South East Visitor Mooring Proposals

[alan_fincher]

I will do it this evening and post a link here.

Excellent, thank you!

 

Damian has said he intends to publish, so you can no doubt look forward to "suggestions" we could have got it through "the informal process", but I now think we have to back the "informal process" up with the "formal" one, just in case what was promised is slow to materialise.

 

I'm kicking myself for not doing it two weeks ago now, (or asking if you would!).

[Wanted]

Can we stop calling it a consultation now?

 

This is just a precursor to the social engineering that the (mis)trust are intent on rolling our across the system. If you think this won't negatively effect you because you are not in the SE then I urge you to consider this as nothing but a pilot for everywhere else.

 

Oh, and be sure to thank the IWA for turning their back on boaters when they needed most.

 

Start yer engines!

[Ray]

Perhaps CRT should take note of their lock usage figures for the last few years which in the SE area appear to suggest less rather than more boats using the canals in the area and nowhere near the 8000 suggested.

 

Likewise their latest reasoning for the proposals seems more to indicate a determination to implement them rather than any attempt to take on board at least some of the comments made to them by respondees to the consultation. I cannot believe that it is normal for something to be put forward for consultation and no reason found from responses to make any changes to the original proposals. This is what CRT would have us believe.

 

As Alan has indicated above, as someone who summarised 50 of the responses. the view that I got was significantly different to that which as been implied by CRT.

 

Maybe we should offer to undertake the monitoring of the trial sites for a period and see if CRTs view of the impact of their proposals is the same as ours!

[tree]

Signed.

[Allan(nb Albert)]

As promised here is the FOIA request.

 

I guess most will realise why I have expanded the scope of the request to ask for more than just copies of responses.

 

I have also made a nod towards what John Dodwell has said about sorting these matters informally.

Edited March 18, 2013 by Allan(nb Albert)

[Tuscan]

As promised here is the FOIA request.

 

I guess most will realise why I have expanded the scope of the request to ask for more than just copies or responses.

 

I have also made a nod towards what John Dodwell has said about sorting these matters informally.

 

 

My only concern with this is that all responses need to be completely anonymous to ensure people need have no fear contributing to further consultations (in the probably naive hope that future ones might be more thought through).

[jenlyn]

My only concern with this is that all responses need to be completely anonymous to ensure people need have no fear contributing to further consultations (in the probably naive hope that future ones might be more thought through).

I hope so, seeing as this recent use of volunteers signed nothing on confidentility, and were not even instructed by damian as to their responsibility on confidentiality. This resulted obviously in the ability of the volunteers being able to discuss the results openly on the internet. Ho hum........

[alan_fincher]

My only concern with this is that all responses need to be completely anonymous to ensure people need have no fear contributing to further consultations (in the probably naive hope that future ones might be more thought through).

This is the somewhat late message sent eventually by Damian to collators....

 

It has come to my attention that there are ‘confidentiality’ concerns among some of you. So, for the avoidance of doubt, where a respondent has supplied contact details it is solely for the purpose of clarifying any ambiguity in their response. Respondents have supplied their details expressly for this purpose. Personal contact details are not to shared, published or used in any other way.

 

Ultimately, each and every response will be put, fully redacted, in the public domain. With this in mind you are free to discuss, in public forums, the responses you’ve looked at but only if the respondent remains anonymous. In hindsight, I should have asked you to sign a confidentiality agreement and will do this for any future consultations.

 

If anyone is uncomfortable with these constraints then please delete all responses and confirm with me that you have done so.

 

One can only hope that their efforts at "fully redacted" will be better than they managed with other stuff, where in particular it wasn't hard to guess the individual hire boat companies.

 

Anyway, if you take Damian at his word, then Allan's FOI request should not be needed, at least on the individual responses.

[Allan(nb Albert)]

My only concern with this is that all responses need to be completely anonymous to ensure people need have no fear contributing to further consultations (in the probably naive hope that future ones might be more thought through).

Interestingly, most subject to FOIA warn those responding to consultations that their names might be disclosed. They make respondents aware and ask for reason why their names should not be disclosed. This information is then used to decide if information can be redacted.

 

BW/CaRT does not do this but tends to redact personal information anyway.

