C&RT Council - PJS Election Broadcast

[mayalld]

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'?

 

Last time I looked, the rule that the person who started a thread owns it remained noticably absent from the forum rules.

 

Peter started this thread to promote his own candidacy, and it is entirely reasonable to use the thread, both to challenge him as to whether he would make a good candidate, and for others to advance their credentials so as to argue that they are a better choice. That is the nature, both of seeking election and discussions on internet forums.

 

I have little doubt that you would like to partition this into separate threads, because it suits your purposes that I shouldn't challenge what Peter says, and no doubt you already have it in mind that should there be a specific thread where I promote my candidacy that you, and your "friends" would weigh in so as to derail that thread.

 

And as to your final point;

 

"your account of the thought process appears woefully deficient" - Plain Speaking. Not an attack on Peter personally, but a critique of the corporate process within the IWA that came up with the policy that he supports..

 

"You really are a nasty piece of work" - Pure vitriolic bile, a personal attack on me.

 

I stand by my assessment of what I wrote and what you wrote.

[MartinClark]

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

A late nominee?

 

I may have to rethink my preferences...

I thought you preferred your old girls to be built of wood rather than iron, Carl?

[jenlyn]

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!!

Hopefully, you won't get elected. Enough weasels within BW, without adding another :0)

[carlt]

I thought you preferred your old girls to be built of wood rather than iron, Carl?

There was more irony than iron, in my post.

[Higgs]

There are a mass of boaters not members of an association. I'm one. Why should I be forced to be a member by default? Why should I be compelled to accept the principles of their boater members, who are themselves, bound by decisions made by both boater and non-boater members?

 

IWA boater members will be voting for the IWA, and will be playing second fiddle to the association. You will also be allowing the representation of non-boaters within the boaters' group. Non-boaters, who already have a group to represent them within the council, who already have representation within the IWA.

 

IWA boater members: Please point out, to where do boaters have go to find a group that represents boaters? Not hedges, not cyclists, not anglers, not elephants access to the towpath, not dog walkers, but boaters.

 

B O A T E R S> !!!!!!!!!!!! Huh?

[churchward]

There are a mass of boaters not members of an association. I'm one. Why should I be forced to be a member by default? Why should I be compelled to accept the principles of their boater members, who are themselves, bound by decisions made by both boater and non-boater members?

 

IWA boater members will be voting for the IWA, and will be playing second fiddle to the association. You will also be allowing the representation of non-boaters within the boaters' group. Non-boaters, who already have a group to represent them within the council, who already have representation within the IWA.

 

IWA boater members: Please point out, to where do boaters have go to find a group that represents boaters? Not hedges, not cyclists, not anglers, not elephants access to the towpath, not dog walkers, but boaters.

 

B O A T E R S> !!!!!!!!!!!! Huh?

 

How awful must the IWA be to be so hated I wonder?

 

I am a member of the IWA (by a gift rather than choice) and I am just a member I don't attend committees or hold any post within the IWA.

 

So far my impression of the IWA is very different to some of the folk on here. I see it very much being for navigable waterways and yes boating. This quarters members magazine is full of boating and boating related articles and has an interview with a CRT trustee. The adverts to be found also reflect a boating theme there is not one advert I would say in there that is not also similarly represented in Canal Boat or Waterways.

 

The IWA is interested in the waterways as a whole and as a national resource it does have other components than boaters as members I expect and represent those other interests. I don't see that getting in the way of the main thrust of maintaining and growing the miles of navigable inland waterways.

 

By the way you are wrong not all IWA members will be voting for the IWA candidates what nonsense to think any organisation could command such things is laughable. I will be voting for who I think is the best candidates. So far only 1 of the IWA folk gets close to my top 5 for instance.

 

In some ways this thread and others on the voting represent all I dislike about committees and factions. Many are concerned for good form and how the committee operates others concerned about there own faction/interests and bad mouthing all others. The problem then is who is left to actually do something constructive to make things better?

[carlt]

How awful must the IWA be to be so hated I wonder?

 

What makes you think the IWA are "hated"?

 

Just because I don't think a candidate, sponsored by a general interest organisation, should be elected to a role specifically created for boaters, does not translate to "hate".

 

As a matter of fact I think the IWA are much better than the NABO but I would favour a NABO candidate (if I thought that individual was the best person for the role) because their interests are dedicated to boaters, not "waterways users".

Edited February 3, 2012 by carlt

[Higgs]

How awful must the IWA be to be so hated I wonder?

 

I don't think anyone hates the IWA or it's candidates.

 

I just wonder why it's very difficult to get across the idea of a boaters' only representative group.

 

In so far as the candidates of the IWA keep affirming that they will not be forgetting boaters' needs, boaters will not be forgetting wider needs. Boaters' are quite capable of looking outwards. The maintenance of the navigation is fundamental to all and doesn't need to be stressed all the time.

