Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 25, 2021 13:28:50 GMT
Making life better by passing water.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 25, 2021 15:21:36 GMT
There’s been an ongoing discussion on one of my Facebook groups with regards CRT v BW. One of the replies has to be one of the best summaries I’ve seen, so I thought it deserved an airing here.
BW were ,just as any other nationalised industry of the time, wasteful with a muddled bureaucracy at the top. The difference was that they had a traditional operations infrastructure who knew the waterways and how they worked inside out. Many employees would have had family connections with the waterways going back years and they would be ‘invested’ in the waterways with a desire to look after them despite the management. They used to find ways of getting things done even though the management might have tried to thwart them. ( been on the waterways since late 70’s and known many BW staff). BW was responsible for almost all the Armco piling you see today, they did a lot of dredging, both while doing the piling and subsequent to it. They had the equipment to do it and the skills to do it. They mowed the towpath when it NEEEDED mowing in their locally managed areas using their own equipment maintained in their own workshops by their own mechanics. You could talk to a section foreman and report things to him, as could the gangs, and he could personally see that things were done and knew how to ‘get round’ the obstacles from above.
By contrast CRT have got rid of the experienced people, got rid of the maintenance infrastructure. They have no one on the ground who has any power to do anything other than to report to a management that has little to no real experience of the waterway infrastructure overseen by more management whose main interest is PR and looking good. The actual canals from a management point of view are just a pain and the boaters are even more of one. They have the attitude that the solution to not enough facilities is to remove the people who need them. At the front line you now have either volunteers (who are actually expensive) or a dwindling band of people who still know how to function without an iPad. These people have no motivation as there are no prospects for advancement as there used to be where advancement was dependent on ability, there is no satisfaction for a job well done as you have an incompetent management that makes a successful outcome very difficult, there is no pride, no one giving encouragement or praise, no management to look up to or to set an example. Most of the assets have been sold off and now have to be hired back. Most wrk is done by contractors adding more layers of management and organisations that only exist to make a profit. There are arguments for contracting out and hiring equipment but they are for where you can’t justify employing your own people and having your own equipment year round however there is plenty of work for full employment of a decent sized workforce with its own equipment and still use some, though less, contract work for more specialised tasks closely overseen by experienced waterways staff.
The sad thing is though that under CRT so many skills have been lost, so many assets sold and so much maintenance has been neglected that it would be very difficult to get it back into any real form of ‘fit for purpose’ shape. It is actually a good legacy to BW that the waterways have withstood so much neglect in the last 7 years and still survived. Now however the cliches are coming home to roost of that neglect, maintenance is now almost all reactive, preventative barely exists, it has become literally a mopping up operation. Earlier this year the North was effectively cut off from the south by water because of ‘structure failures’ this simply didn’t happen under BW, yes there would be the odd failure but it wasn’t a system wide thing and that was because preventative maintenance was still a thing and so much cheaper than reactive. I have argued for the return of lengthsmen in the past and for the restoration of the idea of employees having an element of purpose and responsibility to their jobs. It won’t happen, you can’t have employees knowing more than management either and, with a management that know next to nothing, that also makes things a bit tricky.
Again, as I have typed before, We desperately need some form of exit strategy for CRT.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 25, 2021 15:27:34 GMT
There’s been an ongoing discussion on one of my Facebook groups with regards CRT v BW. One of the replies has to be one of the best summaries I’ve seen, so I thought it deserved an airing here. BW were ,just as any other nationalised industry of the time, wasteful with a muddled bureaucracy at the top. The difference was that they had a traditional operations infrastructure who knew the waterways and how they worked inside out. Many employees would have had family connections with the waterways going back years and they would be ‘invested’ in the waterways with a desire to look after them despite the management. They used to find ways of getting things done even though the management might have tried to thwart them. ( been on the waterways since late 70’s and known many BW staff). BW was responsible for almost all the Armco piling you see today, they did a lot of dredging, both while doing the piling and subsequent to it. They had the equipment to do it and the skills to do it. They mowed the towpath when it NEEEDED mowing in their locally managed areas using their own equipment maintained in their own workshops by their own mechanics. You could talk to a section foreman and report things to him, as could the