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

[Athy]

The problem with displaying dirty washing in public is that it has a nasty habit of biting us back on the bum.

 

 

That is the most splendid mixed metaphor. Even Ronald Reagan at his peak would have been hard pressed to come up with a better one.

[bassplayer]

That is the most splendid mixed metaphor. Even Ronald Reagan at his peak would have been hard pressed to come up with a better one.

Why...thank you.

[Seti-Yeti]

Safety is EVERYONES concern and responsibility.

[tidal]

That is the most splendid mixed metaphor. Even Ronald Reagan at his peak would have been hard pressed to come up with a better one.

I dunno

Someone may taken the opportunity to fiddle with the knicker elastic

[billS]

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.

If the job title was changed to Volunteer Lock Assistant, rather than keeper it would help to remove these ambiguities. It is a more accurate description of their role. As far as I am aware, they do not "keep" the look in any meaningful sense, and they are there to assist.

[Guest]

If the job title was changed to Volunteer Lock Assistant, rather than keeper it would help to remove these ambiguities. It is a more accurate description of their role. As far as I am aware, they do not "keep" the look in any meaningful sense, and they are there to assist.

 

I suspect 'keeper' is used as a recruitment thing.

 

Lock keeper rather than lock assistant has a bit more 'kudos' about it. (in the eyes of some at least)

Edited November 2, 2015 by MJG

[Athy]

 

I suspect 'keeper' is used as a recruitment thing.

 

Lock keeper rather than lock assistant has a bit more 'kudos' about it. (in the eyes of some at least)

Aye, it has a trad ring to it, like "station master".

[RichardN]

 

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.

 

Bad day?

 

When we go through a lock no one touches a paddle without approval from the Helm. I could go on and explain more but I am sure it is all common ground. It was plain wrong for someone to ignore the call to drop a paddle when a boat was hung up. I am glad that Alan is raising the issue with CRT and I hope they look at what lessons can and should be learnt. I am sure that is also common ground.

 

You may not want Volunteers to help you, fine that is your choice but this works both ways - don't foist your wishes on others, don't stop others from getting that help if they want it. A good example is the Wigan flight. We did Wigan by ourselves in August on a day that just one boat was coming up, I really enjoyed the flight and the workout but that is not for everyone. When needed the volunteers at Wigan do a sterling job, I see they are being recommended in another thread and I think that is the right thing to do. I loved it last year when we went through Old Ford Lock (the one with the swing open gates) and it just happened to be volunteer day there, fantastic, great help. I could go on but I think two examples is more then enough.

[valrene9600]

 

 

 

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)

I wonder if that is drummed into the VLK when trained.

[Barry]

 

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.

 

Precisely.

 

NBW is not a newspaper. Not even an online newspaper. They are not "The Press". They have no professional ethics since they are simply amateurs stating opinions on an internet blog - despite all attempts to make themselves seem otherwise NBW is nothing but a blog masquerading as a newspaper. It is an affectation - nothing more.

 

Thus the man who wrote the article (NB Albert) has no right to make assumptions about what Alan Fincher should, or should not have done. He has no right to decide what is satisfactory progress in any negotiations between AF and CRT and thus has no right to attempt to step in and take over.

 

Most of all Allan (NB Albert) has no right to to refer to what he wrote as "an article", making himself out to be a campaigning reporter of some sort. Since all he is doing is stating an opinion on someone else's blog.

 

NB Albert has the right to state his opinion in any way he likes of course. No one can deny that, but he and his co-contributers to NBW misunderstand and misrepresent their rights and powers to the point of self aggrandisement.

 

To my mind NBW does more harm than good since people actually begin to believe that it is an actual newspaper. Thus it gains credibility where none is due ( as evidenced by the way some people have referred to it in this thread particularly) and plainly the owner of and contributers to the blog begin to believe their own press.

 

 

Plus most of what is written on NBW is utter shite (in my opinion)

[Starcoaster]

I think that calls for a greenie! Purely out of professional jealousy, you understand.

[mark99]

Was there not some-one recently who opened paddles without risk assessing the situation?

 

Clue

 

http://www.google.co.uk/imgres?imgurl=http://i.ytimg.com/vi/70bjyzO2mmU/maxresdefault.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v%3D70bjyzO2mmU&h=720&w=1280&tbnid=lyz1df8WkqwO4M:&tbnh=112&tbnw=199&usg=__Ul0KuI_5Aevy0DiE147XYvJNU_Q=&docid=gHDL8NRHU-_NKM&itg=1

Edited November 2, 2015 by mark99

[MtB]

Five greenies in fifteen minutes!!

