NABO

[carlt]

I have to say. After my recent critisism of NABO, Howard took the time to check out the history behind my comments, and followed up with a rather grand email. He took the time, which in my eyes is important.

 

So Ive decided to chuck my hat in NABO's ring for a year, and see where it takes me.

It's going to take a bit of time, recruiting on a one member at a time basis, like that.

 

Perhaps he should get involved with shutting me up because Tone and Sueb are doing a pitiful job, changing my mind.

[canaldrifter]

It's going to take a bit of time, recruiting on a one member at a time basis, like that.

 

Perhaps he should get involved with shutting me up because Tone and Sueb are doing a pitiful job, changing my mind.

 

Oh I recognise we'll never do that. I'm just on damage limitation.... but so far there isn't much damage to limit because your ammo seems to be wet!

 

Tone

[sueb]

It's going to take a bit of time, recruiting on a one member at a time basis, like that.

 

Perhaps he should get involved with shutting me up because Tone and Sueb are doing a pitiful job, changing my mind.

You like the last word. Await incoming

Sue

[carlt]

Oh I recognise we'll never do that. I'm just on damage limitation.... but so far there isn't much damage to limit because your ammo seems to be wet!

 

Tone

The thing is, Tone, I am happy to be convinced but, whereas I am offering constructive criticism and comment about how I feel a representative organisation should act, you and Sue merely offer snide remarks with no substantive argument, to counter my criticism.

 

What has NABO done, to completion, to match the achievements that the organisations I have mentioned, managed?

 

Counter my arguments, instead of merely dismissing them and you ay be taken seriously.

 

Keep up the carping and you merely confirm my assertions.

 

You like the last word. Await incoming

Sue

My point proven!

[Nightwatch]

Hi

Visited the site and thought I would join, or at least have a look at how to.

 

The first 'how to' is in fact "How do you get to see the application form". I can't.

 

Martyn

[haggis]

Hi

Visited the site and thought I would join, or at least have a look at how to.

 

The first 'how to' is in fact "How do you get to see the application form". I can't.

 

Martyn

 

As a NABO member, I checked the web site and you are right :-( When you select either "join NABO" or "membership form" you get nothing. I then tried to email the web master but I don't think that worked either. Hopefully someone on NABO Council will read this and get the web site fixed.

 

Haggis

[fuzzyduck]

I too have confirmed the above.

[sociable_hermit]

I looked at possibly joining NABO before Christmas, but couldn't access the online application form. I then tried to notify the webmaster and that didn't work. And at that point I concluded that I probably didn't want to join after all.

 

It certainly seems a bit rich to claim to represent all boaters when a lot of them can't join.

 

I'm also concerned that an organisation like this can go for at least 3 months without checking their own website or realising that they're getting absolutely no online applications. That doesn't give me much confidence I'm afraid.

Edited March 5, 2011 by sociable_hermit

[sueb]

Thanks will get it sorted.

Sue

[howardang]

I have asked the webmaster to look into the web site problem.

 

Howard

[canaldrifter]

I looked at possibly joining NABO before Christmas, but couldn't access the online application form. I then tried to notify the webmaster and that didn't work. And at that point I concluded that I probably didn't want to join after all.

 

It certainly seems a bit rich to claim to represent all boaters when a lot of them can't join.

 

I'm also concerned that an organisation like this can go for at least 3 months without checking their own website or realising that they're getting absolutely no online applications. That doesn't give me much confidence I'm afraid.

 

These are all fair comments. The website is about to be re-vamped and made more non-member friendly, I was assured, in a phonecall from the Gen Sec yesterday.

 

I'm hoping that the constitution can be made available on the public side of the website and also Nabo News, though maybe slightly later than the members get it.

 

Certainly a membership application form should be down-loadable. I'm very surprised that this doesn't work. I'd like to see an online membership application too, but that is perhaps a little way off yet. I understand much of this will be discussed at a council meeting one week from today.

