Are you a member of IWA

[Offcumden]

A great many organisations operate a concessionary payment system for those in receipt of benefits and the state pension - if our local theatre club can do it I'm sure the IWA could....

 

 

.

Am I missing something ? or is Captain waterway not aware the IWA site offers concessionary rates to over 65's

[Tim Lewis]

A great many organisations operate a concessionary payment system for those in receipt of benefits and the state pension - if our local theatre club can do it I'm sure the IWA could....

 

 

.

edit to re-insert vanishing smiley

 

The IWA do a concessionary rate for those over 65 (19 as opposed to £27)

 

http://www.waterways.org.uk/pdf/membership_form

 

Tim

 

The IWA do a concessionary rate for those over 65 (£19 as opposed to £27)

 

http://www.waterways.org.uk/pdf/membership_form

 

Tim

[Guest]

The IWA do a concessionary rate for those over 65 (19 as opposed to £27)

 

http://www.waterways.org.uk/pdf/membership_form

 

Tim

 

Fair enough - subtract pensioners from my suggestion and keep those on benefits

 

 

Am I missing something ? or is Captain waterway not aware the IWA site offers concessionary rates to over 65's

 

I don't think so - I fudged the issue with my earlier post

[Lady Muck]

I'm not a member, because I don't really feel an affinity with them. I don't belong to any waterways organisation. In our marina of 15 boats there is only one member.

 

I see the IWA as attracting mostly boaters that are older than me, in their 50's or older. I have never seen an IWA sticker in a younger London boaters window and I doubt if many London liveaboards are members. These younger boaters will be the future of our canals so if I was in the IWA I would be asking myself, 'why aren't they joining?'

[cotswoldsman]

I'm not a member, because I don't really feel an affinity with them. I don't belong to any waterways organisation. In our marina of 15 boats there is only one member.

 

I see the IWA as attracting mostly boaters that are older than me, in their 50's or older. I have never seen an IWA sticker in a younger London boaters window and I doubt if many London liveaboards are members. These younger boaters will be the future of our canals so if I was in the IWA I would be asking myself, 'why aren't they joining?'

 

But I don't want to join.

[PeterScott]

....I do want to join but, at the moment, not enough to fork out £27. I would want to join because I support (most of) what IWA does but, being heavily involved with a number of other organisations,If the IWA Council was suddenly to decide to reduce membership fees to, say, £20 a year (the same as the Angling Trust), that would certainly cause you big difficulties but I'm sure that you would find a way to cope!

It doesn't seem so much of a gap that it couldn't be bridged somehow, Martin.

 

I'll try flattery. :-)

 

If our (IWA) news items were as good nationally (comprehensive, balanced, etc) as is Martin's on 'his' patch, we would collectively be serving the waterways cause even better than we do. Maybe co-operation could save us collectively more than that seven quid, and give a better national service to website readers, too??

 

I would not be able to do much more than be an armchair member.

As mentioned, the subscription is not a trivial amount - and we hope we make good use of all of it in supporting the waterways' cause: we value members who just give us money to use for the waterways - and welcome as many as we can persuade to join us. We don't know whether a lower subscription would generate, overall, more or less money for the waterways: and it's discussions such as this, and those in our Branches around the country that could help us work out what best to do.

 

Regards

PeterScott (IWA NE&Yorks Region chairman and national Trustee)

[magpie patrick]

I'm afraid I can only agree, but admit I have gone beyond the point where I can be bothered to read every post.

 

I have however seen nothing that would make me choose to now give money to the IWA, rather than something like a genuine restoration group.

 

Give me your address and the Somerset Coal canal Society application form will be in the post

 

I'm joking, but would not turn you away...

[Neil TNC]

Direct action works better if it is targeted against the people you are seeking to influence maybe blockading navigation authority car park spaces... - or a low loader with a 70 foot working boat processing slowly around Parliament Square with sundry slow cycling out riders would suit? - needs to be something you can make appear big - with few resources - even if every registered boater turned out it wouldn't be enough to fill Arsenals foot ball ground .

