CRT No Longer Wish To Meet With Boaters

[churchward]

 

I think you are expressing the original point that I was trying to make, but much more diplomatically, with much more background information, and with the benefit of knowing the individuals involved.

 

Re the IWA, there appears to be great deal of hostility to that organisation on the forum. I don't know what the origins of this are, but I find it strange that no one on the forum is admitting to be be a member and trying to defend them.

 

They have a long history and credibility with BW and now CRT, so is it really naive to suggest that forum members could join it and change it from within to better respresent their viewpoints? Do people on here consider it too broken?

You should read back in this thread for my posts and other threads then. See post #34

 

I and several others are members of the IWA (northampton branch for me)

 

As to defending the IWA I take the attitude that people are entitled to their opinion. I do not think the IWA is a perfect org either but on balance does more good than bad particularly at member/branch level. As I have said earlier my local branch has adopted the Northampton arm this year and has begun organising working parties to help maintain the arm for boating. I do contribute an alternative view but like you just have people often overlook what they don't want to see. I also prefer to get out there and do something to help rather than whine about it on here

 

In any case I think there is a degree of hysteria about some of the comments about the IWA. Some folk need a hate figure. Once it was BW now it seems to be split between IWA and recently CRT.

Edited August 16, 2013 by churchward

[DeanS]

The very confusing thing is....I thought that as a boater, I could talk to CRT directly. Now I find I have to join the IWA to do so?

 

Is this true?

[churchward]

Search the forum for the ramblings of Vaughan Welch, an IWA trustee, branch chairman, CRT Council elected boater representative. Unless one can "infiltrate" to the point where people with such poisoned views are ousted, which given its close knit constitution seems highly unlikely, then I cannot see them as a way forward. In fact I see them more as part of the problem.

 

So yes, I believe that at "the top" the IWA is far too broken to change.

 

I had hoped it would be easier to change CRT than it would the IWA, and the inital signs looked good. But perhaps we have all just been taken for a ride, and none of itis "fixable"?

Who is saying you need to "infiltrate" the IWA to make a difference?

 

As I said several pages ago (post #26) one can join one of the existing organisations if the CRT will only talk to recognised orgs or alternatively create a new one and get CRT to recognise that. So why not do the later.

Edited August 16, 2013 by churchward

[Rufford]

We could start a CWF Membership? I for one would be happy to be represented by the likes of cotswoldsman, jenlyn, carlt, Alan Fincher and even RLWP and Mayalld (despite the last two in my opinion being argumentitive and pedantic *insert swear word of your choice* however, if their posts on this forum are anything to go by I really do think we should let them loose on CRT!...)

 

I would like to think that all of those mentioned above represent the views of CWF (each having differing views and their own areas of expertise).

[Guest]

John Dodswell is meant to be an independant trustee and is not part of CRT's executive or management team so his blessing is not required and nor should it. He is however at least a trustee prepared to get involved and take his responsibilities seriously IMO unlike many of the other trustees . I suspect he is a future chair of the IWA.

 

I understand and agree with that.is how it should be - my suspicion is that however is not how it might actually be.

 

I'm also reflecting on an earlier post about this apparent sudden change in direction 'co-inciding' with the arrival of the new big cheese.

Edited August 16, 2013 by The Dog House

[mayalld]

 

Spoken like a true NHS senior manager (I could almost hear me uttering those very same words 2 or 3 years ago) and whilst true the cost for the use of the room in actual terms will be negligible nay minuscule.

 

The staff time issue is a moot point too, the meeting I attended took place 'out of normal working hours' so the cost to CRT of senior staff will have been negligible (unless of course they claimed OT for being there which is very unlikely I would have thought.

 

Additionally the venue for the Skipton meeting wasn't even funded by CRT anyway. If CRT paid for travel and accommodation for their attendees (I don't know if they did or did not) the cost will have been negligible too (my room cost me £29) plus my petrol to get there.

 

I think they if they dress it up under the guise of cost v benefit then that to me would be a red herring, I think the real reason is covered by the last part of .your very last sentence.

 

I deny being an NHS Senior Manager!

