CaRT "Boater" Council Members

[cotswoldsman]

You have just linked to NBW, against your 'better' judgement. What are you going to do if you find yourself on the council with a member of NBW? Whatever your prejudice, you will have to address that. You are not all right, and they are not all wrong.

 

I think you might find the comment was tongue in cheek, that apart all links to NBW need to carry a health warning.

[alan_fincher]

You have just linked to NBW, against your 'better' judgement.

Where do I say that ?

 

My judgement is that as it says they are, these probably are actual words written by John Dodwell, and as such are worth putting to a wider audience.

 

Much of what appears on that site is at best just stuff regurgitated from other sources, under the pretence that someone associated with NBW has written it, (Google searches can quickly prove that to be the case). At worst much of what they publish is either demonstrably plain wrong or espousing exactly the kind of bigoted views I would always speak out against wherever I heard them - whether coming from someone associated with NBW or not. Speaking out against what you believe to be wrong is not automatically a prejudice.

 

Hopefully CaRT Council is going to permit free-speaking, and the right of reply. That is something I have personally found the editor of NBW is not necessarily prepared to countenance.

 

Also,in my view, NBW seems to get much of its audience solely by serial "BW bashing", but offering nothing constructive as an alternative. It already seems to be setting itself up to do similar on the formation of CaRT from what I can see.

 

If we are to move forward my view is we need to accept we have to try and operate positively within whatever framework we are forced to operate, whatever we perceive its shortcomings to be. I don't think a load of "Victors" sat on the sidelines will be helpful at all, and I personally would much prefer that those who manage to get themselves on the council do not come to it with such a pre-conceived agenda.

[Higgs]

I think you might find the comment was tongue in cheek, that apart all links to NBW need to carry a health warning.

 

Yes, I realise that NBW is held in low esteem here and there, on this forum. Here and there, you have to review what everyone says and thinks.

[cotswoldsman]

Yes, I realise that NBW is held in low esteem here and there, on this forum. Here and there, you have to review what everyone says and thinks.

 

You mean like reading The Daily Mail?

 

You have just linked to NBW, against your 'better' judgement.

 

Bit like NBW you put something in quotes that is not on Alan's post

[Higgs]

I personally would much prefer that those who manage to get themselves on the council do not come to it with such a pre-conceived agenda.

 

 

I hope so too. Also, I do not view all things said as gospel. I'm quite happy to read what you say and what NWB say and what others say. In the long run I hope it will all become clear.

[alan_fincher]

Here and there, you have to review what everyone says and thinks.

And apparently, as John has just said, it is acceptable to say someone has just said something which they have not.

 

If you had taken the time to think about what you posted, I'm the only person who is in a position to decide if I am doing something against my better judgement, (as nobody else is in a position to know whether I had a better judgement, or not!).

 

I don't know why it is so, but I must have had about 4 or 5 instances in the last few days when someone has explicitly said I have had said something on here which I demonstrably have not. Each time this happens may only seem like a small thing, but it does inhibit proper debate. I'd much rather be discussing what I did say than what I didn't.

[Higgs]

You mean like reading The Daily Mail?

 

Bit like NBW you put something in quotes that is not on Alan's post

 

As a rule, I don't read or buy any newspapers. But, I try and find out what I can about the canals, given the time I have available. If I had to form an arguement about the BNP, I would read what they write; that's not to say I don't already have strong opinions against them.

 

As far as my response to Alan: You'd have to be really unaware of Alan's opinion of NWB not see that he was apologising for having to make the link to NBW. He chose to make the link, and his 'better' judgement was strained. It cannot, therefore, be expressed that NWB has nothing of use, even by the those who object the most to their practise.

 

My words were my intepretation of Alan's action, expressed to illustrate my understanding of Alan's ambivalence.

 

Ps; it wasn't a quote, it was used to imply that Alan's judgement is not everyones. Depends and varies, in context, with each topic.

