Alan Fincher for Canal and River Trust Council

[carlt]

I have known Sue for 40 years plus, she used to work for Peter Froud (Canal Voyagers, Inland Waterway Holidays) as I did in 1962, she is committed to canals as I am, even after the influx of latter day boaters!. she and her sister and brother in law have probley done more boating than all of us put together. She got my vote.

I don't doubt Sue's credentials but, as she's nailed her colours to the HNBOC mast, despite being the only national waterways organisation I support, I would not vote for her.

 

A single issue organisation taking a Boaters place is just as bad as an organisation with a wider remit, such as the IWA taking one.

[alan_fincher]

There is a need for members of the Council who are aware of and sympathetic to the particular needs of historic boats.

I agree, but I would say that, of course, as I now own one. In fact, (and there would be nobody better than Sue Cawson to tell you this, I think!), the continuing passage of these boats up and down the cut in a sensible way does more to guarantee proper navigation by other boats that just about anything else. If a lumbering 71' 6" boat, on a 3' draught, and probably designed with a width significantly of 7 feet, can get through a particular stretch of canal, lock, or bridge hole, there is a very very good chance that most modern leisure boaters are guaranteed a trouble free passage. It is precisely because the likes of HNBOC put pressure on BW when a lock actually ends up being under 7 feet across, that most other leisure boaters rarely get jammed in them big time.

 

There is also a need for any such members to also be sympathetic to the fact that the canals are for all boaters, and that "Latter day boaters" are not merely to be tolerated in the Historic Boats playground.

Also agree totally, but be strictly honest, if you go on (say) a 2 week extended trip, how many historic boats do you actually encounter using their "playground". (I'm assuming you don't count those actually trading, for example selling fuel, and offering services like pump-out, to other boaters, as "playing" ?

 

Unfortunately, amongst historic boat enthusiasts, there are many who do take this attitude, and whilst Sue has a respectable mid-table ranking from me at present, I would need to be more confident that she isn't part of the "get out of the way, historic boat" crowd if she is to climb higher on my list

A point we have discussed in the past, and I firmly disagree. I have seen no more evidence of historic boat owners behaving as a group in an arrogant way than you might get from other classifications of boaters.

 

The problem is, I feel, they are a much easier target to spot, so if say one particular organisation operating a pair of "heritage" boats has some crews that bludgeon around the system like they own it, then the majority of historic boat owners who do behave in a sensible way tend to get tarred with the same brush.

 

No, I'm not claiming we are all perfect. There is one owner of an historic boat not far from here that treats the canal like it is impossible to break anything, and frankly I wish he would sell up to someone who doesn't. But these fortunately, in my experience, are rare exceptions.

 

As someone who is maybe half the time out on an historic boat, and the other half on a "modern" "latter day" leisure boat, you would be amazed just how differently you get treated. Shame really, as I'm still the same steerer, whichever tiller I actually have hold of at the time!

Edited February 10, 2012 by alan_fincher

[Leni]

No it isn't. I see boaters being represented in general not individually. I can't see a representative going to a meeting and saying Joe Blogs our member is having mooring problems for example.

 

Sue

 

Quite right! I think there's a lot of misunderstanding of what the 4 'boater representatives' will be there for. Like on a board of School Governors, the Parent Representatives are NOT there to raise issues specifically relating to the parents, nor the Staff Governors specifically to raise issues on behalf of the staff, etc. Of course they bring to the table the points of view of their 'constituent group', but they are representatives OF that group not exclusively FOR that group!

[carlt]

Quite right! I think there's a lot of misunderstanding of what the 4 'boater representatives' will be there for. Of course they bring to the table the points of view of their 'constituent group', but they are representatives OF that group not exclusively FOR that group!

Sorry but if an organisation is sponsoring a candidate then they will expect that candidate to toe the party line, when necessary, or there is no point them getting involved.

 

Like on a board of School Governors, the Parent Representatives are NOT there to raise issues specifically relating to the parents, nor the Staff Governors specifically to raise issues on behalf of the staff, etc.

Having been a school governor, I found that is exactly what happened and, because the places were specifically targeted as such, that is exactly how it should be.

[Higgs]

It is precisely because the likes of HNBOC put pressure on BW when a lock actually ends up being under 7 feet across, that most other leisure boaters rarely get jammed in them big time.

 

This is one good reason that we don't need to duplicate association groups in the council group. These associations function as they are. We tend to know what they will do and what their effects are.

 

There's no measurement for a boater's group. It doesn't exist and it won't exist with associations in it.

[Leni]

Sorry but if an organisation is sponsoring a candidate then they will expect that candidate to toe the party line, when necessary, or there is no point them getting involved.

 

 

Having been a school governor, I found that is exactly what happened and, because the places were specifically targeted as such, that is exactly how it should be.