 

Yes, in terms of the room, you can argue that the marginal cost of using a meeting room that would otherwise have been unused is close to zero, but that ignores the fact that providing meeting rooms has a cost, and that an organisation will provide enough meeting rooms to meet its needs, and that the cost of doing so is a cost to each meeting held.

 

For the non-CRT hosted meetings, a charge was paid. Did anybody suggest to the venue owner that as the room was there anyway there was no cost and should be no charge?

 

I feel sure that no overtime was paid to the attendees, and that the admin work didn't result in any overtime either. Equally, even senior managers don't give unlimited hours free of charge. They will expect to work more than their theoretical contracted hours over the course of every month for no extra money, but they will have an expectation of what their actual hours of work are. Perhaps they are contracted to 170 hours, and typically work 200. The fact remains that if they spend 4 hours on a meeting, it is 4 hours that they aren't spending on doing something else.

[churchward]

The very confusing thing is....I thought that as a boater, I could talk to CRT directly. Now I find I have to join the IWA to do so?

 

Is this true?

Of course not. You can ring and talk to someone at CRT any time.

[Guest]

 

I deny being an NHS Senior Manager!

 

Yes, in terms of the room, you can argue that the marginal cost of using a meeting room that would otherwise have been unused is close to zero, but that ignores the fact that providing meeting rooms has a cost, and that an organisation will provide enough meeting rooms to meet its needs, and that the cost of doing so is a cost to each meeting held.

 

For the non-CRT hosted meetings, a charge was paid. Did anybody suggest to the venue owner that as the room was there anyway there was no cost and should be no charge?

 

I feel sure that no overtime was paid to the attendees, and that the admin work didn't result in any overtime either. Equally, even senior managers don't give unlimited hours free of charge. They will expect to work more than their theoretical contracted hours over the course of every month for no extra money, but they will have an expectation of what their actual hours of work are. Perhaps they are contracted to 170 hours, and typically work 200. The fact remains that if they spend 4 hours on a meeting, it is 4 hours that they aren't spending on doing something else.

 

Yes Dave (been there done that t-shirt etc etc) I know all this but the 'something else' may very well have been something that they didn't do of their own and not CRT's. Which is something to commend them for if so.

 

I think the real point here is no matter how much or how little the actual cost to CRT was they for what ever reason don't judge it to be valuable and it is in my view because we were not one of the 'recognised' organisations.

 

Luckily for CRT the resentment and any ill feeling caused by this won't I don't think in reality ripple very far because although CWDF is the biggest on line waterways community the number of actual active members is extremely small compared to the total number of boaters on the system.

[DeanS]

Of course not. You can ring and talk to someone at CRT any time.

 

If I want to be part of a group that is recognised by CRT.....eg ,,,"Northern boaters group" ......does one still need to be created that all northern boaters need to join.....? What is it called? Is it official? Do CRT listen and provide feedback to that group? I THOUGHT, I was helping form some sort of unofficial group in Skipton and Leeds, but it sounds like CRT has closed the door....wanting an official group to talk to...so I'm asking if one exists?

[kbarber]

The issue for me seems to be one of accountability, there just doesn't seem to be any.

 

 

Charities commission perhaps??? but I suspect they will be more or even only interested in the financial operation not unhappiness with the disdain they are treating their paying customers.

A year or so back there was some talk of the CC paying more attention to the 'Public Benefit' requirement of a charity.

 

It is true that one of the CC's main concerns is charity finance - there's too many dodgy 'charities', too many dodgy charity trustees but far far more honest people out of their depth & struggling; without a fair bit of CC oversight, a lot of money people give in good faith will end up where it shouldn't.

 

But I don't think that should stop us. A bulging inbox is a very effective way of persuading a body like the CC that some attention should be given to the other-than-financial workings of a charity. (We also have the advantage that, event if C&RT consider themselves a private body beyond the reach of anything that might make them accountable, the CC is a public body and therefore subject to all sorts of requirements - including judicial review if they fail to carry out their duties in a proper manner. So they are worth pressuring.

