Licence & Moorings Increases

[johnthebridge]

Not doing bad on a personal level for idiots though are they.

They're not doing bad, because amongst other things, they've never been questioned too closely about what they're doing with taxpayers' money.

OUR money.

[gaggle]

victor has said allan gave it "the story " here first and that is why they are not playing.

the voice of the waterways , but only when the editor is not throwing a paddy.

[Allan(nb Albert)]

victor has said allan gave it "the story " here first and that is why they are not playing.

the voice of the waterways , but only when the editor is not throwing a paddy.

 

The reason Tom has given me is that I allowed Simon Salem to comment on it before he decided to publish. It is narrowboatworlds policy to not ask for comment before publication so he didn't publish the article.

 

I have apologised to him.

Edited November 21, 2008 by Allan(nb Albert)

[Chris J W]

The reason Tom has given me is that I allowed Simon Salem to comment on it before he decided to publish. It is narrowboatworlds policy to not ask for comment before publication so he didn't publish the article.

 

I have apologised to him.

 

I would say you has no need to apologise - to my mind that say's more about him and his 'standards of journalism'.

 

Send the article (with Salem's comments) to someone like Towpath Telegraph, Canal Boat or Waterways World.

[PaulG]

I think the fault is mine in that I was a bit overeager and broke some sort of "journalists code"!

 

Tom confirmed that he would publish - he has a copy of Simon Salems bonus targets so could check that the article against this.

 

Tom gave me a link to the article, I sent him corrections which he applied. I sent the link to Simon Salem (after correction) in order that he could comment. Tom emailed me saying that he was aware of this and that he would not publish.

 

I am not aware if BW put any pressure on him.

 

As I said in my last post, NBW has the hits and I am gutted that the article has been pulled.

 

Allan

 

From "Narrowboat World"

 

"There was a rather outspoken feature to be published

in narrowboatworld... which never saw the light of day. Simply because its author, Allan Richards, decided to 'jump the

gun' and release it on the forums beforehand...."

 

Aha! So that's why he didn't publish. I thought he told Allan that he didn't publish because he had already had asked Simon Salem to comment!

 

"but please, dear Allan, don't go suggesting that we caved in to outside pressure. No way José"

He hasn't - "dear" Tom/Victor, and neither has José for that matter.

 

"Any reader can clearly see that unlike the magazines that often

negate readers letters by including a reply, we do not. We never

contact a recipient of an article before it is published. We publish

first, then the recipient can reply. That way our Thomas gets two stories!"

But I thought you just said you didn't publish it "simply because..." Doh! now I'm really confused.

 

Seems a bit churlish not to publish an article just in case you can get two out of it. After all, Simon Salem might not want to reply!

 

Yellow? NBW? The "Voice of the Waterways... Telling it like it is"? 'Course not...Some other explanation, surely...

[Chris J W]

The mind boggles.

[StephenA]

Private Eye dont seem to like BW much so even if all you do is give them some hints and let their journalists do the digging it might be worth while.

[fuzzyduck]

Oh well it's Tom's loss. It does seem a bit churlish for 'Victor' to boast about spiking the story. If I were Allen I'd be livid about that.

 

And can we stop critisising NBW for its journalistic values? It dosn't need any, it's a blog.

[carlt]

Well Allan's now set up a Blog with the article published:

 

http://britishwaterwaysfitforpurpose.blogspot.com/

 

But I'm intrigued as to why he publicised it on JC and not CWDF??

[denboy]

Well Allan's now set up a Blog with the article published:

 

http://britishwaterwaysfitforpurpose.blogspot.com/

 

But I'm intrigued as to why he publicised it on JC and not CWDF??

maybe to protect the site after reading post 42 perhaps

[Allan(nb Albert)]

Well Allan's now set up a Blog with the article published:

 

http://britishwaterwaysfitforpurpose.blogspot.com/

 

But I'm intrigued as to why he publicised it on JC and not CWDF??

 

Sorry, I thought I had published the link here first - obviously pressed the wrong key!

[david and julie]

Well Allan's now set up a Blog with the article published:

 

http://britishwaterwaysfitforpurpose.blogspot.com/

 

But I'm intrigued as to why he publicised it on JC and not CWDF??

They've removed it anyway.

Edited November 21, 2008 by david and julie

[Allan(nb Albert)]

They've removed it anyway.

 

Perhaps someone who is a regular poster on that forum will do the honours

[blackrose]

Let me just say that all the BW personnel that I have ever come into contact with are helpful decent people who do a good job, but after reading some of the posts on this recent thread about the structure of BW, I think we should have a petition against the ridiculous salaries and bonuses being paid to top BW execs which we all end up paying for.

