NBW get it all wrong AGAIN

[cotswoldsman]

I hate to do this as I am going to have to admit I have read NBW today, but hey I followed a link that did not give a health warning.

 

Anyway for those interested can I suggest you read the latest rant here Warning link to NBW

 

After reading NBW can I suggest you read this link Link Parliament Statement

 

For those who can not be bothered NBW claim the directors of CaRT have set up another company called Canal and River Trading Ltd in order to line there own pockets, the thing they seem not to have realised is the following

 

Under the transfer scheme, certain assets will be moved directly to the Canal & River Trading Community Interest Company, a wholly owned subsidiary of the Canal & River Trust. The Community Interest Company will receive the property, rights and liabilities for its trading activities which, under charity law, have to be kept in a separate vehicle from the charity itself.

[MartinClark]

I hate to do this as I am going to have to admit I have read NBW today, but hey I followed a link that did not give a health warning.

 

Anyway for those interested can I suggest you read the latest rant here Warning link to NBW

 

After reading NBW can I suggest you read this link Link Parliament Statement

 

For those who can not be bothered NBW claim the directors of CaRT have set up another company called Canal and River Trading Ltd in order to line there own pockets, the thing they seem not to have realised is the following

 

 

What is supposed to be wrong with that? A lot of charities, such as canal societies, have had to set up arm's length trading companies in order to sell books, clothing, etc.

[pearley]

The original consultation documents made it clear that a Community Interest Company would be set up. But I think OP is remarking on NBW interpretation of that.

 

Regards

Pete

[matty40s]

I hate to do this as I am going to have to admit I have read NBW today, but hey I followed a link that did not give a health warning.

 

Anyway for those interested can I suggest you read the latest rant here Warning link to NBW

 

After reading NBW can I suggest you read this link Link Parliament Statement

 

For those who can not be bothered NBW claim the directors of CaRT have set up another company called Canal and River Trading Ltd in order to line there own pockets, the thing they seem not to have realised is the following

 

 

I think that NBW either knows, or is assuming that the new Directors of said trading company are going to be paid for their services, along with their already considerable renumeration from their other BW/CaRT Directorships.

so in a way, I share their concerns.

however, if their concern is the setting up of the new trading arm, then yes, John, I agree with you.

[cotswoldsman]

What is supposed to be wrong with that? A lot of charities, such as canal societies, have had to set up arm's length trading companies in order to sell books, clothing, etc.

 

I am not saying anything is wrong with the setting up of Canal and River trading Ltd in fact I am saying that legally it has to be set up, what I am saying is that NBW seem to think this is some sort of conspiracy by the directors to line their pockets.

[Lady Muck]

Well that makes a lot of sense to me, speaking from a POV of recent London Boaters/Community Groups/Community Enterprise meetings with BW and the way they are already changing the way they work. As I said in the London Moorings thread, watch this space.

 

Toms website would be the very last to be told about what is going on and why, for obvious reasons.

[cotswoldsman]

I think that NBW either knows, or is assuming that the new Directors of said trading company are going to be paid for their services, along with their already considerable renumeration from their other BW/CaRT Directorships.

so in a way, I share their concerns.

however, if their concern is the setting up of the new trading arm, then yes, John, I agree with you.

 

Matt, Canal and River trading is a wholly owned subsidiary of CaRT so has to have directors from the holding company. If they are paid a directors fee then that will be declared in the accounts though firstly I doubt they will. But to just assume they will without any evidence is IMO wrong.

[MartinClark]

I am not saying anything is wrong with the setting up of Canal and River trading Ltd in fact I am saying that legally it has to be set up, what I am saying is that NBW seem to think this is some sort of conspiracy by the directors to line their pockets.

 

Sorry, my wording wasn't very good there. I know that you weren't saying anything was wrong with it. What I meant was "What does NBW think is supposed to be wrong with that?"

Edited June 27, 2012 by MartinClark

[carlt]

"What does NBW think is supposed to be wrong with that?"

If C&RT announced "We have secured funding to sympathetically restore every canal that has fallen into disrepair over the last 150 years and funds to maintain the system for a further 150 years." Tom's headline would be "CART directors skim thousands off the windfall to pay their wages!"