 

On the other hand, we need to be very sure of our facts, we need a watertight case right from the start of any correspondence with the CC. At the moment we have nothing more than excerpts of one correspondence; that as it stands is not going to be sufficient evidence to take to the CC. John and Steve have the full story - they have the whole of the 10 emails; if those emails can't be put into the public domain, any approach to the CC over this particular issue would have to be by John & Steve as individuals. But if we saw the whole of the 10 emails we might also see a more nuanced picture. If we're going to try & build up a case to get pressure put on C&RT we're going to need to take account of nuances that others will see; some of them will be things we miss because we are focused on a particular outcome, some will be areas where interpretation is important and we may need to work through interpretations in depth to be able to make our point and some will be issues where it's all a matter of opinion (do you prefer 6' high vegetation or an edge to moor to) and we simply need to take a stand. I believe the Catholic church, when it wants to create a saint, has to go through a process in which a 'devil's advocate' is appointed to argue every possible reason they shouldn't be canonised. We may need to do the same with anything we want to use. Sorry, that's how official channels are.

 

We'll need an awful lot more than one single issue to get the CC taking an interest as well. So someone will need to gather the issues together, then get hold of the whole email series for each, then get our own devil's advocate(s) to establish the weaknesses. This isn't going to be a quick process. But I do think it's one worth preparing to use if other approaches fail. And if we do prepare to use it, that simple fact may be sufficient to encourage C&RT to rethink their approach. Whether or not you ever believed in the theory of nuclear deterrence, the whole point was that the weapons should never be used; judicial review (or even a formal approach to the CC) really ought to be in the same category. So it's probably a good thng if some senior C&RT people are reading this - the feedback will be that we're getting serious and that it is worth talking to individual boaters after all.

[churchward]

 

If I want to be part of a group that is recognised by CRT.....eg ,,,"Northern boaters group" ......does one still need to be created that all northern boaters need to join.....? What is it called? Is it official? Do CRT listen and provide feedback to that group? I THOUGHT, I was helping form some sort of unofficial group in Skipton and Leeds, but it sounds like CRT has closed the door....wanting an official group to talk to...so I'm asking if one exists?

I imagine then you need to try and make it an official organisation that CRT will recognise. However, John is probably the man to answer correctly.

[Guest]

A year or so back there was some talk of the CC paying more attention to the 'Public Benefit' requirement of a charity.

 

It is true that one of the CC's main concerns is charity finance - there's too many dodgy 'charities', too many dodgy charity trustees but far far more honest people out of their depth & struggling; without a fair bit of CC oversight, a lot of money people give in good faith will end up where it shouldn't.

 

But I don't think that should stop us. A bulging inbox is a very effective way of persuading a body like the CC that some attention should be given to the other-than-financial workings of a charity. (We also have the advantage that, event if C&RT consider themselves a private body beyond the reach of anything that might make them accountable, the CC is a public body and therefore subject to all sorts of requirements - including judicial review if they fail to carry out their duties in a proper manner. So they are worth pressuring.

 

On the other hand, we need to be very sure of our facts, we need a watertight case right from the start of any correspondence with the CC. At the moment we have nothing more than excerpts of one correspondence; that as it stands is not going to be sufficient evidence to take to the CC. John and Steve have the full story - they have the whole of the 10 emails; if those emails can't be put into the public domain, any approach to the CC over this particular issue would have to be by John & Steve as individuals. But if we saw the whole of the 10 emails we might also see a more nuanced picture. If we're going to try & build up a case to get pressure put on C&RT we're going to need to take account of nuances that others will see; some of them will be things we miss because we are focused on a particular outcome, some will be areas where interpretation is important and we may need to work through interpretations in depth to be able to make our point and some will be issues where it's all a matter of opinion (do you prefer 6' high vegetation or an edge to moor to) and we simply need to take a stand. I believe the Catholic church, when it wants to create a saint, has to go through a process in which a 'devil's advocate' is appointed to argue every possible reason they shouldn't be canonised. We may need to do the same with anything we want to use. Sorry, that's how official channels are.

 

We'll need an awful lot more than one single issue to get the CC taking an interest as well. So someone will need to gather the issues together, then get hold of the whole email series for each, then get our own devil's advocate(s) to establish the weaknesses. This isn't going to be a quick process. But I do think it's one worth preparing to use if other approaches fail. And if we do prepare to use it, that simple fact may be sufficient to encourage C&RT to rethink their approach. Whether or not you ever believed in the theory of nuclear deterrence, the whole point was that the weapons should never be used; judicial review (or even a formal approach to the CC) really ought to be in the same category. So it's probably a good thng if some senior C&RT people are reading this - the feedback will be that we're getting serious and that it is worth talking to individual boaters after all.

