, 05 Nov 2009 20:16:06 GMT, Brian on Harnser
>>>> <br...@notharnser.info> wrote:
>>>
>>> Your newsreader appears to be broken again.
>>
>> Or is it the poster who is broken again.
>
> I find it hard to believe that any individual could be so stupid,
> particularly after it's been explained to him how it completely breaks
> the threading model of Usenet. So I charitably ascribe it to the
> software.
It looks like Adrian is just getting a bit carried away with his online
debating for the Optimum Population Trust and is bringing that style of
posting here.
http://www.optimumpopulation.org/opt.aboutus.html
--
Neil Arlidge
NB Earnest
TNC http://www.tuesdaynightclub.co.uk/tour.html
krystyna@googlemail.com Mike & Krystyna Wooding
> "Nicholas D. Richards" <nich...@salmiron.demon.co.uk> writes:
>
>> In article <874op6e...@temporary-address.org.uk>, Nick
>> <3-no...@temporary-address.org.uk> on Sat, 7 Nov 2009 at 12:12:05
>> awoke Nicholas from his slumbers and wrote
>>>Adrian Stott <adr...@spam.com> writes:
>>>
>>>
>>>> On Thu, 05 Nov 2009 20:16:06 GMT, Brian on Harnser
>>>> <br...@notharnser.info> wrote:
>>>
>>>Your newsreader appears to be broken again.
>>
>> Or is it the poster who is broken again.
>
> I find it hard to believe that any individual could be so stupid,
> particularly after it's been explained to him how it completely breaks
> the threading model of Usenet. So I charitably ascribe it to the
> software.
No, it's just Adrian's idea of what everybody should do, because he does,
therefore it is right and correct !
Nicholas D. Richards
<ne...@tuesdaynightclub.co.uk> on Sat, 7 Nov 2009 at 17:57:15 awoke
Nicholas from his slumbers and wrote
>Nick wrote:
>> "Nicholas D. Richards" <nich...@salmiron.demon.co.uk> writes:
>>
>>> In article <874op6e...@temporary-address.org.uk>, Nick
>>> <3-no...@temporary-address.org.uk> on Sat, 7 Nov 2009 at 12:12:05
>>> awoke Nicholas from his slumbers and wrote
>>>> Adrian Stott <adr...@spam.com> writes:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> On Thu, 05 Nov 2009 20:16:06 GMT, Brian on Harnser
>>>>> <br...@notharnser.info> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Your newsreader appears to be broken again.
>>>
>>> Or is it the poster who is broken again.
>>
>> I find it hard to believe that any individual could be so stupid,
>> particularly after it's been explained to him how it completely breaks
>> the threading model of Usenet. So I charitably ascribe it to the
>> software.
>
>It looks like Adrian is just getting a bit carried away with his online
>debating for the Optimum Population Trust and is bringing that style of
>posting here.
>
>http://www.optimumpopulation.org/opt.aboutus.html
J***S H Ch***t, any chance of a Darwin Award, or is that only for the
rest of us.
Amazing what a Simpson jnr does for you.
Tony Haynes
<nicho...@salmiron.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> In article <cYSdnfrl9ZKbKGjXnZ2dnUVZ8oudn...@giganews.com>, Neil Arlidge
> <ne...@tuesdaynightclub.co.uk> on Sat, 7 Nov 2009 at 17:57:15 awoke
> Nicholas from his slumbers and wrote
>
>
>
>
>
> >Nick wrote:
>
> >>> In article <874op6edpm....@temporary-address.org.uk>, Nick
> >>> <3-nos...@temporary-address.org.uk> on Sat, 7 Nov 2009 at 12:12:05
> >>> awoke Nicholas from his slumbers and wrote
> >>>> Adrian Stott <adr...@spam.com> writes:
>
> >>>>> On Thu, 05 Nov 2009 20:16:06 GMT, Brian on Harnser
> >>>>> <br...@notharnser.info> wrote:
>
> >>>> Your newsreader appears to be broken again.
>
> >>> Or is it the poster who is broken again.
>
> >> I find it hard to believe that any individual could be so stupid,
> >> particularly after it's been explained to him how it completely breaks
> >> the threading model of Usenet. So I charitably ascribe it to the
> >> software.
>
> >It looks like Adrian is just getting a bit carried away with his online
> >debating for the Optimum Population Trust and is bringing that style of
> >posting here.
>
> >http://www.optimumpopulation.org/opt.aboutus.html
>
> J***S H Ch***t, any chance of a Darwin Award, or is that only for the
> rest of us.
>
> Amazing what a Simpson jnr does for you.
> --
> Nicholas David Richards -
>
What we have to remember is that Sir Aide thrives on lack of
popularity... so we're all just feeding his ego.
Tone
Adrian Stott
<3-no...@temporary-address.org.uk> wrote:
>Adrian Stott <adr...@spam.com> writes:
>
>> BW has hardly any lock keepers. However, if it decided that it needed
>> to add one at a particular lock, and that he needed to be resident
>> (both parts of which are very unlikely), it could always buy back the
>> cottage and rent it to the keeper.
>
>Compulsory purchase it you mean? Sounds unlikely.
Who suggested that? Not me.
>>>> And if EA want to do revisit moving the lockkeepers out
>>>> in future that's what they should do. It also means they keep
>>>> control over the property. If you look at what's happened to many of
>>>> the Straford barrel-roofed cottages you can see the advantage of this
>>>> policy.
>>
>> EA proposed disposing of its cottages on long-term leases, not selling
>> them, precisely so it could retain the control you mention (while
>> still releasing capital).
>
>Interesting. "Selling" is what I've always heard. But "long-term
>lease" covers a multitude of sins, including the way my parent's own
>their house: on what remains (the vast majority) of a 999 year lease
>with no controls on what they do. If you lease something for 30 years
>it doesn't really give you much over selling it, does it?
