More C&RT Dishonesty?

[Midnight]

https://www.narrowboatworld.com/15285-a-criminal-offence

 

Parry in the dock?
There is a God! 😆

[magpie patrick]

As a consultant I produce reports - there are always a number of versions the client doesn't see. In my case these are numbered upwards from v0 (the first draft) and have reached v7 before the client sees them. The first version the client sees is "draft final" or  "final"

 

NBW are reading far, far too much into the use of the word final.

[Alan de Enfield]

7 minutes ago, magpie patrick said:

As a consultant I produce reports - there are always a number of versions the client doesn't see. In my case these are numbered upwards from v0 (the first draft) and have reached v7 before the client sees them. The first version the client sees is "draft final" or  "final"

 

NBW are reading far, far too much into the use of the word final.

 

 

 

Did you read the link and the attachments of the two issues/versions ?

 

But, as was attached to the link, there were 4 pages redacted from the issue that was given to Board members and that issued by C&RT to 'the public'

Edited April 10 by Alan de Enfield

[magpie patrick]

9 minutes ago, Alan de Enfield said:

 

 

 

Did you read the link and the attachments of the two issues/versions ?

 

But, as was attached to the link, there were 4 pages redacted from the issue that was given to Board members and that issued by C&RT to 'the public'

Yes I read it - non-story the Daily Mail of the canal world.

 

I'm also fed up with the CRT baiters in this forum. We're soon going to have a fight for the survival of the canal system and all some people want to do is pick holes whilst the whole edifice (the canals,not those running them) collapses. 

 

There you go, battle line drawn.

[Chris Lowe]

27 minutes ago, magpie patrick said:

In my case these are numbered upwards from v0 (the first draft) and have reached v7 before the client sees them. The first version the client sees is "draft final" or  "final"

It's similar with the drawings that I do at work, letter issues are provisional & I can go through quite a few lettesr before it gets to issue 1 released for construction & even then it still changes.

[Paul C]

Didn't NBW have some other person (Allan ??????) who submitted a string of FOI requests, resulting in him being marked as a vexatious requester and CRT not needing to further communicate with him?

 

It just seems like a fishing expedition, with no public interest value.

[IanD]

29 minutes ago, magpie patrick said:

Yes I read it - non-story the Daily Mail of the canal world.

 

I'm also fed up with the CRT baiters in this forum. We're soon going to have a fight for the survival of the canal system and all some people want to do is pick holes whilst the whole edifice (the canals,not those running them) collapses. 

 

There you go, battle line drawn.

Especially the CRT baiters who are not actually on the canals any more, and seem to actually want to see them deteriorate and close -- maybe because they think it would prove they were right to leave and that their predictions of doom proved correct... 😞

[Alan de Enfield]

But when C&RT (at the highest level) denied twice that they had been issued with a previous version, and, not only was it proven that they had been, but when they still denied it, a copy was shown.

(C&RT has had a whistleblower for some years).

 

That is (at the very least) telling lies, and supressing the truth.

[alan_fincher]

49 minutes ago, Paul C said:

Didn't NBW have some other person (Allan ??????) who submitted a string of FOI requests, resulting in him being marked as a vexatious requester and CRT not needing to further communicate with him?

 

It just seems like a fishing expedition, with no public interest value.

 

Errm yes.......

 

The article linked to is clearly the work of Allan Richards, (or at the very least he has had strong input to it).

 

It is typical Allan Richards; sensationalism - produce a story, but be "creative" to beef up the headline!

[IanD]

52 minutes ago, Alan de Enfield said:

But when C&RT (at the highest level) denied twice that they had been issued with a previous version, and, not only was it proven that they had been, but when they still denied it, a copy was shown.

(C&RT has had a whistleblower for some years).

 

That is (at the very least) telling lies, and supressing the truth.

 

All documents have "previous versions" including drafts; most people would say that if they're not officially released that's all they are, preliminary unreleased versions. Lots of documents I do go through many versions before the final one, modifications are made, things are added or removed, corrections are made -- it's how these things work, no conspiracy theories are needed...

 

If there was an official "V1" and this was superseded by an official "V2" and then they denied that "V1" ever existed then that would be lying, but I haven't seen any evidence that this is what actually happened here -- have you?

 

If not, I suggest you get down off your CRT-bashing high horse... 😉 

Edited April 10 by IanD

[Alan de Enfield]

33 minutes ago, IanD said:

If there was an official "V1" and this was superseded by an official "V2" and then they denied that "V1" ever existed then that would be lying, but I haven't seen any evidence that this is what actually happened here -- have you?

 

That is exactly the scenario outlined in the documents.

 

V1 issued to the board members.

V2 is V1 with 4 pages concerning the boaters preferences for licence increases removed & was issued and made public by C&RT

 

Twice in FOI requests C&RT management denied that they had ever had/seen V1 and request that the applicant should prove there was a V1.

