|
Post by Allan on Feb 11, 2018 10:02:29 GMT
Its ok kris I was having a giggle. You meant a slow motion car crash. And I think you are right. I've assumed this was going to happen ever since CRT was formed. It doesn't surprise me at all but I don't think there is much that can be done about it. Vested interests are too powerful. Anyone attempting to make a positive difference is pissing into the wind. Is this too defeatist? yes it is a little bit defeatist because it means any action feels futile. Where as I don't believe this, I realise that a small group of empowered people can alter the outcome. I've been involved in numerous direct action campaigns that have had positive outcome. Let me ask you a hypothetical question, if you where a despot ruler and wanted to ensure the longevity of your rule. Which attitude amongst the general populace would suit you most? An air of defeatism, where people don't think its worth doing anything or a group of empowered people who go about creating the future they want to be part of? When C&RT was formed, many took issue with a few who expressed concern. When Parry replaced Evans and started to talk directly to boaters many were impressed. I just asked Parry to look at a certain document (Nigel knows which one) and take the appropriate action or to look me in the eye and tell me it was not forged. It seems that nothing changes - www.thefloater.org/the-floater-february-2018/complaint-to-information-commissioner-over-fake-document-as-crt-blames-junior-member-of-staff
|
|
|
Post by kris on Feb 11, 2018 10:15:25 GMT
I think a lot of boaters my self included welcomed the change and gave CaRT every chance hoping that they where the solution. Yes Partry talking directly to boatersdid impress some people. Although his boater meetings didn't last long. Now he appears at festivals or waterways open days, where people generally are in good humor. He can also control the interaction he chooses who to talk to and can walk away from ones he doesn't want to talk to. This behaviour has impressed people, but the evidence is very apparent now that he is an asset stripper and is ripping the heart out of the waterways so that it can be sold off to the iwa and other commercial interests. If people don't wake up and start shouting it will be too late.
|
|
|
Post by twbm2 on Feb 11, 2018 10:17:54 GMT
When CaRT was formed with Charity status it was it not driven by the Government wanting to rid itself of the cost burden of 'proper' maintenance? That being the case no matter who took over, they'd be struggling to find the cash to do all the required works as the main source has dried up. I get that selling historic buildings is probably a bad thing in some instances .. but if that's what's paying for the repairs at Marple for example, what would we rather have - preserved Victorian buildings next to closed waterways or trendy shops and apartments next to open ones?
I'm not defending CaRT, they appear to operate to their own rules in some areas, but you can't spend money you haven't got. I was involved in the running and preservation of a working pair: it would have been nice to spend £50 to £100k to get them back to pristine carrying condition, but we had to restrict ourselves to the priority jobs we could afford and some highly desirable work was always trumped by something more urgent. Looking after the whole system is that with more noughts on the end.
I am not optimistic about the future.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 11, 2018 10:29:59 GMT
When CaRT was formed with Charity status it was it not driven by the Government wanting to rid itself of the cost burden of 'proper' maintenance? That being the case no matter who took over, they'd be struggling to find the cash to do all the required works as the main source has dried up. I get that selling historic buildings is probably a bad thing in some instances .. but if that's what's paying for the repairs at Marple for example, what would we rather have - preserved Victorian buildings next to closed waterways or trendy shops and apartments next to open ones? I'm not defending CaRT, they appear to operate to their own rules in some areas, but you can't spend money you haven't got. I was involved in the running and preservation of a working pair: it would have been nice to spend £50 to £100k to get them back to pristine carrying condition, but we had to restrict ourselves to the priority jobs we could afford and some highly desirable work was always trumped by something more urgent. Looking after the whole system is that with more noughts on the end. I am not optimistic about the future. They spend 2.5 million quid a year on company car allowances. That suggests to me that either they have their priorities wrong, or they have money to burn.