 

One can only hope that their efforts at "fully redacted" will be better than they managed with other stuff, where in particular it wasn't hard to guess the individual hire boat companies.

On the hair splitting front, CaRT should not have removed the names of hire boat companies if it was information requested under FOIA.

 

However, as neither Alan nor I had requested this information ......

[Nyx]

As many of you will know, I have been battling with CRT for over a month to try and get them to provide any data that establishes that these proposals are actually necessary.

 

Most of the reasons we have been given throughout the discussions have now proved to have no basis that CRT can actually establish as fact.

 

If these changes go in, they can only possibly be made to work if CRT massively increase their spend on both monitoring and enforcement, and these are ongoing costs, not a once off. it eems crazy when CRT is strapped for cash, and looking for voluntary contributions to spend much extra money on these ill thought out proposals.

 

The alternative is that they do not end up enforced, and we end up with no greater level of compliance than already exists with longer stay times.

 

I am absolutely convinced that these proposals should be shelved, at least until any real evidence for the need is forthcoming - a view shared by both NABO and the RBOA. Additionally NABO doubt CRT have the powers in law to levy the large overstay charges that are a key part of the proposal.

 

The workshops to discuss this take place this week, and I would now urge anyone who is convinced that the proposal should be pulled to sign the petition, if you have not yet done so.

 

Thank you.

 

Link to the Petition

 

 

Have tried many times to sign, but keep getting "There was an error submitting your form. Please try again later."

[jenlyn]

Have tried many times to sign, but keep getting "There was an error submitting your form. Please try again later."

Try this

 

http://www.change.org/en-GB/petitions/canal-and-river-trust-stop-in-the-whole-the-south-east-vm-proposals?utm_campaign=share_button_mobile&utm_medium=facebook&utm_source=share_petition

[BlueStringPudding]

Even that link gives the error message. I've tried three times now,

[sueb]

I won't respond to a consultation that is sorted by volunteers, only paid employees. If my details are used for any purpose I want to be able to hold the person and organisation to account.

[Tuscan]

I won't respond to a consultation that is sorted by volunteers, only paid employees. If my details are used for any purpose I want to be able to hold the person and organisation to account.

 

I don't understand the data protection act v the freedom of information rights, as this information is stored it must come under the data protection act. Although the volunteers are boaters many will have a very defined views on the rights and wrongs of the aims of this consultation so the information could have been corrupted both by volunteers and by CRT themselves. It seems astonishing that CRT only realised that there might be confidential and even conflict of interest issues after the scoring had started. I suspect they were a bit suprised by the amount of noise and activity these proposals have caused. I am concerned that two of the markers have indicated that the 100 responses they collated differ substantially from the other 200+ that CRT have analysed that seems unlikely .

[Midnight]

I agree about getting 700 to support a petition in support, if you see what I mean, only because those in support will not be affected by the proposals so just wont bother to vote.

Its always the "antis" that shout the loudest.

 

 

The proposals don't affect me (?) but I still signed and made the point in the notes. I signed because I think this is clearly the wrong approach. As usual CART has it's priorities wrong. Simply enforcing the current rules would reach the same outcome. Implementing these proposals will create more work for the enforcement people who don't seem able to deal with the current workload.

[Barry]

Signed

[alan_fincher]

I am concerned that two of the markers have indicated that the 100 responses they collated differ substantially from the other 200+ that CRT have analysed that seems unlikely .

The responses were numbered - I have not asked if this reflects the broad order they were received and/or filed by CRT, but it seems a fair assumption, (we can try asking!).

 

We are now told 357 responses.

 

I processed 186-205 and 241 to 270

 

Ray of this forum tells me he had 1-10, 221-240, 281-290 & 301-310.

 

So apart from the first 10, it seems that between us we may have processed an awful lot of the second half received, but very few of the first half.

 

I can easily see that a lot of those in favour may have responded quickly, without too much thought and hesitation, whereas those who wanted to try and find some facts and real reasons for doing it may well have delayed to closer to the end, (mine finally only went in on the final day, after I decided we had done all we could).

 

So it is possible that an awful lot of positive answers early in the process offset the very much higher proportion opposing that was typical of the batch I processed.

 

This is why we need to see the original documents.