The copy of V1, as provided to the board members, was copied and  provided to C&RT.

 

No I have not seen anything. But, this is what is explained in the various documents (FOI requests and answers) on the What do they know webpage.

[Allan(nb Albert)]

1 hour ago, IanD said:

 

All documents have "previous versions" including drafts; most people would say that if they're not officially released that's all they are, preliminary unreleased versions. Lots of documents I do go through many versions before the final one, modifications are made, things are added or removed, corrections are made -- it's how these things work, no conspiracy theories are needed...

 

If there was an official "V1" and this was superseded by an official "V2" and then they denied that "V1" ever existed then that would be lying, but I haven't seen any evidence that this is what actually happened here -- have you?

 

If not, I suggest you get down off your CRT-bashing high horse... 😉 

I suggest you read the information request at https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/surcharge_consultation and then apologise to Alan de Enfield.

 

 

31 minutes ago, Alan de Enfield said:

 

That is exactly the scenario outlined in the documents.

 

V1 issued to the board members.

V2 is V1 with 4 pages concerning the boaters preferences for licence increases removed & was issued and made public by C&RT

 

Twice in FOI requests C&RT management denied that they had ever had/seen V1 and request that the applicant should prove there was a V1.

The copy of V1, as provided to the board members, was copied and  provided to C&RT.

 

No I have not seen anything. But, this is what is explained in the various documents (FOI requests and answers) on the What do they know webpage.

Yes, I asked CRT for previous versions of the pubished DJS Research report. They twice claimed that they held no previous versions. About a month later I found by chance that this was untrue and the published version differed from the version provided to the board of trustees in July 2023.

 

Under Section 77 of the Freedom of Information Act it is an criminal offence to conceal information with the intention of preventing disclosure and, after giving CRT an opportunity to explain, the matter has been refered to the Information Commissioner.

 

The link to the information request is above.

Edited April 10 by Allan(nb Albert)

[Midnight]

10 hours ago, magpie patrick said:

Yes I read it - non-story the Daily Mail of the canal world.

 

I'm also fed up with the CRT baiters in this forum. We're soon going to have a fight for the survival of the canal system and all some people want to do is pick holes whilst the whole edifice (the canals,not those running them) collapses. 

 

There you go, battle line drawn.

I'm also fed up with the CRT apologists. There you go, ......

[Peanut]

It seems to me that the outcome would be the same, whether the redacted pages were included or not.

 

The pages show that, the cost of boating is increasing, half of boaters don’t want to see an increase in their licence fee, and many don’t appreciate the value it gives them.

 

This is hardly surprising given the increase in the cost of living and pressure on household finances.

 

Without redaction, the Trust could have faced this head on by explaining that, due to the financial situation they are in, they have to increase the Licence Fee to discharge their obligation to maintain the navigation. This would have addressed the objections, though not to everyone's liking.

 

While they endeavour to do a good job with the recourses that they have, the decision, to redact the pages and not face them, then deny their existence, appears to be mistaken.

[magpie patrick]

44 minutes ago, Midnight said:

I'm also fed up with the CRT apologists. There you go, ......

 

That's fine - but tell me how your stance will save the canals as the funding dries up. 

 

Personally I feel that the CRT baiters have an irrational grudge, and probably had it against BW. That's why they go for issues like this. 

 

The big battle is to stop canals closing - that might mean doubling the licence fee if no other funds can be found. The nitpicking troupe have not yet come up with a workable answer to this one. All they can bleat is "mismanagement" without explaining how better management would produce the millions needed. 

[Higgs]

22 minutes ago, magpie patrick said:

The big battle is to stop canals closing - that might mean doubling the licence fee if no other funds can be found. 

 

I think you would have found fewer people aggravated, if licence fee increases had been applied throughout without singling out one group. And I don't think doubling the licence fee would scratch the surface of what's needed. The government is the only fund-provided with access to the kind of money required. I also think they have a moral obligation to provide support.

 

The canals have been underfunded since before CRT. People are being asked for an increase to fund, if past behaviour is an indication of what will happen, money for old rope 

 

 

Edited April 11 by Higgs

[Arthur Marshall]

Whinging about a survey that was pointless from the start seems rather a waste of everybody's time. And no, I haven't waded through another chunk of rubbish that someone's dug up to boost their ego while playing at journalism.

I'm still as surprised as I was back then that the surcharge is so low, and while it's certainly unfair that the few liveaboards who genuinely cruise have got caught up in the grief caused by both the majority who don't and those who just dump their boats round the system while moving a dozen times a year, CRT had to do something.

I've just stopped at a couple of 2 day moorings where I would lay money the same boats will be clogging up the bank, some dumped and some occupied, when I get back next week. One hasn't moved since November. Now, maybe some of the whingers could complain to CRT about that - isn't it odd that they don't? Anyone would think they had a motive.