Yes, it does. You can put conditions on the lease (such as over
redevelopment and use).
>
>> In any case, when a resident lock keeper is off duty, he's off duty.
>> What if he's at the pub, or a party, or away for the weekend, at the
>> time you think he should be clambering around weirs? Much more
>> sensible to have 24-hour coverage, split among several staff who are
>> trained for the job and near enough to get there in half an hour or so
>> at times when the lock is not staffed.
>
>In practice it's somewhere between those. I'm a lot more available to
>work when I'm not at work because I live within a few minutes of it than
>I would be if I lived 50 miles away. Of course, if I'm not on call or
>contracted to be available or something there's no guarantee that I will
>be. But I'll bet a lockkeeper living in a lock house will keep an eye
>on things out of hours more than either a lockkeeper living miles away
>or a banker who uses it as a holiday cottage.
Some people will bet on anything.
To my way of thinking, either the lockkeeper is bound by his contract
to be on call outside his normal hours, or he isn't.
I wonder how the lock keepers would react to EA taking the full market
rent off their pay to cover the real value of the house occupancy
benefit.
Adrian
Adrian Stott
adr...@unspam.ca
krystyna@googlemail.com Mike & Krystyna Wooding
>
> To my way of thinking, either the lockkeeper is bound by his contract
> to be on call outside his normal hours, or he isn't.
But many people have a much higher level of conscientiousness than either
you have or believe in. I can remember on many occasions in my other
lifetime many of my staff of engineers would often go the extra mile even
if/when off duty to ensure the safety of the flying public. The EA lock
keepers to my mind are made of the same stuff.
>
> I wonder how the lock keepers would react to EA taking the full market
> rent off their pay to cover the real value of the house occupancy
> benefit.
What on earth has that to do with this 'discussion'?
Pete Stockdale
"Adrian Stott" <adr...@spam.com> wrote in message
news:jurdf5pp7qpfa96or...@4ax.com...
>>
>>In practice it's somewhere between those. I'm a lot more available to
>>work when I'm not at work because I live within a few minutes of it than
>>I would be if I lived 50 miles away. Of course, if I'm not on call or
>>contracted to be available or something there's no guarantee that I will
>>be. But I'll bet a lockkeeper living in a lock house will keep an eye
>>on things out of hours more than either a lockkeeper living miles away
>>or a banker who uses it as a holiday cottage.
>
> Some people will bet on anything.
>
> To my way of thinking, either the lockkeeper is bound by his contract
> to be on call outside his normal hours, or he isn't.
>
> I wonder how the lock keepers would react to EA taking the full market
> rent off their pay to cover the real value of the house occupancy
> benefit
.
>
residence is a tool of trade.
Bit like trying to charge firemen for overniting at the fire -station - a
non- starter
and nothing to do with number of hours contracted.
Regards
Pete
www.thecanalshop.com
circusjim
> On Sat, 07 Nov 2009 12:12:05 +0000, Nick
>
> To my way of thinking, either the lockkeeper is bound by his contract
> to be on call outside his normal hours, or he isn't.
>
> I wonder how the lock keepers would react to EA taking the full market
> rent off their pay to cover the real value of the house occupancy
> benefit.
>
> Adrian
>
> Adrian Stott
> adr...@unspam.ca
For once I agree, as a lock keeper if I saw a disaster about to happen,
or someone drowning, I would be within my contracted rights to turn away
if it wasn't within my contracted working hours. Am I my brothers
keeper? After all, to quote the greatest leader of the twentieth century
"there's no such thing as society". As her followers we will just look
after ourselves!
BTW have they not invented a cure for Aides yet?
yours uncharitably
Jim
Brian Dominic
finished tucking into their plate of fish, chips and mushy peas.
Wiping their mouths, they swigged the last of their cup of tea, paid
the bill and wrote::
>For once I agree, as a lock keeper if I saw a disaster about to happen,
>or someone drowning, I would be within my contracted rights to turn away
>if it wasn't within my contracted working hours.
.............. and if you did that, you would be a stony hearted
individual.
Brian L Dominic
Web Site: http://www.brianscanalpages.co.uk
Newsgroup readers should note that the reply-to address is NOT read:
To email me, please send to brian(dot)dominic(at)tiscali(dot)co(dot)uk
krystyna@googlemail.com Mike & Krystyna Wooding
So you have also given up any sense of humanity as well?
Pete Stockdale
"circusjim" <j...@nospam.co.uk> wrote in message
news:FiEJm.10640$6c2...@newsfe03.iad...
>
> For once I agree, as a lock keeper if I saw a disaster about to happen, or
> someone drowning, I would be within my contracted rights to turn away if
> it wasn't within my contracted working hours. Am I my brothers keeper?
> After all, to quote the greatest leader of the twentieth century
> "there's no such thing as society". As her followers we will just look
> after ourselves!
You follow strange women at your peril .
Pete
Nicholas D. Richards
<mikeand@krystyna.?.com> on Sun, 8 Nov 2009 at 20:11:35 awoke Nicholas
from his slumbers and wrote
>> Adrian Stott wrote:
>>> On Sat, 07 Nov 2009 12:12:05 +0000, Nick
>> snip
>>>
>>> To my way of thinking, either the lockkeeper is bound by his contract
>>> to be on call outside his normal hours, or he isn't.
>>>
>>> I wonder how the lock keepers would react to EA taking the full
>>> market rent off their pay to cover the real value of the house
>>> occupancy benefit.
>>>
>>> Adrian
>>>
>>> Adrian Stott
>>> adr...@unspam.ca
>>
>> For once I agree, as a lock keeper if I saw a disaster about to
>> happen, or someone drowning, I would be within my contracted rights
>> to turn away if it wasn't within my contracted working hours. Am I my
>> brothers keeper? After all, to quote the greatest leader of the
>> twentieth century "there's no such thing as society". As her
>> followers we will just look after ourselves!
