CRT looking for volunteers

[Francis Herne]

On 20/01/2024 at 13:14, MtB said:

It always strikes me there are two types of volunteer. Those discussed so far but also the genuine volunteers who just take it upon themselves to 'do stuff'. If people like you and me and a handful of others decided to walk a few miles of towpath litter-picking, or took one of our boats out offside bush-cutting, CRT would probably never even know we'd done it, let alone born any costs.

But if they do find out you've done anything besides litter-picking without a lot of paperwork, they tell you to stop and threaten to sue you otherwise.

 

On 20/01/2024 at 14:29, ditchcrawler said:

I often think of that when boating and see stuff dumped on the towpath. If I pick it up and put it on the deck, what am I going to do with it. I don't mean cans and bottles but say fridges, porta-potties timber etc.

At Hawne Basin CRT provide a skip specifically for that type of stuff retrieved from the canal. Something that could be provided more widely, although I fear it would be abused.

Edited January 23 by Francis Herne

[beerbeerbeerbeerbeer]

17 minutes ago, Francis Herne said:

 

 

At Hawne Basin CRT provide a skip specifically for that type of stuff retrieved from the canal. Something that could be provided more widely, although I fear it would be abused.

Yes I’ve taken odd stuff to that skip,

and the skip is strictly for things found/retrieved not for boaters’ general rubbish,

I once got a friendly ticking off for chucking me bin bag in there by mistake 😃

[Barneyp]

5 hours ago, magnetman said:

I suppose I am a bit jaded having spent a decade mostly living in Tower Hamlets which is a London borough traditionally controlled by Labour but now run by a proven fraudster born in Bangladesh who 'likes democracy' but also likes fraud. His housing minister had to go back to Bangladesh because he was doing too much fraud and was getting looked at. 

 

This could happen in other places. People who are traditionally Labour voters form their own parties and win by force of numbers. 

.........

So 2 immigrants (almost certainly not ayslumm seekers / refugees) are in some way dodgy or corrupt.

Lots of white anglo saxon people are dodgy or corrupt.

Its just that certain organisations and sections of the media highlight it more when the dodgy corrupt people are not white anglo saxon and British born.

 

 

5 hours ago, magnetman said:

.....

Do most asylum seekers come from non democratic countries? 

Its very difficult to claim asylum if you come from a genuine free democratic country. 

So while there are a lot of claims from people from democratic countries (eg Albania) they normally get rejected and the people sent home. - i think the UK government did a deal with Albania to make this easier.

Most people who make successful asylum claims come from oppressive non democratic regimes eg Syria, Iran, Afghanistan etc.

[beerbeerbeerbeerbeer]

1 hour ago, beerbeerbeerbeerbeer said:

Yes I’ve taken odd stuff to that skip,

and the skip is strictly for things found/retrieved not for boaters’ general rubbish,

I once got a friendly ticking off for chucking me bin bag in there by mistake 😃

Just remembered there’s a couple of skips at the Black Country Museum that I’ve put some bulky stuff in,

also on occasion the volunteer litter pickers in Brum who go out in a work boat most days through the summer have taken stuff of me,

[Arthur Marshall]

22 hours ago, MtB said:

 

 

 

 

 

22 hours ago, MtB said:

 

Point of Order...

 

Surely any given immigrant *might* turn out to have been 'illegal' all along. It's just that it isn't possible to know until their case has been heard, assessed and a ruling issued.

 

All the delays in assessing the refugee boat people are obviously planned by the government, the question is why? My own reading of it is to serve as a deterrent from coming here. If assessments were completed promptly ans efficiently I imagine the (probably unjustified) fear is the numbers would surge. 

 

But we will find out after the next GE when I imagine Labour will be elected, and the whole system streamlined.

 

 

 

 

 

You can't be "illegal all along". If you nick something, you haven't been a thief since the day you were born. A refugee has the right to claim that status, and until that claim, and any appeals, are disallowed, they are perfectly legal. It's the old "innocent till proved guilty" thing that an awful lot of politicians of all shades would like to see got rid of, along with jury trials and the right to a lawyer.