 

 

 

How the IWA changes its tune (and for the better), yet more re-cycled SOW ideas. At least the person that blocked these kind of protests is now no longer about.

The trouble is, will the IWA manage to sway non-members into these kind of protests?

[Jo Gilbertson]

Thanks for responding - I can see you are having trouble keeping up with all the comments!

 

 

 

In such a situation I would join for a combination of both reasons! I do want to join but, at the moment, not enough to fork out £27. I would want to join because I support (most of) what IWA does but, being heavily involved with a number of other organisations, I would not be able to do much more than be an armchair member.

 

I took early retirement but will not reach statutory retirement age for a few more years yet. Thus I am in receipt of a reduced work pension but do not qualify for your Senior Citizen rate (or even a bus pass!). In my case price of membership is an issue. I am not able to speak for others.

 

As you say it is historic. The present rate will be a result of small increases over the years and the organisation has got used to a certain level of income. If the IWA Council was suddenly to decide to reduce membership fees to, say, £20 a year (the same as the Angling Trust), that would certainly cause you big difficulties but I'm sure that you would find a way to cope!

 

Thanks for the clarification - as you note we do offer a concessionary rate - but it would be unlikely to apply in your circumstances ... needs more thought possibly ...

 

How the IWA changes its tune (and for the better), yet more re-cycled SOW ideas. At least the person that blocked these kind of protests is now no longer about.

The trouble is, will the IWA manage to sway non-members into these kind of protests?

 

Now there is a nub of another post - what would get you out in the streets?-

 

I'm not a member, because I don't really feel an affinity with them. I don't belong to any waterways organisation. In our marina of 15 boats there is only one member.

 

I see the IWA as attracting mostly boaters that are older than me, in their 50's or older. I have never seen an IWA sticker in a younger London boaters window and I doubt if many London liveaboards are members. These younger boaters will be the future of our canals so if I was in the IWA I would be asking myself, 'why aren't they joining?'

 

Thats a pretty fundamental observation - do you have a view on why this might be ?

 

Having read most of the answers I find I am in agreement with many.

 

I am a member but each year I question if continuing membership is in my best interest.

 

I joined when I bought the boat because I though the IWA had the best chance of protecting the waterways and it would be wrong to enjoy the fruits of their labours without paying towards it.

 

Now I question their commitment to ensuring the waterways can be enjoyed by all. There is considerable evidence that the increase in towpath cycling is creating dangers for all yet the IWA seem to want to promote even more cycling (see Waterways last but one edition). In my view they should be fighting this development and persuading BW to withdraw the "Two tings and get out of my way code". They should also be campaigning to get Joint Use towpaths built to acceptable standards.

 

I also question their commitment to boaters. They seem very happy to say how many hundred boats attend things like the National but seem incapable of catering adequately for those boaters. If you want boats and boaters then cater for them. I feel my own efforts in this respect resulted in boaters being ripped off and when I tried to rectify this I felt the result left much to be desired. If you want the general public be honest about it. The IWA's apparent action/inaction in respect of the SOS campaign is another example.

 

The waterways need a national large membership organisation but not a toothless tiger. Such an organisation should have the members and resources to mount legal challenges but it seems the IWA prefers to cosy up to BW. Example - new no mooring areas to placate the owners of new (or older) canal side properties.

 

I find the not so local branches are of little use apart from (possibly) reporting upwards on local issues. Perhaps that would be one way of reducing membership costs. Why I should have any interest in a cruise to Bucklers Hard, Portsea Creek or the the Sussex Ouse remains a mystery to me.

 

There are hundreds of volunteers beavering away for the IWA and we should not dismiss or ignore their work but I do wonder if the higher echelons use the IWA as an ego trip.

 

Each year I question renewal and consider joining NABO so I suspect I will act one year.

 

Thanks for this , - regarding your views on branches... , would you see it working for you better if branches were based on townships (or marinas?) where there was possibly more local affinity for issues rather than the largish almost county versions we have now ?

