nabo press release

[gaggle]

i am informed that nabo officer tony haynes will release a statement about inferences made on narrowboat world re-nabo membership numbers.i believed what i read on nb world was defamatory to nabo of which i am a member,and asked that it be looked at.it seems to me nb world will attack not only cc,s but also any organisations that might be in anyway supportive to them.keep count of references to assocciations and who cares about them anyway on nb world.

i thought i might be paroniod about the posts they put up but it now looks like nabo is concerned about the impression given out by them also.its about time nb world was brought to task or to a halt.

[Bernie]

I think comments about other sites should really be directed to them, not aired here.

[gaggle]

i will respect this point bernie but i would have you understand this matter concerns all on the canals.i have made my feelings known to nb world and nabo.as a result noba has raised it at a national level and found it is of concern and has deemed it nessacary to instruct its press officer to issue a press statement regarding the point i raised.statements made left unchallenged become the truth and i believe the statements that were made were far from the truth,i would term it malicious innuenndo.gaggle

 

i will not mention them again.

[maffi mushkila]

i will respect this point bernie but i would have you understand this matter concerns all on the canals.i have made my feelings known to nb world and nabo.as a result noba has raised it at a national level and found it is of concern and has deemed it nessacary to instruct its press officer to issue a press statement regarding the point i raised.statements made left unchallenged become the truth and i believe the statements that were made were far from the truth,i would term it malicious innuenndo.gaggle

 

I have to agree with you there. Some of the 'staff' writers at NBW seem to have carte blanch to say as they please without any control from above.

 

They have fixed focus topics that because of the make-up of the forum are not properly discussed and seem to become the rule rather than just personal opinion.

[Richard Fairhurst]

I think comments about other sites should really be directed to them, not aired here.

22317[/snapback]

 

With respect, Bernie, Canal World (and/or uk.rec.waterways, the Yahoo! list, Waterways Interactive, the Ownerships board...) is an excellent place to discuss other sites.

 

Not all sites have their own discussion board (we don't have one at Waterscape, for example). Of those that do, some are edited rather than being free-for-alls - so your post may be chopped, or simply not accepted. And any forum is prone to a chorus of bogus opinions from 'sock puppets' - people who look like real posters, but are actually aliases for other posters or even the webmaster himself.

 

I'm very happy for people to discuss Waterscape.com here or anywhere else. What I would say, though, is that there are now so many discussion forums (five listed above, and doubtless a few more) that you shouldn't necessarily expect any comments to be read by the webmaster or editor!

 

If you want something changed, send an e-mail to the site in question. But Gaggle's posting reads (to me at least) like a bit of news for the rest of us, not a personal message to Tom Crossley.

 

Richard

editor, Waterscape.com

[DHutch]

With respect, this is an excellent place to discuss other sites.

- Not all sites have their own discussion board

Now that is an excellent idea.

- We could have a forum subarea for "other websites"

- With Sub forums for each site within that area.

 

Obvously it need to be done in co-operation with the site(s) in question.

- But ive seen a very simular thing done, to great success on another forum i use.

 

 

Daniel

[dor]

I do not think it is a bad idea to discuss other waterwayswebsites, as Richard says. However it is important not to fall into the trap of "pot calling kettle black". Comments should be fair, even if pointed; personal diatribes tend to give the reader more sympathy for the site being discussed. Also you should check your facts.

 

I don't think we would have a problem discussing a magazine article, and that is what some of these sites are. NBW is an independent, non-commercial magazine, and the comments made by Tom/Victor are personal opinions. Waterscape is another "magazine", although clearly very commercial (too commercial? - it seems to cater more for people who are looking for a holiday than for boaters) - doh there you go - I've just made a comment about another website.

 

So lets discuss these magazines, both web-based and in print, but keep it sensible and don't let your own, possibly very biased, personal opinions interfere with your comments.

[Richard Fairhurst]

Waterscape is another "magazine", although clearly very commercial (too commercial? - it seems to cater more for people who are looking for a holiday than for boaters) - doh there you go

22586[/snapback]

 

Wait until our new site goes live at the start of July.

 

Richard

[dor]

Hi Richard

 

Does that mean that BW hvae finally remembered that it is boaters that provide a substantial element of their income?

 

If so, I can't wait!

[Richard Fairhurst]

7% of total income, to be exact (£14m out of £195m).

 

What it means is that the new Waterscape should - hopefully - be a significant amount better and easier-to-use than the current one; so even if it's not all to your taste (and we're a very wide-ranging site, so I wouldn't expect that), you should find the boating content a whole lot clearer and more useful. Not to mention the new maps...

 

Richard

[Sam]

Ok, Tom Crossley DOES have a tendency to be critical about most things . .but his website is succesfull though, it is updated 6 days a week, as lots of contributors and lots of good articles... i know that I personally have been 'critised' in a way like Jon as but that is irrelevant and i do not wish to gossip!

 

I think to be honest that NBW post THEIR views and they should not be taken so seriously!

 

And i agree with Bernie . .it is best not to discuss NBW here, you never know CW may be critisesed if Tom reads this . .

 

so Gaggle maybe this topic shouldn't be taken much further . . if you don't like his articles (which I think are OK most of the time) just don't read them and leave it! Don't make a big fuss about it (my personally opinion anyway)

 

Sam

PS- I hope this post is not: rude, offensive, stupid or booring in anyway . . .sorry if it is . . i didn't mean it to be if it is!

Edited June 10, 2005 by Sam

[Guest st170dw]

7% of total income, to be exact (£14m out of £195m).

