CaRT not known to Charity Commission.

[carlt]

Surely, there's more value in discussing the content of Mick's letter rather than just who we think he's speaking for?

 

Well if you bother to read what I've written above the response to your quote, you will see that that is exactly what I am doing....unlike you, I notice.

[David Schweizer]

Whilst I applaud Mick and Maggie for writing to the Charity Commissioners as individuals, I agree with Carl, that they should have placed all their observaions in the first person, (or in the plural if writing as two people) rather than shroud their arguement in language which suggests that their views have universl support, something which none of us could guarantee.

 

It does not matter how many times they use the first person "I", by also refering to "boaters" within some of their comments they are, by imlpliction, suggesting that their views are shared with all other boaters. Which is no doubt the impression they planned to convey to the Commissioners. If they wished to suggest that their views are shared with many other boaters they should have used the word "many". However, by ommitting any qualifying criteria, the impression created is that it is "all" boaters.

 

OK, some people will think I am being pedantic, and I own up to that charge, but having spent years wading through correspondance and documents using language which is used in a manner where it is designed to convey more than can be proved, I get a bit cynical about others who purport, albeit inderectly, to represent my views when they have not consulted me.

 

As it happens, I do agree with much of what Mick and Maggie have said, but not all of it. I have never been very enthusaiastic about BW becoming a Charitable Trust, because it risks the Government absolving itself of any responsibility if it all goes horribly wrong, but as it is what we are almost certtainly going to get, we do need to be vigilant about the structure and composition of it's Management. I actually know one of the Regional Chairmen and, unfortunately, remain unimpressed.

Edited December 2, 2011 by David Schweizer

[bottle]

I do no have any opinions, on any of it, so no one can represent my opinions.

 

I remain yours

 

Confused.

[Steilsteven]

Well if you bother to read what I've written above the response to your quote, you will see that that is exactly what I am doing....unlike you, I notice.

 

I did read it, better late than never.

Anything I had to say has already been said by others e.g. Trusts v Charity and why the Charity Commission is unaware.

 

I remember a song by Doris Day called Everybody Loves a Lover, how dare she speak for everybody!

 

Keith

[carlt]

I did read it, better late than never.

Better late than never?

 

Anything I had to say has already been said by others e.g. Trusts v Charity and why the Charity Commission is unaware.

 

I have commented on every thread to do with this subject.

 

Perhaps I could have said a similar thing, ie. anything I could have said, in this thread, I've said before?

I remember a song by Doris Day called Everybody Loves a Lover, how dare she speak for everybody!

 

Like David says, just one statement, such as "Boaters without question..." immediately changes the emphasis to "I believe this...and so does everybody else.".

 

It is implying universal support that just doesn't exist.

 

I respect your right to interpret it differently, now please respect mine and move on.

Edited December 2, 2011 by carlt

[churchward]

No and yes, hopefully.

 

The new Trust will be answerable to a body that has a totally different remit, than the one a government department answers to.

 

I hope that this change will be as monumental (no pun intended) as the National Heritage Act 1983, when English Heritage was formed.

 

Hopefully there will be a transition, at the top, from professional civil servants to professional conservators and civil engineers.

 

This won't happen overnight but I'm willing to wait and see.

I agree. I would like to see how the new Trust/Charity runs first before condemning it. I have hopes it will change things for the better and I would like to try and make it work first either by membership or some volunteer work. The heritage of the canal system is really important to me and I can understand people being worried for it's future but all the gainsaying and put downs will not do one thing to help. We need constructive criticism and enquiry where needed and a willingness to try and make something work for the sake of the waterways. Funding is and will be an issue of course but that would be true if BW carried on or any other variation of management. We live in hard times where public or private money is hard to come by.

 

It makes me smile too when people write about the state of the canals going to ruin these days. They should have been around in the 1970s. I spent a whole long day getting down the Rochdale in in the 70s (when it was still privately owned and you had to pay a toll still) the gates were falling apart and leaking so much several of the pounds were very low in water and paddle gear that required two people at times to draw up. The boat got beached on a mini clubman sat on the bottom and then jammed in a lock due to all the rubbish collecting around the boat and lock gates. It was some day and I always think about when people moan about the state of the canals.

[AlanH]

The original post had the description "Bw are on the ball!" implying that BW had failed to register C&RT with the Charities Commission and this was typical of their actions. It turns out that C&RT does not yet exist and so could not register.

What the hell this has to do with BW I don't know. The OP is not on the ball at all!

 

I agree with Carl. Phrases like "Boat owners feel" and "We also feel" definitely imply that all boat owners agree with him.

If he had said "Some boat owners" instead then your argument would be valid.

 

I am a boat owner and I refuse to bash C&RT until I have experienced their control of the waterways for a reasonable time. I sincerely hope that it works well but there wil be those who will pick up on any minor problem and whinge about it.