 

I am however livid that we will be sitting down today apparently with almost no reliable statement of what the 357 responses did say. This document provided by Damian is a whitewash, and in no way a proper summary of the responses. Instead it is another late attempt by CRT to peddle their own very spurious reasons why this should go ahead, and to rubbish the comments of anybody who has dared to question the unsoundness of the whole thing.

 

I completely fail to understand why "you have not demonstrated the need, and this will cost huge amounts of money that could be spent on something less controversial" is considered a poor argument whereas "we have not touched any of this for two decades, so clearly need to start making big changes now" is considered a good argument.

 

I know it is completely different, but am kind of reminded of the 1970s when BW felt it was necessary to start abandoning lock paddle gear designs that had worked for 170 years, because we "must have something fit for the 20th century", even though what they introduced was universally loathed, regularly broken or vandalised, and cost over twice as much to install and maintain as what had worked for centuries. On the Grand Union it is now thankfully near extinct - consigned to history as another "great idea" that wasn't!

 

Few people are saying that there is not necessarily a need to do something at peak times at the very most popuar sites, but equally if anything is done it needs to be researched, cost effective, and fit for purpose. This has the potential to be none of those.

 

ONE POINT FIVE MILLION POUNDS over three years, people! That could be spent repairing things, like filling in tow-path voids at Visitor Moorings, so you don't risk a broken ankle when stepping off the boat, as a simple example. You can fill an awful lot of tow-path voids for £1.5m

[Chris Pink]

 

We are now told 357 responses.

 

 

I assume you believe this?

 

That the CRU are not so out of control they would actually be that dishonest?

[cotswoldsman]

£1.5 million would provide a lot of extra VM's

[Allan(nb Albert)]

I don't understand the data protection act v the freedom of information rights, as this information is stored it must come under the data protection act. Although the volunteers are boaters many will have a very defined views on the rights and wrongs of the aims of this consultation so the information could have been corrupted both by volunteers and by CRT themselves. It seems astonishing that CRT only realised that there might be confidential and even conflict of interest issues after the scoring had started. I suspect they were a bit suprised by the amount of noise and activity these proposals have caused. I am concerned that two of the markers have indicated that the 100 responses they collated differ substantially from the other 200+ that CRT have analysed that seems unlikely .

I don't expect this will make it much clearer -

 

http://www.ico.gov.uk/upload/documents/library/data_protection/detailed_specialist_guides/personal_data_flowchart_v1_with_preface001.pdf

 

... but in short, it means that personal data (or data that allows a person to be identified)may be disclosed but it depends upon particular circumstances.

 

Other organisations holding consultations, make it clear to responders that details of any response may be disclosed under FOIA. This gives the responder the opportunity to formulate a response with this in mind and to make representation if, for example, he/she objects to disclosure of personal information (usually name).

[Allan(nb Albert)]

£1.5 million would provide a lot of extra VM's

It would also pay twice over for dredging the Slough Arm. This was to be the first project in CaRT's £80m ten year dredging programme. It was due to start next month but has been cancelled due to 'breaches, asset failures and other incidents'.

 

**** Edited to add that CaRT are already spending £2.2m a year on enforcement

Edited March 19, 2013 by Allan(nb Albert)

[BruceinSanity]

Even that link gives the error message. I've tried three times now,

 

I got that the first time I tried, after I'd unchecked the tick box about allowing my name to appear. Second time I left the box ticked and it went through.

[alan_fincher]

I assume you believe this?

 

That the CRU are not so out of control they would actually be that dishonest?

Part of the reason for the FOI, I would say.

 

If the 357 responses they say they received are put in the public domain, then anybody who submitted one can look and see if theirs is one of them, and object if they can't spot it.

 

I think I probably do believe that 357 number, (but I now await comments about by naivety!), my far bigger doubt is we will see very little of the detail of what any of it said during the workshops this week, and they seem to be the last thing to happen before signs may start going up a month later.

[Tuscan]

I don't expect this will make it much clearer -

 

http://www.ico.gov.uk/upload/documents/library/data_protection/detailed_specialist_guides/personal_data_flowchart_v1_with_preface001.pdf

 

... but in short, it means that personal data (or data that allows a person to be identified)may be disclosed but it depends upon particular circumstances.