 

What it means is that the new Waterscape should - hopefully - be a significant amount better and easier-to-use than the current one; so even if it's not all to your taste (and we're a very wide-ranging site, so I wouldn't expect that), you should find the boating content a whole lot clearer and more useful. Not to mention the new maps...

 

Richard

22612[/snapback]

 

 

Richard,

 

Should we boaters not consider ourselves so important to the system?

 

Do we really only deserve only 7% of B.W.s attention?

 

Do restorations and priorities depend more on the other 93% of income?

 

I know this could sound antagonistic but I really didn't realise how small the contribution of boats really is!

 

Do cyclists, fishermen and walkers make a larger contribution?

 

Dave

[Richard Fairhurst]

From my personal understanding:

 

Cyclists and walkers make either a 0% contribution or a 48% contribution, depending how you look at it. In other words, this is the Government grant (£95m in 2003/04), ultimately funded by taxpayers... which includes 25,000 boaters and many, many more walkers and cyclists.

 

(Anglers contributed £449,000 directly to BW's coffers in 2003/04.)

 

As for how much attention each group gets, I'd estimate 70% of the work that goes on in the first floor at Willow Grange (where I work) is dedicated to boats and boating. This might be slightly atypical, but it's pretty widely recognised that, in order to attract visitors on foot or bike, you have to have the boats, the locks, and so on. BW talks a lot about how "navigation is at the core of our business" and working there has shown me that they do mean it.

 

Conversely, though, remember that all those millions of pounds of Lottery funding for the Huddersfield Narrow and the Rochdale weren't intended just for a handful of boaters like you or me. If they were, the resulting storm would make the Royal Opera House stuff look like a little local difficulty. I don't think any waterway has ever been restored by boater power alone, to be honest - you'd be surprised how few WRGies are boaters, for example.

 

All the financials are in the BW annual report on the corporate website for anyone who's really interested!

 

Richard

(posting as a boater, not a BW representative)

[gaggle]

i am still waiting for this press release.have i missed it?anybody seen press release from tony haynes on behalf of nabo?. i have asked for my money back off nabo. gaggle

[Guest st170dw]

From my personal understanding:

 

Cyclists and walkers make either a 0% contribution or a 48% contribution, depending how you look at it. In other words, this is the Government grant (£95m in 2003/04), ultimately funded by taxpayers... which includes 25,000 boaters and many, many more walkers and cyclists.

 

(Anglers contributed £449,000 directly to BW's coffers in 2003/04.)

 

As for how much attention each group gets, I'd estimate 70% of the work that goes on in the first floor at Willow Grange (where I work) is dedicated to boats and boating. This might be slightly atypical, but it's pretty widely recognised that, in order to attract visitors on foot or bike, you have to have the boats, the locks, and so on. BW talks a lot about how "navigation is at the core of our business" and working there has shown me that they do mean it.

 

Conversely, though, remember that all those millions of pounds of Lottery funding for the Huddersfield Narrow and the Rochdale weren't intended just for a handful of boaters like you or me. If they were, the resulting storm would make the Royal Opera House stuff look like a little local difficulty. I don't think any waterway has ever been restored by boater power alone, to be honest - you'd be surprised how few WRGies are boaters, for example.

 

All the financials are in the BW annual report on the corporate website for anyone who's really interested!

 

Richard

(posting as a boater, not a BW representative)

22835[/snapback]

 

Thank-you Richard for a comprehensive and reassuring answer.

 

I have enjoyed the canals for many years and I am pleased we have a friendly floor in Willow Grange. This, allied with the generally excellent attitude and application of the staff on the ground, gives me hope for the future.

 

Thanks

 

Dave

 

P.S. please convert the other floors.

Edited June 17, 2005 by st170dw

[gaggle]

yes,richard does what it says on his can.which is more than can be said for other sites.

i pay fee,s to a certain association who will remain nameless.

the fee,s i am told help to pay the expenses for commitee members to attend meeting on my behalf.

now you would think myself and other members are entitled to be given results of these meeting seeing as we pay for people,s"expenses" to attend them.

i find posted on a site that as far as i know has nothing to do with the association details of one such meeting,the posting made by an officer of the association.

i think i will go to the web site site of association and read the full story of this meeting but can find nothing,i may be wrong and it is posted on the site but i dont find it.this is what i call a confusing site,waterscape is a doddle compared to this.if this post has confused you sorry.gaggle

[David Schweizer]

7% of total income, to be exact (£14m out of £195m).

 

 

 

Richard

22612[/snapback]

This is the figure constantly quoted by BW but, I as far as I am aware, it is only the amount contributed for Licences, and does not include On Line Mooring Fees, Off Line Mooring payments, BW Marina income, or the connection fees payed by Private Marinas (and passed on to boaters). I suspect that the gross figure payed directly and indirectly by boat Owners is closer to 25% than the quoted 7%

[John Orentas]

And following Davids coments, 7% or 25% of what ? Not I don't think entirely for the support and maintenance of the canal system but also for their extravagant excesses in the role they in which they see themselves as property developers and general 'high rollers'.

 

If someone could give us the figure that they spend on directley canal related projects without the self publicity and other aspects of their activities we may be able to arrive at more accurate figures.

Edited June 20, 2005 by John Orentas

[maffi mushkila]

(Anglers contributed £449,000 directly to BW's coffers in 2003/04.)

 

Maybe I am a cynic but there are over 3 million anglers in GB and merely 30,000 boaters.

 

Nuff sed!

Edited July 19, 2005 by maffi mushkila