CaRT Council Elections & "The Boaters Manifesto"

[alan_fincher]

Peter Heather Underwood, (who I believe is Peter Underwood on CWDF), has issued the following on a Facebook Group for The Boater's Manifesto

 

Can we issue an open invitation to all candidates for the 4 'boater' positions on CRT council to join the Boaters' Manifesto group on FB and tell us where they stand in the manifesto? If you know any of them please point them towards the group.

 

The Boater's Manifesto has already been discussed on CWDF here. It generated quite a bit of heated debate, (and sadly the usual levels of falling out). Unusually I don't seem to have got involved.

 

It is of course reasonable for those behind the "manifesto" to ask those putting themselves forward for Council places whether they will support it. However it would also be interesting if those behind it make it clear whether it is their intention to actively support candidates who say they have their support, (or at least some candidates - I'm not quite sure what they would do if lots said this?). Or indeed will they actively try and oppose candidates that will not fully sign up to it ? Or are they simply judging their ground, before putting up a "slate" of their own candidates ?

 

I'll be immediately honest and say that I think it is dangerous at this stage to claim it as a voice of boaters generally. As far as I can see the petition is currently "signed" by less than 200 people, with quite a few of these anonymous, and in some cases possibly duplicated. Unlike the CaRT elections, (hopefully), it doesn't seem to have any control of "signatories" or on whether they are boat owners, or even otherwise "boaters".

 

Interestingly they seem to have more "names" joined their Facebook group than identifiable names on the petition. Perhaps not that surprising, as perhaps people like me have just joined that group, so we can take part in the discussion if we wish, and are keen to learn more about their agenda.

[Higgs]

What the hell has this been brought up for? It had it's day. If it were me I'd say leave it until the group was formed and deal with it as an authentic boaters' group. The group could at least offer a broader coverage and organise a vote.

[jenlyn]

I feel the boaters manifesto had a few good points, which were consequently taken on board by some. Then came a few of the usual dog crap cyclists fisherman moaners, who started to derail the idea. On top of that, Peter Underwoods approach sometimes gets up people's noses. I think perspective councillors might be better off pushing their own manifestos to be honest. I have chosen young Fincher for my vote, I believe he can produce good ideas, can listen to boaters, be realistic about their needs and most of all, I think others would listen to him.

[Higgs]

I feel the boaters manifesto had a few good points, which were consequently taken on board by some. Then came a few of the usual dog crap cyclists fisherman moaners, who started to derail the idea. On top of that, Peter Underwoods approach sometimes gets up people's noses. I think perspective councillors might be better off pushing their own manifestos to be honest. I have chosen young Fincher for my vote, I believe he can produce good ideas, can listen to boaters, be realistic about their needs and most of all, I think others would listen to him.

 

I think it's one for the future council group, but Peter Underwood might have to be satisfied that some parts may not be viable.

Edited January 5, 2012 by Higgs

[Allan(nb Albert)]

I think it's one for the future council group, but Peter Underwood might have to be satisfied that some parts may not be viable.

 

I thought the FOIA part was not viable but was happy to be proved wrong.

[jam pudd]

I feel the boaters manifesto had a few good points, which were consequently taken on board by some. Then came a few of the usual dog crap cyclists fisherman moaners, who started to derail the idea. On top of that, Peter Underwoods approach sometimes gets up people's noses. I think perspective councillors might be better off pushing their own manifestos to be honest. I have chosen young Fincher for my vote, I believe he can produce good ideas, can listen to boaters, be realistic about their needs and most of all, I think others would listen to him.

Likewise I agree that the "Boaters manifesto" has some good points. It's just a pity that it's principle objective of making significant improvements to our waterways is endangered by some rather radical proposals.

That said I've read Alan Fincher's presentation on his blog site and am unable to identify any proposal he has in mind to make improvements other than hoping to make the new managing regime more accountable than BW ever was.

He does say; quote" Too many bad decisions have happened under BW and there has never been a mechanism to challenge,....."

Question for Alan- Please will you identify five of these "bad desisions" made by BW over the past two years?

Also if it was in your power to instigate just one improvement which would benifit the boater universally what would this be?

Again, congrats to all who put their heads above the parapet but the electors do need to be told more about candidates objectives.

[Smelly]

Peter Underwoods approach sometimes gets up people's noses.

 

and that's why I've not signed; it strikes me as a very limited quorum to say the least... Whether individual issues therein could be brought up by Council members should, as others have said, be an issue for the Council once it's established.