 

I'll repeat, Nabo does not claim to 'represent' all boaters, only its members, but it works for the benefit of all boaters, members or not.

 

I have no objection to Carl raising criticisms here, but if they cannot be substantiated then I will try to counter them. For example, claiming that Nabo should not use the word 'national' in its title is about the same as saying The National Trust shouldn't use the word either, unless everybody in the country joins.

 

Also, what Nabo stands for is there for all to see on the site, in Nabo News and in publicity and membership packs handed out at rallies. The claim that you have to join to find out just isn't true.

 

You have to join to change things though.

 

Tone

[carlt]

 

I have no objection to Carl raising criticisms here, but if they cannot be substantiated then I will try to counter them. For example, claiming that Nabo should not use the word 'national' in its title is about the same as saying The National Trust shouldn't use the word either, unless everybody in the country joins.

 

You don't try to counter them, you just try to belittle me and don't address the issues I raise.

 

You miss the point entirely, about my criticism of the name, btw.

 

The misrepresentative word is not "National" but "boatowner".

 

I own 6 boats yet am not allowed to be a full member.

 

 

You have to join to change things though.

 

So, if I join, can I organise a protest march, on Downing street?

 

If Sue"actually we don't do protests"b is to be believed, I would be immediately shouted down (well, mumbled down, probably)

[sueb]

The constitution is on the website. Before anyone says, the search facility doesn't work.

Sue

[carlt]

So, when you say it doesn't represent all boat owners, just its members....isn't item 2, of its constitution somewhat exaggerated?

 

1. NAME

The Association shall be known as the National Association of Boat Owners.

2. OBJECTS

The objects of the Association shall be as follows:

(a) to provide effective representation for owners of vessels on Britain’s inland waterways on any

subject or matter which is relevant to the owners of such vessels.

 

Oh and according to "Membership categories" I can't join:

 

1. SINGLE MEMBER (£15 per year)

This is not a reference to matrimonial status (!) but is our equivalent to Full Voting Member for which the only qualification is that you are the owner of any sort of boat on the inland canals, rivers or Broads of the UK. Any or all part owners in a boat-share or syndicate scheme may also join as Single Members with individual voting rights.

 

But, now I have access to the constitution, I see I can:

 

a) An applicant shall be eligible for full membership only if the applicant is a person who owns a

vessel capable of use on Britain’s inland waterways.

 

The organisation desperately needs some organising.

[canaldrifter]

You don't try to counter them, you just try to belittle me and don't address the issues I raise.

 

Well, if you feel belittled, please let me apologise. That wasn't my intention at all. I was merely trying to show that your criticisms were unfounded.

 

You miss the point entirely, about my criticism of the name, btw.

 

The misrepresentative word is not "National" but "boatowner".

 

 

I think that an organisation that claims 'National' status should be more than just a club, representing a minority of boaters.

 

Posted Yesterday, 09:31 PM

Yeah whatever.

 

A club with the title of "National Association of" usually calls itself that because it claims to represent all of the participants, in its area of interest.

 

The NABO does not, therefore it is wrongly named.

 

Don't see the word 'boatowner' above, Carl. In fact it is the one word you left out.

 

I own 6 boats yet am not allowed to be a full member.

 

Care to elaborate?

 

So, if I join, can I organise a protest march, on Downing street?

 

You don't have to join to do that, surely? But if you want to put the idea to council, who would then sound out members' support for the idea, then yes, you would need to be a member.

 

If Sue"actually we don't do protests"b is to be believed, I would be immediately shouted down (well, mumbled down, probably)

 

Not by me you wouldn't. I'd be right there beside you.

 

I thought SOW's original purpose as a boaters' protest group was great.... before it got hijacked. I was Nabo Vice Chair at the time, and I know that Nabo supported SOW, originally, when it was organising protests. In fact our then chairman was involved. His boat was photographed covered in banners floating past the Houses of Parliament.

 

Tone

Edited March 5, 2011 by canaldrifter

[carlt]

 

Care to elaborate?

 

I did, in my next post.

