Jump to content

How Many Straws To Break The Camel’s Back ?


Alan de Enfield

Featured Posts

21 minutes ago, David Mack said:

But have you looked at the legal description of CRT's charitable objectives?  I don't think 'helping those with a need' is there.

Four or is it five years on from crt coming into existence and some people still cant grasp the concept of what their charitible status actually means.

I'm not being funny but are some people really so dense they still cannot grasp it?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We have been cruising the canals for the last 40 years. We have experienced proper winters.  Am I a  newby? We have sold our boat. I dont feel negative about the Canal system in general or Cart in particular. I do feel that some of the exitement has gone. I also feel that Cart has a lack of focus. Staff are a major expence for any organisation,but I believe bankside staff have been cut back to the point where they are just roving trouble shooters. This year on the Peak Forest Canal we were stopped for a couple of days due to a fallen tree. Contractors who very efficiently cleared the blockage had to manage very precariously with a small dinghy. A CaRT workboat was nearby,but there was no CaRT staff available to use it. The clutch on the contractors Ford Transit would never be the same again.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, nebulae said:

We have been cruising the canals for the last 40 years. We have experienced proper winters.  Am I a  newby? We have sold our boat. I dont feel negative about the Canal system in general or Cart in particular. I do feel that some of the exitement has gone. I also feel that Cart has a lack of focus. Staff are a major expence for any organisation,but I believe bankside staff have been cut back to the point where they are just roving trouble shooters. This year on the Peak Forest Canal we were stopped for a couple of days due to a fallen tree. Contractors who very efficiently cleared the blockage had to manage very precariously with a small dinghy. A CaRT workboat was nearby,but there was no CaRT staff available to use it. The clutch on the contractors Ford Transit would never be the same again.

going back to when I was first on the canals (or at least as far back as I can remember) a fallen tree would have been cleared (at least enough to allow passage) by boaters using bow saws & ropes, possibly with quite a lot of it being stashed away for future firewood, times have changed a lot and people (not just boaters) seem to prefer calling in help rather than tackle a problem between them

  • Happy 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, MJG said:

Four or is it five years on from crt coming into existence and some people still cant grasp the concept of what their charitible status actually means.

I'm not being funny but are some people really so dense they still cannot grasp it?

Dense eh? No, you're not funny actually. 

Anyone can make up their own definition for the word 'charity', however most people will use the commonly accepted definition. Organisations like C&RT depend on it to gain trust. 

Lawyers are good at finding a definition which suits their argument. Anyway, why is the legal definition different and more complex than the definition most people understand? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, rowland al said:

Anyway, why is the legal definition different and more complex than the definition most people understand? 

Maybe your 'most people' are unable to grasp the complexities, however, taking the forum members as a typical population, I cannot agree with you - it appears to be a very small number who are unable to understand.

As you appear not to have read C&RT's "Articles of Association", I have pleasure in appending them

 

The Companies Act 2006
Company Limited by Guarantee and not having a Share Capital
Articles of Association of Canal & River Trust 
INTERPRETATION
1. Defined terms
The interpretation of these Articles is governed by the provisions set out in the Schedule at the end of the Articles.
OBJECTS AND POWERS
2. Objects
The Trust’s objects are:
2.1 to preserve, protect, operate and manage Inland Waterways for public benefit:
2.1.1 for navigation; 
2.1.2 for walking on towpaths; and
2.1.3 for recreation or other leisure-time pursuits of the public in the interest of their health and social welfare;
2.2 to protect and conserve for public benefit sites, objects and buildings of archaeological, architectural, engineering or historic interest on, in the vicinity of, or otherwise associated with Inland Waterways;
2.3 to further for the public benefit the conservation protection and improvement of the natural environment and landscape of Inland Waterways;
2.4 to promote, facilitate, undertake and assist in, for public benefit, the restoration and improvement of Inland Waterways; 
2.5 to promote and facilitate for public benefit awareness, learning and education about Inland Waterways, their history, development, use, operation and cultural heritage by all appropriate means including the provision of museums;
2.6 to promote sustainable development in the vicinity of any Inland Waterway for the benefit of the public, in particular by:
2.6.1 the improvement of the conditions of life in socially and economically disadvantaged communities in such vicinity; and
2.6.2 the promotion of sustainable means of achieving economic growth and regeneration and the prudent use of natural resources; and
2.7 to further any purpose which is exclusively charitable under the law of England and Wales connected with Inland Waterways;
provided that in each case where the Trust undertakes work in relation to property which it does not own or hold in trust, any private benefit to the owner of the property is merely incidental.
 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, MJG said:

Four or is it five years on from crt coming into existence and some people still cant grasp the concept of what their charitible status actually means.

I'm not being funny but are some people really so dense they still cannot grasp it?

