Another down in a lock

[The Lockie]

Not hard to understand at all.

I have no quarrel with C&RT in the form of most, in fact nearly all the people who work for it, from the sadly depleted ranks of the real canal and rivermen to, and including, many in senior managerial positions. I've always had a good working relationship with them both back in the days of British Waterways and up to the present day .. . nothing has changed in that respect for close to 50 years now. But, regrettably C&RT, as was BW, is being progressively destroyed from within and the process has gathered momentum in the change to becoming the Trust. It is those who guide and drive on this damaging and ultimately fatal process that I despise so and would wish to see gone, Hales the wrecker, Parry the accomplished PR conman and their snivelling, fawning acolytes, given, in effect, a free hand to do their worst by a collection of ineffective Trustees charged with preserving something of which, in the main, they know nothing.

 

 

I work for another navigation authority sadly that is exactly what is happening there also. But not to worry they should all become CRT soon!!

[jenlyn]

seconded.

would be nice if the mods locked this thread.

Why on earth do you want it locked?

If you don't like reading it, simply don't look.

[Paul G2]

seconded.

would be nice if the mods locked this thread.

Why, to what end? This is a discussion forum and people are discussing things. There's a bit of sniping going on, but it's not that bad.

 

(Rachel does seem to be hogging the STSBC, but that's between her and the other two who share it.)

 

If you don't want to read the thread, it's pretty easy not to.

 

eta - jenlyn beat me to it.

Edited November 15, 2014 by Paul G2

[MtB]

 

I don't think anyone has suggested that TD shouldn't be here, as an open discussion board the more the merrier, so your final comment is unnecessary.

 

This puzzles me as SabCat's final comment was that CWF is a better place with him, not without him.

 

MtB

[J R]

As I put in a previous post, the people involved in the recovery were Anglo Welsh.CaRT and a specialist recovery team from Sheffield. Anyone who knows about how RCR operate, and I have nothing against them, they in the main use sub contractors who will naturally advertise what work they can do. Its a normal thing for subbies in trades to get business. None of the RCR guys I know were ever contacted.

 

The boat 'Langton' is being assessed on Monday to see what can be done to it.

[alan_fincher]

As I put in a previous post, the people involved in the recovery were Anglo Welsh.CaRT and a specialist recovery team from Sheffield. Anyone who knows about how RCR operate, and I have nothing against them, they in the main use sub contractors who will naturally advertise what work they can do. Its a normal thing for subbies in trades to get business. None of the RCR guys I know were ever contacted.

So it is pure coincidence that there are at least two, possibly three, vehicles with RCR emblazoned on them parked beside the lock, then?

 

Or does the specialist recovery team from Sheffield drive around in RCR vehicles?

Edited November 15, 2014 by alan_fincher

[MtB]

Possibly the bods in the RCR vehicles were there to 'carry the can', as opposed to raise the boat, having carefully selected and engaged some competent subbies to do the latter.

 

 

MtB

[alan_fincher]

Possibly the bods in the RCR vehicles were there to 'carry the can', as opposed to raise the boat, having carefully selected and engaged some competent subbies to do the latter.

Quite possibly, but the tone of JR's post read to me that RCR staff were not involved at all. To need multiple vehicles, I would suggest several must have been, if not the ones actually "raising".

[Theo]

Why, to what end? This is a discussion forum and people are discussing things. There's a bit of sniping going on, but it's not that bad.

 

If you don't want to read the thread, it's pretty easy not to.

 

That sums up what I believe is my appreciation of CWDF. The site crew locks stuff as a penultimate resort and deletes it as a last. Who would want an emasculated forum where everything disagreeable was removed? Honest debate with as little acrimony as possible is best.

 

I find that reading disagreeable stuff is rarely helpful and colours my attitude to the forum which has been a source of much help and inspiration. I only read it in the line of duty, so to speak. Having to trawl through pages of bickering is really not my idea of fun.

 

As for "not bothering". If I were not bothered I would email Daniel and ask to be removed from the site crew.

 

N

[J R]

So it is pure coincidence that there are at least two, possibly three, vehicles with RCR emblazoned on them parked beside the lock, then?

 

Or does the specialist recovery team from Sheffield drive around in RCR vehicles?

 

OK Alan. You have certainly got me on that one. Except. Were you there? I was. Did you speak to any of the people involved? I did & have. Do you know the full situation from when the boat was sunk? Yes I do. Did you see the sinking concequences on the day it happened? I did an hour and a bit after. Do you know what the next step is for the boats future? I do.

