Jump to content

Interim Head of Boating announced


howardang

Featured Posts

New role for NE Waterway Manager

 

Howard

 

17 March 2017

 

CANAL & RIVER TRUST ANNOUNCES INTERIM HEAD OF BOATING

 

The Canal & River Trust has appointed North East waterway manager Jon Horsfall as the charity’s interim head of boating.

 

Jon will start an immediate handover with Mike Grimes who leaves at Easter.  Working alongside the boating management team, Jon will carry on the excellent progress being made right across the charity’s boating activity and will remain in the post throughout the ongoing review of licensing which is scheduled to last until the autumn.

 

Recruitment for a permanent head of boating will continue in the meantime, with the application date likely to be extended. 

 

Jon will continue to oversee the North East waterway, with Tom Wright and Mike Marshall taking a greater role in the management of the waterway whilst Jon is seconded into the boating team.

 

Ian Rogers, customer services and operations director at Canal & River Trust, said:  “I’m delighted Jon will be taking on the role.  He has a wealth of experience managing the waterways in the north east.  He’s well versed in working with boaters and understanding their needs and will bring a new perspective to the position, building on the great groundwork that Mike has put in place.”

 

ENDS

 

For further media requests please contact:

Fran Read, national press officer, Canal & River Trust

07796 610 427 fran.read@canalrivertrust.org.uk   

 

 

--------------------------------------------

Fran Read

National Press Officer

 

Edited by howardang
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Mike the Boilerman said:

Wasn't Mike Grimes only appointed to the role about ten minutes ago? I wonder why he packed it in so soon...

Two years, seemingly, but he's leaving without a job to go to, so must be pretty unhappy, I'd guess.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, BruceinSanity said:

Two years, seemingly, but he's leaving without a job to go to, so must be pretty unhappy, I'd guess.

 

Really?!!

Unlike Sally Ash, he certainly kept his head down during his tenure then didn't he? I've not heard or seen a peep out of him in the media, or ever mentioned on here in those two years.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 hours ago, matty40s said:

When he realised what a thankless task he had after downgrading boating to 4th in the pecking order of CRT 'S vision statement. 

Interesting answer, whether intended to be serious or tongue in cheek.

Not my take on it though.

In my own experience he was full of management speak, but low on any real content or action.  In cases I was in contact with him because I though he was the obvious contact as "head of boating", I seldom got replies to things I had fired at him directly. Nor did he acknowledge and delegate to someone else.

Whatever you thought of Sally Ash, (!), that would never have been the case.

I know there are people on here who know Mike from previous roles, and I think were quite enthusiastic about his CRT appointment.  Sadly I saw nothing in his time with CRT to think he was ever a good appointment.

Edited by alan_fincher
Crap typing from a phone, it seems.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, NigelMoore said:

Well he figures large as CaRT’s cardinal witness in the Ravenscroft case, so yes, he appears in at least one of the boring legal topics.

I realise that it is not unknown for retired employees to take the witness stand but what if he does not show up?

Also, is there any likelihood of a similar witness statement being produced by Jon Horsfall or somebody more senior at this late date?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 19/03/2017 at 13:59, rgreg said:

On the other hand, if the section 8 recipients made compliant boating THEIR priority C&RT could concentrate more time and money on the things we'd rather they did.

 

And if CRT stopped issuing Section 8s word would get around, and there would be a massive proliferation of non-moving boats staking out their very own 75ft of towpath.

It would be deja vu all over again.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Mike the Boilerman said:

 

And if CRT stopped issuing Section 8s word would get around, and there would be a massive proliferation of non-moving boats staking out their very own 75ft of towpath.

It would be deja vu all over again.

Wrong.

CaRT could use the method of prosecuting its bylaws, as the Scottish waterways have successfully done, without having to lie about its CCJ,' s being forever bans from a licence.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 19/03/2017 at 19:03, Muddy Ditch Rich said:

Wrong.

CaRT could use the method of prosecuting its bylaws, as the Scottish waterways have successfully done, without having to lie about its CCJ,' s being forever bans from a licence.

