Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 3, 2021 21:49:19 GMT
|
|
|
Post by thebfg on May 4, 2021 1:15:36 GMT
They really don't give a shit do they?
|
|
|
Post by TonyDunkley on May 4, 2021 5:51:33 GMT
They really don't give a shit do they? I'm at a complete loss to understand why the affected boat owners are even bothering to try reasoning with C&RT over this matter. The Lee is a river waterway under Schedule 1 to the BW Act 1971 -- "The River Lee Navigation from Hertford to the river Thames at Limehouse and to the tail of Bow Locks" -- and as such the granting, or refusing, of permission to moor vessels alongside the river or navigation banks is a matter entirely for the riparian owners of the riverside land and the river bed. The question that everything hinges on is ; -- who is the riparian owner of of the lengths of riverbank that C&RT are set on turfing these boats off ? If it is C&RT, then the Trust is acting lawfully, if somewhat unreasonably, . . if it isn't C&RT, and the landowners have no objection to boat moorings, then those affected should stay put and tell C&RT to get stuffed.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 4, 2021 13:20:31 GMT
They really don't give a shit do they? This is the problem, C&RT seem to think they are the Mill and Mine Owners who can do whatever they like, even to the extent of making new laws, whilst in reality, they are merely an organisation of caretakers, gardeners and night-watchmen who should only need a small office of staff politely doing the necessary administration. A mendacious organisation that is way out of control and needs investigation.
|
|
|
Post by thebfg on May 4, 2021 15:31:21 GMT
I don't know, but quite a few people go on about crt and this is 100% proof of how much contempt they hold boaters in.
Put it next to the reports that they have changed and its not a good look.
|
|
|
Post by Allan on May 11, 2021 15:06:20 GMT
Sent 11/5/2021 to Allan Leighton (chair), Richard Parry (chief exec) and "Customer Feedback" (Complaints email address)
Dear Canal & River Trust
I refer to my complaint sent to your chair, chief executive and "customer feedback" 30/4/2021 (see attached email).
As I have no reply or acknowledgement, I have now passed the complaint on to the Charity Commission as a reportable incident because it may cause -
- loss of the CRT's money or assets (due to breach of the Grant Agreement). - harm to CRT's reputation.
I have also informed the Charity Commission that you have further falsified your approved annual report by changing the 'visitor satisfaction' score on pages 34 and 48. This can only be interpreted as an attempt to hide from Defra and the public a significant fall in the public benefit you are providing.
Regards
Allan Richards
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 14, 2021 10:39:33 GMT
Probably the best resume I’ve seen, and absolutely spot on from Phil Brooke-Little:
I think what is desperately needed is an exit strategy that takes into account the importance of the canals as part of the infrastructure of the country.
It is possible to have a leisure infrastructure as well as the purely functional ones such as roads and the NHS. I realise that this is what CRT were pandering to but they put all their effort into proving something that was almost a self evident fact and the fatal flaw was that they lied in an attempt too big themselves up and paper over the cracks.
Inventing large numbers doesn’t really impress anyone with a brain as they will see it for what it is and either decide not to believe them or be suspicious of the figures and investigate.
Placing adverts with flying USB ports called Wellbe is like advertising the roads as great ways to get from A to B, simply not needed. It should be perfectly possible for an enthused person to make the case for funding based on facts alone. Sadly those facts include admitting to having failed and that is something they just can’t do.
These people are not really interested in the waterways they are interested in themselves. They go to work not to make anything better for anyone but to support themselves. This tends to be what happens when you recruit for academic qualifications alone with no need for any investment or interest in the supposed core purpose of the organisation. Where management came up through the ranks, gaining respect as they went, there was a continuity and an element of service and aspirations for the people at the bottom to strive for knowing it wasn’t all about their academic qualification but about what they actually knew and could show they could do. There was responsibility and room to take a pride. Now it’s all just a bit of wishy washy blancmange of buck passing and excuses and crying ‘victim’. [\RANT]
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 14, 2021 11:25:56 GMT
"These people are not really interested in the waterways they are interested in themselves. They go to work not to make anything better for anyone but to support themselves." Sounds like a conspiracy theory to me... from the tin foil hat nutters! Given the fact you’re a freak, any opinion you hold is pretty worthless. Scrounging feckin immigrant.
|
|
|
Post by Allan on May 15, 2021 0:35:56 GMT
From Facebook -
From "Making a complaint" - September 2020 -
... Once we have received your complaint, we will acknowledge it in writing within five working days. You can normally expect a full written response, from the manager with overall responsibility for the area of your complaint, within 15 working days of this acknowledgement. Our aim is to resolve the complaint to your complete satisfaction at this point.