Edited January 23 by Arthur Marshall

[Barneyp]

1 hour ago, Arthur Marshall said:

 

You can't be "illegal all along". If you nick something, you haven't been a thief since the day you were born. A refugee has the right to claim that status, and until that claim, and any appeals, are disallowed, they are perfectly legal. It's the old "innocent till proved guilty" thing that an awful lot of politicians of all shades would like to see got rid of, along with jury trials and the right to a lawyer.

Not sure i agree,

To use your analogy, someone is not a theif from the day they are born, but they are a theif from the moment they steal something, even though they may never be found guilty in court.

So if someone comes to the UK and claims asylum even though they know they are not entitled to and their real motivation is financial, they are acting illegally, although they have the right to have there case heard.

[Ronaldo47]

6 hours ago, Barneyp said:

So 2 immigrants (almost certainly not ayslumm seekers / refugees) are in some way dodgy or corrupt.

Lots of white anglo saxon people are dodgy or corrupt.

Its just that certain organisations and sections of the media highlight it more when the dodgy corrupt people are not white anglo saxon and British born.

 

In certain African countries, corruption is seen as perfectly acceptable behaviour. My late brother-in-law worked for UNESO for most of his working life in a senior position, and spent a significant amount of time working in various third world countries. He once remarked that, following the appointment of some people from African states to senior positions, they had organised well-paid sinecures for their relatives and claimed extravagent expenses. Things eventually  got to such a state that the UK and the USA both withdrew their funding from UNESCO for many years until it had put its house in order. 

 

A couple of years BC (Before Covid)  there was a programme on BBC Radio 4 about the problems that could be encountered with theft and corruption when doing business in Africa. One of the people interviewed was a senior Nigerian diplomat. He not only admitted that the problem existed, but was clearly positively proud of the fact that other african states admitted that the Nigerians were the best at it. 

Edited January 23 by Ronaldo47
typos

[Arthur Marshall]

13 hours ago, Ronaldo47 said:

In certain African countries, corruption is seen as perfectly acceptable behaviour. My late brother-in-law worked for UNESO for most of his working life in a senior position, and spent a significant amount of time working in various third world countries. He once remarked that, following the appointment of some people from African states to senior positions, they had organised well-paid sinecures for their relatives and claimed extravagent expenses. Things eventually  got to such a state that the UK and the USA both withdrew their funding from UNESCO for many years until it had put its house in order. 

 

A couple of years BC (Before Covid)  there was a programme on BBC Radio 4 about the problems that could be encountered with theft and corruption when doing business in Africa. One of the people interviewed was a senior Nigerian diplomat. He not only admitted that the problem existed, but was clearly positively proud of the fact that other african states admitted that the Nigerians were the best at it. 

Dunno what you mean about "certain African countries", the UK is right there at the top of the list with the PPE scandal, multiple fraudulent business support loans during the pandemic, and the Post Office farrago. Corruption in the building planning departments has been endemic and widely known for years - rememer Poulson? Obviously not.

While I suppose the UK probably now qualifies as a third world country , dividing corrupt governments into those run largely by white or black blokes is simply racist. You can't get a lot more corrupt than the US system - they (and us) just pretend it's normal and bother to pass laws that almost make it legal, and certainly harder to spot.

As far as sinecures for relatives go, you seem to have forgotten the MPs expenses scandals, with most of their relatives getting whacking great pay packets for bugger all. And that hasn't changed, either.

And, what's more, this sort of discussion should be in the politics section, not here. This is one topic that ought to get back to the subject pronto.

Edited January 24 by Arthur Marshall

[Heartland]

Returning to the main thread, the advertisement "Your Canal Needs You" is still on the notice board. 

 

Some interesting comments, but will it engender a helpful response ?

 

The mire that has enveloped Birmingham Council is a separate subject tied up with many factors, one being equal pay where the meaning of equality has a wide interpretation and no doubt that discussion  belongs in the part of the forum dedicated to politics! 