[WJM]

If C&RT announced......

 

 

Well said. It is so easy to sit on the sideline sniping. It is an onerous undertaking, running a colossal enterprise which is complicated with massive legacy and yet aspires to greatly conflicting goals.

[gary955]

I hate to do this as I am going to have to admit I have read NBW today, but hey I followed a link that did not give a health warning.

 

Anyway for those interested can I suggest you read the latest rant here Warning link to NBW

 

After reading NBW can I suggest you read this link Link Parliament Statement

 

For those who can not be bothered NBW claim the directors of CaRT have set up another company called Canal and River Trading Ltd in order to line there own pockets, the thing they seem not to have realised is the following

To be fair, I read the article as complaining about the directors incompetence rather than their greed

I dont know who Tom is (he's not credited with the article)but the attacks on him in this thread, which appear to twist the evidence in order to support a pre-conceived point of view, do seem to be doing exactly what you accuse him of!

Just a thought.

[carlt]

To be fair, I read the article as complaining about the directors incompetence rather than their greed

What incompetence?

 

C&RT hasn't even launched yet and Tom (the owner of the NBW blog) would seem to have a crystal ball that foretells the collapse of the new regime before it even gets started.

[gary955]

What incompetence?

 

C&RT hasn't even launched yet and Tom (the owner of the NBW blog) would seem to have a crystal ball that foretells the collapse of the new regime before it even gets started.

Did we read different articles?

The one I read pointed out the failures of a number of BW directors appointed to (presumably) similar roles in CaRT. I dont recall it predicting the collapse of the organisation...nor for that matter did I take it to suggest that the directors were intending to skim charity funds as directors fees (as the OP suggested it did)

Is it crystal ball gazing to suggest that previous performance may be an indicator of future performance?

 

Edited for a further thought.

Edited June 27, 2012 by gary955

[carlt]

Did we read different articles?

The one I read pointed out the failures of a number of BW directors appointed to (presumably) similar roles in CaRT. I dont recall it predicting the collapse of the organisation...nor for that matter did I take it to suggest that the directors were intending to skim charity funds as directors fees (as the OP suggested)

A charity is a completely different organisation, with completely different priorities, to a government department.

 

Even if the job titles are the same the actual tasks will be completely different.

 

The BW bosses were tasked to make an old, poorly maintained, transport network turn a profit which they failed to do, as was inevitable really.

 

They are now, supposed to maintain an old, poorly maintained transport network without turning a profit. A totally different but still onerous task not made any easier by the naysayers who would see them fail before they even start.

[chieftiff]

What incompetence?

 

C&RT hasn't even launched yet and Tom (the owner of the NBW blog) would seem to have a crystal ball that foretells the collapse of the new regime before it even gets started.

 

He's doing what every journalist, news editor, media mogul etc on the planet know grabs attention, he is creating a story about conflict (whether or not the conflict actually exists it's an important part of any story). Conflict as a tool is important to all writers, sadly many journalists and pseudo/self appointed doomsayers seem to have adopted the easier approach of presenting conflict negatively, it takes far more skill and imagination to present conflict in a positive light - it normally takes the skills of great leader in fact. The really great story here, as you've said in your previous post, is that the new C&RT have an epic battle on their hands to not only maintain but improve the canal system with a limited set of resources in difficult times, potentially an heroic story if it were fiction. As reality we will find out but I guess this guy (whoever he is) has pinned his colours to the mast as to how he views the likely outcome of the forthcoming war and its many likely battles.

[gary955]

A charity is a completely different organisation, with completely different priorities, to a government department.

 

Even if the job titles are the same the actual tasks will be completely different.

 

The BW bosses were tasked to make an old, poorly maintained, transport network turn a profit which they failed to do, as was inevitable really.

 

They are now, supposed to maintain an old, poorly maintained transport network without turning a profit. A totally different but still onerous task not made any easier by the naysayers who would see them fail before they even start.

Well I think there are a number of relevent similarities between BW and CaRT that may be a good inticator of the competence of the directors but really thats besides the point.