gangs, and he could personally see that things were done and knew how to ‘get round’ the obstacles from above. By contrast CRT have got rid of the experienced people, got rid of the maintenance infrastructure. They have no one on the ground who has any power to do anything other than to report to a management that has little to no real experience of the waterway infrastructure overseen by more management whose main interest is PR and looking good. The actual canals from a management point of view are just a pain and the boaters are even more of one. They have the attitude that the solution to not enough facilities is to remove the people who need them. At the front line you now have either volunteers (who are actually expensive) or a dwindling band of people who still know how to function without an iPad. These people have no motivation as there are no prospects for advancement as there used to be where advancement was dependent on ability, there is no satisfaction for a job well done as you have an incompetent management that makes a successful outcome very difficult, there is no pride, no one giving encouragement or praise, no management to look up to or to set an example. Most of the assets have been sold off and now have to be hired back. Most wrk is done by contractors adding more layers of management and organisations that only exist to make a profit. There are arguments for contracting out and hiring equipment but they are for where you can’t justify employing your own people and having your own equipment year round however there is plenty of work for full employment of a decent sized workforce with its own equipment and still use some, though less, contract work for more specialised tasks closely overseen by experienced waterways staff. The sad thing is though that under CRT so many skills have been lost, so many assets sold and so much maintenance has been neglected that it would be very difficult to get it back into any real form of ‘fit for purpose’ shape. It is actually a good legacy to BW that the waterways have withstood so much neglect in the last 7 years and still survived. Now however the cliches are coming home to roost of that neglect, maintenance is now almost all reactive, preventative barely exists, it has become literally a mopping up operation. Earlier this year the North was effectively cut off from the south by water because of ‘structure failures’ this simply didn’t happen under BW, yes there would be the odd failure but it wasn’t a system wide thing and that was because preventative maintenance was still a thing and so much cheaper than reactive. I have argued for the return of lengthsmen in the past and for the restoration of the idea of employees having an element of purpose and responsibility to their jobs. It won’t happen, you can’t have employees knowing more than management either and, with a management that know next to nothing, that also makes things a bit tricky. Again, as I have typed before, We desperately need some form of exit strategy for CRT. Pretty accurate IMO.
|
|
|
Post by Allan on Jun 2, 2021 6:39:58 GMT
Tom Deards, CRT's head of legal & governance services and company secretary, has failed to respond to my complaint within the timescale of 20 days. CRT's complaints system no longer says what happens in such circumstances.
I have, therefore asked that the complaint be considered as at the review stage.
****** ****** ****** Edited to add - Tom Deards now says he will provide a full response by the end of next week. ****** ******
|
|
|
Post by JohnV on Jun 2, 2021 6:49:55 GMT
I despair.
I have never been so glad that I live on waters beyond the reach of CRT
|
|
|
Post by kris on Jun 2, 2021 7:40:17 GMT
I despair.
I have never been so glad that I live on waters beyond the reach of CRT
Don’t rub it in.
|
|
|
Post by TonyDunkley on Jun 2, 2021 14:04:02 GMT
Tom Deards, CRT's head of legal & governance services and company secretary, has failed to respond to my complaint within the timescale of 20 days. CRT's complaints system no longer says what happens in such circumstances. I have, therefore asked that the complaint be considered as at the review stage. I get the impression that Deards may be trying to distance himself from the responsibilities of his roles as C&RT company secretary and head of dubiously legal. Apart from Deards' 1 December 2020 letter to me that I posted on here - the one complaining of two posts of mine containing what he wrongly called "unsubstantiated allegations" and "malicious falsehood(s)" that he instructed law firm Blake Morgan to have taken down by Proboards - he hasn't replied, or responded in any way, to any of the e-mailed letters or queries addressed to him personally since I was unlawfully evicted from "Halcyon Daze" and the boat was illegally seized by the C&RT/CBS bogus Bailiffs on 22 October. My last attempt to get him to break wind, or silence, was this request to confirm or deny the truth of a rather oblique reference to the supposed sale of "HD" made by his colleague, and to which there has been no reply: -- Fao. T. Deards. 7 May 2020 Mr Deards,
In paragraph 2, line 2 of the e-mail transmitted at 1631 hrs yesterday 6 May 2021, your colleague Ms. Barry refers to "Halcyon Daze" - Index No. 52721 as my "former boat".
It is apparent from Ms. Barry's choice of words that she is labouring under the mistaken belief that I am no longer the owner of the vessel. Please enlighten me, by return, as to why she now believes this to be so, and to where and from whom this incorrect information originated.
Please note : In the interests of openness and accountability this e-mail, together with your response to it, will be published on the internet and wherever else the undersigned sees fit so to do.
