IWA Statement Released

[jenlyn]

No need to be so literal I was just making a point with an illustration there is no real connection between CCing and slavery. I was just trying to highlight that all things pass and we move on.

 

 

As I say just an illustration or simile if you will.

So one is as bad as the other?

[churchward]

So one is as bad as the other?

Now you are just being obtuse. let's stop here this is not debate.

[alan_fincher]

I personally now think "Churchward" is being given an unwarranted rough ride here.

 

At least as an obviously committed IWA member he has taken the time and trouble to make his feelings known to them about the views Welch has expressed, and I applaud him for doing so.

 

Personally I think the IWA is far more likely to have taken things seriously from their side if the complaints are coming from IWA members. I'm not sure how bothered they might be about complaints from those with no commitment to their organisation - they certainly didn't seem concerned about a large number of non-members suggesting that they should not be trying to secure every "boater" place on council.

 

Please, if we are going to "have a go" at anybody, can we direct it at those who still think Welch's remarks were "a good thing", not at someone who, as a member of the organisation, has clearly taken the time and trouble to let their feelings about them be known.

 

I certainly have no axe to grind with "Churchward" - I think he has acted very honourably, in the circumstances.

[Tuscan]

I personally now think "Churchward" is being given an unwarranted rough ride here.

 

At least as an obviously committed IWA member he has taken the time and trouble to make his feelings known to them about the views Welch has expressed, and I applaud him for doing so.

 

Personally I think the IWA is far more likely to have taken things seriously from their side if the complaints are coming from IWA members. I'm not sure how bothered they might be about complaints from those with no commitment to their organisation - they certainly didn't seem concerned about a large number of non-members suggesting that they should not be trying to secure every "boater" place on council.

 

Please, if we are going to "have a go" at anybody, can we direct it at those who still think Welch's remarks were "a good thing", not at someone who, as a member of the organisation, has clearly taken the time and trouble to let their feelings about them be known.

 

I certainly have no axe to grind with "Churchward" - I think he has acted very honourably, in the circumstances.

 

 

 

 

Totally agree Alan change is far more likely to be effected from within the organisation even if they also listen to those outside,

[alan_fincher]

Of more concern is if he has made the same statements without supporting evidence as a boaters rep who may have influence on CRT policy. I wonder if there is anything in the CRT procedures where a boaters rep can be forced to resign, would a petition do it?

Roger Hanbury, head of governance services at CRT, has already indicated in email responses to those who have contacted him about Welch's remarks that nothing in the process allows for removal of an elected Council member before their 4 year term is completed.

 

I am not impressed with the replies I did see, because (to paraphrase) Hanbury said Welch at the end of the day is his own man, and not part of CRT, and his views are his own, not those of the trust. However, when Welch replies as a CRT Council boater representative, he does so using a canalrivertrust.org.uk email address, and I think it is unacceptable for someone elected to represent all holders of CRT "private" boat licences to be giving replies in that capacity that invent complete untruths about a large slice of those he is there to represent.

 

I think he is there for the duration though.

[Tuscan]

Roger Hanbury, head of governance services at CRT, has already indicated in email responses to those who have contacted him about Welch's remarks that nothing in the process allows for removal of an elected Council member before their 4 year term is completed.

 

I am not impressed with the replies I did see, because (to paraphrase) Hanbury said Welch at the end of the day is his own man, and not part of CRT, and his views are his own, not those of the trust. However, when Welch replies as a CRT Council boater representative, he does so using a canalrivertrust.org.uk email address, and I think it is unacceptable for someone elected to represent all holders of CRT "private" boat licences to be giving replies in that capacity that invent complete untruths about a large slice of those he is there to represent.

 

I think he is there for the duration though.

 

 

Perhaps the time has cme to stop giving him the oxygen of publicity, he seems pretty discredited and we now know that the role of boaters representative is just a sop to he charity commission and would appear to have little real function. He has been slapped down by his own power base so I don't think his "voice" will be heard much going forward .

