CRT No Longer Wish To Meet With Boaters

[sueb]

I don't see how we can as it will split the forum. There will be members and non members. Can forum members who are non boaters be members of the club? Will everyone automatically become a club member & if not will they have to leave the forum?

[jenlyn]

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

Na, more to it than that. You need to look at the fact they were leaderless for the time we were talking to them. They were treading water. New leader comes in, gives them direction and points out, they are entrusted with the canals future, not us.

It's that simple.

[RLWP]

I don't see how we can as it will split the forum. There will be members and non members. Can forum members who are non boaters be members of the club? Will everyone automatically become a club member & if not will they have to leave the forum?

 

There are already splits in the forum and we cope.

 

I don't see why non-boaters cannot be members, we haven't defined what we are for yet

 

No, as Richard F said just being a member here doesn't make you a member of this proposed organisation. Otherwise all of the spam accounts would be members

 

Richard

[Richard Fairhurst]

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.

Edited August 15, 2013 by Richard Fairhurst

[boathunter]

Na, more to it than that. You need to look at the fact they were leaderless for the time we were talking to them. They were treading water. New leader comes in, gives them direction and points out, they are entrusted with the canals future, not us.

It's that simple.

The Government dumped the canals for a reason, to save money, but they didn't want to be seen presiding over it's dilapidation so they used the charity ruse. The charity have a job to do - turn the canals into something that doesn't cost so much to maintain. 35,000 boats? Not so many are needed, just a few token brightly painted ones will do.

 

I was going to buy a boat, I think maybe I'll hold off a little while longer.

[Smelly]

counterproductive.Provisional wing of the IWA ?

A random thought has me paying my licence into a trust fund...

[mango]

I really do not understand why many boaters feel the need to control the Canal & River Trust. Every meeting and other interaction costs money and that means less to spend on maintenance and other tasks that many boaters regard as important. We can probably agree that more needs to be spent on maintaining our waterways, most of which are over 200 years old.

 

Probably the best way that boaters can help is to raise funds to support waterway projects and find ways of working with CRT to do practical work that would otherwise have to be done by CRT staff or contractors. Join NABO or one of the other organisations that communicates with CRT. That is far more efficient than expecting the Trust to communicate with independent boaters.

 

Stand back and you might see that the constant carping on CWDF is not very much better than what we see on narrowboatworld.com.

[KevMc]

I wonder just how much this John Dodswell understands the canal. If the boats stop using it then very quickly it will revert to being a stagnant ditch which no-one will want to visit

[Jigsawged]

I was never in favour of the transfer of our waterways heritage from BW to a Charitable Trust. It seems to me that it was always going to be a loser. The good people of the UK have a strong reputation for generous charitable giving but as far as the waterways are concerned, only those with a vested interest are likely to be supportive.

 

Years of neglect (due to inadequate funding) left BW in a position where spending was prioritised to deal with what they considered to be matters of Health & Safety which left little of the budget for other essential stuff like dredging and towpath improvement although a certain amount of that work was carried out. The Trust is in no better a position and in terms of funding is likely to be much worse off.

 

The Trust cannot afford to alienate boaters who must, apart from licensing, be amongst the majority of financial supporters to the whole concept. This is why, in my opinion, the Trust HAS to listen to those contributors who don't all belong to any of the "Recognised" organisations but in order for it to work, we have to understand the position of both sides and not simply gripe about everything.

 

I agree that for our concerns to be at least listened to, there needs to be some sort of organised mandate so that those who have already done so much for our cause, have some position of strength from which to exercise our voice. I wouldn't have a clue how to go about organising such a thing but I am sure that there are many here who could.

 

Just my opinion.

[cheshire~rose]

Effective communication is paramount for any organisation or group to work well.

 

John and Jenlyn (and Alan Fincher who I know has also dedicated a significant amount of time and energy into this) have been doing a grand job and we are all very grateful for that. Perhaps because they are seen as individuals it is impossible for CRT to quantify how many people or indeed who they speak for.

 

Of course many individuals have their own gripes but what these guys have been doing is taking those individual gripes, weeding out the ones that have no bearing on anyone but the individual and taking the rest along with the evidence that our eyes are supplying for them and forming them into a justifiable issue to be raised with CRT.