 

I have 6 boats, none of which are on the inland waterways but all capable of.

 

The "membership categories" page says I cannot be a full member but, now I can see the constitution, I see it contradicts this...

[Allan(nb Albert)]

This is the bit that really bothers me. The National Trust is a completely different concept to The waterways. The NT is able to generate vast income streams from the public. People are prepared to donate to the NT because it is something they can see, feel and touch. The general public's perception of The waterways is at worst somewhere to dump rubbish, shoot up under a bridge and at best somewhere for dog walkers to let there dogs crap without clearing up and occupied by a load of snoby boaters. The public are not prepared to donate to the waterways.

It is time that these so called organisations that represent boaters maybe did something to change the image of the canals and thereby maybe making it easier to raise valuable funding.

 

BW believes that the public (plus trusts companies and other bodies) will donate about £8.5m in the tenth year of NWC. This is half the extra contribution that will be made by it being a charity. The rest comes from rate relief (£1.3m), debt gearing (£2.0m)and volunteering (£5.0m).

 

In total, the extra £17m contribution, in year ten, does not address current and future funding problems.

 

This year, BW will be spending about £50 less than in needs to just to stop the waterways deteriorating further. The £50m figure would be £60m if government had not told BW to sell some of its assets this year.

 

An extra £17m ten years down the track is rather meaningless. By that time, BW might well have £1bn of maintenance arrears.

 

BW does not think the image of the canals needs changing. The last annual report says 91% of the population think canals are an important and valued national asset. One assumes that the £8.5m contribution estimate was made on that basis.

 

BTW, I would not be able to quote figures concerning BW's estimates of contribution from being a charity if one of NABO's council had not put that information in the public domain following a freedom of information request.

[jenlyn]

well, after reading the whole thread and checking out the NABO website, i am of mind, that i will keep me 15 quid, and go to the pub for sunday lunch and a couple of wines tmoz. Much more pallatable

[Mac of Cygnet]

 

 

 

 

The National Trust is a completely different concept to The waterways. The NT is able to generate vast income streams from the public. People are prepared to donate to the NT because it is something they can see, feel and touch. The general public's perception of The waterways is at worst somewhere to dump rubbish, shoot up under a bridge and at best somewhere for dog walkers to let there dogs crap without clearing up and occupied by a load of snoby boaters. The public are not prepared to donate to the waterways.

It is time that these so called organisations that represent boaters maybe did something to change the image of the canals and thereby maybe making it easier to raise valuable funding.

 

I can only disagree with this, except for the first sentence. The NT is a by and large a middle-class organisation run by middle-class people for their peers, judging by the visitors and volunteers I have seen. The income stream is because these are the people with the money (so far!).

 

Those who dump rubbish, shoot up, and let their dogs crap are equally unlikely to care about the NT and its aims, and are less visible on NT territory simply because they don't go there. They are not involved and are unlikely to be. Canals are just more accessible. There is no evidence that the public are not prepared to donate to the waterways - we just need to get some momentum going, and it can be done quite quickly if the example of the U-turn in Goverment policy on the Forestry Commision is anything to go by.

 

How many times, on mentioning to someone that you have a boat on the inland waterways, have they said: "Oh, I'd love to do that!", or "I saw a very interesting programme on television about that" (Sorry, but I've never seen any of these!). The interest is certainly there, and needs tapping. My only fear is that this is a very bad time to be doing this - all charities are going to be struggling in the present and coming economic climate.

 

Mac

 

Edited to correct a few stray letters.

Edited March 5, 2011 by Mac of Cygnet

[canaldrifter]

I did, in my next post.

 

I have 6 boats, none of which are on the inland waterways but all capable of.

 

The "membership categories" page says I cannot be a full member but, now I can see the constitution, I see it contradicts this...

 

Yes, that's another anomaly. I'll ask the webmaster to correct it and bring the categories page into line with the constitution. Thanks for pointing it out.