 

Well I'm pretty dense and once thought I knew the difference between a charity and a charitable trust, and which of the two CRT is. 

But it turns out I don’t. Could you explain for me please? I’d be much obliged. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Mike the Boilerman said:

 

Well I'm pretty dense and once thought I knew the difference between a charity and a charitable trust, and which of the two CRT is. 

But it turns out I don’t. Could you explain for me please? I’d be much obliged. 

Charitable Trust =  "a trust set up for the benefit of a charity that complies with the regulations of the Charity Commissioners to enable it to be exempt from paying income tax"

Charitable Purposes

A charitable purpose is one designed to benefit, ameliorate, or uplift mankind mentally, morally, or physically.

(The relief of poverty, the improvement of government, and the advancement of religion, education, and health are some examples of charitable purposes).

Trusts to prevent cruelty to animals, to erect a monument in honour of a famous historical figure, and to beautify a designated village are charitable purposes aimed, respectively, at fostering kindness to animals, patriotism, and community well-being.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

37 minutes ago, Mike the Boilerman said:

 

Well I'm pretty dense and once thought I knew the difference between a charity and a charitable trust, and which of the two CRT is. 

But it turns out I don’t. Could you explain for me please? I’d be much obliged. 

Alan has obliged.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, rowland al said:

Dense eh? No, you're not funny actually. 

Anyone can make up their own definition for the word 'charity', however most people will use the commonly accepted definition. Organisations like C&RT depend on it to gain trust. 

Lawyers are good at finding a definition which suits their argument. Anyway, why is the legal definition different and more complex than the definition most people understand? 

You might want to consider the legal status of the likes of The national trust and English heritage.

Do they provide food banks or clothing for the needy? Answer no. They are essentially conservation charities which is similar to what CRT are, they are not in the game of being "charitible' to people.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 09/12/2017 at 09:57, MJG said:

You might want to consider the legal status of the likes of The national trust and English heritage.

 

So in what way does the 'legal status' of CRT differ from that of say, Oxfam?

This is the nub of the question and no-one has yet explained. Posting enormous gobbets snipped from the Articles of Association doesn't really explain things in layman's terms. 

(The 'dense' laymen you mentioned earlier, that is.)

  • Greenie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

26 minutes ago, MJG said:

You might want to consider the legal status of the likes of The national trust and English heritage.

Do they provide food banks or clothing for the needy? Answer no. They are essentially conservation charities which is similar to what CRT are, they are not in the game of being "charitible' to people.

No you're right, they don't do much for the needy either and misrepresent the word 'charity'. As pointed out, it's more appropriate for Oxfam, Children in Need, Crisis etc to use the word charity. 

In fact, you could also argue that misuse of the word undermines real charities.

It doesn't make it right just because some people want to re-define a word for their own agendas. I don't think it's the only word which has been highjacked in the English language over the years either. 

  • Greenie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 09/12/2017 at 10:34, rowland al said:

In fact, you could also argue that misuse of the word undermines real charities.

 

This is exactly the problem. CRT, National Trust, most private skools etc are all described as 'charities' which I think is a misnomer. I think it derives from some sort of 'charitable' tax status. If an organisation's goal is to achieve some sort of public benefit rather than to make a profit*, this makes them a 'charity' as far as the taxman is concerned. While the MJG's imaginary dense member of the public thinks charities help people who are in trouble. 

 

*Profits are described as 'surplus' in charityspeak, and surpluses must be ploughed back into achieving that aims of the charity concerned, as opposed to withdrawn and paid out to shareholders. 

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

A charity is not a business .

A charity is required to spend money prudently and this must be substantially for its primary purpose and not risked on trading activities in an attempt to make money.

It seems the C&RT have  various 10 year plans . The following document may , for example, explain in part the primary purpose of the C&RT in the East Midlands.

https://canalrivertrust.org.uk/refresh/media/original/25871-east-midlands-strategic-waterway-plan.pdf?v=340ae0

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, rowland al said:

No you're right, they don't do much for the needy either and misrepresent the word 'charity'. As pointed out, it's more appropriate for Oxfam, Children in Need, Crisis etc to use the word charity. 

In fact, you could also argue that misuse of the word undermines real charities.

It doesn't make it right just because some people want to re-define a word for their own agendas. I don't think it's the only word which has been highjacked in the English language over the years either. 

They didn't redefine the word for their own agenda. It's a legal term so blame the lawyers not CRT.

It is how they got the status they now have in that they are not a private company with shareholders but neither are they a public sector body like BW was.

2 minutes ago, Mike the Boilerman said:

 

This is exactly the problem. CRT, National Trust, most private skools etc are all described as 'charities' which I think is a misnomer. I think it derives from some sort of 'charitable' tax status. If an organisation's goal is not to make a profit*, this makes them a 'charity' as far as the taxman is concerned. While the MJG's imaginary dense member of the public thinks charities help people who are in trouble. 

