CRT No Longer Wish To Meet With Boaters

[Allan(nb Albert)]

Having read the first 12 pages of this topic I decided not to participate, instead I emailed Richard Parry the new CEO of CRT despite the fact tat he was on annual leave and it was a week end he replied within 24 hours. In that response he said amongst other things,

 

"To reassure you, I’m personally committed to active engagement with boaters (and others); an inclusive approach, reaching out to involve all those who use and/or enjoy our waterways is, I believe, essential for the Trust to fulfil its mission"

 

So much of what has been posted is inaccurate, people making 2+2 equal 5, or just plain mischievous. I then continued to read the next 13 pages here we entered the realms of fairy tales, people stating from god knows where their version of CRT's accounts. Now if you want the truth get a copy of CRT's Trustees' Report and Accounts for the period ending 31st March. Now I will be the first to admit these are complicated since they cover a 9 month period from July 2012 when CRT accepted the transfer but the figures are different from those being quoted here. So here are the facts.

 

Income

 

Government Grant. £29.3m

Boat licences/moorings. £26.4m

Marinas. £5.2m

Utilities. £17.4m

Investment Income. £31.1m

Third Party. £10.4m

Other income. £2.3m

 

 

Total Income. £122.1m

 

 

Expenditure

Maintenance. £31.7m

Vegetation, waste. £10.1m

dredging £3.3m

Operation teams. £6.9m

Restoration. £5.9m

Facilities etc. £7.8m

 

The full 12 months figures would show income totally £154m in 2012/13 increasing to £156m in 2013/14 and to £176m in 2015/16 when the government grant increases by £10m.

 

If you want to know more read the report, or alternatively you can believe the inaccurate rubbish spouted by some people.

 

What would be better is for boaters to actively participate by volunteering, litter clearing, nor dumping large bits of you boat on rubbish collection points and vegetation control are three areas where boaters could make a real difference and save CRT tens of thousands of pounds. So how about it?

 

Well as Forrest Gump would say that's all I have to say on that!

Thanks for that but it simply quotes what can be found in CaRT's first annual report, most of which covers a nine month period rather than 12 months.

 

I suspect what is needed is for CaRT to give the two key maintenance figures for 2012/13 and future projections such that they can be compared to previous spend and the £120m that parliament were told was needed to maintain the waterways in 2010/11.

 

I am happy to take this matter up if that is the wish of the forum.

Edited August 18, 2013 by Allan(nb Albert)

[LEO]

Perhaps one other thing I will point out here, I have the emails from vince too, they dont mention me. I also note, sallycrt made two statements on here, again I dont see any reference to myself. With those facts, I will thank you to keep your accusations which are seemingly unfounded, to yourself!

 

Sorry but comments, copied from a post about about Moorings at Stoke B. made by you seem pretty personal..........

 

It's crap. Jeff whyatt shows fully how incompetent his research has been. What's even more ridiculous is the fact that overgrowth from both sides of the canal coming into stoke bruerne is disgusting. No provision for alternative 14 day mooring is being provided. As far as I am concerned, Jeff whyatt is unfit for purpose. This whole sevm has probably been one of his wet dreams since youth.

 

I have always found Jeff helpful, not sure I would want you representing me if that's the best you can come up with.

 

Leo.

 

Well used to getting his own way due to manipulation and the gentle art of negotiation!.

Edited August 18, 2013 by LEO

[mayalld]

The reason the membership fee was increased by that amount was because a) it hadn't been increased ever since I can remember it creates so much work for the membership secretary and treasurer when it is increased. In fact for years the treasurer threatened to resign if it was increased.

One reason it needed increasing was the cost of legal opinion to be able to fight cart on your behalf.

 

 

And there we see a reason why I will not be returning to NABO.

 

Why, oh why are they pouring ever more money into legal battles with CRT?

 

Could it be that CRT (in the same way as its predecessor) has long since realised that NABO is unrepresentative of boaters? They claim to represent 3,000 boaters, whilst pursuing a very particular agenda that a fair part of the membership simply aren't engaged with.

 

CRT don't take them seriously, so legal battles is the only way they can get to the table.

 

BTW, your memory is failing. I can remember the charge increasing from £10 to £15 not many years ago.

[jenlyn]

Sorry but comments, copied from a post about about Moorings at Stoke B. made by you seem pretty personal..........

 

It's crap. Jeff whyatt shows fully how incompetent his research has been. What's even more ridiculous is the fact that overgrowth from both sides of the canal coming into stoke bruerne is disgusting. No provision for alternative 14 day mooring is being provided. As far as I am concerned, Jeff whyatt is unfit for purpose. This whole sevm has probably been one of his wet dreams since youth.

 

I have always found Jeff helpful, not sure I would want you representing me if that's the best you can come up with.

 

Leo.

 

Well used to getting his own way due to manipulation and the gentle art of negotiation!.

Jeff has made some pretty remarks about me, in public. You won't know about that of course, even though he was pulled up about it by someone else at a recent agm. I treat as I am treated. However, I accept the fact that you were merely forming your opinion from a one sided view, and will excuse your mistake.

[LEO]

Jeff has made some pretty remarks about me, in public. You won't know about that of course, even though he was pulled up about it by someone else at a recent agm. I treat as I am treated. However, I accept the fact that you were merely forming your opinion from a one sided view, and will excuse your mistake.

 

 

Thanks, but if two responsible adults have reached the stage of trading personal insults (in public) in negotiations, give up.

 

Learn to rise above it.

 

Leo

[greywolf]

My problem with volunteering for things though i still do is a peep at the pay of them that run it and how much of the donatiion is going into there pockets, or in the case of volunteering how many more are going to be laid off because free manpower is available. Cutting costs and still producing a butiful waterway would further enhance the people running it rep with little more than a nod to the hardworking individuals that produced the results. As for litter picking like weeding in the garden it is something most people should do.

[carlt]

Sorry cant get rid of the unintentional smiley

No need to apologise. I'm sure nobody mistook it for cheerfulness.

[Jean]

But surely, Mr. House, as a boater you like to see those 10 million towpath users going past your windows?

Depends at what speed they are going.

[Tunneltug]

That 30% of the CRT's income comes from boaters is probably true but I'm sure that if the boats disappeared or significantly reduced a very significant proportion of the remaining 65% would disappear with them because this will be coming from the boat related businesses like boat builders, marinas, hire fleets etc. They might get a few pennies from the anglers, otters and the voles but not a lot more

[greywolf]

 

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

You could ask if they are recouping the costs of vandalised canal infer structure from the cities they pass through,or even include it as negative value on the visitor contribution ? to the canals funding.ditto the fly tipping and polution as these expenses should be shown as a cost to the public purse not the boating one.