>
>So you have also given up any sense of humanity as well?
>
I think that Jim was speaking in jest, parodying Adrain's views. Hence
the remark that you cut out where he asked if Adrian had found a cure
for Aides yet and signed uncharitably.
--
Nicholas David Richards -
"O� sont les neiges d'antan?"
Nick
> On Sat, 07 Nov 2009 12:12:05 +0000, Nick
> <3-no...@temporary-address.org.uk> wrote:
>
>>Adrian Stott <adr...@spam.com> writes:
>>
>>> BW has hardly any lock keepers. However, if it decided that it needed
>>> to add one at a particular lock, and that he needed to be resident
>>> (both parts of which are very unlikely), it could always buy back the
>>> cottage and rent it to the keeper.
>>
>>Compulsory purchase it you mean? Sounds unlikely.
>
> Who suggested that? Not me.
Well you said that they could buy it back if they needed it. If newly
married twenty year olds Mr and Mrs Smith have moved in and intend to
stay there until they die, then if the EA need it back, how else are
they going to do it?
Did you just not read a word I wrote. I quite explicitly said that he
isn't bound; and he isn't, in any way, shape or form. That doesn't mean
he won't when he can - which may well be of value.
Adrian Stott
krys...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>Adrian Stott wrote:
>>
>> To my way of thinking, either the lockkeeper is bound by his contract
>> to be on call outside his normal hours, or he isn't.
>> I wonder how the lock keepers would react to EA taking the full market
>> rent off their pay to cover the real value of the house occupancy
>> benefit.
>
>What on earth has that to do with this 'discussion'?
er, everything?
>They would react unfavourably as it could be fairly argued that the onsite
>residence is a tool of trade.
>Bit like trying to charge firemen for overniting at the fire -station - a non- starter
>and nothing to do with number of hours contracted.
>
>Regards
>Pete
OK. I have a job stocking supermarket shelves. Some stock arrives
after I've gone home for the day. Should I be required to live in the
supermarket so I can be forced to work out of hours, to make sure the
stock is fully displayed at opening time the next day? Or should the
supermarket hire a second shift?
>On Sun, 8 Nov 2009 17:55:49 -0000, "Mike & Krystyna Wooding" <mikeand
>krys...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>
>The lock keepers miserable salaries include the use of the house, without the
>house the EA might have to pay the lock keepers a realistic salary.
EA should pay them a competitive salary, of course. Trying to hide
this by letting a lockkeeper live in a lock house is goofy. Especially
if the notional rent for the house is much less than its market rent.,
thus hiding the true cost to EA of having a lockkeeper.
Also, a man is worthy of his hire. He shouldn't be forced to buy
(his housing, or anything else) at the company store.
Adrian
Adrian Stott
adr...@unspam.ca
Pete Stockdale
>
> OK. I have a job stocking supermarket shelves. Some stock arrives
> after I've gone home for the day. Should I be required to live in the
> supermarket so I can be forced to work out of hours, to make sure the
> stock is fully displayed at opening time the next day? Or should the
> supermarket hire a second shift?
>
>
> this by letting a lockkeeper live in a lock house is goofy. Especially
> if the notional rent for the house is much less than its market rent.,
> thus hiding the true cost to EA of having a lockkeeper.
> Also, a man is worthy of his hire. He shouldn't be forced to buy
> (his housing, or anything else) at the company store.
1). You wouldn't merit a job sweeping supermarket floors -
so do not pretend to us that you have a job stocking shelves.
2). Perhaps you will go down in history as the person
who helped empty every vicarage in the land as well as lock cottages.
Regards
Pete
www.petescombinedcanalshopandresidence.com
krystyna@googlemail.com Mike & Krystyna Wooding
> On Sun, 8 Nov 2009 17:55:49 -0000, "Mike & Krystyna Wooding" <mikeand
> krys...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>
>>Adrian Stott wrote:
>>>
>>> To my way of thinking, either the lockkeeper is bound by his
>>> contract to be on call outside his normal hours, or he isn't.
>
>>> I wonder how the lock keepers would react to EA taking the full
>>> market rent off their pay to cover the real value of the house
>>> occupancy benefit.
>>
>>What on earth has that to do with this 'discussion'?
>
> er, everything?
>
>>They would react unfavourably as it could be fairly argued that the
>>onsite
>>residence is a tool of trade.
>>Bit like trying to charge firemen for overniting at the fire -station
>>- a non- starter and nothing to do with number of hours contracted.
>>
>>Regards
>>Pete
>
> OK. I have a job stocking supermarket shelves. Some stock arrives
> after I've gone home for the day. Should I be required to live in the
> supermarket so I can be forced to work out of hours, to make sure the
> stock is fully displayed at opening time the next day? Or should the
> supermarket hire a second shift?
We are talking about a safety-related occupation and culure. I wouldn't
expect someone like you to understand the ramifications and difference
Nick
> OK. I have a job stocking supermarket shelves. Some stock arrives
> after I've gone home for the day. Should I be required to live in the
> supermarket so I can be forced to work out of hours, to make sure the
> stock is fully displayed at opening time the next day? Or should the
> supermarket hire a second shift?
You know Adrian, for a free marketeer, you've got a jobsworth view of
things that would make the worst excesses of 1970s trade unionism look
moderate.
No one - except you - have ever mention *required*.
I told you last time you brought this rampant distortion of the facts
into it.
>>On Sun, 8 Nov 2009 17:55:49 -0000, "Mike & Krystyna Wooding" <mikeand
>>krys...@googlemail.com> wrote:
And fix your sodding newsreader. Twat.
krystyna@googlemail.com Mike & Krystyna Wooding
> Adrian Stott <adr...@spam.com> writes:
>
>> OK. I have a job stocking supermarket shelves. Some stock arrives
>> after I've gone home for the day. Should I be required to live in
>> the supermarket so I can be forced to work out of hours, to make
>> sure the stock is fully displayed at opening time the next day? Or
>> should the supermarket hire a second shift?
