Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 29, 2017 18:54:52 GMT
I didn't take minutes Kris but I did draw my own conclusions. The main one being that other than a big attack on widebeams (which is interesting as there did not appear to be any private wide beam represention there) nothing significant came out on the issue of charging CC'ers and live aboards more. One person did suggest charging us a LOT more but to be fair to the group (which was dominated by CRT 'friends') didn't support the idea. There did seem to be quite a few level headed people there thank God. A few other interesting points - The meeting was held between 2pm and 5pm on a work day which would make if difficult for those working to accept an invitation. This was bourne out in the fact everyone there must have been older than 50! No younger representation. The only CRT person there gave the introduction, took a few questions, showed a video from Mr Parry, then disappeared never to return. This surprised me as surely they want to listen to our views and be there to answer technical/stats questions. Mind you what looked like a camera appeared to be set up on top of the screen and was moved sideways by the end of the meeting. So maybe some of the CRT management were being entertained..lol. No, surley just my paranoia again... As far as I could see, CRT have not been able to provide any evidence of this boater 'feedback' which has resulted in justifying spending money on these workshops. Trust me I've asked. Having said all this, it was interesting to hear other views from across the boating community. There are some really nice people out there who do genuinely care about our future. Sadly there is also a tiny few who seem to have a very polarised view based presumably on some personal agenda or jealously. I applied to attend one of these workshops and was turned down as to late to apply, I pointed out that I had applied in plenty of time but had no reply so had emailed again and again nothing heard. Asked someone else they told me over subscribed its strange I have a widebeam and my mate has one and neither of us were allowed to attend............................ I'm afraid wide beams were the target. Well (as it turned out in the meeting) you guys, it was inferred, have the money to cope with a hike in the licence fee. My guess is that in some cases yes, and others, no. My view, it's still a load of shit to blame some boaters for the upcoming licence fee hike. We all need to get behind each other and see through this shit.
|
|
|
Post by peterboat on Jun 29, 2017 22:08:07 GMT
I applied to attend one of these workshops and was turned down as to late to apply, I pointed out that I had applied in plenty of time but had no reply so had emailed again and again nothing heard. Asked someone else they told me over subscribed its strange I have a widebeam and my mate has one and neither of us were allowed to attend............................ I'm afraid wide beams were the target. Well (as it turned out in the meeting) you guys, it was inferred, have the money to cope with a hike in the licence fee. My guess is that in some cases yes, and others, no. My view, it's still a load of shit to blame some boaters for the upcoming licence fee hike. We all need to get behind each other and see through this shit. Dave one of the CRT guys in Sheffield is involved with this review, he has put forward that widebeams only have one third of the cruising pattern of Narrowboats, and this has to be taken into consideration. Whether it is will be another matter all together but fingers crossed and all that
|
|
|
Post by kris on Jun 29, 2017 22:11:35 GMT
I'm afraid wide beams were the target. Well (as it turned out in the meeting) you guys, it was inferred, have the money to cope with a hike in the licence fee. My guess is that in some cases yes, and others, no. My view, it's still a load of shit to blame some boaters for the upcoming licence fee hike. We all need to get behind each other and see through this shit. Dave one of the CRT guys in Sheffield is involved with this review, he has put forward that widebeams only have one third of the cruising pattern of Narrowboats, and this has to be taken into consideration. Whether it is will be another matter all together but fingers crossed and all that it seems Crt are determined to raise liscence fees for all boatets way over the inflation rate and are using widebeams as the excuse. So unfortunately I don't think it matters what anybody says.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 30, 2017 2:56:57 GMT
I'm afraid wide beams were the target. Well (as it turned out in the meeting) you guys, it was inferred, have the money to cope with a hike in the licence fee. My guess is that in some cases yes, and others, no. My view, it's still a load of shit to blame some boaters for the upcoming licence fee hike. We all need to get behind each other and see through this shit. Dave one of the CRT guys in Sheffield is involved with this review, he has put forward that widebeams only have one third of the cruising pattern of Narrowboats, and this has to be taken into consideration. Whether it is will be another matter all together but fingers crossed and all that The trouble with that argument is that whether you use the same facility 100 times, or 100 facilities once, you may still have the same overall usage. In other words does it cost CRT more for you to cover the whole system, than shuffling up and down the same section of canal over a year? One thing mentioned in the meeting was choice. If a boater chooses to buy a boat which has a restricted navigation coverage then why should others subsidise it by CRT taking more funds from those who have no restriction. Interestingly the same argument can be used against those who choose not to take advantage of their licence and rarely come out of thier permanent mooring. After all there is the option to take out short term licences (although I believe you'd have to remove the boat from CRT connected waters while it isn't licenced (I think?)). Anyway, it looks like CRT are going to pay for thier wasting of funds by giving us all a big hike in our licence fees. I don't think we should let them rub moee salt into the wound by squabbling amoungst eachother. Personally I'd like to see an independent enquiry into whether CRT are wasting funds. In theory this should be investigated by the charities commission but something tells me it would be a non starter.
