More C&RT Dishonesty?

[Higgs]

2 hours 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?

 

If the government want the canals to rot, who am I to disagree. We pay companies £30 billion a year to be able to keep wages low. £100 million is almost chicken feed. I think companies should be levied a £300 a year social fund. There are 3 million businesses. They may not all be in England and Wales, but there should be enough. Say, 2 million x £300 a year. 

 

Even though the figure is arbitrary, that's less than £6.00 a week. And there is a moral argument to make companies more socially responsive. £6.00 a week for their £30 billion.

 

 

 

 

Edited April 11 by Higgs

[David Mack]

44 minutes ago, Alan de Enfield said:

 

 

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).

But the purpose of the property portfolio is to provide income to CRT. Changes in the capital value of the property portfolio are inevitable given what happens in the rest of the property market, but are largely a paper accounting issue. What matters more is whether there is a steady stream of income from property tenants.

[Higgs]

2 minutes ago, David Mack said:

But the purpose of the property portfolio is to provide income to CRT. Changes in the capital value of the property portfolio are inevitable given what happens in the rest of the property market, but are largely a paper accounting issue. What matters more is whether there is a steady stream of income from property tenants.

 

Small beer. 

 

 

[Creaking Gate]

Yawn...

 

This place is getting worse that NBW. 

 

Now if someone did something about all the boaters breaking rules, dumping kitchens in rubbish bins and generally mistreating the infrastructure, or looking at how many people live on moorings and pay ZERO council tax then i might be intrigued.  But as it is its a case of 'I'm not paying more' 'Not enough maintenance is being done'. 

 

Next we will be seeing a stoppage notice count... 

[Alan de Enfield]

14 minutes ago, David Mack said:

What matters more is whether there is a steady stream of income from property tenants.

 

And for C&RTs 'joint venture property' expenditure they have noted .................

 

Losses of £7.0m (2021/22: £nil) have been experienced in the joint venture interests.

 

Not 'book values', but actual expenditure against income.

[Arthur Marshall]

1 hour ago, Creaking Gate said:

Yawn...

 

This place is getting worse that NBW. 

 

Now if someone did something about all the boaters breaking rules, dumping kitchens in rubbish bins and generally mistreating the infrastructure, or looking at how many people live on moorings and pay ZERO council tax then i might be intrigued.  But as it is its a case of 'I'm not paying more' 'Not enough maintenance is being done'. 

 

Next we will be seeing a stoppage notice count... 

Careful, Higgs will call you meanspirited...

5 hours ago, Higgs said:

 

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

 

 

Pot, kettle.

[Higgs]

7 minutes ago, Arthur Marshall said:

Careful, Higgs will call you meanspirited...

Pot, kettle.

 

Yeah, well, it didn't add anything more than you'd say.

 

 

[David Mack]

3 hours ago, Creaking Gate said:

or looking at how many people live on moorings and pay ZERO council tax

And if they did pay council tax, how much of that would CRT see?

[Creaking Gate]

8 minutes ago, David Mack said:

And if they did pay council tax, how much of that would CRT see?

None. But if someone is happy to sit and not pay CT, do you really think they give a stuff about contributing anywhere else?  Or is it more likely they will complain about what they are not getting, over what they should be getting. 

 

The point i am making is that everyone will grumble about CRT not doing this or not doing that, whilst sitting in place and not paying their way or contributing at all (in this example). 

Edited April 11 by Creaking Gate

[Midnight]

6 hours 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? 

 

 

No 

I think CRT should increase license fees equally, I think Parry should stop making promises he can't keep, I think the money he has could be better managed. I think the small amount of money that could be redirected from non essentials would fix a few paddles and make life a little bit better on the water.

 

As @Alan de Enfield said "One can disagree with C&RTs management practices but agree they need more income." 

 

 

[MtB]

14 minutes ago, Midnight said:

I think CRT should increase license fees equally,

 

Amen to that!

 

ALL boaters should pay £10 a night to moor their boat in CRT water, not just the Home Moorers.

 

 

[cuthound]

20 hours 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.

 

Unless of course the board determine the form of the report to be issued...

[Alan de Enfield]

10 minutes ago, cuthound said:

 

Unless of course the board determine the form of the report to be issued...

 

It is not a case of the board deciding what information they wished to release - it is a case of they have proven themselves to be unreliable, untrustworthy, and prepared to alter the facts to suit the situation.

 

You would have thought they would have been  a little more transparent after being caught changing the annual accounts

AFTER they had been approved and signed off by the board.  

 

I repeat - they TWICE put in writing that they had never had / seen any previous issue of the report (with the full survey results)  before they were given the 'Final' issue that was published.

 

Subsequently it was found that in fact the board had seen the earlier 'final' issue.

 

Edited April 11 by Alan de Enfield

[Tacet]

5 hours ago, Higgs said:

 

If the government want the canals to rot, who am I to disagree. We pay companies £30 billion a year to be able to keep wages low. £100 million is almost chicken feed. I think companies should be levied a £300 a year social fund. There are 3 million businesses. They may not all be in England and Wales, but there should be enough. Say, 2 million x £300 a year. 

