New Waterways Charity

[carlt]

IWA are successfully running the chelmsford canal.

Sue

Successfully only because the EA bales them out when major works are necessary.

[cotswoldsman]

Don't know what dream world you live in, I have great respect for the WRG but their activities are nothing to do with maintaining the system. You certainly capitulate to political propaganda very quickly, or perhaps because you believe in the same approach. I prefer to continue to campaign for what is really needed to ensure we still have a working system in 20 years.

I and all the others who see the dangers, including MPs, may well lose but at least we will have tried.

 

Please do not campaign on my behalf. Having read some of your "Living Afloat" it would concern me that someone who shows such lack of knowledge about that subject even thinks he has any idea of what is best for the waterways going forward.

[Peter Underwood]

If it interests anyone I have owned boats for 18 years, lived on board for 8 years, and currently travel the system year round. This year alone running from the Shroppie to the Peak Forest to Ellesmere Port to Rickmansworth to Braunston, to Birmingham. Now visiting the Shroppie again before moving east. Spent lot of time on the L&L and started boating on the Yorkshire Ouse. Also been a political journalist and interviewed every PM between Wilson and Hague and won awards for investigative journalism. In addition I have run two businesses. If anyone thinks they are better qualified do let me know.

[cotswoldsman]

If it interests anyone I have owned boats for 18 years, lived on board for 8 years, and currently travel the system year round. This year alone running from the Shroppie to the Peak Forest to Ellesmere Port to Rickmansworth to Braunston, to Birmingham. Now visiting the Shroppie again before moving east. Spent lot of time on the L&L and started boating on the Yorkshire Ouse. Also been a political journalist and interviewed every PM between Wilson and Hague and won awards for investigative journalism. In addition I have run two businesses. If anyone thinks they are better qualified do let me know.

 

I really can not be bothered but maybe such a highly qualified person can tell me when Hague was Prime Minister I seem to have missed that,

Edited August 13, 2011 by cotswoldsman

[jenlyn]

If it interests anyone I have owned boats for 18 years, lived on board for 8 years, and currently travel the system year round. This year alone running from the Shroppie to the Peak Forest to Ellesmere Port to Rickmansworth to Braunston, to Birmingham. Now visiting the Shroppie again before moving east. Spent lot of time on the L&L and started boating on the Yorkshire Ouse. Also been a political journalist and interviewed every PM between Wilson and Hague and won awards for investigative journalism. In addition I have run two businesses. If anyone thinks they are better qualified do let me know.

You better not be hacking my phone Mr!!

[Graham Davis]

Just because you've been cruising around the system for that time doesn't mean you know all about them. How many of the various Canal Societies have you spoken to, because it appears from your writings that you know little of the hard work they put in ALL YEAR ROUND?

 

And to be honest, being a "political journalist" doesn't inspire me with any confidence about your ability to "instruct" us on how the new Charity might do.

[Peter Underwood]

I do wonder if you know what a proper working hack actually does. In reporting on five large canal festivals this year alone, mosy of tohem run by or linked to canal societies or museums I have managed to chat to dozens about their work. I talk to hundreds and attempt to reflect the views of a large cross section and I have observed growing concern about the NWC. If your only contact is with those who favour it I can understand your complaint about negativity.

[carlt]

If anyone thinks they are better qualified do let me know.