[Arthur Marshall]

I suppose we have to remember that the canals as we now have them were more or less rescued by volunteers years ago, which sort of validates CRT's use of them now. Whether they can adequately replace properly trained and paid staff is a bit moot, but perhaps enthusiasm can do instead of expertise in a lot of cases.

Though we have seen a few vlockie incidents, these do seem to be getting less - personally, while I've met a few irritating jobsworths, most have been fine and I imagine the tidying and painting jobs simply wouldn't get done without them. And they seem to be the only option, financially, if CRT are going to keep going.

Edited January 24 by Arthur Marshall

[Grassman]

I think it's getting increasingly difficult to get volunteers. Obviously this depends to a degree upon what type of volunteering it is, but generally they tend to be retired or semi-retired people, and as each generation of retirees evolve, more of them seem to have other interests to pursue so don't have the time or inclination to volunteer.

 

Add to this is the fact that many are having to stay in work for longer due to the changes in the retirement age and/or due to economic necessity and this exacerbates the problem further.

 

 

[Barneyp]

3 hours ago, Grassman said:

I think it's getting increasingly difficult to get volunteers. Obviously this depends to a degree upon what type of volunteering it is, but generally they tend to be retired or semi-retired people, and as each generation of retirees evolve, more of them seem to have other interests to pursue so don't have the time or inclination to volunteer.

 

Add to this is the fact that many are having to stay in work for longer due to the changes in the retirement age and/or due to economic necessity and this exacerbates the problem further.

 

 

Also not only are people working longer until they retire (far fewer people are able to take early retirement on a final salary pension), once they do retire many people end up providing childcare for their grandchildren in the time they could have been volunteering.

 

I think one of the unintended consequences of Health and Safety legislation is that organisations have to invest in training volunteers and provid suitable safety equipment (PPE), meaning it is only worth taking a volunteer on if they can commit quite a lot of time. Which rules out people who can only do a few hours a fortnight or similar.

(for clarity I'm not saying Health and Safety legislation is wrong, I've seen the results of people working unsafely and it's not pleasant)

[David Mack]

54 minutes ago, Barneyp said:

I think one of the unintended consequences of Health and Safety legislation is that organisations have to invest in training volunteers and provid suitable safety equipment (PPE), meaning it is only worth taking a volunteer on if they can commit quite a lot of time. Which rules out people who can only do a few hours a fortnight or similar.

Same as the ending of driving minibuses on a standard driving licence. That has reduced the supply of volunteer drivers to a range of organisations.

[IanD]

1 hour ago, Barneyp said:

Also not only are people working longer until they retire (far fewer people are able to take early retirement on a final salary pension), once they do retire many people end up providing childcare for their grandchildren in the time they could have been volunteering.

 

I think one of the unintended consequences of Health and Safety legislation is that organisations have to invest in training volunteers and provid suitable safety equipment (PPE), meaning it is only worth taking a volunteer on if they can commit quite a lot of time. Which rules out people who can only do a few hours a fortnight or similar.

(for clarity I'm not saying Health and Safety legislation is wrong, I've seen the results of people working unsafely and it's not pleasant)

 

I don't think it's an unintended consequence, it's an obvious one -- if somebody volunteers to do work for a body like CART, as the beneficiary of the free labour in return it's up to CART to make sure that they can do so safely.

 

Many of those who complain about "Elf'n'safety" have presumably never seen somebody injured or killed as a result of failure to take suitable precautions -- or think it would never happen to them because they're too clever/careful to make mistakes, and don't care if it happens to others because they obviously weren't so it's their fault... 😞

 

Unsurprisingly, people who think this often have similar attitudes to many other things in life -- I'm all right Jack (because I worked hard), you're a lazy scrounger/immigrant/asylum seeker who deserves nothing...

 

6 minutes ago, David Mack said:

Same as the ending of driving minibuses on a standard driving licence. That has reduced the supply of volunteer drivers to a range of organisations.

...and I expect has reduced the passenger accident/death rates from unskilled untested drivers not understanding the limitations of the vehicle and crashing it.

