Canal Maintenance

[Ray T]

Not well received

Edited January 5 by Ray T

[Alan de Enfield]

Makes a lot of sense.

[robtheplod]

This was recommended to me today....

 

Canal Maintenance - C.R.A.P. Report 1

[Alan de Enfield]

Duplicate of this previously posted :

 

 

 

[Tony Brooks]

5 minutes ago, robtheplod said:

This was recommended to me today....

 

Canal Maintenance - C.R.A.P. Report 1

 

Reported to get it merged with the existing topic.

 

I did not watch the video so have no idea who compiled the report, too much stuff on YouTube videos just seem to flog the originator's pet hobbyhorse. So can the OP tell me what qualifications the originator has to produce such a report and who commissioned it.

[matty40s]

I can't stand these 'auditors' or ' citizen journalists' as some of them call themselves. Self entitled and opinionated idiots in the main, some of which actively encourage a reaction or goad for violence just for views. 

 

There may be some relevant or interesting content on the above youtube, but I will not even click on it as its owner classes himself as one of them.

[robtheplod]

1 hour ago, Tony Brooks said:

 

Reported to get it merged with the existing topic.

 

I did not watch the video so have no idea who compiled the report, too much stuff on YouTube videos just seem to flog the originator's pet hobbyhorse. So can the OP tell me what qualifications the originator has to produce such a report and who commissioned it.

no idea Tony... he does raise some interesting discussions though!

[Tony Brooks]

5 minutes ago, matty40s said:

I can't stand these 'auditors' or ' citizen journalists' as some of them call themselves. Self entitled and opinionated idiots in the main, some of which actively encourage a reaction or goad for violence just for views. 

 

There may be some relevant or interesting content on the above youtube, but I will not even click on it as its owner classes himself as one of them.

 

Much the same with me, I had enough with the mouthy "expert" on LFP batteries when the day boat blew up, and the experts in fitting lawn Bosch mower belts who omitted showing or talking about the most difficult step.

[Graham Davis]

9 minutes ago, robtheplod said:

no idea Tony... he does raise some interesting discussions though!

So what are these discussion points? How about you enlighten us.

[robtheplod]

12 minutes ago, Graham Davis said:

So what are these discussion points? How about you enlighten us.

Hi Graham, not much point me going over what is in the video... if you're interested you can watch it, if not then no worries..

[Arthur Marshall]

48 minutes ago, matty40s said:

I can't stand these 'auditors' or ' citizen journalists' as some of them call themselves. Self entitled and opinionated idiots in the main, some of which actively encourage a reaction or goad for violence just for views. 

 

There may be some relevant or interesting content on the above youtube, but I will not even click on it as its owner classes himself as one of them.

Must admit I regard most of what's on YouTube, especially if posted as news or fact based opinion, as unreliable and biased nonsense and a waste of my time. So I'm not watching it. If it really made any useful points, I'm sure someone would post them for discussion (which obviously you can't do on YT) and as they haven't, they can't think them worth much.

[Graham Davis]

33 minutes ago, Arthur Marshall said:

Must admit I regard most of what's on YouTube, especially if posted as news or fact based opinion, as unreliable and biased nonsense and a waste of my time. So I'm not watching it. If it really made any useful points, I'm sure someone would post them for discussion (which obviously you can't do on YT) and as they haven't, they can't think them worth much.

 

Well obviously Rob can't be bothered to post anything relevant to discuss from the video, going by his reply above.

[GUMPY]

I watched less than 15 seconds, I won't give my opinion on the presenter but it wasn't good.

[jonathanA]

I think you just did... 

 

i managed 35 seconds.  I assume its a wind up.  in fairness i thought the production quality in the 35 secs i watched was quite good compared to usual YT dross and smiled at "Bob Slacker  chief nitpicker..... "

[Jen-in-Wellies]

Duplicate threads now merged.

[ditchcrawler]

1 hour ago, GUMPY said:

I watched less than 15 seconds, I won't give my opinion on the presenter but it wasn't good.

I didn't even click it

[Wafi]

1 hour ago, Graham Davis said:

Well obviously Rob can't be bothered to post anything relevant to discuss from the video, going by his reply above.

^ this. If people who post YouTube links on Internet forums can't make the effort to provide a precis of the important points, why do they expect other people to make the effort to watch the videos?

 

"Here's a random YouTube link. My time's too important for me to spend 30 seconds explaining why I think it's interesting, whereas your time is sufficiently unimportant that I expect you to spend 10 minutes watching it just because someone on the Internet recommended it."

[MtB]

2 hours ago, Arthur Marshall said:

If it really made any useful points, I'm sure someone would post them for discussion (which obviously you can't do on YT)

 

Eh? Of course you can! 

 

Lots of YouTube videos have long and heated discussions in the comments section underneath them, which maybe you haven't noticed.