 

That's a good post and makes interesting reading.

 

To be clear I wasn't just thinking about this single issue but also some of the other stuff that is going on most notably the mooring changes which seem to be being brought in with no real regard to whether they are actually needed.

 

A number of boaters 'on the ground' in affected areas seem to be saying 'why are you spending money doing this' but they press ahead regardless.....

Edited August 16, 2013 by The Dog House

[Suzie_q]

 

I don't think you have been 'taken for a ride', quite the opposite in fact. CRT were open minded enough to try talking to the real boaters sensing something was missing from the input of the IWA and other organisations.

 

But my interpretation is this: Richard F is right, the absense of a mandate is what dun you in. CRT asked us to give ourselves a group label, we refused.

 

They weren't really asking for a label, they were asking us to produce a mandate. CRT saw this as failing to produce a mandate, concluding (incorrectly) there was none to produce.

 

Give ourselves a name and a mandate I think they will listen again.

 

MtB

 

my 2p.

 

IMHO

 

We are not and never will be "One Voice", that is the biggest plus of this forum.

 

What ever label and mandate is put together we all need to understand that as does CRT.

 

We are a broad cross section of canal lovers and therefore an excellent source of opinions for CRT.

 

We are best described as a consultation group.

 

Kev

[Tuscan]

my 2p.

 

IMHO

 

We are not and never will be "One Voice", that is the biggest plus of this forum.

 

What ever label and mandate is put together we all need to understand that as does CRT.

 

We are a broad cross section of canal lovers and therefore an excellent source of opinions for CRT.

 

We are best described as a consultation group.

 

Kev

Greenie from me.

[mayalld]

 

Yes Dave (been there done that t-shirt etc etc) I know all this but the 'something else' may very well have been something that they didn't do of their own and not CRT's. Which is something to commend them for if so.

 

I think the real point here is no matter how much or how little the actual cost to CRT was they for what ever reason don't judge it to be valuable and it is in my view because we were not one of the 'recognised' organisations.

 

That is undoubtedly true.

 

What it comes down to is that All this holding meetings has a cost, and they need to show that they are incurring costs in consultation with representative groups, rather than individuals

[johnthebridge]

Trouble is, people, most of what has been expressed here patently highlights one of the biggest obstacles you face. Polemics, especially from a minority, do not a reasoned discussion make and a failure to understand the other side's stance, which seems endemic here is, in my humble opinion, only leading you up a blind alley.

So far, there have been over 200 posts, mostly indignant, made in response to something someone within CART has said. That number can be pared down considerably by itemising each contributor, something which I can't be bothered to do, but let's be overly generous and say there are 100 individuals having their say here.

100 keyboard warriors, all having a pop.

For just one moment, step outside your narrow, computerised view of the world, and try looking at that response from an "outsider's" point of view, someone who perhaps neither knows or (heaven forfend!) even cares about "The Canals". Then, in turn, try looking at it from CART's viewpoint. You're a minority. A minority that doesn't matter to them. They must be laughing themselves silly at your calls to the barricades, your calls for withholding licence fees, your proposed reporting of every minor/major defect! (By the way, anyone know what happened to money they donated to the T&M breach?)

Much as I feel for the two or three people mentioned in dispatches here, those three who tried to meet the CART lot and have, evidently, failed, I cannot but think that their efforts were doomed from the start. Those of us who, like me, took a very bleak view of CART from the off will be, regretfully, vindicated. The old saying, "You cannot make a silk purse from a sow's ear" comes to mind, when one regards the BW/CART transition.

How could it be otherwise?

The same old lot (never mind the people on the ground- they don't matter in the overall scheme of things) get charged by the Government with the continued running (with a brand new name!) of an increasingly expensive and deteriorating edifice that appears, at least to a tax-paying outsider, to be populated by lucky people in pursuit of their various hobbies. An edifice that Cameron and his lot were only too glad to shed the responsibility of running and of being held responsible for when it all goes tits-up.