[Allan(nb Albert)]

Roger Hanbury, head of governance services at CRT, has already indicated in email responses to those who have contacted him about Welch's remarks that nothing in the process allows for removal of an elected Council member before their 4 year term is completed.

 

I am not impressed with the replies I did see, because (to paraphrase) Hanbury said Welch at the end of the day is his own man, and not part of CRT, and his views are his own, not those of the trust. However, when Welch replies as a CRT Council boater representative, he does so using a canalrivertrust.org.uk email address, and I think it is unacceptable for someone elected to represent all holders of CRT "private" boat licences to be giving replies in that capacity that invent complete untruths about a large slice of those he is there to represent.

 

I think he is there for the duration though.

 

Roger Hanbury appears to be misleading those that have contacted him.

 

The draft rules do appear to allow for the removal of Vaughan Welch from office.

 

1.13 For the purposes of Article 29.7.6 of the Trust, where

 

1.13.1 a Council member fails to attend three meetings of Council in succession; or

 

1.13.2 a Council member is persistently disruptive to Council business; or

 

1.13.3 for any other substantial cause the continued membership of the Council of

that person is significantly detrimental to the reputation of, or the proper

conduct of the business of, or the achievement of the purposes of, the Trust

then on application by the Trustees to the Appointments Committee that Committee

may terminate the membership of that person. If the person so removed objects to that

removal he or she may require the Council at its next meeting after the removal

(which shall be constituted as a general meeting of the Trust) to reconsider the

decision of the Appointments Committee. The Council may reverse the decision of

the Appointments Committee if 75% or more of the members of the Council voting at

that meeting (or any adjournment of that meeting) vote in favour of reversing the

decision of the Appointments Committee.

Edited January 23, 2013 by Allan(nb Albert)

[sueb]

And so the witch hunt goes on.

[carlt]

And so the witch hunt goes on.

If somebody puts their opinions out in the public domain they are inviting criticism, debate and discussion.

 

Considering your behaviour over certain subjects I think you are being somewhat hypocritical.

[cotswoldsman]

And so the witch hunt goes on.

 

Not quite sure why people expressing a view on the extreme views of a Council Member of CRT is a witch hunt. He put himself up to represent 30,000 Boaters at Council and it would appear his views are not held by some of that 30,000 and some feel unrepresented, I being one of them. Do you fall into his only 180 Genuine Continuous Cruisers?

Edited January 23, 2013 by cotswoldsman

[sueb]

Not quite sure why people expressing a view on the extreme views of a Council Member of CRT is a witch hunt. He put himself up to represent 30,000 Boaters at Council and it would appear his views are not held by some of that 30,000 and some feel unrepresented, I being one of them. Do you fall into his only 180 Genuine Continuous Cruisers?

Replying to your last comment, probably as I expect you do too. Some of the 30,000 boaters disagree with him, less than a dozen here. I wonder how many agree with him? I think his views are as extreme as those who think there is no problem at all with moorings and the number of boats on the system.

I feel very unrepresented. I wasn't allowed to vote

Edited January 23, 2013 by sueb

[alan_fincher]

Roger Hanbury appears to be misleading those that have contacted him.

 

The draft rules do appear to allow for the removal of Vaughan Welch from office.

1.13 For the purposes of Article 29.7.6 of the Trust, where

 

1.13.1 a Council member fails to attend three meetings of Council in succession; or

 

1.13.2 a Council member is persistently disruptive to Council business; or

 

1.13.3 for any other substantial cause the continued membership of the Council of

that person is significantly detrimental to the reputation of, or the proper

conduct of the business of, or the achievement of the purposes of, the Trust

then on application by the Trustees to the Appointments Committee that Committee

may terminate the membership of that person. If the person so removed objects to that

removal he or she may require the Council at its next meeting after the removal

(which shall be constituted as a general meeting of the Trust) to reconsider the

decision of the Appointments Committee. The Council may reverse the decision of

the Appointments Committee if 75% or more of the members of the Council voting at

that meeting (or any adjournment of that meeting) vote in favour of reversing the

decision of the Appointments Committee.

