Open Letter to Richard Parry from Simon Greer

[cotswoldsman]

Thought this might be of interest to some. It is an open letter from Simon Greer sent to Richard Parry it has been published on NABO Website

 

 

Dear Richard

There is a credibility gap between the CRT ‘promise’ (as promoted on your website, in your literature and your PR) which is pretty wonderful and the on-the-cut reality, which is less compelling. Consequently, CRT often falls into a credibility hole of its own making. This engenders discontent (i.e. that CRT is ‘boater friendly’ when often it is not, or that CRT has all the answers when it clearly hasn’t). Here is a selection of ideas. These are more than just my thoughts; I have solicited ideas from far and wide. I hope you find them useful.

Don’t Fix What’s Not Broken

Please don't fix problems where they don't exist. Places like London, Bradford on Avon and the Llangollen do not reflect the majority of the system; they are simply busy areas. Congestion is part of the scene. Like vehicle traffic in busy towns, or the motorway through Birmingham, most boaters negotiate bottlenecks and congestion well enough, with patience and common sense and deal with it without ringing up the DVLA each time. Like at a boat rally, we happily breast up two and three deep - no problem. We get along without any of the special measures seemingly perceived by some of your management as necessary for these untypical locations.

Boaters do not welcome being orchestrated or herded or need their hands holding. Notice how many boats are called ‘Freedom’, ‘Pipe Dream’, ‘Dreamweaver’ and similar. This is not aspirational nonsense, it’s one of the most important USPs of the canals! Boaters don’t want a charge for that which they used to get for free and generally they don’t see canal embellishment as good value. They have humble requirements and are easily satisfied with adequate water depth, working locks, casual moorings and minimum micro-management. The needs of these paying customers should receive priority. We’d also appreciate ‘contained’ running costs.
Please avoid micro-managing - CRT can’t please everyone and could choose to be more laissez-faire. Metaphorically, rather than supplying litter bins at every request, you could cultivate a requirement that customers take their rubbish home and not drop it in the first place. Refuse to take sides; ride above the nonsense. Stick to the big ideas (e.g. boaters - don't cause a wash; developers - replace moorings you take from boaters).

Management Style Matters, but Managed for Whom?

Unfortunately significant bad feeling exists between many boating customers and CRT. Securing approval from CRT for canalside development/moorings is turgid, slow and contorted. This is because of inappropriate diktats (e.g. no more online moorings). Much has been demanded by CRT with little regard for boaters’ expectations, wishes, or licence money. It’s almost as if we are not customers but intruders who are also milch cows. Being a monopoly supplier that's also a charity shouldn't mean that CRT can treat customers as milch cows or threaten them with court action for contentious non-compliance.

Should the network be administered for the ‘trade’ at the expense of private boaters? Certainly much current visitor mooring restriction is mostly for the benefit of hire boaters. I question this. Like car parking in town, if someone already occupies a space it is accepted they got there first and we park elsewhere. Why is a short walk back to the pub a problem? Is a short walk not part of a canal holiday?

How Do Others Manage?

Please consider how other countries run their canal networks. France operates a ‘carnet’ system where boaters pay only for periods of navigation, so periods of non-movement while moored are not chargeable. Boats without a Safety Certificate are acceptable, provided they do not move. Locks are operated for boaters throughout the system. These are not necessarily good ideas but they show that there is credible alternative management in operation. Perhaps your management team could be asked to explore similar thinking?

Vested Interests Conflict

Vested interests mean that user groups are in constant conflict: paying moorers vs non-paying moorers; hire boaters vs private boaters; walkers vs joggers vs cyclists vs dog owners vs fishermen vs canoeists. Plastic boats vs steel boats vs dayboats vs canalside house owners vs liveaboards vs non-liveaboards and so on. This is because we are all able, with impunity, to promote our own self-interest rather than a common ‘canal interest’. House owners throw their rubbish over the garden wall into the canal, boaters run generators at night next to houses, property developers think boaters get in the way of development etc. CRT doesn’t encourage a common canal interest but rather fuels the flames of factionalism by taking sides - generally against the boater and in favour of the landlubber. As the main navigation authority CRT might see fit to fight the boater’s corner as its first priority. We boaters certainly feel CRT doesn’t ‘Bat for Boaters’. Perhaps CRT might wish to adopt the phrase?