[Higgs]

I thought the FOIA part was not viable but was happy to be proved wrong.

 

The original manifesto seemed to be hidden for quite a while and was then rapidly put forward. It's good that now having the FOIA seems to have bucked the trend of charity groups. At the time, I wished it had been more available for review and explanation. Once it had been whipped off it was done.

 

It is one reason I am in favour of a broadly acceptable group, to be more accessible. And, it should be accessible and not hidden between umpteen sites to hunt down.

[Yellowback]

 

I've read Alan Fincher's presentation on his blog site and am unable to identify any proposal he has in mind to make improvements other than hoping to make the new managing regime more accountable than BW ever was.

He does say; quote" Too many bad decisions have happened under BW and there has never been a mechanism to challenge,....."

 

 

Maybe that's not such a bad idea, he's going in with an open mind, unhindered by the baggage and agenda of the 'association' and 'boater' group sponsors a lot of the others are beholden to.

[David Schweizer]

Likewise I agree that the "Boaters manifesto" has some good points. It's just a pity that it's principle objective of making significant improvements to our waterways is endangered by some rather radical proposals.

That said I've read Alan Fincher's presentation on his blog site and am unable to identify any proposal he has in mind to make improvements other than hoping to make the new managing regime more accountable than BW ever was.

He does say; quote" Too many bad decisions have happened under BW and there has never been a mechanism to challenge,....."

Question for Alan- Please will you identify five of these "bad desisions" made by BW over the past two years?

Also if it was in your power to instigate just one improvement which would benifit the boater universally what would this be?

Again, congrats to all who put their heads above the parapet but the electors do need to be told more about candidates objectives.

If that is your opinion, that is fine, but but since when have you been appointed to speak on my (or anyone elses) behalf?

Edited January 5, 2012 by David Schweizer

[Rebotco]

Likewise I agree that the "Boaters manifesto" has some good points. It's just a pity that it's principle objective of making significant improvements to our waterways is endangered by some rather radical proposals.

That said I've read Alan Fincher's presentation on his blog site and am unable to identify any proposal he has in mind to make improvements other than hoping to make the new managing regime more accountable than BW ever was.

He does say; quote" Too many bad decisions have happened under BW and there has never been a mechanism to challenge,....."

Question for Alan- Please will you identify five of these "bad desisions" made by BW over the past two years?

Also if it was in your power to instigate just one improvement which would benifit the boater universally what would this be?

Again, congrats to all who put their heads above the parapet but the electors do need to be told more about candidates objectives.

 

 

I find the arrogance of this post quite staggering. I hope all candidates will ignore it.

 

1. Any proposals the candidates may have will be for the Council, not self-appointed interrogators on an open forum. The candidates' present role is to gather support for their abilities and commitment to serve boaters on that Council.

 

2. Why should he? Its irrelevant to the process of getting elected to the Council. If you really want to know, why don't you take the trouble to find out for yourself? This sounds more like a frustrated school-master's mischief-making question.

 

3. More irrelevance. Who are you to set yourself up as judge of what is of most benefit to me or other boaters?

 

4. David Schweitzer has already answered this demand.

 

It seems to me that this post inhabits the arid world of pseudo-intelligence where everything is theory, and reality is nothing.

Its the atmosphere that typifies politicians and why they too are so utterly sterile in dealing with the real world.

 

 

Brian

[cotswoldsman]

I feel the boaters manifesto had a few good points, which were consequently taken on board by some. Then came a few of the usual dog crap cyclists fisherman moaners, who started to derail the idea. On top of that, Peter Underwoods approach sometimes gets up people's noses. I think perspective councillors might be better off pushing their own manifestos to be honest. I have chosen young Fincher for my vote, I believe he can produce good ideas, can listen to boaters, be realistic about their needs and most of all, I think others would listen to him.

 

I find myself in complete agreement with you here.

 

Likewise I agree that the "Boaters manifesto" has some good points. It's just a pity that it's principle objective of making significant improvements to our waterways is endangered by some rather radical proposals.

That said I've read Alan Fincher's presentation on his blog site and am unable to identify any proposal he has in mind to make improvements other than hoping to make the new managing regime more accountable than BW ever was.

He does say; quote" Too many bad decisions have happened under BW and there has never been a mechanism to challenge,....."

Question for Alan- Please will you identify five of these "bad desisions" made by BW over the past two years?

Also if it was in your power to instigate just one improvement which would benifit the boater universally what would this be?

Again, congrats to all who put their heads above the parapet but the electors do need to be told more about candidates objectives.

