CRT dont want skilled equipped volunteers, heres the proof

[matty40s]

You're right Laurence, CRT do not want skilled, equipped volunteers...put simply, they are too much of a liability. out of the box and hard work to contemplate

 

Sell up, move on and stop whining about it.

[churchward]

You're right Laurence, CRT do not want skilled, equipped volunteers...put simply, they are too much of a liability.

 

Sell up, move on and stop whining about it.

No they are not CRT just don't want to engage and use them a completely different matter or alternatively we could ring the RNLI and tell them they have got it all wrong and should close down and the person rescued from near Snowdon last night by Llanberis mountain rescue (all volunteers) should not have bothered and let the person die from hypothermia (it was close from the rescue report)

 

You're right Laurence, CRT do not want skilled, equipped volunteers...put simply, they are too much of a liability. out of the box and hard work to contemplate

 

Sell up, move on and stop whining about it.

 

Yes I think more accurate.

[James Owen]

The liability from an underwriters perspective is far too great, CRT will be monitoring costs and those costs are too high.

 

As an example ask this question - why aren't volunteers enlisted to operate...for example..Harecastle ?

[churchward]

The liability from an underwriters perspective is far too great, CRT will be monitoring costs and those costs are too high.

 

As an example ask this question - why aren't volunteers enlisted to operate...for example..Harecastle ?

Rubbish.

 

No one is saying that it is always easy and that CRT should employ volunteers to do everything. But yes you could get volunteers to operate Harecastle. It is not really different from an operating a token block signalling system on a heritage railway. You have two trains at times approaching from opposite directions towards a loop at the same time on a single line. That would mean around a total of 400 tons of trains and potentially many 10s if not hundreds of passengers at risk. Lots of possible ways to get it wrong but volunteers do manage to do that week in week out. Harecastle compared to that would be a doddle.

[James Owen]

Yes you could get volunteers to operate Harecastle and I don't dispute it would be 'a doddle' as you so eloquently put it, but CRT do not do so.

Why ? The underwriters consider it too much risk.

 

A convoy of eight boats, potentially twelve persons aboard each...that's 96 people in a tunnel at once and at one point a mile from the surface...

[James Owen]

Those 96 folks are of all ages, abilities and are left to their own skills to 'navigate' that tunnel safely.

 

Then, worst case scenario a rescue needs to be carried out due to a fire on the lead boat...all under the watchful eye of a good willed volunteer.

 

I'd say that was quite a risk, one which any underwriter is likely to impose a considerable premium to account for.

 

This is hardly relevant to Laurence's original post I know, but purely as a (late night/half asleep) example of where 'liability' can make people nervous about utilising volunteers.

[matty40s]

OK James,

Volunteers work with Lockies at Foxton and Watford flights.

Both have eminent risk of flooding/sinking boats if operated incorrectly and also damage to the 250 year old infrastructure.

At present CRT have deemed it a good enough risk to let volunteers operate both between 8-15.30 daily.

For some reason, they have also decided to save costs at Watford flight by not locking the locks at 15.30 daily.

There are LOTS of hire boats about in this area- some of which are new to canals.

If one of these hire boats goes up or down, sinks, drowns a few crew who are inside, washes away the towpath or side-pond wall because they don;t know what to do???

The shit will hit the fan

 

It is not about liability, it is about management staff not having the common sense or knowledge of canals and canal people to delegate a task to someone who is highly skilled but does not want paying - it doesn't compute. It is great that the head of volunteering comes out with that wonderful piece of PR - however, to put it into action will involve so many hurdles, red tape, discussions, meetings, "blueskythinking sessions" etc, that it will never ever happen until someone up top - MR Parry - says bloody well pull your fingers out and go for it.

[James Owen]

It isn't CRT who are determining the risk, it's the underwriters who are determining risk/liability and then imposing increased premiums.

[NigelMoore]

it will never ever happen until someone up top - MR Parry - says bloody well pull your fingers out and go for it.

 

From the House of Lords Revised transcript of evidence taken before The Merits of Statutory Instruments Committee (now Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee)

 

Inquiry on DRAFT BRITISH WATERWAYS BOARD (TRANSFER OF FUNCTIONS) ORDER 2012

 

TUESDAY 24 APRIL 2012

 

Lord Scott of Foscote: I am sorry, you have lost me. What do the volunteers do?

 

Robin Evans: They do almost anything, sir. It is quite a revelation. We have volunteer engineers, volunteer lock keepers and people who paint bridges for us. We have banks that send their staff out once a day to clear litter, remove graffiti and tend vegetation. We have volunteers doing almost every aspect of our work and more and more people want to volunteer because they want to give something back to society. We are very fortunate in that 50% of the population live within five miles of one of our waterways, so we are very accessible, and it is very pleasant to be on our waterways.

