C&RT Council - PJS Election Broadcast

[carlt]

How many of the other candidates are IWA members? Should they be disqualified as well?

 

Not at all and Peter would be high up on my list of favourites, if he was standing as an independent.

 

Membership of an organisation is not the issue, rather the sponsorship of a candidate by an organisation whose interests are not specifically those of boaters.

 

Once again you miss the point by a country mile Sue.

 

Just come back from a meeting where David Fletcher of NABO, gave us a talk on the transition. I have to say, I was quite impressed by the guy, maybe even converted!

I would favour a candidate sponsored by the NABO, over the IWA (if there wasn't an independent member that had won my vote), as there would be less conflict of interest.

 

At least the NABO claims to represent just boaters, unlike the IWA.

[matty40s]

David spoke at the first BW consultation meeting up the top end of the Stort. He was eloquent, managed to give a balanced view, and was very critical of the BW processes in place at such short notice.

He also engendered the view that working together could give rise to a NEW working process, and partnership, something that both the LondonBoaters, and North Lea and Stort Boaters groups, tried to put together. This worked as far as the moorings proposals went......and maybe will go far beyond that initial challenge.

[alan_fincher]

I was also at the talk in Rickmansworth last night given by David Fletcher,and thought he presented very well.

 

After chatting with him at the end,it was only when driving home that it occurred to me that there were one or two points I would have challenged him on.

 

I felt that David spoke well about what reasonable expectations we cold have as we move forward into the new world.

 

Two examples, (my interpretation of his comments, not his actual words).

 

He explained the situation with "Evans & Co", and that, (like other BW employees), the transfer of their employment from BW to CaRT is covered by "Transfer of Undertakings - Protected Employment" (TUPE) legislation. So, whilst he expected to see changes that meant some executives would probably not get renewed contracts when current ones expired, he did not expect wholesale removal of people at a senior level at this stage.

 

Also he said that whilst some may want to see cyclists and walkers having to pay directly to use tow-paths, established free use, and sheer difficulty of enforcement made it not a practical policy to pursue.

 

I agree with both the above - we should not insist on what is not possible, or not workable with the funding available. We need to concentrate our efforts on demands that are achievable.

 

But NABO are the one organisation so far to say they fully endorse the "Boaters Manifesto", and the BM contains both stuff saying that "Evans & Co" must be removed, and that we should charge others for use of the tow-path. For reasons like those alone, despite a lot of sensible "boater" stuff in it, I couldn't myself whole-heartedly endorse the BM.

 

I intend to contact David and put this apparent difference of views between what he said, and NABO's wholehearted endorsement of BM, and see what he says.

 

Otherwise I was impressed by David, and his heart is certainly in the right place, in my view.

[jelunga]

Just come back from a meeting where David Fletcher of NABO, gave us a talk on the transition. I have to say, I was quite impressed by the guy, maybe even converted!

He is a really kind man. He gave hs a lift back to our boat after an RBOA Agm, going well out of his way to help.

I am even thinking of joining NABO!

[PeterScott]

Peter I think you missed my question as to why IWA feels the need to field 5/6 candidates? ... presume that one of the reasons for fielding more candidates than places available is that the the feeling within IWA that 1/2 of the candidates are not up to the job.

Well, because we didn't do a pre-election between ourselves, which would have generated the criticism that we were excluding good people from the election. We have all spent at least a year with the issues of C&RT - funding, governance, whether to include EA waterways, etc and we have good experience of all the other boaters/navigation issues that arise in IWA work all the time - BW being its lovable self is usually one of the most prominent discussions at any IWA meeting. If the electorate choose any IWA candidates, they will have good people to do the job.

 

[iWA] uses its energies and resources on the waterways interests of those other groups which are frequently at odds with the interests of boaters. How many boaters were unhappy about Sustrans metalling hundreds of miles of tow path, with IWA's support, to make high speed cycle routes, for example?]

There is certainly no IWA policy that supports all metalled-towingpath schemes; they are all different. The proposed scheme on the Rochdale summit, which has had much debate in my Region goes thus: money from not-waterway sources becomes available for the towingpath - Sustrans sometimes involved but not always - the revised towing path will use less BW resources to maintain in the future, leaving more money for dredging, for example. If we support such schemes, it's because on balance that's in the interests of the navigation - and it's the same decision from a boating perspective: what gives us the best for boats. Our Towingpath Policy is on the website here for anyone to use as a resource, and it had a lot of though put into it. For example it says "A towing path should not be designated as part of a formal cycle route unless it is at least four metres in width, including the fringe but not the hedge or boundary. The two metres nearest the waterside should be reserved for pedestrians and anglers. The cycle track should be a clearly marked area, of the towing path, in the same way as a municipal cycle-way. Navigation authorities should compile and publish accurate and consistent lists of towing paths, in their jurisdiction, that are suitable for cycling. ...Motorised cycles, due to their weight and speed, are inappropriate for use on towing paths and should be banned, except where specifically authorised for use by the employees or contractors of the navigation authority, .... These issues are never simple, but we have thought about them extensively, and we hope they command support of boaters.