|
|
|
Post by kris on Jun 30, 2017 7:45:41 GMT
While I think an independent review into how Crt operate is a good idea, the charity commission doesn't have the authority or remit.
|
|
|
Post by peterboat on Jun 30, 2017 8:11:41 GMT
Dave one of the CRT guys in Sheffield is involved with this review, he has put forward that widebeams only have one third of the cruising pattern of Narrowboats, and this has to be taken into consideration. Whether it is will be another matter all together but fingers crossed and all that The trouble with that argument is that whether you use the same facility 100 times, or 100 facilities once, you may still have the same overall usage. In other words does it cost CRT more for you to cover the whole system, than shuffling up and down the same section of canal over a year? One thing mentioned in the meeting was choice. If a boater chooses to buy a boat which has a restricted navigation coverage then why should others subsidise it by CRT taking more funds from those who have no restriction. Interestingly the same argument can be used against those who choose not to take advantage of their licence and rarely come out of thier permanent mooring. After all there is the option to take out short term licences (although I believe you'd have to remove the boat from CRT connected waters while it isn't licenced (I think?)). Anyway, it looks like CRT are going to pay for thier wasting of funds by giving us all a big hike in our licence fees. I don't think we should let them rub moee salt into the wound by squabbling amoungst eachother. Personally I'd like to see an independent enquiry into whether CRT are wasting funds. In theory this should be investigated by the charities commission but something tells me it would be a non starter. I dont think it costs anymore for a widebeam than a narrowboat if I am honest in terms of cost to CRT as you say they are using this to revamp the license system and charge all of us a lot more dosh!!! The quicker all realise this the quicker we can stop this happening
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 30, 2017 8:28:00 GMT
The trouble with that argument is that whether you use the same facility 100 times, or 100 facilities once, you may still have the same overall usage. In other words does it cost CRT more for you to cover the whole system, than shuffling up and down the same section of canal over a year? One thing mentioned in the meeting was choice. If a boater chooses to buy a boat which has a restricted navigation coverage then why should others subsidise it by CRT taking more funds from those who have no restriction. Interestingly the same argument can be used against those who choose not to take advantage of their licence and rarely come out of thier permanent mooring. After all there is the option to take out short term licences (although I believe you'd have to remove the boat from CRT connected waters while it isn't licenced (I think?)). Anyway, it looks like CRT are going to pay for thier wasting of funds by giving us all a big hike in our licence fees. I don't think we should let them rub moee salt into the wound by squabbling amoungst eachother. Personally I'd like to see an independent enquiry into whether CRT are wasting funds. In theory this should be investigated by the charities commission but something tells me it would be a non starter. I dont think it costs anymore for a widebeam than a narrowboat if I am honest in terms of cost to CRT as you say they are using this to revamp the license system and charge all of us a lot more dosh!!! The quicker all realise this the quicker we can stop this happening You won't stop it, simply because the association's are backing it. Parry has hoodwinked the association's into supporting this by using bait, (widebeams and constant cruisers). As a rule, the association's would play merry hell at any substantial licence increase, but this time, they were easily duped. The IWA, NABO, AWCC and RBOA all have chairs that are not the smartest sandwiches in the box, and that has clearly been shown in this instance.