The manager in the case of the complaint below, is Allan Leighton, CRT's chairman of the Board of Trustees who was copied together with Richard Parry, chief executive.
Here are the pair of them attempting to hide behind a junior member of staff -
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 30/4/2021 Dear Canal & River Trust I am writing to complain that the latest Trustee Annual Report (TAR) filed with The Charity Commission on 22 December 2020 and currently posted on your website differs from that approved by your board on 24 September 2020. The approved TAR was previously posted on your website and filed at Companies House on 12 October 2020.
Publication Data relating to heritage (as required under the Defra Grant Agreement) has been altered to hide a substantial drop in condition from previous years.
Bearing in mind ...
- the communication between your Chair and the Secretary of State relating to this matter.
-the notes of the Grant Review meeting on 9 December 2020 attended by your Chief Executive and three other executives (including the executive tasked by the board for filing the TAR with Companies House and the Charity Commission).
- the replacement on your website of of the board approved TAR with an unapproved TAR.
- the absence of board notification or approval.
... your actions can only be seen as a wilful and intentional act to provide the public and Defra with misleading and inaccurate information.
Due to the current Defra Review into your performance, your actions put not only current but also future funding of the waterways into jeopardy due to a section 11.1.5 breach of the Grant Agreement.
Equally, if not more important, is the reputational damage that you do to yourselves and charities in general by this action. By altering your TAR, you wish to convince that you are maintaining public benefit against your charitable object 2.2.
However, according to the National Association of Boat Owners, you have refused to provide details of listed buildings you have sold over the last eight years.
As you are aware, your current attempt to sell the Grade II listed Braunston Stop House has not gone unnoticed! What possible public benefit is derived from selling off buildings you should be protecting and conserving?
Retrospectively changing information about how you are providing public benefit leads to public loss of confidence. If a charity does that, how can the public have confidence that any information contained in a TAR ot otherwise provided is accurate?
Within the next five working days please provide the following -
- Details of any other changes made to your board approved TAR. - Details of how you intent to investigate this complaint bearing in mind the seniority of those involved in altering the TAR. Regards Allan Richards
From CRT’s charitable objects as recorded on the Information Commissioners Website - 2.2 TO PROTECT AND CONSERVE FOR PUBLIC BENEFIT SITES, OBJECTS AND BUILDINGS OF ARCHAEOLOGICAL, ARCHITECTURAL, ENGINEERING OR HISTORIC INTEREST ON, IN THE VICINITY OF, OR OTHERWISE ASSOCIATED WITH INLAND WATERWAYSDear Canal & River Trust
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 12/05/2021 Dear Mr Richards, Thank you for your further email regarding the below complaint and subsequent FOI request made on the What Do They Know Website. I am writing to confirm that we are dealing with both your Freedom of Information Request and below complaint as one and you will hear back from us shortly. Kind Regards, Hannah Mobberley Information Governance Advisor Legal & Governance Services ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 13/05/2021 Dear Canal & River Trust I am concerned about what appears to be a crude attempt by CRT to concatenate this complaint with another matter such that it is answered by a junior member of staff. By copy of this email I am requesting that the Waterways Ombudsman either - Directs you such that the complaint can be properly investigated at a suitable level within the Trust or Considers this complaint herself Regards Allan Richards
|
|
|
Post by Allan on May 18, 2021 19:33:37 GMT
The Waterways Ombudsman appears to have asked Tom Deards - Head of Legal & Governance Services and CRT's Company Secretary to respond to my complaint. Here is what I have said to him today -
|
|
|
Post by Jim on May 23, 2021 18:15:41 GMT
Boom! Oh what fun. I asked which annual report he was referring to. No answer as yet.
|
|
|
Post by Allan on May 23, 2021 18:52:55 GMT
Boom! Oh what fun. I asked which annual report he was referring to. No answer as yet. Well done Jim!
|
|
|
Post by Jim on May 23, 2021 19:00:29 GMT
He was trying to boast about the maintenance spend. As I pointed out, inflated vastly by Todbrook, a case for preventive maintenance if ever there was one. My initial post was about the fix on fail mentality.
|
|
|
Post by Jim on May 25, 2021 13:01:33 GMT
Reply on FB.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 25, 2021 13:03:54 GMT
I wish they would get rid of that logo that looks more like an elsan hole. Every time I see it, I feel the urge to pee.
|
|