NABO Press Release

[carlt]

If the legal nit pickers continue to win their case re CMing and bridge hopping then this is going to be the probable outcome.

 

I don't understand how you can say that expecting an enforcing authority to act within the law is any more "nit picking" than expecting an individual boater to act within the law.

[NigelMoore]

As NABO are plainly unhappy with CRT's proposals, can NABO come up with some credible alternative suggestions as how to run our waterways?

 

Positive suggestions alongside pertinent criticism in the NABO magazine, appear on pages 20 to 23 in the article by Simon Greer – one of the contributors [as were Tam and Di Murrell, Brentford Boaters, & others] to the Select Committee examining the 1990 BW Bill, that became the legislation in contention.

 

http://www.nabo.org.uk/files/nabo-news/nn-2014/3.pdf

 

The article on the legal advice, perhaps easier to understand than the supplement, is on pages 15 to 16.

[jenlyn]

Well, I have read through it.

From what I see, it's an opinion, as I see no strategy plan or advice on how the points will be addressed.

So what's next?

[NigelMoore]

I don't understand how you can say that expecting an enforcing authority to act within the law is any more "nit picking" than expecting an individual boater to act within the law.

 

The pertinence of the NABO articles to the future well-being of this enforcing authority, is that they point up one characteristic aspect of their approach to governance that is antithetical to future survival. That survival depends, not only on their acting within the law, but on approaching and using the law with the positive benefit of the public in mind [most especially the major paying-customer sector], in such a way as to engender widespread recognition of, and support for, their moral approach.

 

From a report to the House of Lords Scrutiny Committee last year: -

 

"Summary:

 

The Merits Committee were assured in April 2012 by Robin Evans (BW): “As a charity, we will survive only if our reputation is good. People will support us, volunteer for us or give us money only if we act in a responsible way and fulfil our charitable objectives. I think that is a huge responsibility on us and will very much dictate the way we deal with those people who want lots of our services and who are licence payers or who hold moorings from us. There is a constitutional way, but there is also a reputational and moral side that will probably be hugely more influential than currently.” [my bold]

 

The past year has served only to demonstrate how assiduously CaRT’s legal department has been working - to arm its various public-contact departments with arguments designed to thwart the clear will of Parliament when agreeing to the provisions of the 2012 Transfer Order. The Order itself is being actively used to justify extra measures being taken against mooring and any non-navigational use of boats, while simultaneously being used to justify increasing censorship; withholding of almost all publicly relevant held information both past and present, and denial of any accountability regarding its general governance and day to day business.

 

The matter is deserving of the Committee’s earnest attention."

 

 

The report centred largely on the device used by CaRT to evade the constitutional restrictions on exercise of power - and constitutional obligations respecting transparency - by means of their referral to the Articles of Association contra the Statutory framework.

 

The visibly active engagement by Mr Parry in boating activities such as the BCN challenge is laudable and hugely important – but for so long as he supports the suspect purely legalistic endeavours of his organisation in the direction they have been following, then such engagement can only reflect the same measure of sincerity and meaning as any would-be politician’s ‘pressing of the flesh’ and kissing babies.

 

 

Mr Parry needs to pay due heed to his predecessor's warning.

 

[Cosmic]

 

There is apparently "A New Moorings Plan For London" to be released by C&RT next week, part of which is to reduce all moorings to 7 days with each site policed / monitored by volunteers who have yet to be recruited.

According to an article on the Dark Side (Linkydink), CaRT are seeking approval for this from the "Better Relationships on the Waterways in London Group" (BRG), a group that represents nobody, is answerable to nobody and is so secretive that, after around 18 months of its existence, I had to use the FOI Act to find out what they had been up to.

 

NABO's advice suggests that the proposals presented to the BRG in January (assuming that these form the basis of the new plan), might well be unlawful. But their approval by the BRG will no doubt trump that minor technicality. If CaRT genuinely want to address the mooring situation in London, I don't see how this achieves that. Rather, it looks to me as if it will just create another layer of rules it can't justify in law and probably won't be able to enforce in practice.

[tommytelford]

All these new changes to the rules seem to be totally ridiculous, why not return to the old days when a linesman was employed to be responsible for a stretch of the canal.

 

It would be his responsibility to patrol his stretch and report to the authority on any problems that needed attention and also to monitor boat movements and mooring.

 

A quick word with anyone overstaying or contravening the existing rules would normally be enough to sort things out without resorting to any unpleasantness.