 

Why should CRT do that? Surely once the CMing boater have been handed down their derisory £100 fine by the county court, surely their boat will still be there obstructing the towpath. S.8 seems far more effective.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Mike the Boilerman said:

 

Why should CRT do that? Surely once the CMing boater have been handed down their derisory £100 fine by the county court, surely their boat will still be there obstructing the towpath. S.8 seems far more effective.

£100 for a couple of months mooring, and then another couple of months before they get around to getting court action again, makes it cheaper than winter moorings.- Good value really, cannot understand why more don't do it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 19/03/2017 at 20:49, Alan de Enfield said:

£100 for a couple of months mooring, and then another couple of months before they get around to getting court action again, makes it cheaper than winter moorings.- Good value really, cannot understand why more don't do it.

 

This is of course why OnionBargee, oops I mean Muddy Ditch Rich (silly me for mixing them up) wants CRT to use the byelaws instead of S.8. 

Edited by Mike the Boilerman
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have no problems with s8 if they used them for there propper use.

E.g an abandoned boat or sunk boat that they arnt able to get moved by finding contacting an owner.

Not youve not moved were taking your licance, oh youve no licance were s8 you and going to remove you. Or your causing trouble were going to force you to doing things and then remove your boat for not following all our made up rules using s8.

But thats my pov

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To billybobbooth

So what action do you think CRT should take against those who point blank refuse to move?

You haven't explained how taking them to county court and fining them trivial amounts will have any effect.

Or do you think CRT should tolerate us all staking out our own personal bit of permanent towpath and just paying the fines?

Edited by Mike the Boilerman
Link to comment
Share on other sites

They could quite easly use the same powers councils do to move people on.

I accept that something must be done but if moorings werent silly prices they may find more people would pay for a mooring.

A s8 tends to cost way more in costs and effort than issuing a high fine for the cost of a permanent mooring if they dont pay push it threw the courts then to high court and have the money recovered by court recoverers. Its costs far less for crt than to remove there licance then s8 them then co threw lengthy removal costs.

If you do it properly and threw the courts if any sesure is done its the courts doing it not crt keeps crt out of halms way gets them there money for the mooring they would have charged if the owner pays up crt just put it down as the owner has a permanent mooring. In cases like this if the boats licance is then due they then can refuse the licance untill there happy, if not again they can then push the case for s8 unless the people move to an acceptable mooring place and pay if not then put it threw the courts for proper removal or forced move and payment of mooring and licance,

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The court enforcment officers are then aloud to force payment, most people will suddenly find the £2k fee than be forced with legal removal.

+ court costs are far cheaper for recovery than them being taken to court for unfair illegal removal.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, billybobbooth said:

They could quite easly use the same powers councils do to move people on.

I accept that something must be done but if moorings werent silly prices they may find more people would pay for a mooring.

A s8 tends to cost way more in costs and effort than issuing a high fine for the cost of a permanent mooring if they dont pay push it threw the courts then to high court and have the money recovered by court recoverers. Its costs far less for crt than to remove there licance then s8 them then co threw lengthy removal costs.

If you do it properly and threw the courts if any sesure is done its the courts doing it not crt keeps crt out of halms way gets them there money for the mooring they would have charged if the owner pays up crt just put it down as the owner has a permanent mooring. In cases like this if the boats licance is then due they then can refuse the licance untill there happy, if not again they can then push the case for s8 unless the people move to an acceptable mooring place and pay if not then put it threw the courts for proper removal or forced move and payment of mooring and licance,

To which powers do you refer? Councils may have the power to move tenants 'on', but not to move them 'off' altogether, which is the issue Mike (tB) was addressing.   

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You can use the same powers to move boaters on as they can be classed as travellers.

Even to move them on if crt go threw the courts for claiming costs for a mooring for a few £100 is better than the £1000s+ for section 8ing and then being taken to court them selfs by the time the boat owner gets a bailiffs or courts involved they will soon move on. If i know a court was on its way and was collecting 3k that day i would soon move! They can still then persue them and the owner would have a ccj against them. S8 powers arent ment for moving people on.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • 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.