Jump to content

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

alan_fincher

By alan_fincher
in General Boating

 Share

Featured Posts

Lady Muck Veteran

Lady Muck

Posted
Posted

CRT don't employ someone to scour the internet, looking for grievances so that they can respond to them. As with other large organisations with a public profile, their only interest is in protecting themselves.

 

So... if they see something which in their view is malicious or defamatory, or which discloses personal or private details, or if any of their employees have disclosed something they think they shouldn't, they will take the necessary action to have the offending post(s) removed.

This is news to me.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Allan(nb Albert) Veteran

Allan(nb Albert)

Posted
Posted

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.

 

 

 

Exactly. The sole point of this second thread was for us to dissociate us from Allan Richards' article, because we feel it is written in a manner that might have suggested we approved of it being published at the time it was.

 

I knew from past experience that any attempt to contact Tom/"Victor" to get our position on the matter stated on the NBW site would be quite pointless.

I would respectfully suggest that nothing in my article was written in a manner which suggests that Alan Fincher and his family (I presume Alan is not using the 'Royal we') approved of its publication.

 

Indeed, I am having some difficulty understanding why, when Alan and his family have posted their experiences on this forum, he feels that his permission is needed to include his experiences in an article based largely on my own research.

 

On Alan's own admission, he has not received a response from CaRT to his 'incident report', although elsewhere he has suggested he is 'in discussion' with them.

 

I made a FOI request because I was not happy that Alan had received a response to his 'incident report' within a reasonable timescale. He was informed that I was doing this. I note that he has subsequently asked this forum what a reasonable timescales is.

 

CaRT delayed in responding to my request to the maximum amount allowed by law (again Alan was informed of progress). However, they did respond (at the eleventh hour) and the response was made available to Alan.

 

So where do we go from here?

 

I have already suggested that this is a matter for NAG to take up.

 

Would anyone suggest other avenues?

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
alan_fincher Veteran II

alan_fincher

Posted
  • Author
Posted

On Alan's own admission, he has not received a response from CaRT to his 'incident report', although elsewhere he has suggested he is 'in discussion' with them.

 

Where do you believe I have stated this, please?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Allan(nb Albert) Veteran

Allan(nb Albert)

Posted
Posted

What is NAG?

My apologies for assuming that boaters would know.

 

... and thanks MJG (immediately above) for providing a link.

 

Since CaRT's decision that it no longer wished to meet with National Boating Associations, NAG is the the main channel of communication between boaters an CaRT (at a national level).

Link to comment
Share on other sites
alan_fincher Veteran II

alan_fincher

Posted
  • Author
Posted

I made a FOI request because I was not happy that Alan had received a response to his 'incident report' within a reasonable timescale. He was informed that I was doing this. I note that he has subsequently asked this forum what a reasonable timescales is.

 

Again can you please clarify to what you are referring here?

 

What I suspect you mean is not that I asked the Forum, but I tried asking Edd Moss via the Forum how long he would expect CRT to need to respond. I did that because Edd Moss has chosen to post on the forum, but has never chosen to contact me directly.

 

I was disappointed he didn't give an answer, but suspect by then he probably felt there was quite a groundswell of opinion from other forum members unhappy that he was only to see the positive side of VLKs, but not to acknowledge quite a few people citing less positive experiences. For whatever reason, (and relying on my memory here), I believe he only made two posts in total in the thread concerned.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Allan(nb Albert) Veteran

Allan(nb Albert)

Posted
Posted

 

Where do you believe I have stated this, please?

No we have yet to receive CRT's response, unfortunately.

We have made it very clear to the South East Waterways manager, Vicky Martin, that this is unsatisfactory, and have been promised it is being expedited.

 

We will certainly not give up until a satisfactory response is received.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
alan_fincher Veteran II

alan_fincher

Posted
  • Author
Posted

 

 

Where do you believe I have stated this, please?

No we have yet to receive CRT's response, unfortunately.

