NABO support "Manifesto"

[sebrof]

What would be useful is an independent, impartial auditing of the books.

 

Independently audited accounts

 

What would be useful would be for the Board to come clean about the situation.

 

I suspect Carl is right to say that the maintenance could be done more cheaply than it is, but even with the most efficient maintenance crew in the world, there is still going to be a significant shortfall, and if that is not addressed either by more government or local government money (highly unlikely), then it will be a matter of voluntary labour making up the slack.

[sebrof]

 

With the normal narrowboatworld warning, here are my two articles on BW's long term targets. Boaters will be more interested in the second -

 

The visitors scandal

 

Appalling financial performance

 

 

Merely pointing out what we all know already, which is that the Board has failed to reach its financial targets, is not very illuminating. I had hoped that your article would have analysed where things went wrong, and why, but alas, it did not even attempt to do so.

 

The financial crisis, which was not of Robin Evans' doing, must have had an effect (perhaps a substantial one) on finances and perhaps also on visitor numbers, but nowhere did you attempt to evaluate this. No, as far as you are concerned, it is ALL the fault of Robin and his mates. This is a theme that plays well to the gallery, but it's not very helpful to us who are trying to work out what is going to happen in future.

[David Schweizer]

Metric?

 

What's wrong with measure?

 

Why use ignorant American jargon when there is a perfectly good English word?

 

American? Ignorant? What are you on about?

 

The word Metric in the UK is used as a generic term to describe all measuring systems based upon the unit if ten. I am aware that the term "Performance Metrics" is beginning to be used to describe the measure of an organization's activities and performance, but it is American Geek Speak, and has not yet found it's way into The Oxdford English Dictionary, and is not used commonly the UK. It certaimly means nothing to me.

Edited December 13, 2011 by David Schweizer

[deletedaccount]

The word Metric in the UK is used as a generic term to describe all measuring systems based upon the unit if ten. I am aware that the term "Performance Metrics" is beginning to be used to describe the measure of an organization's activities and performance, but it is American Geek Speak, and has not yet found it's way into The Oxdford English Dictionary, and is not used commonly the UK. It certaimly means nothing to me.

 

It's in the OED as a noun - "a system or standard of measurement". I use it all the time. Language evolves.

 

in fact there's a further definition in there:

 

(metrics) (in business) a set of figures or statistics that measure results.

[David Schweizer]

It's in the OED as a noun - "a system or standard of measurement". I use it all the time. Language evolves.

 

in fact there's a further definition in there:" (metrics) (in business) a set of figures or statistics that measure results."

If you are going to deliberately exclude part of the two definitions quoted in order to supprt your arguement, that is up to you, and just because you use it all the time, it does not make you correct, or understood.

[deletedaccount]

If you are going to deliberately exclude part of the two definitions quoted in order to supprt your arguement, that is up to you, and just because you use it all the time, it does not make you correct, or understood.

 

eh? I just quoted the relevant part. I'm not sure what you're getting at tbh. It's extremely common for words to have more than one meaning or use. Besides that, everyone criticising my use of metric understands what it means, somewhat undermining their point.

 

Here's the entry in full:

 

adjective

1relating to or based on the metre as a unit of length:

all measurements are given in metric form

relating to or using the metric system:

we should have gone metric years ago

2 Mathematics & Physics relating to or denoting a metric:

the metric equation of Minkowski space-time

 

noun

1 technical a system or standard of measurement:

the levels of branching are arbitrary and no precise metric is applied to distance between the nodes

(metrics) (in business) a set of figures or statistics that measure results.

Mathematics & Physics a binary function of a topological space which gives, for any two points of the space, a value equal to the distance between them, or to a value treated as analogous to distance for the purpose of analysis:

[with modifier]:

the external structure of space-time is described by the Schwarzschild metric

2 [mass noun] informal the metric system:

it’s easier to work in metric

 

tbh, I'm just responding to the accusation that it's "ignorant american jargon" when it's none of those three things

Edited December 13, 2011 by deletedaccount

[David Schweizer]

eh? I just quoted the relevant part. I'm not sure what you're getting at tbh. It's extremely common for words to have more than one meaning or use. Besides that, everyone criticising my use of metric understands what it means, somewhat undermining their point.

 

Here's the entry in full:

 

 

 

tbh, I'm just responding to the accusation that it's "ignorant american jargon" when it's none of those three things

First of all did not call you, and would not call you "ignorant". However, as far as I know, the unconventional use of the word Metric does originate in the US, and just because Sebrof and I know what "Performance Metric", and Busuiness Metric" means, it does not follow that the use of the foreshortened term "Metric" within that context is generally understood.