[Phoenix_V]

Well, because we didn't do a pre-election between ourselves, which would have generated the criticism that we were excluding good people from the election. We have all spent at least a year with the issues of C&RT - funding, governance, whether to include EA waterways, etc and we have good experience of all the other boaters/navigation issues that arise in IWA work all the time - BW being its lovable self is usually one of the most prominent discussions at any IWA meeting. If the electorate choose any IWA candidates, they will have good people to do the job.

 

There is certainly no IWA policy that supports all metalled-towingpath schemes; they are all different. The proposed scheme on the Rochdale summit, which has had much debate in my Region goes thus: money from not-waterway sources becomes available for the towingpath - Sustrans sometimes involved but not always - the revised towing path will use less BW resources to maintain in the future, leaving more money for dredging, for example. If we support such schemes, it's because on balance that's in the interests of the navigation - and it's the same decision from a boating perspective: what gives us the best for boats. Our Towingpath Policy is on the website here for anyone to use as a resource, and it had a lot of though put into it. For example it says "A towing path should not be designated as part of a formal cycle route unless it is at least four metres in width, including the fringe but not the hedge or boundary. The two metres nearest the waterside should be reserved for pedestrians and anglers. The cycle track should be a clearly marked area, of the towing path, in the same way as a municipal cycle-way. Navigation authorities should compile and publish accurate and consistent lists of towing paths, in their jurisdiction, that are suitable for cycling. ...Motorised cycles, due to their weight and speed, are inappropriate for use on towing paths and should be banned, except where specifically authorised for use by the employees or contractors of the navigation authority, .... These issues are never simple, but we have thought about them extensively, and we hope they command support of boaters.

 

I liked the links, couldnt find anything similar for the othe IWA candidates though, they are very shy arent they.

[mayalld]

There is certainly no IWA policy that supports all metalled-towingpath schemes; they are all different. The proposed scheme on the Rochdale summit, which has had much debate in my Region goes thus: money from not-waterway sources becomes available for the towingpath - Sustrans sometimes involved but not always - the revised towing path will use less BW resources to maintain in the future, leaving more money for dredging, for example. If we support such schemes, it's because on balance that's in the interests of the navigation - and it's the same decision from a boating perspective: what gives us the best for boats. Our Towingpath Policy is on the website here for anyone to use as a resource, and it had a lot of though put into it. For example it says "A towing path should not be designated as part of a formal cycle route unless it is at least four metres in width, including the fringe but not the hedge or boundary. The two metres nearest the waterside should be reserved for pedestrians and anglers. The cycle track should be a clearly marked area, of the towing path, in the same way as a municipal cycle-way. Navigation authorities should compile and publish accurate and consistent lists of towing paths, in their jurisdiction, that are suitable for cycling. ...Motorised cycles, due to their weight and speed, are inappropriate for use on towing paths and should be banned, except where specifically authorised for use by the employees or contractors of the navigation authority, .... These issues are never simple, but we have thought about them extensively, and we hope they command support of boaters.

 

You say that you have thought about them extensively, yet your account of the thought process appears woefully deficient.

 

The thought process set out above assumes that as a boater, my sole interest is in the diversion of funding into dredging, and that anything that will achieve that is in my interests.

 

Now, of course, increasing the funding available to dredge the channel is a positive thing, but that isn't without its limits. Yes, I want an easily navigable canal, but do I want an easily navigable canal at the expense of the visual amenity being damaged to such an extent that I don't actually want to go boating there?

 

As a boater, I enjoy the rural setting of many canals, and don't want that rural setting despoiled by a metalled towpath.

 

I also enjoy idle exchanges with people strolling on the towpath, and don't want to see them pushed away, as they will inevitably be if they find that their gentle strolls are now interupted by lycra clad hooligans who have no time to exchange pleasantries.