We have made it very clear to the South East Waterways manager, Vicky Martin, that this is unsatisfactory, and have been promised it is being expedited.

 

We will certainly not give up until a satisfactory response is received.

 

 

 

I note you have decided to quote the second part there removing the date on which it was posted.

 

When did I post it? (Quicker for you to look than me, as you have already just found it!).

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Allan(nb Albert) Veteran

Allan(nb Albert)

Posted
Posted

 

I note you have decided to quote the second part there removing the date on which it was posted.

 

When did I post it? (Quicker for you to look than me, as you have already just found it!).

Sorry Alan you have lost me.

 

Its more than two months after you published details of a 'near miss' incident. You have not published details of CaRT's response. Indeed , a week ago you are on record as saying they have not responded!

 

This has not stopped you from attacking me for making a Freedom of Information Request because I was unhappy with the progress you were making.

 

My mission is to make locking safer for my family.

 

Is yours the same?

 

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • Popular Post
alan_fincher Veteran II

alan_fincher

Posted
  • Author
  • Popular Post
Posted

Allan,

 

You have just over an hour ago made a post where you explicitly state that we have not had a response from CRT.

 

You did not say that a week and a half ago, (which I note you have "rounded down" to "a week ago"), we have not had a response from CRT, so how would anybody else reading what you have written know you are using old information to support a current argument.

 

Everything I have said far done on this matter has stuck to fact rather than any guesswork, but you are now using an assumption to support your arguments, which I personally find unhelpful.



  • Greenie 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Tecka Contributor

Tecka

Posted
Posted (edited)
This has not stopped you from attacking me for making a Freedom of Information Request because I was unhappy with the progress you were making.

 

 

Although I know that the FOI request has been mentioned I think the main point of the thread (attack?) has been the use of personal information without permission. Irrespective of the legalities of it it is obvious from the thread that it is at best dubious morally.

 

I made a FOI request because I was not happy that Alan had received a response to his 'incident report' within a reasonable timescale. He was informed that I was doing this. I note that he has subsequently asked this forum what a reasonable timescales is.

 

 

Is it really your place to do so and then 'inform' the person who you are basing the request on. See my morally dubious point above.

 

he feels that his permission is needed to include his experiences in an article based largely on my own research.

 

 

Out of 10 sub headings in the article 3 are relaying the events of the 25/8, two of these subheadings include either Alan's boat name or his son's. The article is written in an inflammatory and finger pointing manner and seemingly concentrates on Risk Assessments (have you managed to dig out the proof that CaRT uses no other RA at Hillmorton yet?) and Method statements making no talk of cilling or hanging when imo the issue was only ever paddle discipline when the call to drop was made.

Edited by Tecka
  • Greenie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
nicknorman Veteran II

nicknormanDonate to Canal World

Posted
Posted

The newspapers, tv and radio news are full of stories which name people. In nearly all cases, permission to quote the names won't have been sought or received. Whether one likes that or not is a matter of personal opinion I suppose, but it would be a bit odd if the news couldn't mention the names of, say, our leading politicians without specific permission for each article.

 

I therefore disagree that the names of Alan and his family shouldn't have been used since, like it or not, it is "normal practice".

 

Whether it helps "the cause" or not is another matter and one which we don't at this stage know.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
mayalld Veteran II

mayalld

Posted
Posted

The newspapers, tv and radio news are full of stories which name people. In nearly all cases, permission to quote the names won't have been sought or received. Whether one likes that or not is a matter of personal opinion I suppose, but it would be a bit odd if the news couldn't mention the names of, say, our leading politicians without specific permission for each article.

 

I therefore disagree that the names of Alan and his family shouldn't have been used since, like it or not, it is "normal practice".

 

Whether it helps "the cause" or not is another matter and one which we don't at this stage know.

 

NBW isn't newspaper, tv or radio.

 

It is a blog, and a blog that does little more than hoover up what others have posted on the net, and recycle it as news.

  • Greenie 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share
Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.