 

*Profits are described as 'surplus' in charityspeak, and surpluses must be ploughed back into achieving that aims of the charity concerned, as opposed to withdrawn and paid out to shareholders. 

Clearly it's not imaginary Mike, as abely demonstrated in this thread.

Edited by MJG
Link to comment
Share on other sites

28 minutes ago, Mike the Boilerman said:

 Posting enormous gobbets snipped from the Articles of Association doesn't really explain things in layman's terms. 

(The 'dense' laymen you mentioned earlier, that is.)

As you so eloquently put it yourself Mike......

"You can lead a fool to wisdom but you can't make him think."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, MJG said:

They didn't redefine the word for their own agenda. It's a legal term so blame the lawyers not CRT.

It is how they got the status they now have in that they are not a private company with shareholders but neither are they a public sector body like BW was.

Actually I'm not blaming C&RT, they just do what they are told by whoever the powers that be are at the time. I'd go as far to say that they are in a bit of a rock and hard place much of the time. 

 

All I'm really getting at is that when people keep banging others over the head with alternative definitions, it begins to become accepted by the masses (only dense people of course).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, rowland al said:

Actually I'm not blaming C&RT, they just do what they are told by whoever the powers that be are at the time. I'd go as far to say that they are in a bit of a rock and hard place much of the time. 

 

Exactly. If there was an alternative legal status to a 'charitable' one that would have given them distinction from a company with shareholders or a wholly privately owned company or indeed a wholly owned public body I'm sure they would have gone for that. But there isn't (AFAIK) so they and the NT and EH and many others I guess have to go with that.

(It still doesn't mean they have to be charitable or altruistic in their day to day activities though.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, rowland al said:

All I'm really getting at is that when people keep banging others over the head with alternative definitions, it begins to become accepted by the masses (only dense people of course).

Only if you don't look a bit deeper.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, MJG said:

Exactly. If there was an alternative legal status to a 'charitable' one that would have given them distinction from a company with shareholders or a wholly privately owned company or indeed a wholly owned public body I'm sure they would have gone for that. But there isn't (AFAIK) so they and the NT and EH and many others I guess have to go with that.

(It still doesn't mean they have to be charitable or altruistic in their day to day activities though.)

Yes, the misuse of the word has been going on for a long time. It would be interesting to find out when and which organisation started to stretch the meaning first. 

2 minutes ago, MJG said:

Only if you don't look a bit deeper.

The devil is usually in the detail I agree. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Mike the Boilerman said:

 

It appears you can't explain it in layman's terms either then.

Come off it Mike it's obvious.

1 - They have to have the legal status of a charity as it's the only option open to them.

2 - That status doesn't oblige them to have altruistic objectives towards people.

3 - It can however allow them to have responsibilities for structures, buildings.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 09/12/2017 at 10:58, rowland al said:

Yes, the misuse of the word has been going on for a long time. It would be interesting to find out when and which organisation started to stretch the meaning first. 

 

I suspect the origins of the split lies in tax law. Naturally real charities should be exempted from being charged tax and allowed to distribute all their income to the needy. But then the politicians loosened the definition of a charity to an organisation dedicated to achieving some sort of public good, as opposed to supporting needy individuals directly. Private skools fit the definition but seem especially to run against the grain of what the dense man in the street thinks of as a charity.

So I think the answer lies in the world of politics and tax history, rather than an organisation stretching the meaning.

Edited by Mike the Boilerman
  • Greenie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, MJG said:

Come off it Mike it's obvious.

1 - They have to have the legal status of a charity as it's the only option open to them.

2 - That status doesn't oblige them to have altruistic objectives towards people.

3 - It can however allow them to have responsibilities for structures, buildings.

I thought the most obvious reason was the tax breaks. 

Anyway, I repeat, I never said they were run like a buisness, I said they seem to be run MORE like a buisness, I'm not sure if you have grasped that yet. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 09/12/2017 at 11:06, MJG said:

Come off it Mike it's obvious.

1 - They have to have the legal status of a charity as it's the only option open to them.

2 - That status doesn't oblige them to have altruistic objectives towards people.

3 - It can however allow them to have responsibilities for structures, buildings.

 

Yes. This is it.

So next time someone comes on here saying "I can't afford a license as I've fallen on hard times, why can't CRT let me off I thought they were a charity" or words to that effect, this will explain things to them perfectly. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, rowland al said:

I thought the most obvious reason was the tax breaks. 

Anyway, I repeat, I never said they were run like a buisness, I said they seem to be run MORE like a buisness, I'm not sure if you have grasped that yet. 

Possibly, but then would you have prefered them not to get any and be run by a private company to boot? You'd sharp have something to complain about then I would wager.

 

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.