Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 15, 2017 18:17:25 GMT
So what would you suggest Gigoguy do then? Carry on investigating for now. And carry on campaigning for CaRT to get behind their boaters for a change, to encourage a return to the historic 'gentleman's agreement'. Ok, good luck with that.
|
|
|
Post by kris on Oct 15, 2017 18:18:56 GMT
So what would you suggest Gigoguy do then? Carry on investigating for now. And carry on campaigning for CaRT to get behind their boaters for a change, to encourage a return to the historic 'gentleman's agreement'. whilst that would seem the decent thing to do, with the current regime at crt ii thinks it's encouraging peel to think they can do what they like.
|
|
|
Post by NigelMoore on Oct 15, 2017 18:44:31 GMT
But the alternative is to do nothing, and just have a whinge. It is not just gigoguy who has called for action after all, and if many individuals shoved their oar in, it could make a difference. CaRT cannot force the issue, other than to ban Bridgewater boats from entering CaRT waters without full licences. In such a case, the currently complacent Bridgewater boaters might start their own campaign to hit where it hurts.
From what I have gleaned so far, they are the ones being screwed over most, whether they are happy with that or not.
|
|
|
Post by kris on Oct 15, 2017 18:47:13 GMT
But the alternative is to do nothing, and just have a whinge. It is not just gigoguy who has called for action after all, and if many individuals shoved their oar in, it could make a difference. CaRT cannot force the issue, other than to ban Bridgewater boats from entering CaRT waters without full licences. In such a case, the currently complacent Bridgewater boaters might start their own campaign to hit where it hurts. From what I have gleaned so far, they are the ones being screwed over most, whether they are happy with that or not. whos the relevant person at crt to contact, Richard himself?
|
|
|
Post by NigelMoore on Oct 15, 2017 18:52:24 GMT
whilst that would seem the decent thing to do, with the current regime at crt ii thinks it's encouraging peel to think they can do what they like. CaRT are a uselessly jobsworth centred lot at their highest levels, despite many worthy employees at the ground level. As top executives they ought to possess the management skills to negotiate with such as Peel, and to have the balls to try. Peel can do what they like within their legislative powers; it will take committed and creative diplomacy to effect a change in current thinking - and I agree that this is absent from the existing executive.
|
|
|
Post by NigelMoore on Oct 15, 2017 18:56:13 GMT
whos the relevant person at crt to contact, Richard himself? I can think of no more useless and uninterested individual, for all that he ought to be the one to turn to. Certainly include that waste of space in any correspondence, but concentrate on the legal and PR people as a primary target.
|
|
|
Post by kris on Oct 15, 2017 18:59:16 GMT
whos the relevant person at crt to contact, Richard himself? I can think of no more useless and uninterested individual, for all that he ought to be the one to turn to. Certainly include that waste of space in any correspondence, but concentrate on the legal and PR people as a primary target. Richard is a glad handing politician who is doing as he is told, which leads to the question. Who's pulling his strings?
|
|
|
Post by IainS on Oct 15, 2017 19:18:39 GMT
Herewith my own hasty synopsis of the relevant Acts affecting PRN & pleasure boat charges on the Bridgewater Canal. Question marks denote legislation I do not have copies. (snip excellent ( and obviously not hasty!) synopsis of revelant legislation) So the bottom line appears to be that Peel are entitled to charge a toll/licence fee on pleasure boats transiting the canal. Perhaps it might be constructive to attempt to ascertain the reason for their unilateral variation of the long standing "gentlemen's agreement" with BW/CaRT, and persuade them to make it less draconian. I would suggest that an existing organisation, CaRT would be the obvious one, but, failing them, IWA (not much hope!) or NABO progress this, as having more clout than an individual. I suspect that Peel (or the Bridgewater Canal Company*) feel that some CaRT licence holders (or non-licence holders!) have been taking advantage of the existing agreement, staying on the Bridgewater for a week, moving off for a day or so, and then returning for a further week. If this is the reason for the change, maybe all sides would be satisfied with a reduction of the 28 days to 7 days? * I have some dealings with another Peel owned company, and find that they operate fairly autonomously, with no Peel input to day to day operation, but control of strategic direction.
|
|
|
Post by NigelMoore on Oct 15, 2017 19:57:29 GMT
Richard is a glad handing politician who is doing as he is told, which leads to the question. Who's pulling his strings? His purse?
|
|
|
Post by kris on Oct 15, 2017 19:59:20 GMT
Richard is a glad handing politician who is doing as he is told, which leads to the question. Who's pulling his strings? His purse? quite possibly
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 15, 2017 20:02:28 GMT
Richard is a glad handing politician who is doing as he is told, which leads to the question. Who's pulling his strings? His purse? If I was to pass comment I'd say his status was more important than his purse, but add the two together and you get the answer.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 15, 2017 20:06:16 GMT
I didn't know who he was but Google reveals that
Quote from Google search result. From website called "third sector" " He has a strong record of leading organisations through change "
|
|
|
Post by lollygagger on Oct 15, 2017 20:31:47 GMT
I didn't know who he was but Google reveals that Quote from Google search result. From website called "third sector" " He has a strong record of leading organisations through change " A friend of mine leapt to the top by doing that. She'd just sack everyone without hesitation or any guilt. Business is business. Streamline, computerise, sack, make less dependent on human beans, control. Fear of being stuck with employees in a falling market. Not even about profit really. Shifting responsibility away another big driver, itself driven by fear. Get rid of employees, outsource your responsibilities as only way to be able to sack without payoffs if something goes wrong. Our goverments have organised the conditions to encourage these behaviours.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 15, 2017 21:05:57 GMT
I didn't know who he was but Google reveals that Quote from Google search result. From website called "third sector" " He has a strong record of leading organisations through change " A friend of mine leapt to the top by doing that. She'd just sack everyone without hesitation or any guilt. Business is business. Streamline, computerise, sack, make less dependent on human beans, control. Fear of being stuck with employees in a falling market. Not even about profit really. Shifting responsibility away another big driver, itself driven by fear. Get rid of employees, outsource your responsibilities as only way to be able to sack without payoffs if something goes wrong. Our goverments have organised the conditions to encourage these behaviours. I suspect you'd end up with no true freinds if you carried on with that behaviour....or worse...Money is no good to anyone if you have nobody left who wants to share time with you.
|
|
|
Post by lollygagger on Oct 15, 2017 21:11:07 GMT
A friend of mine leapt to the top by doing that. She'd just sack everyone without hesitation or any guilt. Business is business. Streamline, computerise, sack, make less dependent on human beans, control. Fear of being stuck with employees in a falling market. Not even about profit really. Shifting responsibility away another big driver, itself driven by fear. Get rid of employees, outsource your responsibilities as only way to be able to sack without payoffs if something goes wrong. Our goverments have organised the conditions to encourage these behaviours. I suspect you'd end up with no true freinds if you carried on with that behaviour....or worse...Money is no good to anyone if you have nobody left who wants to share time with you. Work life / home life, total separation. A warm friendly genuine person with 4 kids, work seldom mentioned at home. She did go totally bonkers though so maybe it did prey on her mind really. I mean regressed to a 4 year old bonkers. She's a maths teacher now, putting something back. Funny old world.
|
|