 

As usual, there are two sides to every argument... 😉

Edited January 25 by IanD

[Barneyp]

2 minutes ago, IanD said:

 

I don't think it's an unintended consequence, it's an obvious one -- if somebody volunteers to do work for a body like CART, as the beneficiary of the free labour in return it's up to CART to make sure that they can do so safely.

 

Many of those who complain about "Elf'n'safety" have presumably never seen somebody injured or killed as a result of failure to take suitable precautions -- or think it would never happen to them because they're too clever/careful to make mistakes, and don't care if it happens to others because they obviously weren't so it's their fault... 😞

 

Unsurprisingly, people who think this often have similar attitudes to many other things in life -- I'm all right Jack (because I worked hard), you're a lazy scrounger/immigrant/asylum seeker who deserves nothing...

I didn't mean that the unintended consequence was that volunteers are protected, I absolutely agree that everybody should be kept safe.

The unintended consequence I meant, was that it makes it more expensive to have volunteers, maybe side effect is a better way of describing it.

[David Mack]

45 minutes ago, Barneyp said:

The unintended consequence I meant, was that it makes it more expensive to have volunteers, maybe side effect is a better way of describing it.

Exactly the point I intended to make regarding minibus drivers.

 

[ditchcrawler]

1 hour ago, David Mack said:

Same as the ending of driving minibuses on a standard driving licence. That has reduced the supply of volunteer drivers to a range of organisations.

Thats a strange one, If I rewed my licence on line due to age I lose the right to drive a mini bus, not something that bothers me. But if I renew by post on paper I get to keep it, something I cant be bothered to do. Whether I can get it back if I wanted it I don't know

1 hour ago, IanD said:

...and I expect has reduced the passenger accident/death rates from unskilled untested drivers not understanding the limitations of the vehicle and crashing it.

 

As usual, there are two sides to every argument... 😉

I suspect your licence covers you to drive a mini bus, have you ever been trained for it or tested on it?

 

[IanD]

12 minutes ago, ditchcrawler said:

Thats a strange one, If I rewed my licence on line due to age I lose the right to drive a mini bus, not something that bothers me. But if I renew by post on paper I get to keep it, something I cant be bothered to do. Whether I can get it back if I wanted it I don't know

I suspect your licence covers you to drive a mini bus, have you ever been trained for it or tested on it?

 

It does (it's still an old green paper one), but I also did training/testing years ago so I could drive a bigger (17-seater?) minibus for a local community organisation -- I think this was their requirement, not a legal one.

Edited January 25 by IanD

[ditchcrawler]

13 minutes ago, IanD said:

It does (it's still an old green paper one), but I also did training/testing years ago so I could drive a bigger (17-seater?) minibus for a local community organisation -- I think this was their requirement, not a legal one.

So stopping me from driving a mini bus only reduces the number of people able to drive them, not stop untrained drivers driving them. I would suggest I am a better driver today than I was when I last drove a mini bus. a bit more patience these days 

[IanD]

7 minutes ago, ditchcrawler said:

So stopping me from driving a mini bus only reduces the number of people able to drive them, not stop untrained drivers driving them. I would suggest I am a better driver today than I was when I last drove a mini bus. a bit more patience these days 

Not sure what point you're trying to make -- that everyone should be allowed to drive them like in the good old days (which would mean replacing 30M photocard licenses), or that this right should be removed from people who have a "grandfathered" right to drive them (like me) via an old green paper license?

 

There are a bit less than 5 million of these today, and given the glacial speed that the DVLA work at I hate to think how many years it would take to replace them all -- but presumably 6x less than replacing all the photocard ones... 😉

Edited January 25 by IanD

[beerbeerbeerbeerbeer]

17 minutes ago, ditchcrawler said:

So stopping me from driving a mini bus only reduces the number of people able to drive them, not stop untrained drivers driving them. I would suggest I am a better driver today than I was when I last drove a mini bus. a bit more patience these days 

I used to drive the school mini bus,

We got assessed every two years by the local council to make sure we were all competent drivers,

Used to hire and drive Luton vans too. 
 