Very sorry and all that, but of course CART are intent on speaking only to supposedly organised groups with a mandate-why would they waste their time in discussion with a tiny, disparate group of mostly self-interested people who, in the main seem to have a vastly inflated view of their own self-importance? There are far more boaters "out there" that neither know nor care about CWF and its members, and who will, for the foreseeable future, go on paying the ever-increasing and ridiculous sums of money that these charlatans demand.

And the charlatans know that.

[churchward]

Trouble is, people, most of what has been expressed here patently highlights one of the biggest obstacles you face. Polemics, especially from a minority, do not a reasoned discussion make and a failure to understand the other side's stance, which seems endemic here is, in my humble opinion, only leading you up a blind alley.

So far, there have been over 200 posts, mostly indignant, made in response to something someone within CART has said. That number can be pared down considerably by itemising each contributor, something which I can't be bothered to do, but let's be overly generous and say there are 100 individuals having their say here.

100 keyboard warriors, all having a pop.

For just one moment, step outside your narrow, computerised view of the world, and try looking at that response from an "outsider's" point of view, someone who perhaps neither knows or (heaven forfend!) even cares about "The Canals". Then, in turn, try looking at it from CART's viewpoint. You're a minority. A minority that doesn't matter to them. They must be laughing themselves silly at your calls to the barricades, your calls for withholding licence fees, your proposed reporting of every minor/major defect! (By the way, anyone know what happened to money they donated to the T&M breach?)

Much as I feel for the two or three people mentioned in dispatches here, those three who tried to meet the CART lot and have, evidently, failed, I cannot but think that their efforts were doomed from the start. Those of us who, like me, took a very bleak view of CART from the off will be, regretfully, vindicated. The old saying, "You cannot make a silk purse from a sow's ear" comes to mind, when one regards the BW/CART transition.

How could it be otherwise?

The same old lot (never mind the people on the ground- they don't matter in the overall scheme of things) get charged by the Government with the continued running (with a brand new name!) of an increasingly expensive and deteriorating edifice that appears, at least to a tax-paying outsider, to be populated by lucky people in pursuit of their various hobbies. An edifice that Cameron and his lot were only too glad to shed the responsibility of running and of being held responsible for when it all goes tits-up.

Very sorry and all that, but of course CART are intent on speaking only to supposedly organised groups with a mandate-why would they waste their time in discussion with a tiny, disparate group of mostly self-interested people who, in the main seem to have a vastly inflated view of their own self-importance? There are far more boaters "out there" that neither know nor care about CWF and its members, and who will, for the foreseeable future, go on paying the ever-increasing and ridiculous sums of money that these charlatans demand.

And the charlatans know that.

I guess you should make that 101 with your contribution. Other a rather long post to say "I told you so" and "I know this would not work" and "your all a bunch of idiots". I don't see a solution or any positive step being offered.

Edited August 16, 2013 by churchward

[luctor et emergo]

Why should cart listen to boaters? A captive market, boat owners have an investment of thousends of pounds and are obliged to buy a licence from a single source. You either put up, or sell your btic fooat. (Getting of cart water is only realistic for some).

 

Cart has a monopoly, and is turning into a bully. Yesterday the crusty overstayer, tomorrow the rest.

[Guest]

Johnthebridge Is your key board broken?? - frankly it is a bit of a piss take to call others keyboard warriors with that epic monologue you have just typed (in bold too)

 

Yeah we get it you were right all along blah blah blah.......

 

The difference is that some people briefly did not have such a fatalistic belief and at least tried to engage.

 

You didn't value that fairy nuff.

Edited August 16, 2013 by The Dog House

[system 4-50]

Very disappointing John, especially after my meeting last week with Wendy.

 

I had a meeting with Wendy Capelle from Wales and Border Counties at nantwich to discuss the signnage and allocation of visitor moorings there, as a large part of the long term moorings are not in use and would be better made into visitor moorings. I thought it was a good meeting, she seemed to take on board my comments and I thought this was a good example of C&RT getting more involved that the previous BW regime. It is a shame if this is not the case.

I have never been very happy with these non-mandated interactions.

My boat is on these underused long term moorings and it would appear that representations are taking place about its future that I didn't know about. In this instance I suspect my views would be the same as yours but I don't know the detail.

