Don't trust the Trust anymore.

[matty40s]

The tone of your sarcasm and the nature of the content of your aggressive posts are taking on a certain familiarity.

She was outed officially after giving herself away in an early post. TBH, it could have happened sooner after the return from Portugal but nobody can be arsed outing Pinky now as the moderators continue to allow his identity thefts to continue.

[Graham Davis]

Your original statement:

 

 

A complaint about the EO won't achieve anything for the reasons Nigel Moore explained earlier in this thread.

A direct approach to the Waterway Manager at the local Office may produce a better result and it's certainly worth trying. However, since JohnV's unproblematic outcome from doing that (#308) in BW's days the Enforcement gang's functions have been separated completely from the local Office and the Waterway Manager, and they now answer to no-one but themselves.

 

My question to you:

 

 

Really?

Do you have actual evidence of that?

 

Your answer:

 

 

Yes, and yes,

 

 

Read the post of mine that you're quoting from again, that isn't quite what I said, and you're misquoting me.

 

Don't think I have misquoted anything.

Would you like to provide us with evidence that the Enforcement Officers are as you say?

[Ray T]

She was outed officially after giving herself away in an early post. TBH, it could have happened sooner after the return from Portugal but nobody can be arsed outing Pinky now as the moderators continue to allow his identity thefts to continue.

 

Perhaps he went to Russia for a change?

 

http://alenafour.blog.ru/?attempt=1

Edited September 19, 2015 by Ray T

[Tuscan]

It didn't "filter" down. The enforcement team were fully briefed on Sean's role, and their own responsibilities attached to that.

I worked quite closely with the chaplaincy team through 2013-2014, and found that most of their information was gathered from towpath gossip. Having spoken to a chaplain friend recently, this is still causing problems.

 

I will also point out, that it was actually some of the enforcement eo's who initially promoted the chaplaincy, and Sean to boaters on their patch.

Talking to Sean one of his challenges is that the knowledge and experience of the EO's regarding the support that might be available is is mixed with some having an excellent grasp and others not. I had understood that he was working on an internal check sheet I'm not sure if that has passed through CRT legal etc yet. I find it interesting that when I (and Jenlyn) were advocating that CRT engage a welfare officer , Richard Parry made it clear that he was not in favour. However now I note that it was one of CRTs achievement in the annual report.

[cotswoldsman]

Talking to Sean one of his challenges is that the knowledge and experience of the EO's regarding the support that might be available is is mixed with some having an excellent grasp and others not. I had understood that he was working on an internal check sheet I'm not sure if that has passed through CRT legal etc yet. I find it interesting that when I (and Jenlyn) were advocating that CRT engage a welfare officer , Richard Parry made it clear that he was not in favour. However now I note that it was one of CRTs achievement in the annual report.

I start the day in a better mode now that at last you have acknowledged the part Jenlyn played in pushing for a welfare officer. I am not convinced Richard Parry was completely against the idea but along with Sally Ash (most probably at that time advised by Sally) wanted to try the cheaper option of the Salvation Army

[jenlyn]

I start the day in a better mode now that at last you have acknowledged the part Jenlyn played in pushing for a welfare officer. I am not convinced Richard Parry was completely against the idea but along with Sally Ash (most probably at that time advised by Sally) wanted to try the cheaper option of the Salvation Army

To be honest. i never saw Mark Tizard (or nabo for that matter) at any of the meetings that led up to a welfare officer being engaged by CRT. Looking at notes, the need for a welfare officer was first mentioned at a ccer-CRT meeting in November 2012. There followed a raft of meetings with CRT personnel regarding the subject for the following 12 months. Again, I see no mention of Mark Tizard, or for that matter NABO.

The meeting in November 2013 with CRT, the chaplaincy, and dwp discussing amongst other things the role specifics for such a position were not attended by Mark Tizard, or NABO. The first time NABO actually picked up on it was at another meeting where David Fletcher at that time stated he was not sure NABO would support such a role.

 

Eventually, the subject was brought up at other meetings, where Mark Tizard picked up the value of supporting such a role, i.e. brownie points and the need to pick up membership for an association in trouble, owing to it's lacklustre performance for a couple of years.

 

It matters not in reality, who did what, but is important that the need for such a post was eventually recognised and supported.

 

However, I wouldn't trust NABO to even hold my middle rope. Lots of bluster, lots ego, but no b@lls.

Edited September 19, 2015 by jenlyn

[Martin Megson]

For those who wanted details of the senior enforcement officers the following is available on the C&RT web site. Note also that Paul Griffin is also the national enforcement manager.

Hope this is helpful.

