Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 15, 2019 11:06:40 GMT
I'll bet they get more money from you than me, even with your SIAB* discount for making fewer trips to service points. *shit in a box. I doubt it Jim, but then that's not the point. The point is cart think it's okay to send you invasive begging letters once they have your personal details. Surely this tells you what kind of organisation that your supporting. Do you know the friends scheme hasn't made any money yet? It's costs more to administer than it has raised. Is anyone surprised? I thought it was part of the requirement to "embrace" communities and all that stuff about healthy wellness for recreation and "raising awareness" I would certainly be more aware, or perhaps beware of being approached by these "chuggers". Not something I ever want to embrace, it's why I object to folks who [uninvited] use my phone to invade my privacy. PS. I'm only putting these sort of silly posts up because the CRT no doubt spend far too much paid time on here, filtering arguments and discussions. It's an efficient method of gleaning feedback from customers without spending hours devising surveys that are designed to flatter and deceive at worst, or at best, return the desired results.
|
|
|
Post by ched on Feb 15, 2019 11:23:47 GMT
It explicitly states on any forms that they collect your date of birth for security/identification purposes ONLY.
Can only assume OP has ticked/not ticked a box somewhere along the line waiving some right to privacy - if not then this is quite shocking.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 15, 2019 11:26:36 GMT
You don't have to be old to write a will.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 15, 2019 11:41:11 GMT
The 'remember us in your will' policy is used by the NT, and others. The NT is apparently the model on which C&RT have based themselves. However the NT is generally held in high regard for the work it has, and does do to preserve a national heritage. That respect for it's aims and ambitions has been built up over many years, encouraging members to feel a valued part of the organisation, and giving them 'a say'. The fundamental mistake made by C&RT management, was in believing they can impose their desire to be 'loved'. I believe there remains a huge amount of respect for the few remaining bank side staff. If C&RT management had focussed on building their reputation from the bottom up, promoting and publicising the work they do, seeking to keep the public 'on side' and supportive, and focussing on their work to maintain the system, they could well be in a very different place by now. Rog I think you have hit a nail on the head there Rog. I think NT members FEEL more like members and as a result feel more part of a team with common charitable aims. Many boaters who pay a licence fee to be part of the CRT ‘charity’ , feel like potential criminals due to the way they are managed on their waters. To be fair, I think things may be changing for the better. Certainly I have no complaints with any of the communications I have had with CRT. But I am still very concerned that the waterways network as we know it, is not getting the investment it needs to keep it going in the future. That investment is not just about money, it’s also about getting the right people, with the right attitude and good use of their time.
|
|
|
Post by Trina on Feb 15, 2019 12:45:30 GMT
With the National Trust,people working/volunteering at places usually care about & like where they are.Many C&RT employees haven't got a clue what a boat is or what a canal is used for.**Lots of vollies have more of an interest,hence they volunteer.
|
|
|
Post by NigelMoore on Feb 15, 2019 13:45:32 GMT
However the NT is generally held in high regard for the work it has, and does do to preserve a national heritage. That respect for it's aims and ambitions has been built up over many years, encouraging members to feel a valued part of the organisation, and giving them 'a say'. The fundamental mistake made by C&RT management, was in believing they can impose their desire to be 'loved'. I believe there remains a huge amount of respect for the few remaining bank side staff. If C&RT management had focussed on building their reputation from the bottom up, promoting and publicising the work they do, seeking to keep the public 'on side' and supportive, and focussing on their work to maintain the system, they could well be in a very different place by now. I keep linking to the transcript of the Lords Merits Committee hearing back in April 2012, but it is worth reading again what was said at the time - www.parliament.uk/documents/lords-committees/merits-statutory-instruments/Correct-Transcript-of-Merits-Committee-(British-Waterways-Board)-24-April-2012.pdf Q18 Lord Plant of Highfield: I suppose that my question follows on from Lord Scott’s question. Will the complexity of the purpose and function of this new charity possibly lead to a loss of focus? After all, the charity will establish a community interest company that will trade, it will be in receipt of donations from the general public and it will have quite extensive legal powers to enter buildings and property, to inspect vessels, to make by-laws and to undertake compulsory purchase programmes. I just wonder how compatible all those aims are, in management terms and in terms of developing the strategy of the charity.
Evans: The new arrangement for the charitable trust involves 150 people in its governance up and down the country, locally and nationally. It will be a much more engaged organisation that will reflect the will of the people. Some 98% of the people in this country consider the 13 canals and waterway to be a treasured national asset, and we are putting that much more in their hands. We will become a much more responsive organisation. That is a huge benefit, too. It will make us run the waterways in a much more beneficial way.
. . .
Evans: In the early years we will probably spend more money than we receive, but that is the nature of fundraising because you are building up a membership, not a voting membership but a band of supporters—a band of friends. Their first year’s subscription often matches the cost of recruiting them, but it is their second and third year subscriptions that are important. The key thing about fundraising is what is called the attrition rate—how quickly, or how slowly, you lose supporters. We are confident in this regard. This is all about service because people will continue to support you if you welcome them, appreciate them, and give them the benefits that they want, which is more information and opportunities to participate.
. . .