[MartinClark]

Thanks for the clarification - as you note we do offer a concessionary rate - but it would be unlikely to apply in your circumstances ... needs more thought possibly ...

 

I wouldn't expect it to apply to me - nothing else does! (No bus pass, no free prescriptions, etc.) That is the down side to taking early retirement. And if you were to offer a concessionary rate for those in receipt of state benefits, as others have suggested, I wouldn't qualify for that either!

 

And no - I am not angling for any sort of special treatment. If you were to offer me free membership, as in the hypothetical question you posed earlier, I would probably decline on the grounds that it wouldn't be fair to other people.

 

I don't know - there's just no pleasing me, is there?

[Allan(nb Albert)]

I wouldn't expect it to apply to me - nothing else does! (No bus pass, no free prescriptions, etc.) That is the down side to taking early retirement. And if you were to offer a concessionary rate for those in receipt of state benefits, as others have suggested, I wouldn't qualify for that either!

 

And no - I am not angling for any sort of special treatment. If you were to offer me free membership, as in the hypothetical question you posed earlier, I would probably decline on the grounds that it wouldn't be fair to other people.

 

I don't know - there's just no pleasing me, is there?

 

Whilst Jo is pondering a hypothetical question for Martin. The Big Civil Society National Conservancy Mutual Co-operative Charity Trust for Inland Waterways will be a membership society with a membership fee of £27 just like the IWA. Which would you join if someone was willing to pay one membership fee for you and why?

[Neil TNC]

Whilst Jo is pondering a hypothetical question for Martin. The Big Civil Society National Conservancy Mutual Co-operative Charity Trust for Inland Waterways will be a membership society with a membership fee of £27 just like the IWA. Which would you join if someone was willing to pay one membership fee for you and why?

 

The one that gives me, as a boater, the most benefit?

We only ever join the National Trust, when we think we will "get our money back" within the year. Today we achieved this, by going to Anglesey Abbey and Lode Mill (alterior motive, we walked Bottisham Lode and Swaffam Bulbeck Lode - and no, I don't TNC could have got any further)

 

Of course, today, with the National Trust we had an "educational experience"...and a nice lunch (not free)...and a cream tea (free offer from last NT visit)

It would be good if the IWA could persuade the Charities Commission that boating was an "educational experience".

[sueb]

I know this is off topic, but I have to respond to this-

 

 

As an ex-AWCC committee member I have to say that the above is news to me! It was always the case that the size of boat only had any influence where room was an issue. It could always be the case that the three clubs you tried hed very little room for visitors. The reciprocal mooring arrangement was never a right, merely a courtesy offered where space existed. This was the only criteria which came into play when considering a mooring request from an AWCC visitor at the club where I am a member. The harbourmaster made the decision on the resources available at the time. We often had 60ft+ boats in our basin on just such an arrangement.

On the other hand we have never had trouble mooring at AWCC sites in our 58ft boat. Some AWCC sites can only take shorter boats.

Sue

 

Having read most of the answers I find I am in agreement with many.

 

I am a member but each year I question if continuing membership is in my best interest.

 

I joined when I bought the boat because I though the IWA had the best chance of protecting the waterways and it would be wrong to enjoy the fruits of their labours without paying towards it.

 

Now I question their commitment to ensuring the waterways can be enjoyed by all. There is considerable evidence that the increase in towpath cycling is creating dangers for all yet the IWA seem to want to promote even more cycling (see Waterways last but one edition). In my view they should be fighting this development and persuading BW to withdraw the "Two tings and get out of my way code". They should also be campaigning to get Joint Use towpaths built to acceptable standards.

 

I also question their commitment to boaters. They seem very happy to say how many hundred boats attend things like the National but seem incapable of catering adequately for those boaters. If you want boats and boaters then cater for them. I feel my own efforts in this respect resulted in boaters being ripped off and when I tried to rectify this I felt the result left much to be desired. If you want the general public be honest about it. The IWA's apparent action/inaction in respect of the SOS campaign is another example.