>
> You know Adrian, for a free marketeer, you've got a jobsworth view of
> things that would make the worst excesses of 1970s trade unionism look
> moderate.
>
> No one - except you - have ever mention *required*.
>
> I told you last time you brought this rampant distortion of the facts
> into it.
>
>>>On Sun, 8 Nov 2009 17:55:49 -0000, "Mike & Krystyna Wooding" <mikeand
>>>krys...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>
> And fix your sodding newsreader. Twat.
I beg your pardon, but if that was aimed at me what exactly is my newsreader
doing to so offend you?
Nick
> Nick wrote:
>> Adrian Stott <adr...@spam.com> writes:
>>
>>> OK. I have a job stocking supermarket shelves. Some stock arrives
>>> after I've gone home for the day. Should I be required to live in
>>> the supermarket so I can be forced to work out of hours, to make
>>> sure the stock is fully displayed at opening time the next day? Or
>>> should the supermarket hire a second shift?
>>
>> You know Adrian, for a free marketeer, you've got a jobsworth view of
>> things that would make the worst excesses of 1970s trade unionism look
>> moderate.
>>
>> No one - except you - have ever mention *required*.
>>
>> I told you last time you brought this rampant distortion of the facts
>> into it.
>>
>>>>On Sun, 8 Nov 2009 17:55:49 -0000, "Mike & Krystyna Wooding" <mikeand
>>>>krys...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>>
>> And fix your sodding newsreader. Twat.
>
> I beg your pardon, but if that was aimed at me what exactly is my newsreader
> doing to so offend you?
No, it was Adrian. He has a broken newsreader - as you can see, your
message was somehow attached to the end of the one he was replying
to. It's been happening to his messages for a couple of years now, and
he seems incapable of fixing it.
Pete Stockdale
>
> No, it was Adrian. He has a broken newsreader - as you can see, your
> message was somehow attached to the end of the one he was replying
> to. It's been happening to his messages for a couple of years now, and
> he seems incapable of fixing it.
.
I see it as a simple case of operator error.
Cause - broken brain.
Regards
Pete
www.thecanalshop.com
Brian on Harnser
> OK. I have a job stocking supermarket shelves. Some stock arrives
> after I've gone home for the day. Should I be required to live in the
> supermarket so I can be forced to work out of hours, to make sure the
> stock is fully displayed at opening time the next day? Or should the
> supermarket hire a second shift?
Now that sounds like some railway companies who can't run a full
service if the drivers wont work overtime.
Don't employ enough people and then blame them that you do employ if
they wont work round the clock to keep it going.
--
Brian traveling on Harnser
http://nbharnser.blogspot.com/
Nicholas D. Richards
<adr...@spam.com> on Mon, 16 Nov 2009 at 18:14:13 awoke Nicholas from
his slumbers and wrote
>On Sun, 8 Nov 2009 17:55:49 -0000, "Mike & Krystyna Wooding" <mikeand
>krys...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>
>>Adrian Stott wrote:
>>>
>>> To my way of thinking, either the lockkeeper is bound by his contract
>>> to be on call outside his normal hours, or he isn't.
>
>>> I wonder how the lock keepers would react to EA taking the full market
>>> rent off their pay to cover the real value of the house occupancy
>>> benefit.
>>
>>What on earth has that to do with this 'discussion'?
>
>er, everything?
Bugger all to do with anything.
>
>>They would react unfavourably as it could be fairly argued that the onsite
>>residence is a tool of trade.
>>Bit like trying to charge firemen for overniting at the fire -station - a
>non- starter
>>and nothing to do with number of hours contracted.
>>
>>Regards
>>Pete
>
>OK. I have a job stocking supermarket shelves.
Really? I doubt it; see below
> Some stock arrives
>after I've gone home for the day. Should I be required to live in the
>supermarket so I can be forced to work out of hours, to make sure the
>stock is fully displayed at opening time the next day? Or should the
>supermarket hire a second shift?
You have obviously never had a proper job. Quite normal to be 'asked'
to do some overtime, for which read told to do some overtime and if you
are lucky with your employer you will get paid at an overtime rate. I
have been called in to deal with problems at all hours of the night.
A company only hires a second shift (in the case of supermarkets) if
they can justify it. One late arrival would not justify it; they would
hold some staff back to deal with the delivery. In this dog eats dog
environment, so beloved by Adrain, staff will do it and the family
suffers.
>
>>On Sun, 8 Nov 2009 17:55:49 -0000, "Mike & Krystyna Wooding" <mikeand
>>krys...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>>
>>The lock keepers miserable salaries include the use of the house, without the
>>house the EA might have to pay the lock keepers a realistic salary.
>
>EA should pay them a competitive salary, of course. Trying to hide
>this by letting a lockkeeper live in a lock house is goofy. Especially
>if the notional rent for the house is much less than its market rent.,
>thus hiding the true cost to EA of having a lockkeeper.
>Also, a man is worthy of his hire. He shouldn't be forced to buy
>(his housing, or anything else) at the company store.
Living in a company house (I was brought up in one) is a two way street.
Providing the your employer justifies it with the tax man, you get a
subsidised home without the tax man charging you for the real value of
the rent, you have less travelling time to work, in return you make
yourself more available, in case of emergency.
If the lock keepers have to find their own accommodation, in lot of
cases they would be a lot worse off and have to travel long distances to
work.
>
>Adrian
>
>
>
>Adrian Stott
>adr...@unspam.ca
While we are looking at Adrain's broken news reader, sigh, yet again,
does he have permission to use email addresses adr...@unspam.ca and
adr...@spam.com? I think you will find that spam.com belongs to Hormel
Foods. Unspam.ca appears to belong to a honeypot company, meaning that
anyone replying to that adr...@unspam.ca will risk having their ISP
blacklisted.