Waterway Law

There is much in the 1995 British Waterways Act that is vague. Having contributed to the Select Committee hearings, I know with certainty that this vagueness was deliberately introduced by George Mudie MP and his parliamentary team as legal protection for boaters. The vagueness was introduced for our protection, balancing up the draconian law sought by BW. Today, outside the scrutiny of the Select Committee, CRT (and BW before it) spends possibly many millions of pounds of our money trying to circumvent the protection given to us (over £1 million last year mostly with Shoosmiths). I would suggest such spending by a charity, directed against its customers, is inappropriate. Please consider curtailing this expenditure; it simply isn't charitable. We argued our case in the highest forum in the land against your professional legal team and won our concessions. That should be the end of the matter. We have to live with those sections of the law we don't like and we feel that CRT should do the same.

To assist you to ‘nudge’ towpath-moored boats into moving regularly consider publishing rotas, by location, of visits by your enforcement officers. These could be posted on local noticeboards, leafleted on the towpath and posted on the web for those who are online. Then watch the majority of boaters move in synchronicity with such rotas.

There’s a myth that there are more boats today than ever before and therefore more regulation is required to manage them. Not true. Boat numbers peaked at over 100,000 at the turn of the 19^th century, with 500 more miles of canal and 95% of boats permanently on the line. There was less regulation, more congestion and greater camaraderie. Contrast that with 35,000 boats today, 95% in marinas, with much more regulation and imposed expense. I recall when towpath mooring was the norm and was included in the licence fee.

Linear Water Theme Park or Killing the Golden Goose?

If I visit Snowdon the environment is natural, uncontrived, honest and unspoilt. That’s what I want; that’s the attraction. Put in the hands of insensitive professional leisure managers and the result is Blackpool up a hill. Up go the signs ‘Welcome to Snowdon’, with a pay box here, an IKEA-type routing system there. An expensive cafe, trinket shop, tarmacadam information-guided path, interspersed with sculptures and organic ice-cream booths, all in the name of progress. But the ‘improvements’ actually compromise that which was the attraction! The so-called progress is retrogressive and can degrade the integrity of the resource.

CRT appears to manage the system as if it is a sort of Alton Towers on water where the visitors must be corralled into paying for mooring and accept a relatively high entrance fee. How much better if it was viewed like a National Park where there is no entrance fee and water sales (see below) mostly take care of the running costs. Millions of walkers and joggers along waterways have it free; it clearly can be done.

Charitable or Monopoly Status?

CRT is a new charity. Please always act as such. Making boaters homeless and throwing them into the hands of hard-pressed local authorities isn't charitable. Hiding behind the phrase ‘We are not a housing authority’ doesn’t sit comfortably when you take money for houseboat certificates and residential moorings. Indeed, as a charity, I can't see why you wouldn't wish to positively help with the nation’s housing needs. I understand the previous Minister for Housing, Grant Shapps, has suggested that this should happen. As a monopoly supplier it is perhaps incumbent on CRT not to use its privileged position to strong-arm customers into compliance with that which is contentious (e.g. threats to withhold licences for perceived non-compliance).

I understand that the CRT property portfolio needs to be ‘managed’. However, ahead of moving boaters from a site CRT wishes to develop, please find your customers alternative moorings as a prerequisite to development. Presently moorers are unceremoniously evicted and left to fend for themselves. It’s a bad deal. Jericho Boatyard in Oxford is a good example of this but it continues to happen nationwide. In Macclesfield eight local wharfs have been lost to housing and not a single boater was assisted with their relocation difficulties. Boaters lost engineering expertise, parking, security, diesel supplies, moorings and more.

More Reliable Income

Many millions of gallons of fresh water currently haemorrhage from CRT reservoirs to the sea via the canal network. But CRT is broke! At the same time many thousands of new homes are to be built. Seemingly the water companies are making little or no provision for this new demand; no-one wants a new reservoir in their back garden. So here’s a proposal: sell CRT reservoirs (but not the water) to the utility companies to raise capital now and use the network as the primary distribution conduit. A royalty fee for every gallon extracted and cleaned for sale could be our funding for a reliable future. Please also consider using the system more as a transport network (e.g. moving rubbish for local authorities or non-perishables for Tesco). This should be in CRT`s thinking; it used to be. Reducing road journeys is green, attracts government support and helps keep the canals working.

