Is the CRT too woke?

[Higgs]

31 minutes ago, Tacet said:

Is it your opinion that CRT should also be acquiring all buildings of historic interest etc in the vicinity of the waterways, in advance of the same objective?

 

Do you mean buying back what was of historic interest, now sold; those properties would be seem to be applicable to what you're suggesting. If so, it doesn't seem rational to have sold them in the first place. 

 

 

Edited November 14, 2021 by Higgs

[Alan de Enfield]

6 minutes ago, Higgs said:

 

Do you mean buying back what was of historic interest, now sold; those properties would be seem to be applicable to what you're suggesting. If so, it doesn't seem rational. 

 

 

 

I think they have plenty to be going on with (and why on earth they want to have 6 historic battlefields and 2708 listed buildings ...........................)

 

 

 

.....................

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Higgs]

17 minutes ago, Alan de Enfield said:

 

I think they have plenty to be going on with (and why on earth they want to have 6 historic battlefields and 2708 listed buildings ...........................)

 

 

 

 .....................

 

 

 

Well, either they can sell cart blanche, and remove any pretence of conservation and heritage, that requires care and maintenance, or, define what is or is not worth the effort of applying the spirit of 2.2. 

 

As most boaters know, they are not top priority in any definition. 

 

 

Edited November 14, 2021 by Higgs

[Tim Lewis]

On 13/11/2021 at 18:39, TheBiscuits said:

 

So worth about £750k as investment property.  What did they sell for again?

£2.4 million

 

[Thomas C King]

On the original question...

 

...too woke? I think climate change is becoming less and less of a partisan issue in the UK. And 'woke' is really just something used to denigrate some views traditionally ascribed to the left. Sometimes though, 'wokeism' is a kind of do-nothing-but-pay-lip-service ism. People on social media demonstrating how anti-racist, homophobic or transphobic they are. How climate conscious they are as well.

 

In a nutshell, I see CaRT are more paying lip-service to climate issues. I'm not sure they have some grand plan for bringing the canals to become a 'green' navigations. Although, for a while I did think their grand plan might be shifting to canals being primarily cycling and walking routes, but that'd be far too forward-thinking even if the organisation were that cynical.

Edited November 15, 2021 by Thomas C King

[TheBiscuits]

1 hour ago, Thomas C King said:

Although, for a while I did think their grand plan might be shifting to canals being primarily cycling and walking routes, but that'd be far too forward-thinking even if the organisation were that cynical.

 

That is the case currently!  There are way more pedestrians and cyclists than there are boats using bits of the system everyday, and CRT get a grant for more than twice their boat licences income partly for encouraging and enabling this.

 

It's why CRT are trying very hard to get a favourable review of the DEFRA grant at the moment - if the grant stops in 2027 they'll lose about a quarter of their current income.

[Alan de Enfield]

1 hour ago, TheBiscuits said:

That is the case currently!  There are way more pedestrians and cyclists than there are boats using bits of the system everyday, and CRT get a grant for more than twice their boat licences income partly for encouraging and enabling this.

 

 

 

I must be looking at a different set of accounts to you, although C&RT "do have previous" of adjusting their accounts package depending on the audience, but my version shows :

 

The DEFRA Grant is £52 million

The income derived from boating activities is £40 million 

 

You cannot just used the licence income, as without the licences there would be no other boating activities.

 

Yes - we jolly well must keep the 230,000,000 towpath users with their 743,000,000 visits per annum happy - particularly as the satisfaction surveys are showing a continued decline in satisfaction with the towpaths (falling 3% in the last year), add into that a 300% increase in reportable accidents to 'the public' and you can see the mountain C&RT has to climb

 

 

Towpath user satisfaction down 3%

Boaters satisfaction down 6%

Boating experience satisfaction down 5%

"Friends" making monthly donations down 9%

 

 

 

 

 

Edited November 15, 2021 by Alan de Enfield

[TheBiscuits]

6 hours ago, Alan de Enfield said:

You cannot just use the licence income, as without the licences there would be no other boating activities.

 

I'm surprised at you Alan.  Do you really think that all direct mooring income is being taken via the rebranded "Waterside Moorings" accidentally?  It's a long term plan, probably waiting to get past the DEFRA review due in a few months.

 

If CRT flog off the moorings management business to a private contractor they will still get 50% (EoG equivalent fees) + 9% NAA fees + lease on the moorings + a fee from the provider and not have to deal with grumpy boaters.

 

Licence fees are part and parcel of being a Navigation Authority so they can't fob those off to one of the car parking companies ...