Signed,
A.K.Dunkley [Registered owner of residential craft "Halcyon Daze" - Index No. 52721] _______________________________________________________________________
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 2, 2021 14:12:23 GMT
Tom Deards, CRT's head of legal & governance services and company secretary, has failed to respond to my complaint within the timescale of 20 days. CRT's complaints system no longer says what happens in such circumstances. I have, therefore asked that the complaint be considered as at the review stage. I get the impression that Deards may be trying to distance himself from the responsibilities of his roles as C&RT company secretary and head of dubiously legal. Apart from Deards' 1 December 2020 letter to me that I posted on here - the one complaining of two posts of mine containing what he wrongly called "unsubstantiated allegations" and "malicious falsehood(s)" that he instructed law firm Blake Morgan to have taken down by Proboards - he hasn't replied, or responded in any way, to any of the e-mailed letters or queries addressed to him personally since I was unlawfully evicted from "Halcyon Daze" and the boat was illegally seized by the C&RT/CBS bogus Bailiffs on 22 October. My last attempt to get him to break wind, or silence, was this request to confirm or deny the truth of a rather oblique reference to the supposed sale of "HD" made by his colleague, and to which there has been no reply: -- Fao. T. Deards. 7 May 2020 Mr Deards,
In paragraph 2, line 2 of the e-mail transmitted at 1631 hrs yesterday 6 May 2021, your colleague Ms. Barry refers to "Halcyon Daze" - Index No. 52721 as my "former boat".
It is apparent from Ms. Barry's choice of words that she is labouring under the mistaken belief that I am no longer the owner of the vessel. Please enlighten me, by return, as to why she now believes this to be so, and to where and from whom this incorrect information originated.
Please note : In the interests of openness and accountability this e-mail, together with your response to it, will be published on the internet and wherever else the undersigned sees fit so to do.
Signed,
A.K.Dunkley [Registered owner of residential craft "Halcyon Daze" - Index No. 52721] _______________________________________________________________________I’ve lost count of the number of times he has stated there will be no further response from himself. Perhaps he needs to rubber stamp it on your forehead in order to get the message across. As they have previously stated, any further communication needs to be through solicitor or court proceedings, quite a big hint in anyone’s opinion.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 2, 2021 14:17:20 GMT
Tom Deards, CRT's head of legal & governance services and company secretary, has failed to respond to my complaint within the timescale of 20 days. CRT's complaints system no longer says what happens in such circumstances. I have, therefore asked that the complaint be considered as at the review stage. I get the impression that Deards may be trying to distance himself from the responsibilities of his roles as C&RT company secretary and head of dubiously legal. Apart from Deards' 1 December 2020 letter to me that I posted on here - the one complaining of two posts of mine containing what he wrongly called "unsubstantiated allegations" and "malicious falsehood(s)" that he instructed law firm Blake Morgan to have taken down by Proboards - he hasn't replied, or responded in any way, to any of the e-mailed letters or queries addressed to him personally since I was unlawfully evicted from "Halcyon Daze" and the boat was illegally seized by the C&RT/CBS bogus Bailiffs on 22 October. My last attempt to get him to break wind, or silence, was this request to confirm or deny the truth of a rather oblique reference to the supposed sale of "HD" made by his colleague, and to which there has been no reply: -- Fao. T. Deards. 7 May 2020 Mr Deards,
In paragraph 2, line 2 of the e-mail transmitted at 1631 hrs yesterday 6 May 2021, your colleague Ms. Barry refers to "Halcyon Daze" - Index No. 52721 as my "former boat".
It is apparent from Ms. Barry's choice of words that she is labouring under the mistaken belief that I am no longer the owner of the vessel. Please enlighten me, by return, as to why she now believes this to be so, and to where and from whom this incorrect information originated.
Please note : In the interests of openness and accountability this e-mail, together with your response to it, will be published on the internet and wherever else the undersigned sees fit so to do.
Signed,
A.K.Dunkley [Registered owner of residential craft "Halcyon Daze" - Index No. 52721] _______________________________________________________________________I would guess he isn't interested in silly pointless emails with some old grumpy fella. Maybe a nice letter from a solicitor would be better suited, or maybe even a date when he needs to get his ass to court and defend his actions?
|
|
|
Post by TonyDunkley on Jun 2, 2021 17:25:55 GMT
I get the impression that Deards may be trying to distance himself from the responsibilities of his roles as C&RT company secretary and head of dubiously legal. Apart from Deards' 1 December 2020 letter to me that I posted on here - the one complaining of two posts of mine containing what he wrongly called "unsubstantiated allegations" and "malicious falsehood(s)" that he instructed law firm Blake Morgan to have taken down by Proboards - he hasn't replied, or responded in any way, to any of the e-mailed letters or queries addressed to him personally since I was unlawfully evicted from "Halcyon Daze" and the boat was illegally seized by the C&RT/CBS bogus Bailiffs on 22 October. My last attempt to get him to break wind, or silence, was this request to confirm or deny the truth of a rather oblique reference to the supposed sale of "HD" made by his colleague, and to which there has been no reply: -- Fao. T. Deards. 7 May 2020 Mr Deards,
In paragraph 2, line 2 of the e-mail transmitted at 1631 hrs yesterday 6 May 2021, your colleague Ms. Barry refers to "Halcyon Daze" - Index No. 52721 as my "former boat".