 

There seems to be a complete lack of communication between boater and authority and it is becoming more and more a "them and us situation", it is after all a public amenity and more respect should be given to the public who use it

[Higgs]

 

 

There seems to be a complete lack of communication between boater and authority and it is becoming more and more a "them and us situation", it is after all a public amenity and more respect should be given to the public who use it

 

The IWA have done their bit to distance the relationship that boaters have with CRT. The IWA would be more inclined to follow your second point, where all users, non boaters, fit 'their' remit as skewed members of the boaters' rep in the council. It was hoped, certainly by me, that the opportunity for boaters to have representation would be enhanced by a council membership.

 

The IWA do have a boating contingency amongst their members, but nowhere near 100%. In my opinion, the IWA have erroded the opportunity for closer links, until the next round of elections in two years.

Edited May 31, 2014 by Higgs

[Alan de Enfield]

Quite an interesting comment by the Chair Person of London Region IWA :

 

We all hope that everyone within the London Boating Community would abide by the rules and use
Designated Visitor Moorings in a responsible and considerate manner. By their very nature they will often be
used by boats not familiar with our community and not be prepared to behave in as we would like. For those
few inconsiderate and irresponsible boaters CRT need to be able to force compliance with our rules.

C&RT have enough of a problem enforcing their own 'rules', now the IWA want to apply their own mooring rules and expect C&RT to enforce them - or maybe the IWA see themselves as a subsidiary of C&RT (or is it the other way-around ?)

[Timleech]

 

Positive suggestions alongside pertinent criticism in the NABO magazine, appear on pages 20 to 23 in the article by Simon Greer – one of the contributors [as were Tam and Di Murrell, Brentford Boaters, & others] to the Select Committee examining the 1990 BW Bill, that became the legislation in contention.

 

Simon Greer was at one of the recent 'meet the Chairman' public meetings.

He was very vocal, he and a couple of others dominated the proceedings, he gave the impression that he was proud of being a Continuous Moorer and felt that he had every right to continue that way because he'd been involved with the canals for a long time.

 

Tim

[RichardN]

According to an article on the Dark Side (Linkydink), CaRT are seeking approval for this from the "Better Relationships on the Waterways in London Group" (BRG), a group that represents nobody, is answerable to nobody and is so secretive that, after around 18 months of its existence, I had to use the FOI Act to find out what they had been up to.

 

There is at least one active forum member who is on the BRG group, another off the BRG group was on the BCN Challenge last week. I don't think there is anything secretive about it, you could just ask here or on facebook london boaters etc.

 

I wonder how much the FOI system is costing CRT? Two fundraising pages on justgiving (triathlon and BCN Challenge) raised last I looked about £2500 for CRT and I think the fundraisers should be congratulated for working hard at raising that money. But compare that to say Allan Richard's questions up to 2012 which were estimated as costing £8100 - link here

[jenlyn]

There is at least one active forum member who is on the BRG group, another off the BRG group was on the BCN Challenge last week. I don't think there is anything secretive about it, you could just ask here or on facebook london boaters etc.

 

I wonder how much the FOI system is costing CRT? Two fundraising pages on justgiving (triathlon and BCN Challenge) raised last I looked about £2500 for CRT and I think the fundraisers should be congratulated for working hard at raising that money. But compare that to say Allan Richard's questions up to 2012 which were estimated as costing £8100 - link here

It is a secretive group. Hardly any information comes out of it. Several of its members state quite categorically that they represent no one.

 

The agenda for the last meeting was only emailed out the day before it was held.

 

It was then staged managed for some time by Paul Strudwick of the IWA, and centred around maps of areas CRT and the IWA wish to use to define "place".

Although these maps were centred around London, and west London, any discussion regarding them should be through national consultation, not through a small group "representing no one".

 

This issue effects everyone, and therefore should be discussed by all.

[Alan de Enfield]

 

. But compare that to say Allan Richard's questions up to 2012 which were estimated as costing £8100 - link here

 

It would be interesting how much his 2013 FOI regarding the condition of all the C&RT assets and how long the system was closed, etc etc etc actually cost.

[Jim Riley]

Why should it cost much? CRT should know the condition of their assets etc as part of ongoing management. Office lackey on minimum wage to photocopy or attach to an email. Are they counting the cost of doing what they should be doing anyway and attributing it to Foi?