 

I think perhaps there is a misunderstanding of the point I was making here. I was also a School Governor (Parent Governor) for 8 years and my other half still is a School Governor (initially a Parent Governor, now Local Authority Appointed) and has been for 25 years. We attended the Governor Training sessions organised by our LEA and were soon disabused of the idea that we were joining a Governing Body exclusively to raise issues on behalf of parents!

 

Of course you bring your background and the views of your group to the position, but once you are a Governor (or, in this case, a CRT Council representative) you become just one part of the whole. As Sue pointed out, you are there to raise general issues of concern to all your 'constituents' not to raise the issue of an individual Joe Bloggs and his mooring problems!

[David Schweizer]

I think perhaps there is a misunderstanding of the point I was making here. I was also a School Governor (Parent Governor) for 8 years and my other half still is a School Governor (initially a Parent Governor, now Local Authority Appointed) and has been for 25 years. We attended the Governor Training sessions organised by our LEA and were soon disabused of the idea that we were joining a Governing Body exclusively to raise issues on behalf of parents!

 

Of course you bring your background and the views of your group to the position, but once you are a Governor (or, in this case, a CRT Council representative) you become just one part of the whole. As Sue pointed out, you are there to raise general issues of concern to all your 'constituents' not to raise the issue of an individual Joe Bloggs and his mooring problems!

It clearly depends upon how the School Govenors are appointed. The correct proceedure, as you say, should be a Govenor appointed by the Parents/Parish Council/Church/Local Autghority etc. Unfortunately there are quite few instances where Govenors are appoiunted as A Parent's/Church's/Staff etc. Representative, and are described as such. This, inevitably, gives rise to confusion as to where their loyalties lie.

Edited February 10, 2012 by David Schweizer

[Leni]

It clearly depends upon how the School Govenors are appointed. The correct proceedure, as you say, should be a Govenor appointed by the Parents/Parish Council/Church/Local Autghority etc. Unfortunately there are quite few instances where Govenors are appoiunted as A Parent's/Church's/Staff etc. Representative, and are described as such. This, inevitably, gives rise to confusion as to where their loyalties lie.

Exactly! And that's why I'm voting for independent boaters' 'representatives', to avoid any such confusion!

[carlt]

As Sue pointed out, you are there to raise general issues of concern to all your 'constituents' not to raise the issue of an individual Joe Bloggs and his mooring problems!

Which is precisely why there shouldn't be anyone elected who is sponsored by a single issue organisation or one whose agenda is broader than just the interests of the boaters.

[Leni]

Which is precisely why there shouldn't be anyone elected who is sponsored by a single issue organisation or one whose agenda is broader than just the interests of the boaters.

 

And on that we are agreed!

[carlt]

And on that we are agreed!

I thought we did but I was struggling to put my words into a non-combative format.

[Higgs]

If associations didn't think that more influence was on offer they wouldn't be trying to gain access to a boaters group. The dynamics will be totally different and they probably won't find they have any more influence. The outcome is likely to be a rod for their backs. They will not be effective as an association and a pale substitute for a boaters group.

 

I find the nanny attitude of some associations quite insulting. What they fail to understand going into the elections, will probably fail to understand after the elections.

[c c]

I received my voting pack in the post this morning.

Just one little problem (so far) :-

 

Wife wants to know why I get a vote (its addressed to me) and she has no vote!!

 

Interesting legal point?

 

I told her she'll have to wait until we get a King and jump in front of his horse......

[carlt]

 

Wife wants to know why I get a vote (its addressed to me) and she has no vote!!

 

if your wife's name was on the licence then she would get the vote and you would have to throw yourself under the Queen's horse.

[Sir Nibble]

I haven't recieved anything yet, do I have to throw myself under a queen?

[cotswoldsman]

No it isn't. I see boaters being represented in general not individually. I can't see a representative going to a meeting and saying Joe Blogs our member is having mooring problems for example.

 

Sue

 

Sue you the Council Members in this case are voted for by Licence Holders to represent ALL Licence Holders that is why only valid Licence Holders can vote. That is why I have a problem with Sponsored Candidates because they would have a conflict of interest. If I have a mooring problem I would certainly contact Council Members if it involved CaRT

[luctor et emergo]

....pardon us who have come to the party a bit late.....

 

(MJG - latter day boater as only owned one 18 months)

 

hmmm... I see an opportunity.

 

Welcome to the Church of the Latter Day Boaters.

[Leni]

If I could refer to the School Governors analogy again, (I feel there is a definite similarity); I have a disabled son. While I was a Parent Governor I was also active in a local group which supported people with the disability from which my son suffers. Because of my background and experience I was asked to become the Special Needs Governor. I accepted the position, but I hope it goes without saying that of course I was involved to support the school's Special Needs department in their work with ALL disabled students, not just those suffering from the same disability as my son! The local group with which I was involved would not have expected me to do otherwise, not was I in any way influenced by any 'agenda' from them.