 

I have a number of 'advertising' stuff on my wagon. Maybe on Monday put someones name on the side who does not know how companies logos are used. Please refer to my previous post above concerning this. You have conspiculously (excuse typo) ignored the fact that other vehicles nearby with logos may or may not have been involved. Suggest selective thoughts from limited information from you.

[Wanderer Vagabond]

 

This puzzles me as SabCat's final comment was that CWF is a better place with him, not without him.

 

MtB

Exactly my point, no-one has suggested otherwise (to my knowledge) so why bother stating the obvious? (i.e. it was unnecessary)

[MtB]

Exactly my point, no-one has suggested otherwise (to my knowledge) so why bother stating the obvious? (i.e. it was unnecessary)

 

Well I disagree. He seems to revel in creating conflict and bad feeling.

 

Better off without him.

 

 

MtB

[Wanderer Vagabond]

 

Well I disagree. He seems to revel in creating conflict and bad feeling.

 

Better off without him.

 

 

MtB

We'll have to disagree on that then I'm afraid. I don't agree with him that often (although being a bit of a bullsh*tter myself I do appreciate a master in action) but would never wish for him not to be here. I think the only one I have actively tried to eject was some muppet who posted some racist diatribe which I (and several others) reported and was subsequently deleted. Provided what is posted is legal then I'm content to see anyone's efforts.

[Tony Dunkley]

I think that where people have the problem is when everything is used to denigrate CRT, doesn't matter what the "..separate different issues..." are it always seems to come back to some criticism of CRT for some reason or another. Bearing in mind what we COULD have got from this Government (they COULD have sold off the canals in their entirety to some foreign 'investor' as they have done with most other things) we have actually done reasonably well. And don't bother trying to tell me that for some reason they 'couldn't' have sold the canals off, many years ago I wouldn't have believed they couldn't sell off our water supply system or our Postal system but they have done, so ANYTHING can be sold. Whether we like it or not we will have to work with CRT and it's never really going to help to constantly denigrate them.

 

I don't think anyone has suggested that TD shouldn't be here, as an open discussion board the more the merrier, so your final comment is unnecessary. A few years ago I had an issue with a company relating to canal boats (no,I'm not going to name them because I've moved on now!) but didn't take every available opportunity to have a dig at them. Unless we want this to become Narrowboat World 2.0 I think it would be good if we could move on now.

 

That sounds like a 'problem' that these 'people' can resolve themselves. If the posting of criticism of C&RT in threads or topics on the occasions when C&RT are clearly and demonstrably getting things wrong offends their sensitivities, then perhaps they should re-examine their own reasons for continuing to partake.

As for your remarks implying that we should be grateful for having C&RT because we could have ended up with something even worse, that would seem to suggest that, in fact, your opinion of the Trust and it's performance really isn't that much different.

In suggesting the possibility of the canals being sold off to a foreign investor you seem to have forgotten that to sell something, you do need a buyer, and the chances of selling a 200 plus year old, disintegrating canal system that has been a loss maker for most of its' time in existence must be slim, to say the least.

You end by saying " it's never really going to help to constantly denigrate them.". . true, much more than that is needed, but how do you think not 'denigrating' C&RT will in itself bring about any improvements ?

 

PS. where do you stand on what I said in #424 ?

Edited November 15, 2014 by Tony Dunkley

[alan_fincher]

You have conspiculously (excuse typo) ignored the fact that other vehicles nearby with logos may or may not have been involved.

No I haven't. Suggesting that someone is probably involved in something, (and claims to have been involved in something), in no way suggests that someone else may not be does it, or that they did not hire in specialist resource?

 

If I say there were obviously fire brigade vehicles at an accident scene, for example, it doesn't mean I'm suggesting the police or the paramedic service may not have been.

 

So, to be clear, in your view when RCR post, "RCR Rescue team successfully re-float narrow boat in Bath lock...This is where experience counts!" that is a lie then?

 

I was not there, I don't claim to have been there, or to know anything about it that requires me having been there. All I am takling about is what I can see in news coverage, and what people have claimed. I'm not even claiming that RCR is telling the truth, am I, only reporting what they have claimed is the truth?

[Tony Dunkley]

 

Well I disagree. He seems to revel in creating conflict and bad feeling.

