|
Post by kris on Mar 12, 2018 12:07:12 GMT
The recent thread started by Peterboat about what to do about the liscence review has got me thinking about direct action. Do people think that direct action is warranted, I don't mean particularly about the liscence review. But about the general direction cart is taking. Personally I find the borrowing of 200million and the selling off a profit making asset(not to mention publically owned, once) bwml to be a really worrying development. This is on top of the 15% year on year decline in maintenance and selling of of any land it can to developers. Basically I suppose I think cart's current managment are incompetent and not to be trusted with ensuring the continued survival of the network. I for one am not prepared to stand by and just watch the car crash happen, but I'm wondering what other people feel about direct action?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 12, 2018 12:22:24 GMT
Direct action is the only way to make them sit up and listen. They are ignorant arrogant pricks. A kick in the crotch is needed.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 12, 2018 12:23:56 GMT
|
|
|
Post by kris on Mar 12, 2018 12:31:17 GMT
Direct action is the only way to make them sit up and listen. They are ignorant arrogant pricks. A kick in the crotch is needed. I completely agree. Having been involved in lots of direct action campaigns over the years, I'm very aware that a well planned focused campaign of direct action can be very effective in raising awareness of an issue. It's not about numbers of people involved or longevity of the actions, but about choosing thought provoking even amusing actions and them making sure they get good press coverage.
|
|
|
Post by kris on Mar 12, 2018 12:31:52 GMT
Is that you volunteering then?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 12, 2018 12:38:02 GMT
Is that you volunteering then? No it was me thinking that "direct action" might have exactly the opposite effect of what is wanted. I don't think there are enough people bothered about it. There might be a few willing to organise some sort of blockade but I think they would be shooting themselves in the foot (assuming their aim is to continue living on a boat on the cut). that's what the video clip refers to.
|
|
|
Post by kris on Mar 12, 2018 12:41:03 GMT
Is that you volunteering then? No it was me thinking that "direct action" might have exactly the opposite effect of what is wanted. I don't think there are enough people bothered about it. There might be a few willing to organise some sort of blockade but I think they would be shooting themselves in the foot. Have you any experience of direct action? Let's not forget that the network as we know it is still in existence because of direct action by a few individuals, that managed to bring the plight of the waterways to wider public awareness. Ps I thought it was you volunteering to go and commit hari Kari in carts head office.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 12, 2018 12:45:46 GMT
Sorry I thought you were referring to the wide beam thing but reading again you are talking about an attempt to "lift the lid" on CRT mismanagement. I still wonder how many people are concerned about that. Where will you get the troops? No I haven't done direct action. Not my cup of tea
|
|
|
Post by kris on Mar 12, 2018 12:52:01 GMT
Sorry I thought you were referring to the wide beam thing but reading again you are talking about an attempt to "lift the lid" on CRT mismanagement. I still wonder how many people are concerned about that. Where will you get the troops? No I haven't done direct action. Not my cup of tea Personally I think there are wider issues than the widebeam surcharge, I feel that is just a symptom of the mismanagement. If you engage in direct action your issue has to come across very clearly to be effective. Don't worry about the troops, their are plenty of disgruntled boaters. Just sitting back and passively accepting the situation is not my cup of tea 😃
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 12, 2018 13:10:01 GMT
My thoughts...
Sometimes direct action is necessary but only as a last resort. It needs to be well co-ordinated with support from both those who are taking the action and a significant part of the general population (or at least those that support the 'cause') to achieve maximum affect. For now I think the best way is to gather support and mount email campaigns etc. rather than risk potentially pissing off others that could be future supporters. I could be completely wrong though.
|
|
|
Post by twbm2 on Mar 12, 2018 13:17:22 GMT
I played a small part in the direct action in the 70's. It was driven by a conviction that water transport might still have a role as well as preservation of the heritage. With the exception of around a dozen fuel boats and occasional short lived gravel runs, the commercial traffic hasn't happened. Preservation of heritage remains a legitimate goal. However much as I have derived many weeks of pleasure from using the system over the past 47 years, and hope to carry on for many more, the harsh truth is there is absolutely no reason to keep the inland waterways system fully operational other than to facilitate the preferred leisure activities / lifestyle of a very small percentage of the population who contribute a very small proportion of the costs. Walks on the towpath, flora and fauna, water movement and land drainage can all be achieved without operational locks and bridges.
What do you have in mind? Vandalise some locks to add to the maintenance burden, a blockade that inconveniences no one except fellow boaters?
I suppose we could resurrect the actions of the 70's and do the maintenance ourselves voluntarily .... Yep, that'd show them.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 12, 2018 13:22:02 GMT
I played a small part in the direct action in the 70's. It was driven by a conviction that water transport might still have a role as well as preservation of the heritage. With the exception of around a dozen fuel boats and occasional short lived gravel runs, the commercial traffic hasn't happened. Preservation of heritage remains a legitimate goal. However much as I have derived many weeks of pleasure from using the system over the past 47 years, and hope to carry on for many more, the harsh truth is there is absolutely no reason to keep the inland waterways system fully operational other than to facilitate the preferred leisure activities / lifestyle of a very small percentage of the population who contribute a very small proportion of the costs. Walks on the towpath, flora and fauna, water movement and land drainage can all be achieved without operational locks and bridges. What do you have in mind? Vandalise some locks to add to the maintenance burden, a blockade that inconveniences no one except fellow boaters? I suppose we could resurrect the actions of the 70's and do the maintenance ourselves voluntarily .... Yep, that'd show them. Are you french?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 12, 2018 13:26:15 GMT
the harsh truth is there is absolutely no reason to keep the inland waterways system fully operational other than to facilitate the preferred leisure activities / lifestyle of a very small percentage of the population who contribute a very small proportion of the costs. Walks on the towpath, flora and fauna, water movement and land drainage can all be achieved without operational locks and bridges. But for many people one of the best things about canals is that they see boats moving - keeps them in touch with a bit of heritage (even if most boats are fairly new).
|
|
|
Post by kris on Mar 12, 2018 13:27:03 GMT
I played a small part in the direct action in the 70's. It was driven by a conviction that water transport might still have a role as well as preservation of the heritage. With the exception of around a dozen fuel boats and occasional short lived gravel runs, the commercial traffic hasn't happened. Preservation of heritage remains a legitimate goal. However much as I have derived many weeks of pleasure from using the system over the past 47 years, and hope to carry on for many more, the harsh truth is there is absolutely no reason to keep the inland waterways system fully operational other than to facilitate the preferred leisure activities / lifestyle of a very small percentage of the population who contribute a very small proportion of the costs. Walks on the towpath, flora and fauna, water movement and land drainage can all be achieved without operational locks and bridges. What do you have in mind? Vandalise some locks to add to the maintenance burden, a blockade that inconveniences no one except fellow boaters? I suppose we could resurrect the actions of the 70's and do the maintenance ourselves voluntarily .... Yep, that'd show them. Why would you presume I'd want to vandalise anything?
|
|
|
Post by Mr Stabby on Mar 12, 2018 13:39:37 GMT
I'm thinking possibly CRT staff could be temporarily barricaded in their Leeds office using boxes of some type of waste material to block up the doors and windows.
|
|