CRT No Longer Wish To Meet With Boaters

[alan_fincher]

I have only just really picked up on this, (I'm actually out enjoying my boats, and loving it!)

 

I have to say I'm fairly gutted, having been heavily involved in the process to date, (although I freely concede not as heavily involved as John or Steve). Right now I feel like I have wasted a lot of time and money, so I can imagine how John and Steve feel.

If the only allowed avenues of dialogue are once again to be through local user groups, or via the IWA then I think we are well and truly stuffed, frankly. Suggestions that you join the IWA and then try and change it from within can only bring frustration and heartache in my view - that is precisely where some of the daft ideas and attitudes we have been trying to fight came from in the first place - I felt we had more chance of changing CRT than we had the IWA!

 

I had hoped better of John Dodwell and Vince Moran, both of whom seemed to embrace this process for a while, although I had sensed it might be starting to fall apart.

 

I have to say that the apparent disdain I personally feel I have been greeted by in some quarters in CRT when trying to promote boater issues in my own region (the South East) leaves me very fearful for the future. Much of the time, boats there seems to be treated more as an inconvenience than anything else.

[Auntyfab]

For the record these are the figures from British Waterways 2011/12 Accounts, which shows that they get most of their income from property, selling water to water companies {ever wondered why the canals are low on water?} and mooring, Not surprisingly C&RT senior managers see their priority as landlords - nothing to do with boating.

 

Group commercial income summary £m BW Group England & Wales Scotland 2011/12 Property rentals, wayleaves and premiums 38.2 Utility income and water sales 24.4 Boat licence income 17.8 BWML total income 6.9 BW moorings 6.4 BW retail sales 2.9 Maintenance and other income 11.6 Group commercial income 108.2 {total)

Edited August 15, 2013 by Auntyfab

[PeteLeigh]

I've heard that CaRT plans to corral boaters in special 'concentration marinas' surrounded by barbed wire, we've got to watch the slippery bastards. I don't fancy being overlooked by armed CaRT guards in watchtowers.

 

It could happen you know.

as a continuous cruiser, they'd have a job trying to contain me in a marina!!

[matty40s]

matty40s - I asked how often you had boated on the South Oxford,

"I don't know how often Martty40s has been down the South Oxford, but he paints a picture of creeping dereliction."

 

M - It is definitely worse than previous years, and with the planting of the hessian sausages, moorings will get severely worse as the sprout.

 

Accusing me of trolling, and telling me to fek off certainly is personal against me

M- You seem to think that what is happening is nothing important, however, you were not allegedly aware of any of the meetings etc taking place.

 

My expressed views are genuinely held. I know they are running against the grain of the majority of posters on this thread, but if we can't have a civilised discussion on on a discussion forum, then I am seriously unimpressed.

 

I love the canals, spend over 150 days per year on the cut,...

 

M - I spend my life and work on the cut.

[NoFixedAbode]

I'm so sorry John, Jenlyn and all that your hard work failed. I have watched so many start off saying we can work with BW/Cart then find out the reality. They are the bosses and we the ants. Please take heed of Simon's post. I don't feel starting a new organisation is the way forward. There are plenty in existence already. There will be enthusiasm to start with which will gradually die. The existing organisations need the enthusiasm which people here can bring to them and they have experience and money which can be used to aid boaters.

 

I may be out of line here ( I usually am!) but I see the hand of the two big organisations behind this, Cotswoldman and Jenlyn have achieved more in the last few months than the IWA and NABO together have done in the last decade. I think both organisations have been overshadowed and are just begining to realise that most boaters consider them irrelavent and so have complained about CaRT meeting boaters not repressented by recognised organisations.

 

E.T.A. a missing word

Edited August 15, 2013 by NoFixedAbode

[Starcoaster]

I've heard that CaRT plans to corral boaters in special 'concentration marinas' surrounded by barbed wire, we've got to watch the slippery bastards. I don't fancy being overlooked by armed CaRT guards in watchtowers.

 

It could happen you know.

 

This sounds not unlike Sawley marina as it is now!

I'd hate being back in a marina, it was a good idea when I first got the boat but after a few months it felt like a prison, complete with locked gates and a high fence with a ten minute walk to the exit. This was Braunston, one of the nicer marinas too. I get that for many people it is ideal and they like that level of security, but many of us hate it.

[stagedamager]

In true beaurocratic style I await an email from CRT distancing themselves from Mr. Dodwell after realising what an almighty cockup this has been. Perhaps then they will realise these trustees should be kept in a cupboard at all times, unless pomp and ceremony dictate otherwise. Only then should they be allowed to interact with the public. On a non speaking or typing basis.

