CRT No Longer Wish To Meet With Boaters

[Wanted]

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, weve started changing the way we do quite a few things. It takes time to make the effects of change apparent, and I know that theres frustration at the time it takes for people to see a difference. But thats life in the fairly complicated world that were in where a sizeable percentage of 35,000 boaters have the passion and time to help us with policy and decision making. Were continuing to strive for better performance and with our new CEOs fresh impetus, theres never been brighter prospects for boater relationships with the Trust.

 

Cotswoldman doesnt like the user group format, but weve 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 whove had the opportunity to engage with Cotswoldmans meetings definitely appreciate what hes done. Were just sad that hes taking his bat and ball home because he sees only one way of skinning the cat.

 

Theres 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

Perhaps it would have been more prudent to understand how this ridiculous set up is making people feel before accusing them of 'taking their bat and ball'

 

The fundamental need for a charities survival is to listen to its service users, my advice, feedback or whatever is for CRT to return to the boardroom and work out a way that you can achieve this instead if the usual bleating 'we need your suggestions' nonsense.

For what is quite a large charity it's a bit embarrassing isn't it? Basic fundementals are being missed and yet you are all taking a salary. Take some tesponsibility!

 

Most importantly learn how to take critasism as well as money. You might just learn something.

 

I'm glad you have responded and I hope you can understand that this isn't personal, but I also hope you can take this back to your colleagues.

[mayalld]

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,

 

firstly, congratulations on having the guts to join in on a discussion where you are being roundly slammed.

 

It is, or course true that it can be difficult to move forward if you are dealing with somebody who takes a "my way or the highway" approach (and I don't know whether this is the case. Clearly John is convinced that User Groups aren't the way forward, and that a brand new approach is needed, whilst I detect from your message that CRT feel that what is needed is bringing the best of what the new approach gave you and bolting it on to the user group system)

 

However, I would say this;

 

CRT needs to listen to ALL boaters. Not just to those who it picks to be on a user group, and the attitude to boaters displayed in JD's e-mail is a source of profound concern.

[jenlyn]

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

I keep telling him crickets a bad game ;-)

Without printing all of the emails off, its difficult for any individual to form any solid opinion. There are quite a lot that would need to be posted before anyone could fathom what was going on. So hopefully, we wont have to go down that route.

I am going to put my money on john with this though, because when all is said and done, vince's email could have been worded a little better, he is after all a director. I'm not having a snipe sally, it's merely my thoughts on it.

The three of us walk a thin line working with the trust, we accept that, along with some of the abuse we have taken from our own community. It's not easy. So when we get feedback from boaters regarding some trust plans, and that feedback is negative, we feel obligated to voice that. The emails sometimes get personal, they then spill onto forums etc. To be used to make a point-statement.

It's human nature, we all do it, hence your bat and ball remark.

Anyway, onwards and upwards, we'll be eating fish and chips from this tomorrow.

[billS]

 

, and the attitude to boaters displayed in JD's e-mail is a source of profound concern.

 

Did you read the whole email, or just the extract in the original post? I felt it read differently in the context of the whole email.

[MtB]

Thank you for posting, Sally. I find your participation very encouraging. Just thought I'd say.

 

(I have to go back to work now.)

 

 

MtB

[carlt]

 

Did you read the whole email, or just the extract in the original post? I felt it read differently in the context of the whole email.

Unfortunately I believe your mind is already made up and you are intending to back CRT whatever they say.

 

It might be worth noting that both myself and Dave Mayall have heavily criticised the "CRT knockers" who have been determined to undermine the new organisation from day one.

 

It would appear that this latest development has changed both mine and Dave's opinion somewhat (though, characteristically mine in a more militant manner than Dave's).

 

I am saddened to acknowledge any "I told you so" comments that may be forthcoming but I still believe I was right to give the new regime the benefit of the doubt.

 

Now, about these NFU banners...

[c c]

Rugby Meeting I again paid for the room (again those attending donated towards the room).

 

John - Rugby meeting? Was I asleep at the time? If you ever do need a room in Rugby again - no charge for using our place.

And surely there are other canalia supporters who have premises they could provide?

[mayalld]

 

Did you read the whole email, or just the extract in the original post? I felt it read differently in the context of the whole email.

 

I read the whole e-mail, and yes the extract is worse when taken in isolation than when taken in context, but still I would say that its tenor is that we should know our place, and that we are tolerated because we attract other users, rather than being valued as the raison d'etre of the trust

[billS]

Unfortunately I believe your mind is already made up and you are intending to back CRT whatever they say.

 

Actually it isn't and I have no such intention. I certainly haven't joined the lynch mob yet though, just on the evidence presented in this thread

[Neil2]

Thank you for posting, Sally. I find your participation very encouraging. Just thought I'd say.

