Allan(nb Albert)

Here is Albert, my families 1984 47' Colecraft fitted out by Lenny Beauchamp (with a bit of butchering by yours truly - the writing desk just had to go!) and "roses and castles" by Ron Hough. Albert's 25th birthday present was paintwork and sign writing is by Chris Weston of Oxon Boat Painting Co. who posts on this forum as Kitman (but is too reticent to promote his company!)

As the heading is:- You wouldn't believe it!, Fitting a bilge pump!!!! allow me to recount a story of when I was in charge of a number of shared ownership boats. We often had owners report that bilge pumps did not work. This was normally due to the fact that there was insufficient water in the bilge and the pump would suck in air. When we had this type of report, I took it upon myself to have a quick look to ensure the problem was not "operator error" before handing it over to an engineer which would have resulted in a charge. On checking one boat that had reported "bilge pump not working", I found that an owner had screwed the bilge pump onto a small wooden board (presumably because it had been found loose in the bilge) which just rose with the water level. I found that a house brick, stood on its end, on the board fixed the problem and just for fun I documented that the problem had been fixed with a brick. Six months later, I had a report "Bilge pump not working - please replace brick"

I'm sure that others (perhaps lurkers) can give better advice than me - now is the time to come forward even if it is a pm! The first thing to remember is that "charity boats" (aka Community boats) differ widely in purpose and use just as "private" boats do. I assume that funding the build is not a problem - if this is not the case say so. Do not assume, because you are an experienced boater, you can specify and design a suitable boat for charity use. At the very least, you need to determine if the boat is going to be used only as a "day boat" or for longer periods. You also need to consider if the boat is going to be used by those with mobility problems. If, as I suspect, your requirement is just for a day boat then you need to consider how much of the year you will be using it - this will effect how much of the boat is open (with side screens) and if you need heating. I do not really have a handle on running costs but I will stick my neck out and suggest that for a day boat you may be looking at about £8k per year which you might reduce to £4k depending on how much of the maintenance work you undertook yourselves Perhaps haggis will be able to post a better figures. One way that charities recoup running costs is to make the boat available to those who are not the prime beneficiaries of the charity. You need to make it clear in any grant application if the boat will be used for other than its prime purpose to defray running costs. You also need to consider the volunteers who crew the boat. How you are going to get them, train them, retain them and even get them to do some of the maintenance. Volunteers need to be able to handle a boat but also need empathy with and experience of your charitable aims. I'm sorry to be rather vague but its a wide subject and unless you can divulge more about the charity and the boat its very difficult to be more specific.

When I go out on other than a day trip I play "silly buggers" (as you put it) by labelling my crew as passengers to overcome the limit on the number of crew that I can carry (three including myself). Put another way, the rules do not take into account that on small craft such as narrowboats those on board often play a dual role of passenger and crew. You can't say a crew member is somebody who is paid because they are mostly volunteers. You can't say that a passenger is someone who has paid to be on the boat because that is not always the case. Therefore, charities have to make a definition. My charity chooses to define passenger as someone on board who does not hold a relevant and current NCBA qualification and a crew member as someone who does. I approve of this interpretation as it is difficult to argue that the boat has more than 12 passengers on board as all persons above that number have an appropriate qualification. It may be of interest to know that the NCBA can provide crew member training - another good reason for the O/P to contact them.

I think you mean shouldn't rather than can't! The practice exists. The reason it exists is that no qualification is needed by crew so it is a "grey area". It is up to the charity to decide crew levels and passenger levels using legislation and guidelines. In the case of the charity I "helm" for they like to have two crew (both holding NCBA Community Boat Management Certificates) for day trips but are happy to have a single helmsman for longer trips where the passengers will be trained to act as crew. In effect it means that we will have up to 14 on board for a day trip and 13 for longer trips.

Twelve is the number but excludes crew. This could be used (wrongly!) to squeeze one or two more on board.

Contact NCBA

The reason Canaltime boats do not have front doors is so that punters can be trapped inside by timeshare salesmen.

My rather jaundiced view is that organisations such as BW often confuse change with progress. For example, BW claims it is underfunded by £30m a year and produces a strategy that, at best, will only reduce that underfunding by one third.

Quite simply, you can't ensure that you are not breaching anyone's copyright unless you are given specific permission to publish either via a copyright notice on the website ("You may reproduce.....) or by the copyright owner. BW now asserts it owns the copyright of information on its website and you must ask for permission to reproduce. You must either do that or "publish and be damned" relying on "fair dealing" to protect you. I can see no logical reason for BW insisting you ask for permission other than to stifle criticism. How many people are going to be put off commenting because they are unaware of "fair dealing". Those that are aware of "fair dealing" may be put off as it is very open to interpretation.

I volunteer to publish that document on behalf of British Waterways. Here it is! Volunteering great!

Doing what others do rather than following government recommendations is no excuse! What ever happened to BW's policy of openness and accountability? Perhaps BW will attempt to ban linking to pages on its website next.