 

Better off without him.

 

 

MtB

 

Bit off topic there, aren't you. Perhaps you should start a new one, maybe something like " Abolish Tony Dunkley" . . . . you might even get Parry to give you some help and advice, so you can avoid all the mistakes he made.

[MtB]

Well done for avoiding handing out a load of abuse in response to my comment...

 

You're learning!

 

Slowly.

 

 

MtB

[Wanderer Vagabond]

 

That sounds like a 'problem' that these 'people' can resolve themselves. If the posting of criticism of C&RT in threads or topics on the occasions when C&RT are clearly and demonstrably getting things wrong offends their sensitivities, then perhaps they should re-examine their own reasons for continuing to partake.

As for your remarks implying that we should be grateful for having C&RT because we could have ended up with something even worse, that would seem to suggest that, in fact, your opinion of the Trust and it's performance really isn't that much different.

In suggesting the possibility of the canals being sold off to a foreign investor you seem to have forgotten that to sell something, you do need a buyer, and the chances of selling a 200 plus year old, disintegrating canal system that has been a loss maker for most of its' time in existence must be slim, to say the least.

You end by saying " it's never really going to help to constantly denigrate them.". . true, much more than that is needed, but how do you think not 'denigrating' C&RT will in itself bring about any improvements ?

So how do you think that constantly denigrating CRT WILL bring improvements? You also seem to have forgotten that there are about 35,000 boats on the entire system which a buyer would view as a revenue source. It doesn't make any difference to them whether it becomes 35,000 all paying £800 per year or 3,500 all paying £8000 per year or 350 all paying £80,000 provided that the income remains the same. There are a lot of ways that the Government are quite capable of b*ggering up the canal system if they so wish. A foreign 'investor' would quite easily recoup his investment by concreting over the London Canals and building on them if they so chose since there are billions to be made doing that and they could then leave the rest to rot. Would a Middle Eastern Sheik or Russian Ogliarch care much about the loss of British History? I don't think so. You clearly have some issue with the management of CRT that isn't really of any interest to the rest of us. You have been quoted as saying,"...It is those who guide and drive on this damaging and ultimately fatal process that I despise so and would wish to see gone, Hales the wrecker, Parry the accomplished PR conman and their snivelling, fawning acolytes, given, in effect, a free hand to do their worst by a collection of ineffective Trustees charged with preserving something of which, in the main, they know nothing...." are you therefore guaranteeing that whatever you may get in replacement will be better, or are you just going to harp on until the Government does sell the waterways off to the highest bidder? You also have to consider that, at the right price, the government can sell absolutely anything!

[alan_fincher]

I have little doubt that Tony has loads of relevant experience in raising of sunk boats.

My only concern might be that by his own admission he doesn't necessarily leave boats he has raised afloat for long before re-sinking them somewhere else!

For some reason they didn't seem to see the funny side of that and asked BW to have me, the boats and the dog removed. They didn't manage to do that, but they did sink a mudboat in the pound where we were winding to try and stop us from running . . . it didn't, because I raised it a couple of nights later and sunk it again in the next pound down.

[Jerra]

You also have to consider that, at the right price, the government can sell absolutely anything!

Should that not read You also have to consider that, at the right price, the government will sell absolutely anything!

[dmr]

So how do you think that constantly denigrating CRT WILL bring improvements? You also seem to have forgotten that there are about 35,000 boats on the entire system which a buyer would view as a revenue source. It doesn't make any difference to them whether it becomes 35,000 all paying £800 per year or 3,500 all paying £8000 per year or 350 all paying £80,000 provided that the income remains the same. There are a lot of ways that the Government are quite capable of b*ggering up the canal system if they so wish. A foreign 'investor' would quite easily recoup his investment by concreting over the London Canals and building on them if they so chose since there are billions to be made doing that and they could then leave the rest to rot. Would a Middle Eastern Sheik or Russian Ogliarch care much about the loss of British History? I don't think so. You clearly have some issue with the management of CRT that isn't really of any interest to the rest of us. You have been quoted as saying,"...It is those who guide and drive on this damaging and ultimately fatal process that I despise so and would wish to see gone, Hales the wrecker, Parry the accomplished PR conman and their snivelling, fawning acolytes, given, in effect, a free hand to do their worst by a collection of ineffective Trustees charged with preserving something of which, in the main, they know nothing...." are you therefore guaranteeing that whatever you may get in replacement will be better, or are you just going to harp on until the Government does sell the waterways off to the highest bidder? You also have to consider that, at the right price, the government can sell absolutely anything!