 

Even though the figure is arbitrary, that's less than £6.00 a week. And there is a moral argument to make companies more socially responsive. £6.00 a week for their £30 billion.

 

 

 

 

Great idea.  It should be called Corporation Tax 

[cuthound]

14 minutes ago, Alan de Enfield said:

 

It is not a case of the board deciding what information they wished to release - it is a case of they have proven themselves to be unreliable and prepared to alter the facts to suit the situation.

 

I repeat - they TWICE put in writing that they had never had / seen any previous issue of the report (with the full survey results)  before they were given the 'Final' issue that was published.

 

Subsequently it was found that in fact the board had seen the earlier 'final' issue.

 

 

I would agree if the redacted pages changed the flavour of the report but it doesn't. 

[Alan de Enfield]

Just now, cuthound said:

I would agree if the redacted pages changed the flavour of the report but it doesn't. 

 

What was published is irrelevant - it is the fact that Senior Managers / Directors cannot be trusted to tell the truth.

In which case - how can we believe that the income of C&RT is insufficient to keep the canals open rather than some of it is being syphoned off elsewhere.

 

Its like the little boy crying wolf -  they have now been caught out at least twice, so what credibility do they have now ? (obviously it has no effect on the perception of the C&RT apologists).

[Paul C]

AIUI they voluntarily cooperate with the FOI request scheme anyway - ever since they were CRT, there has been no requirement to do so anyway. Maybe they'll just stop doing them altogether?

[Midnight]

10 hours 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. 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. 

 

Yes that may happen and the danger is the extra would probably just get spent on more & more non-essentials. At least it would be a better option than this surcharge idea which is going to be an administrative headache.

 

It wouldn't, but it would fix a few paddles. Many stoppages are caused by minor issues. Letting the ground staff fix a few instead of bringing in contractors might get canals open a lot faster and save a few bob for the bigger jobs. 

[Paul C]

10 hours ago, magpie patrick said:

 

 

The big battle is to stop canals closing

 

Would a smaller network automatically be a worse network? Maybe its due a "right-sizing" (playing Devil's Advocate).

[Midnight]

Just now, Paul C said:

 

Would a smaller network automatically be a worse network? Maybe its due a "right-sizing" (playing Devil's Advocate).

 

Not if they closed the BCN, Grand Union, Coventry and Oxford canals and put the money into keeping the Yorkshire waterways open. (playing another Devil's Advocate). 😜

[David Mack]

3 hours ago, Midnight said:

I think Parry should stop making promises he can't keep,

Specifically, what promises has Parry made and been unable to keep?

3 hours ago, Midnight said:

I think the money he has could be better managed.

How? Please give specific examples (rather than vague assertions), indicating how much money would be freed up for other activities.

 

3 hours ago, Midnight said:

I think the small amount of money that could be redirected from non essentials would fix a few paddles and make life a little bit better on the water.

What are theses "non essentials" and how much money could be redirected as you suggest?

[MtB]

6 minutes ago, David Mack said:

What are theses "non essentials" and how much money could be redirected as you suggest?

 

The forest of "blue signs" have been a bit of an own goal in this respect. Its certainly a subject used again and again to support the assertion that money is being wasted that should have been spent on maintaining the navigation, and the blue signs are half the reason for poor state of the system. 

 

So let's do a 'fag packet' calculation... I reckon they have put up an average of about 20 blue signs per mile over the whole system. All 2000 miles of it. Now lets imagine each of these signs cost, say, £300. 

 

2,000 x 20 x £300 = £12m. 

 

Hardly even a dent in the funding shortfall of £400m a year, is it?

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Allan(nb Albert)]

1 hour ago, Paul C said:

AIUI they voluntarily cooperate with the FOI request scheme anyway - ever since they were CRT, there has been no requirement to do so anyway. Maybe they'll just stop doing them altogether?

You may be confusing the Freedom of Information Act with Environmental Information Regulations. CRT was made subject to FOIA by The British Waterways Board (Transfer of Functions) Order 2012 Section 15.

 

With EIR, CRT volunteered to be bound by the regulations until such time as it was established in law if they were subject or not. The Information Commissioner quickly found that CRT performed the actions of a public body so was subject to EIR.

[Midnight]

1 hour ago, MtB said:

 

The forest of "blue signs" have been a bit of an own goal in this respect. Its certainly a subject used again and again to support the assertion that money is being wasted that should have been spent on maintaining the navigation, and the blue signs are half the reason for poor state of the system. 

 

So let's do a 'fag packet' calculation... I reckon they have put up an average of about 20 blue signs per mile over the whole system. All 2000 miles of it. Now lets imagine each of these signs cost, say, £300. 

 

2,000 x 20 x £300 = £12m. 

 

Hardly even a dent in the funding shortfall of £400m a year, is it?

 

 

 

 

 

 

Fix a few paddles on the Rochdale & Huddersfield though. 

 

 

[MtB]

4 minutes ago, Midnight said:

Fix a few paddles on the Rochdale & Huddersfield though. 

 

 

 

But no-one uses that. It should be closed and the funds spent on the busy canals down here!