 

(I have to go back to work now.)

 

 

MtB

Me too.

[carlt]

 

Actually it isn't and I have no such intention. I certainly haven't joined the lynch mob yet though, just on the evidence presented in this thread

I don't actually see any evidence of "lynching" going on, merely disappointment in seeing the end of a potentially fruitful avenue of communication between boaters and CRT.

 

If CRT won't listen to us talk then perhaps we need to shout...in a peaceful, non-lynching manner.

[billS]

rather than being valued as the raison d'etre of the trust

 

But that's just the point - we are not the raison d'etre of the trust. I wish we were, but wishing does not make it so. If we start off with that premise then we will be sadly disappointed, as indeed many people clearly are.

[kbarber]

Again, thanks to Sally for engaging here; not an easy job. I want to make a few observations and I hope they can be useful even if they sound critical.

 

I'm definitely getting a sense of how much exasperation there is on both sides and there's a real risk, I fear, that it may spill over into personal relationships and spoil things. If I may bring a therapist's view for a few minutes, it seems to me that people on both sides are carrying and voicing feelings that are as much collective as personal. Sally can't help but express, in a personal and rather pointed way, some of the frustration and anger that (I suspect) senior C&RT people feel when they see themselves being criticised by people (us) who don't know what it's really like to be trying to do their job. Likewise John Steve, Alan and others - triggered perhaps by a bit of poor communication - inevitably vent the feelings that many of us experience as we come across the little things that make life difficult (in my case a ratchet pawl wrongly-assembled so a GU gate paddle couldn't be used, for example; offside top gate at Slapton IIRC), and do so in the manner (though not perhaps the language) we vent it at the time. So there has been some intemperate language on both sides and there have been some (apparent) decisions that seem to close doors. It is absoluutely vital that we don't let that be the end of things.

 

Is it possible for the leading protagonists on both sides to not take this personally? If so, both sides may get to hear just how much disquiet there really is and realise how seriously they have to take it. Equally, it will be possible to move on from this very polarised position, resume the communication that was previously in progress and build on the excellent work that's already been done. That would be a good result all round.

 

Not that I necessarily think anything that's been said should be abandoned (except for some of the personal animus between posters). I think it would be a good idea if C&RT knows there are some of us thinking about how to ensure the boaters' case is taken seriously, just in case they decide it can be deprioritised. I think it will always be a good idea if boaters have some knowledge and understanding of the financial and organisational facts - including that C&RT has duties to many people and sections of society; it will be even better if they have sufficient detail to interrogate the accounts and point out real facts about what is and isn't happening. And in spite of what sounds like an oppositional (sometimes rather bitter) situation, there will be times when we need to all work together - the day will come when we need to lobby government in a way that is even more effective than has been managed in the past.

 

I'm aware this feels unfinished. I don't have a nice, neat conclusion. Sometimes that's as it should be; perhaps it'll be food for someone else's thought.

[cotswoldsman]

I am on a train to Birmingham with my bat and ball so difficult to respond Sally. One of the problems with User Groups is that it is difficult to discuss what I will call National Issues things that effect all boaters. Drastically changing the format is a giant leap forward if it also allows boaters to set the agenda for OPEN discussion. As you know one of the things we all agreed was good about our meetings is that boaters set the agenda but we also covered issues such as how can we encourage more volunteers, how can we help to recruit more friends? they were not as some people who did not attend think "moaning shops." Please excuse fat finger problems I am doing this on my phone.

Wonder if I can get a game at Edgebaston?

I would just also like to thank you for your support in being part of the very OPEN discussions we had and your ability to answer questions.

[RockSodem]

I read the whole e-mail, and yes the extract is worse when taken in isolation than when taken in context, but still I would say that its tenor is that we should know our place, and that we are tolerated because we attract other users, rather than being valued as the raison d'etre of the trust

But the restoration of the canals wasn't strictly speaking to make the boaters the raison d'etre of the canals. Many of the past and present restoration programs include large parts of local communities that are not boaters. True, they like to see them, but they also partake because it will also become an attractive amenity. And in my mind, that is what it is. An amenity. Those who use it heavily, boaters, pay more, and light users such as your dog walkers etc, indirectly through taxes etc. I work on the canals for a living, but there are many people that need to get over themselves and understand that the canals are not all about boaters anymore. It goes far wider than that. Give the CRT a chance. Look how long it took the National Trust and the likes to really get up and running and look how well respected they are now.

[Tuscan]

Fair play to Sally for coming on to give her/CRT's side of the story. As we are unaware of the topics under discussion that caused Cotswoldsman to remove his bat and ball (apart from overgrowth on the towpath) its difficult to comment further. Perhaps the social in Birmingham next month can mend some bridges.

