CRT No Longer Wish To Meet With Boaters

[Guest]

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

 

I think it's been clear for a while that the likes and of your and Luc's viewpoint exists, you see it regularly peppering threads through out posts on CWDF, so no, no failing on yours or anybody else's part.

[jenlyn]

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.

Not buying much of that. I personally went into this with an open mind, having been a bitter opposer to CRT and some of its management. I saw what I thought was maybe a window of opportunity, nothing ventured, nothing gained.

When Peter Mc Donald and myself initiated the first meeting in November 2012, CRT actually asked us to give them the advantage of having communications with ccers. We left that meeting agreeing to work toward this. We invited John Sloan, Alan Fincher and several others along to help cover other forms of boating. The initiative grew, thus involving boat owners from each group.

We did not ask to get involved with CRT. They in fact asked us to initiate this stuff. Hence johns feeling of being used a bit.

[kbarber]

 

^ 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.

Certainly room for this. And this interweb thingy makes it very easy to do without a great infrastructure of memberships (= more £££) and stuff.

 

Anyone who does read the forum will realise very quickly that there is a multiplicity of views on just about every subject. That's as it should be. But they will also see very quickly that there are some common threads that unite pretty much all of us: being able to navigate safely; being able to find a place to tie up; getting significant issues that affect us attended to; ensuring basic maintenance keeps happening; that sort of thing.

 

There don't have to be enormous, detailed policy statements. For example, we would certainly be doomed if we tried to agree how much the towpath vegetation should be cut back, where, when and by whom. But anyone with half a brain can see that - pretty much universally - boaters on this forum want a towpath that can be used for walking (a boat can get cramped sometimes), lock wheeling and tying up to in a safe and reasonably convenient manner (and mybe one or two other things as well). That is an evident consensus that emerges from the whole range of posts. Details of what that might entail can be worked out relatively easily (we might want but don't absolutely need a low grass edge, we certainly do need to be able to see what we're stepping on to and we certainly do need to be able to actually get ashore sufficiently to deploy our scythe). How to achieve that (or even whether it can be achieved within the available budget) is another matter entirely. But these are details; the consensus is absolutely clear and we deserve to have it heard!

[kbarber]

I was trying to remember the word (curse my enfeebled brain at this late hour) and I finally did. A mandate. That's the key.

 

John and jenlyn didn't have a mandate to represent anyone and it's therefore easy for CRT to ignore them - indeed, there'll be those who claim that CRT should ignore them because of this. But to ignore a sanely constituted organisation with 1,000 members is maladministration, especially as groups with <100 members are represented at NUF etc. Whatever you might think of CRT, they won't do that.

 

It needn't split the forum at all. At the very most you could have one sub-forum only open to group members, but you wouldn't need even that. You just have to make sure that the elections are restricted to group members, and that the elected 'committee' (or steering group, or whatever you want to call it) takes care to act in accordance with its stated aims and the view of its members. I've been on a board that functions like that (the OpenStreetMap Foundation) and it works fine.

Absolutely true, but mandate isn't everything. When I was on the railway (OK that's a long time ago now) there would be occasional 'meet the manager' sessions at stations. No-one would ever suggest that the individuals who spoke to managers had a mandate. But the opportunity to convey their views was extremely important. The opportunity to hear their views was more important still. More to the point, any wise manager tolerated - nay encouraged railway enthusiasts (provided they didn't misbehave). They were often knowledgable and, being there for nothing more than to watch trains, might well see things busy staff had no time to notice. (In fact there was a case where a photographer realised something was happening to an approaching goods train and, in due course, was able to present the Research guys with a whole series of photos showing what happened to a train as it derailed.) Eyes and ears like that are priceless.

 

No manager in their right mind would imagine John and Steve spoke with authority for anyone but themselves. But any manager with a grain of sense would know that they spoke as regular users with a deep knowledge and understanding of what it's like to navigate on our canals and therefore the things they're saying need taking notice of.

 

It's the difference between a pressure group (with whom there's always going to be a relationship of difference and conflict almost by definition) and contacts who can be eyes and ears on the ground, via whom concerns can be brought to people's attention (and not always through official channels - being able to pick up a phone and talk to someone you know personally may be no less effective in getting a concern on someone else's agenda).

 

So in truth we need both. And the more personal contacts there can be, the better - they, in particular, are most likely to be effective.

[johnthebridge]

 

I think it's been clear for a while that the likes and of your and Luc's viewpoint exists, you see it regularly peppering threads through out posts on CWDF, so no, no failing on yours or anybody else's part.