 

The purpose of language is to convey, or seek, information not to deliberately confuse. I know lots of odd words which have a meaning, but are not generally understood, and I avoid using them except when playing word games with others who seek to use their knowledge of obtuse language in order to deliberately seek the higher intelectual ground.

Edited December 13, 2011 by David Schweizer

[deletedaccount]

First of all did not call you, and would not call you "ignorant". However, as far as I know, the unconventional use of the word Metric does originate in the US, and just because Sebrof and I know what "Performance Metric", and Busuiness Metric" means, it does not follow that the use of the foreshortened term "Metric" within that context is generally understood.

 

The purpose of language is to convey, or seek, information not to deliberately confuse. I know lots of odd words which have a meaning, but are not generally understood, and I avoid using them except when playing word games with others who seek to use their knowledge of obtuse language in order to deliberately seek the higher intelectual ground.

 

If I thought it would be misunderstood or not understood at all I wouldn't have used it. It's in no way meant to confuse or to appear somehow lofty and the fact is you did understand what I meant. I wouldn't call it unconventional either, more of a dialect thing.

 

(p.s.I quoted sebrof originally, who did call it ignorant)

[sebrof]

If I thought it would be misunderstood or not understood at all I wouldn't have used it. It's in no way meant to confuse or to appear somehow lofty and the fact is you did understand what I meant. I wouldn't call it unconventional either, more of a dialect thing.

 

(p.s.I quoted sebrof originally, who did call it ignorant)

 

Measure is the right word in this context.

 

Metric as you used it is jargon, emanating from America, and using it instead of measure shows ignorance. You were just trying to make yourself look clever, and succeeded in doing the reverse.

 

The use of such words is an indication of the speed at which this nation is becoming culturally indistinguishable from America. It's a situation I deplore, but that you no doubt either welcome, or are blissfully unaware of.

[sebrof]

If I thought it would be misunderstood or not understood at all I wouldn't have used it. It's in no way meant to confuse or to appear somehow lofty and the fact is you did understand what I meant. I wouldn't call it unconventional either, more of a dialect thing.

 

(p.s.I quoted sebrof originally, who did call it ignorant)

 

Measure is the right word in this context.

 

Metric as you used it is jargon, emanating from America, and using it instead of measure shows ignorance. You were just trying to make yourself look clever, and succeeded in doing the reverse.

 

The use of such words is an indication of the speed at which this nation is becoming culturally indistinguishable from America. It's a situation I deplore, but that you no doubt either welcome, or are blissfully unaware of.

[Chris Pink]

Measure is the right word in this context.

 

Metric as you used it is jargon, emanating from America, and using it instead of measure shows ignorance. You were just trying to make yourself look clever, and succeeded in doing the reverse.

 

The use of such words is an indication of the speed at which this nation is becoming culturally indistinguishable from America. It's a situation I deplore, but that you no doubt either welcome, or are blissfully unaware of.

 

No it is not.

 

It is possible to use 'measure' in this context. it is also correct, as demonstrated by the OED to use 'metric' in this context. Whether or not it is elegant is a matter of taste.

 

You were just trying to make yourself look clever and succeeded in simply making yourself look pompous.

 

'doing the reverse' - what kind of tortured English is that? I think the correct word you were impotently grasping after is 'opposite'.

 

I personally have no difficulty whatsoever in culturally separating this country from America, perhaps your education is at fault?

[deletedaccount]

Chris beat me to it.

[jenlyn]

Does it really really matter? Countdowns on later?

[Rebotco]

No it is not.

 

It is possible to use 'measure' in this context. it is also correct, as demonstrated by the OED to use 'metric' in this context. Whether or not it is elegant is a matter of taste.

 

You were just trying to make yourself look clever and succeeded in simply making yourself look pompous.

 

'doing the reverse' - what kind of tortured English is that? I think the correct word you were impotently grasping after is 'opposite'.

 

I personally have no difficulty whatsoever in culturally separating this country from America, perhaps your education is at fault?

 

 

Whether its right or wrong, its still a crappy word in that context. The universally used and understood word "measure" would be far more appropriate. Unless you fancy being a Poser.

 

Brian

[deletedaccount]

Yes, I deliberately used that word to alienate people and showcase my vast intellect, nobody who read it understood it and there's a far better word I should have used because you prefer it and it's not 'crappy'. Spot on.

 

Jesus christ, this is making me agree with jenlyn.