In conclusion, in the past our waterways have been administered as if they were the private fiefdom of an anti-boater Watford management. The hope is that this can stop and a more inclusive new boater-friendly administration can arise. You are invited to cultivate boating interests FIRST - no other body is charged with this function. Other interests, such as walking, bird-watching, canoeing, restoration of historical buildings and housing development have their own dedicated lobby groups. We only have one and it’s CRT. Putting boating needs first, I believe, will enable much else that is wanted to fall in place in a new and virtuous equilibrium. Please consider this as a workable way forward. A clear sense of direction of this sort will be most welcome and promises a long and harmonious future for all who live, love, and work on the canals.
Kind regards,
Simon

 

[nicknorman]

This was mentioned and linked to by Alan in a recent thread. Nearly all illogical, ill thought out and emotive rubbish. The only bit I agree with the bit about loss of quayside.

[mark99]

I didn't read it all but in a drought, the lack of water would be excaerbated by it being siphoned off for drinking water. Lots of Tesco's narrowboats on the water (how many Tescos / land fills are there abutting the canal?) and dustbin boats.

 

I know others think it's a meritous letter but it's more like an ill thought out pipe dream.

 

ETA - NN - our posts crossed but we independantly came to same conclusion.

Edited June 14, 2014 by mark99

[nicknorman]

What irks is that Richard will probably think he ought to read it. His licence-fee-paid time wasted, when he could be doing something more productive with it.

[Guest]

What irks is that Richard will probably think he ought to read it. His licence-fee-paid time wasted, when he could be doing something more productive with it.

Actually although there are some zany ideas in it, there are equally some good ideas, what is wrong for example in suggesting that CRT should assist boaters find new moorings when they are partly or wholly responsible for displacing them?

 

Seems reasonable to me and something Mr. P would do well to take on board I would say.

[John V]

Much that I disagree with but...

 

The last paragraph ( I don't agree with the selling off reservoirs bit) is interesting and echoes something I read years ago.

 

There was a modern proposal to link the head of the Stort to the Ouse then from there to the GU as the London end of a grand fresh water feed system for London (The Stort because it links to the Lee which is still an important water supply for London).

 

The problem with grand schemes in this country is the nimbys. In certain other European countries it could be bulldozed through.

Here such a project could only happen if the necessity became crisis level, even then it would probably be fudged.

 

I suppose they did manage something similar years ago with the New river

 

DH yes agree zany, but sometimes zany helps trigger sensible

Edited June 14, 2014 by John V

[alan_fincher]

I could hardly disagree with Nick more on this one.

 

The only part of Simon Greer's arguments I am unconvinced about are those around using the reservoirs and canals more as part of the water supply process. That's an area where I don't hae the knowledge or skills to know if it is a pipo-dream or actually has any validity in investigating.

 

The whole of the rest of Simon Greer's open letter more or less exactly sums up what I feel, and is a message I would dearly like Richard Parry to take on board. It is more or less what I would have written myself, but I doubt I could have put it as well.

 

My problem is that I really have no idea how many boaters feels as I do, and how many would side with Nick that this is worthless tosh.

 

Unfortunately, despite all BW/CRT's varying attempts to engage boaters more, I suspect they really have no idea either.

 

It would be really interesting to know, even if I find I am part of some minority, and most other people agree with Nick.

I did wonder about trying to create a poll on this topic, but I suspect an awful lot of people are so laissez faire about such matters that they wouldn't even be bothered to read Simon's letter!

What irks is that Richard will probably think he ought to read it. His licence-fee-paid time wasted, when he could be doing something more productive with it.

 

That would be to ignore a large number of people elsewhere who have already strongly supported what Simon Greer has written.

 

I hope Richard takes it very seriously as representing the views of us who really don't want the canals ending up as some kind of over-regulated Disneyland theme park, where canal-side developments are seen as far more important than their primary use for boating.

[nicknorman]

Actually although there are some zany ideas in it, there are equally some good ideas, what is wrong for example in suggesting that CRT should assist boaters find new moorings when they are partly or wholly responsible for displacing them?

Seems reasonable to me and something Mr. P would do well to take on board I would say.

Boaters are displaced when a property owner (typically not CRT) decides to sell the property for development. I don't see why CRT should be involved. If the marina we keep our boat in closed down, I certainly wouldn't expect CRT to be involved in finding us a new marina. Why on earth should they?

 

If the property is CRT owned then OK perhaps there is a case that they should help with relocation. If you recall, the loss of quayside was the only bit I agreed with. So if some CRT owned moorings are removed to allow CRT to make lots of money, it would seem reasonable that they create some moorings in the vicinity (although not at the expense of valid extant towpath moorings). But really how often does this happen (ie CRT selling off their own property at which there are permanent moorings)?