[churchward]

Yes you could get volunteers to operate Harecastle and I don't dispute it would be 'a doddle' as you so eloquently put it, but CRT do not do so.

Why ? The underwriters consider it too much risk.

 

A convoy of eight boats, potentially twelve persons aboard each...that's 96 people in a tunnel at once and at one point a mile from the surface...

Still rubbish.

 

96 people or not (12 people per boat? really?) that does NOT compare to the railway scenario for souls on board and potential for 400 tons to collide together at a closing speed up to 50mph.

 

being a mile from the surface is irrelevant as it is the same as if you pay the people to be there or they volunteer for free and has to do with the maintenance of the tunnel not the operation of it.

 

In the end it is possible, hiding behind insurance is a feeble excuse. The only difference between volunteer labour and a waged workforce is the money if you put everything in place right.

 

There seems to be an assumption that volunteers are somehow less competent again not so if trained right. A volunteer wants to be there has made a commitment to do the job and is likely to be highly motivated. A paid worker may be like this too (I hope they are) but they may also be there just for the money and not care that much.

It isn't CRT who are determining the risk, it's the underwriters who are determining risk/liability and then imposing increased premiums.

Show me.

Edited March 25, 2015 by churchward

[Sabcat]

As someone who has worked in insurance, claims and underwriting, I can tell you that insurance for volunteers is no more expensive than for paid workers. The same rules apply, you (possibly) have to show in the event of a claim (and if there's injury you'll have to show the HSE) that the people carrying out the work when the incident occurred were competent to do so which is as easy as it sounds and not the complicated caper you could imagine it to be.

[sueb]

How come wrg work on Crt waterways

[churchward]

As someone who has worked in insurance, claims and underwriting, I can tell you that insurance for volunteers is no more expensive than for paid workers. The same rules apply, you (possibly) have to show in the event of a claim (and if there's injury you'll have to show the HSE) that the people carrying out the work when the incident occurred were competent to do so which is as easy as it sounds and not the complicated caper you could imagine it to be.

Indeed and thanks for the informed post.

[matty40s]

How come wrg work on Crt waterways

sshhh, James doesn't know about those yet...

[churchward]

How come wrg work on Crt waterways

Quite so and thank goodness they are out there along with canal society members either keeping what we have or working to open some more miles of canal to navigate. More power to them.

[NigelMoore]

Quite so and thank goodness they are out there along with canal society members either keeping what we have or working to open some more miles of canal to navigate. More power to them.

 

There would be considerably fewer navigable waterways without them, and those that fought against BW's efforts to shut down such volunteering.

 

Another pertinent question from the Scrutiny Committee:

 

Baroness Morris of Yardley: . . . Perhaps the crux of my question is: given that the funding agreement will be your major hold—in the nicest sense of the term—over the organisation, what is your direction of travel? I see that you need certain powers, as you have outlined, but what is your thinking about the direction of travel for that relationship between safeguarding the public funds through the funding agreement and the Government’s political direction, which is to free up volunteers so that they can take control?

 

Answer?

 

Richard Benyon MP: I hope that the relationship will be better and more appreciated by those who want to be involved, who are the people who have a particular interest.

[mango]

How come wrg work on Crt waterways

They have all the safety requirements covered and I believe that CRT sign the site over to WRG for the duration of the work camp.

[Laurence Hogg]

As I have stated previously on this thread we hold a copy of CRT insurance certificate from XL which covers us on any authorised venture for CRT. This has been the case throughout. If we go out for our own use or just for a cruise we are covered by our own insurance with Towergate Mardon.

There is no insurance issue I am aware of.

[the barnacle]

lovely boat - i look at it moored up regular,

 

can i ask what work you want to do?

 

the problem with volunteering is usually volunteers work to their own time constraints - this doesnt fit in with major contracts.

 

if you and your volunteers were asked to do a month contract in coventry and be expected onsite 8 - 5 would this work as volunteers - i think the way to get larger jobs is for you to look at it as a business and not as volunteers -

 

its a shame when the experience of yourself and your gang go to waste, well done for everything you have done and are trying to achieve - lets hope it works out before the boat is sold and there is no going back,

[churchward]

Those 96 folks are of all ages, abilities and are left to their own skills to 'navigate' that tunnel safely.

 

Then, worst case scenario a rescue needs to be carried out due to a fire on the lead boat...all under the watchful eye of a good willed volunteer.

 

I'd say that was quite a risk, one which any underwriter is likely to impose a considerable premium to account for.

 

This is hardly relevant to Laurence's original post I know, but purely as a (late night/half asleep) example of where 'liability' can make people nervous about utilising volunteers.

Still wrong thinking. Tell me why is it OK to have volunteer mountain rescue (or perhaps more relevant to your example cave rescue) risking life and limb to help others in trouble on a mountain (or cave) but folk in your terms are nervous about volunteers in a canal tunnel?