|
|
|
Post by kris on Jun 30, 2017 8:42:44 GMT
It's a pity that all boat liscences aren't renewed at the same time. We could all refuse to pay. I think Parry has revealed his true colours. The sneaky way Crt are going about this review shows the true nature of them as an organisation. I think we should start a campaign for the rationalization of the managment structure.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 30, 2017 8:42:51 GMT
The trouble with that argument is that whether you use the same facility 100 times, or 100 facilities once, you may still have the same overall usage. In other words does it cost CRT more for you to cover the whole system, than shuffling up and down the same section of canal over a year? One thing mentioned in the meeting was choice. If a boater chooses to buy a boat which has a restricted navigation coverage then why should others subsidise it by CRT taking more funds from those who have no restriction. Interestingly the same argument can be used against those who choose not to take advantage of their licence and rarely come out of thier permanent mooring. After all there is the option to take out short term licences (although I believe you'd have to remove the boat from CRT connected waters while it isn't licenced (I think?)). Anyway, it looks like CRT are going to pay for thier wasting of funds by giving us all a big hike in our licence fees. I don't think we should let them rub moee salt into the wound by squabbling amoungst eachother. Personally I'd like to see an independent enquiry into whether CRT are wasting funds. In theory this should be investigated by the charities commission but something tells me it would be a non starter. I dont think it costs anymore for a widebeam than a narrowboat if I am honest in terms of cost to CRT as you say they are using this to revamp the license system and charge all of us a lot more dosh!!! The quicker all realise this the quicker we can stop this happening I tend to agree with you on that however at the meeting there were comments like : 'they produce more rubbish', 'spend longer filling with water', 'cause backfilling of main channel with silt due to the width', 'use twice as much water in locks', 'cause queues especially when tunnels are closed to let one through'. Another CC'er and myself who have traveled the system a lot for years pointed out that we haven't been troubled by any of this. It did seem as though there were strong negative views about widebeams (much to the surprise of someone there who uses widebeams as part of thier charity!). I think that if CRT feel they can hike all our licence fees up by say 25% 'they should also be looking at ways to cut wasted funds. A few examples : - Are all management/office roles necessary? - Would using in house staff be cheaper than contractors? - Could other roles be carried out by volunteers? - Are all these court actions good value for money? - Unnecessary signage? - Unnecessary enforcement activities? - As there are no competitors, do they need to spend so much on promotion and PR? As CRT use thier charitable status to justify thier existence then surely these things should be looked into. You never know, you might find the 25% saving right there!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 30, 2017 8:54:24 GMT
I dont think it costs anymore for a widebeam than a narrowboat if I am honest in terms of cost to CRT as you say they are using this to revamp the license system and charge all of us a lot more dosh!!! The quicker all realise this the quicker we can stop this happening I tend to agree with you on that however at the meeting there were comments like : 'they produce more rubbish', 'spend longer filling with water', 'cause backfilling of main channel with silt due to the width', 'use twice as much water in locks', 'cause queues especially when tunnels are closed to let one through'. Another CC'er and myself who have traveled the system a lot for years pointed out that we haven't been troubled by any of this. It did seem as though there were strong negative views about widebeams (much to the surprise of someone there who uses widebeams as part of thier charity!). I think that if CRT feel they can hike all our licence fees up by say 25% 'they should also be looking at ways to cut wasted funds. A few examples : - Are all management/office roles necessary? - Would using in house staff be cheaper than contractors? - Could other roles be carried out by volunteers? - Are all these court actions good value for money? - Unnecessary signage? - Unnecessary enforcement activities? - As there are no competitors, do they need to spend so much on promotion and PR? As CRT use thier charitable status to justify thier existence then surely these things should be looked into. You never know, you might find the 25% saving right there! Forgot 'Unnecessary meetings and workshops?'
|
|
|
Post by peterboat on Jun 30, 2017 9:15:38 GMT
I dont think it costs anymore for a widebeam than a narrowboat if I am honest in terms of cost to CRT as you say they are using this to revamp the license system and charge all of us a lot more dosh!!! The quicker all realise this the quicker we can stop this happening You won't stop it, simply because the association's are backing it. Parry has hoodwinked the association's into supporting this by using bait, (widebeams and constant cruisers). As a rule, the association's would play merry hell at any substantial licence increase, but this time, they were easily duped. The IWA, NABO, AWCC and RBOA all have chairs that are not the smartest sandwiches in the box, and that has clearly been shown in this instance. You are right both the IWA and the RBOA when I spoke to them agreed with CRT, RBOA at least are printing a letter putting my view forward and a complaint that they did not ask us first before they went with the CRT view. I am hoping that it all goes wrong before then, maybe a high profile court case naming names when they get done for theft would be nice
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 30, 2017 9:47:43 GMT
It will all end in tears. CRT are strangling the leisure boaters by increasing mooring fees, which then tends to produce a "knock on effect" which sees marinas do likewise. Add to that an increase in licence fees, and that leisure past time becomes a burden around your neck. It's been noted this year that there are a lot of leisure boats on the market. The loss of leisure boaters to CRT is slowly becoming an issue, just like the increasing numbers of liveaboard.
CRT are becoming an obese organisation, with pensions, company cars, generous expenses and plenty of unnecessary staff who spend their days making up problems to solve, simply to keep their jobs. CRT's income last year was in excess of 90 thousand quid per mile, less than 11% of that was actually spent on the canal structure itself.
To put it another way, in the last four years, CRT has had income of more than a quarter of a million pounds per mile. Look at your mile and see if you can find anything that would justify this.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 30, 2017 9:56:02 GMT
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 30, 2017 10:13:22 GMT
Bearing in mind that lock which caved in on the Aylesbury arm a while back, the title of this thread may be appropriate!
|
|
|
Post by peterboat on Jun 30, 2017 15:55:19 GMT
A good read Steve but not for CRT I suspect
|
|