 

I even find the same pleasure in exchanging greetings with the less surly maggot drowners, and fear that cycling will drive away the happy souls who will find a pond to be happy at, leaving only the sulky buggers to grunt at me.

 

So, don't tell me that driving away the people that make boating enjoyable and laying a ugly strip of tarmac through my rural idyl for a few pounds gained is something that should command my unthinking support.

 

Perhaps this shows why IWA candidates, spouting the IWA party line will not make good BOATER representatives.

 

As a boater, I want to look at the pros and cons of cycling on the towpath exclusively from the boaters perspective. As the IWA, you are weighing the cyclists views as well.

 

Now, it is fair enough that the views of the various user groups be taken into account, but council achieves that by giving OTHER seats to various interest groups.

 

Electing IWA sponsored candidates will mean that voices on council that are supposed to be for boaters are for all waterway users. We have few enough places as it is, and electing people who aren't going to promote the boaters' interests above all else would be a bad move.

[journeyperson]

Motorised cycles, due to their weight and speed, are inappropriate for use on towing paths and should be banned, except where specifically authorised for use by the employees or contractors of the navigation authority, ....

 

As a boater, I want to look at the pros and cons of cycling on the towpath exclusively from the boaters perspective. As the IWA, you are weighing the cyclists views as well.

 

Now, it is fair enough that the views of the various user groups be taken into account, but council achieves that by giving OTHER seats to various interest groups.

 

Electing IWA sponsored candidates will mean that voices on council that are supposed to be for boaters are for all waterway users. We have few enough places as it is, and electing people who aren't going to promote the boaters' interests above all else would be a bad move.

 

I do agree with the points you are making here Dave, but can we be sure that a boaters representative won't have a motorised push-bike under a tarpaulin on his fore-deck?

Edited February 2, 2012 by journeyperson

[Chris Pink]

You say that you have thought about them extensively, yet your account of the thought process appears woefully deficient.

 

 

 

Every other candidate has behaved to the others with politeness and intelligence. They have criticised points of policy and statements but they don't start almost every rejoinder with this kind of snide and meaningless insult.

 

It does you no credit whatsoever. You really are a nasty piece of work

[cotswoldsman]

 

It does you no credit whatsoever. You really are a nasty piece of work

 

Chris your constant criticism of David does you no credit..............

[Northern candidate]

Chris your constant criticism of David does you no credit..............

[Northern candidate]

Well what a fiasco all there's people criticizing eachother seems really sad are these relaly the kind of people we need to represent us ?

I am a candidate ifrom Yorkshire yes we have canals and waterways up here to all I would say is if the boaters north of Birmingham want to be represented they need to vote for me CHRIS BROWN based in Doncaster looking after northern boaters to the best of my ability I have no other agenda not looking for self gratification or to feel important but think I need to grasp this opportunity to try to make sense of the shambles that is British Waterways

Chris

[Phoenix_V]

Well what a fiasco all there's people criticizing eachother seems really sad are these relaly the kind of people we need to represent us ?

I am a candidate ifrom Yorkshire yes we have canals and waterways up here to all I would say is if the boaters north of Birmingham want to be represented they need to vote for me CHRIS BROWN based in Doncaster looking after northern boaters to the best of my ability I have no other agenda not looking for self gratification or to feel important but think I need to grasp this opportunity to try to make sense of the shambles that is British Waterways

Chris

well i think you've just lost any chance of anyone from Birmingham South voting for you and most people North of Birmingham may well be looking for someone to represent all boaters so you may have just lost out there too.

[alan_fincher]

well i think you've just lost any chance of anyone from Birmingham South voting for you and most people North of Birmingham may well be looking for someone to represent all boaters so you may have just lost out there too.

Its an interesting dilemma for those of us who do travel around though isn't it, particularly the Continuous Cruisers, I guess.......

 

If you are North of Birmingham, and need representation is that handled by a Northern candidate, who then hands you over to a counterpart in the South if you travel South of Brum ?

 

Chris, your election statement doesn't actually mention that you are "looking after northern boaters", so thanks for giving us that extra information.

[matty40s]

Chris your constant criticism of David does you no credit..............

maybe not, but I think he has a point about Davids continuation of Forum style in his desire to be a representative of boaters everywhere.

If David can divide and disgruntle the very people he is wanting to represent, why would anyone vote for him. His views must represent ALL boaters, how is he going to alter his regulatory stances when he has someone not quite fitting the mould.

