More C&RT Dishonesty?

[agg221]

11 hours ago, Allan(nb Albert) said:

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.

 

I would be really interested to do so. I would like to put the two reports side by side and compare them right through from front cover to back cover. Please could you point me at links to both reports?

 

Thanks

Alec

[Alan de Enfield]

16 minutes ago, agg221 said:

 

I would be really interested to do so. I would like to put the two reports side by side and compare them right through from front cover to back cover. Please could you point me at links to both reports?

 

Thanks

Alec

 

The links are posted in some of the earlier posts - sorry no post numbers to guide you. and via the link in the original post that started the thread.

 

One of the questions 

 

This final report is based on the 8,479 responses to the survey, received between 15th February and 6th April 2023. Please provide a copy of all previous reports

 

Resulted in the answer :

 

In response to your request, I can confirm that DJS provided no previous reports to the Trust. Accordingly, the Trust does not hold the information requested

Edited April 11 by Alan de Enfield

[Allan(nb Albert)]

47 minutes ago, agg221 said:

 

I would be really interested to do so. I would like to put the two reports side by side and compare them right through from front cover to back cover. Please could you point me at links to both reports?

 

Thanks

Alec

The links are both in the article and the FOI request and, I think, here. To save searching - 

DJS Research 'independent' report provided to CaRT's Board of Trustees (but claimed not to exist) -

https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/board_meeting_minute_23043_boat/response/2530822/attach/3/8696 Boat Licence Consultation Summary Report 16.05.23 v1.0.pdf

 

DJS Research report made public (after removal of slides 23,24,25, and 34) -

https://canalrivertrust.org.uk/media/document/x1UqKBGCWaVdDXeTeh-bFg/dhZ8yzogvUfdFuPf6WKjKJryfQS0JSa3HzUMZdrSYv4/aHR0cHM6Ly9jcnRwcm9kY21zdWtzMDEuYmxvYi5jb3JlLndpbmRvd3MubmV0L2RvY3VtZW50Lw/018aac5f-0e03-73bd-b848-b6b78234139e.pdf

 

You will have difficulty using pdf comparison programs. I compared by converting both files to text (one requires stuffing through an OCR program). Then I wrote some code to get the text in the correct order, identify start of each slide and remove slide numbers.

 

***** Edited to add - Just realised that you might have meant that you intend to compare manually rather than via software ...

Edited April 11 by Allan(nb Albert)

[MtB]

10 minutes ago, Allan(nb Albert) said:

The links are both in the article and the FOI request

 

Quite a few here including me will not click on a link to narrowboatworld.

 

They do not deserve the traffic.

 

 

[Alan de Enfield]

29 minutes ago, MtB said:

 

Quite a few here including me will not click on a link to narrowboatworld.

 

They do not deserve the traffic.

 

 

 

In which case how can you comment on something that you have not read ?

(O' I forgot for a moment - this is the Canal wold forum.)

[MtB]

4 minutes ago, Alan de Enfield said:

 

In which case how can you comment on something that you have not read ?

(O' I forgot for a moment - this is the Canal wold forum.)

 

I don't recall commenting on the OP. 

 

 

 

[Allan(nb Albert)]

3 minutes ago, MtB said:

 

I don't recall commenting on the OP. 

 

 

39 minutes ago, MtB said:

 

Quite a few here including me will not click on a link to narrowboatworld.

 

Short term memory loss?

[agg221]

1 hour ago, Allan(nb Albert) said:

The links are both in the article and the FOI request and, I think, here. To save searching - 

DJS Research 'independent' report provided to CaRT's Board of Trustees (but claimed not to exist) -

https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/board_meeting_minute_23043_boat/response/2530822/attach/3/8696 Boat Licence Consultation Summary Report 16.05.23 v1.0.pdf

 

DJS Research report made public (after removal of slides 23,24,25, and 34) -

https://canalrivertrust.org.uk/media/document/x1UqKBGCWaVdDXeTeh-bFg/dhZ8yzogvUfdFuPf6WKjKJryfQS0JSa3HzUMZdrSYv4/aHR0cHM6Ly9jcnRwcm9kY21zdWtzMDEuYmxvYi5jb3JlLndpbmRvd3MubmV0L2RvY3VtZW50Lw/018aac5f-0e03-73bd-b848-b6b78234139e.pdf

 

You will have difficulty using pdf comparison programs. I compared by converting both files to text (one requires stuffing through an OCR program). Then I wrote some code to get the text in the correct order, identify start of each slide and remove slide numbers.

 

***** Edited to add - Just realised that you might have meant that you intend to compare manually rather than via software ...

Thank you.

