Sue Burchett wrote: > >>> Obviously some will disagree with me. >> Too right Sue! I think you'll find a lot of people will disagree. >> >> I think the population of this ng and membership of Cutweb is a >> fair example of the real mix of new boats, old boats, new >> owners, long term owners and younger & older boaters. >> >> In that group, how many fit your description of 'creating a them >> & us attitude' & 'owners of expensive boats wanting the rougher >> ones removed'? Frankly, I think that is rubbish and just the sort >> of comment that might well be thought devisive. >> >> Sometimes its better to think before you type...... >> >> Cheers.. >> >> >> Will Chapman >> nb Quidditch > > I wasn't narrowing my comments to just cutweb/canals-list.
I realise that Sue. I was just using that group as one that I thought was fairly representative of boaters at large. And, as such, I saw little or no evidence of such an attitude from that group or indeed anyone that I have come across on the canals. >David Fletcher, when he first took over, on viewing some historic boats >on the canal is quoted as saying. It won't be long before we get rid of all >those. I wouldn't mind betting that was either incorrectly quoted or done so out of context. In fact a simple google search revealed the following from the HNBOC website http://tinyurl.com/rvm2n: QUOTE Finally, at a 1997 meeting with David Fletcher (BW chief exec) it was agreed that it was " very important to work together to get historic boats through the coming requirements for the BSS" . "It was not (BW's) intention to force inappropriate modifications on historic boats" and "If there are any problems with examiners or surveyors (on historic boats) then David Allison, in the first instance (followed by DF) should be approached, who will be sympathetic". END QUOTE >The people we are cruising with have passed the remark "they should get rid >of those boats". Well, my first thought there is that you should keep better cruising company! ;>) But I also wonder which boats they were referring to....'historic' wrecks left to rot unlicenced and unloved that litter some parts of the canal perhaps? If so, if they were not steeped in canal history, perhaps they could be forgiven for not understanding their cultural value. > You may believe canals are for all boats. I definitely do and more > should be done to encourage cheaper boats. The canal would be a sadder place without both historic and inexpensive/expensive craft. The waterways should be able to be enjoyed by everyone but it concerns me that we so often generalise about 'them and us' issues where them is sometimes BW and sometimes other kinds of boaters (ranging from hirers, continuous cruisers, old boaters, owners of old boats, owners of new boats, etc). Of course we all have a bit of fun complaining about certain groups; I've done it myself (most recently about slow boaters) but when I've actually taken the trouble to talk to them I can only remember one real idiot (well, maybe two or three), but I really don't think there are groups of canal-users out there that have any real conviction about changing the basic fabric of the waterways. Cheers.. Will Chapman nb Quidditch > Sue nb Nackered Navvy > > > > > Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/canals-list/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
