Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 30, 2016 17:58:55 GMT
this is the sticky bit that I can't get my head round. So it's not privatisation because crt nominally "manage" the assets owned by the nation. But effectively they can dispose of these assets "owned" by the nation as the property manager sees fit. How the hell did they get away with implementing this situation ? You haven't quite understood me for some reason [my prolixity no doubt to blame]. They cannot dispose of the 'protected' waterways assets " as the property manager sees fit". That applies only to the non-waterways specific investment portfolios of land and buildings. So, for example, they can flog off their investments on the Docklands, or their joint ventures into development of flats at Brentford etc, etc. They cannot [without Secretary of State consent] flog off bits of the waterway itself. The privatisation of the assets acquired by BW in expectation that returns on these would help them become financially independent, has therefore happened, but the waterways themselves are excluded from that privatisation. ...but we all know that once you control all the land either side of the waterway, you can control how the waterway is used...and ultimately who can use the waterway. Years ago the phrase 'a playground for the rich' was used to predict the future of the waterways. It still seems fit. Anyway, I'm surprised we haven't reached the 'things have to get worse' stage already so maybe there are some sensible (nice) people still out there in fat controller land.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 30, 2016 18:00:43 GMT
Richard Parry running around the country suggesting the trust is open and transparent is far far from the truth. The blackout blinds are firmly down, sealed and locked. It takes a lot of digging, and a little assumption to get any sort of truth on what's actually happening. Most will be totally naive to the problems, and will only become interested once it's gone a long way beyond too late. Perhaps in truth, some just don't give a shit, but I find it hard to understand the way they just blank it out with such dogged determination, whilst casting ridicule on those that genuinely care.
|
|
|
Post by schooner on Nov 30, 2016 18:03:25 GMT
You haven't quite understood me for some reason [my prolixity no doubt to blame]. They cannot dispose of the 'protected' waterways assets " as the property manager sees fit". That applies only to the non-waterways specific investment portfolios of land and buildings. So, for example, they can flog off their investments on the Docklands, or their joint ventures into development of flats at Brentford etc, etc. They cannot [without Secretary of State consent] flog off bits of the waterway itself. The privatisation of the assets acquired by BW in expectation that returns on these would help them become financially independent, has therefore happened, but the waterways themselves are excluded from that privatisation. my miss understanding is not your fault Nigel. I think it is a very fine line protecting tne "nationally owned assests." As you yourself have said crt don't seem to have much problem getting the SOS to agree to disposal of anything. According to the governance handbook a 'Protector' has been appointed with responsibility for providing an annual report to SoS - which is available to the public - on the investment portfolio. Anyone know how to obtain a copy of the latest report?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 30, 2016 18:04:22 GMT
You haven't quite understood me for some reason [my prolixity no doubt to blame]. They cannot dispose of the 'protected' waterways assets " as the property manager sees fit". That applies only to the non-waterways specific investment portfolios of land and buildings. So, for example, they can flog off their investments on the Docklands, or their joint ventures into development of flats at Brentford etc, etc. They cannot [without Secretary of State consent] flog off bits of the waterway itself. The privatisation of the assets acquired by BW in expectation that returns on these would help them become financially independent, has therefore happened, but the waterways themselves are excluded from that privatisation. ...but we all know that once you control all the land either side of the waterway, you can control how the waterway is used...and ultimately who can use the waterway. Years ago the phrase 'a playground for the rich' was used to predict the future of the waterways. It still seems fit. Anyway, I'm surprised we haven't reached the 'things have to get worse' stage already so maybe there are some sensible (nice) people still out there in fat controller land. I think the "playground for the rich" thing fails when you realise that the cut is basically just a series of ditches with very low bridges.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 30, 2016 18:06:54 GMT
my miss understanding is not your fault Nigel. I think it is a very fine line protecting tne "nationally owned assests." As you yourself have said crt don't seem to have much problem getting the SOS to agree to disposal of anything. According to the governance handbook a 'Protector' has been appointed with responsibility for providing an annual report to SoS - which is available to the public - on the investment portfolio. Anyone know how to obtain a copy of the latest report? I gave kris the details for this the other day. It's on the forum somewhere.