 

Something's gone seriously wrong in this country when organisations such as BW or the BBC, which should be desirable places to work for in themselves, end up offering huge amounts of our money in order to "attract the best people."

 

Since this perversion of remuneration only happens at the top end of these organisations what are we to conclude? That they don't care about attracting the best people for the job at the bottom end? (BW lock keepers around here earn £15,000p/a gross and that includes London weighting). Or could it be that these organisations themselves need a shake up and reorganisation, cutting back on top exec's salaries, stopping big bonuses and reallocating the money saved on slightly better salaries for those actually doing the work at the sharp end and on maintaining the waterways.

Edited November 22, 2008 by blackrose

[david and julie]

Something's gone seriously wrong in this country when organisations such as BW or the BBC, which should be desirable places to work for in themselves, end up offering huge amounts of our money in order to "attract the best people."

I agree with everything you say and its time something was done about it - but I'm afraid nothing will be.

 

I was reading the other day about David Higgins, he's the chief exec of the Olympic Delivery Commitee. Salary £360K, bonus(I can't magine what this is actually for) was £215K plus pension contribution, Total is £615K PA. No doubt this is for 35 hours and is plus other perks.

To put that into perspective the NHS are advertising posts for consultants,who may responsible for life and death, at £100K. How can this guy possibly be worth six times that ammount?

 

Mind you, David Higgins is a pauper compared to Adam Crozier.

Edited November 22, 2008 by david and julie

[mayalld]

Mind you, David Higgins is a pauper compared to Adam Crozier.

 

Yes, he is on a tidy little number isn't he.

 

Beyond that I suspect that commenting further could be "career limiting" for me.

[Sam]

Perhaps someone who is a regular poster on that forum will do the honours

 

Allan,

One of the JC members contacted me and pointed me over to this thread.

 

The link was removed due it only being your only post on JC and you should have asked one of the crew before posting a link.

 

Anyway, I have read through the thread and understand why you want to draw attention to the article so please feel free to post the link back onto the JC website.

Best place to put it is either the boating news or links to external website section.

 

Happy cruising,

Sam

[Allan(nb Albert)]

Allan,

One of the JC members contacted me and pointed me over to this thread.

 

The link was removed due it only being your only post on JC and you should have asked one of the crew before posting a link.

 

Anyway, I have read through the thread and understand why you want to draw attention to the article so please feel free to post the link back onto the JC website.

Best place to put it is either the boating news or links to external website section.

 

Happy cruising,

Sam

 

Thanks Sam

[Sam]

Welcome, have allowed the post.

[mayalld]

I've been reading this thread with some interest, and have said little thus far.

 

Clearly Allan believes that;

• BW is not well run
  
• Directors are paid excessive salaries
  
• They are also paid excessive bonuses
  

Now, those are issues that can be argued, and points of view expressed, and upon which he may find some measure of agreement.

 

Unfortunately, that isn't where we are with this thread.

 

In this thread, we are discussing a situation where Allan was convinced that there was something underhand going on, and set out to prove it by digging for dirt, in the shape of Mr Salem's bonus objectives for the year.

 

Unfortunately, having finally got a copy of the objectives, we simply don't find a smoking gun. So, instead, we simply presume the dirt is there, but concealed in the wording, and that we can see it from reading between the lines.

 

What nonsense!

 

I work in a job where bonus is earned against objectives, and there is nothing particularly odd about these objectives. Indeed, the work "satisfactory" here would actually mean that should the conduct of the consultation be the subject of a complaint to the ombudsman that was upheld, he wouldn't achieve that element of his objectives. Quite frankly, the wording that Allan claims is a nudge-nudge to fix the consultation is quite the opposite.

 

Some of the objectives fail "SMART", and others seem to be far from stretching, but apart from that, I see nothing untoward in the objectives.

 

Mention has been made of the 5% licence income target for a previous year. Given that such a target could have been achieved with an RPI increase along with making a very modest dent in the evasion problem, how is that a problem?

 

My bonus (£3,000) for the next year is against a target of improving revenue on a product stream by 11% (£7m), most of which will be achieved without increasing the product price.

[Smelly]

I've been reading this thread with some interest, and have said little thus far.

 

Clearly Allan believes that;

• BW is not well run
  
• Directors are paid excessive salaries
  
• They are also paid excessive bonuses
  

Now, those are issues that can be argued, and points of view expressed, and upon which he may find some measure of agreement.

 

Unfortunately, that isn't where we are with this thread.

