Boaters manifesto

[sueb]

http://peterunderwood.blogspot.com/2011/10/boaters-manifesto.html

A trustee replies

Sue

[WotEver]

Interesting read

 

Thanks for sharing, Sue.

 

Tony

[greywolf]

will take me time to read it properly but what i have read so far sounds reasonable.

[muddywaters]

Very interesting points made.

Had a little smile to myself at the meantion of keeping horses off the towpaths though.

[carlt]

Very interesting points made.

Had a little smile to myself at the meantion of keeping horses off the towpaths though.

 

They'll be calling for a ban on boats, in the canal, next.

[Higgs]

The drift is that the towpath would be an unsuitable bridle-path. Fair enough. Too narrow, too dangerous to pedestrians, and would wreck the towpath. Cycles do a reasonable job of producing boggy ground.

[deletedaccount]

Nice to see how he starts out by dividing the community into proper boaters (who should be listened to) and not proper boaters (who presumably shouldn't). Great work there. Two thumbs up.

[carlt]

Nice to see how he starts out by dividing the community into proper boaters (who should be listened to) and not proper boaters (who presumably shouldn't). Great work there. Two thumbs up.

Considering his posts here, the two categories are: the boater who should be listened to (him) and the boaters who should be listening (everyone else).

 

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.

[Higgs]

Considering his posts here, the two categories are: the boater who should be listened to (him) and the boaters who should be listening (everyone else).

 

I have just read the thread from which the Peter Underwood quote was taken. I don't think the used quote, qualifying his position of authority, necessarily undermines the idea of a manifesto.

 

If people from the group of trustees are asking for input, why not have this condensed into a manifesto?

 

Some are happy to go along with whatever and give the new administration the benefit of the doubt and others aren't happy. Some points are contentious ie, removing people from management etc. Good management will always and should be expected. The Freedom of Information Act v Ombudsman; accountability and transparency, again this is to avoid any easy hiding of abuse and misuse of resources, position and trust.

 

Some broadly acceptable way to go on might begin to show the boating community as a whole and not simple as a group of individuals with almost as many opinions.

 

These subjects don't seem to find much favour on the forum and usually end with personality and brow beating getting in the way.

 

The dicussion may end without support for a manifesto, proved misguided, unworkable, or whatever. There are boaters with varying degrees of knowledge and understanding of the system, and newcomers who might also be inclined to join in.

 

The few seats of representatives, as far as I know, have nothing like a manifesto to add maybe some weight to their position and representation. 5 seats plus 40,000 boaters sounds alot stronger. A manifesto is worth a thought, I think.

[cotswoldsman]

My problem is that I am not quite sure who Peter Underwood thinks he represents.

 

The only point I would make at this stage is that most serious boaters feel the charity has been foisted on them by a government that is refusing to take financial responsibility for a great national asset. All we want to do is mitigate what we fear will be a disaster.

 

Going by what Peter Underwood says above it appears he represents "Serious Boaters" so I guess that excludes me. His boaters manifesto is very flawed and to me looks like a "wish list" well like many boaters (that is ordinary boaters not serious ones) I also have a long wish list but would hardly call it a manifesto.

I do travel around the waterways a fair bit and speak to many "ordinary boaters" and the majority of them are not so concerned about the change to a charity (including myself)

Peter Underwood seems to be coming at this having made up his mind that this is going to be a disaster, so again I am not sure I will be taking much notice of what he says.

I come from the school that says "what can I do to make this a success?" We are where we are and in my opinion time would be better spent making sure the new charity is a success than just predicting disaster.

Edited November 13, 2011 by cotswoldsman

[David Schweizer]

My problem is that I am not quite sure who Peter Underwood thinks he represents.......

 

My problem is that Peter Underwood is(or was) a Journalist, and my embittered experience of thet breed is that they only consider their own (often ill informed ) opinionn to be of any consequence, and as for letting facts get in the way!

[sueb]

It's all very well ignoring Peter and expecting the Charity to be a success, but it is the boaters making a noise who will be heard and will be taken notice of.

Putting heads in the sand won't achieve the outcome you wish foe.

Sue

[David Schweizer]

It's all very well ignoring Peter and expecting the Charity to be a success, but it is the boaters making a noise who will be heard and will be taken notice of.

Putting heads in the sand won't achieve the outcome you wish foe.

Sue

I am not ignoring Peter, and found myself in broad agreement with much of what he said, such as it was. but it does little to say how the Trust should be managed, or indeed funded. I also agree with Stepen's (Maffi) comments asking what role boaters can play in ensuruing that the trust works.

 

I am not aware that I had any opportunity for involvement in the appointment of any of the Transitional Trustees, or how I can make my views known to them. Please do not suggest that I join a Boating organization for that purpose, I have belonged, in recent times, to four different Boating Organizations and none of them semed very intersted in hearing my views, even less in representing them to BW.

 

I am a great believer in democratic consultation and whilst I am not a member of any Political Party, but I do at least have the opportunity to vote for who will represent me, and the elected person provides the facility to enable my views to be put forward, will the same provision be made for Baters Trustees when the permanent ones are appointed?

Edited November 13, 2011 by David Schweizer

[Higgs]

Peter Underwood is not an elected spokesperson for the boating community. There isn't one, that's partly the point. We have no part in selecting the 5 representatives either.

 

It was relatively easy to see what part the average boater played in the system prior to the new charity. You paid your license, used the the canal/rivers, and abided by the rules. The distinction between boater and administration is less clearly defined now, in my mind. Regardless of ones involvement with the canals, the preservation/conservation of the canal system is important to every boater/enthusiast.

 

I think the majority of other users of the canal environment will not be as accutely aware of problems that may slowly be happening to the system. Maintaining an historic body of water is not cheap. We are captive, and that is our biggest weakness. What can we do? Go along for the ride, and hope?