But then rules and conventions do not apply to Simpson junior, they only
apply to the rest of us.
Neil Arlidge
Who said Adrian uses a newsreader?
He probably cuts and pastes all the bits he wants to reply to, just like he
does on his debating groups.
Or...he just does it to wind people up and stifle debate ;-)
krystyna@googlemail.com Mike & Krystyna Wooding
What do you expect from an IT type :->
Thanks Nick, had me worried for a minute
krystyna@googlemail.com Mike & Krystyna Wooding
A slight problem with your prognosis Pete, you need to have one first before
it can be broken
Adrian Stott
<peter....@btopenworld.com> wrote:
> Perhaps you will go down in history as the person
> who helped empty every vicarage in the land as well as lock cottages.
Good comparison.
You may have noticed that there are a lot fewer churchgoers than there
used to be? So the church has found it doesn't need as many vicars.
So it doesn't need as many vicarages. So it has sold surplus ones,
which are now lived in and looked after by the new owners, while the
proceeds of the sales have gone towards maintaining the buildings that
have been retained.
So why shouldn't EA do that with lock houses? It no longer needs
keepers to be resident at locks.
On Mon, 16 Nov 2009 20:38:49 -0000, "Mike & Krystyna Wooding" <mikeand
krys...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>We are talking about a safety-related occupation and culure. I wouldn't
>expect someone like you to understand the ramifications and difference
But you've made my point for me.
Let's assume it's essential to have a keeper at each EA lock (a
clearly questionable assumption, given the thousands of locks BW, let
alone VNF, now runs without keepers), and that it's necessary to have
24-hour coverage. How should that coverage be arranged?
My view is that EA should pay its staff in a manner commensurate with
their provision of that coverage.
On Mon, 16 Nov 2009 22:23:42 +0000, "Nicholas D. Richards"
<nich...@salmiron.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>Quite normal to be 'asked' to do some overtime, for which read told to do some overtime and if you
>are lucky with your employer you will get paid at an overtime rate. I
>have been called in to deal with problems at all hours of the night.
>
>A company only hires a second shift (in the case of supermarkets) if
>they can justify it. One late arrival would not justify it; they would
>hold some staff back to deal with the delivery.
The Wooding and Richards view seems to be that EA should pay the
keepers only for the day shift, and then depend on their good will to
be on call for the other 16 hours of each day. Seems rather
unreasonable, oppressive even, to me. Even the NHS has abandoned it
for junior meds now.
Also impractical, because the coverage wouldn't be reliable. What if
the keeper is simply not there out of hours? What if he's asleep and
isn't aware of the emergency? What if he's too ill to attend to the
emergency? That's no way to staff an essential service.
On Mon, 16 Nov 2009 18:39:44 -0000, "Pete Stockdale"
<peter....@btopenworld.com> wrote:
>1). You wouldn't merit a job sweeping supermarket floors -
>so do not pretend to us that you have a job stocking shelves.
You seem not to recognise the concept of the hypothetical. But, as it
happens, as a teenager I did have a job in supermarket.
However, I've found that if a party in a debate resorts to personal
attack it is almost always because he has a weak argument.
Adrian
Adrian Stott
adr...@unspam.ca
Nicholas D. Richards
<adr...@spam.com> on Wed, 18 Nov 2009 at 09:58:11 awoke Nicholas from
his slumbers and wrote
>
>On Mon, 16 Nov 2009 18:39:44 -0000, "Pete Stockdale"
><peter....@btopenworld.com> wrote:
>
>>1). You wouldn't merit a job sweeping supermarket floors -
>>so do not pretend to us that you have a job stocking shelves.
>
>You seem not to recognise the concept of the hypothetical. But, as it
>happens, as a teenager I did have a job in supermarket.
>
>However, I've found that if a party in a debate resorts to personal
>attack it is almost always because he has a weak argument.
>
Like your argument?
And while we are at it, repair your newsreader. What makes your
newsreader so special, that it cannot follow the useful conventions that
the rest of us follow?
Do you have permission to use adr...@spam.com?
krystyna@googlemail.com Mike & Krystyna Wooding
>
> The Wooding and Richards view seems to be that EA should pay the
> keepers only for the day shift, and then depend on their good will to
> be on call for the other 16 hours of each day. Seems rather
> unreasonable, oppressive even, to me. Even the NHS has abandoned it
> for junior meds now.
Neither what I (or Richard I think) said nor believe in, you can twist the
argument as much as you like, but you will never win, but only in your sad
twisted version of a mind.
Mike - spending my time elswhere for the foreseeable
krystyna@googlemail.com Mike & Krystyna Wooding
> Adrian Stott wrote:
>>
>> The Wooding and Richards view seems to be that EA should pay the
>> keepers only for the day shift, and then depend on their good will to
>> be on call for the other 16 hours of each day. Seems rather
>> unreasonable, oppressive even, to me. Even the NHS has abandoned it
>> for junior meds now.
>
> Neither what I (or Richard I think) said nor believe in, you can
> twist the argument as much as you like, but you will never win, but
> only in your sad twisted version of a mind.
>
> Mike - spending my time elswhere for the foreseeable
Apologies Nicholas, that should have read '(or Nicholas I think)' above
Mike
Neil Arlidge
>>
>> The Wooding and Richards view seems to be that EA should pay the
>> keepers only for the day shift, and then depend on their good will to
>> be on call for the other 16 hours of each day. Seems rather
>> unreasonable, oppressive even, to me. Even the NHS has abandoned it
>> for junior meds now.
>
> Neither what I (or Richard I think) said nor believe in, you can
> twist the argument as much as you like, but you will never win, but
> only in your sad twisted version of a mind.
