--- In [email protected], "Tony Brooks" <brook...@...> wrote: > > --- In [email protected], Brian on Harnser <brian@> > wrote: > > > > After serious thinking Nigel Stanley wrote : > > > I'm with Glen on this. > > > > > > It's only going to be used when there's a general problem or a > very > > > specific incident. Both of these are exceedingly rare on canals > and > > > most of the other waterways on which we boat. > > > > > You mean a bit like the anti terrorist laws. The first man to be > > arrested was a pensioner heckling at a Labour Party conference. > > Just like all laws they will use it when it suits THEM > > > > > And THEM might turn out to be BW so with the suggestion of possible > harassment of an individual boater currently going the rounds how can > we be sure a manager will not just jump out at a bridge hole? > > It seems to me that far too much recent legislation when combined > with the targets is far too loosely drawn so it can and is applied in > the stupidest and most unlikely cases. > > The proposals will not affect me greatly because I usually prefer a > pot of tea (I occasionally joke JennyB is the closest you will get to > a US warship on the canals). However I am sure the provisions will > get "misused". >
If a BW manager jumps out at a bridgehole sporting a blow in ere bag then his next jump deserves to be in the cut ! Regards Pete www.thecanalshop.com
