BW advisory forum - blimey

[carlt]

It is worth pointing out that before the IWA the management of the Chelmer & Blackwater Navigation its owners were in administration, the administrators were busy selling off all the assets to pay creditors and the navigation was in imminent threat of closure as no one else was interested in keeping it as a going concern.

 

Tim

Is it?

 

The revenue lost by the number of sea-going boats moving to the other side of the sea lock, saving over a grand, is hardly going to help the situation.

[magpie patrick]

It is worth pointing out that before the IWA the management of the Chelmer & Blackwater Navigation its owners were in administration, the administrators were busy selling off all the assets to pay creditors and the navigation was in imminent threat of closure as no one else was interested in keeping it as a going concern.

 

Tim

 

Except that BW aren't in adminstration, would you like to point out the difference?

 

The C&B needed the money, so do BW

[Tim Lewis]

Is it?

 

The revenue lost by the number of sea-going boats moving to the other side of the sea lock, saving over a grand, is hardly going to help the situation.

 

Yes it is.

 

Last time I was there there were no empty moorings and I have also been on a number of WRG working weekends where we have created additional moorings and improved the facilities for the existing ones.

 

Tim

[Natalie Graham]

Why was (for example) Cotswold Canals Trust not invited to join BWAF to represent the restoration movement

 

I don't think the BWAF invite new members. Organisations can apply to be represented on the group and the Chairman decides whether to accept the application.

 

Natalie.

[Richard Fairhurst]

You're right as BWAF is currently constituted.... that's kind of the point.

 

The group was set up by BW, with an initial membership list derived from the National User Group meetings, and with a constitution which includes the requirement that such a group's "objects or activities are of national scope within England and Wales or the whole of Great Britain". This is just one of several things that make me believe that the constitution and working arrangements of BWAF are seriously flawed.

 

Here's another: the meetings are held behind closed doors. This is directly against DEFRA guidance and indeed best practice as followed by many other bodies (e.g. EA REFERACs). Slightly ironic considering that BWAF is nominally part of the "openness and accountability" programme...

Edited September 11, 2008 by Richard Fairhurst

[carlt]

Whatever you say, Tim, the increase is unacceptable and puts IWA in a precarious position, when it comes to campaigning against BW's increases.

 

Apart from anything else I have no idea what the IWA stands for, see no evidence of their activities and, when told "join up and we'll tell you our opinions." I say "No ta!".

[magpie patrick]

Yes it is.

 

Last time I was there there were no empty moorings and I have also been on a number of WRG working weekends where we have created additional moorings and improved the facilities for the existing ones.

 

Tim

 

Could that be because it's a coastal location and (whisper it) for all those who left there where people waiting with a greater "willingness to pay"...

 

Doesn't that sound familiar?

 

Isn't that BW's defence on "market pricing"? "well, we don't seem to have any problem getting them to pay"

 

And isn't BW a tad short of money at the moment?

 

The one thing I would say in the IWA's defence is that their protest against licence increases (as opposed to government cuts) is remarkably muted

[Chris Pink]

Become a member and then you would know instead of trying to find out on the cheap.

Sue

 

what? Become a member of an campaigning organisation that keeps its aims a secret just so I can find out its aims?

 

Do i get my money back if I don't agree with them?

 

Does that also mean BW have to join before you'll tell them what your demands are (or even who you are)?

[carlt]

I find it interesting that the suggestion that the various organisations don't represent the ordinary boater's interests is met with defensiveness and secrecy.

 

Surely if you want someone to join then your arms should be wide open and you should be asking what the prospective member wants.

 

It's a bit like BW's consultations, a closed shop.

 

Become a member and then you would know instead of trying to find out on the cheap.

Sue

Is a bit like the Labour candidate, at the last byelection, on my doorstep asking why I'm no longer a supporter. "If you're not a member, you can't change anything."

 

Well I was a member, and I was made to feel distinctly unwelcome.

Edited September 11, 2008 by carlt

[fuzzyduck]

The Provisional IWA (working title) supports a "per washer" supplement of 20p per year per fake rivet.

 

/tongue in cheek

 

Edied to say oh and 1000 quid per Rosie or Jim doll

Edited September 11, 2008 by fuzzyduck

[fuzzyduck]

Oh, it looks like I made a mistake in my calculations Dorellas increase will be over 20%.

 

So which organisation is willing to point out to BW that one of the boats in this pic faces an increase in license in 2009 of over 20% because it can't share locks? NABO, IWA? Obviously if I were to respond on behalf of Dawncraft owners I'd choose to sting me, and CCers.

 

 

apologies for the small picture size.

Edited September 11, 2008 by fuzzyduck

[sueb]

What a load of cobblers, I have been on IWA committees for many years and in every case they have been desperate for new blood, if anything people keep quiet at social meetings in case they get co-opted onto a committe! From what I read about other waterways organisations they are in the same position. In what way were you prevented from joining the committees of these organisations?

 

It is far too often the lack of active members that restricts the work of voluntary waterways organisations.

 

Tim

I fully agree with Tim. Carl when did you try to join NABO committee? I wouldn't have landed in the position that I did if anyone else had been available. I found it too easy to get on the committee.

Sue

[sueb]

I was going to join NABO and went along to one of their meetings, but one of the comments put me off. I got the distinct impression they were fed up of rough boats having their stickers on because it doesn't 'give them a good name'. I decided my boat fell into that category and gave up. I did speak to the chairfolk and to the member that said that, and they back tracked. However, there were 4 of us there, they knew we were visitors and did nothing to encourage us to join so I am looking for something else to join - I thought I might start up the 'scruffy boat society' but haven't got around to it.