[jenlyn]

What irks is that Richard will probably think he ought to read it. His licence-fee-paid time wasted, when he could be doing something more productive with it.

Yes, he will read it, not because he has to, but because he is interested in people's opinions.

What he will notice, is that it's along the lines of others opinion.

People speaking from the same songsheat. In all fairness though, it's being done face to face with CRT, rather than from behind a keyboard.

 

You may think your particular view is widespread, along with your ignorance of the facts, but that quiet majority are starting to realise that someone is now willing to listen to them.

I'm afraid your rather limited knowledge and lack of interest in anything that does not have "you" in the centre of the picture is starting to be quite obvious.

[Guest]

I could hardly disagree with Nick more on this one.

 

The only part of Simon Greer's arguments I am unconvinced about are those around using the reservoirs and canals more as part of the water supply process. That's an area where I don't hae the knowledge or skills to know if it is a pipo-dream or actually has any validity in investigating.

 

The whole of the rest of Simon Greer's open letter more or less exactly sums up what I feel, and is a message I would dearly like Richard Parry to take on board. It is more or less what I would have written myself, but I doubt I could have put it as well.

 

My problem is that I really have no idea how many boaters feels as I do, and how many would side with Nick that this is worthless tosh.

 

Unfortunately, despite all BW/CRT's varying attempts to engage boaters more, I suspect they really have no idea either.

 

It would be really interesting to know, even if I find I am part of some minority, and most other people agree with Nick.

I did wonder about trying to create a poll on this topic, but I suspect an awful lot of people are so laissez faire about such matters that they wouldn't even be bothered to read Simon's letter!

Well as already indicated I certainly think the letter is worthy of serious consideration by Mr. P.

 

Not sure about how viable it would be for the likes of Tesco to use the waterways for logistical purposes so some suggestions seem a bit off the wall, but overall a well written letter in a very non confrontational style, something we don't always see.

[nicknorman]

I could hardly disagree with Nick more on this one.

 

The only part of Simon Greer's arguments I am unconvinced about are those around using the reservoirs and canals more as part of the water supply process. That's an area where I don't hae the knowledge or skills to know if it is a pipo-dream or actually has any validity in investigating.

 

What about the tosh about the French canals? Whether or no we think that might be a good model, it is completely beyond the power of CRT to implement due to the massive funding that would be required to have all locks manned. What is the point of that bit.

 

In general the whole thing is far to long and flowery to get any sort of message over to any "normal" person who is likely to glaze over after the first couple of paras.

 

I could dissect each section and point out the flaws and fallacy, but really I can't be bothered because it would take an hour to wade through it all.

[cotswoldsman]

 

The whole of the rest of Simon Greer's open letter more or less exactly sums up what I feel, and is a message I would dearly like Richard Parry to take on board.

 

 

 

That would be to ignore a large number of people elsewhere who have already strongly supported what Simon Greer has written.

 

I hope Richard takes it very seriously as representing the views of us who really don't want the canals ending up as some kind of over-regulated Disneyland theme park, where canal-side developments are seen as far more important than their primary use for boating.

 

I do agree with a lot of what Simon says but I think it should have been sent to the Trustees (who naturally would not reply) I think Richard is a person who listens and takes on board what people think, I am however not convinced he is able to do much about it. The complete structure of CRT does not allow one person to make changes without the support of a multitude of other people not just the Trustees but also a number of other Quangos. CRT is a business (and yes it is a business) run by committees and that makes the job of CEO very difficult if not impossible.

[Tuscan]

Simon was around on the canals when Parliament was making the Acts that CRT now follows. In many ways the canals are much better now than then but many of the boaters I've spoken to who've been on the cut a while share many of his views. Guess what irks me is that Richard Parry will think Nicks views reflect the majority the reality no doubt is somewhere in the middle.

[nicknorman]

Yes, he will read it, not because he has to, but because he is interested in people's opinions.

What he will notice, is that it's along the lines of others opinion.

People speaking from the same songsheat. In all fairness though, it's being done face to face with CRT, rather than from behind a keyboard.

You may think your particular view is widespread, along with your ignorance of the facts, but that quiet majority are starting to realise that someone is now willing to listen to them.

I'm afraid your rather limited knowledge and lack of interest in anything that does not have "you" in the centre of the picture is starting to be quite obvious.

Haha!, says he the tyrannical dictator of ACC!