 

Edit to add:

Oops I see what you mean! Comments are turned OFF on that particular video. And I can see why having also stopped watching it after 15 seconds. It makes the Daily Mirror and the Beano look intellectual. 

 

 

 

 

Edited January 4 by MtB

[Tony Brooks]

1 hour ago, MtB said:

Oops I see what you mean! Comments are turned OFF on that particular video. And I can see why having also stopped watching it after 15 seconds. It makes the Daily Mirror and the Beano look intellectual. 

 

 

So of similar quality and content to Mr Shouty of exploding battery fame then.

[MtB]

3 minutes ago, Tony Brooks said:

 

So of similar quality and content to Mr Shouty of exploding battery fame then.

 

Nope. From the first 15 seconds it makes the Mr Shouty videos seem charming and pleasant to watch....

 

 

 

[Arthur Marshall]

2 hours ago, MtB said:

 

Eh? Of course you can! 

 

Lots of YouTube videos have long and heated discussions in the comments section underneath them, which maybe you haven't noticed.

 

Edit to add:

Oops I see what you mean! Comments are turned OFF on that particular video. And I can see why having also stopped watching it after 15 seconds. It makes the Daily Mirror and the Beano look intellectual. 

 

 

 

 

But they're not really duscussions, just people posting comments, same as on FB. On here, yitu get a bit of to and fro debate, concentrating on certain points. There, it's just a sequence of opinions.

Of course, here, it sometimes is, too, but usually we engage with each others argument.

[MtB]

27 minutes ago, Arthur Marshall said:

But they're not really duscussions, just people posting comments, same as on FB. On here, yitu get a bit of to and fro debate, concentrating on certain points. There, it's just a sequence of opinions.

Of course, here, it sometimes is, too, but usually we engage with each others argument.

 

You're 100% right. Have a greeenie. 

 

 

[robtheplod]

OK, due to lack of enthusiasm to look at something that i thought the forum may find of interest (  ), I've painstakingly listed the main points below for your pleasure...

 

• Excessive outsourcing of maintenance
• loss of skills within the organisation
• poor management choices
• Contractor profits
• Contractors should be used only for major failures
• Sale of assets (work boats/yards)
• Reactive maintenance
• Toddbrook analysis
• Deferred repairs
• Goyt example
• Temporary fixes
• Query over inspections (ground penetrating radar used?)
• Contractor reliability

 

I'm sorry for posting this thread as it seems to have caused the opposite to what was intended, with people unkindly in a race to say how little they watched it. I'll not do this again, happy 2026!..

 

14 hours ago, Wafi said:

^ this. If people who post YouTube links on Internet forums can't make the effort to provide a precis of the important points, why do they expect other people to make the effort to watch the videos?

 

"Here's a random YouTube link. My time's too important for me to spend 30 seconds explaining why I think it's interesting, whereas your time is sufficiently unimportant that I expect you to spend 10 minutes watching it just because someone on the Internet recommended it."

thats pretty unkind... did you have a bad Christmas?

Edited January 5 by robtheplod

[Tony Brooks]

12 minutes ago, robtheplod said:

OK, due to lack of enthusiasm to look at something that i thought the forum may find of interest (  ), I've painstakingly listed the main points below for your pleasure...

 

• Excessive outsourcing of maintenance
• loss of skills within the organisation
• poor management choices
• Contractor profits
• Contractors should be used only for major failures
• Sale of assets (work boats/yards)
• Reactive maintenance
• Toddbrook analysis
• Deferred repairs
• Goyt example
• Temporary fixes
• Query over inspections (ground penetrating radar used?)
• Contractor reliability

 

I'm sorry for posting this thread as it seems to have caused the opposite to what was intended, with people unkindly in a race to say how little they watched it. I'll not do this again, happy 2026!..

 

 

Thank you.

 

Now the question is did he address the relative costs of doing what CaRT has done and doing what he seems to think should have been done. My guess is that he did not, he just produced a whinge fest, some of which look justified, but when the economics are looked into any such justification becomes much less valid or even totally invalid. It seems to me that CaRT has only followed the examples of the majority of businesses and the government in respect of contracting many operations to third parties.

[magnetman]

It's true about contractors. Apart from their single motive being profit (fair enough) they also don't have any interest in the local area at all. 

When we had Land&Water/BAM on the Thames clearing weirs after the big floods in 2024 one of the geysers was driving from Wales and another from Tunbridge wells. They didn't even reconnect the Nelson lines (weir guard ropes) simply because it was not explicitly written down in their contract. 

 

An in house team of River people would have done that even without being asked because it is obvious. To the contractor it is simply extra time. 

 

In the event it was very bad that they did not do this. 

 

 

Obviously contractors have better hardware so in some cases they make sense but for maintenance jobs they will cut corners to gain profit.

 

It's obvious.

Edited January 5 by magnetman
Auto incorrect