Jump to content

Orwellian

Member
  • Posts

    111
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

Orwellian last won the day on August 20 2020

Orwellian had the most liked content!

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    Various

Previous Fields

  • Occupation
    Retired

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

Orwellian's Achievements

54

Reputation

  1. By 'they' do you mean BW directors or those representing Government?
  2. That is not correct. The government was sympathetic but the initiative came from BW. Don't forget the previous CEO David Fletcher advocated it previously but the then Labour government weren't interested. My response was to Pluto just to be clear.
  3. What you say may well be part of the problem but in my opinion the concept was flawed from the beginning. Why on earth did Hales & Evans think that they could replace 25% of their income simply by becoming a charity? The organisations investments - mostly property - have always made a big contribution and have generally (with some notorious exceptions) been well managed but expecting donations and legacies to replace the grant was delusional.
  4. Ironic isn't it that the continuation of the Government 'grant' is now essential when the stated purpose of transferring British Waterways into a charitable trust was to remove the cost of running the waterways from being a burden the taxpayer. That went well then!
  5. And sadly not only on boats but on foot, bikes and sat on their arses.
  6. https://canalrivertrust.org.uk/news-and-views/news/body-cameras-to-be-worn-on-the-towpath?fbclid=IwAR3uIXGFzGAsjE-kGTq_OnYJ-IW3HE0IZROgjMncnIAAact9bwEOspaI1yE
  7. Thanks very much for the quick reponse and that's good to hear.
  8. I understand the breach is now repaired and the canal reopened so presumably the gravel traffic is now back up and running. Can anyone confirm?
  9. The essential meaning is non state or non governmental ie not taxpayers. It was essentially David Cameron's 'Big Society' policy which he implemented after becoming prime minister of coalition government in 2010 and why DEFRA were so keen to support the Evans/Hales trust proposal put forward at roughly the same time.
  10. I agree but the big problem that CRT have to overcome to secure the continuation of this taxpayer contribution is contained in the Memorandum of Understanding they and DEFRA completed alongside the Grant Agreement. DEFRA's objectives are set out in the attached extract from that MOU.
  11. I agree the current sums are inadequate and maybe boaters would be prepared to pay more but do you agree that current levels of government funding should be maintained to reflect the wider public use?
  12. But that means the vast majority of those who use the waterways free at the point of use (and don't forget the land drainage function) make no contribution to their upkeep while boaters end up paying nearly half total cost. Seems grossly unfair to me. A proportionate contribution from taxpayers is a sensible and fair approach. £52 million a year is a miniscule amount of total government spending.
  13. It also shows that funding from Defra under the grant agreement is, by a small margin, the largest source so as I said in my first post securing its renewal is paramount. For those who think this is unecessary or undesirable I suppose they could try and recover another £52 million from boaters and boating businesses. Good luck with that.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.