chieftiff

I'm guessing this is irony? Good luck in court...

I get the feeling we are only getting a part of the story, this thread seems to have a polarised set of contributors and I'm reminded of the story of two wolves:

No, it's someone on the internet's opinion based on a 'conversation' he had with someone anonymous who allegedly works(ed) for BW.

Not very catchy is it?

No, not quite, a weasel word is an equivocal word used to evade commitment, stakeholder is a noun used to succinctly encapsulate a long list of those with a vested interest. Politicians might use one, whilst someone trying to get things done effectively & efficiently might use the other!

It never does, I was exposed to the same profiteering by private sector charlatans when I was in the navy. I'm not a management consultant I run an R&D department, I need to get people onside because I want to use their experience, pick their brains and get them to look at things objectively so I can develop products that meet their needs. I don't profit from them I want them to profit from good products, the language is merely a way of describing things succinctly although I appreciate the language of business is a little unpopular right now but it's not gobbledegook, now If I had mentioned blue sky thinking or other such meaningless bullshit I would understand your angst.

Quite, we call those words.....

I'm in the private sector but you may have been on one of my working groups, lots of dissent in the public sector

I think that would have been a better (more profitable) option, my job is all about stakeholder management and if I want to get people onside I form a working group or task force, membership gives them ownership, people like ownership it generates peer relationships that can quickly stamp on dissent

I assume you have no idea of what chugging involves?

I take your point, I'm not sure there is a true equivalence but many people (me included) are already members of NT and RSPB, we joined because we 'use' their services for want of a better term and wouldn't want to lose access if those services ceased to exist. In some ways C&RT have missed a trick here, they should have used this as a way of engaging stakeholders and getting strong buy in by giving people something tangible as a benefit - a badge, magazine anything, rather than simply making them feel like they are making an uncommitted donation. But, I think you could be surprised how many people feel it a worthy donation given the number of walkers, cyclists, fishermen etc that use the waterways but not necessarily on the water.

"Every penny you give will go directly to keeping the canals and rivers special - restoring, conserving, enhancing and educating people about our 200 year old network of waterways. None of it will be spent on our administration and management overheads. We call it the golden pound." Thanks for putting this up Laurence I think I'll join, it's a great idea especially as we get so much pleasure from the canal system, I think it will allow people to buy in as they do with the National Trust, RSPB etc

Where do you want to start? 1. Greed (and health, education, social responsibility etc) became more important than security, conflict got expensive. 2. Media expansion and 24/7 news coverage exposed the 'innocent' public to the real horrors of war, latent pacifism became more tasteful than overt aggression (or even active defence of legitimate interest) 3. We voted for slimy career politicians with little understanding of military strategy and force development. 4. We came to believe the hype that the good old US of A would police force the world for us. 5. We became convinced that the world was a safer. more civil place, despite millennia of evidence suggesting that is unlikely to be true in the long run. etc etc etc But I suspect history will just record that we became complacent, that's what it generally records when we've made the same mistake in recent history ( 1937 for example when it became obvious Germany were ramping up for something special and we'd all but demolished our military might and 1981 - lets Nott forget the moron who was in charge of defence then and believed the military, especially the RN were superfluous)

She was renamed as 'Sundowner' and sold in 2009, owned by RNAS Yeovilton's welfare fund rather than the FAA, fond memories (not) I spent several unpleasant days in 1994 replacing the burst shit tank for the pump out. She was replaced by Warneford VC named after Sub Lt Warneford.

They were actually built by JL Pinder in 1973 for the Royal Navy as part of a recruitment drive, Cleopatra was F28 - A Leander Class Frigate (of sorts, in miniature), JL Pinder also built 2 Destroyers and a Submarine. Cleopatra became Minerva for a while and was run by Nottingham Sea Cadets. Canaldrifter knew a lot about these and spent some time posting info and photographs on another forum (RN), does he ever pop in anymore? As an aside the RN still have 4 narrowboats running out of various marina's, also several ships have their own for R&R as do several RAF bases, I could tell you most their names (the RN ones anyway) as I've taken most out at one time or another but I think they go to some length to stay fairly anonymous. The one on the K&A had to change it's name a few years ago as it became 'unwelcome' near many pubs due to alcohol induced high spirits. Edited to add the following that Canaldrifter put up on the other forum a couple of years ago, I just found it: I have been working on what was HMS Cleopatra for the last couple of years and was out on the cut with her on Monday. She bears little resemblance to her original , now a very conventional 60ft narrowboat. The hull shape is the same, a rather nice bow shape & transom stern and there are a couple of original heavy fairleads on the stern. The engine is now a (German!) Mercedes- Benz OM616 . The history of her is quite unusual: Built in 1973 by JL Pinder for the RN , along with 2 destroyers and a submarine. Sold to a privateer about 1978 who wrecked her whilst a liveaboard, re- sold in 1981, new owner built new conventional steel superstructure and then had a fit-out done by Warble Boats ( one of their first) at huge expense. Then boat abandoned , unfinished , no engine fitted , no gas locker in bow. Boat floats around unloved from about 1984 to 2004. Me and my mate , Derek ( ex Royal & Merchant Navy) take it on as a project and she's nearly right now. Maiden voyage was last July, first time moved under her own power for 25years. Oddly enough , I find her quite boring, I am used to boating with our 70ft wooden motor or horse-boating with " the UK's oldest wooden narrowboat", both of which are a lifetime passion of mine. Cleopatra was F28 , she is now called "Minerva" (F35) both Leander class frigates as you no doubt know. The Sea Cadets at Nottingham (TS Orion) had one of the others on the Trent in original condition , certainly a few years ago. cheers Robert Holmes