 

You do spout a load of rubbish!! You do not have a clue..........and when are you going to explain the reason for the multiple identities.

[Offcumden]

I find the arrogance of this post quite staggering. I hope all candidates will ignore it.

 

1. Any proposals the candidates may have will be for the Council, not self-appointed interrogators on an open forum. The candidates' present role is to gather support for their abilities and commitment to serve boaters on that Council.

 

2. Why should he? Its irrelevant to the process of getting elected to the Council. If you really want to know, why don't you take the trouble to find out for yourself? This sounds more like a frustrated school-master's mischief-making question.

 

3. More irrelevance. Who are you to set yourself up as judge of what is of most benefit to me or other boaters?

 

4. David Schweitzer has already answered this demand.

 

It seems to me that this post inhabits the arid world of pseudo-intelligence where everything is theory, and reality is nothing.

Its the atmosphere that typifies politicians and why they too are so utterly sterile in dealing with the real world.

 

 

Brian

In previous posts on this and two other forums Bob Ellison (Jam Pudd) has stated that he is not a candidate for election, if that is the case and I have no reason to doubt it,I wonder if he would be prepared to enlighten us with an explanation as to why he is not.

From what I can gather from his posts and the personal information he has divulged it would appear that he

fits all of the criteria that he believes the ideal candidate should have.

He is obviously a man who is deeply concerned with the welfare of our waterways and their future as is evidenced by his use of Narrowboat World and Just Canals Forums to spark debate.

 

Bob I may well be doing you an injustice and you may not be able or prepared to stand as a candidate.

Given the usual apathy that invariably surrounds elections and your provocative postings as relative new poster to this forum could you please inform us of your true motives

[David Schweizer]

In previous posts on this and two other forums Bob Ellison (Jam Pudd) has stated that he is not a candidate for election, if that is the case and I have no reason to doubt it,I wonder if he would be prepared to enlighten us with an explanation as to why he is not.

From what I can gather from his posts and the personal information he has divulged it would appear that he

fits all of the criteria that he believes the ideal candidate should have.

He is obviously a man who is deeply concerned with the welfare of our waterways and their future as is evidenced by his use of Narrowboat World and Just Canals Forums to spark debate.

 

Bob I may well be doing you an injustice and you may not be able or prepared to stand as a candidate.

Given the usual apathy that invariably surrounds elections and your provocative postings as relative new poster to this forum could you please inform us of your true motives

That was very tactfully tongue in cheek (I hope)

[Allan(nb Albert)]

That was very tactfully tongue in cheek (I hope)

 

Less tactfully, are you a stalking horse Bob?

[jam pudd]

In previous posts on this and two other forums Bob Ellison (Jam Pudd) has stated that he is not a candidate for election, if that is the case and I have no reason to doubt it,I wonder if he would be prepared to enlighten us with an explanation as to why he is not.

From what I can gather from his posts and the personal information he has divulged it would appear that he

fits all of the criteria that he believes the ideal candidate should have.

He is obviously a man who is deeply concerned with the welfare of our waterways and their future as is evidenced by his use of Narrowboat World and Just Canals Forums to spark debate.

 

Bob I may well be doing you an injustice and you may not be able or prepared to stand as a candidate.

Given the usual apathy that invariably surrounds elections and your provocative postings as relative new poster to this forum could you please inform us of your true motives

All reasonable questions here.

I'm not a candidate because I'd rather get on and enjoy the time I have left cruising the network than fighting uphill battles. I've done my bit for my fellow man in another life and at 70 yrs. I'm happy to leave to others the work at hand sorting out the mess left us by Defra and BW. I have no ulterior motive participating on this and other forums. My intention has been simply to spark deeper debate over the problems we all face with the transition to Trust status and onwards. I certainly do not act for any candidate. With regard to multi-identities; I have inadvertently registered three times due to inexperience “blogging” combined with messing up pass words. In all cases my name and boat name has been clear, unlike so many other prominent participants in this and other forums. I find it regrettable that some of my posts have met with such belligerent responses. If in asking a candidate what or how he intends to do on our behalf I'm considered to be arrogant by some responders then how can we judge if he or she is worth a vote. When a politician calls at our doors do we not question his attitude to specific issues? I have a broad back but I believe that much of the rhetoric coming through these debates is deterring others from joining the election forums. We are all loosing out if I am correct.

