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

[Tuscan]

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.

Same as much of the press in this country I would suggest.

[jenlyn]

 

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.

And more often than not, using a cr@p Hoover.

(some Hoover's just don't pick everything up)

[Graham.m]

I think CRT must be very happy about this thread, people darting off at various angles and arguing about this and that and ignoring the main and most important point.

 

That a Volockie failed to act and do what h/she was told to do "drop the paddle" to avert what was becoming a dangerous problem with a boat in Hillmorton locks.

 

The more people argue about ancillaries the more the water is muddied and the prime Volockie problem disappears from public view and that makes, I would suggest, CRT very happy.

[mayalld]

I think CRT must be very happy about this thread, people darting off at various angles and arguing about this and that and ignoring the main and most important point.

 

That a Volockie failed to act and do what h/she was told to do "drop the paddle" to avert what was becoming a dangerous problem with a boat in Hillmorton locks.

 

The more people argue about ancillaries the more the water is muddied and the prime Volockie problem disappears from public view and that makes, I would suggest, CRT very happy.

 

I don't think that the issue has vanished from view at all.

[Graham.m]

 

I don't think that the issue has vanished from view at all.

 

You like me are entitled to your opinion, but I would suggest that all the niggling puts the public and CRT off reading the important stuff.

 

Ed spelling

Edited November 2, 2015 by Graham.m

[RichardN]

 

I'm sorry but that's just an extraordinarily cheap shot.

Agree

 

The risk assessment covers what it should, they are effectively putting a volunteer to work so need to assess the risks they face. I am amazed that such a simple concept should generate so much noise.

 

Hopefully Alan's point is about the next stage, what they do once they are at work. Putting it on the forum with hindsight may not have been wise as it becomes fair game for another waste of money FOI (how many lock gates is that now?).

 

Perhaps I don't read this forum enough nowadays but I get the impression of a general knocking of volunteers and volunteer lockies on cwf. Very silly, most people I have met have been appreciative of them and some eg those who have just been helped up Wigan think they are invaluable. This year I have not seen many volunteers mainly because of where we have been, saw more last year, but I think it is a great concept which will only be improved by Alan's quiet negotiations.

[jenlyn]

Agree

 

The risk assessment covers what it should, they are effectively putting a volunteer to work so need to assess the risks they face. I am amazed that such a simple concept should generate so much noise.

 

Hopefully Alan's point is about the next stage, what they do once they are at work. Putting it on the forum with hindsight may not have been wise as it becomes fair game for another waste of money FOI (how many lock gates is that now?).

 

Perhaps I don't read this forum enough nowadays but I get the impression of a general knocking of volunteers and volunteer lockies on cwf. Very silly, most people I have met have been appreciative of them and some eg those who have just been helped up Wigan think they are invaluable. This year I have not seen many volunteers mainly because of where we have been, saw more last year, but I think it is a great concept which will only be improved by Alan's quiet negotiations.

My experience of working with the trust has me believing "quiet negotiations" with the trust are an utter waste of time and energy.

Richard parry is a publicity driver. He relies on it, hence the Twitter, Facebook, duck highway campaigns etc.

He responds to positive-negative publicity.

Alan Fincher will get nowhere on this particular campaign. Something like this needs to be out in the open, where many can help and give support.

 

This Alan Fincher attitude has been seen before, most recently with the south east boating group. "Go it alone Alan" does not, and will not ever work.

An opportunity to have this issue addressed by two people (allan Richards and Alan fincher) working together has been missed, and in my view is now falling into the basket of ridicule.

[RLWP]

Good argument - a man nearly gets his boat sunk so preach about how he isn't complaining properly

 

Nice one Steve

 

Richard

[jenlyn]

Good argument - a man nearly gets his boat sunk so preach about how he isn't complaining properly

 

Nice one Steve

 

Richard

Yep.

[Alan de Enfield]

 

Agree

 

The risk assessment covers what it should, they are effectively putting a volunteer to work so need to assess the risks they face.

 

 

Surely the Risk assessment should also cover the risks associated with their actions (or lack of actions).

