Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 2, 2016 22:02:05 GMT
We have had some strong views aired on Thunderboat regarding the existence or not of an Anti CC Agenda by CRT and for many of us rightly or wrongly the jury is still out on that one. Can I ask though,in light of the capitulation over Tadworth what conclusions if any can we draw about CRT and the way they operate.It makes me very uncomfortable when an organisation such as CRT appears to take no recognisance of either Law or Terms and Conditions but the truth is simply what they decide it to be on any given day and on any given issue.It also appears to me that there is a propensity for the scorched earth policy when perhaps a bit of compassion and understanding would achieve the same goals and objectives.Are the points I have raised down to just some rogue elements in Enforcement etc or is it simply another Railtrack and very soon to be labelled by boaters and the public alike as "Not fit for Purpose"
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 2, 2016 22:26:55 GMT
There seem to be some changes being implemented within CRT at the moment. I don't know what has happened, but something definitely has. I suspect (and at the moment it is just suspicion), that enforcement is going to go through a review. It's not cost effective, and some of the recent behaviour by some at the department has given the trust some really bad pr.
Parry is a pr junky, it's his preferred strategy. If it's not going his way, he will manouvre into a position where he can gain back some lost ground. That may well come about by "softening" the enforcement team. Maybe getting rid of the BW stalwarts that have struggled with their new position.
A few of us who have dealt with the trust previously, have noticed for several months that there seems to be a change. Time will tell, but as I said a few weeks back, I wouldn't be surprised to see some staff changes within enforcement over the next few months. One thing is for certain, the situation with Tadworth has put a supervisors nose right out of joint, and he is going to be very bitter.
|
|
|
Post by tadworth on Jun 2, 2016 23:02:26 GMT
We will have to see if after they grant the licence they refrain from further harrrasment.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 2, 2016 23:05:21 GMT
We will have to see if after they grant the licence they refrain from further harrrasment. You win the game. To win further, you need to be ahead of them. Don't make any slips.
|
|
|
Post by TonyDunkley on Jun 2, 2016 23:39:21 GMT
There seem to be some changes being implemented within CRT at the moment. I don't know what has happened, but something definitely has. I suspect (and at the moment it is just suspicion), that enforcement is going to go through a review. It's not cost effective, and some of the recent behaviour by some at the department has given the trust some really bad pr. Parry is a pr junky, it's his preferred strategy. If it's not going his way, he will manouvre into a position where he can gain back some lost ground. That may well come about by "softening" the enforcement team. Maybe getting rid of the BW stalwarts that have struggled with their new position. A few of us who have dealt with the trust previously, have noticed for several months that there seems to be a change. Time will tell, but as I said a few weeks back, I wouldn't be surprised to see some staff changes within enforcement over the next few months. One thing is for certain, the situation with Tadworth has put a supervisors nose right out of joint, and he is going to be very bitter. I'm inclined to the same view, and I think the rough times they've been given by two Circuit Judges, the adverse comments from others, and the current High Court Claim against them resulting from their unlawful/criminal boat seizure at Newark in 2014 has got a lot to do with it. The Enforcement goons have been digging themselves, and the Trust, into some fairly deep holes of late and there are now some signs that they're possibly beginning to realize that they should perhaps stop digging. Today has brought some new developments in both my current wrangle with them, and in addition to 'Tadworth', agreement to the issuing of a new Licence or PBC to another previous recipient of a Court Order and Injunction. C&RT's Claim against me [which is a hole that I dug for them, and they have obligingly jumped into] for a Section 8 and 13 boat removal Declaration and Injunction was struck out on Wednesday morning at Nottingham County Court, and they have been given 7 days to apply for the Order to be set aside. For reasons which I'll explain in a few days time, I'm not going to publish any more information about what's happened for the time being, except to say that there are indications that they are very anxious at the moment to avoid airing their arguments with regard to the PRN, and their contention that boats kept moored and out of commission on private moorings outside the main navigable channel of a scheduled river must be 'licensed'.
|
|
|
Post by tadworth on Jun 3, 2016 0:19:09 GMT
In my case I think it is important to note that the enforcement and the legal departments both conspired in this mess. It was not one rogue employee.
The management ethos of CRT appears to be based on compulsive lying.
|
|
|
Post by TonyDunkley on Jun 3, 2016 0:50:13 GMT
In my case I think it is important to note that the enforcement and the legal departments both conspired in this mess. It was not one rogue employee. The management ethos of CRT appears to be based on compulsive lying. Yes, all the unlawful antics are invariably a joint effort from 'Enforcement' and the 'Legal Team', but always instigated by the malevolent and unbelievably stupid hierarchy of the Enforcement gang, usually in the shape of either Head of Enforcement, Dense Yelland, or the equally thick, Paul Griffin. They certainly do indulge in extensive and habitual lying as a vital component of standard operating procedure, but I think all their activities and excesses are simply an attempt to make it appear that they're doing a worthwhile and essential job, and to justify the cost of Enforcement, which, if you add the money that C&RT hands over to Shoosmiths to the direct cost in salaries/vehicles etc is now in excess of £3 million a year.