 

Anyway I'm sure you and your funny-hat-wearing fellows might support Simon, but round these parts we tend not to wear funny hats, we keep our boats in marinas and are primarily concerned with having a steady supply of Brasso. The folk we meet on the canal are mostly like minded. It may be true that in the rat runs of the SE there is more support for Simon's line but London, despite its opinion of itself, is not the centre of the universe.

[Guest]

What about the tosh about the French canals? Whether or no we think that might be a good model, it is completely beyond the power of CRT to implement due to the massive funding that would be required to have all locks manned. What is the point of that bit.

In general the whole thing is far to long and flowery to get any sort of message over to any "normal" person who is likely to glaze over after the first couple of paras.

I could dissect each section and point out the flaws and fallacy, but really I can't be bothered because it would take an hour to wade through it all.

He acknowledges that the Ftrench canals idea may not be transferable to here, he is encouraging CRT to look further afield for ideas that is all. (Besides not all French locks are manned any way)

 

Does the fact I didn't glaze over after a couple of paras mean I am not normal? Hey ho.

[nicknorman]

Does the fact I didn't glaze over after a couple of paras mean I am not normal? Hey ho.

Yes it certainly does. You are part of a small minority that takes an active interest in these things. Most definitely not normal, but no bad thing either. Who wants to be "normal"? Yuk!

[jenlyn]

Simon was around on the canals when Parliament was making the Acts that CRT now follows. In many ways the canals are much better now than then but many of the boaters I've spoken to who've been on the cut a while share many of his views. Guess what irks me is that Richard Parry will think Nicks views reflect the majority the reality no doubt is somewhere in the middle.

I think Parry has a little more sense than that. I believe he see's more than he let's on, but as John says, his hands are very much in restraints.

 

The views from the likes of nick are in a minority, that's obvious enough from the views given by those in the associations.

I think some at CRT are realising that some of the rather simplistic views held by a few on this forum and the provisional IWA, do not account for the overall mumblings of discontent.

Haha!, says he the tyrannical dictator of ACC!

Anyway I'm sure you and your funny-hat-wearing fellows might support Simon, but round these parts we tend not to wear funny hats, we keep our boats in marinas and are primarily concerned with having a steady supply of Brasso. The folk we meet on the canal are mostly like minded. It may be true that in the rat runs of the SE there is more support for Simon's line but London, despite its opinion of itself, is not the centre of the universe.

And there lies the perfect response from a position of total ignorance. :-)

[EmmaB]

What about the tosh about the French canals? Whether or no we think that might be a good model, it is completely beyond the power of CRT to implement due to the massive funding that would be required to have all locks manned. What is the point of that bit.

 

In general the whole thing is far to long and flowery to get any sort of message over to any "normal" person who is likely to glaze over after the first couple of paras.

 

I could dissect each section and point out the flaws and fallacy, but really I can't be bothered because it would take an hour to wade through it all.

If it takes that long, Nickie love, get someone to help you read it. It's not difficult.

 

Where does it say English locks should be manned? I missed that bit.

.

I'm afraid your rather limited knowledge and lack of interest in anything that does not have "you" in the centre of the picture is starting to be quite obvious.

Yes, Steve, you summed it up.

[alan_fincher]

Yes it certainly does. You are part of a small minority that takes an active interest in these things. Most definitely not normal, but no bad thing either. Who wants to be "normal"? Yuk!

So how should Parry, his managers and the trustees get their message Nick?

 

One minute (another thread) you seem to be suggesting that a large number of boaters do care, but are a silent majority that never expresses their views - here you seem to be suggesting most have no active interest, (so presumably often don't give a toss whether CRT is changing things for better or for worse).

 

Where I think we agree is that it shouldn't just be the likes of you and me being more naturally "mouthy" than many, who win the arhgument, with that majority excluded.

 

So how do we find out what a "silent majority" want?

 

And would you or I then be prepared to accept that majority view if it didn't agree with the more impassioned ways each of us currently feel about things?

[keble]

I support a lot of what Simon Greer wrote, especially using canals for water transport (already used on G&S) and looking at what other countries do.

The UK is so pathetically insular sometimes!

[MtB]

In order to understand a letter like this it helps to know something about the author. Now being an ignorant philistine who simply bought a boat and fell in love with boating, Simon Greer is a new name to me. A brief Google tells me me is politician in the USA so I doubt this is the same chap.

