March of the Widebeams

[Alan de Enfield]

1 minute ago, IanD said:

You didn't "prove your point" with the NT, for the reasons I noted above -- but I'm sure you'll ignore.

 

The Chesterfield Canal Trust is -- again, as you know -- *very* different financially and in size and structure to CART, and AFAIK that increase was almost entirely due to a few large legacies. Yet again, you're cherrypicking to try and make your point.

 

 

Find me an equivalent in size, income, expenditure and structure inland waterways charity.

 

You keep saying 'I believe' and 'AFAIK' which is useful get out - why don't you actually investigate and provide evidence of your claims ?

[peterboat]

2 hours ago, magnetman said:

Indeed. 

 

This might not be all about raising money. It might also be about trying to stem the flow of new build wide boats. At the end of the day there is a finite amount of moorable space. OK it would take a lot more boats to completely fill it all but it could be worth making people think twice about whether a boat is the right choice for them and slow down the market a bit to save problems later on. 

 

 

 

same goes for narrowboats they take up valuable mooring spaces as well

[IanD]

6 minutes ago, Alan de Enfield said:

 

 

Find me an equivalent in size, income, expenditure and structure inland waterways charity.

 

You keep saying 'I believe' and 'AFAIK' which is useful get out - why don't you actually investigate and provide evidence of your claims ?

 

I'm not making any claims, except saying that you haven't actually provided robust evidence to back *your* claims up -- which was that CART are rubbish, and made a big LOSS on charity income (now clarified), and that other charities did much better.

 

You claimed it, so you provide the data. Or are you finding that what you said wasn't actually correct (like the first post wasn't) so you're trying to divert from this by cherrypicking data and personal attack, as usual?

 

Unlike you, I say "I believe" and "AFAIK" to make it clear that what I'm saying is my opinion, not claiming it to be factual...

Edited April 14, 2023 by IanD

[Alan de Enfield]

42 minutes ago, IanD said:

Given what was happening with COVID and incomes in the years you quoted, do you really think CART can be blamed for this? I believe that most charities saw similar or bigger falls in income...

 

I see you have just amended your post demanding that I prove your point that other charities incomes fell in 2022.

 

maybe you have thought better of it.

 

If you believe your statement that 'most charities saw similar or bigger falls' then you find an equivalent charity and use facts to prove your 'belief'.

[IanD]

6 minutes ago, peterboat said:

same goes for narrowboats they take up valuable mooring spaces as well

And where mooring spaces are valuable (not where you are) they can (and do -- do you need me to send you loads of photos?) breast up, so twice as many fit in the same length.

 

As usual you're assuming that your case (wideboat in big empty Northern canal) is what matters, when it isn't -- the biggest widebeam problem (proliferation and double the space) is in the honeypots, and it's this that CART have to do something about.

 

I've said it many times, but if your license fee goes up as a result then that's unfortunate collateral damage -- like "good CCers" who may be punished for the sins of "bad CMers"... 😞

[David Mack]

17 minutes ago, MtB said:

 

 

The canal looks really nice from their website!  (The site itself is HORRID though. The webmaster obviously loves WordPress and all the irritating 'parallax' effects available with WP.)

 

They have a special higher priced "Platinum" licence for people using their boat "seven days a week", and some very reasonable CCing rules. Including CCers must still have a home mooring somewhere on the Bridgewater canal.

 

Prices are carefully concealed though. Probably WAY higher than CRT prices. 

 

Conditions of the Platinum license here. CRT should be having a careful read:

https://bridgewatercanal.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2022/09/Platinum-User-Conditions-September-22_final_PDF.pdf

 

 

 

That website has been revamped since I last looked.

Reciprocal licence arrangement applies for short term visiting CRT licence holders, to be booked via the CRT website. For long term licences you must declare a home mooring first, then you can request a licence application form and details of the licence fees!

[IanD]

13 minutes ago, Alan de Enfield said:

 

I see you have just amended your post demanding that I prove your point that other charities incomes fell in 2022.

 

maybe you have thought better of it.

 

If you believe your statement that 'most charities saw similar or bigger falls' then you find an equivalent charity and use facts to prove your 'belief'.

 

You made a statement about CART as if it was a fact, and I challenged that.

 

Selective editing again -- I said "I believe that most charities saw similar or bigger falls", and if you can provide robust evidence to the contrary I'll change my belief 🙂

 

You really don't seem to be able to get the hang of what I'm saying -- not that you're wrong or that I'm right, but that you claimed something (which was wrong, now corrected) that you haven't actually backed up, which is that CART did much worse than other (comparable) charities. I haven't claimed CART did better, you claimed they did worse -- so prove it, without cherrypicking.