 

He was born on a freight train

He was born on a cruise ship

He was born on an airplane

He was born in a taxi cab

 

He was born in a blizzard, far away in a manger

On the top of a mountain, in the mist of the jungle

 

He was born in the dessert when the lilacs were blooming

He was born in the ball park, high up in the grandstands

 

He was born on a surfboard

He was born in a backpack

He was born in the opera

He was born on a chain gang

 

He lived on the east coast

Grew up on the west coast

Made his home in the north

Settled down in the south

 

Quit school in the third grade with honours from Harvard

Played semi-pro baseball for a team in Havana

 

He worked in Chicago at the Bake-a-Lite factory

Dug clams in New Orleans and then in Miami

 

He worked on a farm, on a ranch in Wyoming

Shot buffalo for a while until the herds disappeared

 

He became a teacher and then an inventor

He invented the clam bake

He invented the back yard

 

He invented the porch

He invented the banjo

He invented the hammock

He invented the card game

 

He invented the night light

He invented the sick day

He invented the phonograph with a gasoline engine

 

He discovered the Mississippi and he gave it a name tag

And he filled it with garbage from the hull of a steamboat

 

He fled from the dustbowl

He fled from the city

He fled from his family

He fled from the farm

 

He joined the union

He marched with the Wobbles

He wore a red bandana and sang union songs

 

He was sent to the war

He fought with Mac Arthur

He marched into Paris

He liberated Rome

 

He marched into Washington and Selma, Alabama

He marched into Hollywood

He marched into television

 

He died in a plane crash, in a fight in a barroom

He died when his car crashed, in a tenement fire

 

He died saving children

He died broke and lonely and drunk in a gutter in the middle of nowhere

 

He died of a heat rash

He died of a bee sting

He ate poison mushrooms and that did him in

 

I went to an auction

Bought a trunk with his diary

From cover to cover

He must have been quite a guy

[cotswoldsman]

I do wonder if you know what a proper working hack actually does. In reporting on five large canal festivals this year alone, mosy of tohem run by or linked to canal societies or museums I have managed to chat to dozens about their work. I talk to hundreds and attempt to reflect the views of a large cross section and I have observed growing concern about the NWC. If your only contact is with those who favour it I can understand your complaint about negativity.

 

I think you will find most of us do have concerns about NWC, this does not mean that we only focus on the negative. You are trying very hard to convince me (and others) that you are an expert for me it is not working!!! Now I might not be able to remember Hague being a Prime Minister but I do live in the real world and I would rather spend my energy trying to make NWC work than just give up on it. Remaining in it's present form is not an option.

[sueb]

I do wonder if you know what a proper working hack actually does. In reporting on five large canal festivals this year alone, mosy of tohem run by or linked to canal societies or museums I have managed to chat to dozens about their work. I talk to hundreds and attempt to reflect the views of a large cross section and I have observed growing concern about the NWC. If your only contact is with those who favour it I can understand your complaint about negativity.

It is the hobby of some on here to belittle others. I ignore it. There is a silent majority who are interested but daren't comment.

Sue

[carlt]

It is the hobby of some on here to belittle others. I ignore it. There is a silent majority who are interested but daren't comment.

Sue

As Peter has made a point of belittling everyone else on the forum, you seem to be looking at things from underneath your wet blanket, as usual, Sue.

 

As another who is constantly negative about NWC (and all things waterway related, for that matter) it doesn't surprise me that you should take his side.

 

It never ceases to amaze me when you drum up this 'silent majority' and nobody answers your call.

 

"I've had literally hundreds of pms who support me, but they're too scared to go public." is the oldest fake argument on the internet.

[Graham Davis]

Sue,

I sit firmly on the fence a lot of the time, and don't often post on here, however the "stuff" so far mentioned by this Mr Underwood has been totally negative. If he has been in touch with so many people why didn't he say that before my query. He previously implied that volunteers couldn't be found in the winter, but I know plenty of groups that are active all year round. Now he seems to be retracting his comment; a typical journalistic trick.

 

Whilst we all may have some doubts about how the new Charity is going to cope and manage things, it is no good just criticising it. These negatives need to be covered by some ideas on how it is thought it should be done. All we seem to be getting from Mr Underwood is "It won't work", but what is needed is an explanation of why and how he/they think it should be done.

[Peter Underwood]

Sue and anyone else who feels I am negative, that is not my intention. My objective, as someone whose whole life is now invested in the waterways is to honestly point out that that I and many others fear the NWC will be detrimental, especially to boaters for two key reasons, lack of funds and lack of accountability.

