A better management than CRT?

[jenlyn]

Hardly!

 

The proposal was for 22 sites, that Jeff Whyatt, and others considered as "priority".

 

Whilst I would agree the consultation was very badly handled, and some in CRT continued to want to believe they had been right in the first place, this is definitely not what has happened.

We had three pilot sites thrust upon us, but under subsequent pressure they have now retracted much at what was originally put in place at at least two of those three sites.

 

We have had the unfortunate happening of some extra getting slotted in at Stoke Hammond Three Locks, (ostensibly for a trial period only!). However that was never one of the 22 sites originally proposed.

 

At the moment, nothing has happened at the remaining 19 out of the 22 sites originally proposed, (although some like Marsworth and Oxford are still in danger of getting progressed, if we do not continue to insist on only making evidence based changes).

 

I would say 3 sites only implemented out of an original proposed 22, is hardly "going ahead with their original plan", and frankly both a bit of a slur on those who have very actively worked against it, and even those in CRT that we have so far managed to persuade.

My guess is that if we still had BW all these 22 sites might well all have been implemented by now, with no consultation, other than that the IWA was supportive of Jeff Whyatt's initiative.

 

It may be far from perfect, but in matters like this, we have more chance of changing things with CRT than I believe we ever had with BW.

When I look back to this particular episode, I tend to think the trust got just what they wanted, those three sites. I think that was their plan from the very start. Give us 22 sites to squabble over, and primarily get the three we want.

Nothing but a numbers game.

[Alf Roberts]

 

Hardly!

 

The proposal was for 22 sites, that Jeff Whyatt, and others considered as "priority".

 

Whilst I would agree the consultation was very badly handled, and some in CRT continued to want to believe they had been right in the first place, this is definitely not what has happened.

 

We had three pilot sites thrust upon us, but under subsequent pressure they have now retracted much at what was originally put in place at at least two of those three sites.

 

We have had the unfortunate happening of some extra getting slotted in at Stoke Hammond Three Locks, (ostensibly for a trial period only!). However that was never one of the 22 sites originally proposed.

 

At the moment, nothing has happened at the remaining 19 out of the 22 sites originally proposed, (although some like Marsworth and Oxford are still in danger of getting progressed, if we do not continue to insist on only making evidence based changes).

 

I would say 3 sites only implemented out of an original proposed 22, is hardly "going ahead with their original plan", and frankly both a bit of a slur on those who have very actively worked against it, and even those in CRT that we have so far managed to persuade.

 

My guess is that if we still had BW all these 22 sites might well all have been implemented by now, with no consultation, other than that the IWA was supportive of Jeff Whyatt's initiative.

 

It may be far from perfect, but in matters like this,we have more chance of changing things with CRT than I believe we ever had with BW.

 

It is your contention that it was the consultation that altered CRT's course on the SEVMs?

 

I would take issue over that. The consultation changed nothing as far as I could see.

 

What changed the course of the plan - which was still intact even after the consultation gave the conclusion that more data was needed - was the sustained opposition after the consultation, after they started on the three sites and people such as yourself, Jenlyn and Cotswoldman and, rather oddly, Leo2 of this forum amongst others.

and the SEVMs are still a fiasco, one year down the line so I can hardly let you claim it as a victory. Perhaps you halted the stampede but you certainly didn't turn the tide 9if you'll excuse my mixed metaphors)

[alan_fincher]

and the SEVMs are still a fiasco, one year down the line so I can hardly let you claim it as a victory.

If you read carefully what I posted, I certainly haven't claimed it as a victory.

 

You are without any question whatsoever wrong about them only wanting 3 sites, and putting up a whole swathe just to get a few. Jeff Whyatt desperately wanted to do places like Batchworth, and was obsessed that he had to do Berkhamsted. It may be that there were some "noise" sites in there, but I am absolutely convinced they were determined to "hit" the lion's share of them, (some would still like to, because doing so helps justify the roles they are in, in my view).

 

We got them to monitor Berkhamsted instead of putting in changes, and the numbers returned did not support the need for the changes, and hence they got dropped for the foreseeable future. IMO that particular result was a considerable individual victory, even if the overall thing has been a mess, and still retains the potential to rear its head at any point in the future.

 

Perhaps you halted the stampede but you certainly didn't turn the tide (if you'll excuse my mixed metaphors)

They have currently completely stopped in their tracks - why is that not "halting the stampede", (at least for the moment).

Edited December 29, 2014 by alan_fincher

[Tunneltug]

1. reduce the salaries of the top directors to NT levels

In my experience "if you pay peanuts you get monkeys", good, strong and competent leadership doesn't come cheap

[alan_fincher]

[Merged into previous post to keep it together.]

Edited December 29, 2014 by alan_fincher

[Allan(nb Albert)]

I'm glad that you find the ability of aboat to navigate and more on the canals safely such a mandate function, I rather think it's a fairly essential function that needs to be performed by CRT as the navigation authority. Unfortunately a quick email to your local regional manager will no longer help as this has been centralised. Didn't you read the minutes?