 

The waterways need a national large membership organisation but not a toothless tiger. Such an organisation should have the members and resources to mount legal challenges but it seems the IWA prefers to cosy up to BW. Example - new no mooring areas to placate the owners of new (or older) canal side properties.

 

I find the not so local branches are of little use apart from (possibly) reporting upwards on local issues. Perhaps that would be one way of reducing membership costs. Why I should have any interest in a cruise to Bucklers Hard, Portsea Creek or the the Sussex Ouse remains a mystery to me.

 

There are hundreds of volunteers beavering away for the IWA and we should not dismiss or ignore their work but I do wonder if the higher echelons use the IWA as an ego trip.

 

Each year I question renewal and consider joining NABO so I suspect I will act one year.

When you decide to come over to the 'other' side you will be welcome. Nabo hasn't increased it's fee for years.

Sue

 

Thanks for the clarification - as you note we do offer a concessionary rate - but it would be unlikely to apply in your circumstances ... needs more thought possibly ...

 

 

 

Now there is a nub of another post - what would get you out in the streets?-

 

 

 

Thats a pretty fundamental observation - do you have a view on why this might be ?

 

 

 

Thanks for this , - regarding your views on branches... , would you see it working for you better if branches were based on townships (or marinas?) where there was possibly more local affinity for issues rather than the largish almost county versions we have now ?

I don't believe the county version of branches works as for a lot of people the meetings are just too far away. They certainly don't work for continuous cruisers.

Sue

[PeterScott]

I joined when I bought the boat because I though the IWA had the best chance of protecting the waterways ... Now I question their commitment to ensuring the waterways can be enjoyed by all. There is considerable evidence that the increase in towpath cycling is creating dangers for all yet the IWA seem to want to promote even more cycling (see Waterways last but one edition). In my view they should be fighting this development and persuading BW to withdraw the "Two tings and get out of my way code". They should also be campaigning to get Joint Use towpaths built to acceptable standards.

I think we want to promote as wide a community of canal users as we can get - and use this to argue for the maximum amount of public funding. Multi-use of towpaths clearly causes a confilict of interests and that needs to be managed; on balance it is (imho) better to have the cyclists (dog-walkers, joggers, fisherpeople, gongoozwers, ...) there on the canal rather than trying to persuade them to go elsewhere. "Two tings" is an attempt to encourage silent cyclist to realise how silent they are, and how a distinctive sound can cause minimun conflict with other canal users. Once I know they are there, I don't find moving out of the way for a cyclist particularly onerous.

 

I also question their commitment to boaters. They seem very happy to say how many hundred boats attend things like the National but seem incapable of catering adequately for those boaters. If you want boats and boaters then cater for them. I feel my own efforts in this respect resulted in boaters being ripped off and when I tried to rectify this I felt the result left much to be desired.

I'm sure we could do better for boaters and I have been working on collecting views on what would be best to do. As to the National, we enjoyed BealePark this year from a boating viewpoint on Copperkins and didn't feel any lack of facilities.

 

If you want the general public be honest about it. The IWA's apparent action/inaction in respect of the SOS campaign is another example. The waterways need a national large membership organisation but not a toothless tiger. Such an organisation should have the members and resources to mount legal challenges but it seems the IWA prefers to cosy up to BW.

I don't recognise the cosy-ing up as a fair description of the relationship with BW. Winding the clock back, say three years, it would be pretty much fantasy to think of BW in the position that it now is: advocating stopping being the BW we know and love-to-hate and being part of a new organisation, not all that far from IWA's 50-year-held vision of a Conservancy for the Waterways - and all that in no small part because IWA has shown that IWA itself can run a waterway - the Chelmer and Blackwater. I don't think that is 'inaction' in any sense. OTOH we have tried a 'legal challenges' route - the Derwent - and it was not a successful investment of our members time or money.