Those fears are shared by the Waterways Group of MPs many directors and owners of canal businesses and even the IWA and RBOA to some extent.

Even though my preference is for state ownership on political and democratic grounds I would give my support to an accountable charity (that means elections) that was able to show it could meet the financial criteria for steady state maintenance of the system. All the independent financial assesments are clear there is a £20-45m shortfall and that doesn't take account of disasters like the Shroppie or Mon and Brec breaches.

It is no good going into this saying "I am sure there are civil engineers" who will step up. Wishful thinking does not keep canals open. As I talk to canal people I do not find many convinced that the NWC as currently proposed will be better than BW.

I spend my life on the cut, winter and summer, rural and urban. I would be more than happy if any of the NWC advocates could convincingly demonstrate that it will be properly funded and accountable. All I hear is wishful thinking combined with acceptance of the big society PR stunt. (and I recognise those having run 2 PR firms)

If you want positive how about campaigning for a proper financial contract, at least £20m more than is on the table, indexed? How about fighting for an elected charity board that accurately reflects the key boater constituency? How about fighting to ensure the whole show is not still run by the same executives on the same pay, pensions and bonuses that currently drain BWs coffers by mullions each year?

I'll join you on all three

[carlt]

 

It is no good going into this saying "I am sure there are civil engineers" who will step up. Wishful thinking does not keep canals open.

That sentence was written by a chartered civil engineer.

 

No wishful thinking involved.

[Chris Pink]

A charity with no obligation to respond to FOI requests, no accountability to government, that will effectively 'own' a huge, immensely valuable public resource, constructed by legislation that has last-minute powers of forcible entry, search and siezure slipped in without much hope of meaningful parliamentary debate?

 

Whereas I have no problem at all with the concept of NWC, it's abuse by BW, even at this early stage does not give me a good feeling.

 

It is worth noting that the property owned by the National Trust is bequeathed to them by private owners, usually under covenant, so any comparison between them and the NWC is spurious.

[cotswoldsman]

Sue and anyone else who feels I am negative, that is not my intention. My objective, as someone whose whole life is now invested in the waterways is to honestly point out that that I and many others fear the NWC will be detrimental, especially to boaters for two key reasons, lack of funds and lack of accountability.

Those fears are shared by the Waterways Group of MPs many directors and owners of canal businesses and even the IWA and RBOA to some extent.

Even though my preference is for state ownership on political and democratic grounds I would give my support to an accountable charity (that means elections) that was able to show it could meet the financial criteria for steady state maintenance of the system. All the independent financial assesments are clear there is a £20-45m shortfall and that doesn't take account of disasters like the Shroppie or Mon and Brec breaches.

It is no good going into this saying "I am sure there are civil engineers" who will step up. Wishful thinking does not keep canals open. As I talk to canal people I do not find many convinced that the NWC as currently proposed will be better than BW.

I spend my life on the cut, winter and summer, rural and urban. I would be more than happy if any of the NWC advocates could convincingly demonstrate that it will be properly funded and accountable. All I hear is wishful thinking combined with acceptance of the big society PR stunt. (and I recognise those having run 2 PR firms)

If you want positive how about campaigning for a proper financial contract, at least £20m more than is on the table, indexed? How about fighting for an elected charity board that accurately reflects the key boater constituency? How about fighting to ensure the whole show is not still run by the same executives on the same pay, pensions and bonuses that currently drain BWs coffers by mullions each year?

I'll join you on all three

 

Firstly I would like to say that NWC has been debated a number of times on here so not quite sure you felt the need to start another thread when you could easily just have contributed to those threads.

Could you please provide your source that going forward NWC will not have an elected board.

How do you propose that the board reflects key boater constituency when boaters will only account for a small amount of funding?