 

Personally I would like CART to dramatically improve the quality of the surveys it submits to all individual boat owners whilst keeping an ear open to the user organisations. I feel that CWDF could do a very useful job in preparing draft survey questionnaires for CART to use.

 

There is no way that a large organisation can keep in touch with individuals acting as intermediaries without a constituency.

[magpie patrick]

There is a huge problem though isn't there.

 

What John and Steve have tried to do is take a balanced perspective of all the reasonable needs of boaters and discuss this with CRT. They clearly both have talents in this role and I know that Steve also has seen that there is no "one size pits all" solution geographically. I'm sure John has as well it's just I've noticed it with Steve. What is right for the GU south of Blisworth may not be right for other places.

 

These two guys at least (there are others) have proved to have the competence and integrity to get to the real meat of issues and present it to CRT. BUT they are not elected or even appointed, they are self appointed. They also both have the integrity to know that if boaters didn't generally appreciate their efforts they'd stop doing it. They'd be ideal for election or appointment.

 

Then look at those who have been elected and appointed. Some probably are good, but the IWA got every boaters place and seem to represent the IWA not boaters. Then there are those only in it for power such as the gentleman that Steve pointed out on the SE waterways partnership

 

Sometimes, just sometimes, you wonder if those that set up the system had an eye on making sure that no-one who wanted to achieve anything got involved...

[johnthebridge]

Why should cart listen to boaters? A captive market, boat owners have an investment of thousends of pounds and are obliged to buy a licence from a single source. You either put up, or sell your btic fooat. (Getting of cart water is only realistic for some).

 

Cart has a monopoly, and is turning into a bully. Yesterday the crusty overstayer, tomorrow the rest.

Exactly so. The only thing you've said that I'd disagree with is that CART isn't now "turning into a bully". It's always been one.

Johnthebridge Is your key board broken?? - frankly it is a bit of a piss take to call others keyboard warriors with that epic monologue you have just typed (in bold too)

 

Yeah we get it you were right all along blah blah blah.......

 

The difference is that some people briefly did not have such a fatalistic belief and at least tried to engage.

 

You didn't value that fairy nuff.

Merely trying (and obviously failing) to show that there are other viewpoints.

[sassan]

To those who oppose the idea of a centralised voice for boaters, how about an alternative. With the wonders of the internet, we can relatively easily put together a simple voting infrastructure (I can help with this).

 

So, instead of going to CRT and demanding this or that, our representative can simply state that "80% of the boaters we represent are extremely concerned about this or that".

 

This way, no member has any obligation to the group at all, no member is ever required to go along with the view represented by the group, but we can still be an official structured organisation who CRT can be forced to listen to.

 

We can go further with this structure, how about a system for highlighting and voting on problems. Eg: "300 boaters have been directly affected by the damage to the water point at XYZ, a further 600 are concerned it may affect them in the future and 2000 more think this is a significant issue that requires attention".

 

It could also provide an easier means to provide positive feedback (which CRT seem to want, and does help let them know that they're on the right track). Eg: "80% of boaters feel that the new winter mooring scheme this year is an improvement on previous years".

 

All this is pretty easily achievable with modern technology. I can put something together, if there is significant interest in this idea.

[kbarber]

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.

'...be as innocent as doves and as wily as serpents...' I know it has a religious source, but I think it's excellent advice nonetheless. It is paradoxical but - if we can persuade C&RT to resume contact with individuals - I think it's what we need to do: act as if they are genuine, act as if they have our interests as much at heart as all the others they have to balance, yet accept that as soon as our contact is over they will act as if it never happened. And keep doing that. Without letting our worldliness emerge in the off-putting cynicism that'll make contact a chore for the C&RT people. That may be hard but I think it will pay off if we can keep doing it. John & Steve (and Laurence too) have done a sterling job; don't assume it's all wasted because of this and don't assume there's no possibility of anything ever changing. C&RT is made up of people who, ultimately, are very much like us and human contact (human relationship) will ultimately break down just about any barrier there is. Persistenc may turn out to be our most effective tool (or indeed weapon if it ever does come to war).

[MtB]

Excellent suggestion from Sassan. Greenied.

 

MtB