|
|
|
Post by kris on Nov 30, 2016 18:07:14 GMT
my miss understanding is not your fault Nigel. I think it is a very fine line protecting tne "nationally owned assests." As you yourself have said crt don't seem to have much problem getting the SOS to agree to disposal of anything. According to the governance handbook a 'Protector' has been appointed with responsibility for providing an annual report to SoS - which is available to the public - on the investment portfolio. Anyone know how to obtain a copy of the latest report? i found it and read it recently by googling it. There is a thread on here somewhere about it. He is only there to protect the investments, I seem to remember he hasn't reported this year for some reason.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 30, 2016 18:09:18 GMT
According to the governance handbook a 'Protector' has been appointed with responsibility for providing an annual report to SoS - which is available to the public - on the investment portfolio. Anyone know how to obtain a copy of the latest report? i found it and read it recently by googling it. There is a thread on here somewhere about it. He is only there to protect the investments, I seem to remember he hasn't reported this year for some reason. Maybe he's an expat living in the south of France
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 30, 2016 18:09:36 GMT
I'm just very surprised that you or Tony haven't already done it seeing as you both seem to look for any opportunity to 'diss' CRT. Very odd in fact...must be a conspiracy. It would only be " very odd" if you were correct that I " look for any opportunity to 'diss' CRT". Nigel...you've changed! I suppose you are right really. We fight our own battles. I'm still enjoying my life on the cut, if that changes due to the network being blocked by 'development', I'll fight that battle
|
|
|
Post by NigelMoore on Nov 30, 2016 18:13:55 GMT
...but we all know that once you control all the land either side of the waterway, you can control how the waterway is used...and ultimately who can use the waterway. Not when how it is used and who can use it is governed by statute. Ownership is immaterial to the powers of management and control of the waterways. Just to emphasise the point, quoting myself from Leigh’s Statement of Case – “ 105. The relevant proposition is enunciated by Francis Bannion in “Statute Construction”, under the topic of “Legality”. He says – “Where the decision-maker is a public corporation it lacks the comprehensive power possessed by natural persons to regulate the use of its property in any lawful way it sees fit: see e.g. R v Somerset County Council, ex p Fewings[1995] 3 All ER 20, following Calder and Hebble Navigation Co v Pilling(1845) 14 M & W 76 at 88.”
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 30, 2016 18:15:32 GMT
It would only be " very odd" if you were correct that I " look for any opportunity to 'diss' CRT". if that changes due to the network being blocked by 'development', I'll fight that battle Only problem I see with that, is the fact you won't actually know about it until after everything has been signed and sealed. That's the issue.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 30, 2016 18:17:00 GMT
...but we all know that once you control all the land either side of the waterway, you can control how the waterway is used...and ultimately who can use the waterway. Years ago the phrase 'a playground for the rich' was used to predict the future of the waterways. It still seems fit. Anyway, I'm surprised we haven't reached the 'things have to get worse' stage already so maybe there are some sensible (nice) people still out there in fat controller land. I think the "playground for the rich" thing fails when you realise that the cut is basically just a series of ditches with very low bridges. ...and when it rains, the ditches fill with water. All a bit sommebre to me.
|
|
|
Post by kris on Nov 30, 2016 18:21:15 GMT
my miss understanding is not your fault Nigel. I think it is a very fine line protecting tne "nationally owned assests." As you yourself have said crt don't seem to have much problem getting the SOS to agree to disposal of anything. According to the governance handbook a 'Protector' has been appointed with responsibility for providing an annual report to SoS - which is available to the public - on the investment portfolio. Anyone know how to obtain a copy of the latest report? ive just looked the protectors name iit is Malcolm naish so Google is your friend.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 30, 2016 18:29:22 GMT
if that changes due to the network being blocked by 'development', I'll fight that battle Only problem I see with that, is the fact you won't actually know about it until after everything has been signed and sealed. That's the issue. I'm hoping the 'things will have to get worse' phase will kick in once boaters (and the general public) see their dreams about to be shattered. Paperwork, rhetoric and media spin means nothing until someone tries to build the wall. It's far easier for lots of people to knock a wall down than to waste time appealing through a corrupt system. Hang on a minute...it's only a bloody canal. Sorry, lost the plot there for one minute.
|
|
|
Post by schooner on Nov 30, 2016 18:32:06 GMT
According to the governance handbook a 'Protector' has been appointed with responsibility for providing an annual report to SoS - which is available to the public - on the investment portfolio. Anyone know how to obtain a copy of the latest report? ive just looked the protectors name iit is Malcolm naish so Google is your friend. Thanks kris, I've just found it and reading through it.
|
|
|
Post by NigelMoore on Nov 30, 2016 18:38:52 GMT
It would only be " very odd" if you were correct that I " look for any opportunity to 'diss' CRT". Nigel...you've changed! Denied! As Jenlyn has said of his own stance, I too have no problem with CaRT per se, any more than I did with BW; I do, however, have a considerable animosity towards those wielding power within the organisations who abuse their position with malice, greed and/or indifference. Such individuals harm their own organisation, additionally to the harm they do to their victims. I have fought them on all sorts of fronts over the years, notably including engaging in Planning Inquiries over waterways-damaging proposed developments. Even so, I do not wish my life to be defined in a reactionary sense by them, and I do not go looking for opportunities to oppose them. Apart from anything else, I have done my bit and am happy for others to take up the cudgels where gross mismanagement affects them directly. Characterisations of “relentless and obstinate” notwithstanding, I am really a pipe and slippers man, content to leave the conflicts to others while nursing a stiff whisky in peace and quiet. That is more aspirational than reality for now of course.
|
|