 

Barry (name change eh?) has hit the nail very squarely right on the head. Firmly.

[Ray T]

I think that calls for a greenie! Purely out of professional jealousy, you understand.

 

Starry that comes close to rivaling your missive about NBW, of a few years ago.

[Barry]

Five greenies in fifteen minutes!!

 

Barry (name change eh?) has hit the nail very squarely right on the head. Firmly.

 

Yes, name change a little while ago. 'Tis I, Bazza2 as was. As evidenced by my permanently shiny helmet in my avatar.

 

Sometimes, just sometimes, a person has to say what is on his mind

[RLWP]

Yes, name change a little while ago. 'Tis I, Bazza2 as was. As evidenced by my permanently shiny helmet in my avatar.

 

Sometimes, just sometimes, a person has to say what is on his mind

I wish it hadn't been about your shiny helmet...

 

Richard

[Barry]

What!.......Oh I see

[Allan(nb Albert)]

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

Whilst I would agree that the situation was made worse by the VLK's failure to act it is wrong to suggest that because a lock keeper was there and 'in charge' a variation to the general lock RA was needed.

 

S.E. Region and some other Regions have produced their own RA's. Others are content to use the General RA for locking.

 

As I have pointed out before,the absence of hang-ups being identified as a hazard in S.E. Regions RA means that there is a high probability that training is deficient in this area.

[MtB]

As I have pointed out before,the absence of hang-ups being identified as a hazard in S.E. Regions RA means that there is a high probability that training is deficient in this area.

 

 

Refusal of a VLK to act on an emergency request to "DROP THE PADDLES" illustrated that in the first place, surely?

[Allan(nb Albert)]

 

 

Refusal of a VLK to act on an emergency request to "DROP THE PADDLES" illustrated that in the first place, surely?

Refusal of the VLK to act on the request indicates that his training was deficient or possibly that he was unsuitable for the role (in which case he should have been rejected during the selection process).

 

However, with some Regions including S.E. having RA's and method statements that are deficient it is a strong indicator that many VLK's are not trained properly to deal with this type of emergency.

[Tecka]

However, with some Regions including S.E. having RA's and method statements that are deficient it is a strong indicator that many VLK's are not trained properly to deal with this type of emergency.

 

 

Allan, I have asked many times for the proof of your belief that CaRT use only the VLK lock keepers assessment in these areas. Have they specifically told you that this is the only risk assessment?

 

If this is the case what on earth is used when the VLK are not in attendance?

 

By your own admission the Method Statement does include the risk of cilling and hanging but your anger seems to be it's not mentioned in the summary. I put it to you that being section 11 of the main text the risk is covered. The summary section is there to summarise - not to rehash everything in the document.

 

No one here is saying that the VLK was right in this instance. Mostly what I'm seeing on this thread are people genuinely trying to look at an issue and learn from it without indiscriminately bashing either CaRT or the VLK themselves. You appear to be trying to do as much as possible to put blame onto the VLK and therefore CaRT. I wonder why CaRT aren't very forthcoming when you try to liaise with them?

[alan_fincher]

He is at it again.

 

New Freedom of Information Act Request Link

 

It goes without saying, I'm sure that Allan Richards has not discussed raising this FOIA request with us, and is once again purely acting alone in the matter.

[Alan de Enfield]

 

 

If this is the case what on earth is used when the VLK are not in attendance?

 

 

 

Is the RA a risk assessment for the 'lock', for the 'boat in the lock' or for the 'lock keeper' (voluntary or otherwise) ?

I would suggest that these would result in 3 totally different RA's.

 

Just examples :

For the Lock - Boat hitting and damaging bottom gates.

For the boat - Getting hung-up on a projecting bolt.

For the VLK - Slipping and falling in the lock

 

If the RA is a RA on behalf of the VLK then there is no risk when he is not in attendance.

Edited November 3, 2015 by Alan de Enfield

[Alan de Enfield]

He is at it again.

 

New Freedom of Information Act Request Link

 

It goes without saying, I'm sure that Allan Richards has not discussed raising this FOIA request with us, and is once again purely acting alone in the matter.

 

 

Apart from almost requiring a 'personal researcher' funded by us licence holders - I don't see any problem with the question as asked.

[nicknorman]

However I think the question could be better phrased, it is too vague.