This system of extra tests is simply a proper good money earner for the authorities. Nowt to do with safety, government realised there was more money to be made. 
 

But then the whole system has been tightened up since I took a license. I never had a theory test. And I suspect some oldies on here took their test while packing a pipe and drinking a mild and bitter. 
 

 

 

 

[Paul C]

4 hours ago, David Mack said:

Same as the ending of driving minibuses on a standard driving licence. That has reduced the supply of volunteer drivers to a range of organisations.

When were you able to drive a minibus (for hire/reward) on a "standard driving licence" - and how are you defining a "standard driving licence" anyway?

 

I passed my test in 1997 and have D1 with 101 endorsement - 101 meaning "not for hire or reward". If anyone in a similar situation DID want to drive for hire/reward they would need to take a driving test in a minibus to remove the endorsement.

2 hours ago, IanD said:

It does (it's still an old green paper one), but I also did training/testing years ago so I could drive a bigger (17-seater?) minibus for a local community organisation -- I think this was their requirement, not a legal one.

 

This would clearly come under hire/reward, thus you'd have legally needed to take a driving test to remove the 101 endorsement if you had it. Or are you saying you had a D1 with no endorsement before?

 needs D1 licence

 

 can be driven on B licence

 

Since they are effectively the same with no passengers on board, makes sense the minibus can be driven without further test.

 

 

[Alan de Enfield]

12 minutes ago, Paul C said:

I passed my test in 1997 and have D1 with 101 endorsement - 101 meaning "not for hire or reward".

 

You missed the important feature of code 101.

 

96 - allowed to drive a vehicle and trailer where the trailer weighs at least 750kg, and the combined weight of the vehicle and trailer is between 3,500kg and 4,250kg
97 - not allowed to drive category C1 vehicles which are required to have a tachograph fitted
101 - not for hire or reward (that is, not to make a profit)
102 - drawbar trailers only
103 - subject to certificate of competence
105 - vehicle not more than 5.5 metres long
106 - restricted to vehicles with automatic transmissions
107 - not more than 8,250 kilograms
108 - subject to minimum age requirements
110 - limited to transporting persons with restricted mobility
111 - limited to 16 passenger seats
113 - limited to 16 passenger seats except for automatics
114 - with any special controls required for safe driving
115 - organ donor
118 - start date is for earliest entitlement
119 - weight limit for vehicle does not apply

 

Driving licence codes - GOV.UK (www.gov.uk)

 

So you can drive a Minibus, with passengers for a Charity (etc) as long as you are not making a profit. So you could even use your own minimbus and charge the passengers as long as it is only to cover the costs.

Edited January 25 by Alan de Enfield

[Ronaldo47]

I retained my minibus and 7.5T entitlements at age 70, which involved filing forms D2 and D4. There was no official fee for renewing by this route,  but I had to pay £140 in total to my optician and GP for thrm to do the necessary examinations and complete the paperwork. You need to book a 30 minute slot with your GP, and it took all that time do do the examinations & tests and complete the paperwork. 

 

While your application is being processed, you do not have an actual licence but DVLA do (eventually) send you a letter confirming that you are entitled to drive all your original classes while your application is pending. As DVLA required additional medical tests (which they paid for on a private patient basis, no waiting months for an appointment),  it took some 7 months before my licence arrived, but it was dated from its date of issue and not the date of expiry of the old one. I didn't bother at my next renewal and just did it on line.  I had in the past made use of both the large minibus and the 7.5T entitlements, but deceded I wouldn't need them any more.

     There was a special box on the D2/D4 forms  to tick for those who wanted their minibus entitlement specifically for charitable/community purposes, which I didn't tick, but I don't know what the effect of this is.   I think it might have been relevant if your licence did not have this entitlement originally. 

Edited January 25 by Ronaldo47
Charitable minibus added

[Paul C]

HGV medical is about £40 from specialist suppliers; from your own GP it can be frighteningly expensive! I don't know if its the same as the "retain D1/C1 entitlement at 70+" but it probably is.