|
|
|
Post by kris on Feb 11, 2018 10:32:41 GMT
When CaRT was formed with Charity status it was it not driven by the Government wanting to rid itself of the cost burden of 'proper' maintenance? That being the case no matter who took over, they'd be struggling to find the cash to do all the required works as the main source has dried up. I get that selling historic buildings is probably a bad thing in some instances .. but if that's what's paying for the repairs at Marple for example, what would we rather have - preserved Victorian buildings next to closed waterways or trendy shops and apartments next to open ones? I'm not defending CaRT, they appear to operate to their own rules in some areas, but you can't spend money you haven't got. I was involved in the running and preservation of a working pair: it would have been nice to spend £50 to £100k to get them back to pristine carrying condition, but we had to restrict ourselves to the priority jobs we could afford and some highly desirable work was always trumped by something more urgent. Looking after the whole system is that with more noughts on the end. I am not optimistic about the future. Whilst I agree the job of looking after so much infrastructure isn't easy or cheap and the reality is there is always going to be more jobs that need dping than you have money for. But this idea that CaRT is a poor charity is rubbish it's got a huge property holdings, the goverment funding is guaranteed for the first 15yrs. They've done a good job of persuading people that they are poor. Where does the income go from BWML? The truth is they put out this image of being poor whilst hemeraging money in other depts. How much has the "Independent'" liscence review cost? They ran workshops for the whole workforce called "building the trust" again run by a trendy pr company. These are not the actions of a poor organisation. So don't let them trick you into beleiving they have no money. "
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 11, 2018 10:38:10 GMT
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 11, 2018 10:40:45 GMT
When CaRT was formed with Charity status it was it not driven by the Government wanting to rid itself of the cost burden of 'proper' maintenance? That being the case no matter who took over, they'd be struggling to find the cash to do all the required works as the main source has dried up. I get that selling historic buildings is probably a bad thing in some instances .. but if that's what's paying for the repairs at Marple for example, what would we rather have - preserved Victorian buildings next to closed waterways or trendy shops and apartments next to open ones? I'm not defending CaRT, they appear to operate to their own rules in some areas, but you can't spend money you haven't got. I was involved in the running and preservation of a working pair: it would have been nice to spend £50 to £100k to get them back to pristine carrying condition, but we had to restrict ourselves to the priority jobs we could afford and some highly desirable work was always trumped by something more urgent. Looking after the whole system is that with more noughts on the end. I am not optimistic about the future. They spend 2.5 million quid a year on company car allowances. That suggests to me that either they have their priorities wrong, or they have money to burn. £2.5 million using an average lease cost of £400 per month = 520 odd vehicles. Hopefully this includes vans and welfare vehicles. Whether C&RT are getting best value for their fleet is open to debate - particularly if you have people taking advantage of company cars or allowance schemes who do not need a vehicle for their day to day work.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 11, 2018 10:43:41 GMT
They spend 2.5 million quid a year on company car allowances. That suggests to me that either they have their priorities wrong, or they have money to burn. £2.5 million using an average lease cost of £400 per month = 520 odd vehicles. Hopefully this includes vans and welfare vehicles. Whether C&RT are getting best value for their fleet is open to debate - particularly if you have people taking advantage of company cars or allowance schemes who do not need a vehicle for their day to day work. Some of the car allowances are 10,000 quid a year, and I believe the vans, trucks etc are not included in this particular figure. One of the guys delivering their fleet last year was so pissed off, he posted on Facebook about the extravagance of it all. Mercedes, bmw's etc, not basic vehicles, top of the range.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 11, 2018 10:48:53 GMT
£2.5 million using an average lease cost of £400 per month = 520 odd vehicles. Hopefully this includes vans and welfare vehicles. Whether C&RT are getting best value for their fleet is open to debate - particularly if you have people taking advantage of company cars or allowance schemes who do not need a vehicle for their day to day work. Some of the car allowances are 10,000 quid a year, and I believe the vans, trucks etc are not included in this particular figure. One of the guys delivering their fleet last year was so pissed off, he posted on Facebook about the extravagance of it all. Mercedes, bmw's etc, not basic vehicles, top of the range. If that is the case then it would indeed seem the piss is being taken!
