|
Post by naughtyfox on Apr 26, 2019 7:05:30 GMT
I know for my self when canal and river trust was formed, I was hoping the us and them attitude that had become entrenched under BW was going to end. A fresh beginning and all that. Unfortunately under crt's managment it's got a lot worse, the number of boaters I meet who are disgruntled and pissed off with the way cart are managing the waterways has definately increased. How many have complained to the Government ministers who oversee CRT? How many have complained directly to CRT? How many know the exact ins and outs of CRT's management and budget and affairs in general? How many have complained about the Government itself, fobbing the waterways off to CRT and not managing them by means of a proper government department? Very few, I expect.
|
|
|
Post by kris on Apr 26, 2019 7:06:56 GMT
Who knows?
|
|
|
Post by naughtyfox on Apr 26, 2019 7:12:32 GMT
I fear jenlyn will prove right, and Parry and C&RT will be gone before long How large a sum the 'Golden Handshake' ? but the fear is, what will replace them. District Enforcement ?
|
|
|
Post by naughtyfox on Apr 26, 2019 7:26:03 GMT
I fear jenlyn will prove right, and Parry and C&RT will be gone before long, but the fear is, what will replace them. Rog Cart has to go for something better to replace them, so my worry is not what will replace them? Seeing as Deutsche Bahn are running half the UK as it is, why not just hand it all over to Deutsche Bahn?
Contract / Route Operator Operator Owner name Operator Owner - Country
Chiltern Arriva Deutsche Bahn German State Railways
Cross Country Arriva Deutsche Bahn German State Railways
Grand Central Arriva Deutsche Bahn German state railways
London Overground Arriva Rail London Deutsche Bahn German state railways
Northern Northern Arriva German state railways
Tyne & Wear Metro DB Regio Tyne and Wear Arriva Deutsche Bahn German State Railways
Wales & Borders Arriva Deutsche Bahn German State Railways
RMT General Secretary Mick Cash said;
“Britain’s railways are being sold off to European state-owned outfits with the profits from our fares – amongst the highest in Europe – subsidising operations abroad. Trenitalia is the latest to jump at the chance to fill it's boots on the C2C routes.
“Privatisation has failed passengers and the public by hitting their pockets and providing poor service and left foreign state train operators laughing all the way to the bank.
“The revelation that 70% of the UK train operations are now partially or wholly owned by foreign states or their railways is nothing short of a national scandal.”
"The case for public ownership of UK rail to end this racket is now overwhelming."
www.rmt.org.uk/news/70-of-uk-rail-routes-now-owned-by-foreign-states/
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 26, 2019 7:26:53 GMT
Maybe two separate companies/departments should run the network, one solely looks after the upkeep and maintenance and the other handles boaters and suchlike.
|
|
|
Post by JohnV on Apr 26, 2019 7:29:05 GMT
I know for my self when canal and river trust was formed, I was hoping the us and them attitude that had become entrenched under BW was going to end. A fresh beginning and all that. Unfortunately under crt's managment it's got a lot worse, the number of boaters I meet who are disgruntled and pissed off with the way cart are managing the waterways has definately increased. How many have complained to the Government ministers who oversee CRT? Ha! Michael Gove at the top then work your way down the list and see who will acknowledge any responsibility
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 26, 2019 7:34:45 GMT
Maybe two separate companies/departments should run the network, one solely looks after the upkeep and maintenance and the other handles boaters and suchlike. One organisation should run the waterway and BOAT related infrastructure like locks, lock waiting areas, moveable bridges and waterway itself. Towpath to be managed by local authorities as parkland. Towpaths are already used as parkland by public so why should they be maintained and paid for by the navigation authority? Any existing "housing issues" on towpaths to be managed by local authorities. Surely it would be better if the Navigation Authority dealt with the Navigation ie dredging, lock repairs etc rather than worrying about veg management on public footpaths and dealing with housing and wreck removals.