[cotswoldsman]

Fair play to Sally for coming on to give her/CRT's side of the story. As we are unaware of the topics under discussion that caused Cotswoldsman to remove his bat and ball (apart from overgrowth on the towpath) its difficult to comment further. Perhaps the social in Birmingham next month can mend some bridges.

I am sure it will. I am in Birmingham now about to sort out the menu so all the stuff I like then!!

[jenlyn]

Perhaps the social in Birmingham next month can mend some bridges.

Oh, more maintenace problems-costs?

[Athy]

 

If CRT won't listen to us talk then perhaps we need to shout...in a peaceful, non-lynching manner.

Over a working lynch, perhaps?

[Jerra]

As it would appear CRT are taking an interest in this thread there are a few things I would like to make clear from my point of view so this is directed to Sally.

 

1. Thank you for being prepared to put your head above the parapet and post on the thread.

2. I think you should realise how much time effort and emotion Cotswoldman and others (not to mention cash) and PM them some sort of apology about the "taking the bat and ball home" remark. It was uncalled for and I believe untrue.

3. My connection with the canals is not as great as I would like it to be if I were nearer I would volunteer. However I will not become a "friend" of anything. As I said earlier being a member is a different proposition - I am happily a member of the NT (I believe the nearest equivalent to CRT.

4. I do not want to join any organisation e.g. IWA which does not purely represent boaters.

5. I am a member of enough organisations which represent any of my interests which coincide with canals e.g. wildlife.

6. I do want to feel that there is a channel for my views to be made known and I feel that Cotswoldman and others were working towards this.

7. I also feel that representation within CRT is currently very one sided (IWA).

8. I have expected CRT to be a new dawn and have always felt that the benefit of the doubt should apply, however my faith has been weakened. Partly by the subject of this thread and partly by the "bat and ball" jibe.

 

I want the CRT to successful but I don't think this is possible without a thriving boating community (hirers through to liveaboards) and that community feeling it is being heard and due notice being taken. NB I say due notice I realise there are many ways of enjoying a wonderful resource other than boating.

 

Sorry if this seems a bit of a rant but it seemed a good time to say it.

[jenlyn]

I think we are all engrossed in the future of our waterways, we are all looking at the same goals, but have different views on how we get there. It gets intense, and blood levels go up through frustration and fear that some are not getting it, how do we get over or past that point?

[DeanS]

Thanks Sally for your comments

 

As I see it, we are all on the same team. We all want the CRT to be a success, as that will mean improvements all round, for everyone. There is a general trend on this forum, to extol the virtues of CRT staff on the ground. The people out there fixing locks etc. We all think they genuinely do a great job. There also seems to be a general consensus that CRT management dont consult boaters properly, or that they only talk to the IWA etc. In terms of public relations, John's open meetings were going a long way to build a communication bridge between normal boaters who arent members of other organisations. An example ....we only learned from the open meeting in Skipton, that "boaters representatives" were wrongly named, and werent actually boaters representatives but appointed to guide the Charity board (memory now fails). This was duly posted on the forum, and many then went...aahh. So those open meetings were important. Why on earth would CRT now close the door on such a valuable communication avenue is beyond me. I thought John Sloane deserved the respect of CRT simply because of the amount of personal time and effort he was putting in to form such a communication bridge? So yep...it is sad.

[mayalld]

 

But that's just the point - we are not the raison d'etre of the trust. I wish we were, but wishing does not make it so. If we start off with that premise then we will be sadly disappointed, as indeed many people clearly are.

 

It is, indeed VERY much the point.

 

We should be the raison d'etre, and we need to forcefully say so.

 

Not from any "canals are for boats and everybody else can go hang" sentiment, but because for all we are assured that they didn't get the funding just so that 35,000 people can play at boats, neither did they get the funding to maintain a 200 mile linear nature reserve.

 

They got the funding, because it is advantageous to the experience of the vast majority of users (even anglers) that there are boats using the canal.

[davidc]

Does nobody at CRT realise that keeping boaters on side and who are a revenue stream that could be worth another 2.1 million pounds at least.

 

Boaters realise that the waterway needs more money if there felt that there where valued there could easily be asked in a nice way to be come friends with a voice at 5 pound a month that's *35k is 175000 pounds therefore 2.1 million a year

 

National trust manages why not CRT

 

the answer is there have to listen (not obey) to us and make us believe there are protecting us along with other low streams of capital (towpath/dog walkers)

Edited August 16, 2013 by davidc

[Tesla]

I think we are all engrossed in the future of our waterways, we are all looking at the same goals

This is the key point that we all have to focus on. And for Sally and others at CRT reading this thread, the point should be very clear, 35k boaters who are passionate about our waterways is a fantastic team to have on board. You won't find them elsewhere in your 10m visitors.