NBW makes Brentford non-tidal

[George94]

Roughly once a month I venture gingerly onto a rather amateurish site called Narrowboatworld. They can usually be relied upon to provide a morsel of unintended amusement.

 

This time it was this: "The great advantage of such a link (Slough to the Thames) would be that boaters would be able to cruise the Thames above Brentford and the Grand Union Canal without venturing onto the tidal section of the river".

 

Now, I am based at Brentford, and twice a day the boat rises and falls. Naively, I had supposed that this had something to do with the tides, but clearly I was mistaken. According to those wise old greybeards at NBW, the area they define as "above Brentford and the GUC" is on the non-tidal bit of the Thames.

 

OK, I concede that I am at Brentford, not "above" it, but where then is the lock? Putting my trusty telescope to my rheumy eye I espy no locks, not even a beaver dam.

 

Now, it's a while since I ventured upstream (about a month, in fact), but in those far-off days there was no lock before Teddington.

 

Perhaps they have built one just around the bend in the river in four weeks flat. This is always possible, given the resources and ingenuity of our great nation, but even so, I am doubtful.

 

Perhaps a slightly more likely explanation is that the people at NBW don't really have much of a clue. Is that possible, do you think?

 

Answers on a postcard.

[Wanted]

Try as they might they have never managed to repair the water main in the high street, twice a day for as long as I have been here does it spring a leak and then they fix it. It's hard to believe that the demand for drinking water is in such demand in a town where the children are raised on babycham but there it is. Fact!

[Starcoaster]

 

Perhaps a slightly more likely explanation is that the people at NBW don't really have much of a clue. Is that possible, do you think?

 

Answers on a postcard.

 

To be fair, they were probably only copy/pasting something they read elsewhere.

 

:lol:

[George94]

To be fair, they were probably only copy/pasting something they read elsewhere.

 

:lol:

 

That might be fair if they weren't self-proclaimed experts on British waterways.

[Starcoaster]

My comment was fairly tongue in cheek as from what I have seen, most of the firm evidence and expertise they claim to have, and info they post that is not personal opinion pieces has been copy/pasted or outright plagiarised from unverified third party content.

They have word-for-word lifted at least one post I made here and published it on their site as NBW journalism without permission or crediting the quote, and I know I am by no means alone there.

Edited November 13, 2012 by Starcoaster

[blackrose]

Roughly once a month I venture gingerly onto a rather amateurish site called Narrowboatworld. They can usually be relied upon to provide a morsel of unintended amusement.

 

This time it was this: "The great advantage of such a link (Slough to the Thames) would be that boaters would be able to cruise the Thames above Brentford and the Grand Union Canal without venturing onto the tidal section of the river".

 

If they were talking about extending the end of the Slough Arm so that it met the non-tidal Thames somewhere around Windsor then I can understand what they mean, but it does seem odd to say "the Thames above Brentford" if the part of the river they're talking about starts at Teddington.

 

I think they just worded it wrong. Perhaps it should just read: "The great advantage of such a link (Slough to the Thames) would be that boaters would be able to cruise the non-tidal Thames and the Grand Union Canal above Brentford without venturing onto the tidal section of the river".

 

Anyway, the great advantage for me of such a link would be easier access to a cheaper dry dock on the canal, but I can't see much chance of it ever happening!

Edited November 13, 2012 by blackrose

[BGA]

They have word-for-word lifted at least one post I made here and published it on their site as NBW journalism without permission or crediting the quote, and I know I am by no means alone there.

 

Presummably that was the bit they got right then

[tafelberg]

I actually read NBW every day but I have to say it makes me a bit sad. It's always sad, bad news. I hope one day they will post a cheery story.

[Chris Pink]

Roughly once a month I venture gingerly onto a rather amateurish site called Narrowboatworld. They can usually be relied upon to provide a morsel of unintended amusement.

 

 

Perhaps a slightly more likely explanation is that the people at NBW don't really have much of a clue. Is that possible, do you think?

 

 

 

 

 

My theory is that most people aren't really suited to the idyllic, low-stress, back-to-nature, peaceful, life that the canals are said to provide. With the birds singing outside, the willows weeping, the water gently lapping on the hull, the typical NB owner is within, hammering the life out of his keyboard and sending vitriolic messages to CWF and (VERY occcasionally) NBW.

 

The truth is that these people MISS the high-pressure, testosterone-fuelled, normal world, and want to create virtual-reality mini-conflicts on their computer screens to compensate.

 

 

 

I'm with George94 on this, reckon some people can't stand the peace of an autumn morning so go off to narrowboatworld looking for something to moan about.

[alan_fincher]

I actually read NBW every day but I have to say it makes me a bit sad. It's always sad, bad news. I hope one day they will post a cheery story.

It is a fact that a lot of their stuff is either......

 

1) Original material - but just plain wrong.

 

or

 

2) Copied from somewhere else - this is wrong less often, but still often so.

 

However, despite their constant anti-BW / ani-CRT stance they are apparently the one campaigning voice that BW/CRT will sit up and listen to, and it is their stories that are the one thing that are instrumental in getting anything overturned or put right.

 

"Telling it like it is" - or so you will be told!

[grahame r]

Perhaps their reporter is moonlighting from their main job on Newsnight.

[alan_fincher]

Perhaps their reporter is moonlighting from their main job on Newsnight.

Love it!

 

"Oh is that what Brentford looks like - that's not what was in the picture I was shown!.............."

[George94]

However, despite their constant anti-BW / ani-CRT stance they are apparently the one campaigning voice that BW/CRT will sit up and listen to, and it is their stories that are the one thing that are instrumental in getting anything overturned or put right.