 

If they need a mandate to say "we" (the forum) gives them the power of our individual voices then let's get it organised.

 

Richard (RLWP) when you attend that meeting the key word has to be communication. What do they need "us" to do to allow our voice to still be heard.

 

People who suggest joining The IWA would help - how is that so? John Dodwell is an IWA representative and he has shown his colours.

 

Perhaps if more boaters had considered the options a little more carefully when voting for representatives we might have had a truly independent voice to speak for us instead of the IWA / CRT coalition that is governing the boaters now. When are the representatives up for re-election?

Edited August 16, 2013 by cheshire~rose

[Higgs]

When are the representatives up for re-election?

 

Two and a half years too long.

[cotswoldsman]

I really do not understand why many boaters feel the need to control the Canal & River Trust. Every meeting and other interaction costs money and that means less to spend on maintenance and other tasks that many boaters regard as important. We can probably agree that more needs to be spent on maintaining our waterways, most of which are over 200 years old.

 

Probably the best way that boaters can help is to raise funds to support waterway projects and find ways of working with CRT to do practical work that would otherwise have to be done by CRT staff or contractors. Join NABO or one of the other organisations that communicates with CRT. That is far more efficient than expecting the Trust to communicate with independent boaters.

 

Stand back and you might see that the constant carping on CWDF is not very much better than what we see on narrowboatworld.com.

OK lets just put the financial cost of these meetings to bed. Firstly the meetings cost CRT very marginally. 2 meetings were at Milton Keynes CRT Head office so no real cost to CRT. Skipton meeting I paid for the hire of the room, the boaters that attended donated money towards the cost of the room I handed this money (as far as remember about £100 to Sally Ash as a donation to CRT) Leeds meeting was held at CRT office in Leeds, John Dodwell came by train but used the opportunity to have meetings with CRT staff during the day. Birmingham Meeting again I paid for the hire of the room (Those attending had a collection to help towards the cost). Rugby Meeting I again paid for the room (again those attending donated towards the room). Birmingham Social, boaters are paying £10 each the 11 people attending from CRT will pay nothing for the Buffet Dinner we are providing, CRT will be presented with £400 as a donation from the Traders taking part in the Floating Market. I know Jenlyn himself has funded all the meetings he organised.I am very grateful to Sally Ash who gave up alot of time to meet with us and communicate with us. These meetings were a 2 way thing and at the time people within CRT said they were very grateful, for example at out Rugby meeting Vince Moran did a 1 hour presentation on maintenance and the problems CRT have with financing it, this was a very good presentation and I know that those attending left with a far better understanding of CRT's problems and were able to pass that message onto other boaters. Over and above these meetings I and Jenlyn personally had a number of meetings with CRT all at their offices. At the Floating Market I made a point of contacting CRT Fund raising Dept who will be sending Chuggers. I should also say that I myself have paid £500 so far for the social in Birmingham I am hoping to recover most of this from the £10 charge but it does not bother me if I don't recover it all, I was passionate about this project of getting boaters and CRT together so money for me was never the issue that is why am so disappointed that CRT have decided to stop the process, I know that the other all felt the same, it took over our lives. (sorry about this but I am still very upset)

Edited August 16, 2013 by cotswoldsman

[Debby]

Dear Mr Dodwell,

 

We are towpath users, and yes, we like to see boats when we are walking along the towpath. However, unless we take a scythe with us, in places we can barely see the canal, let alone boats. The stinging nettles are so high on both sides of the towpath that anyone under 6 ft in height sees nothing. We have to walk in single file, which makes conversation difficult. If we meet other walkers coming towards us, we have to climb into the nettles to let them pass - unable to see where the edge of the canal is on one side, or if there's a ditch on the other.

 

The only boat I regularly see is a sunken one, which I can see because I walk over the bridge directly above it. This matter was reported to our local team on the 18th June. Nothing has happened, other than the boats moored near it on the 18th June moved away last week.