 

Interesting......

 

It occurs to me we are talking about CRT Council related correspondence that is in the public domain, but I don't think has appeared on CWDF.

 

AS it seems to have been a largely standard response to those raising the topic, and as it is in the public domain, here is a sample reply......

 

Thank you for your email

 

The views Vaughan Welch has chosen to express are his own and they have been published in an IWA magazine. They are most definitely not the views of the Canal & River Trust. Clearly the views have caused controversy but the concerns should be addressed to Vaughan Welch and the IWA. It is important to make clear that the piece which was published in August 2012 does not suggest that the views expressed are those of the Canal & River Trust, nor does it link them to the Trust’s website, his position on the Council, the West Midlands Partnership or his observer status in the Navigation Advisory Group.

 

Nonetheless I have spoken to Vaughan Welch and I understand that a further piece has been submitted to the IWA magazine Navigation to clarify his position. This however is a matter for Vaughan Welch and IWA to resolve. Vaughan Welch was elected to the Trust’s Council by a constituency of all boat licence holders and our constitution contains no provisions for removing members in circumstances such as these.

 

All the Trust’s policies are determined by the Board of Trustees who may seek guidance and perspective from Council. A briefing paper considered by Council at their September meeting sets out the policy on Continuous Cruising which has now been set by Trustees. In implementing the policy we are putting additional effort into engaging with groups of continuous cruisers to build understanding of the fresh approach to moorings control that this document sets out. So far, three out of three meetings have been very successful. I am glad that you felt your meeting with the Trust in November was productive and we too are encouraged by the discussions.

 

Thank you for writing to me and I hope that this response puts your mind at rest.

 

Kind regards

 

Roger

 

I agree with you, what Roger has said does seem to be at variance with what you have quoted.

 

In practice I'd say the wording you have quoted still makes it sound unlikely to happen - but "impossible" - apparently not!

[carlt]

I think his views are as extreme as those who think there is no problem at all with moorings and the number of boats on the system

I don't think anybody has claimed there are no problems with moorings, just that they are exaggerated by the likes of Welch and as long as boaters are the main financial contributors to the upkeep of the canals then your dream of them being your own personal playground will never be realised.

[cotswoldsman]

Replying to your last comment, probably as I expect you do too. Some of the 30,000 boaters disagree with him, less than a dozen here. I wonder how many agree with him? I think his views are as extreme as those who think there is no problem at all with moorings and the number of boats on the system

 

Problem with moorings!! When were you last on Lancaster canal or in Ripon loads of moorings or did you have a problem in those places? Oh and Selby Canal has plenty of moorings, did you have a problem there aswell?

[Tuscan]

Interesting......

 

It occurs to me we are talking about CRT Council related correspondence that is in the public domain, but I don't think has appeared on CWDF.

 

AS it seems to have been a largely standard response to those raising the topic, and as it is in the public domain, here is a sample reply......

 

 

 

I agree with you, what Roger has said does seem to be at variance with what you have quoted.

 

In practice I'd say the wording you have quoted still makes it sound unlikely to happen - but "impossible" - apparently not!

 

 

 

I think what he is saying is that the internal publication of his remarks in a IWA magazine in his IWA capacity are not grounds for termination. What he has done is stimulate debate where previous there was little amongst boaters whether that be IWA, forums and CRT. This debate probably has led to more people being better informed of some of the problems and removed some of the hype on either side. So perhaps we have much to thank him for !

[alan_fincher]

Replying to your last comment, probably as I expect you do too. Some of the 30,000 boaters disagree with him, less than a dozen here. I wonder how many agree with him? I think his views are as extreme as those who think there is no problem at all with moorings and the number of boats on the system

Do you seriously imagine that if the IWA believed that dissent about Welch's remarks only extended to a dozen people on a canal forum that they would be taking it seriously, and dissociating themselves from his remarks, and getting him to make a further statement. (Actually is it a "witch hunt" anyway, if you are claiming that not many are actually unhappy about it?....).