It looks like someone has picked up on some earlier comments by David Cameron. I may have made the point on another thread but it bears repeating. BW have, over the 5 years up to 2007/8, made £209 million from its property portfolio. Not one penny of that money has been spent on maintenance of the canal system. In the main, this money has been used to speculate on the property market and invest in joint ventures. Due to the plunge in property values over the last 18 months and financial difficulties that businesses now face the majority of that money has been lost. Its little wonder that BW now have a new vision - it stops people questioning what went wrong with the old one.

Why does BW have a website, if not to disseminate information? Government guidelines suggest that departments should make it clear that information published on such sites can be reproduced without charge and encourage copyright notices to that effect. It seems to me that BW's retrospective stance is contrary to government guidelines and common sense. How can you publish a press release, for example, and expect the press to then request permission to reproduce it? BW is simply attempting to stifle comment.

It seems that BW not only wants to retrospectively copyright information made available under the freedom of information act but also now considers information published at britishwaterways.co.uk to be copyright. From BW's new website disclaimer The contents of all material available on this web site are copyrighted by British Waterways unless otherwise indicated. All rights are reserved and content may not be reproduced, downloaded, disseminated, or transferred in any form or by any means, except with the prior written permission of British Waterways or as indicated below. Users may download pages or other content for their own personal use on a single computer, but no part of such content may be otherwise or subsequently reproduced, downloaded, disseminated, or transferred, in any form or by any means, except with the prior written agreement of, and with express attribution to British Waterways. Have I just broken copyright by reproducing this?

I am told by a Mr B. W. Mole (well that's how me signed the email!) that BW's savings of £10m p.a. will not be achieved just from making 100 people redundant as this will only save £5m. The other £5m per year will come from volunteers and will only be achieved over a period of time. I have no idea if its true but I just can't see savings of £10m pa being made from sacking 100 middle managers.

BW want volunteers You learn something new every day. I was under the misapprehension that WRG was part of IWA.

Over the last five years for which we have figures BW made over £130m profit. In the dash for "self sufficiency" by 2012 they have reinvested that money in property and "joint ventures" rather than using it to maintain the system. Worse still they have hidden this from the public and government. The 2007/8 accounts show that "joint ventures" was losing money. The 2008/9 figures will be much worse due to the drop in property values. Unless BW can buck the market trend most of the £130m profit will be wiped off the property portfolio. Evans should be kicked out and Hales should go with him. In a proper company shareholders and fellow executives would make this happen - indeed it did happened to Tony Hales about 10 years ago. Sadly, BW is a quango. ***** Edited to say I can't add up! The £130m should actually be £209m (and that's after tax!). To put it in a nutshell for the last 5 years for which we have accounts BW could not only have maintained "steady state" (cost about an extra £30m a year) but also reduced maintenance backlog by £50m! Instead they sunk the money into the property portfolio and joint ventures - and now its all gone belly up.

Maybe we should just whip him!

BW's executive directors will not be paid bonus for last years performance (2008/9). However, they also claim that they are underpaid by 15% and this stance has been underlined by the chair of the remuneration committee Maggie Carver in the May edition of Waterways World. As they now express a long term aim to become a charitable trust perhaps they should look to the National Trust for guidance on remuneration. However, as Robin Evans is paid 50% more than his NT equivalent and the NT has a turnover 50% higher than BW I can't see that happening - it would mean RE's salary reducing from almost £300k to £120k. Its little wonder BW wish to take an elongated time to become a charitable trust - all the directors will have had fat salaries for 10 years and be drawing even fatter persions. Edited to add ****** The remuneration committee normally meet in May to decide bonus to be paid against last years targets, targets for the current year, salary increases and pensions etc. BW have still not provided me with minutes of an extraordinary remuneration committee meeting held in December 2008 despite an appeal to the information commissioners.

I don't need respect as I hear BW have a grant from the heritage lottery fund to dedicate a bollard to me. Apparently, they have spent £50,000 in consultancy fees attempting to find out which of the new bollards is most favoured by male dogs. However, I would appreciate one of those T-shirts (I'm XXL) in case I am invited to the unveiling ceremony.

I was thinking witchcraft.

Wikileaks One hopes that BW's directors will not be awarding themselves a 15% pay rise as compensation for no bonus last company year! Bit naughty to set targets six weeks before year end - I am left wondering if they were set before or after BW decided that bonus due would be spent on maintenance instead.

Did anyone comment to BW? Has anyone any views on the document?

In another thread Chris Pink wrote:- It is probable that the link to the document I posted has been missed by most people so I republish it here. Whilst I am happy that the user groups to which I belong will protect my interests in this matter, I can understand those that do not have similar views. I therefore suggest that anyone who is concerned reads the document and responds to it asking for confirmation that your views will be taken into account. The document does not say who to respond to but I would suggest:- Sally Ash (Head of Boating Development) with a copy to Simon Salem (Director of Marketing and Customer Service). sally.ash@britishwaterways.co.uk simon.salem@britishwaterways.co.uk As an aside - I don't think BW will take any action to suppress publication of this document! ******* Edited to say that that I have been asked to make it clear that this document was sent to me by a private individual and not by an official of one of the user groups present at the WUSIG meeting