 

So, Mr Dodwell, the towpath users don't seem to get much more than the boaters, unless they're in "honeypot" areas. I don't want to see manicured towpaths all the way along the canals, with nice picnic areas. I want to see wildlife and natural plant growth. But I also want to be able to have a nice stroll without being stung by nettles, without tree branches growing so low that I almost have to get on hands and knees to get past them, and without the danger of falling in the canal because I can't see where the edge is - and where I can see it, it's crumbling away.

Edited August 16, 2013 by DaveandDebby

[Leo No2]

I wonder just how much this John Dodswell understands the canal. If the boats stop using it then very quickly it will revert to being a stagnant ditch which no-one will want to visit

Not standing up for what John has said (I don't understand the full context of all the communication) but he's been around waterways since canoeing on the Basingstoke in the 1950s/1960s. He is a boat owner.

[Tuscan]

If the social evening with CRT in September is continuing this would be the ideal opportunity in a non formal way to discover how CRT would like to engage with boaters and for that matter boating organisations (outside the IWA).

 

As without a willingness from CRT to engage it is difficult for associations to move forward and debates on here and dare I say it articles on NBW will possibly be the way to get more of their attention.

[Bod]

 

Perhaps if more boaters had considered the options a little more carefully when voting for representatives we might have had a truly independent voice to speak for us instead of the IWA / CRT coalition that is governing the boaters now. When are the representatives up for re-election?

NOW is the time for us to begin to unite behind one candidate for the next C&RT election.

Not the split vote of the last one, how many members are there on this forum who could vote?

A big thank you to John, Steve and all others who took part, you tried.

 

Bod

[bassplayer]

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

Might be worth starting a new thread for this.

[mayalld]

OK lets just put the financial cost of these meetings to bed. Firstly the meetings cost CRT very marginally. 2 meetings were at Milton Keynes CRT Head office so no real cost to CRT.

 

 

Whilst I am hugely sympathetic, and I recognise that in terms of direct cash expenditure CRT has not had to spend any huge amount of attributable cash, it isn't true to say that there is "no real cost to CRT"

 

Some of the people who attended these meetings are employees in receipt of a salary, so their time has a value. Whilst they are in these meetings, they are not doing anything else.

 

Likewise, there is no incremental cost to using a meeting room that was there anyway, but the provision of that room has an annual cost that has to be attributed to the meetings that take place in it.

 

I too appreciate the efforts that John and Co made to engage CRT, but ultimately, they have to justify the cost of staff time spent in meeting boaters, and focus on meeting boaters who can claim a constituency.

[billS]

Effective communication is paramount for any organisation or group to work well.

 

John and Jenlyn (and Alan Fincher who I know has also dedicated a significant amount of time and energy into this) have been doing a grand job and we are all very grateful for that. Perhaps because they are seen as individuals it is impossible for CRT to quantify how many people or indeed who they speak for.

 

Of course many individuals have their own gripes but what these guys have been doing is taking those individual gripes, weeding out the ones that have no bearing on anyone but the individual and taking the rest along with the evidence that our eyes are supplying for them and forming them into a justifiable issue to be raised with CRT.

 

If they need a mandate to say "we" (the forum) gives them the power of our individual voices then let's get it organised.

 

Richard (RLWP) when you attend that meeting the key word has to be communication. What do they need "us" to do to allow our voice to still be heard.

 

People who suggest joining The IWA would help - how is that so? John Dodwell is an IWA representative and he has shown his colours.

 

Perhaps if more boaters had considered the options a little more carefully when voting for representatives we might have had a truly independent voice to speak for us instead of the IWA / CRT coalition that is governing the boaters now. When are the representatives up for re-election?

 

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?

[alan_fincher]

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

 

I have seen very little to support this - sadly quite the reverse, (see below....)

 

 

 

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

 

Yes, John Dodwell has been very prominent in the IWA over many years, I believe, and in many other things too, including (from memory) heading the Commercial Boat Owners Association at one stage, (though I don't know if he has been involved in commercial boating).

 

He is not, I believe, as some (but not you!) have suggested currently an IWA trustee. However it is obvious from observing that he is very close to people like Vaughan Welch who is, (and a Council boater representative). If Vaughan Welch represents what is good for our canals, I think I'll sell the boats - I could never join the IWA while peopl like him hold senior office.