 

Sue, I know you frequent Facebook, and cannot be unaware of people saying they intend to cease IWA membership. The IWA have, (rightly in my view) taken this seriously because they know it is damaging.

 

I don't seem to get through to you, (and others) though, that this is more than just being about the views he apparently holds. To me it is about using completely fabricated observations, to support his views. It is not just about opinions - it is about fact. There are not more or less continuous strings of boats (often double berthed) on a 25 mile stretch of canal from Bulls Bridge to Tottenham. On most of that length, as you must surely know, there are no boats at all. It is not valid to try and support your position by talking nonsense. Anyone feeding a completely fabricated version of events to those who actually know the areas being talked about is on sticky ground, and if in a position where they are supposed to represent us deserves to be criticised.

 

You, Laurence, and others seem to think he is still a good old boy for speaking his mind on something you think is ruining your canal system. It is one thing to speak your mind, but if the "facts" you base it on are completely flawed, don't be surprised if more thinking people get upset.

[Allan(nb Albert)]

Interesting......

 

It occurs to me we are talking about CRT Council related correspondence that is in the public domain, but I don't think has appeared on CWDF.

 

AS it seems to have been a largely standard response to those raising the topic, and as it is in the public domain, here is a sample reply......

 

I agree with you, what Roger has said does seem to be at variance with what you have quoted.

 

In practice I'd say the wording you have quoted still makes it sound unlikely to happen - but "impossible" - apparently not!

 

My understanding is that the 'rules' will be ratified and adopted at the next council meeting after the waterways minister has approved them. Obviously, they may change but what I quote is from the CaRT website.

 

Roger Hanbury should have explained that the rules made provision for removal from office of council members and passed any emails to the trustees for consideration rather than fob people off.

[PiRSqwared]

Replying to your last comment, probably as I expect you do too. Some of the 30,000 boaters disagree with him, less than a dozen here. I wonder how many agree with him? I think his views are as extreme as those who think there is no problem at all with moorings and the number of boats on the system

 

Slightly off piste, but here goes...

Are you saying there are too many boats on the system, or just that more moorings are needed?

[Tuscan]

Slightly off piste, but here goes...

Are you saying there are too many boats on the system, or just that more moorings are needed?

 

 

I think the original premis was

 

1. that there are too many boats without a home mooring that do not continuously cruise or stay within a narrow area for more than 14days at a time.

And

2. That two many boats (NOT just those with a CC license) overstay visitor moorings, water points, lock entrances etc

 

The debate seems to be how to address these problems if indeed they are problems . Welch's view is one extreme perhaps those that say there is no problem at all is another.

 

 

Time to get my coat and walk the dogs.....

[jenlyn]

So, if there are too many boats in an area on the system with no home mooring, an option is to provide more online moorings. That said, the other option is to provide roving permits for that area. So that particular problem has not gone away, it's merely treated as a problem to make money from?

Anyone have any solutions?

[Joshua]

I think what he is saying is that the internal publication of his remarks in a IWA magazine in his IWA capacity are not grounds for termination. What he has done is stimulate debate where previous there was little amongst boaters whether that be IWA, forums and CRT. This debate probably has led to more people being better informed of some of the problems and removed some of the hype on either side. So perhaps we have much to thank him for !

 

I can't see how any one could argue that Welch has brought enlightenment to this issue but I think he should be given the opportunity to try.

I have no doubt that what Welch said, would have heartened many people and had them reaching for their pitch forks, but it is relatively easy to whip up a mob, all you need is a lot of ill informed people, tell them their home and family are under threat and point them towards the 'enemy'.