 

If you provide that data, I'll happily agree with your premise that CART did a bad job. Until then it's just your usual CART badmouthing... 😉

Edited April 14, 2023 by IanD

[MtB]

2 minutes ago, David Mack said:

That website has been revamped since I last looked.

Reciprocal licence arrangement applies for short term visiting CRT licence holders, to be booked via the CRT website. For long term licences you must declare a home mooring first, then you can request a licence application form and details of the licence fees!

 

And a very reasonable position to take.

 

Discourages the canal from being over-run with unlimited numbers of riff-raff like wot happens on the CRT waterways, dunnit!

[Alan de Enfield]

9 minutes ago, IanD said:

 

You made a statement about CART as if it was a fact, and I challenged that.

 

Selective editing again -- I said "I believe that most charities saw similar or bigger falls", and if you can provide robust evidence to the contrary I'll change my belief 🙂

 

You really don't seem to be able to get the hang of what I'm saying -- not that you're wrong or that I'm right, but that you claimed something (which was wrong, now corrected) that you haven't actually backed up, which is that CART did much worse than other comparable charities. I haven't claimed CART did better, you claimed they did worse -- so prove it.

 

If you provide that data, I'll agree with your premise that CART did a bad job. Until then it's just your usual CART badmouthing... 😉

 

 

I intend this to be my last post on the subject.

 

It seems that your rules "you must prove your statements" only apply to others and not to your self.

 

Maybe in future I'll just say "I believe" which them absolves me of any responsibility (in your eyes) of having to prove my point.

 

I have provided evidence that a large charity increased its income in the same year that C&RTs fell.

I have provided evidence that a small charity in the same market as C&RT increased its income in the same year that C&RTs fell.

 

I believe that evidence has been provided that C&RT's income bucked the incomes for various charities in 2022.

 

If you disagree then you provide the evidence that your 'belief' is correct.

 

Put up or shut up !

Edited April 14, 2023 by Alan de Enfield

[IanD]

10 minutes ago, Alan de Enfield said:

 

 

I itend this to be my last post on the subject.

 

It seems that your rules "you must prove your statements" only apply to others and not to your self.

 

Maybe in future I'll just say "I believe" which them absolves me of any responsibility (in your eyes) of having to prove my point.

 

I have provided evidence that a large charity increased its income in the same year that C&RTs fell.

I have provided evidence that a small charity in the same market as C&RT increased its income in the same year that C&RTs fell.

 

I believe that evidence has been provided that C&RT's income bucked the incomes for various charities in 2022.

 

If you disagree than you provide that your 'beleif is correct.

 

Put up or shut up !

<sigh>

 

https://www.cafonline.org/about-us/publications/2022-publications/uk-giving-report

£11.3B in 2020 to £10.7B in 2021 -- a 6% decrease for all charities. Some will have done worse (e.g. CART, by 12% -- hardly a disaster), some will have done better (e.g. the ones you cherrypicked)

https://charitydigital.org.uk/topics/topics/the-status-of-uk-fundraising-2022-10492

According to the 2022 edition of the Status of UK Fundraising report, from software providers Blackbaud, charities in the UK have reported that their income has decreased for the third year in a row.  

The report, which is now in its fifth year, revealed that nearly a third of charities (32%) said their income had decreased in the last 12 months – though this was fewer than in 2021 when 40% of organisations said the same. 

 

You still seem unable to comprehend that I didn't say you were wrong (or that CART had done better than other charities), only that you made a (wrong/badly written) statement without backing it up.

 

It seems that CART did suffer a slightly bigger drop in income than average, which is probably not surprising given how they raise their charitable income compared to other charities. I'm sure that if you took all the charities some would have much bigger drops and some much bigger gains, none of which proves that they're rubbish at doing their job (your implication), just that they're affected differently by something like COVID and the lockdown.

 

Happy now? 🙂

Edited April 14, 2023 by IanD

[MtB]

5 minutes ago, Alan de Enfield said:

I intend this to be my last post on the subject.

 

 

Thank gawd for that.

 

 

 

[Momac]

3 hours ago, IanD said:

Why should a narrowboat the same "size" as a wideboat should pay 70% more?.. 😉

A narrowboat should pay the greatest fee

(i)Because a narrowboat has  access to greater length of canal.

(ii)Because ''length'' is the ''space'' it takes up when moored. All boats are moored most of the time. Therefore shorter wide beams  should be encouraged to result in space for more boats on any given length of mooring.

.