 

Have to disagree, as a full time liveaboard and canal fanatic the management of CaRT and the way they perform is of enormous interest to me, the good bits and the bad bits!.

 

.............Dave.

[Tony Dunkley]

I have little doubt that Tony has loads of relevant experience in raising of sunk boats.

 

My only concern might be that by his own admission he doesn't necessarily leave boats he has raised afloat for long before re-sinking them somewhere else!

 

 

Yes Alan, but rather different circumstances though, . , . more to do with moving a deliberately placed obstruction than raising an accidental sinker, and don't forget, it was BW who sank it in the first place.

 

There's not really any comparison with raising this sunken hire boat as, of necessity, it had to done in the middle of the night, in complete silence without the use of pumps, and obviously without the approval of BW, but it may be of some interest to those who questioned the validity and worth of my opinion, and my connection with the recovery of the boat in Bath. There are some still at Stoke Bruerne who know how it was done, and I have no objection if anyone now wishes to ask them and they speak about it. I'm sure you can guess who they are.

 

Needless to say, my 'official' good track record of raising sinkers, including some for BW, didn't start with this one, but a little time later.

Edited November 16, 2014 by Tony Dunkley

[Wanderer Vagabond]

 

Have to disagree, as a full time liveaboard and canal fanatic the management of CaRT and the way they perform is of enormous interest to me, the good bits and the bad bits!.

 

.............Dave.

It would be nice to occasionally hear about the good bits though, don't you think? All we seem to hear from some is how crap they are. I would suggest that they are no more 'crap' than the majority of other British Industries (yes I do have experience of working in crap British Industry!) They are trying to do a job and if all we can do is constantly harp on about how rubbish they are we may possibly get what we deserve!

Edited November 16, 2014 by Wanderer Vagabond

[dmr]

It would be nice to occasionally hear about the good bits though, don't you think? All we seem to hear from some is how crap they are. I would suggest that they are no more 'crap' than the majority of other British Industries (yes I do have experience of working in crap British Industry!) They are trying to do a job and if all we can do is constantly harp on about how rubbish they are we may possibly get what we deserve!

 

Yes, much of their stupid behaviour is due to a modern way of of thinking which starts with politicians and has spread across the whole nation via political interference with the education system. The two main issues are:

1 There's a problem, lets get publicity out of it, raise awareness, employ consultants, do anything but get our hands dirty fixing it.

2 Somebody has screwed up, we better close ranks to prove how effective and strong our management is.

 

Its human nature that bad things upset us and we want to shout about them. I saw a huge waste of CaRT money yesterday and had to really force myself not to post about it here.

Sadly if I post "I paid for my licence and everything went well" its not very interesting or worthy of discussion.

If I think about all of my interactions with, and observations of CaRT, the vast majority could be improved.

 

............Dave

[J R]

No I haven't. Suggesting that someone is probably involved in something, (and claims to have been involved in something), in no way suggests that someone else may not be does it, or that they did not hire in specialist resource?

 

If I say there were obviously fire brigade vehicles at an accident scene, for example, it doesn't mean I'm suggesting the police or the paramedic service may not have been.

 

So, to be clear, in your view when RCR post, "RCR Rescue team successfully re-float narrow boat in Bath lock...This is where experience counts!" that is a lie then?

 

I was not there, I don't claim to have been there, or to know anything about it that requires me having been there. All I am takling about is what I can see in news coverage, and what people have claimed. I'm not even claiming that RCR is telling the truth, am I, only reporting what they have claimed is the truth?

 

To quote your last paragraph:

 

I was not there, I don't claim to have been there, or to know anything about it that requires me having been there. All I am takling about is what I can see in news coverage, and what people have claimed. I'm not even claiming that RCR is telling the truth, am I, only reporting what they have claimed is the truth?

 

Maybe it would be as well not to believe all what you read in the papers and listen for a change to what is really reported from where it is happening. I would not post anything knowingly that was wrong or which I could not substantiate. You are no doubt entitled to your opinion; however claiming second or third party information does not show the whole truth. I would suggest that I am closer to the situation than you have been. You will no doubt do a post on what is the up to date situation on Monday when you have seen any press reports on Tuesday.