 

Someone cutting down a tree does not just evaluate the risk they will be under, but considers which way the tree will fall, will it hit anyone else, any building etc.

A RA should not be just about the operators personal 'risks' ( wear a lifejacket, avoid finger / toe crushing etc)

 

[mayalld]

 

Perhaps I don't read this forum enough nowadays but I get the impression of a general knocking of volunteers and volunteer lockies on cwf. Very silly, most people I have met have been appreciative of them and some eg those who have just been helped up Wigan think they are invaluable. This year I have not seen many volunteers mainly because of where we have been, saw more last year, but I think it is a great concept which will only be improved by Alan's quiet negotiations.

 

Perhaps that is more telling as to the company you keep than what "most" people think of VLKs

 

In any case, what most people think of VLKs is utterly irrelevant.

 

For so long as ANY people have a preference NOT to place the safety of their property in the hands of a VLK, it is paramount that CRT ensure that;

 

• VLKs never do anything unless they have sought permission first
• VLKs who have been given permission to help are 100% clear that they are NEVER in charge,must always obey instructions from the skipper, and must always accept without question a directive to stop a lock operation no patter who issues it.

I do not wish anybody whose skills I know nothing of to interfere when I am in a lock. If you want that, good for you, but don't imagine that your wishes should be foisted on me.

[Allan(nb Albert)]

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.

As you say, it is not "normal practice" to contact those named it an article for permission.

 

With regard to helping 'the cause', as previously stated, I hope that NAG will take up the wider issues of VLK training and responsibilities on behalf of all boaters.

 

I would suggest to Alan that, if he is unhappy with the way that CaRT are handling his 'incident report', then he should make a formal complaint detailing what actions he requires to resolve the matter to the satisfaction of his family.

 

 

 

Edited November 2, 2015 by Allan(nb Albert)

[mayalld]

As you say, it is not "normal practice" to contact those named it an article for permission.

 

With regard to helping 'the cause', as previously stated, I hope that NAG will take up the wider issues of VLK training and responsibilities on behalf of all boaters.

 

I would suggest to Alan that, if he is unhappy with the way that CaRT are handling his 'incident report', then he should make a formal complaint detailing what actions he requires to resolve the matter to the satisfaction of his family.

 

 

 

 

It is normal practice to INFORM and to ask for comment.

 

At least if Alan is unhappy about CRT he can raise a formal complaint.

 

Unlike being unhappy with Tom's blog.

[Graham.m]

 

I would suggest to Alan that, if he is unhappy with the way that CaRT are handling his 'incident report', then he should make a formal complaint detailing what actions he requires to resolve the matter to the satisfaction of his family.

 

 

I would agree, and personally I would email that complaint to Richard Parry. If Allan does not have his email PM me and I will let him have the one I have.

[Allan(nb Albert)]

 

It is normal practice to INFORM and to ask for comment.

 

At least if Alan is unhappy about CRT he can raise a formal complaint.

 

Unlike being unhappy with Tom's blog.

Alan had the opportunity of commenting on CaRT's response to my request for information.

 

He did not do so.

[Allan(nb Albert)]

 

I would agree, and personally I would email that complaint to Richard Parry. If Allan does not have his email PM me and I will let him have the one I have.

CaRT's complaints procedure is formal. As such any complaint should be forwarded to the address specified on CaRT's website. However, there is no reason why the complaint should not be copied to Richard Parry and others.

 

If Alan had taken the opportunity to make a complaint at the time of the incident, then the matter would have been resolved to his satisfaction by now of would be under investigation by the Waterways Ombudsman.

[mayalld]

Alan had the opportunity of commenting on CaRT's response to my request for information.

 

He did not do so.

 

So, it is up to Alan to do the legwork of following what you are doing and commenting on that, so that you can pick it up there.

 

Priceless, and amateurish.

 

If you are writing an article and mentioning an incident where somebody may be identified, it is up to you to;

• Tell them explicitly that you will be doing so
• Invite them to comment

You failed to do either, because despite Tom's delusions of adequacy, it's just a vanity blog.

