|
Post by bargemast on Jan 28, 2018 11:49:16 GMT
Status quo I should think. As in, DEFRA grant continually squeezed, navigation budget restrictions and a year on year inflation busting rise for licence fees. That's bad enough but at least it doesn't bring the added uselessness of the C&RT mob. Even a rebranding excersise retaining the current EA navigation management and team would have been a criminal waste of the limited funds the EA and C&RT tell is they have. It's a pointless vanity excersise with little or no benefit to waterways users. A bit like C&RT being formed Very much like C&RT being formed I would say. Peter.
|
|
|
Post by naughtyfox on Jan 28, 2018 11:49:32 GMT
Like with the railways - miss your train and you lose your ticket because it is only valid for that particular train. So you're expected then to buy a ticket on the spot at con-artist price, even though the next train is run by the same company, and they've had your money once already! Why the British public don't visit these train company managers and stick red hot mooring pins in their eyes can only be because they are too lazy - so indeed, Stupid Brits Do Get What They Deserve.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 28, 2018 11:55:09 GMT
Like with the railways - miss your train and you lose your ticket because it is only valid for that particular train. So you're expected then to buy a ticket on the spot at con-artist price, even though the next train is run by the same company, and they've had your money once already! Why the British public don't visit these train company managers and stick red hot mooring pins in their eyes can only be because they are too lazy - so indeed, Stupid Brits Do Get What They Deserve. To be fair if you stick red hot mooring pins in someone's eyes you may get done for GBH or similar. Might be worth talking to Mr stabby about this as I believe his equipment doesn't require heating up.
|
|
|
Post by bargemast on Jan 28, 2018 11:58:11 GMT
It's vitally important that this point kris is making about the 'back door', or stealth, privatization of public assets is understood and publicized as widely as is possible. The inland waterways that were entrusted, in July 2012, into the care of a private limited company (and make no mistake that is precisely what C&RT is) were a 'nationalized' asset. They were taken 'into public ownership' in 1949, . . in other words, they belong to you, to me, in fact to all of us, and once again a few of the lying, two faced gits that we vote into Parliament every 4 to 5 years have 'put one over' on the all too gullible and apathetic British public by in effect giving away something we all own to a bunch of con-artists to do as they wish with. The important thing would be to get every application to the Secretary of State [for consent to sell off parts of the Infrastructure Trust portfolio] publicised widely in the boating press, so that everbody had the opportunity to stick their oar in and protest. It is scary to think just how much Parry has managed to dispose of on the quiet, with only nominal public notice. Again, protections against surreptitious disposals could have been worked out, had the 'professionals' in the larger more influential boating organisations put their heads to the task when it mattered.I have the impression that most of these "professionals" are more interested in playing important for their own pleasure, than doing something important for the organisations that gave them their important functions, as the only reason for those organisations to be created was, to safe the future of the waterways. It's all looking very sad, and even more sadly is, that it's getting worse almost by the day. Peter.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 28, 2018 12:03:01 GMT
I could imagine that there are quite a lot of "influential professionals" in the waterways sphere who would quite like proper privatisation and maybe even a breakup of the system. I personally think this is what will happen and that CRT is a vehicle for causing it to happen.
|
|
|
Post by TonyDunkley on Jan 28, 2018 12:40:41 GMT
The important thing would be to get every application to the Secretary of State [for consent to sell off parts of the Infrastructure Trust portfolio] publicised widely in the boating press, so that everbody had the opportunity to stick their oar in and protest. It is scary to think just how much Parry has managed to dispose of on the quiet, with only nominal public notice. Again, protections against surreptitious disposals could have been worked out, had the 'professionals' in the larger more influential boating organisations put their heads to the task when it mattered.I have the impression that most of these "professionals" are more interested in playing important for their own pleasure, . . . . This is my view too, Peter. I formed the opinion, back when the transition from BW to what was to become C&RT was first mooted, that the self-interest group within the IWA who were supporting it were doing so simply because they saw it as a heaven sent way of increasing and consolidating their power and influence over our inland waterways. I'm also convinced that the same motives lie behind the support for a C&RT takeover as the navigation authority for the EA controlled waterways. Ps. What's that river of your's doing now ? . . . I hope it's going to start behaving itself again sometime soon.
|
|
|
Post by naughtyfox on Jan 28, 2018 13:11:44 GMT
You can't buy a poxy train ticket these days without having 27 different User names and 27 Passwords for the 27 different Fat Controllers. These train companies do nothing to invest in the infrastructure, they only cream off the profits which are fail-proof. British trains are dirty - the cleaners are unmotivated with their piss-poor pay and conditions.
|
|
|
Post by kris on Jan 28, 2018 13:18:03 GMT
Your forgetting the main purpose of forming Crt was privatising the waterways by stealth. The massive transference of public assets to the control of a private entity, is nothing short of a major conjuring trick. “Conjuring trick” suggests deception – yet the whole point of the exercise was clear enough from the start, as was the open admission of how adversely the change-over would affect the network for years to come. I used the term "conjuring trick" because I think there is an element of deception. How many of the general public are aware of the massive transference of assets? It might of been very clear for someone who looked into it and has your level of comprehension of the issues. But for the average member of the public I think it's as clear as mud. I think the transference of assets is the one thing if explained to people, makes them realise the seriousness of the situation. It makes it plain that it's not a bunch of over privileged boaters moaning about having to pay more. They realise that we have all lost out.