 

I find it hard to believe that Welch (as an IWA regional chairman) is expressing a view totally at odds with his colleagues, it is hard to imagine that he does not discuss such important matters with those colleagues and that if they disagreed, someone wouldn't have said something along the lines of, "god almighty Vaughan, you can't say that, much less publish it".

 

To paraphrase, part of what he said was; 'I encourage members to go out and gather evidence about all these spongers hiding in our West Midland waterways and report them to CRT'.

 

Personally, I suspect Welch (and his colleagues) got carried away with the CRT's September briefing paper and their new public display of friendship, and thought the time was right to whip up a mob and declare war on a section of the boating fraternity that has annoyed them for a long time.

 

They took careful aim, had a pop and missed, and now it is being suggested that it was all down to one individual who if he apologizes, everything will return to normal.

 

I don't believe he is a lone voice and I don't think he should apologise. I think he should try to justify what he said and get his hitherto silent allies to stand up and be counted. If he fails to prove his point or demonstrate that it is representative of a large number of reasonable people (not a mob) then he should admit he is out of touch and abused his representative role to further an extreme prejudice and in the circumstances can not continue as a representative of the group as a whole.

 

To avoid any doubt, I also believe there are some mooring problems on our network but they are complex and multifaceted not the single, simple issue that Welch sees. Patience, cool heads and everyone's cooperation is needed.

 

I do think that the CRT are trying to resolve them and that they are being imaginative in their engagement with all types of boaters to find solutions. I believe that a mob witch hunt of a certain type of boater, would not only undermine that good work but is unjustifiable and morally indefensible.

 

 

[cotswoldsman]

I can't see how any one could argue that Welch has brought enlightenment to this issue but I think he should be given the opportunity to try.

 

I have no doubt that what Welch said, would have heartened many people and had them reaching for their pitch forks, but it is relatively easy to whip up a mob, all you need is a lot of ill informed people, tell them their home and family are under threat and point them towards the 'enemy'.

 

I find it hard to believe that Welch (as an IWA regional chairman) is expressing a view totally at odds with his colleagues, it is hard to imagine that he does not discuss such important matters with those colleagues and that if they disagreed, someone wouldn't have said something along the lines of, "god almighty Vaughan, you can't say that, much less publish it".

 

To paraphrase, part of what he said was; 'I encourage members to go out and gather evidence about all these spongers hiding in our West Midland waterways and report them to CRT'.

 

Personally, I suspect Welch (and his colleagues) got carried away with the CRT's September briefing paper and their new public display of friendship, and thought the time was right to whip up a mob and declare war on a section of the boating fraternity that has annoyed them for a long time.

 

They took careful aim, had a pop and missed, and now it is being suggested that it was all down to one individual who if he apologizes, everything will return to normal.

 

I don't believe he is a lone voice and I don't think he should apologise. I think he should try to justify what he said and get his hitherto silent allies to stand up and be counted. If he fails to prove his point or demonstrate that it is representative of a large number of reasonable people (not a mob) then he should admit he is out of touch and abused his representative role to further an extreme prejudice and in the circumstances can not continue as a representative of the group as a whole.

 

To avoid any doubt, I also believe there are some mooring problems on our network but they are complex and multifaceted not the single, simple issue that Welch sees. Patience, cool heads and everyone's cooperation is needed.

 

I do think that the CRT are trying to resolve them and that they are being imaginative in their engagement with all types of boaters to find solutions. I believe that a mob witch hunt of a certain type of boater, would not only undermine that good work but is unjustifiable and morally indefensible.

 

 

 

Excellent post

[TNC]

Replying to your last comment, probably as I expect you do too. Some of the 30,000 boaters disagree with him, less than a dozen here. I wonder how many agree with him? I think his views are as extreme as those who think there is no problem at all with moorings and the number of boats on the system.

I feel very unrepresented. I wasn't allowed to vote

 

Nor was I. MRS TNC now gets the vote.

[BruceinSanity]

Excellent post

 

Hear, hear, greenie from me.