Yes, I'm passionate about getting our waterways in better shape. Yes, I believe that the existing BW management has failed for too long to deal with the significant maintenance issues and no, I don't believe insufficient funds has been the main problem – it's the way much of it is spent that needs thorough investigation. And I believe that our councillors will need to be very tough characters to push and push and push for this to occur! I doubt many disagree with me that a route and branch shake-up is required. For too long our increasing licence fees have funded the entrepreneurial aspirations of BW senior management – individuals who are first and foremost civil servants. For too long management has treated the boaters complaints and objections as irritants. And, for too long they've been paid way above their true worth! Yes, these comments may seem arrogant to some readers. However, perhaps the forum might be more meaningful if participants stopped slagging off members (who are thought to be arrogant) and deal with issues they think need quick attention once the council is formed. Would that not be more helpful to candidates? I believe that if meaningful good is to come our way after transition then we'll need four very, very special candidates to win and work resolutely to make their mark as councillors. Let's hear from them sooner rather than later.

This really is my last word on this election on this forum. (Do I hear hooray from a few quarters?)

Bob Ellison

[Rebotco]

All reasonable questions here.

I'm not a candidate because I'd rather get on and enjoy the time I have left cruising the network than fighting uphill battles. I've done my bit for my fellow man in another life and at 70 yrs. I'm happy to leave to others the work at hand sorting out the mess left us by Defra and BW. I have no ulterior motive participating on this and other forums. My intention has been simply to spark deeper debate over the problems we all face with the transition to Trust status and onwards. I certainly do not act for any candidate. With regard to multi-identities; I have inadvertently registered three times due to inexperience “blogging” combined with messing up pass words. In all cases my name and boat name has been clear, unlike so many other prominent participants in this and other forums. I find it regrettable that some of my posts have met with such belligerent responses. If in asking a candidate what or how he intends to do on our behalf I'm considered to be arrogant by some responders then how can we judge if he or she is worth a vote. When a politician calls at our doors do we not question his attitude to specific issues? I have a broad back but I believe that much of the rhetoric coming through these debates is deterring others from joining the election forums. We are all loosing out if I am correct.

Yes, I'm passionate about getting our waterways in better shape. Yes, I believe that the existing BW management has failed for too long to deal with the significant maintenance issues and no, I don't believe insufficient funds has been the main problem – it's the way much of it is spent that needs thorough investigation. And I believe that our councillors will need to be very tough characters to push and push and push for this to occur! I doubt many disagree with me that a route and branch shake-up is required. For too long our increasing licence fees have funded the entrepreneurial aspirations of BW senior management – individuals who are first and foremost civil servants. For too long management has treated the boaters complaints and objections as irritants. And, for too long they've been paid way above their true worth! Yes, these comments may seem arrogant to some readers. However, perhaps the forum might be more meaningful if participants stopped slagging off members (who are thought to be arrogant) and deal with issues they think need quick attention once the council is formed. Would that not be more helpful to candidates? I believe that if meaningful good is to come our way after transition then we'll need four very, very special candidates to win and work resolutely to make their mark as councillors. Let's hear from them sooner rather than later.

This really is my last word on this election on this forum. (Do I hear hooray from a few quarters?)

Bob Ellison

 

 

Bob, I have been one of those to slag you off recently and if that has caused you distress, I do apologise. Most of what you say I actually agree with, but sometimes its the way you say it that has got up my nose, and I have probably overreacted.

 

In contrast, your post above is presented with humility, and I appreciate that. I do think that quality makes your points far more effectively.

 

So, again, I am sorry if I have gone OTT a bit and I look forward to more of your posts in the future.

 

Brian

[Offcumden]

All reasonable questions here.

I'm not a candidate because I'd rather get on and enjoy the time I have left cruising the network than fighting uphill battles. I've done my bit for my fellow man in another life and at 70 yrs. I'm happy to leave to others the work at hand sorting out the mess left us by Defra and BW. I have no ulterior motive participating on this and other forums. My intention has been simply to spark deeper debate over the problems we all face with the transition to Trust status and onwards. I certainly do not act for any candidate. With regard to multi-identities; I have inadvertently registered three times due to inexperience “blogging” combined with messing up pass words. In all cases my name and boat name has been clear, unlike so many other prominent participants in this and other forums. I find it regrettable that some of my posts have met with such belligerent responses. If in asking a candidate what or how he intends to do on our behalf I'm considered to be arrogant by some responders then how can we judge if he or she is worth a vote. When a politician calls at our doors do we not question his attitude to specific issues? I have a broad back but I believe that much of the rhetoric coming through these debates is deterring others from joining the election forums. We are all loosing out if I am correct.