 

If there is any manisfesto, it should possibly focus attention on the fundamental care that the system should receive. What's happening does seem to be more reliant on chance than any real acknowledgement of its importance.

 

The representatives would not be forced, against opposition, to struggle with this point. They could, for instance, deal with keeping a balance between regulation and the relaxed use of the waterways.

 

Just a thought.

Edited November 13, 2011 by Higgs

[sueb]

There are 4 elected members. Stand for election or vote for the candidate of choice. Hardly anyone responded to the last consoltation so why should we have a say?

[David Schweizer]

There are 4 elected members. Stand for election or vote for the candidate of choice. Hardly anyone responded to the last consoltation so why should we have a say?

That unfortunately the type of respose we have come to expect from you Sue, telling us what we should do, and should have been doing, but with no information about how we can access the process in order that we can fulfil her expectations.

 

I am at a loss as to how I can participate in a process which is being deliberately kept a secret. Given how much money I pay both directly and indirectly to BW, would it have been too much trouble for them to send me some information in the post.

 

It is all very well depending upon word of mouth and Internet consultation, but if you do not know that something is happeningm, how can you participate?

[saltysplash]

That unfortunately the type of respose we have come to expect from you Sue, telling us what we should do, and should have been doing, but with no information about how we can access the process in order that we can fulfil her expectations.

 

I am at a loss as to how I can participate in a process which is being deliberately kept a secret. Given how much money I pay both directly and indirectly to BW, would it have been too much trouble for them to send me some information in the post.

 

It is all very well depending upon word of mouth and Internet consultation, but if you do not know that something is happeningm, how can you participate?

 

 

Hear him hear him

[cotswoldsman]

It's all very well ignoring Peter and expecting the Charity to be a success, but it is the boaters making a noise who will be heard and will be taken notice of.

Putting heads in the sand won't achieve the outcome you wish foe.

Sue

 

I think it is the boaters with reasonable expectations that will be heard. To keep harping on about the same issues that are unreasonable will not be heard.

I think the fact that a Trustee has taken the time to give a lengthy reply is maybe a sign that things are changing and that people are being listened to.John Dodwell has taken the time to explain what can be done and what can not be done, he has also asked for input and provided his phone number and email address for people to contact him, seems like the Trustees are willing to listen to anyone with a view.

[Allan(nb Albert)]

I suspect the success of the Boaters Manifesto depends more on boating organisations supporting it (or not) than individuals.

 

Was it discussed at NABO's AGM yesterday?

[Higgs]

He that asks faintly begs denial.

 

He that demands misses nothing, unless his demands be foolish.

 

Something that avoids the meaning of these two sayings could be aimed for. Neither shy away from asking for what a 'National Treasure' deserves and ask for it definitely.... trying not to compose a letter to Santa.

 

I can imagine that being a representative could be a fairly daunting task. I have no idea what their likely brief might be. Not sure how it works. Anybody?

 

Maybe a manifesto could serve as a guide. Not an ultimatum. A 'manifesto' could also guide where advice might be offered in spades to the reps by individuals. This may avoid interested parties vying for too much influence attention or resources.

[Higgs]

I suspect the success of the Boaters Manifesto depends more on boating organisations supporting it (or not) than individuals.

 

Was it discussed at NABO's AGM yesterday?

 

 

That doesn't seem very democratic though. This doesn't have to be a five minute job, if it's going to be done at all. It doesn't seem very worthwhile at all unless it asks everyone. Anyway, what are they going to dicuss at these meetings. Haven't really got passed the principle of a manifesto. Following that, what will it include.

Edited November 13, 2011 by Higgs

[Allan(nb Albert)]

That doesn't seem very democratic though. This doesn't have to be a five minute job, if it's going to be done at all. It doesn't seem very worthwhile at all unless it asks everyone. Anyway, what are they going to dicuss at these meetings. Haven't really got passed the principle of a manifesto. Following that, what will it include.

 

Why not? The NABO council is elected by its membership to represent its views. It had an AGM where membership was present.

 

I'm not sure that manifesto is the right word for the document. What 'manifesto' means to me is 'elect me/us and this is what I/we will do for you'.

 

I see it more in terms of 'letting the transition trustees know what boaters actually need from them so that they can respond to the new charity with enthusiasm and commitment'. This is more or less what was said at the top of the document.

 

Must be a word for it!

 

With regard to 'it does not have to be a five minute job' - I think on some of the issues raised that is not the case. Certainly, funding can not wait.

[Rebotco]

This manifesto is very well presented, and in general does reflect my views. It has been sent to those who need to know and they have responded in a sensible fashion. I would think that the more boaters who express their support of this initiative, the more effective it will be in helping to shape the canal system's future according to the needs expressed by its users.

There is always the small gobby minority who sit on the sideline contributing nothing at all, except to spout off any negative twaddle they can think of. Quite a few of them seem to inhabit this forum. If they could put half the effort into making a positive difference, the canals would be a far better place for all of us.

 

Brian

[deletedaccount]

And what have you contributed brian? Other than a strongly worded agreement with someone else's inconsequential, divisive and ultimately destined-to-be-ignored words?

 

welcome on board btw

[Allan(nb Albert)]

And what have you contributed brian? Other than a strongly worded agreement with someone else's inconsequential, divisive and ultimately destined-to-be-ignored words?

 

welcome on board btw

 

If you consider it to be inconsequential then why bother posting?

 

Destined-to-be-ignored? Certainly unless boating user groups and/or hundreds of boaters get behind it.

 

Divisive? a matter of opinion.

 

Inconsequential - well it seems a transition trustee has thought it worthwhile to give a detailed response and is interested enough to give both his email address and phone number. Also BW have given it some promotion on the waterscape official facebook.