 

In this thread, we are discussing a situation where Allan was convinced that there was something underhand going on, and set out to prove it by digging for dirt, in the shape of Mr Salem's bonus objectives for the year.

 

Unfortunately, having finally got a copy of the objectives, we simply don't find a smoking gun. So, instead, we simply presume the dirt is there, but concealed in the wording, and that we can see it from reading between the lines.

 

What nonsense!

 

I work in a job where bonus is earned against objectives, and there is nothing particularly odd about these objectives. Indeed, the work "satisfactory" here would actually mean that should the conduct of the consultation be the subject of a complaint to the ombudsman that was upheld, he wouldn't achieve that element of his objectives. Quite frankly, the wording that Allan claims is a nudge-nudge to fix the consultation is quite the opposite.

 

Some of the objectives fail "SMART", and others seem to be far from stretching, but apart from that, I see nothing untoward in the objectives.

 

Mention has been made of the 5% licence income target for a previous year. Given that such a target could have been achieved with an RPI increase along with making a very modest dent in the evasion problem, how is that a problem?

 

My bonus (£3,000) for the next year is against a target of improving revenue on a product stream by 11% (£7m), most of which will be achieved without increasing the product price.

 

 

I'm no expert on good business practice but I can see a possible incentive toward the underhandedness that's alleged and, where the allegation is made, surely BW have a duty to answer it, as opposed to the ducking and diving that seems to be going on?

[Chris J W]

We may all have a gut feelng that the top managers of BW appear to have set out their objectives purely to line their pockets at the expense of the licence payer, but it’s a very large accusation to throw around unless you have ALL the evidence. Bear in mind that these bonuses will have been under the noses of both The Treasury and The National Audit Office – neither bodies being particularly well known for their love of letting monies flow out of the door without VERY good reason.

 

I’m certainly not defending BW, and I equally don’t appreciate the spin that NBW puts on stories, but for example the objective of ‘a satisfactory conclusion to (the mooring issue)’ could equally well be achieved by conducting a trial which confirmed that the concept was unworkable and should therefore be abandoned. It's the same with the licensing issue. We all know and accept that unlicenced boats are A Bad Thing. Something needs doing, so you get someone to do it and make it a major Priority by including it in their bonus payment.

 

If Salem’s contract states that this is his major priority then, sorry, there’s NOTHING we can do AT THE MOMENT. This is why I’d be interested to see all the work and notes that Allan strove so hard to get; for instance - exactly how the objective was worded and exactly what has been done to achieve the objective. Well done to Allan for starting to get some openness from BW.

 

* Yes, there needs to be change.

* Yes, BW needs to refocus.

* Yes, it’s going to take a long time.

 

There is no easy way we can get things the way we want them to be, but starting (for want of a better phrase) a Witch Hunt isn’t going to help. The Waterways are a wonderful part of our history, a wonderful part of countryside, and a wonderful part of the culture of our country. But we’re not that high on the list of this country's priorities – most people would rather their tax went on Health, Education and Emergency services and not a perceived minority interest.

 

Perhaps we should maybe start thinking of accepting we need to start changing how we view the system, and maybe accept that life on the waterways is a ‘privilege’ and not a ‘right’.

[carlt]

Edited because I'm in the wrong thread...Doh!!

Edited November 24, 2008 by carlt

[mayalld]

I'm no expert on good business practice but I can see a possible incentive toward the underhandedness that's alleged and, where the allegation is made, surely BW have a duty to answer it, as opposed to the ducking and diving that seems to be going on?

 

What ducking and diving is that?

 

As far as I can see, there is a question as to whether Mr Salem's objectives were properly disclosable. This question was determined by the information commissioner.

 

Do we leap from that determination to the position that BW ought to have disclosed them in any case? I suggest not. Mr Salem, despite his large salary, is still entitled to expect that his employer will treat contractual matters between them confidential in the same way as you and I expect our employers to do.

 

The default position must be that the data requested should not be released, unless it can clearly be shown that there is a genuine Public Interest (rather than public curiosity).

[Chris Pink]

In this thread, we are discussing a situation where Allan was convinced that there was something underhand going on, and set out to prove it by digging for dirt, in the shape of Mr Salem's bonus objectives for the year.

 

Whereas it is not unusual for you to believe everything emanating from those you see, sadly, as your lords and masters I think you are jumping the gun here a little Dave.

 

Allan's blog article, and by inference, this topic, seems to me to read thus;

 

Is is right that the person responsible for organising consultations should have a financial interest in the outcomes of those consultations?

 

This does not imply corruption, merely that there is the opportunity for corruption.

 

Do you not read it this way?

Edited November 24, 2008 by Chris Pink