|
|
|
Post by naughtyfox on Apr 26, 2019 7:46:43 GMT
This Michael Gove? Looks like Michael Fish.
|
|
|
Post by NigelMoore on Apr 26, 2019 8:00:46 GMT
I know for my self when canal and river trust was formed, I was hoping the us and them attitude that had become entrenched under BW was going to end. A fresh beginning and all that. Unfortunately under crt's managment it's got a lot worse, the number of boaters I meet who are disgruntled and pissed off with the way cart are managing the waterways has definately increased. Anybody with knowledge of BW’s hierarchy, institutional character and methods, welcomed the concept of a new organisation when the plan to privatise them was first bruited, but those with foresight warned that for that to work, the upper echelon with their ingrained malignancy would have to change also (or be replaced). I wrote as much myself, when the opportunity arose to contribute to the ‘consultations’ surrounding the project, but more importantly, the Inland Waterways Advisory Committee did so too, albeit with perhaps more politically savvy discretion – “ Changing the culture of an organisation is difficult. The training commitment will be heavy and the cost of building local networks and partnerships will be a considerable drain on staff resources. Many difficulties will arise and some partners and stakeholders might be reluctant to accept that BW is genuine in its determination to change. BW needs to show that it is prepared to experiment with new methods of work which are consistent with the new philosophy. Perhaps BW should consider involving users and relevant third sector bodies more directly in the management of particular waterways and visitor attractions. Expanding the Board of BW to include more people with direct waterways community engagement would demonstrate BW’s commitment. An important symbolic act would be to set up a new Consultative Council with a defined place in BW’s decision making process. The Consultative Council’s membership should include third sector organisations and volunteering groups. IWAC believes that these changes in culture and practice are very important and should proceed whether BW remains in the public sector or is transformed into a third sector body. Members of IWAC would be delighted to help in any way that is appropriate.” (IWAC Report September 2010) Those interested should read through this Report for the foreseeable problems identified, now come home to roost so firmly – nabo.org.uk/files/IWACpositiononBW_mutualisationPosition_Statement.pdfThe BW/CaRT/government response? – abolition of that vital oversight and advisory body (IWAC), as part and parcel of the Transfer Order! edit to add: this is worth reading also - nabo.org.uk/files/PDFIWAC%20Response%20to%20NewEra%20consultation.pdf
|
|
|
Post by NigelMoore on Apr 26, 2019 8:38:28 GMT
How many have complained to the Government ministers who oversee CRT? That’s an easy one to answer. There are no such ministers to complain to, ergo, nobody has. Some years ago, I set out concerns to that date in writing to – Prince Charles as Patron; Cameron, as Prime Minister responsible; DEFRA as the former oversight body, and all members of the House of Lords Public Bodies oversight committee. A royal secretary replied thanking me for my interest (the standard brush-off); Cameron said he would pass it on to DEFRA; they had already told me that they were no longer responsible (the PM evidently unaware of that fact), and only one member of the Lords committee responded, with merely a request for a hard copy to be posted to them. In truth, no government minister wants to get involved; they are all too happy that BW’s embarrassments are no longer their (legal) responsibility. Maybe, at some future point, the scandal of the deterioration will reach sufficiently alarming levels that some sense of moral responsibility will kick in, and a minister or two will promote positive action, and that can only be assisted by an historical record of the concerns of as many as possible writing in with their complaints and positive suggestions for improvements. So, while I am under no illusions that complaints will be heeded for now, it is much like reporting crimes. You know that most reports will just go on the record and no action taken, but the record of enough numbers to demonstrate a wider problem, or pattern of such, can prompt the police to take more general and effective action later down the line. Without such a record, nothing will ever be done. The remaining problem is still, with regards to the waterways, where and with whom do you record those? I still think letting the Patron have them is important, and certainly whoever the current waterways minister might be at the time. Perhaps use 'TheyWorkForYou' to keep it in the public domain for future reference.