My point is that you suggested that Tom (in publishing the article refered to by the original poster)predicted the collapse of the CaRT. He didn't

The OP suggested that Tom (in publishing the article) suggested that the subsidiary company was created as a vehicle skim off charity funds as directors salarys. He didn't

I'm not familiar with Tom or his website, I had a quick look this morning and it didn't seem particularly contoversial. I gather that you and and others contributing to this thread believe that Tom and his website have an unshakable point of view and will twist the evidence to support his predudice............Rather like your treatment of Tom really!

By all means vilify him....but do it fairly

[MartinClark]

it takes far more skill and imagination to present conflict in a positive light - it normally takes the skills of great leader in fact.

 

You mean like when Thatcher said "Rejoice!" after the Falklands episode? Oh, sorry - you said "great leader"...

[cotswoldsman]

I dont recall it predicting the collapse of the organisation...nor for that matter did I take it to suggest that the directors were intending to skim charity funds as directors fees

 

The big question for the public is how much these four directorships are going to cost us and how many more will climb aboard this little gravy train

 

 

That quote would imply to me that a company that has to be set up to comply with the rules of the charity commission is seen by NBW as a company that has been set up solely for the purpose of enriching the directors of CaRT.

The headline Rewards for Failure also implies that the directors are going to be paid big fees but there is no evidence of this that I can find and look forward to maybe NBW printing it's evidence. As I said before this is a wholly owned subsidiary of CaRT. Also stating that it is a Private Company limited by shares fails to mention that all those shares are owned by CaRT and in the text of the story almost implies that the shares are owned by the directors.

[Lady Muck]

A charity is a completely different organisation, with completely different priorities, to a government department.

 

Even if the job titles are the same the actual tasks will be completely different.

 

The BW bosses were tasked to make an old, poorly maintained, transport network turn a profit which they failed to do, as was inevitable really.

 

They are now, supposed to maintain an old, poorly maintained transport network without turning a profit. A totally different but still onerous task not made any easier by the naysayers who would see them fail before they even start.

 

Well said Carl. They are already taking an entirely different approach. They will be the first to admit that this is completely new to them and that they do need a lot of guidance. (I have heard it from the horses mouth). But they are trying. They are asking for help. The last few meetings we've had with them they have been willing to listen and willing to try. What choice do they have? What choice do we have?

 

Broken record moaning about Robin Evans salary on a website ain't gonna save the network. What value does it create, really? I just find it really unhelpful.

[cotswoldsman]

Well said Carl. They are already taking an entirely different approach. They will be the first to admit that this is completely new to them and that they do need a lot of guidance. (I have heard it from the horses mouth). But they are trying. They are asking for help. The last few meetings we've had with them they have been willing to listen and willing to try. What choice do they have? What choice do we have?

 

Broken record moaning about Robin Evans salary on a website ain't gonna save the network. What value does it create, really? I just find it really unhelpful.

 

Still can not give you a greenie!!! This is far more like the stuff we should be reading CaRT is onto a winner

 

if, as it now appears, the CRT is going to be a success story, we can expect others to try and follow in its footsteps. But it remains to see whether they will take the same path or try to cut some corners, and stumble on the obstacles that the CRT avoided.

Edited June 27, 2012 by cotswoldsman

[carlt]

I'm not familiar with Tom or his website, I had a quick look this morning and it didn't seem particularly contoversial.

By all means vilify him....but do it fairly

Oh, okay, I didn't realise you had limited experience of his blog and are, therefore, basing your comments on a very small sample of his condemnations of C&RT. I apologise.

 

Isn't that a bit like me saying "The Daily Mail doesn't like immigrants" and you responding "How can you say that based on the only article I've read?"

 

I suggest you read Tom's accusations of corruption, when they set up the perfectly legitimate "company limited by guarantee" status or the occasion Tom called BW "stupid" because they didn't register all the C&RT website address name variations allowing him to register an American suffix.

 

I am still waiting a response to my question about how stupid it made him, when I was able to buy the domain name "Narrowboatworld.org.uk"

 

Tom is obsessed with using his blog to criticise and condemn C&RT and anyone who dislikes his tactics is perfectly entitled to comment and provide a more optimistic viewpoint (though no right of reply on his site, you just get banned).