 

Example - new no mooring areas to placate the owners of new (or older) canal side properties.

I'm not aware of ever supporting any of these. Boating past Ansty the other day I wondered if the 'Strictly No Mooring' signs - they have been there a few years - were to protect the residents from boats at their bedroom window height - or to protect boaters from a nighttime embankment breach. I haven't asked, but I can see why boaters might dislike the signs whatever the reason: if we were discussing a new development like this, which contributed a decent sum to the canals as part of its planning, or maybe even restored a length of canal on a worthy scheme, we might think it a reasonable deal.

 

I find the not so local branches are of little use apart from (possibly) reporting upwards on local issues. Perhaps that would be one way of reducing membership costs. Why I should have any interest in a cruise to Bucklers Hard, Portsea Creek or the the Sussex Ouse remains a mystery to me.

I always quote a talk on Well Dressing as one of the least interesting I have ever seen. Local Branches are very good value in terms of subscription use, and are welcoming of new people with new ideas on how to interest more people in our activities.

 

There are hundreds of volunteers beavering away for the IWA and we should not dismiss or ignore their work but I do wonder if the higher echelons use the IWA as an ego trip.

I've not thought of myself as an upper echelon and without the clue I would have been hard pressed to spell the word. :-) Hmmmmm, we are certainly a load of old buffers and could do with some extra young and committed people to bring some youthful fire and energy into the mix.

 

 

Each year I question renewal and consider joining NABO so I suspect I will act one year.

Well, NABO do a good job, and we spend a lot of time at the same meetings, for the most part struggling with the same issues. Everyone has some of their individual hard-earned money available to support the waterways, and need to judge where it has most effect. Generally, and this applies to the full range of Waterway organisations, we have best effect when we make a consistent case to Government; they are very good at pointing out our differnces.

[Neil TNC]

 

Now there is a nub of another post - what would get you out in the streets?-

 

- regarding your views on branches... , would you see it working for you better if branches were based on townships (or marinas?) where there was possibly more local affinity for issues rather than the largish almost county versions we have now ?

 

A well organised National Protest, a bit like the protest cruise past Parliament, but one with ALL user organisations and ALL users on board and the IWA not trying "point scoring" against other organisations. This was only too obvious to IWA and non IWA protestors during the last round of protests. I am not convinced that the IWA is quite up to this yet. Something like this will be needed very soon and I can't imagine there will be another SOW to put a rocket up the IWA's backside.

Sorry, this does fall on the IWA, the RYA don't really give a &*$$ for inland waterways and the other user groups have not (at the moment) got the "clout" (as I have said before) of the IWA.

 

As for Branches, there still needs to be some form of Nationwide coverage, to cover all local planning / boating / heritage issues, but that does not stop other forms of branches being created, like say the IWA Member Internet Forum Users Branch, or the WRGie Branch (I find it unbelievable that many WRGies are not IWA members, there is something wrong there!!!), or the IWA Trail Boaters Branch, or the IWA Barge Branch, or the IWA Heritage Branch, or the IWA Heritage Boat Branch...etc. Local Branches should not get so "hung up" on being the local experts in their area, often they are not.

It could be that the still rather useless Regional structure could be used to directly cover the local planning / Navigation authority / Heritage issues and nurture Branches in what ever form they wanted to take.

I can't imagine things have changed, but it was the case, that 80%??? of IWA members do not get involved at even Branch level.

 

I think these addressing these issues could go a long way to attracting more members to the IWA, and getting members more involved.

[Ange]

I have just caught up with this thread and having read captainwaterway's posts I now know why I never joined IWA.

 

Our feelings precisely! And he's part of their marketing team!

 

(and no we won't be joining IWA)

[fender]

I have correspondence from LA Edwards stating that the IWA achieved so much more through its slow diplomatic tacit than the tub-thumpers could ever hope to. He claimed the tub-thumpers were always destroying the IWA's efforts. But in my view the IWA has lost much ground trying to pamper up to the BW( and basically it is left to many local canal or conservation groups to stand up to the bigwigs in BW.