The Trust has over 50,000 defects on its waterways and this number is growing year on year. However, they are only being tackled at the rate of 5,000 per year.

 

The reason that responsibility for deciding which defects should be eradicated each year has been taken away from Regional Managers because CaRT was not happy that some Regions in the North were tackling the most important defects.

 

In the past, Regions were given the budget to pay regional staff and undertake smaller projects. Regions could also bid for central funds such that larger projects (> £50,000) could be undertaken.

 

Now the centre tells the Regions which tasks must be undertaken and in what quarter of the year. Regions are meant to report to the public how they are performing, however it seems that they have been given no instruction regarding the format and timing of these reports.

 

 

[jenlyn]

[Merged into previous post to keep it together.]

They've not stopped. It's very much live at the moment. Mathew Symmonds has taken up the mantle from Geoff Whyatt.

All will be revealed sooner rather than later I suspect.

[Alf Roberts]

 

If you read carefully what I posted, I certainly haven't claimed it as a victory.

 

You are without any question whatsoever wrong about them only wanting 3 sites, and putting up a whole swathe just to get a few.

 

If you read carefully what I posted, I did not make that claim. I stated that they went ahead with 22 sites despite the overwhelming disagreement of the consultation.

 

You are confused in your rush to claim credit, as do often politicians are.

 

I said that CRT ignored the consultation. and, if you and others, hadn't protested afterwards then they would have ignored the consultation and gone ahead with the original plan.

 

it is that railroading that, in my opinion, so devalued both CRT's honesty and their use of consultation.

Edited December 29, 2014 by Alf Roberts

[Alf Roberts]

They have currently completely stopped in their tracks - why is that not "halting the stampede", (at least for the moment).

please read what I have written.

 

I said that the 'stampede' - the 22 - had been halted but much of the damage is already done - - - the 3, but mainly the principle that consultations are there to be ignored, for instance Parry's pub.

[Guest]

Canals were made for boats

Water was made to drink, and for fish and.ducks. Fish and ducks were made for eating. Joggers and cyclists are just annoying. Walkers are acceptable. Land was made to till and build houses on

 

So. Fill in most of it, keep a bit for inland fisheries , duckeries (free food input from walkers) and water supply (say about 5ft wide). The rest goes to agriculture or house building.

 

Derelict locks make superb picnic sites.

 

The reality is canals were built for transport, declined then leisure use went up, that will in turn decline then decisions must be made.

 

Its not all about boats

Spot on I'm afraid. It almost happened in the '60's. I remember going to rallies in my late dad's boat as a kid to protest about bits of cut that were going to be land filled. After the breech at Lymm in 1970 that stretch of the Bridgewater was in danger of never being opened again (to name but one.)

I am surprised that canals have not been used more as a conduit for distributing drinking water, when the infrastructure is already in place. Seems to work on the Llangollen.

[Higgs]

 

I wonder whether the anglers would see it the same way?

 

All the groups can walk away from the canal and carry on with their pastimes elsewhere. The canal is pretty much essential for boaters and they will continue to pay. Constant.

[Allan(nb Albert)]

 

1. reduce the salaries of the top directors to NT levels

In my experience "if you pay peanuts you get monkeys", good, strong and competent leadership doesn't come cheap

 

 

 

Richard Parry joined on annual salary of £175,000.

For comparison, his predecessor, Robin Evans was on £222,000.

Are you saying that Richard Parry is a monkey?

 

 

 

[alan_fincher]

I said that CRT ignored the consultation. and, if you and others, hadn't protested afterwards then they would have ignored the consultation and gone ahead with the original plan.

But this is just not how it happened.

 

I, and others were protesting long before the consultation, and it was largely the level of protest drummed up that actually caused them to have the consultation at all - they had never planned to.

 

We were protesting in fairly equal measure both well before, during, and after the consultation, (and some of us continue to, whenever the thing rears its head - by any name, or in any form).

 

I'm afraid your responses just completely ignore the order in which things actually took place.

 

There is an adequate audit trail of minutes and meeting notes that establishes that my version of the order in which things occurred is correct, and that what you are claiming is not what actually occurred.

 

That said, I do not wish to further divert this thread about much wider issues too far back into the SEVM debate, so will stand back now on that particular topic, (at least in this particular thread), unless any actual evidence can be produced that supports your version of events.

Edited December 29, 2014 by alan_fincher

[Higgs]

Canals were made for boats

 

 

Its not all about boats

 

That's a fact.

[Allan(nb Albert)]

 

All the groups can walk away from the canal and carry on with their pastimes elsewhere. The canal is pretty much essential for boaters and they will continue to pay. Constant.

Not quite.

 

According to annual reports, the number of boaters has dropped 9% over the last three years.

 

It would seem to me that some are unwilling/unable to pay.