Q43 Lord Hart of Chilton: Could it be that the floating community feels distanced by an overarching body that is made up of so many different interests that its interest might almost be of no account?
Evans: As a charity, we will survive only if our reputation is good. People will support us, volunteer for us or give us money only if we act in a responsible way and fulfil our charitable objectives. I think that is a huge responsibility on us and will very much dictate the way we deal with those people who want lots of our services and who are licence payers or who hold moorings from us. There is a constitutional way, but there is also a reputational and moral side that will probably be hugely more influential than currently.
. . .
Benyon: . . . it is impossible to take a net present-value view that far ahead, although economists would disagree.
Lord Eames: Do not worry about them. " Nobody did worry enough; not those in power anyway.
|
|
|
Post by Jim on Feb 15, 2019 15:00:35 GMT
The big difference between NT and CRT is that members are proper members, with voting rights to authorise the board of trustees etc. A model CRT have shunned because then they would be accountable to the members, who could put a stop to the shenanigans. The only members are the trustees who can ignore whatever us clients want. (I know because I set Skylight Circus Arts up along the same lines, the only members are trustees.)
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 15, 2019 17:03:12 GMT
When a little bully boy in the office was promoted via nepotism as my Line Manager, one of my "clients" seemed fazed by my lack of respect to him [the client brought the subject up] Its like anything else, people/organisations earn respect/credibility, they can't "impose " it.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 15, 2019 18:05:38 GMT
Some 98% of the people in this country consider the 13 canals and waterway to be a treasured national asset, and we are putting that much more in their hands. 13 canals and waterways? I've never really thought about it before but do CRT only manage 13 canals and waterways? I would have thought it was more than that.
|
|
|
Post by TonyDunkley on Feb 15, 2019 18:35:40 GMT
Some 98% of the people in this country consider the 13 canals and waterway to be a treasured national asset, and we are putting that much more in their hands. 13 canals and waterways? I've never really thought about it before but do CRT only manage 13 canals and waterways? I would have thought it was more than that. In truth it's far less than thirteen, . . . by my reckoning it's actually none !
|
|
|
Post by ched on Feb 15, 2019 18:39:15 GMT
Don't know about 13 canals... ...I've always wondered in terms of miles, how many canals and rivers they are responsible for...
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 15, 2019 18:43:18 GMT
I think its on the website. Something like 2200 miles is a figure in my head.
One quite shocking detail I came across is that the CRT waterways in "London", which I assume is greater London, have a total area of 270 hectares. Googling the value of industrial land I reckon this is around a Billion pounds.
(Based on £2.5-£7.4m per hectare going for the lower end of the averages (say £3.7m x 270 = £999m) and that is for industrial use. If its residential it would be a lot more.
Shit loads of land value there.
|
|
|
Post by naughtyfox on Feb 15, 2019 18:45:41 GMT
I wonder if they somehow know who is about to kick the bucket other than by age. Is Jim a Celebrity though? I think we should be told. And then we can stick him in the thread.
|
|
|
Post by naughtyfox on Feb 15, 2019 18:49:05 GMT
By way of illustrating Jim's point with regard to C&RT squandering money on vexatious litigation disguised as a legitimate tool used as one of the means available to them of discharging their obligation to, in their words as quoted from the Court papers, - "to ensure that the inland waterways controlled by CRT are safe, well managed and properly conserved" - the Costs Schedule submitted to Nottingham County for a half-hour Directions Hearing on 25 January this year added up to £5,107.82. The Directions Hearing was the fourth hearing - see my 14 February post in the "How much dosh can Parry's fusiliers squander in one week ?" thread - in their now three year old campaign to coerce me into buying one of their fraudulent 'Rivers only Licences'. No Costs Schedules were submitted in respect of the three earlier hearings, but all involved similar amounts of time, work, and travel, so it's not unreasonable to presume that the costs incurred were of similar proportions, making the running total so far in this case in the region of £20,000. Add that to the £15,000(+) they blew on attempting to impose CC'ing conditions/obligations on me in 2014 despite my having a 'home' mooring, and that's one example of the way that these maggots could choose to spend what's bequeathed to them by anyone gullible or stupid enough to make them beneficiaries of their Will. CRT licence fees going up again this year. But, as Stabby says, 190,000 gallons of water out of your kitchen tap at domestic rates costs a lot more!
|
|
|
Post by naughtyfox on Feb 15, 2019 18:52:02 GMT
The 'remember us in your will' policy is used by the NT, and others. The NT is apparently the model on which C&RT have based themselves. However the NT is generally held in high regard for the work it has, and does do to preserve a national heritage. That respect for it's aims and ambitions has been built up over many years, encouraging members to feel a valued part of the organisation, and giving them 'a say'. The fundamental mistake made by C&RT management, was in believing they can impose their desire to be 'loved'. I believe there remains a huge amount of respect for the few remaining bank side staff. If C&RT management had focussed on building their reputation from the bottom up, promoting and publicising the work they do, seeking to keep the public 'on side' and supportive, and focussing on their work to maintain the system, they could well be in a very different place by now. Rog Rog, all this is so much what I (and presumably many others) hoped for when CRT were formed, it could have been so, so much better. Instead it's been a bloody... out and out con more like.
|
|