[Tony Brooks]

Don't know how this partial post got added

Edited September 19, 2010 by Tony Brooks

[Tony Brooks]

I think we want to promote as wide a community of canal users as we can get - and use this to argue for the maximum amount of public funding. Multi-use of towpaths clearly causes a confilict of interests and that needs to be managed; on balance it is (imho) better to have the cyclists (dog-walkers, joggers, fisherpeople, gongoozwers, ...) there on the canal rather than trying to persuade them to go elsewhere. "Two tings" is an attempt to encourage silent cyclist to realise how silent they are, and how a distinctive sound can cause minimun conflict with other canal users. Once I know they are there, I don't find moving out of the way for a cyclist particularly onerous.

 

I'm sure we could do better for boaters and I have been working on collecting views on what would be best to do. As to the National, we enjoyed BealePark this year from a boating viewpoint on Copperkins and didn't feel any lack of facilities.

 

I don't recognise the cosy-ing up as a fair description of the relationship with BW. Winding the clock back, say three years, it would be pretty much fantasy to think of BW in the position that it now is: advocating stopping being the BW we know and love-to-hate and being part of a new organisation, not all that far from IWA's 50-year-held vision of a Conservancy for the Waterways - and all that in no small part because IWA has shown that IWA itself can run a waterway - the Chelmer and Blackwater. I don't think that is 'inaction' in any sense. OTOH we have tried a 'legal challenges' route - the Derwent - and it was not a successful investment of our members time or money.

 

I'm not aware of ever supporting any of these. Boating past Ansty the other day I wondered if the 'Strictly No Mooring' signs - they have been there a few years - were to protect the residents from boats at their bedroom window height - or to protect boaters from a nighttime embankment breach. I haven't asked, but I can see why boaters might dislike the signs whatever the reason: if we were discussing a new development like this, which contributed a decent sum to the canals as part of its planning, or maybe even restored a length of canal on a worthy scheme, we might think it a reasonable deal.

 

I always quote a talk on Well Dressing as one of the least interesting I have ever seen. Local Branches are very good value in terms of subscription use, and are welcoming of new people with new ideas on how to interest more people in our activities.

 

I've not thought of myself as an upper echelon and without the clue I would have been hard pressed to spell the word. :-) Hmmmmm, we are certainly a load of old buffers and could do with some extra young and committed people to bring some youthful fire and energy into the mix.

 

 

Well, NABO do a good job, and we spend a lot of time at the same meetings, for the most part struggling with the same issues. Everyone has some of their individual hard-earned money available to support the waterways, and need to judge where it has most effect. Generally, and this applies to the full range of Waterway organisations, we have best effect when we make a consistent case to Government; they are very good at pointing out our differnces.

 

 

See how Two tings is operated in London! It is definitely seen to mean "ting, ting - I am coming through". We understand a young girl needed CPRE having been knocked in by a cyclist elsewhere and reports of other incidents have been coming in regularly yet the IWA are seen to be encouraging cyclists rather than working to ensure their irresponsible elements are brought to book or even pay towards their use of BW property.

 

The IWA have (probably) not supported the introduction of new "no mooring areas" (which I consider just a single example) but I have seen no evidence they have campaigned against them or even sought enlightenment form the various internet forums over the years.

 

I have seen no evidence that the IWA have stopped cosying up to BW but a number of reports that they are or have been - check the forums etc.

 

As I said in another place "it take genius to turn fudge stall into a dirty word" and that is exactly what many boaters seem to think about the National. Even the large "chandley type" exhibitor was nothing of the sort being much more a market trader. I am very pleased you are fit enough to consider a very long hike from boat to show over rough ground as being a good facility. I am also pleased that you think locking boaters out of direct access to their boats with no easily accessible emergency telephone number as being a good facility. Read the forums for boaters comments, do not rely upon your personal view. Now I must counterbalance this by acknowledging the National is a truly remarkable effort by volunteers but there are still problems. It is very unlikely I will ever attend another National after 2011. It holds nothing for me as a boater.