>
> Mike - spending my time elswhere for the foreseeable
Some of us think you we very brave coming back here.
Certain people have made ukrw and usenet newsgrouos in general unworkable,
perhaps that is their plan.
--
Neil Arlidge
Barge Maurice A - perhaps I should do a blog
TNC http://www.tuesdaynightclub.co.uk/tour.html
krystyna@googlemail.com Mike & Krystyna Wooding
> Mike & Krystyna Wooding wrote:
>> Adrian Stott wrote:
>>>
>>> The Wooding and Richards view seems to be that EA should pay the
>>> keepers only for the day shift, and then depend on their good will
>>> to be on call for the other 16 hours of each day. Seems rather
>>> unreasonable, oppressive even, to me. Even the NHS has abandoned it
>>> for junior meds now.
>>
>> Neither what I (or Richard I think) said nor believe in, you can
>> twist the argument as much as you like, but you will never win, but
>> only in your sad twisted version of a mind.
>>
>> Mike - spending my time elswhere for the foreseeable
>
> Some of us think you we very brave coming back here.
> Certain people have made ukrw and usenet newsgrouos in general
> unworkable, perhaps that is their plan.
Thanks Neil, I will be back, not necessarily on this hread, it's just that
Michelle, our youngest daughter, is about to have her first baby :->
Mike
Neil Arlidge
> Neil Arlidge wrote:
>> Mike & Krystyna Wooding wrote:
>>> Adrian Stott wrote:
>>>>
>>>> The Wooding and Richards view seems to be that EA should pay the
>>>> keepers only for the day shift, and then depend on their good will
>>>> to be on call for the other 16 hours of each day. Seems rather
>>>> unreasonable, oppressive even, to me. Even the NHS has abandoned
>>>> it for junior meds now.
>>>
>>> Neither what I (or Richard I think) said nor believe in, you can
>>> twist the argument as much as you like, but you will never win, but
>>> only in your sad twisted version of a mind.
>>>
>>> Mike - spending my time elswhere for the foreseeable
>>
>> Some of us think you we very brave coming back here.
>> Certain people have made ukrw and usenet newsgrouos in general
>> unworkable, perhaps that is their plan.
>
> Thanks Neil, I will be back, not necessarily on this hread, it's just
> that Michelle, our youngest daughter, is about to have her first baby
> :->
Congrats, I think it is while before Wendy and her partner get around to
that, they are too busy having a good time. We might have got rid of our
sprogs, but they keep breezing in to use this place as a handy restaurant /
hotel!
--
Neil Arlidge
Anglo Irish Dutch Barge Maurice A - It must be, it will be made with Dutch
steel :-)
TNC http://www.tuesdaynightclub.co.uk/tour.html
Pete Stockdale
"Mike & Krystyna Wooding" <mikeand krys...@googlemail.com> wrote in message
>> Neither what I (or Richard I think) said nor believe in, you can
>> twist the argument as much as you like, but you will never win, but
>> only in your sad twisted version of a mind.
>>
>> Mike - spending my time elswhere for the foreseeable
>
> Apologies Nicholas, that should have read '(or Nicholas I think)' above
"your sad twisted version of a mind"
You can't say that - it is a personal attack and is " used when the
arguement is going against you "(:-)
Good Luck with the baby - managed to steer well clear of them myself !
Regards
Pete
www.thecanalshop.com
krystyna@googlemail.com Mike & Krystyna Wooding
Thanlks Pete, although I have very little to do with it, just the taxi
driver, gofer and general wallet........
krystyna@googlemail.com Mike & Krystyna Wooding
> Mike & Krystyna Wooding wrote:
>> Neil Arlidge wrote:
>>> Mike & Krystyna Wooding wrote:
>>>> Adrian Stott wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> The Wooding and Richards view seems to be that EA should pay the
>>>>> keepers only for the day shift, and then depend on their good will
>>>>> to be on call for the other 16 hours of each day. Seems rather
>>>>> unreasonable, oppressive even, to me. Even the NHS has abandoned
>>>>> it for junior meds now.
>>>>
>>>> Neither what I (or Richard I think) said nor believe in, you can
>>>> twist the argument as much as you like, but you will never win, but
>>>> only in your sad twisted version of a mind.
>>>>
>>>> Mike - spending my time elswhere for the foreseeable
>>>
>>> Some of us think you we very brave coming back here.
>>> Certain people have made ukrw and usenet newsgrouos in general
>>> unworkable, perhaps that is their plan.
>>
>> Thanks Neil, I will be back, not necessarily on this hread, it's just
>> that Michelle, our youngest daughter, is about to have her first baby
>> :->
>
> Congrats, I think it is while before Wendy and her partner get around
> to that, they are too busy having a good time. We might have got rid
> of our sprogs, but they keep breezing in to use this place as a handy
> restaurant / hotel!
It's a little old hat to us as our eldest daughter already has 4 !!
Neil Arlidge
Gawd!...don't let herr Grouppenfuhrer Sir Aid find out! ;-)
--
Neil Arlidge
NB Threesacrowd
TNC http://www.tuesdaynightclub.co.uk/tour.html
Brian on Harnser
> Thanks Neil, I will be back, not necessarily on this hread, it's just that
> Michelle, our youngest daughter, is about to have her first baby :->
>
And you plan to nick her Baby Wipes as hand wipes, I hope you are not
considering recycling and only use new ones.
krystyna@googlemail.com Mike & Krystyna Wooding
> Mike & Krystyna Wooding wrote :
>
>> Thanks Neil, I will be back, not necessarily on this hread, it's
>> just that Michelle, our youngest daughter, is about to have her
>> first baby :->
> And you plan to nick her Baby Wipes as hand wipes, I hope you are not
> considering recycling and only use new ones.
But of course...