[jenlyn]

Yes, I deliberately used that word to alienate people and showcase my vast intellect, nobody who read it understood it and there's a far better word I should have used because you prefer it and it's not 'crappy'. Spot on.

 

Jesus christ, this is making me agree with jenlyn.

Now your being silly, what I have is not catching!

[Allan(nb Albert)]

So, either we have £81m of revenue or 100m of revenue. Do they actual talk to each other up there? Robin Evans has already been criticised by the APPWG for his optimistic expectations of the property portfolio.

 

What would be useful is an independent, impartial auditing of the books.

 

Somewhere along the line I have managed to confuse.

 

On maintaining the waterways, Evans told APPWG that BW spent £81m last year (2010/11) in England & Wales ) but needed to spend another £39m (ie a total of £120m) in order to stop the waterways deteriorating from the previous year. In other words, BW only spent two thirds of the amount needed to stop the waterways deteriorating.

 

On the income side, I think I have had this discussion with Cotswoldman on another thread. BW tend to say £100m but that is gross income. What Robin Evans told APPWG was net earned income (i.e after payroll and other costs are deducted). APPWG report this part of his evidence as follows -

 

Robin Evans maintained that for earned income they were confident that property income

would improve significantly [net earned income £61 million in 2010/11; projected for £85 million in

2014/15]. It was put to him that such an estimate might prove wildly optimistic given the nature of

the property slump and the current state of the economy, and it was suggested by the group that

British Waterways prepare a forward plan based on a more conservative estimate.

 

He was being disingenuous, as the figure he gave appears to be for all three of BW's income streams including Leisure (which is mainly licence and mooring income from boaters) and utilities. He did a similar thing on his blog some time back where he lumped in utilities.

 

Net earned income from property is not in the annual report but was probably around £17m last year, with leisure £23m and utilities £21m.

[sebrof]

Yes, I deliberately used that word to alienate people and showcase my vast intellect, nobody who read it understood it and there's a far better word I should have used because you prefer it and it's not 'crappy'. Spot on.

 

Jesus christ, this is making me agree with jenlyn.

 

It's OK, Chris Pink is on your side. You MUST be right.

[Mick and Maggie]

You were just trying to make yourself look clever, and succeeded in doing the reverse.

 

Which one is kettle and which one is pot?

[Allan(nb Albert)]

So, either we have £81m of revenue or 100m of revenue. Do they actual talk to each other up there? Robin Evans has already been criticised by the APPWG for his optimistic expectations of the property portfolio.

 

What would be useful is an independent, impartial auditing of the books.

 

Somewhere along the line I have managed to confuse.

 

On maintaining the waterways, Evans told APPWG that BW spent £81m last year (2010/11) in England & Wales ) but needed to spend another £39m (ie a total of £120m) in order to stop the waterways deteriorating from the previous year. In other words, BW only spent two thirds of the amount needed to stop the waterways deteriorating.

 

On the income side, I think I have had this discussion with Cotswoldman on another thread. BW tend to say £100m but that is gross income. What Robin Evans told APPWG was net earned income (i.e after payroll and other costs are deducted). APPWG report this part of his evidence as follows -

 

Robin Evans maintained that for earned income they were confident that property income

would improve significantly [net earned income £61 million in 2010/11; projected for £85 million in

2014/15]. It was put to him that such an estimate might prove wildly optimistic given the nature of

the property slump and the current state of the economy, and it was suggested by the group that

British Waterways prepare a forward plan based on a more conservative estimate.

 

He was being disingenuous, as the figure he gave appears to be for all three of BW's income streams including Leisure (which is mainly licence and mooring income from boaters) and utilities. He did a similar thing on his blog some time back where he lumped in utilities.

 

Net earned income from property is not in the annual report but was probably around £17m last year, with leisure £23m and utilities £21m.

 

As has been pointed out BW's accounts are audited. That is not really the problem.

 

The problem is that the waterways minister did not take the APPWG advice which was -

 

We recommend that Government seeks an independent professional evaluation of British

Waterways' financial projections and methodology to verify the financial requirements.

 

 

Independently audited accounts

 

What would be useful would be for the Board to come clean about the situation.

 

I suspect Carl is right to say that the maintenance could be done more cheaply than it is, but even with the most efficient maintenance crew in the world, there is still going to be a significant shortfall, and if that is not addressed either by more government or local government money (highly unlikely), then it will be a matter of voluntary labour making up the slack.

 

The projections in the KPMG report, which went into great detail on the funding gap, took into account projected savings and efficiencies. The overall conclusion was that these would not prevent the funding gap rising year on year due to higher costs.