[magpie patrick]

One problem for the National though is that the IWA can't make the right sort of stall holders turn up. Given the number of outboard cruisers at Beale Park I was surprised that not one manufacturer of outboards was there, but you can't make them. The other problem is it is now so big that there are relatively few places that can host it.

 

As Joe is looking for other comments, here's a few from me (and bear in mind I am a member). The Campaign Rally slots are not being taken, and I think mainly because the requirements as to what the rally site must provide are simply too onerous for any canal on the system that might benefit from a campaign rally. For rally criteria, it has become tail wagging dog.

 

Branch Structures, these are mainly based on local authority areas, which are too big for many members and yet you still need 35 of them. There are only so many volunteers with the calibre to be a chairman or committee member and needing 35 branches may be stretching your resources too far, I have direct personal experience of three of these, Avon and Wilts, Gloucester and Herefordshire, and Warwickshire (because we shared the locks up the Droitwich Canal with the chairman) of these three only the Warwickshire one had an officer who was any good.

 

The Avon and Wilts branch is run by men older than Methuselah, who have no idea of public relations, when they held their AGM upstairs at the Angelfish at Brassknocker basin one of them even had the temerity to ask a paying customer downstairs to stop their children talking!

 

I met one of the G and H committee members at the Heritage Centre at Saul Junction, when the local IWA were campaigning to have the traffic lights at bridges reinstated. The man was a tosser of the first order, too full of his own bullshit to listen. I pointed out that I outranked him (sitting in a national committee) and that I was also chairman of a canal society, HLF monitor for the Cotswold (at which point the pillock tried to lecture me on that) and had literally been boating all my life. Despite my protestations that I didn't see a problem with the lights being off he wouldn't listen, and came up with more and more outrageous claims about BW staff (claiming they'd been instructed to turn their back on boaters going through bridges) and then said BW had proposed user operation of bridges at quiet times but the branch had objected. Thanks chum, that's why we come to a grinding halt at six and can't even get out on a Tuesday and Wednesday in winter.

 

Of course, any organisation can end up with twonkers on the committee, but the more posts you create and have to fill the greater the possibility you will end up with twonkers because you will run out of good people. Reduce the complexity of the organisation and the number of people you need to run it.

[Guest User]

<snip>It is very unlikely I will ever attend another National after 2011. It holds nothing for me as a boater.<snip>

 

... and that will be a big shame; Tony, your mini-maintenance course was pretty much the only thing that made our visit to this year's National worthwhile this year; excellent, many thanks ! We have attended previous Nationals, both on foot and by boat, and I agree it is a very long walk from the 'ordinary' boats to the show, and in fact it feels that the boats were divorced from the rest of the show ... as for the bulk of the exhibits; strong feeling of deja vu from previous years, and agreed, very little "chandlery type" and a lot of "market trader".

 

We are currently IWA members, but thanks to Jo Gilbertson's efforts on this forum we are seriously thinking of NOT renewing.

[Neil TNC]

We are currently IWA members, but thanks to Jo Gilbertson's efforts on this forum we are seriously thinking of NOT renewing.

 

I think he should have come clean from the start about who he was and not chosen such a tacky avatar...but he is quite brave to stick his toe in this robust organ!

Clive Henderson used to post in Canals e-mail list, but he seems to have gorn quiet recently.

[Natalie Graham]

but he is quite brave to stick his toe in this robust organ!

 

 

Wow! Doesn't that say a lot about how the IWA are perceived?

Edited September 19, 2010 by Natalie Graham

[carlt]

but he is quite brave to stick his toe in this robust organ!

Whatever floats your boat.

[Guest]

We are currently IWA members, but thanks to Jo Gilbertson's efforts on this forum we are seriously thinking of NOT renewing.

 

That's another one down then...

 

Just as well Jo doesn't work in the 'membership recruitment' dept.....