 

He mentions he took part in Select Committee hearings but apart from this, even though I take a moderate interest, deeper probably than yer average boater on the cut, I have not heard of him until the last few days when he was recently mentioned on these boards. Most boaters out on the cut would say 'who?', I suspect, if his name is mentioned.

 

So, can anyone outline who Simon Greer is please, and perhaps outline his history in the world of canals? Or post a link perhaps?

 

Many thanks.

 

MtB

[jenlyn]

In order to understand a letter like this it helps to know something about the author. Now being an ignorant philistine who simply bought a boat and fell in love with boating, Simon Greer is a new name to me. A brief Google tells me me is politician in the USA so I doubt this is the same chap.

 

He mentions he took part in Select Committee hearings but apart from this, even though I take a moderate interest, deeper probably than yer average boater on the cut, I have not heard of him until the last few days when he was recently mentioned on these boards. Most boaters out on the cut would say 'who?', I suspect, if his name is mentioned.

 

So, can anyone outline who Simon Greer is please, and perhaps outline his history in the world of canals? Or post a link perhaps?

 

Many thanks.

 

MtB

Well, you didn't look very far at all did you, he is on the first page.

[GUMPY]

In order to understand a letter like this it helps to know something about the author. Now being an ignorant philistine who simply bought a boat and fell in love with boating, Simon Greer is a new name to me. A brief Google tells me me is politician in the USA so I doubt this is the same chap.

 

He mentions he took part in Select Committee hearings but apart from this, even though I take a moderate interest, deeper probably than yer average boater on the cut, I have not heard of him until the last few days when he was recently mentioned on these boards. Most boaters out on the cut would say 'who?', I suspect, if his name is mentioned.

 

So, can anyone outline who Simon Greer is please, and perhaps outline his history in the world of canals? Or post a link perhaps?

 

Many thanks.

 

MtB

His website not sure if its still current

http://www.bridge26.demon.co.uk

 

His thoughts on bw

http://www.bridge26.demon.co.uk/bw.html

His profile

http://www.bridge26.demon.co.uk/profile.html

Edited June 14, 2014 by Loddon

[MtB]

Well, you didn't look very far at all did you, he is on the first page.

 

Oh THAT Simon Greer. And there was me thinking that was a 'paid for' advert.

 

The wiki entry concerned:

Simon Greer

www.bridge26.demon.co.uk/

Need a boat moving? Buying? Selling? You havent the time to deliver it for repair? Then phone Simon Greer to get the job done. FAST! Phone 0860 688134. or ...

 

Thanks for posting the link.

 

 

MtB

His website doesn't show him as well informed and up to date. This page especially.

 

http://www.bridge26.demon.co.uk/bw.html

 

 

 

MtB

[nicknorman]

So how should Parry, his managers and the trustees get their message Nick?

 

One minute (another thread) you seem to be suggesting that a large number of boaters do care, but are a silent majority that never expresses their views - here you seem to be suggesting most have no active interest, (so presumably often don't give a toss whether CRT is changing things for better or for worse).

 

Where I think we agree is that it shouldn't just be the likes of you and me being more naturally "mouthy" than many, who win the arhgument, with that majority excluded.

 

So how do we find out what a "silent majority" want?

 

And would you or I then be prepared to accept that majority view if it didn't agree with the more impassioned ways each of us currently feel about things?

It's tricky to know what the majority view is I agree. But when I consider our local area, the vast majority of boats are in marinas such as Alvecote, Glascote basin, Fazeley Mill Marina, Kings Orchard, Kings Bromley and Streethay. These boats vastly outnumber the few CMers and the slightly less few CCers passing through.

 

The chitchat at Marinas is not about the demon CRT, it is more about practical things like maintenance.

 

I would suggest these people want:

 

Piss takers who CM especially those who leave piles of junk, controlled.

 

Piss takers who won't pay a licence, removed.

 

They want to be able to tootle up to Fradley Jn and stand a fair chance of getting a mooring for the weekend - ie overstaying on VMs controlled (at Fradley there is pretty limited mooring off-VM due to the nature of the bank.).

 

They don't want a noisy generator disturbing their tranquil evening.

 

They want the canals dredged, the vegetation controlled, the locks to work..

 

And that is about it. They really aren't even aware of, never mind care about, a lot of the politics which is vocalised on here.

 

They may be simple souls but does that make their opinions and priorities less valid than the vociferous ones on here?

 

Ed: oh they do want funny hats banned though!

Edited June 14, 2014 by nicknorman