Narrow Boat World Article About Our Incident at Hillmorton on 25th August

[alan_fincher]

Allan Richards has published an article on Narrow Boat World about an incident involving one of our boats at Hillmorton on 25th August.

 

We concede that this matter was discussed on the forum shortly after it occurred. We were not sure at the time how we should raise the incident with CRT, and were keen to seek views on how we should proceed.

 

However since a formal incident report was raised with CRT, we have made a point of not discussing the matter publicly any further, to allow CRT time to investigate and provide their response. Other journalists have asked if they can use the story, and we have asked that they do not do so, and our wishes have been respected.

 

We have not been asked by Allan Richards if we were happy to have this story raised in the way he has, no doubt because he knew what the answer would have been.

 

It is not in our view helpful at this stage, whilst discussions with CRT about the incident are ongoing, and clearly we would have preferred that he had not submitted it.

[Starcoaster]

OMG so shocked. Article written without any attempt to speak to those involved first hand, nor get their actual input/approval?

NBW? Noooo!

Shocked.

SHOCKED, I tell you.

[Guest]

Quelle surprise, Richards two months late with the 'news'.

[nicknorman]

Playing devil's advocate, perhaps he felt that quite a lot of time had passed with apparently no response from CRT and so it was time to up the anti. It was hardly a secret since, as you say, it was aired on here, with those posts, as far as I know, remaining visible.

 

Anyway, do we presume from your OP that things are still chuntering, as opposed to a deafening silence?

[Starcoaster]

Was it his place to up the ante though? He has no idea what is/was/could be going on behind the scenes, he was not there at the time of the incident, and he is, essentially, as badly informed as one could possibly be in those regards?

Never stopped them before, though.

[Guest]

Playing devil's advocate, perhaps he felt that quite a lot of time had passed with apparently no response from CRT and so it was time to up the anti. It was hardly a secret since, as you say, it was aired on here, with those posts, as far as I know, remaining visible.

 

Anyway, do we presume from your OP that things are still chuntering, as opposed to a deafening silence?

Any 'journalist' worth their salt will contact the subject of their story for comment though.

 

But of course it isn't really a site worthy of being considered composed of proper journalistic articles so what can really be expected?

[Alenafour]

Was it his place to up the ante though? He has no idea what is/was/could be going on behind the scenes, he was not there at the time of the incident, and he is, essentially, as badly informed as one could possibly be in those regards?

Never stopped them before, though.

Sour grapes.

 

it's a report on the risk assessments and method statements involved in volunteer lock keeping with a passing reference to the Fincher's incident using details in the public domain.

 

You, who call yourself a journalist, then diss him for not asking permission to retail this. The rest of the article seems well researched to me, especially in regard to the hastily and incompetently prepared document issued by Lee King.

 

I suppose you'll be moaning next that the BBC didn't ask IS permission before reporting on the recent events in Palmyra?

 

professional jealousy? or simple hypocrisy?

Edited October 29, 2015 by Alenafour

[Starcoaster]

I wanted to do a piece on this-the Finchers asked me not to-no piece. SIMPLES innit.

It would never occur to me to do a piece without speaking to the people involved...

Edited October 29, 2015 by Starcoaster

[Alenafour]

. .

Edited October 29, 2015 by Alenafour

[Starcoaster]

Yes, for sure, I'm professionally jealous of Allan Richards and NBW! You've got me guv!

I really wish I could work for free on a myopic vanity site that no one trusts rather than working for pay for publications that actually have a readership that supports their monthly output!

Jealous.

SO jealous.

Edited October 29, 2015 by Starcoaster

[Alenafour]

Any 'journalist' worth their salt will contact the subject of their story for comment though.

 

But of course it isn't really a site worthy of being considered composed of proper journalistic articles so what can really be expected?

It's an interesting, well researched and informative article on subjects that should be of concern to all of us.

 

Unlike your rather childish and badly written post.

