nb flamingo. The other side?

[Chewbacka]

If you accept that the report is a summary of the facts and statements without passing judgement - where there is a clear difference in story the report is not attempting to deceide 'who is most accurate' but accepts the difference.

If you look at the recomendations I feel that based upon the report they are reasonable in that

1) Make clear the length at the start of shorter locks - this is only a future discussion point and in this case I think it was clear to all involved that the boat was a tight fit as fenders had been lifted, however looking ahead it may be of benefit.

2) Lock risk assement, hang-ups and emergency activity. There is no mention of basic lock operation training here, as this is deemed as ok. That does not mean that the VLK followed the trained procedures.

If the VLK was not 'told more than once' by the boater to drop the paddle (I am not passing judgement) then the VLK should have noticed the hang-up and taken action, hence the need to reinforce the risk assesment within the VLK training.

3) Reinforce in the training that the boater is in charge and VLK must follow instructions. I think this is also an acceptance that the VLK may not have followed the boaters instructions (again I am not passing judgement as to what was said and what was heard) and this will be made very clear to all lock operators in the future.

4) The bolt caused an unforseen problem so fix it.

5) Historic boat operation - I am not sure why they think that only historic boats 'ride the gate' when going down, and why this was not forseen when they made the risk assesmsnt.

So apart from point 5, from what I have read in the CRT report I think the recommendations for moving forward are reasonable. But if people were looking for a 'who is to blame' then I can understand the frustrations.

[Allan(nb Albert)]

Alan F first posted about this incident to raise awareness; of lock issues and mainly of VLK issues. He has been proved right to do so on both counts (The VLK did act wrongly and the bolt in the lock was not correct). Since then, the incident has raised continuing speculation leading to personal accusations. Alan has my admiration for staying silent on this, sticking to his stated intent to do so.

 

CDS - Alan isn't public property. It's not for you to demand he answer your questions.

 

Starcoaster has it bang on with regards to the NBW article. The most likely consequence of this sort of reporting is that, in future, people won't share such experiences online, for fear of being picked apart.

Alan Fincher posted on here purporting to ask for advice then some time later chose not to post again until a meeting with CaRT had taken place. He then posted details of that meeting but the thread was locked preventing further discussion.

 

Quite simply, the matter of how VLK's and boaters respond to lock emergencies is a matter of importance to all boaters. Some of the information relating to the incident is now in the public domain and people are free to read it and comment.

[jenlyn]

 

Why can't you just respect Alan's wish not to make further comment?

Well, I've now had three people tell me that Alan is pm'ing them regarding this thread. So he is making further comment, but only very selectively.

 

To me, this particular incident is, or could have been a very serious one. The fact that the details on it have been "like getting blood from a stone" is worrying.

The continued "sorry old chap, need to know only" is also annoying, and very inconsiderate towards other boat owners.

[Graham.m]

Well, I've now had three people tell me that Alan is pm'ing them regarding this thread. So he is making further comment, but only very selectively.

 

To me, this particular incident is, or could have been a very serious one. The fact that the details on it have been "like getting blood from a stone" is worrying.

The continued "sorry old chap, need to know only" is also annoying, and very inconsiderate towards other boat owners.

 

Please could you name those three people who you allege that have been pm'ed by Alan regarding the thread as anyone could say a similar thing without it actually happening, no accusation but emotions have got high on this matter

[jenlyn]

 

Please could you name those three people who you allege that have been pm'ed by Alan regarding the thread as anyone could say a similar thing without it actually happening, no accusation but emotions have got high on this matter

Don't be ridiculous....

[RLWP]

 

Please could you name those three people who you allege that have been pm'ed by Alan regarding the thread as anyone could say a similar thing without it actually happening, no accusation but emotions have got high on this matter

 

What's has that got to do with any of us?

 

Richard

[CDS]

Well, I've now had three people tell me that Alan is pm'ing them regarding this thread. So he is making further comment, but only very selectively.

 

To me, this particular incident is, or could have been a very serious one. The fact that the details on it have been "like getting blood from a stone" is worrying.

The continued "sorry old chap, need to know only" is also annoying, and very inconsiderate towards other boat owners.

Agree with you 100%. Its gone a bit like the Freemasons.We are all here for a bit of constructive debate and comment

and Alan could add to that and frankly its a pity he hasn't.As far as respecting Alans wishes not to comment and demanding

he answer my questions,I haven't demanded anything but merely state some points that are of concern both to me and hopefully

some others.Is it better perhaps we concentrate on attacking Narrowboat World?

[Graham.m]

Don't be ridiculous....

 

Why is that ridiculous, you have stated publicly that this has happened and implied that Alan is doing something wrong. What difference is there between that and you demanding Alan answers your questions.

[Barry]

Don't be ridiculous....