|
|
|
Post by naughtyfox on Apr 26, 2019 16:30:10 GMT
How many have complained to the Government ministers who oversee CRT? In truth, no government minister wants to get involved; they are all too happy that BW’s embarrassments are no longer their (legal) responsibility. Thanks Nigel, clear and concise as usual. Where does CRT get its permission to rake in licence fees, then? And how have they ended up 'owning' everything? What legal rights do CRT have to do... err... anything at all, if no-one in the UK Government is responsible for them? How can they claim money from the UK Government, and get permission to run schemes such as 'Friends of CRT'? Perhaps a proper boaters' association / body is needed to keep an eye on CRT? I'm sorry, but I cannot regard the NBTA as a serious outfit, with their 'News' about the caravan-boat chap being extremely vague and misleading. Actually, now I think about it, that's not a bad idea - but it would require no-nonsense members and leadership, which would mean a lot of input and work and commitment.
|
|
|
Post by NigelMoore on Apr 26, 2019 17:41:43 GMT
In truth, no government minister wants to get involved; they are all too happy that BW’s embarrassments are no longer their (legal) responsibility. Thanks Nigel, clear and concise as usual. Where does CRT get its permission to rake in licence fees, then? And how have they ended up 'owning' everything? What legal rights do CRT have to do... err... anything at all, if no-one in the UK Government is responsible for them? How can they claim money from the UK Government, and get permission to run schemes such as 'Friends of CRT'? Perhaps a proper boaters' association / body is needed to keep an eye on CRT? I'm sorry, but I cannot regard the NBTA as a serious outfit, with their 'News' about the caravan-boat chap being extremely vague and misleading. Actually, now I think about it, that's not a bad idea - but it would require no-nonsense members and leadership, which would mean a lot of input and work and commitment. “Permission” to do what any such authority may do, is granted and constrained by the terms of the enabling statutes, comprising originating Acts and subsequent private and public Acts. What CaRT, in particular, is allowed to charge for in relation to running the waterways inherited from the multiple private companies that were nationalised in 1947, is specifically governed by those statutes, although the levels of those charges would now be constrained only by the test of reasonableness. Their legal department of course argues that they can charge what they like for anything they like to charge for, but that is nonsense. They have NOT ended up owning everything. They did end up with the massive investment portfolio that BW had built up, but ownership of the essential canals infrastructure remains vested in the nation (however token a protection that has proved). The basic terms of their stewardship, along with the government guarantees of a time-limited top-up grant period, and what they can do with schemes such as ‘friends’, are set out in the British Waterways Transfer of Functions Order 2012, though you would have to examine a lot else to get the whole picture. They are free to whip up any scheme that they imagine might help extract funds from the non-boating public. In fact, the idea that as a re-privatised body with charitable status they would attract lots of volunteered cash & kind from more than just boaters, was the convincing argument for government to justify letting go of any - other than purely fiscal for a defined period – responsibility. As to oversight, aside from the non-independent Ombudsman system, the only person with any official status is the so-called “protector”, but he is just an accountant making sure that CaRT are not embezzling too obviously such money as government is giving them. He is not there to protect anything else, from anyone else.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 26, 2019 18:03:31 GMT
Hello Kris. Of no practical help to your hopes and wishes - your post did make me think of this awesome and almost relevant Pink Floyd track. The best track, from Pink Floyd's best album. And from an era when you could still obtain decent smoking material. This one is a close second then? 👍 I wouldn't know about the smoking material being but a simple boy from deepest darkest Northamptonshire 🙈
|
|
|
Post by Mr Stabby on Apr 26, 2019 18:23:07 GMT
The best track, from Pink Floyd's best album. And from an era when you could still obtain decent smoking material. This one is a close second then? 👍 I wouldn't know about the smoking material being but a simple boy from deepest darkest Northamptonshire 🙈 Disgusting subject material.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 15, 2019 17:35:15 GMT
Debbie figgery again using a serious issue and undermining it by using it as a logo sort of thing. Really disgusts me that these idiots latch on to these things like leeches.
|
|