As you seem to disagree so much to the NWC projected business plan could you please provide a solution with the assumption that the government is not going to provide any more funding?

Who is running the campaign for more funding? Where do I join as long as it is a proper constituted campaign I am happy to campaign for more funds even though I think it will be a lost cause.

 

 

 

 

A charity with no obligation to respond to FOI requests, no accountability to government, that will effectively 'own' a huge, immensely valuable public resource, constructed by legislation that has last-minute powers of forcible entry, search and siezure slipped in without much hope of meaningful parliamentary debate?

 

 

 

Chris for once I am not trying to argue with you and what you say is a concern, can I ask where I can read more about all this stuff a reliable source would be helpful.

[Chris Pink]

Well you should be able to find amendment 99A on a government website.

 

There are no charities at present with powers as BW already has.

 

99A proposes to add more powers

 

FOI act only applies to government bodies not charities

 

A charity is only accountable to it's trustees (appointed) BW currently is 'accountable' to the minister for rural affairs (elected)

 

This is all a matter of record not opinion.

 

I, for one, do not believe BW behave in the best interests of all boaters and to remove accountability AND give them more powers with hardly a mention in parliament or committees is a dangerous step

[Peter Underwood]

Chris

Well said, you express yet another dimension of my concerns.

 

I apologise. One civil engineet then.

[sueb]

Sue and anyone else who feels I am negative, that is not my intention. My objective, as someone whose whole life is now invested in the waterways is to honestly point out that that I and many others fear the NWC will be detrimental, especially to boaters for two key reasons, lack of funds and lack of accountability.

Those fears are shared by the Waterways Group of MPs many directors and owners of canal businesses and even the IWA and RBOA to some extent.

Even though my preference is for state ownership on political and democratic grounds I would give my support to an accountable charity (that means elections) that was able to show it could meet the financial criteria for steady state maintenance of the system. All the independent financial assesments are clear there is a £20-45m shortfall and that doesn't take account of disasters like the Shroppie or Mon and Brec breaches.

It is no good going into this saying "I am sure there are civil engineers" who will step up. Wishful thinking does not keep canals open. As I talk to canal people I do not find many convinced that the NWC as currently proposed will be better than BW.

I spend my life on the cut, winter and summer, rural and urban. I would be more than happy if any of the NWC advocates could convincingly demonstrate that it will be properly funded and accountable. All I hear is wishful thinking combined with acceptance of the big society PR stunt. (and I recognise those having run 2 PR firms)

If you want positive how about campaigning for a proper financial contract, at least £20m more than is on the table, indexed? How about fighting for an elected charity board that accurately reflects the key boater constituency? How about fighting to ensure the whole show is not still run by the same executives on the same pay, pensions and bonuses that currently drain BWs coffers by mullions each year?

I'll join you on all three

Peter I was supporting you and unsuprisingly got myself attacked.

Sue

[carlt]

Peter I was supporting you and unsuprisingly got myself attacked.

Sue

Attacked?

 

Come on Sue how come it is okay for you to be so negative about so much yet, when you are criticised, it is regarded as an attack?

 

Grow up Sue and, if you dish it out as often as you do, learn to expect a bit back.

 

 

A charity is only accountable to it's trustees (appointed) BW currently is 'accountable' to the minister for rural affairs (elected)

 

..and the Charities Commission which does have significant clout.

 

 

I apologise. One civil engineet then.

How many do you need?

 

I can think of several more.

[Peter Underwood]

Unlikely to agree with NWC fans. Hopefully we are all cansl fans and happy to fight for what we each believe is best for the system's future.

[chieftiff]

 

This is all a matter of record not opinion.

 

 

Not true.

 

If you wanted to state fact then you might want read the FOIA, here is a link: Freedom of Information Act and proposed amendments I work for a charity who has a legal requirement to comply with the act, who have an elected board and who are also responsible to a minister via BIS.