Edited December 13, 2011 by Allan(nb Albert)

[Allan(nb Albert)]

Merely pointing out what we all know already, which is that the Board has failed to reach its financial targets, is not very illuminating. I had hoped that your article would have analysed where things went wrong, and why, but alas, it did not even attempt to do so.

 

The financial crisis, which was not of Robin Evans' doing, must have had an effect (perhaps a substantial one) on finances and perhaps also on visitor numbers, but nowhere did you attempt to evaluate this. No, as far as you are concerned, it is ALL the fault of Robin and his mates. This is a theme that plays well to the gallery, but it's not very helpful to us who are trying to work out what is going to happen in future.

 

I am not sure what financial crisis you are talking about. It you mean the one that faces the waterways then the blame must be put squarely on the shoulders of Evans/Hales. The self sufficiency target was missed by £18m in 2004/5 and has increased every year since. As such the economic downturn has only compounded the situation.

 

The articles were written as a contribution to the Boaters Manifesto key point 3-

 

'Boaters have lost faith in the most senior management of British Waterways and believe that the government should accept the cost of making them redundant to give the Canal and River Trust and fresh start.'

 

As such, I am suggesting that Evans/Hales should have no part in the future of our waterways rather than suggesting what the future is going to be.

[sebrof]

I am not sure what financial crisis you are talking about.

 

How many are there, old chap? You're obviously far better informed than I am, because I only know of the one that started with the collapse of various banks around the world, and as of now is threatening the existence of the Euro. Are there others that have passed me by?

 

It you mean the one that faces the waterways then the blame must be put squarely on the shoulders of Evans/Hales. The self sufficiency target was missed by £18m in 2004/5 and has increased every year since. As such the economic downturn has only compounded the situation.

 

Had I meant the BW funding gap, then I would not have said it "was not of Robin Evans' doing". And I would not have said that because I do not, like other readers of your article, have any idea of the extent to which Robin Evans is or is not responsible for BW not meeting its targets.

 

I have no idea because your article did not explain WHY BW failed to meet its targets. Had it done so, it would have been worth reading. As it didn't, it wasn't.

 

In 1939, Germany attacked Gdansk with a battleship, and a handful of Poles with very little ammunition resisted. They were overwhelmed, having fought to the last man. Their responsibility was to defend the city, but they failed, against overwhelming odds. Should they be blamed? Were they incompetent?

 

Unless we know WHY and WHERE Robin Evans failed, we cannot form any judgement about his competence. We look to journalists to provide us with the information to make such a judgement. Sadly, it seems we look in vain.

 

You, and that silly website you belong to, have failed us. Monumentally.

[Allan(nb Albert)]

How many are there, old chap? You're obviously far better informed than I am, because I only know of the one that started with the collapse of various banks around the world, and as of now is threatening the existence of the Euro. Are there others that have passed me by?

 

 

 

Had I meant the BW funding gap, then I would not have said it "was not of Robin Evans' doing". And I would not have said that because I do not, like other readers of your article, have any idea of the extent to which Robin Evans is or is not responsible for BW not meeting its targets.

 

I have no idea because your article did not explain WHY BW failed to meet its targets. Had it done so, it would have been worth reading. As it didn't, it wasn't.

 

In 1939, Germany attacked Gdansk with a battleship, and a handful of Poles with very little ammunition resisted. They were overwhelmed, having fought to the last man. Their responsibility was to defend the city, but they failed, against overwhelming odds. Should they be blamed? Were they incompetent?

 

Unless we know WHY and WHERE Robin Evans failed, we cannot form any judgement about his competence. We look to journalists to provide us with the information to make such a judgement. Sadly, it seems we look in vain.

 

You, and that silly website you belong to, have failed us. Monumentally.

 

I think 3742 have decided on Robin Evans competence -

 

Narrowboatworld poll

 

I see no mileage in trying to convert you and 82 others.

[sebrof]

I think 3742 have decided on Robin Evans competence -

 

Narrowboatworld poll

 

I see no mileage in trying to convert you and 82 others.

 

Convert?

 

What a strange word. It's the word a missionary would use when trying to persuade savages that his magic was more powerful than theirs.

 

I don't seek to be converted. I just seek information. I can make my own mind up, providing I have the facts. As a "journalist" that's where you could be useful, if you had any interest in truth rather than "conversions".

 

Do feel free to come back when you have some information to impart, rather than slogans and empty assertions.

[Allan(nb Albert)]

I'm pleased you understand the missionary position