[Alan de Enfield]

22 minutes ago, IanD said:

<sigh>

 

https://www.cafonline.org/about-us/publications/2022-publications/uk-giving-report

£11.3B in 2020 to £10.7B in 2021 -- a 6% decrease for all charities. Some will have done worse (e.g. CART, by 12% -- hardly a disaster), some will have done better (e.g. the ones you cherrypicked)

https://charitydigital.org.uk/topics/topics/the-status-of-uk-fundraising-2022-10492

According to the 2022 edition of the Status of UK Fundraising report, from software providers Blackbaud, charities in the UK have reported that their income has decreased for the third year in a row.  

The report, which is now in its fifth year, revealed that nearly a third of charities (32%) said their income had decreased in the last 12 months – though this was fewer than in 2021 when 40% of organisations said the same. 

 

You still seem unable to comprehend that I didn't say you were wrong (or that CART had done better than other charities), only that you made a statement without backing it up.

 

It seems that CART did suffer a slightly bigger drop in income than average, which is probably not surprising given how they raise their charitable income compared to other charities. I'm sure that if you took all the charities some would have much bigger drops and some much bigger gains, none of which proves that they're rubbish at doing their job (your implication), just that they're affected differently by something like COVID and the lockdown.

 

Happy now? 🙂

 

 

You seem to have missed the point that C&RTs income FELL AFTER Covid and lockdowns when other Charities income increased.

 

 

Your links are irrelevant, the 1st link is for the year 2020/21,  but it is interesting to note that in 2021/22  77% of all charities achieved or exceeded their targets, and it was skills in fund raising that were cited as the main difficulty of the failing charities.

 

Your 'instruction' to me earlier in the thread was :

 

Please provide the figures then, for comparable charities

 

So I ask the same of you - providing the figures for the entire Charity 'market' is totally ridiculous, the charities for "Save the Children", "Sponsor a Tiger", or "Give £10 a month to provide water in Africa" are going to have a very different range of givers than C&RT- so - using your own request 

 

Please provide the figures for comparable charities !

Edited April 14, 2023 by Alan de Enfield

[IanD]

19 minutes ago, Alan de Enfield said:

 

 

You seem to have missed the point that C&RTs income FELL AFTER Covid and lockdowns when other Charities income increased.

 

 

Your links are irrelevant, the 1st link is for the year 2020/21,  but it is interesting to note that in 2021/22  77% of all charities achieved or exceeded their targets, and it was skills in fund raising that were cited as the main difficulty of the failing charities.

 

Your 'instruction' to me earlier in the thread was :

 

Please provide the figures then, for comparable charities

 

So I ask the same of you - providing the figures for the entire Charity 'market' is totally ridiculous, the charities for "Save the Children", "Sponsor a Tiger", or "Give £10 a month to provide water in Africa" are going to have a very different range of givers than C&RT- so - using your own request 

 

Please provide the figures for comparable charities !

 

I thought you'd made your last post on the subject?

 

You posted what was effectively an anti-CART rant (with CAPITALS, and errors), got pulled up on it, and didn't like that so you went on the attack.

 

CARTs income dropped more than the charity average, possibly with good reason but there's no proof of this. Either way it's not the disaster that your original post suggested -- and the number you gave (after correction) is 2% of CARTs annual income, as I pointed out.

 

Like blue signs and executive bonuses and management inefficiency, this simply isn't to blame for CARTs problem -- lack of funding from the government is. Without a big increase in this (or a *mahoosive* increase in license fees, like more than 100%...) there's very little CART can do to improve the situation of our canals, it's simply not in their control.

 

Do you really think this isn't the case and some change to the way CART is run can somehow wave a magic wand and conjure £100M out of thin air?

 

Maybe instead of perpetually blaming CART over irrelevancies you could suggest a way to fix this? 😉

 

Or do you not care since you're not on CART waters any more, you're just doing what Boris did at the Torygraph -- throwing bricks over the wall and enjoying the noise as they crash through someone's greenhouse?

 

(his words, when propagating lies about the EU)

Edited April 14, 2023 by IanD

[GUMPY]

32 minutes ago, MartynG said:

A narrowboat should pay the greatest fee

(i)Because a narrowboat has  access to greater length of canal.

(ii)Because ''length'' is the ''space'' it takes up when moored. All boats are moored most of the time. Therefore shorter wide beams  should be encouraged to result in space for more boats on any given length of mooring.

.

 57ft narrow boats should be charged the most decreasing for longer and shorter boats as 57ft have the largest possible range. 

  

[magnetman]

11 minutes ago, Loddon said:

 57ft narrow boats should be charged the most decreasing for longer and shorter boats as 57ft have the largest possible range. 

  

Where can a 57ft go where a 30ft can't?