|
|
|
Post by PaulG2 on Jun 3, 2016 1:06:42 GMT
There seem to be some changes being implemented within CRT at the moment. I don't know what has happened, but something definitely has. I suspect (and at the moment it is just suspicion), that enforcement is going to go through a review. It's not cost effective, and some of the recent behaviour by some at the department has given the trust some really bad pr. Parry is a pr junky, it's his preferred strategy. If it's not going his way, he will manouvre into a position where he can gain back some lost ground. That may well come about by "softening" the enforcement team. Maybe getting rid of the BW stalwarts that have struggled with their new position. A few of us who have dealt with the trust previously, have noticed for several months that there seems to be a change. Time will tell, but as I said a few weeks back, I wouldn't be surprised to see some staff changes within enforcement over the next few months. One thing is for certain, the situation with Tadworth has put a supervisors nose right out of joint, and he is going to be very bitter. I'm inclined to the same view, and I think the rough times they've been given by two Circuit Judges, the adverse comments from others, and the current High Court Claim against them resulting from their unlawful/criminal boat seizure at Newark in 2014 has got a lot to do with it. The Enforcement goons have been digging themselves, and the Trust, into some fairly deep holes of late and there are now some signs that they're possibly beginning to realize that they should stop digging. Today has brought some new developments in both my current wrangle with them, and in addition to 'Tadworth', agreement to the issuing of a new Licence or PBC to another previous recipient of a Court Order and Injunction. C&RT's Claim against me [which is a hole that I dug for them, and they have obligingly jumped into] for a Section 8 and 13 boat removal Declaration and Injunction was struck out on Wednesday morning at Nottingham County Court, and they have been given 7 days to apply for the Order to be set aside. For reasons which I'll explain in a few days time, I'm not going to publish any more information about what's happened for the time being, except to say that there are indications that they are very anxious at the moment to avoid airing their arguments with regard to the PRN, and their contention that boats kept moored and out of commission on private moorings outside the main navigable channel of a scheduled river must be 'licensed'. Hi Tony, good to see you here - hope all is well with you and yours! When you do have some developments you feel you can reveal, I hope you will post them here. I always enjoy reading your stuff.
|
|
|
Post by naughtyfox on Jun 3, 2016 4:19:48 GMT
Perhaps Tadworth/Onion will even be awarded compensation if it can be shown he has been a victim of harrassment?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 3, 2016 7:54:39 GMT
Perhaps Tadworth/Onion will even be awarded compensation if it can be shown he has been a victim of harrassment? Well before he received his good news I did post on here attempting to raise that point, but as Jenlyn says I think he has to "Box Clever" in his future dealings with CRT
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 3, 2016 8:02:26 GMT
There seem to be some changes being implemented within CRT at the moment. I don't know what has happened, but something definitely has. I suspect (and at the moment it is just suspicion), that enforcement is going to go through a review. It's not cost effective, and some of the recent behaviour by some at the department has given the trust some really bad pr. Parry is a pr junky, it's his preferred strategy. If it's not going his way, he will manouvre into a position where he can gain back some lost ground. That may well come about by "softening" the enforcement team. Maybe getting rid of the BW stalwarts that have struggled with their new position. A few of us who have dealt with the trust previously, have noticed for several months that there seems to be a change. Time will tell, but as I said a few weeks back, I wouldn't be surprised to see some staff changes within enforcement over the next few months. One thing is for certain, the situation with Tadworth has put a supervisors nose right out of joint, and he is going to be very bitter. Its always great to here your comments,though I do worry about these BW stalwarts leaving,have they been the problem or has it been the Doctrine that they have been told to adopt ? The thought of some volunteers replacing them hardly inspires much confidence if thats future,which of course who knows
|
|
|
Post by kris on Jun 3, 2016 8:19:58 GMT
I do hope jenlyn and tony are right, there are some right malicious idiots in the enforcement dept. Before I started moving again I rang up Jill overum ( this was after getting the first patrol notice) just to be pro active and let her know that all I needed was a throttle return spring. That as soon as I got one I'd be moving. As soon as she had put the phone down she rang the local EO got him to come straight out to me and issue another patrol notice. I know because he told me this himself. ( I got this patrol notice less than two weeks after the first. ) she can have only done this to make herself look good. " I issued a patrol notice, he moved" all I can say is what a bitch, it's the last time I volunteer imformation to them.
|
|
|
Post by peterboat on Jun 3, 2016 8:21:01 GMT
I know that Leeds office is having a management down reshuffle and people have already gone because their job has gone. Stuart and Brian to CRT lads I see twice a week say its a very thorough sort out. We were all discussing one character that we would like to see gone he has been moved from a position where he deals with people and might be asked to take the long walk fingers crossed. It seems that in our area a cost cutting reshuffle is being used to get rid off some very dead deadwood!!
|
|
|
Post by peterboat on Jun 3, 2016 8:22:58 GMT
I do hope jenlyn and tony are right, there are some right malicious idiots in the enforcement dept. Before I started moving again I rang up Jill overum ( this was after getting the first patrol notice) just to be pro active and let her know that all I needed was a throttle return spring. That as soon as I got one I'd be moving. As soon as she had put the phone down she rang the local EO got him to come straight out to me and issue another patrol notice. I know because he told me this himself. ( I got this patrol notice less than two weeks after the first. ) she can have only done this to make herself look good. " I issued a patrol notice, he moved" all I can say is what a bitch, it's the last time I volunteer imformation to them. Where are you now Kris have you moved far?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 3, 2016 8:26:00 GMT
There has always been two fractions within CRT-BW. Constant bickering, and no teamwork. Enforcement saw its department as a law unto itself. It was quite evident when you sat down with them, hence a lot of people suggesting "the left hand doesn't know what the right is doing", (this was-is so true).
Some would go ahead and do what they liked, often going against what their superiors preferred. The likes of Geoff Wyatt, Simon slalem, Sally ash, Paul Griffin and Denise Yelland basically did what they liked, regardless of the consequences. Their superiors just didn't have any control (remember some of the comments banded about when parry took the helm? How he needed to take control, how everyone should answer to him).
It hasn't worked. Some of those that remain, have been set in their ways, and just cannot adjust to the trusts "private enterprise". The only way forward in my view, is for parry to get rid of the old stock, bring in some new blood that has the sense to work with the people it has responsibility for.
|
|