[Nightwatch]

 

 

I am a boat owner and I refuse to bash C&RT until I have experienced their control of the waterways for a reasonable time. I sincerely hope that it works well but there wil be those who will pick up on any minor problem and whinge about it.

I'm sorry if i am being a dimwit. Who are they who are referred to as 'their' in this instance?

 

I far as I know there are people from various organisations haeding up the charitable side of CaRT but who is actually going to running the business....?

 

Martyn

[LoneWolf]

I'm sorry if i am being a dimwit. Who are they who are referred to as 'their' in this instance?

 

I far as I know there are people from various organisations haeding up the charitable side of CaRT but who is actually going to running the business....?

 

Martyn

 

The Trustees will appoint/employ people to run the business. They may call them Directors.

 

eta: appoint/ as this will depend on the trust documentation

Edited December 2, 2011 by LoneWolf

[Steilsteven]

I have high hopes for CART succeeding, in fact it's the only hope we have, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't ask questions and have a hand in the shaping of it.

 

I'm sure the trustees will be very carefull about funding issues, as it will be they who'll be legally responsible for the Trust's viability.

 

I'm not convinced that the Trust should be bound by the FOIA because it would incur a lot of expense to maitain compliance.

 

Yes, the canals are in a lot better shape than they were in the seventies, it's returning to that state I'd rather avoid.

 

I do question Mick's motives for writing to the Charity Commission, I can't see how they'd be interested in most of what he had to say. I believe, they'd only be interested in two things, suitability for charity status and viability.

 

Keith

[jelunga]

Why not put the question the other way around.

 

Are there any boaters who post or belong to this forum who believe that the existing BW directors have done a good job?

 

If so please supply your reasons?

 

Are there any who believe that changing the name and becoming a trust will make any difference if the same people are running it?

 

If so why?

 

I answered no and no, to my own questions, over to you!

 

Ken

I add no and no also. They may be capable of doing a good job but there is no evidence of this and the job they are doing is certainly not worth the money they are getting to do it

[Allan(nb Albert)]

I add no and no also. They may be capable of doing a good job but there is no evidence of this and the job they are doing is certainly not worth the money they are getting to do it

 

No and No from me as well.

 

I understand that the transition trustees have now agreed to meet with a delegation from Boaters Manifesto and in advance of that have requested reasons (other than remuneration) as to why Evans and the other directors should go.

[KenK]

The Trustees will appoint/employ people to run the business. They may call them Directors.

 

eta: appoint/ as this will depend on the trust documentation

 

As far as I understand it, we get the existing BW transfered under TUPE rules, including the directors. There will be a number of Trustees who will be legally liable and a number of partnerships who can advise the Trustees and also 35 reresentatives from various organisations including boaters. So we have the existing BW doing the work and everyone else telling them how to do it. Oh yes and thousands of willing volunteers cheerfully opening lock gates for smiling boaters just like the one on Radio 4 yesterday.

 

Ken

[Allan(nb Albert)]

As far as I understand it, we get the existing BW transfered under TUPE rules, including the directors. There will be a number of Trustees who will be legally liable and a number of partnerships who can advise the Trustees and also 35 reresentatives from various organisations including boaters. So we have the existing BW doing the work and everyone else telling them how to do it. Oh yes and thousands of willing volunteers cheerfully opening lock gates for smiling boaters just like the one on Radio 4 yesterday.

 

Ken

Ken has it about right but I wonder if, when he says partnerships, he means Waterways Partnerships. These do not advise the Trustees directly but interface with BW regions and some special bits like museums. The chairs of these partnerships (three of which have been running for some time)will automatically have places on the 35 strong council which advises trustees.

 

I have always wondered when Laurence was running himself ragged keeping us informed regarding the recent pollution and fish death incident what action, if any, the local partnership took.

 

I have also wondered why I can find no information concerning terms of office for trustees. Has Hales been appointed in perpetuity?

[KenK]

Ken has it about right but I wonder if, when he says partnerships, he means Waterways Partnerships. These do not advise the Trustees directly but interface with BW regions and some special bits like museums. The chairs of these partnerships (three of which have been running for some time)will automatically have places on the 35 strong council which advises trustees.

 

I have always wondered when Laurence was running himself ragged keeping us informed regarding the recent pollution and fish death incident what action, if any, the local partnership took.

 

I have also wondered why I can find no information concerning terms of office for trustees. Has Hales been appointed in perpetuity?

Hi Alan, yes I did and you are quite correct. I also suspect that I might be wrong about those volunteers but you never know. We are having the public meeting in Newbury tonight calling for volunteers to man our trip boat wonder how many we'll get.

 

Ken

[Steilsteven]

No and No from me as well.

 

I understand that the transition trustees have now agreed to meet with a delegation from Boaters Manifesto and in advance of that have requested reasons (other than remuneration) as to why Evans and the other directors should go.

 

Tony Hales wants to get rid of BWAF because it contains too many boaters.

 

Robin Evans has been heard to suggest ( privately )that boaters are a complication who get in the way of running an effective property and heritage buisiness.