I'm obviously saying something that doesn't accord with your particular view of the world.

Q.E.D.

[dor]

 

 

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.

 

The main reason for my meeting was to discuss the length that is marked as "no mooring". This was implemented about 12 years ago when the new houses were built when one of the new householders complained to BW. BW, and C&RT, claim that they do not succumb to pressure like this but they clearly did in this case. Changing some of the unused LT moorings to visitor moorings was a secondary issue. The signage indicating where the LT moorings were is also very poor and as a result, as I am sure you are aware, hirers and others often moor up on the LT moorings, possibly taking your space.

[jenlyn]

Through all our dealings with CRT, john sloan was the optimist, I was the sceptic, alan fincher was common sense. I think we all agreed unanimously on one thing, Canal and River Trust was our only option for the canals, therefore it was in everyones best interest to support it. If we felt something was right, we supported it wholeheartedly. If we felt it was not right, we made it absolutely clear we would oppose it wholeheartedly.

I've read the emails between john and vince, I believe vince was attempting to move us forward. The problem was, it came across as a snub. I am waiting for the trust to respond and I am certain they will. I just hope they reply with a better worded statement than vince's email to john.

The trust to be honest needs to look in the mirror for once, and stop looking to blame others for some slip ups that tend to come out with a slightly arrogant twist.

[davidc]

How about asking dhutch and admin to email the membership asking it to taking a vote on the members who would support central members section with a voted committee, (as friends of the canal wishing to support thr network)

 

and lets see if we can get the ball rolling along the lines of Richards Fairhust and sassans suggestions

Edited August 16, 2013 by davidc

[RockSodem]

This thread has really annoyed me and wasted my time reading it. Can people please not follow the example of our gutter press and use quotes without proper context. Having to read 6 pages of what turns out to be largely wasted comments to get to the true nux of the communication quite frankly sums up why the crt maybe disengaging from "boat users"

[Guest]

This thread has really annoyed me and wasted my time reading it. Can people please not follow the example of our gutter press and use quotes without proper context. Having to read 6 pages of what turns out to be largely wasted comments to get to the true nux of the communication quite frankly sums up why the crt maybe disengaging from "boat users"

 

Who held your arm up your back and forced you to read it??

Edited August 16, 2013 by The Dog House

[carlt]

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

who have, at best, done naff all and, at worst, blessed everything CRT decide to to.

 

The existing organisations are toothless old dinosaurs run by toothless old dinosaurs for the benefit of their friends.

 

What is needed is an organisation willing to stand up and fight for all boaters, not just subs payers and ones they "approve" of.

 

I agree though that if you're going to join an existing club then NABO is best because they are harmless, if powerless, whereas IWA are a negative force against boaters.

[davidc]

This thread has really annoyed me and wasted my time reading it. Can people please not follow the example of our gutter press and use quotes without proper context. Having to read 6 pages of what turns out to be largely wasted comments to get to the true nux of the communication quite frankly sums up why the crt maybe disengaging from "boat users"

So What position do you hold within CRT

[Suzie_q]

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.

Exactly my thoughts too.

 

Greenie.

[alan_fincher]

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...

Greenie from me.

 

The cynic could say your last proposition could certainly have some substance!

 

I thought we were getting somewhere, then, for my home patch, attended a user group meeting & the partnership AGM, where the "corporate babble" and general absence of anything positive to say about boats or boating made me realise that after all we probably were not.

 

Then the ill thought out mooring restriction signs started going up, whilst money can't be found to keep the navigation safe, and legitimate complaints are fobbed off fairly disdainfully. I then realised that my having tried hard to be more of an optimist than I normally am had been a bad move in this case!

 

Why am I not surprised they don't want the likes of me, Cath or "CanalChef" anywhere near their Partnership, for example. We might actually see what goes on, (or doesn't!).

 

The National User's Forum is just a talking shop - not much will change via that route, in my view. Sorry Richard, but that's hw I feel.

[SallyCRT]

This thread has made me really sad – having been out of phone and email reception for 24 hours I log back on to read of a horribly precipitous end to what was proving to be a very constructive movement that Cotswoldman has been leading. I first met him and other boaters last November along with John Dodwell and other colleagues and since that time, we’ve started changing the way we do quite a few things. It takes time to make the effects of change apparent, and I know that there’s frustration at the time it takes for people to see a difference. But that’s life in the fairly complicated world that we’re in where a sizeable percentage of 35,000 boaters have the passion and time to help us with policy and decision making. We’re continuing to strive for better performance and with our new CEO’s fresh impetus, there’s never been brighter prospects for boater relationships with the Trust.