[alan_fincher]

If Alan had taken the opportunity to make a complaint at the time of the incident, then the matter would have been resolved to his satisfaction by now of would be under investigation by the Waterways Ombudsman.

 

Are you suggesting that everybody who submits a formal incident report to CRT should also submit a formal complaint at the same time, in case they may not get eventually a satisfactory outcome from the former?

 

We followed the formal incident logging procedure which seemed to us the correct thing to do at the time.

 

Personally I would hope to only have to go to a formal complaint if all other reasonable avenues have been exhausted.

[jenlyn]

Alan had the opportunity of commenting on CaRT's response to my request for information.

 

He did not do so.

That is a pathetic statement.

[Tecka]

Surely the Risk assessment should also cover the risks associated with their actions (or lack of actions).

Someone cutting down a tree does not just evaluate the risk they will be under, but considers which way the tree will fall, will it hit anyone else, any building etc.

A RA should not be just about the operators personal 'risks' ( wear a lifejacket, avoid finger / toe crushing etc)

 

 

Not in this case. The lock is used whether VLK are there or not so that portion of activity is already risk assessed.

 

The way I see it, and unless Allan can provide evidence to the contrary (asked for 3 times now) There are method statements for locking, RA for locking and then when there is a VLK present an additional RA to prove that CaRT has thought about the risks to them. This document states in one section that the VLK is there to advise, guide and assist which is what we all want to be the case.

[Alan de Enfield]

 

Not in this case. The lock is used whether VLK are there or not so that portion of activity is already risk assessed.

 

 

 

In this case (however) the situation was made worse by the VLK's refusal to act - had the VLK not been there the paddles would have been dropped quicker and much of the potential danger removed.

 

It is solely the fact that they VLK was there and 'in charge' that necessitated a variation to the 'standard' lock RA

[MtB]

 

The way I see it, and unless Allan can provide evidence to the contrary (asked for 3 times now) There are method statements for locking, RA for locking and then when there is a VLK present an additional RA to prove that CaRT has thought about the risks to them. This document states in one section that the VLK is there to advise, guide and assist which is what we all want to be the case.

 

 

In which case what we really want to be the case is already in place.

 

The problem as I see it is a VLK refusing to accept instruction from a boater, considering he is in charge not the boater. Consequently it's either the training they get failing to cover the 'who is in charge at a lock' issue, or an ego problem on the part of the VLK, rather than inadequately written RAs.

Edited November 2, 2015 by Mike the Boilerman

[ditchcrawler]

I think one point every one can learn from in this thread is that if you put anything on the internet don't be surprised if it appears somewhere else. If you want it kept private dont post on a public forum, only share with trusted friends.

[Allan(nb Albert)]

 

Are you suggesting that everybody who submits a formal incident report to CRT should also submit a formal complaint at the same time, in case they may not get eventually a satisfactory outcome from the former?

 

We followed the formal incident logging procedure which seemed to us the correct thing to do at the time.

 

Personally I would hope to only have to go to a formal complaint if all other reasonable avenues have been exhausted.

No I am not suggesting that everybody who submits an incident report also makes a complaint.

 

An incident report simply informs CaRT of an incident. There is no particular duty on CaRT to investigate and respond within a particular timescale.

 

If you believed that the VLK acted a manner that put your boat and crew at risk or that the projection that your boat hung up should not have been there, then you should have made a formal complaint saying what action you required CaRT to take. That way you would have a response within 20 working days.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Tecka]

In which case what we really want to be the case is already in place.

The problem as I see it is a VLK refusing to accept instruction from a boater, considering he is in charge not the boater. Consequently it's either the training they get failing to cover the 'who is in charge at a lock' issue, or an ego problem on the part of the VLK, rather than inadequately written RAs.

 

 

Exactly, the RA and Method Statement stuff is a distraction.

 

It doesn't actually matter whether the VLK can recognise or deal with a cilled / hung boat so long as everyone operating a paddle knows that if anyone shouts to drop the paddle it should be adhered to (including if a VLK shouts it)