 

Yes, you are correct - I did intend to compare them manually, which I have now done.

 

I found that the content of the slides up to and including 22 is essentially identical but the formatting is different.

I also found that beyond slide 22 the slides were not simply removed. Slides 23 and 24 in the public version of the report are not present in the other version.

I could not find the word 'final' present in either version.

 

I therefore conclude that this is not redaction of a report but rather revision, since slides are substituted rather than redacted and other formatting issues are addressed. I also conclude that it is not possible to infer from the available evidence that the original report should be considered a 'previous report', since it could reasonably be considered to be an earlier version of the same report.

 

As such, I cannot see any definitive evidence that CRT has failed to comply with the freedom of information request.

 

Alec

 

 

Edited April 11 by agg221

[Paul C]

The danger with these kinds of articles (and this forum post) is that if they "cry wolf" too many times, when something important DOES actually come along, people will ignore them. This has to an extent already happened with NBW and its widely ignored, as evidenced above.

[Mike Todd]

18 hours 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.

Unless your budget depends on Total Return . . .

[Arthur Marshall]

Expecting 100% accuracy in any kind of report from any kind of company shows either a total naivety or a deliberate bit of hypocritical stirring. A bit like expecting someone's tax return to be the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth.

Which is why this is a fuss about nothing, especially bearing in mind agg221's post above.

What is interesting though is why CRT have got so far under the skin of some people, even the ones who have had no actual dealings with it for years. Though it's nice they care so much about our creaking canals, of course.

[Alan de Enfield]

24 minutes ago, Arthur Marshall said:

Expecting 100% accuracy in any kind of report from any kind of company shows either a total naivety or a deliberate bit of hypocritical stirring.

 

 

The accuracy and / or the information released is really of little relevance - to me the crux of the matter is that C&RT repeatedly lied saying they had never had / seen a previous version of the report, claiming the one publicly released being the only one they had seen.

 

They could easily have said 'yes there was an interim report'.

 

You'd have thought that knowing they have a whistleblower in house (following the amending of the final accounts after being signed off by the board, but before submission to companies house) that they'd be a little more careful with their denials.

[MtB]

53 minutes ago, Alan de Enfield said:

 

 

The accuracy and / or the information released is really of little relevance - to me the crux of the matter is that C&RT repeatedly lied saying they had never had / seen a previous version of the report, claiming the one publicly released being the only one they had seen.

 

They could easily have said 'yes there was an interim report'.

 

You'd have thought that knowing they have a whistleblower in house (following the amending of the final accounts after being signed off by the board, but before submission to companies house) that they'd be a little more careful with their denials.

 

 

Thus illustrating Arthur's point above perfectly! 

 

"Storm about nothing" seems to sum it up. Storm in a teacup would be over-egging it. 

 

I agree with Arthur wondering WHY so many people get so greatly exercised about such utter trivia.

 

 

[Ian Mac]

The thing about all of this is that it does not actually matter in the grand scheme of things. The result of this survey could easily have been predicted. Those that are living on the water because it enables them to have a roof over there heads do not want any increases in cost. Those that have their boat basically as a caravan parked up for 99% of the time and read the papers and know that its getting very expensive for everything but its their holiday home, don't care as long as it does not get too dear. Those in the middle fall either way depending on personal circumstances.
What is the biggest cost rise I have seen?  The increase in the cost of insurance makes what NBW are moaning on about seem totally irrelevant. The other major cost increase Fuel! Even Wheaton Aston is really dear now As we attempt to do a good bit of boating that really matters.
Comparing to 4 years ago.

[Alan de Enfield]

19 minutes ago, Ian Mac said:

What is the biggest cost rise I have seen?  The increase in the cost of insurance..........................

 

Boat insurance (based on the same boat at the same value, same level of cover, same 'UK & European inland and coastal waters', with the same provider) has reduced slightly year on year.

 

2015 it was £299.48

2024 it is now £278.96.

 

I only see these 'big' insurance increases on house insurance, (increased by about 33% over last year), even the car insurance has changed very little.

[Graham Davis]

2 hours ago, Alan de Enfield said:

 

 

The accuracy and / or the information released is really of little relevance - to me the crux of the matter is that C&RT repeatedly lied IN MY OPINION saying they had never had / seen a previous version of the report, claiming the one publicly released being the only one they had seen.

 

They could easily have said 'yes there was an interim report'.

 

You'd have thought that knowing they have a whistleblower in house (following the amending of the final accounts after being signed off by the board, but before submission to companies house) that they'd be a little more careful with their denials.

Perhaps if you'd added those three words, as above, your posting might be more reasonable.

