CRT Council

[alan_fincher]

With very very few exceptions all the views I've heard on this forum are very parochial. The members of this forum who speak with authority in the 'real' world (of the canals) are few and not represented in the candidates so far (after Magpie Patrick stood down)

The issue then I guess for you is that despite a thread where people are able to express names they would like to see stand, and another where people indicate their willingness, no name has emerged that fits your bill, (so far at least).

 

So, if you think perhaps that you do, show you conviction, and throw your own name in.

 

I think it has been agreed that a choice of up to four names known to the forum would be no bad thing, and as far as I know so far we do not have four who have indicated a willingness to stand.

 

Perhaps the number of days boating a year should be a factor?

 

It has always seemed strange that BW's Head of Boating doesn't have any experience of boats or boating or navigational nuances.

I can offer you year to date (2011) about 90 days actually boating, and about 1,200 miles covered on about 15 to 20 distinct waterways, depending a bit on how you choose to define that.

 

That probably way outstrips an awful lot of forum members, including most full time live-aboards.

 

So on the one hand I do a lot of boating, but on the other I am apparently too parochial and still speak with little authority on the "real" world of canals.

 

So clearly you are looking for more than "number of days boating", and I would be very interested to know what a prospective candidate needs to demonstrate to you.

 

I'm not expecting to win your vote, Chris, but would be genuinely interested to hear you explain your points more fully. Could any two people on here completely agree a definition of "the real world of canals" anyway ?

[David Schweizer]

I have heard many of you deal him with worst! So don't preach to me. I have stated my reasons for not giving him my vote, so stop trying to twist it!

I challenge you to find one insult posted by myself towards Dave Mayall, or indeed anyone else for that matter.

[Chris Pink]

The issue then I guess for you is that despite a thread where people are able to express names they would like to see stand, and another where people indicate their willingness, no name has emerged that fits your bill, (so far at least).

 

So, if you think perhaps that you do, show you conviction, and throw your own name in.

 

I think it has been agreed that a choice of up to four names known to the forum would be no bad thing, and as far as I know so far we do not have four who have indicated a willingness to stand.

 

 

I can offer you year to date (2011) about 90 days actually boating, and about 1,200 miles covered on about 15 to 20 distinct waterways, depending a bit on how you choose to define that.

 

That probably way outstrips an awful lot of forum members, including most full time live-aboards.

 

So on the one hand I do a lot of boating, but on the other I am apparently too parochial and still speak with little authority on the "real" world of canals.

 

So clearly you are looking for more than "number of days boating", and I would be very interested to know what a prospective candidate needs to demonstrate to you.

 

I'm not expecting to win your vote, Chris, but would be genuinely interested to hear you explain your points more fully. Could any two people on here completely agree a definition of "the real world of canals" anyway ?

 

If that's the combatative way you're going to respond to anything you perceive as criticism then you are not very well equipped for the working environment of a committee.

 

Besides this is Dave's thread, get your own soapbox.

 

eta; and then I'll answer your questions.

Edited December 14, 2011 by Chris Pink

[fuzzyduck]

Besides this is Dave's thread, get your own soapbox.

 

Agreed. I want to ask you where you stand on the Rosie and jim question.

[WotEver]

Agreed. I want to ask you where you stand on the Rosie and jim question.

I believe you should only have one of each.

[bizzard]

I challenge you to find one insult posted by myself towards Dave Mayall, or indeed anyone else for that matter.

David,you called my Cleo Avatar hideous!!!.

[WotEver]

David,you called my Cleo Avatar hideous!!!.

Yeah, but that was simply stating a fact

[alan_fincher]

If that's the combatative way you're going to respond to anything you perceive as criticism then you are not very well equipped for the working environment of a committee.

 

Besides this is Dave's thread, get your own soapbox.

 

eta; and then I'll answer your questions.

It wasn't intended to be combative - I'm sorry you have taken it thus. ("Combative" was not a word typically used of me in a working career that regularly included brokering satisfactory outcomes where there was conflict).

 

Your point about being in Dave's thread is a reasonable one, and perhaps I shouldn't have got lured in. I was trying to respond to comments you had made about all those so far willing to stand, or what might be useful on the "CV" of any candidate, but am happy to not debate it further here.

 

Once I have started my own, I'll be happy to carry on a debate, because I am genuinely interested what you think, even though I know there are topics we are never likely to fully agree on.

[David Schweizer]

David,you called my Cleo Avatar hideous!!!.