Edited December 12, 2011 by Higgs

[jenlyn]

I don't know...I took your word for it

 

Even if this is not the case, though, I would have thought they would be putting their own candidates forward, for the 4 available boaters' places.

 

Sliding another in, as a CWDF nominee would still be a bit naughty.

It would be well flippin naughty! In fact, taking the pi$$

[KenK]

CONSTITUENCY INITIAL NUMBER OF COUNCIL MEMBERS Elected Nominated Total

1.

Private Boating 4 1 5

2.

Boating Business 2 2

3.

Volunteers (1) 1

4.

Other Supporters – walkers, anglers, (4) 4

cyclists, neighbours, donors, etc

 

5.

Employees 1 1

6.

Historic Environment 2 2

7.

Natural Environment 2 2

8.

Local Government 2 2

9.

Local Partnerships Chairs

(including Museums and all Wales Partnerships) 13 13

ex-officio

10.

Co-options 3 3

INITIAL TOTAL 35

 

This is from the Trustees initial report.

 

Ken

 

Cutting and pasting never seems to work. Fist figure is elected only boaters and employees, second figure nominated, last one total

 

Ken

[fuzzyduck]

CONSTITUENCY INITIAL NUMBER OF COUNCIL MEMBERS Elected Nominated Total

3.Volunteers (1) 1

4.Other Supporters – walkers, anglers, (4) 4

cyclists, neighbours, donors, etc

 

 

The voluteers, and people who take their dogs for a dump on the towpath are initially nominated, but will be elected.

 

Is there an easy way to identify people who like to drink Special Brew under canal bridges?

Edited December 12, 2011 by fuzzyduck

[Higgs]

The voluteers, and people who take their dogs for a dump on the towpath are initially nominated, but will be elected.

 

Is there an easy way to identify people who like to drink Special Brew under canal bridges?

 

I have a really nice nest prepared for you. It has central heating, and a nice reading lamp, and a front door. Just take your coat off and try it out. Can you read? I was just wondering, because if not I won't have to remove the previous owners name; Donald Oven.

[cotswoldsman]

My words were my intepretation of Alan's action, expressed to illustrate my understanding of Alan's ambivalence.

 

 

 

Not here to defend alan he is perfectly capable of doing that himself. It would seem to me that you were trying to present your interpretation as fact

You have just linked to NBW, against your 'better' judgement.

 

Now it might be that English is my second language but that seems like a sentence stating a fact and can not see where alan said against his better judgement

Edited December 12, 2011 by cotswoldsman

[PeterScott]

Forms are now online here

[Higgs]

Not here to defend alan he is perfectly capable of doing that himself. It would seem to me that you were trying to present your interpretation as fact

 

 

Now it might be that English is my second language but that seems like a sentence stating a fact.

 

It is a fact that I did interpret Alan's words as I perceived them. And I perceived them as his view of NBW, but he did condescend to use NBW. He knew other people, who had a similar view of NBW, would see this and therefore had to qualify his use of NWB by a pre-apology.

 

So, having this less-than-heartwarming opinion of NBW, will this also be a problem if Alan found himself on the Council with a member of NBW. And they might not like Alan F, so it cuts both ways. And that's all we'd need for a flying start.

 

If Alan can pull me up for a critism then he shouldn't complain, if a bit comes back. Well, he can, and......? I'll accept that Alan doesn't go along with what I've said and he will invariably find all will not go on in the council without flies in the ointment.

 

And what's more, I might well have been even more accepting of NBW if Alan and yourself hadn't made the critisms of NBW that you have; making me wary. So, I do take it on board but I will have to use my own judgement to decide what to think and, where to go to find things out.

 

You have a view oF NBW, I have not made up my mind. I don't work on blind faith so you'll have to allow me find out.

 

I told you.....it wasn't a quote a few posts back. ???

Edited December 12, 2011 by Higgs

[fuzzyduck]

will this also be a problem if Alan found himself on the Council with a member of NBW. And they might not like Alan F, so it cuts both ways. And that's all we'd need for a flying start.