 

There's two for starters.

 

Keith

[LoneWolf]

As far as I understand it, we get the existing BW transfered under TUPE rules, including the directors. There will be a number of Trustees who will be legally liable and a number of partnerships who can advise the Trustees and also 35 reresentatives from various organisations including boaters. So we have the existing BW doing the work and everyone else telling them how to do it. Oh yes and thousands of willing volunteers cheerfully opening lock gates for smiling boaters just like the one on Radio 4 yesterday.

 

Ken

 

My point being that the appropriate people to address the kinds of concerns raised in the linked email to would be the trustees.

Not the Charities Commission and not the people (directors) who actually run things

 

I've met several cheerful volunteers this year, usually on flights where there were no 'official' lockies, and always smiled and thanked them for both opening & closing the gates for me. Not sure what your point is regarding them.

[Allan(nb Albert)]

Tony Hales wants to get rid of BWAF because it contains too many boaters.

 

 

What actually happened was that BW’s marketing director, Simon Salem, produced a strategy document two years ago which was accepted and agreed by BW's board at its September 2009 meeting. One of the key actions recommended by Salem in the document was "Revised or replaced BWAF set up with boating involvement balanced by significant representation of wider national interest".

 

However, it seemed to me that BWAF did cater for the wider national interest. It was just that the wider national interest was not really interested in waterways and did not turn up for meetings!

 

The plan failed at the time because 'somebody' tipped off NABO and AWCC just before a BWAF meeting with BW on the 12th November.

 

But it now looks like BW has got its way with the composition of the 35 strong council.

[cotswoldsman]

As far as I am concerned the OP was just the normal "Lets find a way to knock CaRT" and in this case it has back fired as CaRT can not as yet register.

Like a few others I am prepared to give them time and see how things develop. I think maybe looking forward instead of backwards might be a good idea.

 

 

 

They do so love to manipulate and twist things in the girlie playground

 

Deleted, can not be bothered

Edited December 3, 2011 by cotswoldsman

[Higgs]

The Charities Commission is subject to the Freedom of Informations Act. Complaints of charities can be directed to the Commission, who regulate the charities.

 

The vast majority of Charities are not subject to the FOIA, irrespective of the amount of public money they receive.

 

The main way for a Charity to be subject to the FOIA is for it to be listed in Schedule 1 of the FOIA.

 

Some public authorities are registered as charities: Museums, and some schools and universities are registered as charities. These types are subject to the FOIA.

 

The Declaration of Trust, the governing document, will lay down the format for the operation of C&RT, and it's goals; judging by some I've seen, can be quite long documents.

 

Out of curiosity; The National Trust has 5,006 employees and 61,000 voluntees, approximate ratio of 1:12

[Dalesman]

I am no expert so I am sure I* will be corrected but my understanding is that it has not yet completed all the hurdles in Parliament to become a charity, so would be no point in applying at this stage, but please also note that it is Trust not a Charity.

 

I would also add that I am not one of the many boaters you refer to in your letter.

You are quite right,before you can become a charity you have to have set up your society, trust, company or whatever,with all your rules and regulations and what are your aims and who will benefit from you being a charity before you can even apply.

[Allan(nb Albert)]

Out of curiosity; The National Trust has 5,006 employees and 61,000 voluntees, approximate ratio of 1:12

 

Equivalent 2010/11 figures for BW are 1,700 employees and 700 volunteers. I will not bother with the ratio!

 

 

Also, the actual number of volunteers last year will be lower as BW quote the 700 as the number of individual volunteers over a two year period. Perhaps they have a problem with volunteer retention.

 

Perhaps a bit late -

 

John Dodwell on charitable status

 

The only thing I see new in that is that the enabling bill has slipped about a month.

Edited December 4, 2011 by Allan(nb Albert)

[Higgs]

Equivalent 2010/11 figures for BW are 1,700 employees and 700 volunteers. I will not bother with the ratio!

 

 

 

Employee to Volunteer ratio: Aprox, 2.4:1

 

Like for like comparisons are not realistic at the moment. It will take time to build up the volunteer section. But certainly, the profile of the canals will have to be raised in the public domain. Apart from the leisure aspects of the canalside, the historic-industrial will play a part. Can't really see interest being generated because of a property portfolio.

 

The public will have to be brought in through some cunning plan. Open-day trips around non-existent workshops, possibly. C&RT Canal Simulator - try and start your own marina or Wharf-side development; Staircase lock, brainteaser on a Nintendo dfs. Canal version of the Last of the Summer Wine. National Canal Day.

 

[carlt]

Canal version of the Last of the Summer Wine.

David Essex as waterways ambassador...

[BEngo]

Well, the CART finance debate could be about to get interesting:

 

Netherton Link

 

This, if it is a big problem, is just the sort of thing CART have to have the readies to be able to deal with quickly. It might not be a big problem, since Netherton has done this sort of thing before though it seems a strange coincidence that it is making news now.

 

N