 

This is a trying time for all, boaters everywhere are being pinched in the pocket from everywhere, at home, in the boat, at the fuel stop, etc. They are also NOT receiving the service from BW that should be a right of their licence, whils seeing wastes of resources and money left right and centre. They need someone who will back them, Dave needs to grasp that if he wants to represent ALL boaters.

[cotswoldsman]

Well what a fiasco all there's people criticizing eachother seems really sad are these relaly the kind of people we need to represent us ?

I am a candidate ifrom Yorkshire yes we have canals and waterways up here to all I would say is if the boaters north of Birmingham want to be represented they need to vote for me CHRIS BROWN based in Doncaster looking after northern boaters to the best of my ability I have no other agenda not looking for self gratification or to feel important but think I need to grasp this opportunity to try to make sense of the shambles that is British Waterways

Chris

 

I find this a bit worrying. I certainly enjoy the banter of a North South divide but would hate to think that someone on the Council would have no concern for boaters on the waterways South of Birmingham. You certainly will be very low on my list, and I am in the North at present.

[David Schweizer]

Every other candidate has behaved to the others with politeness and intelligence. They have criticised points of policy and statements but they don't start almost every rejoinder with this kind of snide and meaningless insult.

 

It does you no credit whatsoever. You really are a nasty piece of work

Come on Chris, you are letting your self declared dislike of Dave cloud your perception of eveythuing he says. I have read and re-read his comments and the only phrase that comes close to your accusation of "snide and meaningless insult." is Dave's imitial observation which includes "your account of the thought process appears woefully deficient." hardly evidence of a "nasty piece of work"

Edited February 3, 2012 by David Schweizer

[Chris Pink]

Come on Chris, you are letting your self declared dislike of Dave cloud your perception of eveythuing he says. I have read and re-read his comments and the only phrase that comes close to your accusation of "snide and meaningless insult." is Dave's imitial observation which includes "your account of the thought process appears woefully deficient." hardly evidence of a "nasty piece of work"

 

Exactly so.

 

Peter Scott has conducted himself with calm civility and politeness throughout some fairly sustained challenges.

 

Dave Mayall on the other hand with such a meaningless insult is simply playing to the mob without adding anything to the debate..

 

I speak as I find.

[David Schweizer]

Exactly so.

 

Peter Scott has conducted himself with calm civility and politeness throughout some fairly sustained challenges.

 

Dave Mayall on the other hand with such a meaningless insult is simply playing to the mob without adding anything to the debate..

 

I speak as I find.

I agree with you about Peter's approach, but if you trawl through my posts on this thread Chris, you will find that I have been far from polite about some of Peter's contributions, with which I do not agree. However, you have not chosen to critise me, it does make your attacks on Dave look a bit vindictive.

[carlt]

...CHRIS BROWN based in Doncaster looking after northern boaters to the best of my ability I have no other agenda not looking for self gratification or to feel important but think I need to grasp this opportunity to try to make sense of the shambles that is British Waterways

Chris

Coming from Doncaster but living in the Midlands, I can sympathise with the view that the waterways of the North are barely acknowedged, South of Foxton, but I would only vote for someone who expressed a desire to redress this balance, not just do the reverse and ignore the Southerners.

 

Oh, and there's little point trying to make sense of BW...it's going so I'd prefer someone who wasn't living in the past but was trying to make sure the future (C&RT) makes more sense.

 

Edited to remove a Freudian slip.

Edited February 3, 2012 by carlt

[mayalld]

Exactly so.

 

Peter Scott has conducted himself with calm civility and politeness throughout some fairly sustained challenges.

 

Dave Mayall on the other hand with such a meaningless insult is simply playing to the mob without adding anything to the debate..

 

I speak as I find.

 

Whilst moving the debate from plain speaking, a telling it as it is to your usual nasty vitriolic pitch.

 

I'm sure that everybody already knows that you don't like me, and that you would sooner vote Maggie Thatcher onto the council than me, so please don't pretend that your indignation at me daring to robustly challenge the IWA position is anything other than a continuation of your usual ineffectual attacks on me

[carlt]

....and that you would sooner vote Maggie Thatcher onto the council than me...

A late nominee?

 

I may have to rethink my preferences...

[mayalld]

maybe not, but I think he has a point about Davids continuation of Forum style in his desire to be a representative of boaters everywhere.

If David can divide and disgruntle the very people he is wanting to represent, why would anyone vote for him. His views must represent ALL boaters, how is he going to alter his regulatory stances when he has someone not quite fitting the mould.