 

[Momac]

13 minutes ago, Loddon said:

 57ft narrow boats should be charged the most decreasing for longer and shorter boats as 57ft have the largest possible range. 

  

Yes but mooring is were all boats in the water  are located most of the time. 

So length should be the main criteria for licensing as it was until not so long ago

Edited April 14, 2023 by MartynG

[magnetman]

maybe license related to boat value estimated by pro every 4 years would work. 5 percent of boat value as a yearly license fee.

[IanD]

4 minutes ago, magnetman said:

maybe license related to boat value estimated by pro every 4 years would work. 5 percent of boat value as a yearly license fee.

 

Already suggested (but 5% is a *massive* rise compared to today, might not be popular), already poo-poohed... 😞

 

Also suggested a boat-age-related surcharge/discount (e.g. +40% for new, -30% for 25yo+) but that got poo-poohed too.

 

Seems some people don't want any change that might mean they have to pay more, even if it's "fairer". Wonder why that is? 😉

Edited April 14, 2023 by IanD

[Momac]

 

 

1 minute ago, IanD said:

Seems some people don't want any change that might mean they have to pay more, even of it's "fairer". Wonder why? 😉

That's very obvious and perfectly understandable .

And exactly why the majority of boaters , being skinny boaters voted for the minority ( fat boaters ) to pay more.

 

[IanD]

2 minutes ago, MartynG said:

 

That's very obvious and perfectly understandable .

And exactly why the majority of boaters , being skinny boaters voted for the minority ( fat boaters ) to pay more.

 

 

That's what I was getting at... 😉

 

Though there is a strong case that wideboats have historically paid too little, which makes a bigger increase for them "fair" -- the fact that they're a small minority just means this will probably happen (like a CC surcharge), as opposed to boat cost/age surcharges... 🙂

Edited April 14, 2023 by IanD

[peterboat]

1 hour ago, MartynG said:

 

 

That's very obvious and perfectly understandable .

And exactly why the majority of boaters , being skinny boaters voted for the minority ( fat boaters ) to pay more.

 

It all depends whether the skinny boat owners did the consultation? Plenty wont have bothered whereas CCrs and fat boat owners had a real vested interest in the consultation

[IanD]

9 minutes ago, peterboat said:

It all depends whether the skinny boat owners did the consultation? Plenty wont have bothered whereas CCrs and fat boat owners had a real vested interest in the consultation

I think you're hoping in vain here, given that CCers and wideboat owners are outnumbered about 5:1 you'd need 100% turnout to win compared to 20% for narrowboat owners... 😉

[Momac]

26 minutes ago, peterboat said:

It all depends whether the skinny boat owners did the consultation? Plenty wont have bothered whereas CCrs and fat boat owners had a real vested interest in the consultation

The majority of boats on C&RT water are narrowboats so the results can only be in their favour .

The results of the consultation that led to the already implemented extra charges for wide-beams  speak for themselves.

[kris88]

6 hours ago, magnetman said:

This is the claim from parry

 

 

 

Do you think it is false? 

 

It appears to imply that money gained in this way will be used to the benefit of the canal system which I would assume means maintenance. Maybe not.

 

(screenshot from the parry letter on the fb wbag page)

 

Of course my assumption from the start was that the CRT was simply a stepping stone between public and private ownership. A vessel designed to founder followed by breaking it up and redistributing the valuable parts among the vultures. 

 

Then it WILL get expensive !! 

 

 

 

 

My argument about crt is we don’t really know what they spend their money on. Their is no transparency or oversight. In fact they got caught falsifying the accounts they gave to defra last year. So how can we believe what they say over money? But this idea that they are a poor organisation, when they have 1.1billion in assets and a turn over of 218million a year is just that an idea. 
there are small countries with worse accounts than that! So whilst I agree that it has got exspensive to maintain the waterways. Nescitating crt to increase their expenditure. 
Any input into that increase of expenditure from boaters  

should be shouldered evenly by all boaters and not placed unduly on a couple of sub categories of boaters. But I also think it should come with closer scrutiny and greater input by boaters as to what crt spends the money on. 

3 hours ago, IanD said:

 

That's what I was getting at... 😉

 

Though there is a strong case that wideboats have historically paid too little, which makes a bigger increase for them "fair" -- the fact that they're a small minority just means this will probably happen (like a CC surcharge), as opposed to boat cost/age surcharges... 🙂

Why have fat boats paid to little? Your inner bias is showing again. 

3 hours ago, magnetman said:

maybe license related to boat value estimated by pro every 4 years would work. 5 percent of boat value as a yearly license fee.

That’s a more promising idea. Maybe your not an agent provocateur? 

Edited April 14, 2023 by kris88