 

Good Lord! I've actually given you a greenie

 

Or at least I think I have, given my current problems with them

[RLWP]

 

Why is that ridiculous, you have stated publicly that this has happened and implied that Alan is doing something wrong. What difference is there between that and you demanding Alan answers your questions.

 

Let's see

 

Steve Jenkin says 'I know of three people who Alan has had private conversations with'

 

You say 'who are they'

 

He provides three names

 

Then what? Do you believe him? Do those three people who had a private conversation with Alan have to confirm or deny it?

 

It suits Steve to take the moral high ground on this as it happens to embarrass Alan F.

 

Richard

[Graham.m]

 

Let's see

 

Steve Jenkin says 'I know of three people who Alan has had private conversations with'

 

You say 'who are they'

 

He provides three names

 

Then what? Do you believe him? Do those three people who had a private conversation with Alan have to confirm or deny it?

 

It suits Steve to take the moral high ground on this as it happens to embarrass Alan F.

 

Richard

 

I will leave you to decide whether had I had a private conversation with someone I would reveal it to another person and from that whether I believe it happened in this case.

[Tuscan]

Quite simply, the matter of how VLK's and boaters respond to lock emergencies is a matter of importance to all boaters. Some of the information relating to the incident is now in the public domain and people are free to read it and comment.

This surely is the point , there are now some 750 voluntary lock keepers all of whom have gone through the same training as the VLK at Hillmorton.

 

In this case we have an experienced crew (although he may not have known that) and he chose not to follow an instruction from them, and is being criticised accordingly. Let's assume the same thing happens to a hire boat on their locks out of Braunston they will see a man in a CRT uniform and again no doubt be guided by him - what happens then.

 

At the very least there should be an instruction to all VLKs that all paddles are dropped as soon as a problem is apparent.

[jenlyn]

 

Let's see

 

Steve Jenkin says 'I know of three people who Alan has had private conversations with'

 

You say 'who are they'

 

He provides three names

 

Then what? Do you believe him? Do those three people who had a private conversation with Alan have to confirm or deny it?

 

It suits Steve to take the moral high ground on this as it happens to embarrass Alan F.

 

Richard

I am not out to embarrass Alan f. I am however extremely annoyed that he is being very coy after initially seeking public support.

(don't attempt second guessing Richard, your not very good at it).

One other thing Richard, was it not jenlyn who made the post? I see no post on here from Steve jenkin?

Bear that in mind in future! (it makes you look as if your being spiteful)

Edited December 5, 2015 by jenlyn

[Graham.m]

This surely is the point , there are now some 750 voluntary lock keepers all of whom have gone through the same training as the VLK at Hillmorton.

 

In this case we have an experienced crew (although he may not have known that) and he chose not to follow an instruction from them, and is being criticised accordingly. Let's assume the same thing happens to a hire boat on their locks out of Braunston they will see a man in a CRT uniform and again no doubt be guided by him - what happens then.

 

At the very least there should be an instruction to all VLKs that all paddles are dropped as soon as a problem is apparent.

 

Is it possible they should have the words "volunteer" and here to "help" and possibly boater hirers need to reinforce to their hirers that VLKs are there to help and assist not control.

 

Sorry to me drop all paddles to me is the first thing to do if there is any problem in a lock, shoul;d be for VLKs as well

[CDS]

 

I will leave you to decide whether had I had a private conversation with someone I would reveal it to another person and from that whether I believe it happened in this case.

I can freely say that I sent Alan Fincher a personal message a few days ago and got no reply.

[Graham.m]

I am not out to embarrass Alan f. I am however extremely annoyed that he is being very coy after initially seeking public support.

(don't attempt second guessing Richard, your not very good at it).

 

I think you will find that Alan said all he could in the original thread, and has said all he can about the report in the second thread. The family have no more to say more, no reason to have their actions cross examined or for their actions to be probed any further. The family have been through a stressful time the report is out. I would suggest time leave them alone.

[Guest]

I can freely say that I sent Alan Fincher a personal message a few days ago and got no reply.

 

What does that tell you? Clue - he is being circumspect about he communicates with on this issue perhaps.

 

Given some of the clown like comments being made who can blame him?

[CDS]

I rather think some of us are basing our comments on what he has written now and in the past. Not 'the man'. Whether the thread was originally about a particular subject (journalistic stds.) or not it is inevitable that in this case they will come under scrutiny.

 

Unfortunately whatever you looked at 'last time' you can't dictate which direction a thread takes I'm afraid. Its a valid related discussion topic.

I disagree completely, its a witch hunt against narrowboatworld,he is guilty of sensationalist reporting at worst.

Respecting both Alan Fincher and your own positions can I sincerely and candidly ask for a straight yes or no

to the following,

Do you think like I do, that this thread would have been better with Alan Finchers participation?

Edited December 5, 2015 by CDS

[Guest]

I disagree completely, its a witch hunt against narrowboatworld,he is guilty of sensationalist reporting at worst.

