We will remember them ... (BW)

[carlt]

 

BTW, the National Trust had the Stratford Canal until, I think, 1981. While we must be grateful that they stepped in and saved that canal, we should also remember that they struggled to maintain it and breathed a huge sigh of relief when they were able to offload it.

...and yet they maintain the Wey with no support from either their charity's funds or government grant

[magpie patrick]

...and yet they maintain the Wey with no support from either their charity's funds or government grant

 

 

Same can be said for the Avon Navigations Trust, and presumably the conservators of the Cam. It appears that River Navigations may be easier to maintain than canals. There is also no doubt that some of the more argumentative/grumpy boaters also give these organisations more latitude than they give BW. The Avon locks are swines, and the steel gates with round mitre posts might well be cost effective but Val quite literally couldn't shift them, but you hear few complaints on this board about them compared to BW navigations

[Neil TNC]

...and yet they maintain the Wey with no support from either their charity's funds or government grant

 

...because it did not have a huge backlog of maintenance (apart from dredging), like the S. Stratford did? (and what CSW will face when it inherits BW)

[Natalie Graham]

Mr Evans sent out a memo a few days ago saying he hopes to raise about 5 million after 5 years and up to 17 million pounds after ten years

 

Was this memo about his redundancy payoff?

 

 

[Allan(nb Albert)]

A response under the foi act reveals that the annual costs associated with BW's 18 directors are a staggering £3.5m a year. Seven of BW's eight executive directors are paid more than the prime minister.

 

I should have an article out in Narrowboatworld in a couple of days revealing that they paid themselves bonus last year but omitted to mention it in the annual report.

 

You heard it here first

 

Fat cats get fatter

[Neil TNC]

Was this memo about his redundancy payoff?

 

...after which the "fat cats" slip into a job at the BWB Residuary Body, or BWML, or the "arms length" property company?

[Allan(nb Albert)]

Was this memo about his redundancy payoff?

Mr Evans memo is based on this document

 

British Waterways in the third sector

 

See, in particular, page 10.

 

I wonder why the document does not suggest any savings in current governance costs of £3.5m or the costs involved in moving to the third sector?

Edited September 30, 2010 by Allan(nb Albert)

[Natalie Graham]

I do like the comparison with the National Trust as a model for British Waterway, in light of the fact that, recently, the National Trust for Scotland was found not only to have no complete list of what they actually owned, but also to have no costed programme for maintenance. Sounds the perfect set up for BW.

[Josher]

The thread (sub) title says "The end of British Waterways" - true if the events Here come to pass!

 

"....Canals and towpaths will close, rivers could become unnavigable and tunnels could collapse ..."

[mayalld]

The thread (sub) title says "The end of British Waterways" - true if the events Here come to pass!

 

"....Canals and towpaths will close, rivers could become unnavigable and tunnels could collapse ..."

 

How odd that a quango that is going to be abolished would issue a press release like that.

 

Nobody saw that one coming, did they!

 

The shortened version of the PR;

 

"Er, look chaps, we do a really important job, and if we aren't here to produce reams of paper, it will all go horribly wrong. No really, it will!"

[MoominPapa]

Same can be said for the Avon Navigations Trust, and presumably the conservators of the Cam. It appears that River Navigations may be easier to maintain than canals.

I don't know about the Avon, but the Cam Conservators are in a bit of a financial bind. Boats on the Cam can either have a CC license or an EA Fen rivers license. The EA hands over a chunk of license money based on the number of boats entering the Cam on a particular day as the Cam's share of the EA license money. Most boats on the Cam have an EA license (there's not enough of the Cam to make it worthwhile if you're limited to that stretch) but the Conservators share is too little, they say. I believe there's a proposal to insist on boats which have a mooring on the Cam buying a Cam license.

 

 

This brings up another subject: the Middle Level. The MLC have wanted for years to charge a boat license, but they've never managed to get the required primary legislation. I wonder if that will be folded in with the other changes: seems likely if the new charity takes over the navigation responsibilities of the EA and BW. It might even become navigation authority for the Middle Level too.

 

MP.

[sueb]

As a land-rover enthusiast and a former civil engineer, for a highway authority, I sat on both sides of that particular fence and I can tell you that, especially during the reclassification of RUPPs and BOATs, under the Countryside and Rights of Way Act the green-laning organisations were doing a convincing imitation of a flock of ostriches whilst the walkers, riders and cyclists were flexing their muscles.