 

As I say, I presume you level the same criticism at any news story where the protagonists were not asked to comment?

Yes, for sure, I'm professionally jealous of Allan Richards and NBW! You've got me guv!

I really wish I could work for free on a myopic vanity site that no one trusts rather than working for pay for publications that actually have a readership that supports their monthly output!

Jealous.

SO jealous.

Remind me of the falling subscription rates of the advertising vehicle you 'work' for.

 

As someone who relies on trite sarcasm and emoticons rather than writing to make her point, perhaps you could point out to me exactly where Allan Richards has gone wrong in this article.

Edited October 29, 2015 by Alenafour

[Guest]

Sour grapes.

 

it's a report on the risk assessments and method statements involved in volunteer lock keeping with a passing reference to the Fincher's incident using details in the public domain.

 

You, who call yourself a journalist, then diss him for not asking permission to retail this. The rest of the article seems well researched to me, especially in regard to the hastily and incompetently prepared document issued by Lee King.

 

I suppose you'll be moaning next that the BBC didn't ask IS permission before reporting on the recent events in Palmyra?

 

professional jealousy? or simple hypocrisy?

Try comparing like with like and you might retain a degree of credibility. The conflict in Syria is hardly a comparative example.

[Starcoaster]

Which one? I work for several papers, some ad supported, some not. The ad supported ones usually perform better, as the advertisers need a reason to continue to bother paying for their ads.

I have nooo clue as to any of their subscription rates on a fluctuating monthly basis. As long as they keep paying me and I am happy with the work I produce for them and how I come to do so, that's good enough for me.

[Alenafour]

Try comparing like with like and you might retain a degree of credibility. The conflict in Syria is hardly a comparative example.

So where, on the MJG sliding scale of man bites dog to World War III does reporting facts become secondary to sycophancy?

Which one? I work for several papers, some ad supported, some not. The ad supported ones usually perform better, as the advertisers need a reason to continue to bother paying for their ads.

I have nooo clue as to any of their subscription rates on a fluctuating monthly basis. As long as they keep paying me and I am happy with the work I produce for them and how I come to do so, that's good enough for me.

I repeat; without over-reliance on smileys, point out the flaws in Allan's article. You're just pissed he scooped you.

[Tony Dunkley]

Sour grapes.

 

it's a report on the risk assessments and method statements involved in volunteer lock keeping with a passing reference to the Fincher's incident using details in the public domain.

 

You, who call yourself a journalist, then diss him for not asking permission to retail this. The rest of the article seems well researched to me, especially in regard to the hastily and incompetently prepared document issued by Lee King.

 

I suppose you'll be moaning next that the BBC didn't ask IS permission before reporting on the recent events in Palmyra?

 

professional jealousy? or simple hypocrisy?

 

I agree wholeheartedly.

Those who have fallen over themselves in their haste to make a few cheap gibes at Allan should have taken the time to actually read and understand the contents of the NBW article first.

Edited October 29, 2015 by Tony Dunkley

[Starcoaster]

He didn't "scoop" me! I guarantee I know more about the incident than he does, but I have, and will continue to, hold off on writing a piece about it, as I was requested to.

I then went and got a completely different feature piece out of my initial enquiries, so I'm not even remotely bummed... This is by no means the first time I have held off on writing something out of respect for the wishes of those I would be writing about, and it won't be the last!

 

I've spent nearly four minutes of my life answering your leading baiting already tonight. Someone else can have a go with you now!

Edited October 29, 2015 by Starcoaster

[Alenafour]

He didn't "scoop" me! I guarantee I know more about the incident than he does, but I have, and will continue to, hold off on writing a piece about it, as I was requested to.

I then went and got a completely different feature piece out of my initial enquiries, so I'm not even remotely bummed... This is by no means the first time I have held off on writing something out of respect for the wishes of those I would be writing about, and it won't be the last!

 

I've spent nearly four minutes of my life answering your leading baiting already tonight. Someone else can have a go with you now.