 

Well trained people volunteer or not is what is required if you have that there is no additional risk.

 

You seem to have the attitude that a volunteer is going to be a well meaning bumbling fool likely to get it wrong. This is not true.

 

There would be considerably fewer navigable waterways without them, and those that fought against BW's efforts to shut down such volunteering.

 

Another pertinent question from the Scrutiny Committee:

 

Baroness Morris of Yardley: . . . Perhaps the crux of my question is: given that the funding agreement will be your major hold—in the nicest sense of the term—over the organisation, what is your direction of travel? I see that you need certain powers, as you have outlined, but what is your thinking about the direction of travel for that relationship between safeguarding the public funds through the funding agreement and the Government’s political direction, which is to free up volunteers so that they can take control?

 

Answer?

 

Richard Benyon MP: I hope that the relationship will be better and more appreciated by those who want to be involved, who are the people who have a particular interest.

I agree. The canal system for the last 40-50 years at least has had a long tradition of volunteers doing all sorts of things to rescue, restore and maintain our canal system. Not just a thing of the past either it happens all the time and in time we will have additional miles to navigate. Bless 'em all!

[BrumSaint]

I don't think most employers would object (too much) to staff leaving their work to help in a life or death situation, but if it's to repair a breach in a canal (eg Gas Basin recently - not quite the same level of emergency, but still an emergency) then I'm not aware of many employers who would happily allow their staff time off to deal with it.

 

 

No maybe not and I am not suggesting CRT should use volunteers for such work but I am making the counter point to the comment that volunteers are "not good for emergencies because they are not reliable" which is not the case.

But if the employer won't agree to their release, or makes it difficult for them how can their services be relied upon in an emergency?

[Jerra]

 

 

But if the employer won't agree to their release, or makes it difficult for them how can their services be relied upon in an emergency?

Mountain Rescue seem to manage OK so why shouldn't it work for other organisations?

 

I think part of the success of Mountain Rescue is having a pool of highly trained volunteers large enough to be always able to turn out a team even if a good proportion of the members are unable to turn out for some reason.

[Laurence Hogg]

lovely boat - i look at it moored up regular,

 

can i ask what work you want to do?

 

the problem with volunteering is usually volunteers work to their own time constraints - this doesnt fit in with major contracts.

 

if you and your volunteers were asked to do a month contract in coventry and be expected onsite 8 - 5 would this work as volunteers - i think the way to get larger jobs is for you to look at it as a business and not as volunteers -

 

its a shame when the experience of yourself and your gang go to waste, well done for everything you have done and are trying to achieve - lets hope it works out before the boat is sold and there is no going back,

 

We would like to use the boat for its original purpose of carrying goods. We can load 22 tons if required and get around the system, carriage of piling and materials is what we wanted to do.

We would not take on a 8 - 5pm contract, most of us have other work to do alongside the waterborne operations, I cant think of many volunteer operations where that would happen.

Most of the crew work on the Lichfield and Hatherton canals restoration which is progressing at a steady pace.

[churchward]

 

 

But if the employer won't agree to their release, or makes it difficult for them how can their services be relied upon in an emergency?

Why not read the posts above where I have made the point more than once before. It can be achieved with total reliability. For a real world example rather than just plucking a thought out of the air of organisations that use volunteers in emergency rescue day in day out.

 

RNLI

Mountain rescue

Cave rescue

 

etc. etc.

 

What tell me is so special about a tunnel belonging to CRT? In any case what would be wrong about calling 999 for help? The post I originally responded to made a point of volunteers operating Harecastle which is rather different from mounting 999 type rescues that happen rarely. It could be done though but probably not that worthwhile to set up.

 

Again as above in previous posts I am not saying that CRT should do this but to say it can't be done due to reliability or liability is an excuse and to suggest it is not thinking it through and looking at real world examples.

Edited March 26, 2015 by churchward

[churchward]

Mountain Rescue seem to manage OK so why shouldn't it work for other organisations?

 

I think part of the success of Mountain Rescue is having a pool of highly trained volunteers large enough to be always able to turn out a team even if a good proportion of the members are unable to turn out for some reason.

Quite.

 

The Llanberis Mountain Rescue team have a pool of 40-50 volunteers available on one of the busiest mountains in the world and its surrounding area ie Snowdon.

 

They are totally volunteer sourced and rely on charitable donations to fund them providing a 24/7 365 days a year rescue service in what can be an extremely challenging environment. Some rescues can involve the majority of the team. They have never not turned out.

 

Yet folk find it impossible to think a volunteer team could be used as rescue in a canal tunnel.

 

http://www.llanberismountainrescue.co.uk/about

Edited March 26, 2015 by churchward