David Long
<adr...@spam.com> writes
>
>EA should pay them a competitive salary, of course. Trying to hide
>this by letting a lockkeeper live in a lock house is goofy. Especially
>if the notional rent for the house is much less than its market rent.,
>thus hiding the true cost to EA of having a lockkeeper.
>Also, a man is worthy of his hire. He shouldn't be forced to buy
>(his housing, or anything else) at the company store.
>
As an occupier of a tied house, I agree entirely.
--
David Long
Sankey Canal Restoration Society http://www.scars.org.uk/
A Road to Wigan Pier Webcam: http://www.scars.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/webcam/
St. Mary's Church: http://www.acny.org.uk/venue.php?V=15337&P=1
David Long
<peter....@btopenworld.com> writes
>
>"Adrian Stott" <adr...@spam.com> wrote in message
>news:jr43g5hnudg2mk0r8...@4ax.com...
>>
>> OK. I have a job stocking supermarket shelves. Some stock arrives
>> after I've gone home for the day. Should I be required to live in the
>> supermarket so I can be forced to work out of hours, to make sure the
>> stock is fully displayed at opening time the next day? Or should the
>> supermarket hire a second shift?
>>
>>
>> EA should pay them a competitive salary, of course. Trying to hide
>> this by letting a lockkeeper live in a lock house is goofy. Especially
>> if the notional rent for the house is much less than its market rent.,
>> thus hiding the true cost to EA of having a lockkeeper.
>> Also, a man is worthy of his hire. He shouldn't be forced to buy
>> (his housing, or anything else) at the company store.
>
>
> who helped empty every vicarage in the land as well as lock cottages.
>
>
'free' house all your working life....
Pete Stockdale
"David Long" <Da...@n0ne.c0m> wrote in message
news:LES35UVA...@scars.org.uk...
> In message <sdSdnecGLIUoAZzW...@bt.com>, Pete Stockdale
> <peter....@btopenworld.com> writes
>>
>>"Adrian Stott" <adr...@spam.com> wrote in message
>>news:jr43g5hnudg2mk0r8...@4ax.com...
>>>
>>> OK. I have a job stocking supermarket shelves. Some stock arrives
>>> after I've gone home for the day. Should I be required to live in the
>>> supermarket so I can be forced to work out of hours, to make sure the
>>> stock is fully displayed at opening time the next day? Or should the
>>> supermarket hire a second shift?
>>>
>>>
>>> EA should pay them a competitive salary, of course. Trying to hide
>>> this by letting a lockkeeper live in a lock house is goofy. Especially
>>> if the notional rent for the house is much less than its market rent.,
>>> thus hiding the true cost to EA of having a lockkeeper.
>>> Also, a man is worthy of his hire. He shouldn't be forced to buy
>>> (his housing, or anything else) at the company store.
>>
>>
>>2). Perhaps you will go down in history as the person
>> who helped empty every vicarage in the land as well as lock cottages.
>>
>>
> I'm on his side. You try buying a house on retirement after living in a
> 'free' house all your working life....
>
Good Point !
Clearly the pension provisions for such incumbents should take this factor
in to account.
(Grand-revs annex would perhaps be the most economical in the case of the
clergy (:-) )
Regards
Pete
www.thecanalshop.com
Pete Stockdale
"David Long" <Da...@n0ne.c0m> wrote in message
> In message <jr43g5hnudg2mk0r8...@4ax.com>, Adrian Stott
> <adr...@spam.com> writes
>
>>
>>EA should pay them a competitive salary, of course. Trying to hide
>>this by letting a lockkeeper live in a lock house is goofy. Especially
>>if the notional rent for the house is much less than its market rent.,
>>thus hiding the true cost to EA of having a lockkeeper.
>>Also, a man is worthy of his hire. He shouldn't be forced to buy
>>(his housing, or anything else) at the company store.
>>
>
> As an occupier of a tied house, I agree entirely.
Nobody (including vicars/lockkeepers) is being forced to buy (his housing
or anything else) at the company store.
It does however have the benefit of onsite living at a cost saving to
both sides concerned.
First it is the lock cottages that go-------- a la Adrian
Then the vicarages follow on shortly------a la David
Last straw --- the pubs ------- -----a la madness (:-(
Regards
Pete
www.thecanalshop.com
David Long
But it doesn't - and I doubt if a lock-keeper's retirement package would
be any more generous.
>(Grand-revs annex would perhaps be the most economical in the case of the
>clergy (:-) )
>
Those without private means end up in the equivalent of Social Housing.
Not a problem - but very different from having a wage which allowed you
to enter the housing market with the prospect of repaying a mortgage
over a lifetime of work.
David Long
<peter....@btopenworld.com> writes
>
my remuneration 'package'. But what is the cost saving to me? If I'd had
a moderately increased stipend I'd have bought my own house and would
have no worries about a home for my retirement. As it is, I've had to
run a house far larger than my family's needs at my expense - whilst
attracting the opprobrium of living in the largest house in the parish
(it's not that big- it's just that others are that small!) - and being
on-call 24/7. I don't mind - it's what I signed up to - but it's not, in
the long run, been to my advantage.
It would work, of course, if we were allowed to remain in the house
after retirement until both myself and my wife die - I don't think
that's on offer to lockies any more than it is to me.
Pete Stockdale
"David Long" <Da...@n0ne.c0m> wrote in message
>>
> I'm bound by law to live in the company house. The 'benefit' is part of my
> remuneration 'package'. But what is the cost saving to me? If I'd had a
> moderately increased stipend I'd have bought my own house and would have
> no worries about a home for my retirement. As it is, I've had to run a
> house far larger than my family's needs at my expense - whilst attracting
> the opprobrium of living in the largest house in the parish (it's not that
> big- it's just that others are that small!) - and being on-call 24/7. I
> don't mind - it's what I signed up to - but it's not, in the long run,
> been to my advantage.