 

There is really no need for the IWA to seek another platform. Boaters do not have one. I know which group I think should have one, and which group is being slightly mean in wanting the boaters' group as well as what they already have.

[mayalld]

Hopefully, you won't get elected. Enough weasels within BW, without adding another :0)

 

Thank you for the personal abuse.

 

I look forward to debating the issues with you and Mr Pink, should you decide that you would like to do so instead of just chucking insults at me.

[rgreg]

I am a member of the IWA but that doesn't mean I will be voting for an IWA candidate. I joined the IWA because I felt they were the best collective voice for boaters and were listened to by the decision makers in BW and Government. I'm not sure their role will be so valuable when C&RT launches

[David Schweizer]

Hopefully, you won't get elected. Enough weasels within BW, without adding another :0)

Please explain. I don't see anything vague or ambiguous in Dave's statement, or do you have a different interpretation of the word?

Edited February 3, 2012 by David Schweizer

[jenlyn]

Thank you for the personal abuse.

 

I look forward to debating the issues with you and Mr Pink, should you decide that you would like to do so instead of just chucking insults at me.

Personal Abuse?? Lol

You can't debate about things you know nothing about Dave, and you know absolutely nothing about LB or the K&A. "waits for the cracked record to start scratching again"

[Sir Nibble]

I don't really want to enter this debate here and now but it has become abundantly clear that there is a personality based hate campaign going on here completely unrelated to the issues. Every time I work an election I meet people that make me despair of democracy that such molluscs get a vote. I didn't expect it here.

[Cheshire cat]

I don't really want to enter this debate here and now but it has become abundantly clear that there is a personality based hate campaign going on here completely unrelated to the issues. Every time I work an election I meet people that make me despair of democracy that such molluscs get a vote. I didn't expect it here.

 

The old saying about giving someone enough rope and they will hang themselves seems to be in play. As far as I can see Peter has survived his mauling pretty well and now the eye of the storm has moved. Perhaps it's true there really is no such thing as bad publicity.

[alan_fincher]

The old saying about giving someone enough rope and they will hang themselves seems to be in play. As far as I can see Peter has survived his mauling pretty well and now the eye of the storm has moved. Perhaps it's true there really is no such thing as bad publicity.

You could be right!

 

I accepted an invite into the "Boater's Manifeso" Facebook group, where some of its leading players then tried to give me a public mauling because I wouldn't sign up to their manifesto 100%.

 

I got more messages of support out of that than I could have possibly imagined, whilst BM people backed away wondering quite what their aggressive performance had done to further damage their cause, (and then doubled the number of group moderators, even though it had been themselves needing moderating!).

 

I even got a more or less unreserved apology posted into my own Facebook group by them, even though I had made no attempt to court it.

 

If you can keep a collected calm, the benefits can be surprising, sometimes!

 

Personally I feel at the moment that with all the changes CaRT will inevitably bring to just about all boat owners the last thing we need is to be building more divisions amongst ourselves. I'd rather be debating the real issues.

[14skipper]

Thank you for the personal abuse.

 

I look forward to debating the issues with you and Mr Pink, should you decide that you would like to do so instead of just chucking insults at me.

 

No insults or abuse.But some of your recents posts certainly questions my voting for you.sorry.

 

14skipper

[PeterScott]

It's amazing how many forms are required to change a current bank account, and move a few quid between banks. A few thoughts on some comments a couple of pages back:

 

you are plugging the IWA's interest in waterways in general, yet you are standing for a place that is dedicated to boaters' interests in particular. It is obvious that the IWA wants to influence C&RT and I don't see how anyone standing on its ticket can possibly ignore its wider interests and work solely for the boater.

I believe that managing the C&B should mean that the IWA has an important consultative role to play but it doesn't qualify them to hijack a role reserved for a boater.

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. I would favour a candidate sponsored by the NABO, over the IWA ..., as there would be less conflict of interest. At least the NABO claims to represent just boaters, unlike the IWA.

IWA should have had a seat in their own right agreed, as they didnt what I would hope for is that they get 1 or possibly 2 but not all 4.

Both NABO and IWA engage with BW (and C&RT in future) on a wide agenda - including issues between different groups of boaters, and issues of the towingpath which are more loosely connected with boating. It's by covering all these things that we get the best for boaters. I have always said that BW take maximum advantage from reminding us of the different boating interests of different groups, and we should do our best to come to a common line. I've said before I see an 80% (or even 60%) vote for IWA supported people unlikely, and whoever is elected will have an interesting job is seeking influence for elected boating people, compared with others on the Council, the Trustees and the Management.

 

[David Fletcher, NABO] 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.

The Government thinks its contribution covers this, and is insisting on free access to the towing paths

 

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, ... the same pleasure in exchanging greetings with the less surly maggot drowners, and fear that cycling will drive away the happy [fishermen] 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.