Accepted, but as far as I am aware your avatar is precisely that, if she is a real person, I submit my most humble apologies.

[jenlyn]

I challenge you to find one insult posted by myself towards Dave Mayall, or indeed anyone else for that matter.

I note you have not commented on post 7 this thread? Not much different to my post? Lol pathetic

[mayalld]

Besides this is Dave's thread, get your own soapbox.

happy to share the stage.

 

I started the thread but it will go where it will (hopefully into sensible discussions vaguely connected to the first post)

[Midnight Rider]

Rather than supporting the 'Prevailing View' I would prefer to vote for someone who stated their own views on the future of the waterways & did not change their beliefs.

 

On that basis Dave, I would be happy to give you my vote.

 

I also have to say that I am doubtful if a committee of 35? will ever reach any decisions at all.

[sebrof]

I also have to say that I am doubtful if a committee of 35? will ever reach any decisions at all.

 

That's no doubt the intention.

 

We should probably call this the Camel and Drivel Trust.

[sebrof]

I'm not being disingenuous.

 

So far as I'm aware, I do not advance dishonest arguments.

 

You have suggested that I do so, and if I am to attempt to defend myself against such accusations, surely I should be challenged with these dishonest arguments.

 

In the absence of any examples, I can do little but deny your suggestion.

 

Mr Mayall, since you seem to want me to prolong this derailment, I shall do so, but briefly.

 

I first became aware of your existence when you started a poll a year or more ago on the subject of continuous cruisers. The poll questions were craftily selected so that the results would come out the way you wanted them to. You weren't actually seeking information at all (which is the ostensible purpose of a poll), but instead you were using the poll mechanism to promote your own agenda.

 

If you wish to debate this further, feel free to start another thread. I honestly do not wish to interfere with this one, which I think serves a useful purpose. As I stated earlier, you do have a number of good qualities, but for me, they are out-gunned by your extreme hostility to a section of the boating community, many members of which haven't had your advantages in life.

[KenK]

This thread sums up why the Council idea is a none starter, as a boater I think we would be best ignoring it.

 

For what it is worth

 

No Council

 

Each Waterways partnership should have a steering commitee broadly based on the lines of the proposed Council, but not with 35 members, 10 would cover it I think. That way local interests would be represented. All the partnership heads could meet a couple of times a year, or whatever works, with the Trustees. They could have the power if that is the word, to dismiss a Trustee if there was a majority in favour of such a move.

 

Partnership heads are elected locally say every three years or less if that works better.

 

I know that is not going to happen, it is far to sensible and it might actually work.

 

Ken

[Sir Nibble]

This thread sums up why the Council idea is a none starter, as a boater I think we would be best ignoring it.

 

For what it is worth

 

No Council

 

Each Waterways partnership should have a steering commitee broadly based on the lines of the proposed Council, but not with 35 members, 10 would cover it I think. That way local interests would be represented. All the partnership heads could meet a couple of times a year, or whatever works, with the Trustees. They could have the power if that is the word, to dismiss a Trustee if there was a majority in favour of such a move.

 

Partnership heads are elected locally say every three years or less if that works better.

 

I know that is not going to happen, it is far to sensible and it might actually work.

 

Ken

However, we have no option but to eat what is set before us.

[mayalld]

However, we have no option but to eat what is set before us.

 

Indeed.

 

However, if Ken's views are widespread, and I get elected, I could end up causing a stir by being the first member of the Council to propose that we be abolished.

[Higgs]

Indeed.

 

However, if Ken's views are widespread, and I get elected, I could end up causing a stir by being the first member of the Council to propose that we be abolished.

 

NOoooo, ask for more meetings. At least quarterly. What there is seems to be tokenism, but it should be extended.

Edited December 15, 2011 by Higgs

[KenK]

However, we have no option but to eat what is set before us.

 

They want five boaters on the council, if no one applies then a rethink is required.

 

Ken

 

Indeed.

 

However, if Ken's views are widespread, and I get elected, I could end up causing a stir by being the first member of the Council to propose that we be abolished.

 

If I were to vote for anyone that kind of thinking would secure it for you.

 

Ken

[Mick and Maggie]

They want five boaters on the council, if no one applies then a rethink is required.

 

It would be a few extra jobs for the old boys network.

 

Pip Pip Rupert and pass the port old boy!

[Higgs]

 

They want five boaters on the council, if no one applies then a rethink is required.

 

 

I've a feeling the logic's a bit flawed here.

