Mike Todd

Words often becomes weaponised, sometimes when you least expect. Living in a secluded corner of the UK IO was not especially aware of the potential for abuse with is word, especially as the Oxford Dictionary primary definition is "a person regarded as stupid or obnoxious." There are times when I wonder if we will soon run out of words that do not, for someone somewhere, have a negative, if not corrosive, implication. During lockdown I do seem (unscientific fake news) to have seen rather a lot of cases of public figures having to grovel when they have used a word that was once in common non-abusive parlance only to be caught out. In that sense, Nicknorman's satire may well have something to say.

And how many of them are still in working order today? Just another example of CaRT's bad management . . . (count the errors . . .)

Was it in the marina or on the river?

Ours is not a 'joke' name but there is a story behind the name ie it was not used just cos it sounded nice. And we enjoy telling the story to anyone mistaken enough to ask!

Sadly, I have not seen any cited here. What I have seen plenty of is people complaining that, when making hard choices, CaRT opted for someone else's needs rather than theirs. I'd very much prefer it if CaRT had a blank cheque to return the canals to the pristine condition we all know they were once in (probably just before we were born, collective memory is often determined by one's parent's telling stories). However, I recognise that compromises (aka politics) are necessary. OK, so I do know of one or two mistakes in the early days of CaRT, some of which were inherited from BW, but anyone who has never made a mistake has never tried to achieve. In other cases, such as the one that Alan cited, I'd like to hear the full story as these things are rarely as simple as they can sometimes be portrayed. It may even be the adverse outcome that was quoted but if CaRT acted according to the best expert advice available at the time then they would have been out of order to act otherwise. Experts, even those on this forum, don't always get it right!

is BCC paying for it or was this an arrangement established a long time ago and, in effect a right which they gained?

There's one wandering the Bridgewater

If CaRT failed to consult their own environmental staff then that would be a cause for criticism on its own. However, if those experts either suggested or endorsed the action then we are in the realm of one expert opinion versus another (or even an inexpert opinion) Experts frequently come to different conclusion, not necessarily because either is wrong but because they have different objectives or constraints. They can also differ depending on the timescale considered - what might be better in the short term may be worse in the longer term. (Risking controversy: some countries claimed early 'success' with COVID only now to find that early actions were worse in the medium term - none of us know the better action for the long term) In the case of Pocklington, it has long been a place of uneasy compromises between the potential for boating and the subsequent discovery of its value for wildlife. Even then, newly abandoned canals may be a place for wildlife to thrive in the short term but when the canal becomes blocked they turn into unhealthy places. By all means critique CaRT's decisions in particular circumstances - especially if you have different priorities leading to different possible actions, but I fail to see why this, on its own, amounts to a case for the incompetency prosecution.

Unfortunate that the presenter wore a short with a business name, the only part of which was visible: "scrap"

It is important to distinguish between being reprehensible for not using money wisely when there is enough to cover all costs and having to make unpalatable choices when there is patently insufficient to meet the standards you seek (and which I would wish to see). The latter is a case against the Government and the former against CaRT.

I'm not sure what you mean by scaremongering in this context. The decision to impose restrictions was taken by the Government. Declaring a 'major incident' was then a reaction by the relevant Local Authorities, principally if the BBC report is to be believed, in order to access resources (eg money) that are available to LA's for such situations. There will be a context in which they have this power. Given that the LAs are pretty stretched at present, I cannot see this as, on its own, a case of scaremongering - unless one only reads the headline and not the context.

Gradually going away is the key: the rate at which it was progressing it will take several years to get anywhere near zero infections, the goal that our politicians have set themselves, perhaps envious of the few places that have do so. Two considerations; Firstly, NZ claims to have zero infections but it does have a very strict no-foreign-travel policy, one which would create significant problems here. But, they did lock down very early and so the virus never took hold. But as a result they can only maintain their status by keeping the restrictions in place indefinitely until a treatment or vaccine is available. (Australia thought it was doing well until it relaxed too far and is struggling to regain control) Secondly, even with our higher rate of infection, only 10 - 20% have yet been infected, only some of whom have any immunity and that immunity may not last very long. It only takes one infected person to kick it all off again. One the virus has escaped into the community it takes a long, long time to eradicate it. I seem to recall that even when we had a vaccine for smallpox it took decades to get to the point at which it could claim to have been eradicated. We will only get somewhere when politicians manage to get consent to what level of infection we are prepared to live with. That is, what balance between freedom and control is acceptable? But so far no-one seem brave enough to go down that route, but trying to sus it out experimentally. Out on restrictions and see how many folk abide by them. Role models would help.

so how do folk get to non-essential shops which are still allowed to open?

Perhaps you can travel to them within the restricted are but not into our out of.

Cash flow?