Forum Topics

Watermans Park Moorings

I walk or cycle to work most days by the river in Watermans Park.  The comment in the quoted council report that  describes 'the actions of those that live in the unlicensed moorings as damaging to the environment stating that many of the boats are extremely unsafe and polluting' I find very puzzling.  I see countless herons, swans, geese, mallards, grebes and little grebes, cormorants, teal and yellow wagtail among others bird varieties.  I have also seen migrating birds such as wigeon and others I don't recognise.  It seems that the river at Watermans Park must be incredibly clean and act as a sanctuary for bird life and probably lots of other creatures.  Also when the tide is low the only general river debris that is visible, there are no oil or tar marks, it seems incredibly clean to me.Another other odd thing about the The London Borough of Hounslow’s report states that 'licensed moorings would provide an increased presence in the park outside daylight hours, increasing surveillance and reducing the potential for vandalism, drug use etc.'  There are already people living on the moorings, so I don't understand how would licensed moorings provide an increased presence?  Are they planning to pack alot more boats in and have them moored kipper style as they are in Chelsea?  I'm a bit confused,  if the legal situation needs to be changed that's one thing,  but to slander by way of an anonymous quote when the council could have very easily have gone and seen for themselves what's really going down by the river smells a bit fishy to me.

Sara Novakovic ● 5951d0 Comments ● 5951d

The current Government stance on Cannabis fails our kids

The following is a statement by Author Robin Hitt talking about the American Government but its true of ours as well! The short answer is "yes". Government policy on cannabis has failed not only our kids but ourselves as a nation. Any government policy that distorts the truth is a failed policy. Our kid's need to learn the truth about cannabis, not some propaganda that has been scientifically proven wrong time and time again.When we, as parents or the government, lie to our kids we are sending the wrong message and our kids grow to believe it's okay to lie. When we throw a cannabis user in prison for life, but allow a drunk driver to get back behind the wheel we are failing our kids. When we treat all illegal drugs the same we are failing our kids.Up until the early part of the 20th century, cannabis was a useful textile and medicine. If only we would tell the real story of marijuana in our history books. Cannabis Sativa was demonized by our government to make it easier to control people they saw as undesirables, most notably black jazz musicians, who were drawing lots of attention from our impressionable white teens. Yes, any policy that began essentially as a racist act has failed our kids.Isn't it ironic that once WWII began our government forced many farmers to grow cannabis for the war effort and even produced a short film, entitled "Hemp for Victory", explaining the virtues of growing hemp instead of corn or cotton. This was one policy that may have saved all of us. Many of our fathers and grandfathers who fought in the Pacific theatre found out you could do more with cannabis than just make rope. Hint, Hint, Wink, Wink. But of course, as soon as the war was over cannabis was again the "devil's weed" used only by "undesirables". Sixty year's later and we are still lying to our children, yes, we have failed them.We must have an honest discussion with our kid's, we must tell them we were wrong, that our government was wrong. Cannabis could be a multi-billion dollar industry. We must tell them it's safer than alcohol and more useful than many of the synthetic poisons that the pharmaceutical companies manufacture. We must tell them cannabis is more eco-friendly than cotton and more durable. We must tell them hemp oil is a viable fuel and a heart healthy alternative to other food oils. Just as "pot" helped us win WWII it could help us save our own planet.Yes, when it comes to the government's policy on cannabis, we have definitely failed our kids, ourselves and our planet. I would venture to say we have even failed God. Me I don't believe in god or lies.

Philip Walsh ● 5966d36 Comments ● 5952d

High Court outcome re. plans for moorings on River Brent

Outcome of Nigel Moore's High Court action regarding moorings, courtesy of today's Planning Resource - don't like to say it (although I did say it long before the outcome) but I could never see any other outcome...------------------------------------Judge dismisses Brent river moorings appealCourt correspondent, PlanningResource, 14 July 2010 A community representative has failed in a High Court fight to block plans for visitor moorings on the River Brent which he claimed will jeopardise government plans to promote use of the waterways for transport of freight and waste.Nigel Moore had hoped to persuade judge Mr Justice Wyn Williams to quash a planning inspector's decision to grant planning permission for a leisure and visitor moorings at River Brent Moorings, Ferry Quay, Brentford, on the north bank of the River Brent where it meets the Thames. Mr Moore, a member of the Brentford Community Council, was supported by ward Councillor John Hardy, chair of Hounslow Council’s Isleworth and Brentford Area Planning Committee, as well as others opposed to the proposal.He claimed that the inspector failed to impose sufficient safeguards to prevent encroachment into navigational channels in what is a key junction between the Thames and the West London canal network. He argued that government policies promote the increased use of Britain's waterways for transporting freight and waste, in order to alleviate pressure on the country's roads. He claimed that the development of these moorings will only be safe if the current low levels of freight using this waterway are maintained, and that, as a result, the development would inhibit promotion of waterborne freight along the River Brent. However, now the judge has rejected Mr Moore's challenge. Backing the inspector's decision, he ruled: "It is true that increased use of the river by freight traffic was supported by national policy.  "However, there was no evidence before the inspector so far as I can discern from which she could sensibly predict whether and, just as importantly, when any increase in freight traffic on this river would increase by more than a negligible amount.  "Further, the expert evidence adduced before the inspector to deal with the issues of risk assessment did not advance the proposition that the proposed development was objectionable in principle. "The expert evidence proceeded on the basis that if the proposed development was granted permission and if there was an increase in the use of the river unconnected with the development greater precautionary measures to regulate the traffic on the river would or at least may become necessary. "There was no suggestion in the expert evidence adduced before the inspector that the proposed development together with an increase in the use of the rivers by freight traffic was, inevitably, objectionable." He continued: "In these circumstances the Inspector was fully entitled to conclude, as she did, that the potential future use of the river by freight vessels was not a compelling reason which justified the refusal of the permission. "It is also to be observed that the inspector concluded that the proposed development was not merely unobjectionable in principle but also provided positive benefits; further it accorded with local policy relating to recreational development. "None of these findings are or could be criticised and, accordingly, such positive benefits had to be weighed against any negative effects of the development. "In my judgment, the inspector's conclusion that the potential future use of the river by freight vessels was not a compelling reason for refusal was well within the discretion afforded to her in light of the positive benefits of the proposed development which she identified." The development which has now won the judge's backing will see leisure moorings along 180 metres of the river, with a further 22 metres set aside for visitor moorings. The judge said that the moorings together with any moored vessel would intrude between five and six metres into the navigable waters of the river.

Adam Beamish ● 5958d0 Comments ● 5958d