Yes, I'm passionate about getting our waterways in better shape. Yes, I believe that the existing BW management has failed for too long to deal with the significant maintenance issues and no, I don't believe insufficient funds has been the main problem – it's the way much of it is spent that needs thorough investigation. And I believe that our councillors will need to be very tough characters to push and push and push for this to occur! I doubt many disagree with me that a route and branch shake-up is required. For too long our increasing licence fees have funded the entrepreneurial aspirations of BW senior management – individuals who are first and foremost civil servants. For too long management has treated the boaters complaints and objections as irritants. And, for too long they've been paid way above their true worth! Yes, these comments may seem arrogant to some readers. However, perhaps the forum might be more meaningful if participants stopped slagging off members (who are thought to be arrogant) and deal with issues they think need quick attention once the council is formed. Would that not be more helpful to candidates? I believe that if meaningful good is to come our way after transition then we'll need four very, very special candidates to win and work resolutely to make their mark as councillors. Let's hear from them sooner rather than later.

This really is my last word on this election on this forum. (Do I hear hooray from a few quarters?)

Bob Ellison

Bob

Many thanks for the courtesy of your reply I now have no doubts of your motivation. Enjoy your time on the waterways

[Allan(nb Albert)]

All reasonable questions here.

I'm not a candidate because I'd rather get on and enjoy the time I have left cruising the network than fighting uphill battles. I've done my bit for my fellow man in another life and at 70 yrs. I'm happy to leave to others the work at hand sorting out the mess left us by Defra and BW. I have no ulterior motive participating on this and other forums. My intention has been simply to spark deeper debate over the problems we all face with the transition to Trust status and onwards. I certainly do not act for any candidate. With regard to multi-identities; I have inadvertently registered three times due to inexperience “blogging” combined with messing up pass words. In all cases my name and boat name has been clear, unlike so many other prominent participants in this and other forums. I find it regrettable that some of my posts have met with such belligerent responses. If in asking a candidate what or how he intends to do on our behalf I'm considered to be arrogant by some responders then how can we judge if he or she is worth a vote. When a politician calls at our doors do we not question his attitude to specific issues? I have a broad back but I believe that much of the rhetoric coming through these debates is deterring others from joining the election forums. We are all loosing out if I am correct.

Yes, I'm passionate about getting our waterways in better shape. Yes, I believe that the existing BW management has failed for too long to deal with the significant maintenance issues and no, I don't believe insufficient funds has been the main problem – it's the way much of it is spent that needs thorough investigation. And I believe that our councillors will need to be very tough characters to push and push and push for this to occur! I doubt many disagree with me that a route and branch shake-up is required. For too long our increasing licence fees have funded the entrepreneurial aspirations of BW senior management – individuals who are first and foremost civil servants. For too long management has treated the boaters complaints and objections as irritants. And, for too long they've been paid way above their true worth! Yes, these comments may seem arrogant to some readers. However, perhaps the forum might be more meaningful if participants stopped slagging off members (who are thought to be arrogant) and deal with issues they think need quick attention once the council is formed. Would that not be more helpful to candidates? I believe that if meaningful good is to come our way after transition then we'll need four very, very special candidates to win and work resolutely to make their mark as councillors. Let's hear from them sooner rather than later.

This really is my last word on this election on this forum. (Do I hear hooray from a few quarters?)

Bob Ellison

 

My experience of multiple identities is that they are used for the nefarious purpose of manipulating topics. For example, an individual starts a topic using identity A then answers himself using identity B. Some others chip in but the topic is controlled and manipulated by a single person using dual identities.

 

Having checked, I can find no evidence of this and am happy to accept Bob's explanation.

 

Unlike earlier posts, I find Bobs last post has much to commend it (perhaps he is a fast learner) and am sorry that it will be his last.

[jam pudd]

Less tactfully, are you a stalking horse Bob?

Sorry for delay in responding..... No I'm not a stalking horse, just an opinionated saddo with a keen interest in matters which affect me - plus an abhorrence to apathy which seems to exist – emphasised by the very few of us who contributed to the original consultation! Anyway as I've said several times, my objective has been simply to attempt to engender more interest in what we hope to get from our councillors. All I seem to have done is spike some rather belligerent responses. So.... I'm outa here!

Best wishes to candidates.

