Post by Deleted on Sept 23, 2016 15:26:42 GMT
Some of you like myself may be aware of the recent cases involving boats being taken by Canal and River Trust, and the court cases involved in such actions.
Tony Dunkley
Nigel Moore
Andy Wingfield
Leigh Ravenscroft
Geoff Meyers
Being just a few in example.
Putting aside for a moment the ‘’whose right or wrong’’, lets ask why the hell vast amounts of money are spent by the trust in dealing with such issues (500,000 pounds last year alone) on legal fees.
Is it perhaps time to bring in some form of arbitration involving an independent body?
One thing has become very clear, the Canal and River Trust are not quite up to scratch on dealing with these issues. They usually end up receiving bad publicity, being accused of bullying, being vindictive, or spiteful.
Given some of the circumstances, and the following explanations (PR) from the Trust regarding those circumstances, I frankly tend to agree on occasion with the comments.
They are simply not sufficiently qualified for the role they seem to have entrenched themselves into.
The Trust fit for purpose?
Well are they?
With all the fanfare of a new beginning in 2012 ( and 2000 quid spent on balloons and party poppers) we saw the Canal and River Trust rise from the death throws of big bad BW.
Billed as David Cameron’s flagship, for his ‘’big society’’, the Canal and River Trust was born.
We were all assured of the benefits to be gained by ditching the nasty BW, and its logo.
So what the f**k happened??
Here we are 4 years later, with the canal bed getting ever closer to the top, the canals themselves shrinking in width, and stoppage alerts every other day.
Not only did Canal and River Trust flog all the tools needed for the job, they also started getting rid of the people needed to do the jobs. Replacing them with yet more office staff behind computers with shiny titles such as ''duck manager, liaison manager, visitor mooring manager, vole habitat manager etc etc’’. The list goes on, along with the copious amounts of money needed to fund the positions.
We then saw the Trust take on a new CEO, (welcome to the party).
Mr Parry proceeded with relish to assure us all he was the ‘’king of bling’’, and would lead us all to a better place.
His ‘’boater meetings’’ were hailed as the new beginning, to a new approach, (although the IWA made sure he never went anywhere without an advisor).
The boater meetings however, fizzled out. The questions from the audience were getting a little difficult, and more often than not, it was evident Mr Parry’s staff were undermining him behind the scenes.
Mr Parry can now often be seen cutting a lonely path at various canal festivities, promoting his role as CEO of Canal and River Trust. Listening to the concerns of many who see the ever increasing deteriorating state of our canals, but doing little to solve the issues. (perhaps PR and Advertising would be a preferable role).
So, where are we now? Well it seems we are back to ‘’lets get the b*st*rds, lets use our public funding, licence money and donations to employ legal help’’.
Is this what Canal and River Trust is about?
Do they have a strategy to enhance, protect the canals?
Are they becoming an office based organisation that merely pays for office space to produce yet more ‘’corporate theatre’’?
Who knows, but one thing is certain, they seem to have forgotten they are a Navigation Authority, first and foremost.
They need to get their heads around this fact, and maybe get back to basics.
Tony Dunkley
Nigel Moore
Andy Wingfield
Leigh Ravenscroft
Geoff Meyers
Being just a few in example.
Putting aside for a moment the ‘’whose right or wrong’’, lets ask why the hell vast amounts of money are spent by the trust in dealing with such issues (500,000 pounds last year alone) on legal fees.
Is it perhaps time to bring in some form of arbitration involving an independent body?
One thing has become very clear, the Canal and River Trust are not quite up to scratch on dealing with these issues. They usually end up receiving bad publicity, being accused of bullying, being vindictive, or spiteful.
Given some of the circumstances, and the following explanations (PR) from the Trust regarding those circumstances, I frankly tend to agree on occasion with the comments.
They are simply not sufficiently qualified for the role they seem to have entrenched themselves into.
The Trust fit for purpose?
Well are they?
With all the fanfare of a new beginning in 2012 ( and 2000 quid spent on balloons and party poppers) we saw the Canal and River Trust rise from the death throws of big bad BW.
Billed as David Cameron’s flagship, for his ‘’big society’’, the Canal and River Trust was born.
We were all assured of the benefits to be gained by ditching the nasty BW, and its logo.
So what the f**k happened??
Here we are 4 years later, with the canal bed getting ever closer to the top, the canals themselves shrinking in width, and stoppage alerts every other day.
Not only did Canal and River Trust flog all the tools needed for the job, they also started getting rid of the people needed to do the jobs. Replacing them with yet more office staff behind computers with shiny titles such as ''duck manager, liaison manager, visitor mooring manager, vole habitat manager etc etc’’. The list goes on, along with the copious amounts of money needed to fund the positions.
We then saw the Trust take on a new CEO, (welcome to the party).
Mr Parry proceeded with relish to assure us all he was the ‘’king of bling’’, and would lead us all to a better place.
His ‘’boater meetings’’ were hailed as the new beginning, to a new approach, (although the IWA made sure he never went anywhere without an advisor).
The boater meetings however, fizzled out. The questions from the audience were getting a little difficult, and more often than not, it was evident Mr Parry’s staff were undermining him behind the scenes.
Mr Parry can now often be seen cutting a lonely path at various canal festivities, promoting his role as CEO of Canal and River Trust. Listening to the concerns of many who see the ever increasing deteriorating state of our canals, but doing little to solve the issues. (perhaps PR and Advertising would be a preferable role).
So, where are we now? Well it seems we are back to ‘’lets get the b*st*rds, lets use our public funding, licence money and donations to employ legal help’’.
Is this what Canal and River Trust is about?
Do they have a strategy to enhance, protect the canals?
Are they becoming an office based organisation that merely pays for office space to produce yet more ‘’corporate theatre’’?
Who knows, but one thing is certain, they seem to have forgotten they are a Navigation Authority, first and foremost.
They need to get their heads around this fact, and maybe get back to basics.
