|
Post by thebfg on Aug 2, 2018 22:05:54 GMT
I do laugh at the Twitter accounts,that all put CRT in their names but then put all opinions are their own.
|
|
|
Post by Allan on Aug 2, 2018 22:15:52 GMT
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 2, 2018 22:33:24 GMT
<iframe width="24.75999999999999" height="4.680000000000007" style="position: absolute; width: 24.75999999999999px; height: 4.680000000000007px; z-index: -9999; border-style: none;left: 15px; top: -5px;" id="MoatPxIOPT0_26272896" scrolling="no"></iframe> <iframe width="24.75999999999999" height="4.680000000000007" style="position: absolute; width: 24.76px; height: 4.68px; z-index: -9999; border-style: none; left: 1177px; top: -5px;" id="MoatPxIOPT0_88594427" scrolling="no"></iframe> <iframe width="24.75999999999999" height="4.680000000000007" style="position: absolute; width: 24.76px; height: 4.68px; z-index: -9999; border-style: none; left: 15px; top: 173px;" id="MoatPxIOPT0_84824308" scrolling="no"></iframe> <iframe width="24.75999999999999" height="4.680000000000007" style="position: absolute; width: 24.76px; height: 4.68px; z-index: -9999; border-style: none; left: 1177px; top: 173px;" id="MoatPxIOPT0_51428564" scrolling="no"></iframe> they are far from detailed accounts. Not even close.
|
|
|
Post by NigelMoore on Aug 2, 2018 22:43:33 GMT
The boating, crt worker, enforcement power hungry Debby figersomethung blocked me on Twitter, funny thing I don’t follow her and she doesn’t follow me but still decided to block me, reckon she blocks anyone who questions crt She reads all the relevant forums and facebook pages each morning, then does a report for each CRT department. She even tried to drop Nigel in shit at court I believe. Indeed she did. She kept Shoosmiths supplied with numerous excerpts from my CWDF posts, which were exhibited in their application to have me barred from helping Leigh Ravenscroft, as an unsuitable person with an anti-CaRT agenda. One example – It didn’t cut much ice with the Master though, who commented in his judgment that my posts were no doubt helpful to boaters.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 2, 2018 22:43:50 GMT
These aren’t ‘detailed’ accounts. In order to satisfy the public that funding is being used wisely, we all need to see a detailed breakdown of the accounts. In particular, the £132 million they say they have spent on ‘maintenance’ last year. It’s all very well these sort of figures being banded around but without more detail they are meaningless. Openess and honesty = trust.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 2, 2018 22:50:31 GMT
She reads all the relevant forums and facebook pages each morning, then does a report for each CRT department. She even tried to drop Nigel in shit at court I believe. Indeed she did. She kept Shoosmiths supplied with numerous excerpts from my CWDF posts, which were exhibited in their application to have me barred from helping Leigh Ravenscroft, as an unsuitable person with an anti-CaRT agenda. One example – It didn’t cut much ice with the Master though, who commented in his judgment that my posts were no doubt helpful to boaters. She has more sides than a 50p coin.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 2, 2018 22:53:36 GMT
I thought (i could be wrong), any registered charity in this country have to make their accounts available upon request. If they don't, then that's an infringement of the charities act 2016. This has been questioned previously to the ico. CRT's response is always the same, "we cannot disclose all information as it is commercially sensitive". This is another thing which makes me laugh. How can any charity have commercially sensitive data, especially as there is no competition. I noticed a while back that even some of their ‘public’ minutes are full of blanked out sections saying the same thing. What could they possibly want to hide from the public?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 2, 2018 22:54:28 GMT
This has been questioned previously to the ico. CRT's response is always the same, "we cannot disclose all information as it is commercially sensitive". This is another thing which makes me laugh. How can any charity have commercially sensitive data, especially as there is no competition. I noticed a while back that even some of their ‘public’ minutes are full of blanked out sections saying the same thing. What could they possibly want to hide from the public? Spending.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 2, 2018 22:59:22 GMT
This is another thing which makes me laugh. How can any charity have commercially sensitive data, especially as there is no competition. I noticed a while back that even some of their ‘public’ minutes are full of blanked out sections saying the same thing. What could they possibly want to hide from the public? Spending. Well if that spending is justified then all is well. CRT have an opportunity here to build up some trust.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 2, 2018 23:16:18 GMT
Well if that spending is justified then all is well. CRT have an opportunity here to build up some trust. It isn't , and they can't, that's evident. They have gone through more than 1 billion quid since 2012, that's the equivalent of half a million pounds per linear mile. Can you put your hands up honestly when looking around you and see anything that would justify such expenditure ? I honestly can't. 7.5 million on vegetation this year, can you really believe that? £3,750 per mile.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 2, 2018 23:27:58 GMT
These are sharks simply feeding on others blood.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 2, 2018 23:45:23 GMT
Well if that spending is justified then all is well. CRT have an opportunity here to build up some trust. It isn't , and they can't, that's evident. They have gone through more than 1 billion quid since 2012, that's the equivalent of half a million pounds per linear mile. Can you put your hands up honestly when looking around you and see anything that would justify such expenditure ? I honestly can't. 7.5 million on vegetation this year, can you really believe that? £3,750 per mile. Having travelled around much of the system I don’t see much value for money either. I’d urge boaters and passers by, to take photos of the failing infrastructure so at least we have it on record. At the same time I think it’s good to give credit where due.
|
|
|
Post by Stumpy on Aug 3, 2018 0:12:31 GMT
I thought (i could be wrong), any registered charity in this country have to make their accounts available upon request. If they don't, then that's an infringement of the charities act 2016. This has been questioned previously to the ico. CRT's response is always the same, "we cannot disclose all information as it is commercially sensitive". Then perhaps it's a matter that should be investigated by the fraud squad. This nondisclosure of information, was why the charities act was amended. It enabled total transparency of any charities financial details.
|
|
|
Post by NigelMoore on Aug 3, 2018 3:59:48 GMT
Here is an example of recent spending – half a dozen workmen for several days, installing new railings alongside each of the Thames Locks, Brentford. Can’t say I am aware of anybody falling in here over the last 200 years, but it is heart-warming to know that somebody cares about what could happen. A chap on the bridge asked them how far they were going to extend the railing, and was surly enough to then express his opinion that it was stupid to protect the lock sides and leave the rest of the towpath open. They have done a very nice neat job. I wouldn't care to be a boater needing to perch between railings and the edge while looping a rope around a bollard and holding the boat firmly against the side, but it will be so much safer for passers-by on the other side of the railings.
|
|
|
Post by patty on Aug 3, 2018 5:58:48 GMT
Very interesting..I may just try following these characters on Twitter as I quite like Twitter.. I am intrigued that they do not have to publicise where their money goes....I would have thought transparency would be good for their image if they truly are using resources for the good of the canal system, and spending their money wisely......
|
|