Edited June 27, 2012 by carlt

[Lady Muck]

I think it can be dangerous and damaging to the network when people write things that are not true. I'm very unhappy about articles written about the Lee and Stort.

 

It is quieter than ever up here. We barely get any visitors, much less than we used to.

 

Infact barely one locking a day even at this time of year. When I chat to them they tell me, 'oh, I read on the internet that the River would be full of Continuous Moorers, it nearly put me off visiting.'

 

It can even create downright weird behaviour - like the couple I challenged who were going around with a notebook and pen writing down the index numbers of all the boats in our marina that they 'thought' were unlicensed - including my mates cabin cruiser, that ironically I'd just paid for the license myself, because he was hard up.

 

Then when the writer of the article tells me they've never visited, so it must be all hearsay with no evidence to back it up, (infact the stats that were FOI from BW actually say the opposite - that cruisers tend not to moor on the Visitor moorings on the Lee).

 

It makes me really angry. I feel a bit funny as a moderator of this board, posting here and criticising another, because it's not really good practise is it?

 

BUT on the other hand, I feel really strongly that the record needs to be put straight. Because it is the future of the River that I love and moor my boat on (and care enough to get involved with BW and London Boaters and local community groups) that is at stake here.

 

As a volunteer, I'm sure potshots will be aimed at me too.

Edited June 27, 2012 by Lady Muck

[Cobleigh]

For the record: British Waterways / Canal & River Trust invites Tom to its press briefings at which he, or his reporter, would have a chance to quiz the BW directors. He declines to attend.

[gary955]

That quote would imply to me that a company that has to be set up to comply with the rules of the charity commission is seen by NBW as a company that has been set up solely for the purpose of enriching the directors of CaRT.

The headline Rewards for Failure also implies that the directors are going to be paid big fees but there is no evidence of this that I can find and look forward to maybe NBW printing it's evidence. As I said before this is a wholly owned subsidiary of CaRT. Also stating that it is a Private Company limited by shares fails to mention that all those shares are owned by CaRT and in the text of the story almost implies that the shares are owned by the directors.

Ahh but you see thats what happens when we become predudiced! We see what we expect to see.

I think I understand your train of thought now, but I read that quote as suggesting that the directors incompetence would cost us dear in the possible mismanagement of the charity. The headline "rewards for failure" I took to mean that directors or managers who had failed in their posts with BW had been "rewarded" with new positions on the CaRT.

When you use terms like "almost implies" it does suggest that you are having to look pretty hard for evidence to support a pre-concieved belief.

Surely the article, which lets not forget was not written by the infamous Tom, does raise some interesting points. Although the CaRT is a charity, I and every other licence payer am obliged to contribute to it. Therefore its fair to question the competence of the directors and reasonable to examine their past performance.

Thank you for drawing my attention to it

[Tuscan]

I think it can be dangerous and damaging to the network when people write things that are not true. I'm very unhappy about articles written about the Lee and Stort.

 

It is quieter than ever up here. We barely get any visitors, much less than we used to.

 

Infact barely one locking a day even at this time of year. When I chat to them they tell me, 'oh, I read on the internet that the River would be full of Continuous Moorers, it nearly put me off visiting.'

 

Then when the writer of the article tells me they've never visited, so it must be all hearsay with no evidence to back it up, (infact the stats that were FOI from BW actually say the opposite - that cruisers tend not to moor on the Visitor moorings on the Lee).

 

It makes me really angry. I feel a bit funny as a moderator of this board, posting here and criticising another, because it's not really good practise is it?

 

BUT on the other hand, I feel really strongly that the record needs to be put straight. Because it is the future of the River that I love and moor my boat on (and care enough to get involved with BW and London Boaters and local community groups) that is at stake here.

 

As a volunteer, I'm sure potshots will be aimed at me too.

 

 

 

 

Good valid points , some years ago I lived in Hertford and brought our boat round from Masworth and up the river to Hertford. The river is lovely and I would encourage people to visit. The only hassle was our home town Hertford where the people who have bought the old canal side canals make anyone on a canal boat very unwelcome.

 

Cheap journalism misleads and forums like this give a broader view