 

Cotswoldman doesn’t like the user group format, but we’ve never said their format is cast in stone. If people have suggestions for reforming them to make them more inclusive and productive, please email them to me at sally.ash@canalrivertrust.org.uk . All that Vince was trying to do was to improve communications with and between boaters by extending the reach of the meeting arrangements that exist already. Perhaps a good start might be a re-naming to ‘boater meetings’ and a re-think of the invite list. How big should they be? How local? Who should lead them and set the agenda?

 

Vince, Simon and senior managers who’ve had the opportunity to engage with Cotswoldman’s meetings definitely appreciate what he’s done. We’re just sad that he’s taking his bat and ball home because he sees only one way of skinning the cat.

 

There’s a lot of nonsense too in the postings about boaters being marginalised etc. That is not our view and quotes have been taken out of context just because it appears to make exciting copy for a forum post.

 

 

Sally Ash

[churchward]

This thread has made me really sad – having been out of phone and email reception for 24 hours I log back on to read of a horribly precipitous end to what was proving to be a very constructive movement that Cotswoldman has been leading. I first met him and other boaters last November along with John Dodwell and other colleagues and since that time, we’ve started changing the way we do quite a few things. It takes time to make the effects of change apparent, and I know that there’s frustration at the time it takes for people to see a difference. But that’s life in the fairly complicated world that we’re in where a sizeable percentage of 35,000 boaters have the passion and time to help us with policy and decision making. We’re continuing to strive for better performance and with our new CEO’s fresh impetus, there’s never been brighter prospects for boater relationships with the Trust.

 

Cotswoldman doesn’t like the user group format, but we’ve never said their format is cast in stone. If people have suggestions for reforming them to make them more inclusive and productive, please email them to me at sally.ash@canalrivertrust.org.uk . All that Vince was trying to do was to improve communications with and between boaters by extending the reach of the meeting arrangements that exist already. Perhaps a good start might be a re-naming to ‘boater meetings’ and a re-think of the invite list. How big should they be? How local? Who should lead them and set the agenda?

 

Vince, Simon and senior managers who’ve had the opportunity to engage with Cotswoldman’s meetings definitely appreciate what he’s done. We’re just sad that he’s taking his bat and ball home because he sees only one way of skinning the cat.

 

There’s a lot of nonsense too in the postings about boaters being marginalised etc. That is not our view and quotes have been taken out of context just because it appears to make exciting copy for a forum post.

 

 

Sally Ash

Thank you for taking the time to read the thread and post a response. It always helps to get another prospective.

 

Personally I would like to see some kind of new boaters organisation come out of these initiatives that can continue an "open to all" boating forum/meeting structure amongst other things. That is something I would like to get involved in.

Edited August 16, 2013 by churchward

[Dekazer]

Hi Sally,

 

I'm going to have a good think about what you've written, and try to come up with some constructive feedback - for now I just wanted to say thank you for stopping by and contributing. Can't have been a nice thread to read. I'm sure very many of us will appreciate you taking the time to comment.

 

Lucy

[Guest]

There’s a lot of nonsense too in the postings about boaters being marginalised etc. That is not our view and quotes have been taken out of context just because it appears to make exciting copy for a forum post.

 

But Sally when boaters feel that their opinions are not being listened to ie the moorings issue and CRT press ahead how else do you suggest they should feel?

 

ed. to add just a further thought, the issue is some boaters feel as if we are being marginalised, as to whether we are or not (you are saying not) is not really important because it would appear that some who take an active interest in 'waterways politics' truly believe we are being.

 

That to me suggests somewhere CRT has not got it's message to boaters right and that we are seen as a bit of a nuisance even an irritation sometimes to the Trust. For me it's down to CRT to address that, with boaters help of course.

Edited August 16, 2013 by The Dog House

[Jerra]

Thank you for taking the time to read the thread and post a response. It always helps to get another prospective.

 

Personally I would like to see some kind of new boaters organisation come out of these initiatives that can continue an "open to all" boating forum/meeting structure amongst other things. That is something I would like to get involved in.

I would whole heartedly second all of that post.

[dor]

Good of you to respond Sally. I thought C&RT were improving their communication. But that was last week.

 

However I think it is about time that C&RT put forward exactly where they see boaters in the overall scheme of things. After all, the canals would just revert to derelict ditches without them.

