Allan(nb Albert)

2017/18 actual was 4.3.million per average two week period over the financial year. (i.e. for the 12 months April 2017 to March 2018) 2018/19 target is 4.5 million per average two week period over the financial year. (i.e. for the 12 months April 2018 to March 2019) C&RT provides its board bi-monthly figures that give progress against target during the financial year. The last published figures are for the twelve months June 2017 to May 2018) which is where the 4.1m comes from.

The 4.1m figure is published in bi monthly C&RT July board papers which give a rolling 12 months. 2018/19 target is 4.5m

Grant is not dependent upon the number of visits. However, it might figure in any renegotiation of grant as a wellness measure. More visits = more wellness. From the last four annual reports average number of visits per two week period has been hovering around 4.3m - 4.4m Last published figure - 12 months up to May 2019 is 4.1m For comparison, BW expressed an intention to have 7.2m by 2012 but the highest achieved was 4.3m (that includes Scotland)

It's an ongoing saga, Paul. With regards to refusal of two requests as vexatious and non-compliance with statutory and advisory timescales - A 'test' complaint regarding one, together with supporting evidence, has been lodged with the Information Commissioners Office - I have asked - That the Information Commissioner rules that C&RT failed to respond within appropriate timescales both to this request and its subsequent request for review. That the Information Commissioner takes note of C&RT’s general delay in responding to requests and requests for review and takes appropriate action (I quoted Dave Mayall's request and others in the public domain as examples). That the Information Commissioner overturns C&RT’s decision to refuse this request. That C&RT be required to provide the information requested in part 3 and part 4 information. That the Information Commissioner rules that C&RT may not use the reviewing officers decision as a reason to refuse any other request (I think that answers Alan Fincher's earlier question). I am not expecting a decision from ICO until the new year. With regards to the allegations of "harassment of many staff" made by Tom Deards, (C&RT's Head of Legal & Governance Services and Company Secretary), his threat of legal action and his demands that I remove articles, Mr Deards refuses to say which staff or which articles . Thus, Mr Deards accusations remain vague and I am put in the position of being unable to comply even if I chose to do so ... I have put this to him and the silence is deafening.

Translation - I am bullshitting because I never made the complaint. Dave made a FOI request on whatdotheyknow.com C&RT responded Dave was not happy with the response and requested a review C&RT failed to carry out the review within the appropriate timescale Dave threatened to make a complaint. C&RT apologised for the delay saying the reviewing officer would be contacted to give an estimated response date If Dave had carried out his threat the Information Commissioner would have ordered C&RT to carry the review and respond within a certain timescale (usually three weeks). ... and the response would be on whatdotheyknow.com for all to see https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/costs_of_rebranding

This is not for want of trying. Some time back, I was sent sent emails and screenshots from a boater showing how over a three month period he had tried to get a breakdown of this £132m. The reason he can't get a straight answer is that C&RT's claim is totally misleading.

You placed your request in the public domain. Are you now saying that you refuse to disclose if you have made a complaint to ICO?

Perhaps I have not made myself clear. Tom Crossley's policy is (or was) to publish articles and to subsequently publish any C&RT response to those articles. I am sure that if C&RT had responded to his article admitting a mistake in its closure notice then he would have been more than happy to publish. With regard to your FOI request, it is one of many where C&RT has failed to discharge its duties. I think I detect from your rather convoluted response that you have not made a complaint to the information commissioner. Is that correct?

I mean no disrespect but my view is that you have only become more critical of C&RT since they failed to respond appropriately to your Freedom of Information Request - https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/costs_of_rebranding perhaps you would care to give an update on this. ... but a veto is what C&RT wanted. Tom Crossley's publish. If C&RT responded to the article then publish the response.

Is that another way of saying its 'fake news'?

Actually Dave, C&RT used to treat narrowboatworld as part of 'the waterways press' and invite it to its press events. The problem was that it wanted to control narrowboatworld by insisting that articles were submitted to it for 'correction' before publication - something Tom Crossley would never agree to.

I estimate that 5.7 members that have contributed to this thread will not 'come out' and admit that the NBW thread was not fake news. I estimate that 6.2 members will pretend they have no idea what Roland Al is talking about.

Well here is what narrowboatworld said - and No doubt those that think C&RT can do no wrong will point out that Alan said five weeks and narrowboatworld said six therefore it is still fake news.

No real point. I am just posting some facts for those of an open mind. If you want an opinion, based on facts, then I see just two possible scenarios - 1. C&RT has posted a 'towpath closure' as a 'navigation closure' (specifically a 'planned winter navigation closure') and failed to correct this. 2. C&RT has failed to post as both a 'a planned winter navigation closure' and a 'towpath closure'. I would go for the first as it is simplest explanation. With regard to the second, I would have expected to see information such as nearest winding holes.

Notices issued are classified by type. There are eight types. A notice can be classified as being of more than one type. Two of these types are 'navigation closure' and 'towpath closure'. Thus a closure can be 'navigation' or 'towpath' or both. Navigation closures are further subdivided into 'emergency navigation closures' (C&RT sometimes calls these unplanned or unscheduled) and 'planned winter navigation closures'. Some years ago, C&RT started having planned closures in summer, particularly on the BCN. These appear as 'planned winter navigation closures' on C&RT's database. When run on 24/10/2018, my program detected that the notice was 'navigation closure' of sub-type 'planned winter navigation closure'. I can't say if it was also a 'towpath closure' as this is not checked. However, when run yesterday, the program did not detect this. I have just made an enquiry via the webpage. The notice is showing as 'planned winter navigation closure' but not as a 'towpath closure'. As I understand it, the winter works list is generated daily from the stoppages database. I guess anything the stoppage database shows as 'planned winter navigation closure' ends up on the stoppage list.