 

Of those that remain, an increasing proportion are deciding that that they will do without having a home mooring.

[alan_fincher]

please read what I have written.

 

I said that the 'stampede' - the 22 - had been halted but much of the damage is already done - - - the 3, but mainly the principle that consultations are there to be ignored, for instance Parry's pub.

 

[i'm allowing myself one more response, as this was not part of the SEVM proposals or consultation]

 

Have you had a face to face conversation with Richard Parry about the "pub" ones? I, (and quite a few others, no doubt!), have, and I think he was genuinely shocked about the backlash he got from that particular intervention. It doesn't make it right, of course - in my view it was indefensible, though Richard will defend his reasons for doing what he did. However, I very much doubt he will do similar again in a hurry!

Edited December 29, 2014 by alan_fincher

[SamKingfisher]

 

 

Richard Parry joined on annual salary of £175,000.

For comparison, his predecessor, Robin Evans was on £222,000.

Are you saying that Richard Parry is a monkey?

 

 

 

 

Indeed, and are you also saying that the National Trust is run by monkeys? (not you Allan, Tunneltug) Edited December 29, 2014 by SamKingfisher

[churchward]

 

 

Richard Parry joined on annual salary of £175,000.

For comparison, his predecessor, Robin Evans was on £222,000.

Are you saying that Richard Parry is a monkey?

 

 

 

But £175,000 is hardly peanuts though is it?

[Allan(nb Albert)]

But £175,000 is hardly peanuts though is it?

I guess Richard Parry's total remuneration package is about half of Robin Evans.

 

Perhaps peanuts are relative.

[churchward]

I guess Richard Parry's total remuneration package is about half of Robin Evans.

 

Perhaps peanuts are relative.

I don't think they are but do you think a salary of £175,000 is peanuts then?

 

However, what is more important than comparisons of current and previous holder of the same post is the comparison of similar roles in comparable Trust/charity organisations in the UK.

[Jerra]

But £175,000 is hardly peanuts though is it?

Some people are being paid around that for being head masters so it doesn't seem wildly extravagent either.

[Tuscan]

If you read carefully what I posted, I certainly haven't claimed it as a victory. You are without any question whatsoever wrong about them only wanting 3 sites, and putting up a whole swathe just to get a few. Jeff Whyatt desperately wanted to do places like Batchworth, and was obsessed that he had to do Berkhamsted. It may be that there were some "noise" sites in there, but I am absolutely convinced they were determined to "hit" the lion's share of them, (some would still like to, because doing so helps justify the roles they are in, in my view).We got them to monitor Berkhamsted instead of putting in changes, and the numbers returned did not support the need for the changes, and hence they got dropped for the foreseeable future. IMO that particular result was a considerable individual victory, even if the overall thing has been a mess, and still retains the potential to rear its head at any point in the future.They have currently completely stopped in their tracks - why is that not "halting the stampede", (at least for the moment).

I had a long email exchange with Geoff Whyatt after the consultation and workshops were concluded and it was clear that there was still an intent to proceed when he could. I was there when Richard Parry instructed Sally Ash that there were to be no more changes to visitor moorings until they had time to gather evidence and put a standard process in place. Since this moritorium the plans for changes to London Moorings were launched, new pub mooring at Three Locks were approved by the SE boaters group and installed, new 48 hour moorings at Atherstone were approved by the partnership and installed, new proposals on the G & S etc etc

 

Geoff Whyatt , Sally Ash and now Dean Davies have now gone , and there is a new structure being implemented and new positions recruited . It may not seem like it sometimes but I personally thing CRT are more aware of boating issues than the old BW and this is a positive development.

[churchward]

Some people are being paid around that for being head masters so it doesn't seem wildly extravagent either.

On the UK Gov education website http://www.education.gov.uk/get-into-teaching/about-teaching/salary

 

It says

 

At a minimum of £22,023 (or £27,543 in inner London), the starting salary in teaching is high compared to other graduate starting salaries. Leading practitioners can earn up to £65,324 in London and £58,096 outside London, while head teachers can reach a salary of between £42,232 and £114,437.

 

So not the same. I imagine in private schools of course it will be more.

 

Again though not relevant, the salary needs to be compared to a comparable job and organisation . I agree though it is not an outrageous level for such a role.

Edited December 29, 2014 by churchward

[Boat&Bikes]

Some people are being paid around that for being head masters so it doesn't seem wildly extravagent either.

Tis a crazy wage to pay to pay to a charity head though surely? I for one avoid giving to charities as I find the wage paid to there bosses obscene.

 

Ian.

I wonder whether the anglers would see it the same way?

[Tunneltug]

 

 

Richard Parry joined on annual salary of £175,000.

For comparison, his predecessor, Robin Evans was on £222,000.

Are you saying that Richard Parry is a monkey?

Thats a good point but no I'm not, far from it. I'm just trying to confront the British habit of bleating about the salaries of senior management