He's doing what every journalist, news editor, media mogul etc on the planet know grabs attention, he is creating a story about conflict (whether or not the conflict actually exists it's an important part of any story). Conflict as a tool is important to all writers, sadly many journalists and pseudo/self appointed doomsayers seem to have adopted the easier approach of presenting conflict negatively, it takes far more skill and imagination to present conflict in a positive light - it normally takes the skills of great leader in fact. The really great story here, as you've said in your previous post, is that the new C&RT have an epic battle on their hands to not only maintain but improve the canal system with a limited set of resources in difficult times, potentially an heroic story if it were fiction. As reality we will find out but I guess this guy (whoever he is) has pinned his colours to the mast as to how he views the likely outcome of the forthcoming war and its many likely battles.

We had a great day out yesterday, I got some great images but seem to have been haunted by this bloody cat

I agree but the spirit of the law is that you do what you deem reasonable (and be prepared for your definition of reasonable to be challenged) to protect your employees, someone is paid to make the decisions and ultimately be responsible for those decisions as to how you achieve the stated aim. Only the HSE or one of their representatives (who police this law) are going to argue with the decisions maker unless he/she gets it wrong, whereupon everyone becomes a critic.

One of the reasons that so many clients/site owners/ primary contractors no longer employ their own staff to maintain and repair their own assets or assets they are responsible for in any contract, in many cases (refurbishment of towers and vessels on refinery sites springs to mind) the liability insurance rates after a number of well publicised deaths scared the site owners into subbing it out to a contractor neatly transferring the risk to another 'employer'. I think they are starting to get the message that it isn't as simple as that though just ask Haliburton, Shell et al.

Or the law? HSAW 1974: Section 2 states that "It shall be the duty of every employer to ensure, so far as is reasonably practicable, the health, safety and welfare at work of all his/her employees", and in particular that such a duty extends to: Provision and maintenance of plant and systems of work that are, so far as is reasonably practicable, safe and without risks to health; - Arrangements for ensuring, so far as is reasonably practicable, safety and absence of risks to health in connection with the use, handling, storage and transport of articles and substances; - Provision of such information, instruction, training and supervision as is necessary to ensure, so far as is reasonably practicable, the health and safety at work of his employees; - So far as is reasonably practicable as regards any place of work under the employer’s control, the maintenance of it in a condition that is safe and without risks to health and the provision and maintenance of means of access to and egress from it that are safe and without such risks; - Provision and maintenance of a working environment for his employees that is, so far as is reasonably practicable, safe, without risks to health, and adequate as regards facilities and arrangements for their welfare at work. There's nothing OTT about this, it's standard stuff, step on any 'site' in this country and you'll see similar, for the period of maintenance this lock would have been defined as a site and be subject to all the normal industry wide standards and practices associated with that under the control of a site manager, it's normal move along, nothing to see here..................

It's a buyers market right now, offer what you believe it to be worth and don't pay a penny more, don't fall in love and let your emotions get in the way and ensure you budget for any changes you'd want to make. All of these thoughts are firmly embedded in my thinking, I know it's not always as clean cut as it should be because we are creatures ruled by emotion but I think this piece of advice given to me years ago, and something I've always considered when buying property, was good advice - When buying something, anything expensive in particular, imagine it's not your money your spending but your employer's, best friend's, your mother's or your sister' think through the explanation you'd give to them when describing why you bought that particular object with their money over another similar but cheaper object, try and describe where the value lies in the particular object you wish to buy. It rationalises the decision making, there are literally thousands of nice boats out there at the moment, when you find "the one" you'll want it, however once you've bought it you'll immediately see others more suitable and cheaper and that's when you'll question your decision, it's too late but it's the point at which the emotional aspect of the purchase disappears instantly with an unpleasant pop.. Of course you have to buy at some point and it's always nice to walk away feeling you got a good deal, if you don't negotiate well you'll always wonder 'what if', my advice would be push your luck, you're in the driving seat. Don't take the p!ss though and know what the cheapest prices are for similar boats, offer just short of that and let the seller convince you as to why their boat is worth more, if they can't do that or won't negotiate properly walk away, don't waste your time or money and find another boat to fall in love with.