[Alan de Enfield]

1 minute ago, Graham Davis said:

........to me the crux of the matter is that C&RT repeatedly lied IN MY OPINION saying ................

 

Would than not be duplication of what I had already posted - or - maybe in a rush to get your criticism posted you didn't actually read what I posted?

 

 

2 hours ago, Alan de Enfield said:

The accuracy and / or the information released is really of little relevance - to me the crux of the matter is that C&RT repeatedly lied saying they had never had / seen a previous version of the report, claiming the one publicly released being the only one they had seen.

 

 

 

[Orwellian]

CRT's Legal & Governance Director has today replied to Allan's FoI request. See attached.

FOI Allan Richards Boat Licence Fee Review Survey Letter.pdf

[Alan de Enfield]

5 hours ago, Orwellian said:

CRT's Legal & Governance Director has today replied to Allan's FoI request. See attached.

FOI Allan Richards Boat Licence Fee Review Survey Letter.pdf 253.36 kB · 6 downloads

 

Well, they didn't really have much option but to confirm that they answered in 'error' and they had indeed had the previous issue, but, refering to the 'final report' is incorrect as it is titled exactly the same as the previous issue, both being dated May 2023 and both  titled "Summary Report".

 

If indeed there are issues titled "Draft Report" and "Final Report" (as quoted by Tom Deards) they have not been disclosed.

 

At least they have admitted the error of their ways and will hopefully learn from it.

Edited April 12 by Alan de Enfield

[LadyG]

19 hours ago, David Mack said:

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

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

 

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

The non essentials probably include things like signage,  general educational stuff and image promotion: these things are required  by UK Govt, the main funder of the network.

Boaters forget they are a minority and have little political influence.

 

[Allan(nb Albert)]

17 hours ago, agg221 said:

Thank you.

 

Yes, you are correct - I did intend to compare them manually, which I have now done.

 

I found that the content of the slides up to and including 22 is essentially identical but the formatting is different.

I also found that beyond slide 22 the slides were not simply removed. Slides 23 and 24 in the public version of the report are not present in the other version.

I could not find the word 'final' present in either version.

 

I therefore conclude that this is not redaction of a report but rather revision, since slides are substituted rather than redacted and other formatting issues are addressed. I also conclude that it is not possible to infer from the available evidence that the original report should be considered a 'previous report', since it could reasonably be considered to be an earlier version of the same report.

 

As such, I cannot see any definitive evidence that CRT has failed to comply with the freedom of information request.

 

Alec

 

 

Sorry for the delay in responding to this.

 

Quote

I could not find the word 'final' present in either version.

My FOIA request made on 19 February reads (my bold) -
 

I refer to your DJS Research report at -
https://canalrivertrust.org.uk/media/doc...

The report reads -

This final report is based on the 8,479 responses to the survey, received between 15th February and 6th April 2023.

Please provide a copy of all previous reports,

The same sentence appears in both the files and can be found on slide 2. 2.

 

Quote

 

I found that the content of the slides up to and including 22 is essentially identical but the formatting is different.

I also found that beyond slide 22 the slides were not simply removed. Slides 23 and 24 in the public version of the report are not present in the other version.

 

You are getting confused between the the published and withheld reports. If you count the slides in the 'withheld'
report you will find 41. The count for the published report is 37 - four less.

 

Quote

As such, I cannot see any definitive evidence that CRT has failed to comply with the freedom of information request.

Section 77 is about withholding/hiding/altering information rather than the contents of that information.

[Alan de Enfield]

1 hour ago, Allan(nb Albert) said:

Section 77 is about withholding/hiding/altering information rather than the contents of that information.

 

Exactly - and that is just what they did.

 

However, they have now admitted they were wrong - does that mean the Section 77 action is 'cancelled' because they said 'sorry' ?

[Allan(nb Albert)]

1 minute ago, Alan de Enfield said:

 

Exactly - and that is just what they did.

 

However, they have now admitted they were wrong - does that mean the Section 77 action is 'cancelled' because they said 'sorry' ?

As I understand it, ICO can caution as an alternative to prosecuting. 

[Bristolfashion]

On 11/04/2024 at 19:46, David Mack said:

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

Yes, this sort of thing is often used to beat an organisation around the head with - but what are they and, equally importantly, are they of any financial significance?

[Midnight]

4 minutes ago, Bristolfashion said:

Yes, this sort of thing is often used to beat an organisation around the head with - but what are they and, equally importantly, are they of any financial significance?

Junior fishing courses on EA waters, two tone van livery, lock poetry, sponsored Facebook adverts ........(add your own here) and I promised not to mention blue signs again so I won't.

.... all would fix a paddle or two and prevent a stoppage.