 

I wonder just how much this John Dodswell understands the canal. If the boats stop using it then very quickly it will revert to being a stagnant ditch which no-one will want to visit

 

He is one of the few in CRT that is a boater, and owns the converted historic BCN tug "Helen", so should know something about getting a deep draughted boat through silted bridge holes.

 

However when he boats he seems to make arrangements to leave "Helen" in marinas and other private moorings of his choice, so probably has more money to throw at his hobby than many boaters do.

 

He still holds the line that a moderated version of the South East moorings proposals is required, and that mooring at many of these locations actually is problematic. This is out of line with the experiences of most of us, so I think he must just have very different expectations.

I'm very disappointed by these latest twists, because if the likes of JD will no longer listen, I fear we are stuffed.

 

Perhaps those who said we were all being completely naive were spot on after all?

[Richard Fairhurst]

IWA's not broken, it's just different. It's a charity beholden to its charitable aims, and those charitable aims are not exclusively boating-focused. As such, it doesn't principally exist to represent its members, let alone solely its boating ones.

 

It's also a charity of a certain age and, like many such, tends to be small-C conservative in both its outlook and its processes. Several recent chairmen have tried to shake it up a little (John Fletcher in particular) but haven't always found it easy.

 

I have a huge amount of respect for IWA and a lot of its volunteers (though I agree the CRT Council election didn't necessarily show them in the best light). It does vast amounts of good work which you never see. Nationally, at the moment, it's putting lots of time into HS2 and CRT's business licence consultation; and it's pretty much the only organisation that monitors and responds to the endless stream of local planning applications that could affect the waterways. But that's not to say it should be the only organisation out there.

[alan_fincher]

 

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?

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"?

[Guest]

 

Whilst I am hugely sympathetic, and I recognise that in terms of direct cash expenditure CRT has not had to spend any huge amount of attributable cash, it isn't true to say that there is "no real cost to CRT"

 

Some of the people who attended these meetings are employees in receipt of a salary, so their time has a value. Whilst they are in these meetings, they are not doing anything else.

 

Likewise, there is no incremental cost to using a meeting room that was there anyway, but the provision of that room has an annual cost that has to be attributed to the meetings that take place in it.

 

I too appreciate the efforts that John and Co made to engage CRT, but ultimately, they have to justify the cost of staff time spent in meeting boaters, and focus on meeting boaters who can claim a constituency.

 

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.

[Tam & Di]

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!

 

I wonder how the figure of 10m towpath users was arrived at. It is easy enough to look at how many boat licences there are, and to some extent also how many fishing clubs pay(?) to use bits of towpath. Who counts the number of people who just want a bridge to dive off on a hot day? or somewhere to carry on a bit of thievery? or an easy place to dump their rubbish? Whoops! - that's probably not the sort of user he is referring to, is it??

 

Tam

Edited August 16, 2013 by Tam & Di

[cotswoldsman]

 

 

 

He is one of the few in CRT that is a boater, and owns the converted historic BCN tug "Helen", so should know something about getting a deep draughted boat through silted bridge holes.

 

However when he boats he seems to make arrangements to leave "Helen" in marinas and other private moorings of his choice, so probably has more money to throw at his hobby than many boaters do.

 

He still holds the line that a moderated version of the South East moorings proposals is required, and that mooring at many of these locations actually is problematic. This is out of line with the experiences of most of us, so I think he must just have very different expectations.

I'm very disappointed by these latest twists, because if the likes of JD will no longer listen, I fear we are stuffed.

 

Perhaps those who said we were all being completely naive were spot on after all?

John Dodwell does understand boats and boating and I have found him to be honest in his opinions and the way he has conducted himself.

He has put himself out there to engage with boaters and seems to be the only Trustee to step forward, I would struggle to name any of the other Trustees. Over the last 10 months I have had many discussions and meetings with him some of them have been very heated but that has never stopped him trying to be part of the process. I am sorry that I will no longer be meeting with John even when we disagreed on certain issues (SEVM) I fully understood that he is there to support CRT and he does that very well.