Bit of an eye opener for me this, a long time ago I was involved in a mathematical modelling project which centred on the role of phosphates in water pollution, fish populations etc but also factored in nitrate and oestrogen pollution of water courses. I always assumed that the "eco" tag was associated with nil or reduced phosphates, nitrates and oestrogen (you'd be surprised where oestrogen crops up and the bizarre affects it can have on fish populations - ultimately the whole food chain) After reading your post I did a quick search on google and found this information: Bad stuff for the environment I particularly like this sentence that seems to sum it all up "There really isn’t any reliable way for you as a consumer to evaluate the biodegradability of a product. Surfactants made from vegetable oil are not necessarily more biodegradable than those made from petroleum. However, there is one type of petroleum-based surfactant sometimes used in cleaning products that has rather poor biodegradability. It is called nonylphenol ethoxylate. You will rarely see this ingredient listed on cleaners, even if it is present." What did I say about oestrogen, I seem to remember that all phenols are classed as oestrogen mimmicking

You'd want to read section 5. "The [F1Secretary of State] may by order designate as a public authority for the purposes of this Act any person who is neither listed in Schedule 1 nor capable of being added to that Schedule by an order under section 4(1), but who— (a)appears to the Secretary of State to exercise functions of a public nature, or (b)is providing under a contract made with a public authority any service whose provision is a function of that authority ................An order under this section may designate a specified person or office or persons or offices falling within a specified description............... Now I have no idea if they will but they certainly can and as I explained in another thread this recorded in Hansard 14th July suggests to me no decision has yet been made: Richard Benyon: "The Government recognises the importance of making appropriate provision for access to information from public bodies and those outside the public sector with public functions. With this in mind, we are considering the principles involved in the transfer of functions to the New Waterways Charity (NWC), and will be discussing this in due course with the transition trustees."

Not true. If you wanted to state fact then you might want read the FOIA, here is a link: Freedom of Information Act and proposed amendments I work for a charity who has a legal requirement to comply with the act, who have an elected board and who are also responsible to a minister via BIS. Unless I have missed something fundamental (and I'm not ruling that out I'm a busy bloke) the legal entity that will be NWC has yet to be established and the legislation that creates that legal entity and describes its authority/ responsibility / duties etc on behalf of the public has yet to be agreed in anything other than draft format. It will be that legislation that decides if they are responsible to a government minister, if they are subject to the FOIA etc, the statute will detail exactly those details, don't assume that because some charities are excluded from some legislation they are all the same. The act specifically allows for private bodies who are responsible for carrying out work on behalf of the public to be included. Hacks and bloggers, I've never been able to decide which is the greater risk to truth in our society. Having an axe to grind is fine, laying out your viewpoint is fine, only bothering to express one side of an argument is even fine providing you explain that is what you are doing. What is better though, what we all know as proper journalism is writing a story which describes and explains all of the issues around a topic in a coherent and succinct way so that the reader is empowered and informed to make up their own mind - otherwise you are just pretending to be a journalist and coming over as another lobbyist. I do share some of the concerns expressed by both Peter and Chris here, especially those about accountability and I genuinely don't feel well enough informed with regards to this aspect to make a fair judgement despite attempts to find that information myself, but, I can also see many potential benefits to disengaging with the bureaucratic wheels of government control. I guess what most people want is to be able to read a precise and accurate summary of all the salient points and decide, on balance for themselves, what is important here and what is just noise generated for the sake of it. I'd like to read a good article that did just that, one that is detached from the emotion and sets out the facts, not one that just makes me feel like I'm trying to be led or deceived by the writer about what is best for all of us. I'd like to see a journalistic piece, hell I'd probably even pay to read it.

Self doubt can be a pretty destructive thing and it's easy for someone not in your shoes to suggest you just crack on and do what you think is the best thing, I guess the doubt makes it a little difficult to judge what is best though so I won't suggest that as it would just appear patronising. Don't think you are the only one to go through life winging it, we all do it, we all make mistakes too it's part of being human. What is important, because none of us are truly fortune tellers, is that you can make the best of a situation when it doesn't work out for the best, plan just in case it doesn't work out, even if that plan merely involves considering all of the options. I used to believe, and I still think that our wealth obsessed society wants us to believe, that success is about money and possessions, big house, flashy cars etc - fundamentally status. Well I've got all that despite mistakes having been made, I've always planned well and had more than my fair share of good luck, what I now realise is that success isn't about what others think of you it's about how you feel about you, it's about being content with your lot. If keeping the Great Helmsman happy makes you content then despite all your self doubts the move to a boat will be a success, if you feel successful you can throw that self doubt in the canal and get on with your life