 

Other organisations holding consultations, make it clear to responders that details of any response may be disclosed under FOIA. This gives the responder the opportunity to formulate a response with this in mind and to make representation if, for example, he/she objects to disclosure of personal information (usually name).

 

 

Thanks. I will however never complete another CRT consultation documentation if the confidence of my response is not respected. In hindsight I think that the use of volunteers to collate the responses who may have a vested interest in the account IWA, NABO , Alan etc that's not to say that I believe for a minute they corrupted the results but they could be accused of doing so.

 

The responses were numbered - I have not asked if this reflects the broad order they were received and/or filed by CRT, but it seems a fair assumption, (we can try asking!).

 

We are now told 357 responses.

 

I processed 186-205 and 241 to 270

 

Ray of this forum tells me he had 1-10, 221-240, 281-290 & 301-310.

 

So apart from the first 10, it seems that between us we may have processed an awful lot of the second half received, but very few of the first half.

 

I can easily see that a lot of those in favour may have responded quickly, without too much thought and hesitation, whereas those who wanted to try and find some facts and real reasons for doing it may well have delayed to closer to the end, (mine finally only went in on the final day, after I decided we had done all we could).

 

So it is possible that an awful lot of positive answers early in the process offset the very much higher proportion opposing that was typical of the batch I processed.

 

This is why we need to see the original documents.

 

I am however livid that we will be sitting down today apparently with almost no reliable statement of what the 357 responses did say. This document provided by Damian is a whitewash, and in no way a proper summary of the responses. Instead it is another late attempt by CRT to peddle their own very spurious reasons why this should go ahead, and to rubbish the comments of anybody who has dared to question the unsoundness of the whole thing.

 

I completely fail to understand why "you have not demonstrated the need, and this will cost huge amounts of money that could be spent on something less controversial" is considered a poor argument whereas "we have not touched any of this for two decades, so clearly need to start making big changes now" is considered a good argument.

 

I know it is completely different, but am kind of reminded of the 1970s when BW felt it was necessary to start abandoning lock paddle gear designs that had worked for 170 years, because we "must have something fit for the 20th century", even though what they introduced was universally loathed, regularly broken or vandalised, and cost over twice as much to install and maintain as what had worked for centuries. On the Grand Union it is now thankfully near extinct - consigned to history as another "great idea" that wasn't!

 

Few people are saying that there is not necessarily a need to do something at peak times at the very most popuar sites, but equally if anything is done it needs to be researched, cost effective, and fit for purpose. This has the potential to be none of those.

 

ONE POINT FIVE MILLION POUNDS over three years, people! That could be spent repairing things, like filling in tow-path voids at Visitor Moorings, so you don't risk a broken ankle when stepping off the boat, as a simple example. You can fill an awful lot of tow-path voids for £1.5m

 

I will not pass judgement until after the workshop and prefer to approach with an open mind and am ready to be disappointed. Like any large organisation they are probably attempting to massage the results to fit their proposal that is to be expected. To call them incompetent maybe, manipulators probably , outright liars and fixers of the result I find harder to believe.

 

One thing I would add that I do object to is that NABO I know canvassed a broad percentage of its members and did some research on the moorings andconsidered the consultation in detail and put in a considered reply on behalf of its members, I assume other organisations did the same. CRT need to understand that NABO for example speaks for some 3000 not just 1 response in the 357.

[alan_fincher]

One thing I would add that I do object to is that NABO I know canvassed a broad percentage of its members and did some research on the moorings andconsidered the consultation in detail and put in a considered reply on behalf of its members, I assume other organisations did the same. CRT need to understand that NABO for example speaks for some 3000 not just 1 response in the 357.

Early on we were told that consultation with the associations they had traditionally used to represent boater views had played a large part in draughting the proposals for the 22 sites.

 

Presumably one would have assumed those assosciations particularly included NABO and RBOA - "boater specific" organisations rather than covering all waterways interests.

 

It is of course interesting now that those two associations have both indicated that the proposals should not go ahead in their current form, that "support by the associations" is not one of the things mentioned in the latest document, (or indeed "lack of support by the associations!").

 

I assume this will get a mention!