|
|
|
Post by JohnV on Feb 11, 2018 10:49:01 GMT
that makes for very interesting reading ...... especially near the end !!!
|
|
|
Post by kris on Feb 11, 2018 10:49:17 GMT
They hemerage money in lots of other ways.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 11, 2018 10:53:36 GMT
that makes for very interesting reading ...... especially near the end !!! The battle for a lump sum has been raging for over a year.
|
|
|
Post by bargemast on Feb 11, 2018 10:55:54 GMT
When CaRT was formed with Charity status it was it not driven by the Government wanting to rid itself of the cost burden of 'proper' maintenance? That being the case no matter who took over, they'd be struggling to find the cash to do all the required works as the main source has dried up. I get that selling historic buildings is probably a bad thing in some instances .. but if that's what's paying for the repairs at Marple for example, what would we rather have - preserved Victorian buildings next to closed waterways or trendy shops and apartments next to open ones? I'm not defending CaRT, they appear to operate to their own rules in some areas, but you can't spend money you haven't got. I was involved in the running and preservation of a working pair: it would have been nice to spend £50 to £100k to get them back to pristine carrying condition, but we had to restrict ourselves to the priority jobs we could afford and some highly desirable work was always trumped by something more urgent. Looking after the whole system is that with more noughts on the end. I am not optimistic about the future. I don't think that there's much that you can compare between trying to maintain 2 old working boats with enthousiast and a too low budget to do what would be needed, and C&RT that have plenty of money coming in, but they think that it's more important as jenlyn said to invest a fortune in company cars, and also waste a fortune by sponsoring the well known (un) lawfirm Shoopiss to find tricks to get them out off many completely illegal actions, for which Shoopiss often manages to find lies that tired judges (or friends of the Shoopiss team) don't (want to) notice, and let C&RT with their help get away with murder (of the waterways). Also how can they afford to pay sky high bonusses to the high staff members for the good work they were supposed to have done, but didn't do. How can they justify to pay external businesses enormous amounts of money to do the work that their own workers could have done, and probably much better too. Of course I may be wrong, but I don't think that you with the limited money available to keep your boats in working order, wasted money by getting jobs done that you and your mates could do yourselfs, by expensive outside businesses. That sort of thing is usually only done by people that don't give a sh.. for the well being of the business they are suppose to look after in the best interest of that business, because they're only interested in their own (and their friends) well being, early retirement and huge bonusses. Peter.
|
|
|
Post by Allan on Feb 11, 2018 11:01:44 GMT
When CaRT was formed with Charity status it was it not driven by the Government wanting to rid itself of the cost burden of 'proper' maintenance? That being the case no matter who took over, they'd be struggling to find the cash to do all the required works as the main source has dried up. I get that selling historic buildings is probably a bad thing in some instances .. but if that's what's paying for the repairs at Marple for example, what would we rather have - preserved Victorian buildings next to closed waterways or trendy shops and apartments next to open ones? I'm not defending CaRT, they appear to operate to their own rules in some areas, but you can't spend money you haven't got. I was involved in the running and preservation of a working pair: it would have been nice to spend £50 to £100k to get them back to pristine carrying condition, but we had to restrict ourselves to the priority jobs we could afford and some highly desirable work was always trumped by something more urgent. Looking after the whole system is that with more noughts on the end. I am not optimistic about the future. It takes two to tango. If the transition trustees had been provided with with the true cost of achieving and maintaining 'steady state' (i.e. getting the waterways up to an acceptable standard and keeping it at that standard) then they would not have taken them on. With regard to spending money you have not got, C&RT seems quite happy to have borrowed and spent £163 million (soon to be £213m) it has not got. This will not be spent repairing Marple or anything else. The fact is that C&RT is more interested in growing its assets than maintaining its waterways.
|
|
|
Post by twbm2 on Feb 11, 2018 20:30:20 GMT
Thank you all .. I am now better informed.
|
|