[Alan de Enfield]

Why should it cost much? CRT should know the condition of their assets etc as part of ongoing management. Office lackey on minimum wage to photocopy or attach to an email. Are they counting the cost of doing what they should be doing anyway and attributing it to Foi?

 

Everyone is entitled to their own opinion but I feel that this request is excessive - and what is actually gained by having the information ?

 

Please provide the following information.

1. By kilometre, the length of CaRT assets that are principal assets and non-principal assets.

2. For each principal asset please state if a reassessment has been carried out.

2.a. For those assets for which a reassessment has been carried out, please provide any documentation supporting the reassessment.

 

2. Asset and Infrastructure Failures

 

I note from the publication data in your first annual report that in the first nine months of the Trust it suffered no less than eight asset/infrastructure failures leading to unscheduled closures of 375 days.

For each of these eight closures please provide the following information -

1. The place.

2. A short description of the failure.

3. The number of days of navigational closure.

4. The number of days of any towpath closure.

5. The total cost of repair (including any ancillary costs such as craning boats around the stoppage).

6. Any report that contains data as to the cause of the failure.

7. The latest inspection report together with any earlier reports referred to by the latest.

Can you also provide similar information with regard to this financial year to date. In the case of works as yet uncompleted please provide estimates for 3,4 and 5.

 

I wonder how many 'licence payers' it takes to pay for all Mr Richards requests ?

 

I'd rather have a few lock gates repaired.

[Tuscan]

I tend to agree with Jim, I believe all this data is actually gathered by CRT much is published by CRT at the start and stop of the stoppage, the cost of repair must be known from a budgeting perspective.

 

I've often wondered that if CRT employed a good communications manager/director this information and much like it could be used as a way of engaging with boaters, and other societies, bodies etc as part of the on going fund raising exercise. They might even get more friends.

[Higgs]

Boaters

 

What talks? MONEY!!

 

We don't have any, but we could.

 

An affiliation of boaters, and there are over 30,000, could raise money and finance staff and reps. It would not be about walking the streets shaking a begging bowl. Cannot fight from a position of weakness. We're weak, it has to be said.

 

I've raised this before, but it dropped like a lead balloon. May be, it was just a crap idea.

 

We have no money, we have no reps, we are weak. We need money, reps and clout.

 

In much the same way as was tried, it would be a big ask to find a small group of people who have the time and enthusiasm to manage the scheme. Not without payment.

 

This bit is the hinge - to encourage as many of the over 30,000 boaters to join an affiliation. This would mean parting with some money - about £25.00 a year. Kerching, the boaters have a bank balance. CRT would benefit also, by a significant grant aid, if suitable projects come up. 'Significant' - this would require significant interest from boaters. (Problem) Not impossible.

 

Mighty Oaks from little acorns grow.

 

The scheme could help start incentives. I think I mean, initiatives.

 

I'll say no more. If it dives, I'll go back to making a cup of tea.

Edited June 1, 2014 by Higgs

[Paul C]

Sorry, that was a completely random post above. What is it, who is it from, and do you honestly think 30,000 boaters are going to give you (someone) £25 with no real details of what the purpose is or where the money is going?

[jelunga]

 

Everyone is entitled to their own opinion but I feel that this request is excessive - and what is actually gained by having the information ?

 

Please provide the following information.

1. By kilometre, the length of CaRT assets that are principal assets and non-principal assets.

2. For each principal asset please state if a reassessment has been carried out.

2.a. For those assets for which a reassessment has been carried out, please provide any documentation supporting the reassessment.

 

2. Asset and Infrastructure Failures

 

I note from the publication data in your first annual report that in the first nine months of the Trust it suffered no less than eight asset/infrastructure failures leading to unscheduled closures of 375 days.

For each of these eight closures please provide the following information -

1. The place.

2. A short description of the failure.

3. The number of days of navigational closure.

4. The number of days of any towpath closure.

5. The total cost of repair (including any ancillary costs such as craning boats around the stoppage).

6. Any report that contains data as to the cause of the failure.

7. The latest inspection report together with any earlier reports referred to by the latest.

Can you also provide similar information with regard to this financial year to date. In the case of works as yet uncompleted please provide estimates for 3,4 and 5.

 

I wonder how many 'licence payers' it takes to pay for all Mr Richards requests ?

 

I'd rather have a few lock gates repaired.

In one way these FOI requests coukdbe useful to CRT. At least they then know the answers. I once asked for a list and location if all BW/CRT owned and managed pumpouts. They did not know

[Higgs]

Sorry, that was a completely random post above. What is it, who is it from, and do you honestly think 30,000 boaters are going to give you (someone) £25 with no real details of what the purpose is or where the money is going?