Was this the agm where I met you and Maffi? If it was I will email you off list.

Sue

[Steilsteven]

As usual, the topic seems to have been lost along the way.

 

May I bring you all back by just saying that although the consultation prefers to hear from user groups it doesn't say you can't respond individually.

 

Please, if you feel strongly about this then respond stating why you consider it to be unfair.

Also, please pass on the information to anyone you think might be unaware of these proposals, you only have until November to make a difference!

[homer2911]

I can't see them ever being able to issue tickets (though nothing would surprise me) but groups of vigilante curtain-twitchers, gleefully reporting their "catch" is very likely.

 

BW could issue a sticker, to stick on the side of the busybody's boat, like Baron von Richthofen (predating Godwin's Law, I might add), everytime a criminal is brought to justice.

 

 

I regularly pay my licence fee and mooring permit fee on time, but then invariably get angry at the number of parasites who pay neither.

 

If reporting one of these antisocial bastards makes me a 'vigilante curtain-twitcher' or a 'busybody', I am more than happy to plead guilty. If BW won't get off their backsides to police them, then I will.

[howardang]

Was this the agm where I met you and Maffi? If it was I will email you off list.

Sue

I think it was, because it was me who inadvertantly ruffled Bones feathers. The context was that in a discussion about licence enforcement, I made a flippant and lighthearted comment that during a recent trip I had noticed that a number of boats displaying expired licences were also displaying old style NABO stickers and that usually these boats were at the scruffy end of the spectrum.

 

Unfortunately this casual remark was , I think, taken as an insult to boats whose paintwork isn't pristine. This certainly wasn't what I meant to say and I spoke to her during lunch together with another NABO member and I thought I had put matters right. Obviously this isn't the case and so once again I apologise to Bones for a remark which a) wasn't meant as a serious comment and was definately not directed at her or her boat.

 

Howard Anguish

Edited September 11, 2008 by howardang

[carlt]

I fully agree with Tim. Carl when did you try to join NABO committee? I wouldn't have landed in the position that I did if anyone else had been available. I found it too easy to get on the committee.

Sue

If someone says that your organisation doesn't represent them, just telling them they are wrong doesn't make them wrong.

 

If I were to rejoin and try to change things, to suit me, I wouldn't last long.

[carlt]

I regularly pay my licence fee and mooring permit fee on time, but then invariably get angry at the number of parasites who pay neither.

 

If reporting one of these antisocial bastards makes me a 'vigilante curtain-twitcher' or a 'busybody', I am more than happy to plead guilty. If BW won't get off their backsides to police them, then I will.

Like your signature says....life's too short....to stick my nose in other people's business.

[homer2911]

Like your signature says....life's too short....to stick my nose in other people's business.

 

If my boating fees are significantly higher because other people refuse to pay theirs, beyond doubt, that makes it my business.

[carlt]

If my boating fees are significantly higher because other people refuse to pay theirs, beyond doubt, that makes it my business.

They're not.

 

If every unlicenced boat got a licence tomorrow your boat taxes wouldn't go down one penny and the proposed increases wouldn't change either.

[fender]

It was a suprise to me, but NBW has clearly exposed some of the sham of BW's accounts and bonuses for its directors:

 

"British Waterways made a profit of £36m in 2007/8 none of which was used to improve maintenance standards. Furthermore, the directors of British Waterways have no incentive to improve the situation"

 

http://www.narrowboatworld.com/f-bonus.html

[Allan(nb Albert)]

It was a suprise to me, but NBW has clearly exposed some of the sham of BW's accounts and bonuses for its directors:

 

"British Waterways made a profit of £36m in 2007/8 none of which was used to improve maintenance standards. Furthermore, the directors of British Waterways have no incentive to improve the situation"

 

http://www.narrowboatworld.com/f-bonus.html

 

Good article!

 

As I earlier posted - BW are showing large profits and reserves. I could not understand why this money was not being used to maintain the waterways. Indeed, based on BW's profit last year it is difficult to see why we have to pay any licence fee!

 

Well now we know - BW's directors bonus is based on profit and slanted surveys rather than the state of the track.

 

I note that no bonus can be paid unless basis safety standards are met. So British Waterways invent a safety issue - lack of bollards at locks - set a target to remedy the issue, spend over £1m to bring locks up to basic safety standards and pay themselves bonuses next year as they have met the safety target.

 

Or am I a cynic?

 

Allan

Edited September 12, 2008 by Allan(nb Albert)

[homer2911]

They're not.

 

If every unlicenced boat got a licence tomorrow your boat taxes wouldn't go down one penny and the proposed increases wouldn't change either.

 

 

I bow to your (quite obviously) infinitely more developed knowledge of economics. Let's all stop paying shall we, and all become parisites on society?

Edited September 12, 2008 by homer2911

[carlt]

I bow to your (quite obviously) infinitely more developed knowledge of economics. Let's all stop paying shall we, and all become parisites on society?

I've never said I condone none payment. I'm just not a rabid curtain twitcher who rails at the thought of anyone "getting away with it".

 

I wouldn't say my knowledge of economics is "infinitely" more developed than yours, by the way, but I acknowledge your admission of inferiority, in this area.

[sociable_hermit]

To ignore something is to give it tacit acceptance. If only one or two non-licence holders paid up then, yes, it probably wouldn't make any difference. But if everyone did it would. It would also prevent anyone from claiming "Well half of 'em don't pay anything anyway!" whenever we ask for something perfectly reasonable for our licence / mooring money.

 

You've got to have some sense of responsibility in life surely, and some sort of hope? Otherwise why bother getting up in the morning?

Edited September 12, 2008 by sociable_hermit