 

I pleaded with my local clubs' ROW reps to gather evidence, to retain vehicular access, on RUPPs but the attitude was "Oh it will never happen."

 

Apathy, and irresponsible mud-plugging, has closed far more green lanes than over-enthusiastic council officials.

 

 

Edited to say: Possibly food for thought, for the waterways (in)action groups?

It's not the Groups that are suffering from inaction but the boaters who don't bother to support them.

Sue

[carlt]

It's not the Groups that are suffering from inaction but the boaters who don't bother to support them.

Sue

Support what, Sue?

 

I see no protests or demonstrations.

 

IWA seems to be acting like Nick Clegg, in all this, positively salivating at the merest sniff of power, in a collaboration, with the BW old guard.

 

If NABO is saying anything, then it isn't saying it loud enough to be heard.

 

Organise a day of action demonstrating what boaters want, and I'll be there.

 

Invite me to a committee meeting or EGM and...sorry, just not interested.

[cotswoldsman]

Support what, Sue?

 

I see no protests or demonstrations.

 

IWA seems to be acting like Nick Clegg, in all this, positively salivating at the merest sniff of power, in a collaboration, with the BW old guard.

 

If NABO is saying anything, then it isn't saying it loud enough to be heard.

 

Organise a day of action demonstrating what boaters want, and I'll be there.

 

Invite me to a committee meeting or EGM and...sorry, just not interested.

 

I agree with Carl but think to be really effective any demonstration/protest needs to encourage non boaters to attend no one really cares about what is perceived to be an elitist hobby supported by the tax payer. Cyclists, anglers, walkers etc need to be encouraged to participate.

 

Edited to say: As for NABO not sure what they have ever done, why would I be better off as a member than I am as a non member.

Edited October 2, 2010 by cotswoldsman

[sueb]

Support what, Sue?

 

I see no protests or demonstrations.

 

IWA seems to be acting like Nick Clegg, in all this, positively salivating at the merest sniff of power, in a collaboration, with the BW old guard.

 

If NABO is saying anything, then it isn't saying it loud enough to be heard.

 

Organise a day of action demonstrating what boaters want, and I'll be there.

 

Invite me to a committee meeting or EGM and...sorry, just not interested.

If you are not a member how would you hear anything? Do you look at their web site? Do you read the waterway comics? Do you talk to Nabo council members?

Sue

[carlt]

If you are not a member how would you hear anything?

Sue

Well this just proves it is just a talking shop. It's the non-members you should be shouting at.

Do you look at their web site?

Yes I look at their website but it is hardly the place for publicising their aims and how they are going to achieve those aims.

Do you read the waterway comics?

Yes i read the waterways magazines and, if that is the extent of their ambitions, for publicity, then it proves they are not seeking a wider audience, for any "campaigns" they don't seem to be engaged in.

Do you talk to Nabo council members?

I have no idea. None of them have identified themselves, to me.

 

If an organisation wants to attract members then not telling people what they are doing (or not doing) is hardly the best way of publicising.

 

If I am not a member then I should be a priority, for informing.

 

An organisation with the attitude:

If you are not a member how would you hear anything?

is not a campaigning group. It is a private club.

[Nightwatch]

Sorry Sue but I do agree with Carl on these points.

 

If , for instance there was an arranged protest/meeting with all Inland Waterways users represented, then I.m sure it could be well attended.

 

I'm not the one, however what this requires is a strong person to gather the 'masses'.

 

Martyn

[cotswoldsman]

 

 

is not a campaigning group. It is a private club.

 

I would like to know what it has achieved for its members in say the last three years, or even better what has it achieved for the boating community including non members. I have nothing against NABO but have never fully understood what it does.

[RLWP]

Well this just proves it is just a talking shop. It's the non-members you should be shouting at.

 

Yes I look at their website but it is hardly the place for publicising their aims and how they are going to achieve those aims.

 

Yes i read the waterways magazines and, if that is the extent of their ambitions, for publicity, then it proves they are not seeking a wider audience, for any "campaigns" they don't seem to be engaged in.

 

I have no idea. None of them have identified themselves, to me.