Dan

[BlueStringPudding]

Of course boats are seen as an inconvenience. We are a financial inconvenience because long term lack of maintenance is expensive, and if there is not enough income from licenses to pay for all that, then the Tory option, I mean "easiest" option is to let the canals deteriorate because towpath walkers don't need dredging or functioning locks and so on.

 

This CRT chap's now very public words were very unwise though. As a Trust expecting to be able to fundraise, at a time when funders are expecting charities to prove they are user-led and consulting meaningfully with beneficiaries, they've shot themselves in the foot by allowing those true colours to be seen in a very public forum. I would be surprised if either they don't lose some of their current Trusts and Foundations' funding for having said that, as well as "Friends of" contributions, or miss out on securing some new funding bids because of it.

[PeteLeigh]

it seems like the IWA may at last resume its campainging heritage, (stop co-towing to so called authority). Challenge and win

[RLWP]

it seems like the IWA may at last resume its campainging heritage, (stop co-towing to so called authority). Challenge and win

 

I don't understand. IWA hold many roles within C&RT already, John Dodwell is a long standing IWA member

 

I find it even more hard now to separate the IWA from CRT

 

Richard

[bassplayer]

For the record these are the figures from British Waterways 2011/12 Accounts, which shows that they get most of their income from property, selling water to water companies {ever wondered why the canals are low on water?} and mooring, Not surprisingly C&RT senior managers see their priority as landlords - nothing to do with boating.

 

Group commercial income summary £m BW Group England & Wales Scotland 2011/12 Property rentals, wayleaves and premiums 38.2 Utility income and water sales 24.4 Boat licence income 17.8 BWML total income 6.9 BW moorings 6.4 BW retail sales 2.9 Maintenance and other income 11.6 Group commercial income 108.2 {total)

...another sane post...maybe it really is time to demonstrate at CRT headquarters and embarrass CRT in front of the camera. The public will relate far more to the romance of the canals than property rentals and water sales. Just a thought...

[nb Innisfree]

If we the boaters contribute 30% then we either pay three and a third more for our licences and have it all to ourselves or we stay as we are and enjoy our 30%

 

Cant decide how to express three and a third in percentage.

Edited August 15, 2013 by nb Innisfree

[Auntyfab]

Of course boats are seen as an inconvenience. We are a financial inconvenience because long term lack of maintenance is expensive, and if there is not enough income from licenses to pay for all that, then the Tory option, I mean "easiest" option is to let the canals deteriorate because towpath walkers don't need dredging or functioning locks and so on.

 

This CRT chap's now very public words were very unwise though. As a Trust expecting to be able to fundraise, at a time when funders are expecting charities to prove they are user-led and consulting meaningfully with beneficiaries, they've shot themselves in the foot by allowing those true colours to be seen in a very public forum. I would be surprised if either they don't lose some of their current Trusts and Foundations' funding for having said that, as well as "Friends of" contributions, or miss out on securing some new funding bids because of it.

Incoveniently for CRT, the Acts of Parliament that they inherited from BW place an obligation on them to maintain most (but not all) to a navigable stanard.

[RLWP]

...another sane post...maybe it really is time to demonstrate at CRT headquarters and embarrass CRT in front of the camera. The public will relate far more to the romance of the canals than property rentals and water sales. Just a thought...

 

I would like to take this opportunity to ask what it is that the forum would like me to say or do at the NUF meeting on the 12th September at The Bond, Birmimgham , B5 5SE |between 10:30 and 12:30

 

Richard

[RockSodem]

Is there any chance of seeing the full email string from the OP regarding this?

Edited August 15, 2013 by RockSodem

[billS]

 

 

M - I spend my life and work on the cut.

 

And I envy you that, and long may it continue.

 

Still standing by you troll comment then?

[matty40s]

Incoveniently for CRT, the Acts of Parliament that they inherited from BW place an obligation on them to maintain most (but not all) to a navigable stanard.

Which is why the IWA were formed in the first place, to challenge and ensure continued use.......although they seem o forget that,

quote name="RLWP" post="1123603" timestamp="1376604723"]

I would like to take this opportunity to ask what it is that the forum would like me to say or do at the NUF meeting on the 12th September at The Bond, Birmimgham , B5 5SE |between 10:30 and 12:30

 

Richard

just remind them that 35000 boats means a damn sight more users.

Day boats - average crew - 6-10

Hire boat - average crew - 2-12

Share boat - average users - 2-8?users for 36 weeks a year

Trip boats/community boats etc, up to 30 users each trip

etc etc etc, hey boot!