 

I can only tell you that it was from me, Higgs. Not totally random. And, listen, I have not put forward a Fait Accompli.

 

The money

 

£25.00 was off the top of my head. Make it 50% cheaper if that's going in the right direction.

 

Well, there isn't any money. If there was, it would be used for the benefit of the boaters. It would be an affiliation of boaters for that reason. But, I'm guessing that the system matters to most, as well.

 

It is a bargaining chip. We don't really have many/any.

 

CRT need money. A certain amount of this money could be made available. In any negotiations, this could be a useful incentive.

 

The money would not be given to a "someone", as we are not talking about a racket.

 

Some of the money would have to be used to help those who could use their time as enthusiasts. You cannot talk to thousands of boaters, it would need a small represention. Also, to pay for sundries and web site, etc. The representation could form objectives and facilitate feed back through a site.

 

Take for instance these crappy locks that need urgent attention. These could be helped. Not for nothing. A trade. Who knows what a bit of money could do. A big bit of money would do more.

 

There is no cost involved in a discussion.

 

There are the names and logos of associations up and down the canal. Pulling in different directions.

 

Kettle's on.

[Paul C]

But isn't that what NABO, and to a limited extent RBOA and IWA already do? What's so different about your idea?

[Hawkmoth]

Because there are so many "clubs" already in the mix, what makes you think that 30,000 boaters would all think alike?

Would they remove their membership to IWA, NABO, RBOA et al?

Sounds a great "sound byte" but I think it's a non starter.

Bob

[Jerra]

Because there are so many "clubs" already in the mix, what makes you think that 30,000 boaters would all think alike?

Would they remove their membership to IWA, NABO, RBOA et al?

Sounds a great "sound byte" but I think it's a non starter.

Bob

Non starter it may be but I haven't yet found a boating organisation I will support. IWA aren't in my view sufficiently boater orientated, NABO - don't own a boat (suppose part owning may count but they still don't appeal. I don't live aboard so RBOA isn't of interest. CRT don't accept members and I refuse to be a "friend". I can't surely be the only one in this position and who feels like I do.

 

The only bit of thinking alike that they need to do is to want the best for the canal system and to want an organisation (note a single organisation) with a bit of clout who is prepared to work with CRT for our mutual (boaters and CRT's benefit). It seems very sensible to me. There does not appear currently to be a boaters organisation who 1. Represents a large number (majority?) of boaters 2. Is prepared to work with CRT to negotiate for the good of boaters and the canal system. All current organisations can be brushed aside as either not representing a large enough "slice" of boaters or are multi interest and so don't have the boaters requirements/interests as their major focus.

 

Just my opinion of course.

[Allan(nb Albert)]

In one way these FOI requests coukdbe useful to CRT. At least they then know the answers. I once asked for a list and location if all BW/CRT owned and managed pumpouts. They did not know

 

I am told that a senior manager is now considering the information made available under Environmental Information Regulations (not Freedom of Information) with a view to reducing the cost and number of asset and infrastructure failures 'going forward'.

 

[Allan(nb Albert)]

Non starter it may be but I haven't yet found a boating organisation I will support. IWA aren't in my view sufficiently boater orientated, NABO - don't own a boat (suppose part owning may count but they still don't appeal. I don't live aboard so RBOA isn't of interest. CRT don't accept members and I refuse to be a "friend". I can't surely be the only one in this position and who feels like I do.

 

The only bit of thinking alike that they need to do is to want the best for the canal system and to want an organisation (note a single organisation) with a bit of clout who is prepared to work with CRT for our mutual (boaters and CRT's benefit). It seems very sensible to me. There does not appear currently to be a boaters organisation who 1. Represents a large number (majority?) of boaters 2. Is prepared to work with CRT to negotiate for the good of boaters and the canal system. All current organisations can be brushed aside as either not representing a large enough "slice" of boaters or are multi interest and so don't have the boaters requirements/interests as their major focus.

 

Just my opinion of course.

Many boats are part owned or jointly owned, mine included.

 

Do you mean you are a shared owner?

[jelunga]

 

I am told that a senior manager is now considering the information made available under Environmental Information Regulations (not Freedom of Information) with a view to reducing the cost and number of asset and infrastructure failures 'going forward'.

 

I hate that BW/CRT buzz phrase "Going forward" makes me vomit