Leaderboard

I must say, some of your remarks sound to me as though you do have some "personal animosity" towards Mr. Moore! I can see no indication in his post that he feels Mr. Lillie Jnr. was "justified in defaulting". I may be wrong, but my reading of it was that he was expressing a view that merely demonstrated another side to this benighted case, a view that lies contrary to the general "baying at the moon", guesswork, amateur detective/accountantancy suggestions, lower-deck lawyering and hysterical mob-rule that passes for discussion on here. However, passing over that, your analogy regarding you and the Bank of America is an apt one. I don't know what the average American's idea of his/her bank is but, on this side of the duck-pond, they're generally held in very low esteem following the so-called "crash" of 2007, and are usually accused of being responsible for most people's financial woes, including the so-called "sub-prime" debacle, whereby zillions of people were offered mortgages, seemingly on a whim and which, when the shit hit the fan, collapsed, as so many did, like a house of cards. Who to blame? The nasty banks for duping the poor saps into taking on far more than they could ever hope to repay, or the greedy and selfish innocents who, knowingly or not, got swept up in all the hysteria of owning property, MADE A LEGAL AGREEMENT with the poor old bank and then, finding it was all too much, subsequently ratted on the deal? I dunno. You tell me. Despite the various accusations that have flown around here, including that of fraud, I remain convinced that, rather than a devious and clever (and whatever else he is, according to some on here) Mr. Lillie deceiving a poor innocent charity, this was a monumental balls-up made by both parties. A balls-up that was allowed, through utter incompetence and a refusal by both sides to grasp the nettle, to escalate to the position it is in now. Who to blame? I dunno. You tell me. Many light years ago, I was castigated by the many experts on this forum for taking the heretical view that, after the dust had settled, there would be a pragmatic agreement made that would allow this marina to continue. It gives me no pleasure, and certainly doesn't surprise me, to see that I was correct in that statement. You see Mr. G2, I worked for BW for over 20 years, and I know how those people worked, the methods employed, where a lot of the dosh went and where the bodies lie. Moreover, and I'm afraid to disappoint anyone, I can see absolutely no difference in the current lot. Just don't confuse them with any "normal" company. Why? Because some are of the opinion that they're the same lot, the same uncharitable public "servants" with the same attitudes, the same huge salaries and "bonuses", the same gold-plated pensions and the same sinecures for jobs, the same lot who couldn't organise a piss-up in a brewery if they were paid, and it is that lot to which I believe Mr. Moore was referring in his post. My apologies to him if I'm making an incorrect assumption.

The waterways chaplaincy is not the answer, met the guy running it recently his background was all prisons. With the lady in the SE leaving and no funds to replace full time, there is no way they can cover the canals. They also do not have any training in the I rights of boaters to access services. Welfare manager is perhaps the wrong title and too emotive. But there is an ageing boating population that as well as those who currently have needs. Some of those will need to access support and will not know how to do this or indeed what support was available. Whether CRT like it or not some of these boaters will become CRTs problem just from a pragmatic and cost viewpoint I believe it would be better if there was a central experienced manager who had this upto date knowledge he could act as the sign post just providing focus if contacted by fellow boaters, patrol officers etc. if just one legal case was prevented I suspect that the role would be more than paid for. Agree that patrol officers need to be properly trained and think a code of practise is a good idea. In my limited experience they are pretty sympathetic to those in genuine need. But they are pretty thin on the ground and they should be targeted on ensuring boats move as required, they can worry about the how far once this is achieved in my view.

Yes, hopefully. The other alternative is that the London canals end up a no go area for anyone wanting to actually navigate. If there is no need to have a navigable channel then I guess lots more can be packed in sardine-like. But I can't help thinking the increasing local opposition to towpath hogs will soon win out. As I said, hopefully! These people are not boaters, they just want a cheap London flat.

Evidently not. It’s difficult to see how “as bad as” suggests any support for one party against the other. For clarity, my comment was aimed at CaRT defenders rather than at CaRT itself, being prompted by the accurate observation regarding the continuing existence of the identical principals despite the company name-juggling. It contrasts dramatically with the view of those who strangely insist that CaRT is an entirely different animal from BW, being run by "us" rather than "them". In fact my use of “duplicity” was a poor choice of wording, because there was no intent to deceive in that respect, on either side. My simple point was that CaRT also, still has the same management people as before. True enough, we now have a new CEO from outside of the BW ‘stable’, but in fact, he shares the identical views on contract-honouring as the Pillings principals – i.e. put a company into liquidation and that party to a contract ‘dies’, such that the terms of the contract cannot be enforced, even though the human principals who made the contract remain. Morally repugnant but legally correct.

Because it's 2014, and only old people and idiots post their full names, locations etc.. on the internet. It's not the cleverest thing to be doing. (unless you are representing a business)

What time did you ring, between 10 and 3 I hope and not at weekend

Some pictures of my trip so far ON the Lapworth Flight Lazy Locking in Lapworth Lock wall detail Moored at the Fleur-de-Lys Lapworth split bridge Edstone Aqueduct In the afternoon sun Old Bathing Place, Stratford Water fill by the RSC Wilmcote Locks More Stratford Picnicking by the Avon Dawn at Offenham Sunset in Tewkesbury

I'm not sure what your point is, Nigel. Paul Lillie signed a contract, then failed to live up to his end of the agreement. CRT complied with their contractual obligations, it is PL who defaulted. Are you trying to say that PL was justified in defaulting because of who was in charge of CRT? A bigger load of hogwash I have never heard! If I have my home financed with Bank of America (I don't, it's paid for), I can't decide to quit making my payments just because I don't like the new Chairman of the Board. That would be preposterous, just as it was preposterous of PL not to pay the NAA. To try to somehow juxtapose CRT into a position of blame for PL not paying goes beyond absurd to the point of being obsessed in a very sick way. You may have complaints about CRT; they may even be very legitimate complaints. However, by hanging your hat on the PL bandwagon, and by defending PL's obvious and outright fraud, you have belittled yourself to the point that your opinions are now meaningless and resemble a mad dog baying at the moon more than they do any kind of reasoned argument. Supporting PL really was a stupid decision on your part. It reduced your credibility to pretty much zero. I don't say this with any personal animosity. I don't know you, I don't have anything against you and, for all I know, you may be 100% correct in everything you say about CRT. The thing is, by supporting PL you have shown very poor judgement and few people take much heed of those with bad judgement. You lay down with dogs and you're liable to get fleas.* You chose to lay down with a real mongrel, the consequences are obvious. *My apologies to Simon et al - It's just a saying, guys!

As long as you make a £XX,000 charitable donation per year. Madcat my tirade is against the scurrilous reporting by NBW not putting the " virtual boot in" to the couple concerned in the article as I know nothing about their circumstances.

Without knowing the couple and their circumstances I feel unable to bring myself to be a mean minded misery and assume they are at fault and wholly to blame for their circumstances. Given that the husband is suffering from an asbestos related cancer I think they deserve a bit or even a lot of slack. I can well believe the enforcer was unpleasant . My straight law abiding 83 year old husband was heard to say of one BW enforcer that he wouldn't show them a rats nest. Asbestos related cancer has one outcome and it isn't pleasant, I've lost a dear friend to it and many of us are possibly at risk. Someone else we know of has at best a year left. I know I will be howled down by all the hard liners on here but so be it, I don't care what you say to me but I'm dismayed by the lack of compassion displayed and the speed with which you all que up to stick the virtual boot in.