Yes, this sums up the issue - and I've read the subsequent comments and I still think IWA have thought it all through to produce a workable policy document, making it easier to attract funding for the canal than if it wasn't there. BW also have a long towing path policy which I haven't found an online version of - which has adopted similar arguments.

 

As to the process relating to cyclists - we want cyclists on the towingpath because they are people using the canal, and welcoming them helps boaters show to the cummunities that we boat through, that we welcome visitors into our domain, the canal. Those who whizz along at vast rate are condemned by Sustrans too: the towing path owners - not always BW - need to have effective policies to deal with the problem. Needing to keep fishermen safe is a good argument for this. (But whatever we do, they're still grumpy). I agree that Council has cycling and fishing representatives who can speak for themselves; I'm not presenting their case: I'm saying that boaters need them, need the money that multi-use of towningpaths can bring in, need the support of local councils, and we should use extra money on navigation issues - of which better dredging is one.

[jenlyn]

Ok Peter Scott, can you explain why the IWA has 6 reps up for election? Why you could not have got together, had a vote to select one candidate? Can you understand why the IWA seems to be attracting resentment over this?

[Higgs]

I've thought it through too and I don't want to be forced to be a member of the IWA, thanks all the same. The IWA are really insistant that they know best and feel they can serve everyone. I just hope you can give your IWA boater members full representation at council meetings. I don't expect you to represent me, in an IWA capacity.

 

At least one IWA member has spent the time to try and put a view across on here. But, I would prefer to give the chance to an independent. Actually, the whole thrust of my argument has been for an independent voice for a boaters' group. It's obviously not seen as a prerequisite by some boaters.

 

If any are going to divide the boaters on this candidate question, it is most definitely the IWA doing the dividing. It's too late after election day. I don't think the division will stop. Did the trustees really think this through? To me, a boaters' group didn't seem to carry any vague and open invitations to associations; expanding to mean any and all users of the canal. Being a boater is obviously not a specific group. I hope canoeists have been saved this fudge.

[cotswoldsman]

The old saying about giving someone enough rope and they will hang themselves seems to be in play. As far as I can see Peter has survived his mauling pretty well and now the eye of the storm has moved. Perhaps it's true there really is no such thing as bad publicity.

 

Not so sure about a mauling......I think some concerns have been expressed about what is IWA's agenda by fielding5/6 candidates for 4 places on the Council. (a question though asked a few times has still not been answered)

[Allan(nb Albert)]

Ok Peter Scott, can you explain why the IWA has 6 reps up for election? Why you could not have got together, had a vote to select one candidate? Can you understand why the IWA seems to be attracting resentment over this?

 

Its still five according to an updated list on IWA's website. I guess AWCC's David Pearce or IWA have decided that the endorsement of a sixth candidate by a non-boating organisation would be detrimental.

 

As to why IWA should be sponsoring such a large number of candidates, I would have thought it obvious. They have been excluded from CART by other means so are resorting to putting up trustees as boater members of council.

 

I suspect IWA initially decided who would stand and Peter Scott was not one of the four. However, because he has decided to stand and he is a high ranking officer they feel obliged to endorse him.

 

Thinking ahead, IWA will get one or more boaters into council. What will happen then? An IWA 'boater' will be elected as chairman on the recommendation of CART trustees.

[jenlyn]

Its still five according to an updated list on IWA's website. I guess AWCC's David Pearce or IWA have decided that the endorsement of a sixth candidate by a non-boating organisation would be detrimental.

 

As to why IWA should be sponsoring such a large number of candidates, I would have thought it obvious. They have been excluded from CART by other means so are resorting to putting up trustees as boater members of council.

 

I suspect IWA initially decided who would stand and Peter Scott was not one of the four. However, because he has decided to stand and he is a high ranking officer they feel obliged to endorse him.

 

Thinking ahead, IWA will get one or more boaters into council. What will happen then? An IWA 'boater' will be elected as chairman on the recommendation of CART trustees.

I am a bit disapointed on the no show at BW for CRT launch by NBW Alan?

[Allan(nb Albert)]

I am a bit disapointed on the no show at BW for CRT launch by NBW Alan?

 

I thought CART was not being launched until June. I understand, however, that the waterways press were invited to meet Robin Evans in London last Thursday. Is that what you mean?

[jenlyn]

I thought CART was not being launched until June. I understand, however, that the waterways press were invited to meet Robin Evans in London last Thursday. Is that what you mean?

Yes, that's what I mean. Am not having a go at you, it would be handy to have a varied report of the meeting rather than the glossy only opinion.

[jelunga]

A late nominee?

 

I may have to rethink my preferences...

Unfortunately I do not think she has a 12 month Boat License so cannot stand.