 

[Higgs]

1 minute ago, Arthur Marshall said:

Whinging about a survey that was pointless from the start seems rather a waste of everybody's time. And no, I haven't waded through another chunk of rubbish that someone's dug up to boost their ego while playing at journalism.

I'm still as surprised as I was back then that the surcharge is so low, and while it's certainly unfair that the few liveaboards who genuinely cruise have got caught up in the grief caused by both the majority who don't and those who just dump their boats round the system while moving a dozen times a year, CRT had to do something.

I've just stopped at a couple of 2 day moorings where I would lay money the same boats will be clogging up the bank, some dumped and some occupied, when I get back next week. One hasn't moved since November. Now, maybe some of the whingers could complain to CRT about that - isn't it odd that they don't? Anyone would think they had a motive.

 

 

I think people like you cause a problem. Mean spirited.

 

 

[haggis]

Personally, I just can't understand why Allan Richards and co spend so much time making Freedom on Information requests and digging into the realms of C&RT papers to produce such negative posts here and on Narrowboatworld.. He never says if his delving produces something positive . It is all very one sided. 

I, many years ago, took a case to the Ombudsman (and won) about licences for shared boats and Allan was helpful, as were other share boat owners,. However, thanks to Sally Ash BW changed the goal posts and another case had to be presented and Allan sort of took over the running. I stepped back when I saw that he was managing perfectly well on his own with the back up of other owners. I don't know what has happened since to make Allan so anti C&RT to the extent he is.

I liked Allan but not so keen on the person going under the name now. Wonder if it is someone else 🙂 

[MtB]

2 hours ago, Midnight said:

I'm also fed up with the CRT apologists. There you go, ......

 

Let me get this straight. You think CRT should:

 

1) Spend more on maintaining the canal system in a navigable condition

2) Charge boaters less

 

Do I have that about right? 

 

 

[David Mack]

2 hours ago, Higgs said:

The government is the only fund-provided with access to the kind of money required. I also think they have a moral obligation to provide support.

Unfortunately there is no sign that the government has the same view as you do on its moral obligation. So in the absence of an adequate level of government funding, where else is the money going to come from?

[Allan(nb Albert)]

52 minutes ago, MtB said:

 

Let me get this straight. You think CRT should:

 

1) Spend more on maintaining the canal system in a navigable condition

2) Charge boaters less

 

Do I have that about right? 

 

 

Whilst it might be fun to bait other forum members it might be more instructive to read what CRT tried to hide in the DJS consultatation report.
 

 

[Alan de Enfield]

20 minutes ago, David Mack said:

Unfortunately there is no sign that the government has the same view as you do on its moral obligation. So in the absence of an adequate level of government funding, where else is the money going to come from?

 

The discussion is (was) not about the need to increase the licence fees but the fact that C&RT lied about their methods, and that appears to be beyond question.

 

One can disagree with C&RTs management practices but agree they need more income.

 

THERE IS NO DOUBT from anyone that the canals cannot continue with the income that C&RT currently have, apart from an assortment of smaller income streams C&RT have 3 main sources of income :

 

DEFRA Grant

Boat Licences and Moorings

Utilities.

 

The Defra Grant is known and despite pleading on bended knees and begging letters the decision has been made regarding the grant level for the next few years.

 

Utilities - C&RT have already increased the charges made to utility companies for the use of the towpath, and, have increased the charges to companies extracting water and / or the use of canals for surface water drainage etc.

 

Boat licences have been under-priced for many years and have lost all relation to the benefits they actually offer, 'tinkering around the edges' adding 5% here, 10% there over an extended period, which, after inflation will have absolutely no effect on the actual buying power of C&RTs income.

 

C&RT have limited options but basically they can either save costs or increase income (or do both)

 

Saving costs can only be achieved by 'headcount', or closure of 'expensive to maintain, little used canals' (which they have the legal right to do under the Waterways Act)

 

The DEFRA grant is fixed, so Income can only come from either a totally new source, or much higher, realistic, fees where they are charged, and that includes (maybe 100% immediate) increase in boat licences, Yes - some boaters will be forced off the canals (which will result in less wear and tear on the infrastructure) but I'd bet that the vast majority will pay up and accept that as the better option.

 

The answer to the problem is out there, it is unpalatable for some, but it can be done.

[Paul C]

They are a landlord to many properties too.

[Alan de Enfield]

14 minutes ago, Paul C said:

They are a landlord to many properties too.

 

 

Its always worth reading beyond the headlines - the information is in the public domain.

 

Yes they had a Property Portfolio income of £55 million, but unfortunately they made a whopping loss on this property portfolio

 

The property portfolio produced valuation losses of £61.8m (2021/22: gains of £40.2m)
which, combined with £2.8m (2021/22: £5.7m) of realised gains on disposals, produced a
capital reduction of 8.1% for the year.

 

Our non-property portfolio of investments produced revaluation losses before fees
of £3.0m (2021/22: gains of £37.7m).

Edited April 11 by Alan de Enfield