[jenlyn]

I suggested to john this morning that we had put some associations noses out of joint, and they had probably pushed CRT to abandon these meetings. Thats my own suspicion anyway.

John Dodwell, hmmm, I think he said what was in his mind, something I do often. People dont like it. He is from the old school, IWA and all that, so you sort of expect to hear those sort of remarks. Not pleasant, dare I say it, a little pompous perhaps. I took his remark with a pinch of salt, though I will have something to say further next time I see him.

It's not the end of the world, we will move on in a more organised way. We learnt a few things (I hope), and wont be quite so trusting next time. Ultimately, we only ever tried to make people aware of what the future might hold, things are going to change, some of it possibly good, but please keep an eye on whats going on around you on the canals. Be aware that some things are not good, for an example, its all very well to say, cut that bit of towpath back for your plank, but what if the "weed" is in fact a protected species?

I never believed for one moment CRT were clever, but I know too damned well some of them are bloody devious.

[magpie patrick]

Incoveniently for CRT, the Acts of Parliament that they inherited from BW place an obligation on them to maintain most (but not all) to a navigable stanard.

 

 

Not only that, this is the CRT Constitution

 

 

 

Objects

The Trust’s objects are:

2.1 to preserve, protect, operate and manage Inland Waterways for public benefit:

2.1.1 for navigation;

2.1.2 for walking on towpaths; and

2.1.3 for recreation or other leisure-time pursuits of the public in the interest of their health and social welfare;

Followed by several others, but the first one could be a tad inconvenient if they ignore boaters needs

[c c]

Other than "Thank you so much for trying John and Co", I'm lost for words but for some reason an episode of Yes Minister came to mind when the government minister wanted to announce an exciting new hospital until the Civil Servant explained that whilst building it was politically good, staffing, equipping and maintaining it and then filling it full of sick people, was outrageously expensive.

NABO2 The Fight Back

[Wanted]

Thank you John, Steve and everyone else, by no means a fail.

 

Moving forwards, can I ask Richard to raise the subject of communication at the meeting he is going to. It's vital that we press for independent boaters voices IMO.

 

What do people think of an additional form that is submitted when applying/renewing a license. A space to annually feedback issues and concerns. I'm not convinced it will be heard but if enough of us use a standard format then it will be harder to ignor.

Independent boaters feedback form.. Hmm

 

I also think we may need to act a little more directly but let's not burn our half of the bridge..

[dmr]

Incoveniently for CRT, the Acts of Parliament that they inherited from BW place an obligation on them to maintain most (but not all) to a navigable stanard.

Not sure you are correct.

During the negotiations to transfer from BW to CaRT the government were asked to guarantee a "bale out" if there was a major breach or similar disaster.

This was refused and so (reasonably) I think it was agreed that there could no longer be an ultimate guarantee of navigation.

I hope I am wrong here, but I am not sure that we can just sit back, do nothing, and believe that our canals are safe in CaRTs hands.

 

...............Dave

.............Dave

[jelunga]

I was astonished to discover that licence payers were not automatically "friends".

Neither are rhe volunteers who give freely of their time. CRT js all take take take with littke in return.

[MtB]

i wondered if this was going to happen when CRT asked for us to form ourselves into a group, with a name.

 

We decided not to, and this is the result.

 

 

MtB

[Richard Fairhurst]

Hi John, I've not been involved in the great work you have been doing, but it has caught my attention and interested me.

 

I would support you in forming a more formal organisation to represent our interests.

 

^ this.

 

Boaters are not a homogenous group. Never have been, never will be; we're far too cussed and bloody-minded for that. Having a single voice to speak for "boaters" isn't going to work because the divergence in opinions is just too great.

 

Which is why (loosely) constituting yourself as a user group with (broadly) defined aims is a Really Good Thing. It doesn't have to be particularly formal: several waterway groups aren't. But by saying "here is our group, here is what we stand for, here is how people express their support for us", you have weight behind you. CRT can't ignore a group with 1,000 members speaking out in favour of a common goal; after all, there are groups speaking at NUF (and its predecessors) with many fewer than that.

 

CWF isn't that group in itself, and it can't be. Having a user account here doesn't mean anything except that you're interested in canals. When the guy from the IWA sits down to talk to CRT, he has the weight of 17,000 paying members and democratic elections behind him; that's why CRT listen. CWF can't claim that representation.

 

But it wouldn't be hard to create an (all electronic, unpaid) membership organisation that could. You just need a signup form ("my name is xxx and I agree with the aims of the organisation") and basic annual elections to choose your representatives. Go for it.