> It would work, of course, if we were allowed to remain in the house after
> retirement until both myself and my wife die - I don't think that's on
> offer to lockies any more than it is to me.
> --
I have already put forward an annex system for retired vicars.
The main house becomes smaller to make way for separate quarters for the
retired.
Seems to resolve most of your grumbles as far as I can see.
Unlikely to be practical in the case of lock cottages however as they are as
invariably pokey
as certainly as vicarages are invariably large rambling affairs.
Regards
Pete
www.thecanalshop.com
Tony Haynes
wrote:
Did you get that idea from Father Ted? I can see David as Father Jack.
Tone
Adrian Stott
<peter....@btopenworld.com> wrote:
>First it is the lock cottages that go-------- a la Adrian
>Then the vicarages follow on shortly------a la David
>Last straw --- the pubs ------- -----a la madness (:-(
I didn't know you lived in a pub, Pete.
Adrian
Adrian Stott
adr...@unspam.ca
David Long
<peter....@btopenworld.com> writes
>
Not any more they're not. In this Diocese the only new Vicarages built
to the supposed legal minimum spec are those built by developers who buy
up the old vicarages and their grounds for the purpose. Others are now
bought on the open market, but are often not an ideal size or design.
David Long
<df8bd18d-5ff1-4406...@p33g2000vbn.googlegroups.com>,
Tony Haynes <irishcan...@googlemail.com> writes
more than an armchair and space for a cupboard full of whiskey.
Pete Stockdale
"Adrian Stott" <adr...@unspam.ca> wrote in message
news:4qmng5hbt9g4hp3s3...@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 23 Nov 2009 21:54:07 -0000, "Pete Stockdale"
> <peter....@btopenworld.com> wrote:
>
>>First it is the lock cottages that go-------- a la Adrian
>>Then the vicarages follow on shortly------a la David
>>Last straw --- the pubs ------- -----a la madness (:-(
>
> I didn't know you lived in a pub, Pete.
That joins the many other things you do not know then, Adrian.
Regards
Pete
www.thecanalpub.com
Neil Arlidge
I thought that Canalshop was more of a boat-in tea room? ;-)
--
Neil Arlidge
Mostly English Barge Maurice A
TNC http://www.tuesdaynightclub.co.uk/tour.html
Pete Stockdale
"Neil Arlidge" <ne...@tuesdaynightclub.co.uk> wrote in message >>> I didn't
>>
>>
>>
>> That joins the many other things you do not know then, Adrian.
>
> I thought that Canalshop was more of a boat-in tea room? ;-)
Yeh - but you haven't yet sampled our under the counter winter warmers (:-+)
Regards
Pete
Nicholas D. Richards
<ne...@tuesdaynightclub.co.uk> on Tue, 24 Nov 2009 at 14:31:55 awoke
Nicholas from his slumbers and wrote
>Pete Stockdale wrote:
>> "Adrian Stott" <adr...@unspam.ca> wrote in message
>> news:4qmng5hbt9g4hp3s3...@4ax.com...
>>> On Mon, 23 Nov 2009 21:54:07 -0000, "Pete Stockdale"
>>> <peter....@btopenworld.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> First it is the lock cottages that go-------- a la Adrian
>>>> Then the vicarages follow on shortly------a la David
>>>> Last straw --- the pubs ------- -----a la madness (:-(
>>>
>>> I didn't know you lived in a pub, Pete.
>>
>>
>>
>> That joins the many other things you do not know then, Adrian.
>
>I thought that Canalshop was more of a boat-in tea room? ;-)
I always thought it was a hen coop.
--
Nicholas David Richards -
"O� sont les neiges d'antan?"
Pete Stockdale
"Nicholas D. Richards" <nich...@salmiron.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:9PGa4bA+i$CLF...@salmiron.co.uk...
That is almost as bad as Adrian's mis-conception !
Regards
Pete
www.thecanalemporium.com
Nicholas D. Richards
<peter....@btopenworld.com> on Tue, 24 Nov 2009 at 15:30:58 awoke
Nicholas from his slumbers and wrote
>
>"Nicholas D. Richards" <nich...@salmiron.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
>news:9PGa4bA+i$CLF...@salmiron.co.uk...
>> In article <oMGdnWukM9LDc5bW...@giganews.com>, Neil Arlidge
>> <ne...@tuesdaynightclub.co.uk> on Tue, 24 Nov 2009 at 14:31:55 awoke
>> Nicholas from his slumbers and wrote
>>>Pete Stockdale wrote:
>>>> "Adrian Stott" <adr...@unspam.ca> wrote in message
>>>> news:4qmng5hbt9g4hp3s3...@4ax.com...
>>>>> On Mon, 23 Nov 2009 21:54:07 -0000, "Pete Stockdale"
>>>>> <peter....@btopenworld.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> First it is the lock cottages that go-------- a la Adrian
>>>>>> Then the vicarages follow on shortly------a la David
>>>>>> Last straw --- the pubs ------- -----a la madness (:-(
>>>>>
>>>>> I didn't know you lived in a pub, Pete.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> That joins the many other things you do not know then, Adrian.
>>>
>>>I thought that Canalshop was more of a boat-in tea room? ;-)
>>
>> I always thought it was a hen coop.
>
>That is almost as bad as Adrian's mis-conception !
>
So the eggs were a mis-conception? Well I suppose, from the hen's point
of view, they were, but they still tasted good.
Tony Haynes
> In message
> <df8bd18d-5ff1-4406-b1e6-c4f751e0c...@p33g2000vbn.googlegroups.com>,
> Tony Haynes <irishcanaldrif...@googlemail.com> writes
> A Road to Wigan Pier Webcam:http://www.scars.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/webcam/
> St. Mary's Church:http://www.acny.org.uk/venue.php?V=15337&P=1
£$->=
Tone