Orwellian
-
Posts
413 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
1
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Gallery
Blogs
Store
Posts posted by Orwellian
-
-
9 minutes ago, magnetman said:
The proof will be in the pudding
Not unless you eat it!
-
1 hour ago, Gybe Ho said:
This is a storm in a teacup, one Government quango is reneging on established working practices to the disadvantage of another Government founded quango. The CRT as the injured party is resorting to people power and political intrigue to challenge the threat.
CRT is not a government quango. It is a private company and a registered charity.
-
I assume you will be seeking the views of Canal & River Trust so you can understand their reasons for setting up the Commission.
-
2
-
-
Yes it's also a registered charity which is perfectly legal and not uncommon.
-
4 minutes ago, Kipper 2 said:
CRT or whatever the name becomes under private ownership
CRT is already a private company limited by guarantee so not sure what you mean by your comment.
-
2 minutes ago, Allan(nb Albert) said:
It would require a change in the law.
... but I would suggest it what CRT have tried to implement anyway by asking boaters to "request an overstay".
Being charitable to Dodd, it might have been what he was trying to convey to the select committee back in 1993.
It must not be forgotten that the Bill that was submitted to Parliament had several purposes, probably the most important being the modernising and codifying of the right of access over adjoining land. There were very many petitions against various provisions, some successful (eg removal of ancient riparian rights not exercised for years) so given the limited time for a Private Bill I have no doubt Mr Dodd was under pressure from his seniors to get something agreed in terms of boat licences and 'reasonable in the circumstances' was no doubt considered to be reasonable in the circumstances of the parliamentary process.
-
1
-
-
10 hours ago, Allan(nb Albert) said:
I think it will be found that the SoS subsequently agreed to an amendment whereby the offside waterway wall will no longer to be held in charitable trust. Incredible, when one thinks what might happen if an embankment breached.
So they did in the following year. Here's the revised version. Thanks @Allan(nb Albert)
-
1
-
-
5 minutes ago, Allan(nb Albert) said:
Yes. My apologies for not mentioning this. In 2023 the Transfer Scheme (not to be confused with the Transfer Order) was changed due to the ONS problem. The effect is that, whilst land held in trust has a restriction on title preventing sale without government permission, the need for that permission has now been removed.
As such, the only bar to selling selling off operational infrastructure is charity law and statutory requirement to maintain navigation.
Thanks for confirming my understanding. In the hope it might help others to better understand what part of CRT's property this applies to I attach a copy of the written definition which was part of the original BWB Transfer Scheme 2012.
-
1
-
-
2 hours ago, Allan(nb Albert) said:
From memory the 2012 Transfer Order required CRT to register all land under its own name within three years. However, land held in trust should have been marked as such having a restriction on title preventing sale without government permission.
Speaking from memory also I think the government approval was removed as part of the joint attempt to have CRT reclassified as private sector by ONS. They now have to only comply with charity law.
-
4 hours ago, kris88 said:
The land owner being us, as the crt are still only guardians of what belongs to the public.They don’t own it.
Yes they do. Just check the Land Registry. This has been clarified numerous times so do keep up.
-
OK thanks for clarifying.
-
On 24/01/2025 at 13:44, Allan(nb Albert) said:
Sorry, I missed your earlier post. I was told in early December. The source was the same person who told me that CRT had altered its 2019/20 Annual Report after board approval and filing at Companies House.
Also told that the board had ordered the removal from its website of its Ten Year Strategy.
Is the attached the Ten Year Strategy document you were referring to? If so it is still on their website.
-
-
14 minutes ago, Alan de Enfield said:
Maybe it would reveal his position within C&RT and unmask the 'whistleblower'.
I'd rather he answered for himself.
-
2 hours ago, Orwellian said:
Thanks. CRT have not published the minutes of that meeting and nor have they released them via What Do They Know as you have requested so how do you know what happened at that meeting?
I notice @Allan(nb Albert) has not answered this question. Perhaps he'd like to now?
-
Thanks. CRT have not published the minutes of that meeting and nor have they released them via What Do They Know as you have requested so how do you know what happened at that meeting?
-
9 hours ago, Allan(nb Albert) said:
Pushed following a board meeting. He failed to deliver against CRT's Ten Year Plan on boater satisfaction and number of Friends. He is also being held responsible for misleading the board re the outcome of the surcharging consultation.
In addition, he is being held responsible for a failure to introduce a far reaching TWAO in 2024.
What is the date of that board meeting?
-
Thanks David.
-
Had a walk on the canal towpath at Stanley Ferry earlier today and spotted what looks like a new wharf being constructed on the offside north of the CRT Repair Yard. There's also excavation taking place on the adjoining land. This suggests there could be new freight traffic on the Aire & Calder and I wonder whether anyone (fanshaft comes to mind) can confirm if this is true?
-
-
-
1 hour ago, IanD said:
Complex problems rarely have simple answers, in spite of what some seem to think... 😉
You're right that either might appear to be better than where they are today, but as an independent charity I don't see how the government/DEFRA grant could have continued, which would have killed them from day one. The idea of making them a charity was that they could then magically raise loads of money from other sources (the private sector, donations...) but that turned out to be wrong -- not surprising when you look at why people and companies donate to charities or provide income to them, as discussed above.
Which means they should have stayed as a nationalised organisation because there was never any realistic hope of getting them "off the books", and I expect having to run as an independent charity instead of a branch of the government has increased their costs as well. BWB might have had its faults, but it was a more sensible way of running the canals than CART -- in my view they should have kept BWB and reformed/improved it, not tried to replace it with something which has never really worked... 😞
Here's Robin Evans (who died recently) explaining why he thought becoming a charity was the correct way forward. https://www.civilserviceworld.com/in-depth/article/interview-robin-evans
-
1
-
-
I would hope it's much more than that but my point was more about musical taste and the propensity of many on here to blame CRT for everything.
-
2
-
-
Has anyone complained to CRT yet?
New CRT CEO announced
in Waterways News & Press
Posted
CRT don't have enough income to meet the costs of maintaining the system, especially for navigation. As I see it they can only bridge that gap from Government and/ or more charitable income. Mr Robb's past roles and experience look like he might know how to access both. That he doesn't apparently know about navigation or how to steer a boat is irrelevant.