You really don't get it do you? (why am I not surprised ) I'll try to explain simply; the article is not about your grandstanding chums.

[Guest]

So where, on the MJG sliding scale of man bites dog to World War III does reporting facts become secondary to sycophancy?

.

And you called my earlier post childish.

 

If you honestly can't work out the degree of simplicity in contacting the subject involved in this 'report' compared with contacting ISIS for a comment on their activities in the Middle East then you really need help.

 

Clue - it's not rocket science.

[cheshire~rose]

The rest of the article seems well researched to me,

 

 

 

Stop The Press!!!

 

Narowboat world article described as "well researched"

 

There is a first time for everything. I have to admit that I never dreamed that I would ever see that statement used to describe anything on that site.

 

I guess it takes all sorts to make the world go around. It is just a shame that some people can't show a little more respect when they write

[Alenafour]

 

Tony puts it very well; cheap jibes.

 

Stop The Press!!!

 

Narowboat world article described as "well researched"

 

There is a first time for everything. I have to admit that I never dreamed that I would ever see that statement used to describe anything on that site.

 

I guess it takes all sorts to make the world go around. It is just a shame that some people can't show a little more respect when they write

And what does this pathetic piece of content free sneer say? Why are you joining the bandwagon of people with fingers in their ears going 'nah nah nah' rather than paying attention to reports about real safety concerns.

 

....or do you think Alan Fincher is lying too?

[steven wilkinson]

This isn't going to end well!

[cheshire~rose]

Tony puts it very well; cheap jibes.

 

And what does this pathetic piece of content free sneer say? Why are you joining the bandwagon of people with fingers in their ears going 'nah nah nah' rather than paying attention to reports about real safety concerns.

 

....or do you think Alan Fincher is lying too?

I pay attention to articles that are well written and based on fact.

 

If I want to read something lightweight and based upon the imagination of it's writers I would choose The Beano.

 

I have not visited Narrowboat world for several years for the same reason as I choose not to read certain newspapers.

 

It is about personal choice. Sadly something that has not been afforded the Finchers in this instance but why let people's feelings get in the way of a good story (or post on the forum)

 

Clearly the content of your posts is based around insulting everyone who happens to disagree with you.

 

Good luck with that!

 

Good night

[Paul C]

The single massive flaw I can think of, is that he's traded any kind of respect/morals he might have had, for a story. The NBW site gains its page hits through sensationalism/curiousity rather than quality - typical of many of the lower quality newspapers. The format is somewhat out of date these days (its interactive but they closed their fo, rum, they pick and choose emails to publish which don't jar with their particular strand/tone of articles); in web forums such as CWDF the freedom of speech offered soon reveals bad/negative characters and openly allows them to be challenged, whilst allowing them a platform for their views, within an overall framework which is gernally considered to be fair.

 

I do commend NBW for being able to sustain a large audience and generate interest in both itself and some of its stories, an order of magnitude (or more) greater than other "blog" sites.

 

Also I believe its overstated that the publishing of a story will affect the outcome of a safety review/whatever - the kind of people who do these are somewhat immune to being swayed by titilation and focus on facts/evidence etc. I understand Alan would be upset about it though.

[Tony Dunkley]

This isn't going to end well!

 

It will probably end better than how things may turn out for the next victim(s) of C&RT's incompetent and ill-trained volunteer lock keepers.

Edited October 29, 2015 by Tony Dunkley

[Guest]

You really don't get it do you? (why am I not surprised ) I'll try to explain simply; the article is not about your grandstanding chums.

Assuming your rather pathetic reference to 'grandstanding chums' (you do love the G word don't you) is a reference to the Finchers I think they receive enough of a reference including a detailing of the sequence of events and verbal exchanges to warrant being contacted prior to 'publication'.

 

It's really quite commonly done in proper journalistic circles, but then as said no real surprise that it wasn't.