 

I should perhaps then make it clear that I have voted in the CRT election for candidates who have shown themselves to be of independent thought, which means that I have not automatically excluded all members of organisations, if they have been able to show me, by their election statements and / or their posts here and elsewhere, that they are aware of, understanding of, and as far as is possible sympathetic to, the many and varied needs of all boaters! This also means that I have excluded any so-called 'independent' candidates who have shown themselves to be riding a particular "'obby oss", and to be lacking in sympathy for any point of view other than their own.

 

Now, please don't hit me, Carl (ducks and runs )

[J R ALSOP]

My definition of a "latter day boater" is someone who has not had a boat licenced by the British Transport Commission, my first one was in 1960 it was for "Kenelm" it cost me £12.00 I got a 50% reduction for working for British Railways. Also someone who cannot maintain their own boat.

[jelunga]

An excellent summary of the issue.

 

There is a need for members of the Council who are aware of and sympathetic to the particular needs of historic boats.

 

There is also a need for any such members to also be sympathetic to the fact that the canals are for all boaters, and that "Latter day boaters" are not merely to be tolerated in the Historic Boats playground.

 

Unfortunately, amongst historic boat enthusiasts, there are many who do take this attitude, and whilst Sue has a respectable mid-table ranking from me at present, I would need to be more confident that she isn't part of the "get out of the way, historic boat" crowd if she is to climb higher on my list

Yes, there are far too many of them around already especially around Braunceston.

 

hmmm... I see an opportunity.

 

Welcome to the Church of the Latter Day Boaters.

Would that be the morons?

[luctor et emergo]

Yes, there are far too many of them around already especially around Braunceston.

 

 

Would that be the morons?

 

....

 

nah, not going down that playground

[14skipper]

Got my pack today interesting reading.Thing is l found there are several candidates who have large canal based knowledge and interest but can,nt. help feeling that they are there to represent a unnamed group or society.

 

14skipper

[cotswoldsman]

Got my pack today interesting reading.Thing is l found there are several candidates who have large canal based knowledge and interest but can,nt. help feeling that they are there to represent a unnamed group or society.

 

14skipper

 

Yes I agree would be helpful if someone started a thread naming candidates that are officially sponsored by organisations I do know some but I am sure someone knows them all.

[alan_fincher]

Got my pack today interesting reading.Thing is l found there are several candidates who have large canal based knowledge and interest but can,nt. help feeling that they are there to represent a unnamed group or society.

 

Yes I agree would be helpful if someone started a thread naming candidates that are officially sponsored by organisations I do know some but I am sure someone knows them all.

 

Several people have asked me for my take on this, and the following is cut and pasted from my blog page here.

 

I am not trying to stir up the debate here - obviously someone "sponsored" by an organisation with just a few hundred member can't be directly compared to someone sponsored by an organisation with many thousand. You must make up your own minds - this is simply the list as best as I know it, and because people keep asking.

 

Any additions would be useful knowledge for those who are interested, of course.

 

As a result of multiple requests for clarification, this is my "take" on who is actively sponsored by an "assosciation". That is that the "association" concerned is actively promoting them as their chosen candidates, and urging their membership to cast their votes for them. (Others will be members of some of those organisations, and possibly officers or trustees within them, but are not actively being promoted by them, as far as I can tell).

 

All the following, (except my notes), are taken as quotes from directly available information......

 

 

Inland Waterways Association - IWA

 

is fielding five IWA sponsored candidates on behalf of all boaters;

 

Ivor Caplan a trustee of IWA and residential boater,

Clive Henderson national chairman of IWA ,

Paul Roper a trustee of IWA and chair of our navigation committee,

Vaughan Welch a trustee of IWA and chair of our restoration committee

Peter Scott a trustee of IWA and regional chairman

 

(Note: only 4 places are on offer in these elections!)

 

Association of Waterways Cruising Clubs - AWCC

 

David Pearce - Council member of National Association of Boat Owners (NABO) for the past 18 years - currently Hon Treasurer and Rivers Secretary.

 

(Note: some have pointed out that AWCC is a corporate member of the IWA, making David Pearce effectively the 6th IWA supported candidate for the 4 elected places on offer)

 

Residential Boat Owners Association - RBOA

 

Endorses candidate for CRT Council

 

Ivor Caplan is standing as a candidate for election to the CRT Council, as a private boaters representative and is endorsed by the Committee.

 

(Note: this makes Ivor Caplan the only name to be directly sponsored by two associations – the IWA and the RBOA)

 

National Association of Boat Owners - NABO

 

Stephen Peters - Council member of National Association of Boat Owners (NABO) for the past 18 years - currently Hon Treasurer and Rivers Secretary.

 

Historic Narrow Boat Owners Club – HNBOC

The HNBOC committee has nominated

 

Sue Cawson for the Council and urges all club members to support her election.

[14skipper]

Thanks for that Alan.Got email tonight from the IWA listing their candidates asking for my support, at leasts thats five l know not to vote for.

 

14skipper