It is apparent from Ms. Barry's choice of words that she is labouring under the mistaken belief that I am no longer the owner of the vessel. Please enlighten me, by return, as to why she now believes this to be so, and to where and from whom this incorrect information originated.
Please note : In the interests of openness and accountability this e-mail, together with your response to it, will be published on the internet and wherever else the undersigned sees fit so to do.
Signed,
A.K.Dunkley [Registered owner of residential craft "Halcyon Daze" - Index No. 52721] _______________________________________________________________________I would guess he isn't interested in silly pointless emails with some old grumpy fella. Maybe a nice letter from a solicitor would be better suited, or maybe even a date when he needs to get his ass to court and defend his actions? Deards isn't the sharpest tool in the box, . . but unlike you he does have wit enough to understand the implications of that e-mail.
|
|
|
Post by TonyDunkley on Jun 2, 2021 17:31:55 GMT
I get the impression that Deards may be trying to distance himself from the responsibilities of his roles as C&RT company secretary and head of dubiously legal. Apart from Deards' 1 December 2020 letter to me that I posted on here - the one complaining of two posts of mine containing what he wrongly called "unsubstantiated allegations" and "malicious falsehood(s)" that he instructed law firm Blake Morgan to have taken down by Proboards - he hasn't replied, or responded in any way, to any of the e-mailed letters or queries addressed to him personally since I was unlawfully evicted from "Halcyon Daze" and the boat was illegally seized by the C&RT/CBS bogus Bailiffs on 22 October. My last attempt to get him to break wind, or silence, was this request to confirm or deny the truth of a rather oblique reference to the supposed sale of "HD" made by his colleague, and to which there has been no reply: -- Fao. T. Deards. 7 May 2020 Mr Deards,
In paragraph 2, line 2 of the e-mail transmitted at 1631 hrs yesterday 6 May 2021, your colleague Ms. Barry refers to "Halcyon Daze" - Index No. 52721 as my "former boat".
It is apparent from Ms. Barry's choice of words that she is labouring under the mistaken belief that I am no longer the owner of the vessel. Please enlighten me, by return, as to why she now believes this to be so, and to where and from whom this incorrect information originated.
Please note : In the interests of openness and accountability this e-mail, together with your response to it, will be published on the internet and wherever else the undersigned sees fit so to do.
Signed,
A.K.Dunkley [Registered owner of residential craft "Halcyon Daze" - Index No. 52721] _______________________________________________________________________As they have previously stated, any further communication needs to be through solicitor or court proceedings, quite a big hint in anyone’s opinion. Is that so, . . well, thank you for the helpful advice, . . I hadn't realized that C&RT's powers extended to having the authority to instruct and direct others on how to proceed against it !
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 2, 2021 17:49:25 GMT
As they have previously stated, any further communication needs to be through solicitor or court proceedings, quite a big hint in anyone’s opinion. Is that so, . . well, thank you for the helpful advice you're welcome..
|
|
|
Post by Allan on Jun 5, 2021 16:34:45 GMT
Have just learnt that CRT is under investigation by the Charity Commission for altering its Annual Report.
Tom Deards, Head of Tom Deards, head of legal & governance services and company secretary, says changes were discussed with chief executive, Richard Parry on 24 November 2020. Both chair, Allan Leighton and Deputy Chair, Dame Jenny Abramsky, were notified orally.
CRT have told the Charity Commission that it will remove the altered Annual Report from its website and replace it with the approved Annual Report.
It has also asked the Charity Commission if the altered report showing on the Commission's website can be replaced with the approved version showing as filed on 22 December.
|
|
|
Post by wandering on Jun 5, 2021 17:34:36 GMT
Showing that CRT is accountable, well done Allan. Can the CC apply sanctions?
|
|
|
Post by Allan on Jun 7, 2021 14:34:49 GMT
By email 7/6/2021
Dear Mr Deards
You were entrusted by the Board of Trustees to file its approved Annual Report with Companies House and the Charity Commission. As you admit, you broke that trust by conspiring with your chair, deputy chair and chief executive to file an altered report on your website and with the Charities Commission.
You have now compounded the matter by failing to disclose to the Charity Commission and myself -
- the full nature of your chairs involvement in this matter
- that you altered 'visitor satisfaction' figures as well as 'heritage' figures
- the names of those that were complicit in altering 'visitor satisfaction' figures
I note also, that you have also failed to address the possible outcomes that this maladministration will have on Defra funding and public perception.
Please respond within five working days. Based on your response I will decide if I need to take the matter further or leave it to the Charity Commission who are carry out its own investigation.
Kindest Regards
Allan Richards
|
|