Respecting both Alan Fincher and your own positions can I sincerely and candidly ask for a straight yes or no

to the following,

Do you think like I do, that this thread would have been better with Alan Finchers participation?

Firstly NBW have history for inept 'reporting' so lets not pretend this is some sort of isolated case.

 

Secondly whether the thread would have been better, more complete even with Alan's input, probably yes, but it changes nothing and I doubt you pressing him on the issue will change his mind so as I said earlier I suggest you respect his wishes.

 

and this-

 

\/ \/ \/

I think you will find that Alan said all he could in the original thread, and has said all he can about the report in the second thread. The family have no more to say more, no reason to have their actions cross examined or for their actions to be probed any further. The family have been through a stressful time the report is out. I would suggest time leave them alone.

Edited December 5, 2015 by MJG

[CDS]

 

What does that tell you? Clue - he is being circumspect about he communicates with on this issue perhaps.

 

Given some of the clown like comments being made who can blame him?

As is prerogative,sadly there are clowns on all forums,some may even include me in that grouping.

I hope you have deduced that all I want from this thread is what I have already highlighted,I have no

position to take nor axe to grind

[Guest]

As is prerogative,sadly there are clowns on all forums,some may even include me in that grouping.

I hope you have deduced that all I want from this thread is what I have already highlighted,I have no

position to take nor axe to grind

 

The proof of that of course is if you will respect his wishes. Alan has been reading this thread and presumably these last few posts while we have been typing/exchanging views and is still yet to join in so I guess that tells you all you/we need to know.

[CDS]

Firstly NBW have history for inept 'reporting' so lets not pretend this is some sort of isolated case.

 

Secondly whether the thread would have been better, more complete even with Alan's input, probably yes, but it changes nothing and I doubt you pressing him on the issue will change his mind so as I said earlier I suggest you respect his wishes.

 

and this-

 

\/ \/ \/

I am not an apologist for NBW,I am an avid reader so I view their content as I do this forums.

I am glad we agree on the value of Alans contribution,I am not pressing him on the issue but

simply saying to him what my questions are and through that trying to stimulate the thread.

I refuse to believe Alan Fincher would find me disrespectful as he knows I am an honest broker

so to speak.He like yourself has my respect,I hope I enjoy yours

Edited December 5, 2015 by CDS

[NilesMI]

 

I think you will find that Alan said all he could in the original thread, and has said all he can about the report in the second thread. The family have no more to say more, no reason to have their actions cross examined or for their actions to be probed any further. The family have been through a stressful time the report is out. I would suggest time leave them alone.

 

Exactly that.

[CDS]

 

I think you will find that Alan said all he could in the original thread, and has said all he can about the report in the second thread. The family have no more to say more, no reason to have their actions cross examined or for their actions to be probed any further. The family have been through a stressful time the report is out. I would suggest time leave them alone.

With respect Graham and I don't mean that in a derogatory fashion,I don't know how stressful Alan has found the process.

I like personally to see a bit of debate even argument and to be honest Alan is old school and therefore my respect for his thoughts

and opinions would be greater than perhaps for some other posters so perhaps that colours my position.We have seen the reports

and drawn our conclusions fair or otherwise,I was hoping for Alan to come back and say "well its in the public domain,and I think this"

Instead we have been made to feel discourteous and disrespectful for wanting Alan to participate,sometimes the issue is bigger than the

man and Alan has been through a process which we maybe all could learn something from.I believe Jenlyn alluded to that in an earlier post.

[Mike Todd]

My take on the report (and leaving aside the deplorable standards of sensationalist "reporting" from NBW);

 

The report is a blatant attempt to run from blame.

 

Effectively, they have attempted to bury the single pertinent part of the incident, namely that a failure on the part of their volunteer to behave properly came close to escalating a commonplace occurence into a major incident.

 

They can wriggle all they like about long boats and "working boat practices" (bull - I ride the forward gate and I'm not a working boat), in an effort to say that the main problem here was that a boat became snagged, without really acknowledging that had their VLK behaved properly, this would have remained a minor day to day inconvenience.

 

"If only our VLK hadn't been placed in a position of having to do the right thing in a crisis, he would never have got it wrong"

 

Mention of opening the top padles not being approved practice is silly in the extreme. The objective was to stop the water level falling further and then bring it back up. That is best achieved by going to the NEAREST paddle and opening or closing it as required.

 

If David Fincher was on board a 72' boat, he would have come out of the boat and been immediately adjacent to the head paddle, but 74' from the tail paddle (which was already manned). His actions were correct.

 

I would also note that whilst the name of the VLK has been redacted, the names of the Finchers have not. I woiuld suggest that they have a very good cause to complain about that.

There are two entries on NBW concerning this incident. I trust that you do not use the epithet 'sensational' about both of them - but then, why be balanced when imitation (ie of bias) is an easy option.