Appeal

[Guest]

Not churlish at all - its a valid point.

 

Like you I already make a sizeable, compulsory contribution to this charity, in return for which I thought I would be able to take advantage of all the services that BW have provided me with for all these years. If the charity cannot make ends meet and therefore cannot continue to provide those services, then it needs to consider how it should fund itself in the future, which may include a general appeal for funds.

 

What it should not do is to fall at the first hurdle and hold out a begging bowl. What next - this lock flight will remain closed until the appeal for funds for its repairs has reached its target?

That is why I consider it a dangerous precedent. They have got our pants down it would seem; if we want the canals we will have to cough up.

[pearlygeoff]

The rallying calls of the 'faithful'(and deluded) will not suffice to fix the breach of trust committed by the woeful usurpers of authority over the waterways, let alone the breach in a section of canal that is in a dire state (through neglect) for most of its length. It would appear that there is, considerably, more than one born every minute.

 

Welcome to the CaRT/IWA/SUCS Alliance.

 

Your £5 donation, which might buy, three goats, a pig and a pair of moleskin trousers in Africa would not even pay sufficient salary for Sally Ash to 'powder her nose'.

 

What more will it take to wake you up from your submissive, apathetic torpor?

 

Cue ill-informed denials from the blinkered and the blind.

[boathunter]

In general terms, as a charity short on funds with yet more to fork out for they'd be crazy not to use this free publicity to appeal for money. One wouldn't expect Oxfam to sit tight lipped if there was a famine somewhere?

 

As said above, they don't know, and rightly don't mind who gives them the txt £5's, but if a high proportion comes from people who use the waterways it's hardly surprising as these people (you and recently I) have a selfish interest.

 

There are many walks of life that need more funds all making a good case. Everything needs more funds. I need more funds.

 

£5 sent.

[T.A]

Shan't be making the donation. They take my money but all they do is go on about walkers cyclists birds (feathery) buying seeds so schools can grow vegetables. Boaters? Who they?!?

As long as boaters take this attitude then they will be shooting themselves in the foot. Perhaps CRT recognise that boaters pay enough and therefore they have to court other user groups if this proves positive then I for one don't care that boaters are not getting a mention. Reading the NABO news arrived this morning there is a piece on directors salaries and the explanation given seems reasonable for the size of organisation which compares with other leading charities who collect money by donations in order to support the cause. Perhaps this is why they are charities!

[Fred_Smith]

I don't think they should be asking the public to contribute for this purpose, in fact its a damn cheek and symptomatic of the lame way CRT is managed. They are obliged to keep the canals open, even if they could decline to repair the breech, public opinion would demand the repair to be carried out. They have a contingency fund, that's good practice, some years they wont need to spend it all other years they will over spend, they don't have to balance the books a year at a time in isolation, and there could be other sources of funding I don't know about that would help in these circumstances. I don't object to supporting CRT with a voluntary contribution but only if I feel I am getting value for money and something to show for it, repairing the canal is part of their business no matter how expensive an unexpected event is and they have to remedy that with their own funds even if it means borrowing the money.

If they for example wanted contributions to refurbish a 200 year old building that was derelict and turn it into an asset canal users and the general public could use, then I would support this with my cash through an appeal because I could see they were improving the assets and would have no budget to do this normally and I could see a benefit being created for my money. Voluntary appeal money would be better spent and there would be something to show for it by the various societies and restoration projects outside of CRT that are desperate for cash to carry out their good works.

If CRT want to use their web site to raise public contributions let them "adopt" some of these projects and help them in this way.

[carlt]

They are obliged to keep the canals open,

No they're not.

 

even if they could decline to repair the breech, public opinion would demand the repair to be carried out.

 

The majority of the public have no opinion about the canals despite the fact that they pay for them, out of general taxation.

Edited September 29, 2012 by carlt

[PiRSqwared]

Or perhaps it's because we know they have a history of poor decision making which has seen them squander some big bucks.

[Wanderer Vagabond]

Donation sent, along with others I hope that this money is ring-fenced for the purpose it was donated.

Edited September 29, 2012 by Wanderer Vagabond

[Tuscan]

It's entirely a personal decision if by publicising the breach they receive funds from boaters and the wider general public which they would not normally receive then I have no issue as it means presumably there is more money left in the contingency fund. If you don't agree don't do it.

[Wanderer Vagabond]

I don't think they should be asking the public to contribute for this purpose, in fact its a damn cheek and symptomatic of the lame way CRT is managed. They are obliged to keep the canals open, even if they could decline to repair the breech, public opinion would demand the repair to be carried out. They have a contingency fund, that's good practice, some years they wont need to spend it all other years they will over spend, they don't have to balance the books a year at a time in isolation, and there could be other sources of funding I don't know about that would help in these circumstances. I don't object to supporting CRT with a voluntary contribution but only if I feel I am getting value for money and something to show for it, repairing the canal is part of their business no matter how expensive an unexpected event is and they have to remedy that with their own funds even if it means borrowing the money.

If they for example wanted contributions to refurbish a 200 year old building that was derelict and turn it into an asset canal users and the general public could use, then I would support this with my cash through an appeal because I could see they were improving the assets and would have no budget to do this normally and I could see a benefit being created for my money. Voluntary appeal money would be better spent and there would be something to show for it by the various societies and restoration projects outside of CRT that are desperate for cash to carry out their good works.