If you’d like to contact one of the supervisors you'll find their details below, for example, if you’re concerned about a particular boat, or want some advice about our guidance. Alternately you'll find the details of the enforcement officer for your region on this map.

• Jill Overum, 07810 378 906, North
• Helen Underhill, 07887 545 384, North Wales & Borders and West Midlands
• Paul Griffin (national enforcement operations manager temporary support until regional supervisor vacancy filled), 07710 175 071, Central Shires and East Midlands
• Sheila Shaw, 07748 658 040, South West (inc. Kennet & Avon Canal)
• Peter Palmer, 07879 487 096, South East
• Simon Cadek, 07917 237 183, London

[Martin Megson]

 

Look chap. Whereas it's fantastically groovy that you've never had any trouble with CRT why do you assume that anyone else who says they have is a liar?

 

With 30,000 boater they'd struggle to pick on everyone.

 

I did not assume nor imply that anyone was lying. I simply pointed out that sometimes people have a conflict with a local C&RT officer and then tar the whole organisation with the same brush.

 

I have researched and now posted details of the area enforcement supervisors and the national enforcement officers which will; provide the OP with some useful contacts if he wishes to escalate his case. Have you done anything positive to help?

[magnetman]

 

I did not assume nor imply that anyone was lying. I simply pointed out that sometimes people have a conflict with a local C&RT officer and then tar the whole organisation with the same brush.

 

I have researched and now posted details of the area enforcement supervisors and the national enforcement officers which will; provide the OP with some useful contacts if he wishes to escalate his case. Have you done anything positive to help?

Thanks that's good info

(I know it was intended for another poster but its still handy for anyone who has contact with enforcement)

[bassplayer]

....sometimes people have a conflict with a local C&RT officer and then tar the whole organisation with the same brush.

 

 

This is a very good point and one Mr Parry should take on board...

[Tony Dunkley]

 

For those who wanted details of the senior enforcement officers the following is available on the C&RT web site. Note also that Paul Griffin is also the national enforcement manager.

Hope this is helpful.

If youd like to contact one of the supervisors you'll find their details below, for example, if youre concerned about a particular boat, or want some advice about our guidance. Alternately you'll find the details of the enforcement officer for your region on this map.

• Jill Overum, 07810 378 906, North
• Helen Underhill, 07887 545 384, North Wales & Borders and West Midlands
• Paul Griffin (national enforcement operations manager temporary support until regional supervisor vacancy filled), 07710 175 071, Central Shires and East Midlands
• Sheila Shaw, 07748 658 040, South West (inc. Kennet & Avon Canal)
• Peter Palmer, 07879 487 096, South East
• Simon Cadek, 07917 237 183, London

Contacting anyone on that list will be a complete waste of both time and the cost of the phone call.

Any suggestion made to them that an EO could be anything other than a Saint doing a wonderful job will be dismissed out of hand, and they all enjoy enthusiastic and unquestioning backing from Parry himself.

Just to correct that list to date, Paul Griffin is now working in his intended national operations manager role.

The new Supervisor for the East Midlands is :~ Graham Waldron

Central & East Enforcement Supervisor

T 0303 040 40 40 M 07717138606

E Graham.Waldron@canalrivertrust.org.uk

Edited September 20, 2015 by Lady Muck
To remove personal abuse

[MtB]

This is a very good point and one Mr Parry should take on board...

 

 

I'm sure Mr Parry has realised this from day 1...

[bassplayer]

I'm sure Mr Parry has realised this from day 1...

You're probably right.

 

Those on the customer facing end are very important to the reputation of any organisation who is supposedly customer focused.

 

I've found 'most' maintenance guys and (v)lockies pretty freindly and helpful. Not sure about EO's as I've not had one bother me yet. I suppose it does also depend on the way we approach them to. I wonder sometimes how they feel about how CRT is run, maybe it's worth asking a few.

[Guest]

She was outed officially after giving herself away in an early post. TBH, it could have happened sooner after the return from Portugal but nobody can be arsed outing Pinky now as the moderators continue to allow his identity thefts to continue.

Ah right, clearly I missed it.

[johnswateryadventures]

The CRT blokes on the ground doing the daily maintainance i have talked to have a good attitude, and are all round good eggs. They do say that the job is getting near impossible, and they hate the management. The last one I talked to told me the trust is only interested in money now, and I should trade my boat in for a canoe, because there is not going to be anymore dredging.

[Arthur Marshall]

The CRT blokes on the ground doing the daily maintainance i have talked to have a good attitude, and are all round good eggs. They do say that the job is getting near impossible, and they hate the management. The last one I talked to told me the trust is only interested in money now, and I should trade my boat in for a canoe, because there is not going to be anymore dredging.