 

 

[Heartland]

Woke is a term used in an attempt to denigrate anyone who has any empathy or sympathy with those in less favourable circumstances than oneself.

It had to be invented after the term "political correctness" became correctly understood to be an attempt to slander anyone who tried to speak or behave with concern for others, rather than behaving as if the only worth any person had was equivalent to their economic function, or the advantage that could be gained from using them as a thing, rather than a person..

Such mealy mouthed euphemisms are used by those who are so ashamed of their own attitudes that they need to find incomprehensible language to cloak them in, realising that should they actually voice these views, they would be correctly subject to universal condemnation.  You normally find them used on the internet by those hiding, quite understandably,  behind pseudonyms.

 

Well Arthur, a to the point comment, which I share

These people seem to crawl out of the dark places to vomit their beliefs to anybody within earshot or on line in screen form

Whether the CRT are Political Correct or "woke" is a question that deserves deep consideration and is it a term relative to the current views on climate change. Those who invented the carbon neutral argument is yet another factor that deserves deep consideration.

 

This is at the heart of the matter. But is it the correct interpretation? CRT, HS 2 and a host other are now on the Carbon Neutral bandwagon stating what they intend to reduce the use of carbon, neglecting to realise the fact that life on this planet is organic based. Several years ago there was the fear of loosing the Ozone layer caused through it was said by certain chemicals, Now it is Global Warming.

 

There are those that seem to like to protest. There was CND and now a group has latched on to Global Warming. The sight of Power Station cooling towes sends then into a frenzy and off to to the forest to hug a tree. Such people glue themselves to the road tarmac to stop traffic and there may come a time when they chain themselves to lock gates to stop those nasty diesel powered craft from moving. In their spare time they seem also to swell the numbers of those protesting against HS 2. All this does is add cost to life in general. Whilst there must be improved ways of managing transport and industry, it should not be done in a way to destroy it.  

 

Much more should be done to reduce waste, especially the effects of a throw away society and remove the visible aftermath which includes the cans and plastic that is readily seen along the canal and river banks, as well as also reduce the small pieces of plastic that finds its way into the food chain and is of particular danger to all.

 

May be those that protest are not awake, in this respect, and it is time they woke up!

 

[Allan(nb Albert)]

Seems to be much misunderstanding of governments five objectives in funding CRT up until 2027. I'm not sure if this is due to ignorance or personal agendas.

Quote

1. To reduce dependence on Government Grant and to foster increasing selfsufficiency, by providing access to new charitable income streams and stimulating new efficiencies. Over time, to increase overall funding available for the waterways. A prerequisite for this is to support the viability of CRT – especially in its early days - and so minimise the risk that Government has to intervene to take responsibility for the waterways from CRT.

2. To move the long term cost of maintaining the inland waterways and the associated heritage infrastructure (estimated at around £4 billion in nominal net present value terms) from the public sector to civil society.

 

3. To support localism and give waterways users and communities greater involvement in the management and long term sustainability of the waterways.

 

4. To safeguard:
 the canals and associated heritage infrastructure through the Trust Settlement, in perpetuity, for the benefit of the nation; and

 free pedestrian access to the towpaths.

5. To ensure that the waterways continue to deliver and increase public benefits across the areas of:
a) public safety

b) public access, recreation, amenity and health

c) environment d) urban and rural regeneration e) heritage.

  

 

 

[LadyG]

On 19/11/2021 at 23:58, Allan(nb Albert) said:

Seems to be much misunderstanding of governments five objectives in funding CRT up until 2027. I'm not sure if this is due to ignorance or personal agendas.

 

I support the viability of the CRT, via government funding from the taxpayer, has to be far more efficient to use the best economic brains recruited direct from Oxford and Cambridge than to allow bumbling amateurs to try to mug Joe Public to the tune of £0.00 per annum.

Then the re-branding to raise both public awareness, and the hackles of those who actually prefer a more subtle approach than blue plastic signs everywhere. 

Obviously selling off your assets is the first option, just a pity you have to pay your top management £200,000 per annum, each, ad infinitum, or did I read that wrong? 

Then it turns out that a few golden geese (or were they ducks) got channeled into the out-tray: collateral damage. 

Edited December 4, 2021 by LadyG

[Alan de Enfield]

32 minutes ago, LadyG said:

just a pity you have to pay your top management £200,000 per annum, each, ad infinitum, or did I read that wrong? 

 

 

Not surprisingly - yes you did

 

Only 2 Directors exceeded £170,000

 

 

Edited December 4, 2021 by Alan de Enfield