 

And put some commitments forward, along with sensible timescales, so people, including boaters, can see and measure what C&RT's attitude really is.

 

And 10,000,000 visitors to the canals? Really? I mean people who make a point of visiting the canals rather than happen to walk near them or use them as a fast cycle path.

[Suzie_q]

This thread has made me really sad – having been out of phone and email reception for 24 hours I log back on to read of a horribly precipitous end to what was proving to be a very constructive movement that Cotswoldman has been leading. I first met him and other boaters last November along with John Dodwell and other colleagues and since that time, we’ve started changing the way we do quite a few things. It takes time to make the effects of change apparent, and I know that there’s frustration at the time it takes for people to see a difference. But that’s life in the fairly complicated world that we’re in where a sizeable percentage of 35,000 boaters have the passion and time to help us with policy and decision making. We’re continuing to strive for better performance and with our new CEO’s fresh impetus, there’s never been brighter prospects for boater relationships with the Trust.

 

Cotswoldman doesn’t like the user group format, but we’ve never said their format is cast in stone. If people have suggestions for reforming them to make them more inclusive and productive, please email them to me at sally.ash@canalrivertrust.org.uk . All that Vince was trying to do was to improve communications with and between boaters by extending the reach of the meeting arrangements that exist already. Perhaps a good start might be a re-naming to ‘boater meetings’ and a re-think of the invite list. How big should they be? How local? Who should lead them and set the agenda?

 

Vince, Simon and senior managers who’ve had the opportunity to engage with Cotswoldman’s meetings definitely appreciate what he’s done. We’re just sad that he’s taking his bat and ball home because he sees only one way of skinning the cat.

 

There’s a lot of nonsense too in the postings about boaters being marginalised etc. That is not our view and quotes have been taken out of context just because it appears to make exciting copy for a forum post.

 

 

Sally Ash

Sally.

 

Thank you for taking the time to respond and showing that the door has not been locked.

 

However following the term "taken Bat and Ball home" with "just because it appears to make exciting copy for a forum post" does show how often it is easy to let ones fingers say what the mind is thinking when maybe at this stage of the debate it was not appropriate.

 

I do totally agree that a lot of nonsense has been posted in this thread, however there is a lot of constructive debate about what can be done to take things forward.

[billS]

Sally.

 

Thank you for taking the time to respond and showing that the door has not been locked.

 

However following the term "taken Bat and Ball home" with "just because it appears to make exciting copy for a forum post" does show how often it is easy to let ones fingers say what the mind is thinking when maybe at this stage of the debate it was not appropriate.

 

I do totally agree that a lot of nonsense has been posted in this thread, however there is a lot of constructive debate about what can be done to take things forward.

 

I agree, but I think this sensitivity to sensibilities needs to extend to those on both sides of the argument.

 

 

 

 

Edited August 16, 2013 by billS

[Leni]

Greenie to Sally for posting here (even with her somewhat eye-watering mixed metaphors )

 

Let's hope it's a sign that the communication can continue!

[alan_fincher]

There’s a lot of nonsense too in the postings about boaters being marginalised etc. That is not our view and quotes have been taken out of context just because it appears to make exciting copy for a forum post.

 

 

Sally Ash

 

Thanks for taking the time to contribute, Sally.

 

I have to say though that my view on how boats and boating seem to be regarded is from my own personal on the ground experiences in the South East region.

 

I am not using John Dodwell, (or anybody else's) words to justify feeling that way.

 

I can't speak as effectively for other areas of the country, and would not claim to, but in the South East at least, I believe the plot is well and truly lost.

 

There simply has to be better things for the Trust to spend its money on than the SEVM exercise. By any measure at least 50% of boaters in the region oppose it, (I personally still believe the figure to be far higher), so would continue to argue that there must be alternatives that the money could be spent on where the majority of boaters would be in favour of the spend, rather than being opposed to it.

 

The strange thing is that at one meeting I attended with Simon Salem and Vince Moran, I kind of sensed that they probably actually agreed with that view!

 

The User Group meetings I have been too are far too staged managed to provide the required interaction. Jeff Whyatt even had the gall when he presented the SEVM outcomes to say that NABO and RBOA had both been involved in reaching the conclusion - quietly neglecting to say that both had come out in firm opposition!

Edited August 16, 2013 by alan_fincher

[blodger]

We’re just sad that he’s taking his bat and ball home because he sees only one way of skinning the cat.

 

Is not this a case of trying to turn the tables, I understood from the e-mail extract that John Dodwell had closed the game?

Edited August 16, 2013 by blodger