 

If an organisation wants to attract members then not telling people what they are doing (or not doing) is hardly the best way of publicising.

 

If I am not a member then I should be a priority, for informing.

 

An organisation with the attitude:

 

is not a campaigning group. It is a private club.

 

To echo Carl, I've no idea of the aims and purpose of the NABO although I do read two waterways magazines and participate in the most popular Canal themed internet forum.

 

Carl, you comments are essentially true of the IWA too

 

Richard

[carlt]

Carl, you comments are essentially true of the IWA too

 

Actually I think it is more so, with the IWA. Sue is just brave enough to stick her head above the parapet.

 

IWA are even more guilty, though, because all their publicity smacks of collusion, with the BW suits, rather than campaigning on behalf of the waterways user.

 

The NABO does do some useful stuff (their ccing investigation is particularly interesting) but what is the point of it, if you have to join, to be in on the secret?

 

They should be shouting it from the roof tops, seeking national publicity, rather than people finding out by talking to committee members.

Edited October 2, 2010 by carlt

[sueb]

Actually I think it is more so, with the IWA. Sue is just brave enough to stick her head above the parapet.

 

IWA are even more guilty, though, because all their publicity smacks of collusion, with the BW suits, rather than campaigning on behalf of the waterways user.

 

The NABO does do some useful stuff (their ccing investigation is particularly interesting) but what is the point of it, if you have to join, to be in on the secret?

 

They should be shouting it from the roof tops, seeking national publicity, rather than people finding out by talking to committee members.

I do agree that more publicity would help maybe someone on this forum would like to assist with this. All the council members are volunteers and as such have limited time and skills. If no-one helps nothing gets done.

Sue

[Allan(nb Albert)]

Actually I think it is more so, with the IWA. Sue is just brave enough to stick her head above the parapet.

 

IWA are even more guilty, though, because all their publicity smacks of collusion, with the BW suits, rather than campaigning on behalf of the waterways user.

 

The NABO does do some useful stuff (their ccing investigation is particularly interesting) but what is the point of it, if you have to join, to be in on the secret?

 

They should be shouting it from the roof tops, seeking national publicity, rather than people finding out by talking to committee members.

 

I would agree with Carl on all of that.

 

In Victors column on Narrowboatworld he says -

 

Another story you will no doubt have read is about BW's erstwhile directors giving themselves a 'nice little earner' if you can call it 'earning' in the form of a hefty bonus as a reward for the waterways being in their worst state for years.

 

But hold on. Wasn't our Clive—he of the IWA—present at the board meeting where directors were given the minutes of the remuneration committee meeting. Yes he was...

 

Whilst he would have been unable to speak at the meeting, there is no reason why he could not share that information with IWA membership or the public generally. However, he kept quiet and this just adds fuel to the collusion charge.

[cotswoldsman]

I would agree with Carl on all of that.

 

In Victors column on Narrowboatworld he says -

 

Another story you will no doubt have read is about BW's erstwhile directors giving themselves a 'nice little earner' if you can call it 'earning' in the form of a hefty bonus as a reward for the waterways being in their worst state for years.

 

But hold on. Wasn't our Clive—he of the IWA—present at the board meeting where directors were given the minutes of the remuneration committee meeting. Yes he was...

 

Whilst he would have been unable to speak at the meeting, there is no reason why he could not share that information with IWA membership or the public generally. However, he kept quiet and this just adds fuel to the collusion charge.

 

 

i presume that the reason you keep posting stuff from Narrowboatworld on here is that you know that most people on here are just not interested in the views of that website. I don't understand why you persist on providing links to that site and quoting from that site, those interested can surely read it for themselves without you having to peddle that tripe on here.

 

 

[Allan(nb Albert)]

i presume that the reason you keep posting stuff from Narrowboatworld on here is that you know that most people on here are just not interested in the views of that website. I don't understand why you persist on providing links to that site and quoting from that site, those interested can surely read it for themselves without you having to peddle that tripe on here.

 

I post links for exactly the same reason you post a link to your own website. I believe that some people might be interested in reading it.

[cotswoldsman]

I post links for exactly the same reason you post a link to your own website. I believe that some people might be interested in reading it.

 

I think the difference is that I am not peddling a point of view and also i do not have a forum on my site.