Allan(nb Albert)

In answer to how many reports of incidents at the two locations over the last ten years, CRT say seven. Four of these were near misses.

A great analysis. They published incorrect figures and then corrected them. When this was pointed out they asked the Charity Commission if they could publish the incorrect figures again.

A new development today as Tom Deards, acting on behalf of CRT's Board of Trustees, has written to the Charity Commission admitting to a second falsification of CRT's approved Annual Report. This relates to the changing of figures relating "visitor satisfaction" where CRT have altered the approved annual report to halve a significant drop from the previous year. In mitigation, the Trustees say that this and the change to heritage data were "to put right errors that had been made".

Maybe next edition ... Here are the two letters. In the second, Leighton was concealing from Defra that that the Annual Report had been falsified (because the Board of Trustees had not resolved to accept the changes). Even now, six months later, the Board refuses to accept the changes and, instead, is asking the Charity Commission to replace the falsified report with the approved Annual Report. Leighton-SoS-Letter1.pdf Leighton-SoS-Letter2.pdf ****** Edited to add that that it has been pointed out to me that CRT's response attempts to minimise Leighton's

It's slightly more complicated that that, chaps ... Parry/Leighton made two changes to the approved Annual Report - - In the approved report, the 'heritage condition' measure showed a substantial drop from the previous year. The altered report shows that CRT were unable to collect the data due to COVID. - The approved report showed a significant drop in the 'visitor satisfaction' figure. The altered report halved the drop. Under it's grant agreement with DEFRA, CRT is required to publish certain info called 'publication data' by July 1 each year. If it fails to provide that info

More an attempt to mislead Defra and George Eustice MP. **** edited to add - just found out that Useless Eustice might not be Secretary of State much longer.

Dear Mr Deards You were entrusted by the Board of Trustees to file its approved Annual Report with Companies House and the Charity Commission. As you admit, you broke that trust by conspiring with your chair, deputy chair and chief executive to file an altered report on your website and with the Charities Commission. You have now compounded the matter by failing to disclose to the Charity Commission and myself - - the full nature of your chairs involvement in this matter - that you altered 'visitor satisfaction' figures as well as 'heritage' figures

Have just learnt that CRT is under investigation by the Charity Commission for altering its Annual Report. Tom Deards, Head of Tom Deards, head of legal & governance services and company secretary, says changes were discussed with chief executive, Richard Parry on 24 November 2020. Both chair, Allan Leighton and Deputy Chair, Dame Jenny Abramsky, were notified orally. CRT have told the Charity Commission that it will remove the altered Annual Report from its website and replace it with the approved Annual Report. It has also asked the Charity Commission

I will correct that - the latest news is now on this channel - See the two posts above.

I think we have to remember that 50 years ago, almost all records would have been paper based. Due to staff cost the onus would be placed on the public to attend an office and search through thousands of entries in a ledger that would be hand written and in chronological order. A charge would invariably be made for copying the entry.

I believe the reform of electoral rolls predates GDPR. In any event, CRT are not required by law to make its register publicly available in the same manner as the electoral register or the open register.

The British Waterways Board (Transfer of Functions) Order 2012, transferred BW's functions of harbour authority, navigation authority and statutory undertaker to CRT. This included duties under British Waterways Acts from 1963 to 1995 inclusive. GDPR operates on seven key principles, the first of which deals with lawfulness. Quite simply if the law requires that you provide information then you do not contravene GDPR regulations by providing it.

GDPR is about how the holder of information (in this case CRT) uses it. In GDPR speak "using" is called "processing"). GDPR Article 6(1)(c) provides a lawful basis for processing where "processing is necessary for compliance with a legal obligation to which the controller is subject.”

No Brian, the boat index on Jim Shead's site does not contain the name and address of the owner. The register that, by law, CRT must keep and make available for inspection will contain the name and address of the owner (private or otherwise) and licence applicant. Houseboat certificates were introduced by this act so are included. As I recall, CRT are specifically empowered to set Terms and Conditions for House Boat Certificates.

A bit of ignorance being displayed about data protection in the T's & C's, I think. Under the British Waterways Act 1971, CRT has a statutory duty to keep a register of craft available for public inspection. Seems to me that the T's & C's attempt to alter the law by allowing CRT to decide who can obtain this information.