If CRT want to use their web site to raise public contributions let them "adopt" some of these projects and help them in this way.

 

 

Since the CRT has been created as a Charity I think that I would prefer them to raise money in this fashion rather than having to go into the commercial market and borrow money from the banks to pay for repairs. Would I like to think of charitable donations being used to pay interest to banks on loans taken out? I don't think so.

[Guest]

Will be donating once back in the UK - don't want France telecom getting any more out of me than have aleady had....

[Wanderer Vagabond]

It's entirely a personal decision if by publicising the breach they receive funds from boaters and the wider general public which they would not normally receive then I have no issue as it means presumably there is more money left in the contingency fund. If you don't agree don't do it.

 

 

No, I think the issue is to do with honesty, if they are asking for ad hoc funds for a specific purpose then that is what they should be used for. If for instance Oxfam created an appeal to support a famine in Ethiopia but then spent the money elsewhere people would be rightly outraged.

 

If this appeal stated '..your donation MAY be used for this purpose..' then that would be acceptable, the implication is that it WILL be used for this purpose, so it had better be.

[boathunter]

I would guess the contingency fund is just clever accounting. If they didn't technically have one they'd be incompetent. That doesn't mean they really have one as in cash sitting waiting for a disaster...

[PiRSqwared]

Surely a contingency fund is to cover the unexpected...like breaches. The CaRT appeal gives the impression that fixing this will mean other things won't be done... in other words it would come out of general funds, not a contingency fund.

[boathunter]

No, I think the issue is to do with honesty, if they are asking for ad hoc funds for a specific purpose then that is what they should be used for. If for instance Oxfam created an appeal to support a famine in Ethiopia but then spent the money elsewhere people would be rightly outraged.

 

If this appeal stated '..your donation MAY be used for this purpose..' then that would be acceptable, the implication is that it WILL be used for this purpose, so it had better be.

What does it matter? They won't get enough from the appeal to cover the repairs and the balance will come from the coffers. If they put the appeal money in the general account and repair the hole same difference. Or maybe you think the appeal will raise more than the £1.5M stated? If it did, they will simply account more cleverly and the cost of the repair will "go up". In situations like this, they always underestimate the cost anyway - look at the olympics! The Humber Bridge etc etc. Always.

 

I should add this is human nature - if it didn't happen, nothing would get off the ground. I'm presently deluding myself over the cost of a NB, the cost of living in it and what 100% lovely time I'll have doing this. If I was realistic, I probably wouldn't have done the best half of the things I've done in life.

Edited September 29, 2012 by boathunter

[Night Hawk]

Well...I've donated my £5.00 and also posted a link on Facebook & Twitter...I do feel other 'service users' apart from us boaters should contribute.

 

Andrew

[PiRSqwared]

300 000 texts would be needed to meet the projected cost. That's a lot of local dog walkers, anglers, cyclists etc. Let's face it, a dog walker on the Droitwich isn't going to give a flying dog poo about a breach on the T&M!

[boathunter]

Anyone know what size the contingency fund is? £500?

Edited September 29, 2012 by boathunter

[Guest]

300 000 texts would be needed to meet the projected cost. That's a lot of local dog walkers, anglers, cyclists etc. Let's face it, a dog walker on the Droitwich isn't going to give a flying dog poo about a breach on the T&M!

 

But importantly it does give users other than boaters the opportunity to make some sort of financial contribution to the running of the waterways. When I think about it the ability to laumch an appeal like this has got to be one of the biggest advantages of being a chaity over the previous status that BW had.

 

Well...I've donated my £5.00 and also posted a link on Facebook & Twitter...I do feel other 'service users' apart from us boaters should contribute.

 

Andrew

 

Totally agree...

[Simon (Hawksmoor)]

I donated using my company phone.

I guess they get to donate instead of me!

Tee Hee.

 

 

 

Actually I went on-line and did it so I could gift-aid it too.

[larkshall]

CRT have launched an appeal for 1.5 million to sort the T&M.

 

Appeal, for what?, bloody cheek, BW never behaved like this

[Guest]

Appeal, for what?, bloody cheek, BW never behaved like this

 

Because as far as I know they couldn't, CRT though as charity can. It's eminently sensible for them to do this, this is how charities operate. If a National Trust property was seriously damaged by fire they likley would do exactly the same.

 

It's the environment we are now boating in and we need to get used to it.

[carlt]

BW never behaved like this

BW were not a charity that will increasingly rely on charitable donations to maintain the system.

 

It's a bit like saying "Why should I donate to a steam preservation society? Network Rail don't behave like this".

[Guest]

By way of example -

 

Current NT appeals

[Paul C]

No they're not.

 

 

 

 

I'm not sure you're right here. The T&M has cruiseway status, therefore there IS a legal requirement to keep it navigable. No doubt there is an exception for exceptional circumstances, so while there might be a broad requirement, they can obviously close it when necessary. I don't think they can legally simply choose to not fix it though. And I don't think there is anything in the law which mentions the cost. I'll have a quick look around the web for the relevant legislation.