Well, I ran onto a fair bit of dredging round the place last year, so i suspect this was just disgruntled employee-speak like what we all indulge in. But i can understand them having their gruntles dissed - i remember the Harecastle tunnel keepers lost their meal times a year or so back (which is why it shuts at 1pm now) and had their pay cut considerably.

Unfortunately, though, it's money what keeps the cut open and half the locks still working.

[Tony Dunkley]

The CRT blokes on the ground doing the daily maintainance i have talked to have a good attitude, and are all round good eggs. They do say that the job is getting near impossible, and they hate the management. The last one I talked to told me the trust is only interested in money now, and I should trade my boat in for a canoe, because there is not going to be anymore dredging.

 

Sadly, that is a realistic and accurate reflection of what C&RT has achieved.

The mood amongst the few remaining maintenance staff and lock keepers, and even some management at local level, is one of utter despair with morale at an all time low, far exceeding that which Evans managed.

At the present rate of decline in repairs and preventative maintenance, I can't see very much of the system remaining open to navigation for very much longer, perhaps 2 to 3 years at most.

To give credit where it's due, however, they have lived up to their " Keeping history and people connected" slogan.

Unfortunately the bit of history they're connecting us all to is the neglected and mostly derelict system of waterways that survived after the second World War.

Edited September 19, 2015 by Tony Dunkley

[magnetman]

That's a very bleak view

 

What do you think will happen ?

[Arthur Marshall]

Must say I agree with Tony except I think it'll take a few more years before it falls to bits. Look at the state of the paired locks on the T&M, an:d the number of pounds that drain overnight. Add in the increasing breaches, lack of maintenance to the sluices and collapsing towpaths and you don't have a good prognosis.

[NigelMoore]

Must say I agree with Tony except I think it'll take a few more years before it falls to bits.

 

No surprise surely? The BW executive and the Waterways Minister always anticipated that there would be deterioration of the assets following the privatisation, “for a few years” until 2020, when “the situation will then improve”.

 

The governmental members of the 'Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee' were content with that miserable prognostication. The forecast then, even on that 'optimistic' level, is that we are in for another 5 years yet, of declining maintenance standards.

[magnetman]

I am interested that you call it privatisation NigelMoore.

 

I am not particularly au fait with the finer details of vocabulary but I was under the impression that a privatised organisation involved the opportunity to buy shares.

 

I think I will be able to buy shares at some point in the future.

 

I haven't missed an opportunity have I ?

[NigelMoore]

I haven't missed an opportunity have I ?

 

We have been over this before have we not? I have to disappoint you [or congratulate you on being unable to make a bad investment]; there are no shareholders in CaRT.

 

CaRT is a private company limited by guarantee. The difference from ordinary private companies limited by shares is that instead of shareholders it has members who act as guarantors.

 

If I recall correctly [and the set-up makes too dismal reading for me to revisit the Mem & Arts], its members' limit of liability is a tenner.

 

It remains a private limited company, it is just that it obtained special dispensation from Companies House to leave off the "Ltd" in its official designation, which may help promote the illusion that it is something other than what it is.

[magnetman]

Thanks

Again (its a public forum)

[Tony Dunkley]

 

We have been over this before have we not? I have to disappoint you [or congratulate you on being unable to make a bad investment]; there are no shareholders in CaRT.

 

CaRT is a private company limited by guarantee. The difference from ordinary private companies limited by shares is that instead of shareholders it has members who act as guarantors.

 

If I recall correctly [and the set-up makes too dismal reading for me to revisit the Mem & Arts], its members' limit of liability is a tenner.

 

It remains a private limited company, it is just that it obtained special dispensation from Companies House to leave off the "Ltd" in its official designation, which may help promote the illusion that it is something other than what it is.

 

Just out of interest Nigel, did any of the legislation that spawned the Trust, vest title to the land and structures of the canals and navigable rivers in the new Trust, or does it all remain in public ownership?

[NigelMoore]

 

Just out of interest Nigel, did any of the legislation that spawned the Trust, vest title to the land and structures of the canals and navigable rivers in the new Trust, or does it all remain in public ownership?

 

“Public ownership” is a vaporous description in this context Tony.

 

Off the top of my head, all titles are vested in a trust administered by the Trust. There are distinctions made between investment property and that considered [in the old parlance] “the track”. The latter is allegedly under the protective oversight of government, in order to ensure it is preserved “for the nation”. The former is to be managed for maximum profit whether by sale or whatever, again “for the nation” but rather more obliquely.

 

Against that, are the alarmingly contradictory provisions within the company set-up documents that purport to grant power to place the assets in whole or part as guarantees for loans etc. What happens in the case of default in such a case? I dunno, frankly.