 

Unless I have missed something fundamental (and I'm not ruling that out I'm a busy bloke) the legal entity that will be NWC has yet to be established and the legislation that creates that legal entity and describes its authority/ responsibility / duties etc on behalf of the public has yet to be agreed in anything other than draft format. It will be that legislation that decides if they are responsible to a government minister, if they are subject to the FOIA etc, the statute will detail exactly those details, don't assume that because some charities are excluded from some legislation they are all the same. The act specifically allows for private bodies who are responsible for carrying out work on behalf of the public to be included.

 

Hacks and bloggers, I've never been able to decide which is the greater risk to truth in our society. Having an axe to grind is fine, laying out your viewpoint is fine, only bothering to express one side of an argument is even fine providing you explain that is what you are doing. What is better though, what we all know as proper journalism is writing a story which describes and explains all of the issues around a topic in a coherent and succinct way so that the reader is empowered and informed to make up their own mind - otherwise you are just pretending to be a journalist and coming over as another lobbyist.

 

I do share some of the concerns expressed by both Peter and Chris here, especially those about accountability and I genuinely don't feel well enough informed with regards to this aspect to make a fair judgement despite attempts to find that information myself, but, I can also see many potential benefits to disengaging with the bureaucratic wheels of government control. I guess what most people want is to be able to read a precise and accurate summary of all the salient points and decide, on balance for themselves, what is important here and what is just noise generated for the sake of it. I'd like to read a good article that did just that, one that is detached from the emotion and sets out the facts, not one that just makes me feel like I'm trying to be led or deceived by the writer about what is best for all of us. I'd like to see a journalistic piece, hell I'd probably even pay to read it.

[cotswoldsman]

Chris

Well said, you express yet another dimension of my concerns.

 

I apologise. One civil engineet then.

 

So why was it never mentioned in your article?

Can I suggest that you read the post by chieftiff IMO a very balanced post and maybe some tips for you to improve your credibility as a journalist. As I said before most of us have concerns, but this does not mean we have to post nothing but negative issues.

 

I did ask you this question earlier

Could you please provide your source that going forward NWC will not have an elected board.

 

My reason for the question has been addressed by chieftiff but would like to know your source for stating that NWC will not have elected members of it's board.

[Chris Pink]

 

If you wanted to state fact then you might want read the FOIA, here is a link: Freedom of Information Act and proposed amendments I work for a charity who has a legal requirement to comply with the act, who have an elected board and who are also responsible to a minister via BIS.

 

 

 

OK I admit, I was believing this reported government statement and, as my grandmother advised, "never trust a government"

 

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath raised the question in debate: “What will happen to the accountability, reporting and FOI requirements?”

The government responded later in a letter: “We do not currently intend to extend the FOI Act to other bodies, including private companies and charities, performing public functions. It will be for ministers and departments to ensure that such bodies are appropriately accountable for the public functions they fulfil.

 

or this, from the direct.gov.uk website

 

Public sector bodies covered by the Act

The Act applies to public bodies including:

government departments and local assemblies

local authorities and councils

health trusts, hospitals and doctors’ surgeries

schools, colleges and universities

publicly funded museums

the police

non-departmental public bodies, committees and advisory bodies

 

I don't see "charities" on this list.

 

or any charities on this one;

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2000/36/schedule/1

Edited August 13, 2011 by Chris Pink

[Robin2]

I have had a quick look for the legislation that will set up the NWC and I have discovered that it is a short Section 5 in the Public Bodies Bill. All the section does is give the Minister power to make Orders to modify or transfer the functions of BW to an eligible person (as defined in the Bill). There is nothing specific about canals in it.

 

If and when the Minister makes an Order with the details in it the Order will not be debated in Parliament unless some MPs demand it within a specified time after the Order is made (afaik). It would be very unusal for Orders to be debated.

 

This means that the Government will effectively have the power to do what it likes without Parliamentary oversight.