 

Is that because they ARE the ONE campaigning voice? The IWA are now part of a coalition with C&RT, it seems, and NABO and the RBOA so seldom raise their voices that they have rusted away.

[Drayke]

Roughly once a month I venture gingerly onto a rather amateurish site called Narrowboatworld. They can usually be relied upon to provide a morsel of unintended amusement.

 

This time it was this: "The great advantage of such a link (Slough to the Thames) would be that boaters would be able to cruise the Thames above Brentford and the Grand Union Canal without venturing onto the tidal section of the river".

 

Now, I am based at Brentford, and twice a day the boat rises and falls. Naively, I had supposed that this had something to do with the tides, but clearly I was mistaken. According to those wise old greybeards at NBW, the area they define as "above Brentford and the GUC" is on the non-tidal bit of the Thames.

 

OK, I concede that I am at Brentford, not "above" it, but where then is the lock? Putting my trusty telescope to my rheumy eye I espy no locks, not even a beaver dam.

 

Now, it's a while since I ventured upstream (about a month, in fact), but in those far-off days there was no lock before Teddington.

 

Perhaps they have built one just around the bend in the river in four weeks flat. This is always possible, given the resources and ingenuity of our great nation, but even so, I am doubtful.

 

Perhaps a slightly more likely explanation is that the people at NBW don't really have much of a clue. Is that possible, do you think?

 

Answers on a postcard.

 

Could it be that you have miss read the thread on NBW and that they were talking about a NEW LINK between Slough and the Thames entering somewhere near Windsor perhaps?

 

Drayke.

[IanM]

Could it be that you have miss read the thread on NBW and that they were talking about a NEW LINK between Slough and the Thames entering somewhere near Windsor perhaps?

 

Drayke.

 

That's how I read it.

 

Could be wrong though

 

Edited to add: That's exactly what they mean.

 

http://www.narrowboatworld.com/index.php/leatest/5081-slough-to-thames-link-still-on

Edited November 13, 2012 by IanM

[Ray T]

They're getting paranoid now. CRT is out "to get" one of their reporters.

 

http://www.narrowboa...t-ralph-freeman

 

As CRT are now a Trust I wonder if they are allowed to take out other forms of "contract" they weren't before?

Edited November 13, 2012 by Ray T

[Chris Pink]

 

 

Perhaps a slightly more likely explanation is that the people at NBW don't really have much of a clue. Is that possible, do you think?

 

 

 

Given that they were talking about a (non-tidal) Slough link, can we expect an apology from you Mr 94?

 

My advice to you is to stop your monthly visits if you consider them so 'amateurish'

[Allan(nb Albert)]

They're getting paranoid now. CRT is out "to get" one of their reporters.

 

http://www.narrowboa...t-ralph-freeman

 

As CRT are now a Trust I wonder if they are allowed to take out other forms of "contract" they weren't before?

 

This is what Ralph Freeman wrote to the Lords Committee as mentioned in the article -

 

Parliamentary Submission

[Leonie]

This is what Ralph Freeman wrote to the Lords Committee as mentioned in the article -

 

Parliamentary Submission

 

Thanks, I was wondering.

[Paul C]

This is what Ralph Freeman wrote to the Lords Committee as mentioned in the article -

 

Parliamentary Submission

 

I'm not sure what you want people to think, by posting that - I read it, and think that Ralph Freeman is a bit paranoid.

[Graham Davis]

Oh dear!

 

From the NBW article:

Strangely, it all started just after he had complained about the former British Waterways' track record to the House of Lords committee. Within two days he had a rather nasty email about this from a CaRT director, yet getting hold of Ralph's private correspondence (to be able to comment upon it) was surely against the Data Protection Act, that seems to be treated with contempt, so he intends taking this further.

 

If you write to a Parliamentary Committee then the correspondence immediately goes into the Public Domain, as Allan has proved.

[jenlyn]

I'm not sure what you want people to think, by posting that - I read it, and think that Ralph Freeman is a bit paranoid.

Hmmmm, they have a lot more understanding and knowledge than you though, eh. Half of what you attempt to debate about on here, more often than not comes from NBW. Although they sometimes get it wrong, we as boaters would know a lot less if NBW did not exist. Oh, one other thing, CRT talks to them regularly and use them at times to get news out. When was the last time a trustee spoke to you?

[Paul C]

I'm not trying to run, nor write for, a canal-based website (blog) though. There does seem to be a culture of overcriticizing C&RT. On a forum, not so bad, one is entitled to write what they like and after all, its just a bunch of opinions and little bits of useful information here & there. When you 'fluff up' a blog into a pseudo-news provider, then the criticisms have more weight.

 

I don't have any issues with C&RT, hence I don't feel the need to contact the trustees regularly. It seems that others do, so its only natural they'd contact trustees. It is polite to reply and/or engage in dialogue, hence their talking to them - no surprise there. I don't see the value in comparing an individual with an internet website.

 

Can you cite an example of when C&RT have used narrowboatworld as an exclusive communications means to get news out?

[jenlyn]

 

Can you cite an example of when C&RT have used narrowboatworld as an exclusive communications means to get news out?

I don't have to say anymore, the sentence above is more than adequate.

[George94]

Given that they were talking about a (non-tidal) Slough link, can we expect an apology from you Mr 94?

 

My advice to you is to stop your monthly visits if you consider them so 'amateurish'

 

Put your glasses on and read it again:

 

"The great advantage of such a link (Slough to the Thames) would be that boaters would be able to cruise the Thames above Brentford and the Grand Union Canal without venturing onto the tidal section of the river".

 

The Thames above Brentford IS tidal, all the way to Teddington.

 

The apology is due from you (and the other dyslexics).