 

So, with no boaters on the council, the other nine groups will be sad? Don't think so. Only the boaters will lose out. No re-think.

[KenK]

I've a feeling the logic's a bit flawed here.

 

So, with no boaters on the council, the other nine groups will be sad? Don't think so. Only the boaters will lose out. No re-think.

 

No it isn't. If no boaters apply then the Trustees have to ask the question why, as do the Charity Commission. The make up of the Council has been determined if some of those positions have not or cannot be filled then there is a problem. This Council may have no real power but it has to exist in the form set out. At the moment we have Transition Trustees, they now need some more, if no one applies then it can't go ahead.

 

I don't think it will happen there are plenty of pompous idiots out there who love sitting in talking shops. In its current form CaRT is unworkable, too many chiefs and not enough indians or money.

 

Never mind the Council what about £39 million non index linked, at current inflation that will be worth less than half in ten years.

£49 million pound pension black hole, currently planned to pass to CaRT, how are they going to pay that?

 

Apologies Dave for going off topic.

 

Ken

Edited December 15, 2011 by KenK

[Higgs]

No it isn't. If no boaters apply then the Trustees have to ask the question why, as do the Charity Commission. The make up of the Council has been determined if some of those positions have not or cannot be filled then there is a problem. This Council may have no real power but it has to exist in the form set out. At the moment we have Transition Trustees, they now need some more, if no one applies then it can't go ahead.

 

Apparently; the council can appoint and dismiss Trustees ( 75% vote); will be able to have a say in appointing external auditors and approve annual accounts. The council is supposed to be the long term guardians of the charity. Through the Joint Appointment Commission can dismiss and appoint the Chairs of local Partnerships.

 

I am critical of the twice-yearly meetings. But, the above sounds alot more than we have now, and who's to say what can or cannot be done. What we have now is a waterways in limbo.

[alan_fincher]

I'm also involved in a Towpathers clearing up group. They love the canals too and most don't own a boat. I think you would need to represent the voices of people other than just boat owners.

I think it actually highly likely that anybody putting themselves up for these roles is going to have interests that extend just to boating and no other aspect of the canals or their heritage - certainly my personal interests go much wider.

 

But that said, it is very obvious to me, considering my own position, that there are just 4 boater positions on a total council make up of 35. What we are being asked to be is boater representatives. That doesn't stop us being waterway historians, cyclists, fishermen, WRG volunteers, or anything else, but those needs are addressed amongst the other 31 places, and it is important that we focus on who's principle interests we are being asked to serve.

 

It is not that easily found, but it is stated in one document that at least the following organisation will get one member on council, who, unlike us, are unlikely to be subject to any election process.....

 

• 
  British Canoe Union
  Waterway Recovery Group
  Ramblers Association
  Angling Trust
  Sustrans
  Country Land & Business Association
  Institute of Historic Building Conservation
  Railway & Canal Historic Society
  Royal Society of Wildlife Trusts
  Society for the Environment
  Local Government Association
  Welsh Local Government Association
  

 

That alone is 3 times as many council places as are being offered for election to private boaters, so the 4 "boater" reps are going to have a challenging job to keep enough focus on boater issues.

 

This thread sums up why the Council idea is a none starter, as a boater I think we would be best ignoring it.

It is obvious that many have fears that this may prove to be toothless, and not fit for purpose. But it is equally totally unrealistic to assume you could persuade nobody with a boat licence to stand for these positions, however good an idea you personally might feel that to be. So these 4 positions will get filled, and that will be part of the council we have. There will be many attempts by organisations to slip in candidates that promote the particular slant of that organisation over boaters generally, and I personally can't see that as being preferably to electing four largely independent council members from the wider boating fraternity.

 

Theoretically, at least, the council will have the power to dismiss unsatisfactory trustees. Of course you will probably say "that will never happen", and it is probably right, but as people have expressed concerns about who becomes trustees, anything that might offer the possibility of changing ones that don't shape up can only be a good thing.

[blackrose]

Are you capable of keeping this promise , i have always found that you will stick to and defend your own views and other peoples views will do nothing to change what you think , mayall putting forward any view that he himself is not in full agreement with , cant see it myself .

 

Agreed. Dave Mayall represents himself brilliantly, but I don't think he can represent others for precisely the reasons you state.

 

One analogy would be Tony Blair being some sort of Middle-East peace envoy. Can you imagine?

Edited December 15, 2011 by blackrose