 

Tone

[Tiny]

You like the last word. Await incoming

Sue

 

 

From what I have read here and in other places anyone setting up any sort of organisation to do anything will get its detractors. The difference is that on the web the detractors can shout their heads off and sneer at those trying to do something while doing nothing themselves but shout.

 

Of course as long as this happens, and in the human race if two agree one always seems to disagree, then the powers that be can do as they wish knowing that there is no coherent opposition to them.

 

As an example pick anthing that a lot of people don't like - like for example BWs bollards at locks spending - set up a organisation to oppose it and soon the detractors will appear.

 

Given the lack of desire in this country NABO do well with what they have but given the majority of boaters are disinterested in any form of representation they will never get all boaters in NABO. From experience we love to moan but getting off our arses and doing something we do not have time for.

 

Edited March 6, 2011 by Tiny

[cotswoldsman]

That is what one other site in particular seems to go out of its way to portray in my view and to a smaller extent some on these forums would wish it was so.

Its going to take some doing to change the general publics view of the canals and even more doing to change the view of some boaters to the general public.

 

Yes I do have to agree sometimes I get the feeling that there is a sort of lower, middle and upper class with some boaters!!! The other perception that some people have is that owning a boat is something for the "Oldies"

 

 

Those who dump rubbish, shoot up, and let their dogs crap are equally unlikely to care about the NT and its aims, and are less visible on NT territory simply because they don't go there. They are not involved and are unlikely to be. Canals are just more accessible. There is no evidence that the public are not prepared to donate to the waterways - we just need to get some momentum going, and it can be done quite quickly if the example of the U-turn in Goverment policy on the Forestry Commision is anything to go by.

 

 

 

I was talking about peoples perception of the canals and why it would be difficult as a charity to get non users to contribute. I know for example that my Mother has left quite a bit of money to NT in her Will but has most probably not been to a NT Property for over 25 years.

I know I wandered off topic but the point I was trying to make (quite badly) was that these organisations would most probably help boaters and other users a great deal by changing the perceived image of the canal system in order to try and make people more aware of the historic value of the canals. If you are going to call yourself a "National" organisation then you should be also trying to ensure that as a charity BW has the support of the richer middle class as the NT do.

 

 

[carlt]

From what I have read here and in other places anyone setting up any sort of organisation to do anything will get its detractors. The difference is that on the web the detractors can shout their heads off and sneer at those trying to do something while doing nothing themselves but shout.

 

Unfair.

 

I am an active member, and volunteer, of several organisations and would love to join an effective, campaigning organisation, representing all boaters, but it doesn't exist.

 

My purpose is not to sneer and pointlessly denigrate but ask questions, in a (thus far) vain attempt to receive the answers that would inspire me to join.

 

My questions and criticisms have been met with the sneering responses, attacking me, as an individual, rather than making any attempt at addressing the issues I raise.

 

The post you quote being an excellent example.

[Nightwatch]

Unfair.

 

I am an active member, and volunteer, of several organisations and would love to join an effective, campaigning organisation, representing all boaters, but it doesn't exist.

 

My purpose is not to sneer and pointlessly denigrate but ask questions, in a (thus far) vain attempt to receive the answers that would inspire me to join.

 

My questions and criticisms have been met with the sneering responses, attacking me, as an individual, rather than making any attempt at addressing the issues I raise.

 

The post you quote being an excellent example.

The majority of this post i have to agree with as an individual, that's what I am of course.

 

I can't comment on personal attacks on other individuals, namely Carlt as I am not aware of the back ground that may go back years regarding experiences and knowledge.

 

I do see that there seems to be difficulty in getting 'an ' organisation up and active to sort out what appears to be a negative situation and a bad mess that the inland waterways system is in.

 

I am not saying I can sort this but will as carlt and others have indicated join and hopefully be active in trying to do so.

 

I was a member of SOW for a short time but as we are aware this went absolutely nowhere it seems.

 

Martyn

[fuzzyduck]

I can let you have the provisional iwa for free. Then you can have a campaigning organisation all of your very own