|
|
|
Post by Jim on Jan 28, 2018 13:22:55 GMT
Just to clarify C&RT structure, it isn't a private company, it's a Company Limited by Guarantee and a Registered Charity. Very different from a Limited Company. It has to operate within the rules set out in its Memorandum and Articles. If it operates outside these then legs can be smacked by the Charity Commission. Whatever else is wrong with it, there's lots. If it acts like a private company then raise the issue with the Charity Commission. Latest audited accounts for 16/17 should be available in the Charity Commission website, at latest by 31st Jan. Mem' & Art's should be available there too.
|
|
|
Post by kris on Jan 28, 2018 13:27:44 GMT
Just to clarify C&RT structure, it isn't a private company, it's a Company Limited by Guarantee and a Registered Charity. Very different from a Limited Company. It has to operate within the rules set out in its Memorandum and Articles. If it operates outside these then legs can be smacked by the Charity Commission. Whatever else is wrong with it, there's lots. If it acts like a private company then raise the issue with the Charity Commission. Latest audited accounts for 16/17 should be available in the Charity Commission website, at latest by 31st Jan. Mem' & Art's should be available there too. the charity commission doesn't have any balls. Also what about BWML don't forget they where also publicly owned assets that are now in the hands of a private entity.
|
|
|
Post by bargemast on Jan 28, 2018 13:37:03 GMT
I have the impression that most of these "professionals" are more interested in playing important for their own pleasure, . . . . This is my view too, Peter. I formed the opinion, back when the transition from BW to what was to become C&RT was first mooted, that the self-interest group within the IWA who were supporting it were doing so simply because they saw it as a heaven sent way of increasing and consolidating their power and influence over our inland waterways. I'm also convinced that the same motives lie behind the support for a C&RT takeover as the navigation authority for the EA controlled waterways. Ps. What's that river of your's doing now ? . . . I hope it's going to start behaving itself again sometime soon. What can we (the general public) do about these "important" people blocking the positions that should be occupied with people that are really interested in the survival of the waterways, and don't give a shit for their personal image ? My river is starting to go down more and more, and the road is usable again, I still need some planks that lenghten my gangway to get ashore without getting too wet and muddy. The flow is still rather strong, but that is to get rid of as much water as possible before the next rain session starts, as the reservoir are full and the group saturated, that's why they have to get all the levels back to normal as quick as possible. They are somewhat restricted however, as all the water they let go down from here has to go through Paris later, and they can't get rid of it there quick enough. If it go's on like this, it may all be back to sort of normal for this time of the year in about 1 week I hope and expect. Peter.
|
|
|
Post by Jim on Jan 28, 2018 13:39:31 GMT
Just to clarify C&RT structure, it isn't a private company, it's a Company Limited by Guarantee and a Registered Charity. Very different from a Limited Company. It has to operate within the rules set out in its Memorandum and Articles. If it operates outside these then legs can be smacked by the Charity Commission. Whatever else is wrong with it, there's lots. If it acts like a private company then raise the issue with the Charity Commission. Latest audited accounts for 16/17 should be available in the Charity Commission website, at latest by 31st Jan. Mem' & Art's should be available there too. the charity commission doesn't have any balls. Also what about BWML don't forget they where also publicly owned assets that are now in the hands of a private entity. Charities are allowed to have a Trading Company, set up so that all profits benefit the Charity. Afaik this is the relationship between Cart and bwml.
|
|
|
Post by Jim on Jan 28, 2018 13:40:20 GMT
Just to clarify C&RT structure, it isn't a private company, it's a Company Limited by Guarantee and a Registered Charity. Very different from a Limited Company. It has to operate within the rules set out in its Memorandum and Articles. If it operates outside these then legs can be smacked by the Charity Commission. Whatever else is wrong with it, there's lots. If it acts like a private company then raise the issue with the Charity Commission. Latest audited accounts for 16/17 should be available in the Charity Commission website, at latest by 31st Jan. Mem' & Art's should be available there too. the charity commission doesn't have any balls. Also what about BWML don't forget they where also publicly owned assets that are now in the hands of a private entity. Charities are allowed to have a Trading Company, set up so that all profits benefit the Charity. Afaik this is the relationship between Cart and bwml.
|
|
|
Post by kris on Jan 28, 2018 13:44:59 GMT
I got where your coming from Jim the first time. Crt are also supposed to comply to the legal statutes governing the waterways, but they are not. By keeping insisting that there terms and conditions over rule statute, they are acting illegally. So if they don't evem abide by the acts of parliment what makes you think they abide by the terms of being a "charity?"
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 28, 2018 13:56:07 GMT
I hate charity. One of the murkiest and most dodgy forms of organisation ever invented.
Scam heaven.
|
|