Bob

[David Schweizer]

Sorry for delay in responding..... No I'm not a stalking horse, just an opinionated saddo with a keen interest in matters which affect me - plus an abhorrence to apathy which seems to exist – emphasised by the very few of us who contributed to the original consultation! Anyway as I've said several times, my objective has been simply to attempt to engender more interest in what we hope to get from our councillors. All I seem to have done is spike some rather belligerent responses. So.... I'm outa here!

Best wishes to candidates.

Bob

I don't want to see you go, but have you considered that having ago on here about people being apathetic is a bit counter productive? Surely the very fact that people bother to construct text which reflects their views and post it on here is an indication of them not being apathetic, so their "beligerant responses" shiould not generate surprise.

 

It is a bit like the Choir Master who complains about poor attendance to the few people who turn up for Choir practice, they are the ones who should be thanked.

[alan_fincher]

All I seem to have done is spike some rather belligerent responses.

Probably a bit harsh, because although you have ruffled some feathers, others have discussed with you quite reasonably, I would say, (this thread, and others).

 

You have even extracted an apology from someone who has said they may have initially overreacted.

 

Personally I am happy to debate with anybody. I think points about apathy in some quarters are valid, and some of us are trying to make people think about the issues.

 

Back to the original topic, but sticking with the apathy issue, I guess I am genuinely surprised that in view of how easy it was for people to circulate details of the Boater's Manifesto Petition widely, (including on here), and ask people to vote, they have only got around 180 signatories.

 

There are a similar number of people allied to a Facebook group where it is receiving debate, but I think an attempt to marry the names on the signatories list to those in the Facebook group would probably not produce a huge number of matches from what I could see. That tells me that quite a few people are actually not apathetic in this particular case, because they are studying the issue, or entering the debate. However, for whatever reason, it still doesn't seem to be producing a big buy in to the petition, which in turn makes it hard to support the claim that it has the widespread support of many boaters. I would say a lot are prepared to look at what has been done with BM, but have not felt they want to endorse it, for whatever resaon.

 

I think the problem with this is that by putting up a single manifesto, it really requires you to buy into all of it. So even if you thing much of what they want for boaters is entirely reasonable, (and in many cases, of course, no different from what many of us would say independently), where should you stand if you are uncomfortable with other parts.

 

Just as a "for instance" under "Towpath Issues" they say......

 

We do believe it is essential the Canal and River Trust finds ways of

ensuring all those users contribute to the costs of upkeep and abide by a

national set of rules.

 

Once again enforcement will be the key to stopping dog fouling, rubbish and

speeding cyclists putting lives at risk.

 

Fine rhetoric, and no doubt loads of people on here would say "wonderful, about time others pay up" or "yes, let's get out there and police those who show no respect for other users", but in my view it is not sensible to include demands that however much support there might be for them, have no practical chance of being implemented or enforced.

 

Are you seriously going to be able to take money off cyclists for using tow-paths, (other than what they already contribute via general taxation)? No, of course not - we don't charge them to use roads or cycleways either. It was also piloted on the K&A years ago, and quickly failed. Is the money going to be there by any means to go out and entrap those who own dogs that are uncontrolled or foul ? No, of course not again.

 

This is not me saying "we are powerless to change anything", far from it, but there are certain areas where I believe trying to collect extra revenues would be totally impractical, or where I believe education has a far better chance of success than enforcement.

 

Perhaps it is not apathy stopping people signing - perhaps it is because they find bits of it they can't buy in to, even if they agree with quite a lot of it ?

[jam pudd]

I don't want to see you go, but have you considered that having ago on here about people being apathetic is a bit counter productive? Surely the very fact that people bother to construct text which reflects their views and post it on here is an indication of them not being apathetic, so their "beligerant responses" shiould not generate surprise.

 

It is a bit like the Choir Master who complains about poor attendance to the few people who turn up for Choir practice, they are the ones who should be thanked.

I WASN'T TALKING ABOUT APETHY ON THIS SITE OR ANYTHING TO DO WITH THE BOATERS MANIFESTO! I WAS REFERING TO THE VERY FEW BOATERS WHO RESPONDED TAKING PART IN THE PUBLIC CONSULTATION CONDUCTED BY BW/CT/AND DEFRA TO ESTABLISH OUR THOUGHTS ON THE ESTABLISHMENT OF THE TRUST. MY RECOLLECTION IS THAT AS FEW AS 350 RESPONSES WERE RECEIVED. THE FIGURE MAY BE INACCURATE BUT BUT MY CLEAR RECOLLECTION IS THAT VERY FEW OF US BOTHERED TO PARTICIPATE - DUE TO APETHY!!

BOB ELLISON