 

I wouldn't worry about that too much. The chances of finding 4 boaters from any source, who ever agree about anything will be impossible anyway.

[Higgs]

I wouldn't worry about that too much. The chances of finding 4 boaters from any source, who ever agree about anything will be impossible anyway.

 

 

True, but they won't be there for solo interests.

[cotswoldsman]

.

 

So, having this less-than-heartwarming opinion of NBW, will this also be a problem if Alan found himself on the Council with a member of NBW. And they might not like Alan F, so it cuts both ways. And that's all we'd need for a flying start.

 

 

 

So in your ideal world all council members will sing from the same song sheet, I hope not. The members will voted on what there views are on certain issues. So for example if you are of the view that all moorings should be 7 days and not 14 days then you will vote for that member, I certainly would't. Candidates have been asked to submit a Manifesto and I would hope that each member voted would have a different Manifesto. I will vote for the candidates that have the views similar to mine.

Edited December 12, 2011 by cotswoldsman

[Higgs]

So in your ideal world all council members will sing from the same song sheet, I hope not. The members will voted on what there views are on certain issues. So for example if you are of the view that all moorings should be 7 days and not 14 days then you will vote for that member, I certainly would't. Candidates have been asked to submit a Manifesto and I would hope that each member voted would have a different Manifesto. I will vote for the candidates that have the views similar to mine.

 

I'm afraid you're not reading my posts. And you're making my argument for me.

Edited December 12, 2011 by Higgs

[14skipper]

If anyone is going to be banned it should be boat owners who do not put something back into the waterways

 

Tim

 

I think most boat owners put something back into the waterways

 

14Skipper

[jenlyn]

I'm afraid you're not reading my posts. And you're making my argument for me.

Higgs, ignore it, armchair critics are not worth bothering with, or is it armchair debaters?

[cotswoldsman]

Higgs, ignore it, armchair critics are not worth bothering with, or is it armchair debaters?

 

Another great post..........

[Allan(nb Albert)]

I apologise profusely in advance for publishing a link to NarrowBoatWorld.

 

But as this one does claim to be penned directly by John Dodwell, and refers to what is being talked about above, I'll make an exception, as it says a bit more on the topic than I have so far been able to turn up anywhere else......

 

NBW Link - John Dodwell on CaRT Council Representation.

 

Next you will be kissing babies in order to get votes

[Mick and Maggie]

That, of course, may then lead some to renew the previous debate about the extent to which forum members can realistically make any attempt to come up with any kind of agreed "preferred candidate" list or not. This is where I still think the whole thing starts to get very tricky, but having declared my hand as wishing to stand, I think it is probably appropriate for any further views on that particular topic to come from other people, and not from me.

 

I have said it before....

 

Let forum members in good standing for the election criteria put their names forward. The prospective candidate can then supply the forum with their aspirations in the form of a manifesto, however not limited to 150 words.

 

 

What I want to know is, who wants my vote and then to tell me why I should vote for you?

 

As the secretary of a waterways user group (many are eligible to vote). We do not have a candidate within our group who wishes to stand. So I will be writing to the membership and proposing at our next meeting external candidates that we might want to give our support to.

[Capt Ahab]

I have said it before....

 

 

 

 

What I want to know is, who wants my vote and then to tell me why I should vote for you?

 

As the secretary of a waterways user group (many are eligible to vote). We do not have a candidate within our group who wishes to stand. So I will be writing to the membership and proposing at our next meeting external candidates that we might want to give our support to.

Mick and Maggie

I would value a reference to my blogpost explaining why I am standing being included in your communication to your members. I believe that my passion for the waterways oozes through every post! Andy

[fuzzyduck]

As the secretary of a waterways user group (many are eligible to vote). We do not have a candidate within our group who wishes to stand. So I will be writing to the membership and proposing at our next meeting external candidates that we might want to give our support to.

 

What do I need to add to my manifesto?