 

This is a trying time for all, boaters everywhere are being pinched in the pocket from everywhere, at home, in the boat, at the fuel stop, etc. They are also NOT receiving the service from BW that should be a right of their licence, whils seeing wastes of resources and money left right and centre. They need someone who will back them, Dave needs to grasp that if he wants to represent ALL boaters.

 

I have it thoroughly grasped.

 

Whilst I believe that all boaters should obey the rules, I also believe that BW/CRT should stick by the rules.

 

In a recent thread, it was suggested that BW were attempting to impose Winter Mooring fees on boaters trapped in the Cowroast lagoon, on the basis that they had an opportunity to leave. It was clear that the opportunity to leave wasn't adequate, and that as such it was "reasonable in the circumstances" not to move. I said as much and offered my arguing the toss skills if required.

 

Similarly, another forum member has had trouble with BW accepting the word of a resident that he was breaking the rules. I suggested that he should make a stand against any creeping further encroachment of the rules.

 

I have supported a RMP scheme (not a new idea, I don't claim it as my own), and developed ideas of how it would fit into the legal framework, as a way of changing the rules going forward so as to accomodate what people want, whilst building in safeguards to protect others against such changes affecting them adversely.

 

So, what do you know of me;

• I will support enforcement of the rules, which may not be of benefit to the person who is the subject of enforcement, but is of benefit to boaters as a whole.
• I will oppose "brass plating" of the rules by any authority seeking to go beyond what the rules actually require.
• I will support changes to the rules where, on balance, those changes create a net benefit.
• I will always act in the best interests of boaters. That may involve compromise and negotiation with other groups, but my starting point will always be what is best for boaters.
• I will press the boaters position forcibly, and advance sound arguments to support our position. Where necessary, I will bluntly expose failings in the position of other groups. They might think me rude, but any bluntness will always be accompanied by a thorough exploration of WHY their position is wrong, rather that simple insults.

I would suggest that my debating style shows that I am exactly the sort of person you want fighting your corner, even if you don't always agree with me!!

 

 

 

 

[mayalld]

Well what a fiasco all there's people criticizing eachother seems really sad are these relaly the kind of people we need to represent us ?

I am a candidate ifrom Yorkshire yes we have canals and waterways up here to all I would say is if the boaters north of Birmingham want to be represented they need to vote for me CHRIS BROWN based in Doncaster looking after northern boaters to the best of my ability I have no other agenda not looking for self gratification or to feel important but think I need to grasp this opportunity to try to make sense of the shambles that is British Waterways

Chris

 

Do we want people who criticize each other to represent us?

 

Yes, of course we do! CRT council will have a huge range of conflicting interests, and people who aren't prepared to be critical will be useless as members.

 

Happily, you seem to have grasped the concept, and have criticized people here for criticizing others (OK, it's a little bit contradictory, but it is a start), and you've called BW a shambles, which seems to be criticizing.

 

However, neither your election statement, nor anything that you have written tells me much about what you think should be changed, or where you stand on anything. Calling BW a shambles doesn't convince me that you are actually bringing anything to the party, so fire away. Tell people about your ideas, and how you would advance them.

 

I would also like to ask you to expand on your comment "looking after northern boaters". I am a northern boater (live near Manchester, boat on the Peak Forest, work in Leeds and Sheffield), but I'm not seeking to look after northern boaters. I'm looking to work for all boaters. My first pass of the candidates statements was to put those representing organisations or concentrating on narrow interests to the bottom of the pile.

 

You survived that cut to end up in the top half of my list, but if you seek to represent a narrow constituency, you will have to join the IWA candidates in the relegation zone.

 

We only have 4 slots on the council, and if we elect people seeking to represent narrow interests, many boaters will find that there is nobody on the council that speaks for them.

[Chris Pink]

Whilst moving the debate from plain speaking, a telling it as it is to your usual nasty vitriolic pitch.

 

I'm sure that everybody already knows that you don't like me, and that you would sooner vote Maggie Thatcher onto the council than me, so please don't pretend that your indignation at me daring to robustly challenge the IWA position is anything other than a continuation of your usual ineffectual attacks on me

 

I don't know you Dave so don't assume, once again, you can tell me my own mind. I speak in response to the words you write.

 

Yes, if you like you can hide behind these words but the fact remains (independent of any feelings I have) that once again you have railroaded someone else's election thread into your own campaign.

 

Why not start your own thread to state your own position rather than aggressively trying to take over everyone else's?

 

Your stance is that of the typical cowardly school bully - you are 'plain speaking' but I am 'nasty and vitriolic'?

Edited February 3, 2012 by Chris Pink