narrowboatworld

As the government has just announced a 25% cut in police funding too, does that mean we are on our own when it comes to vandalism, violence, theft, and waterway maintenance?

I was told the (probably apocryphal) story yesterday of the guy who phoned the police and said there were two men breaking into his garden shed. He was watching them do it. The police said they had no-one to respond. He said, okay, I'll go get my shotgun and deal with it myself.

Within minutes there were blue lights, police cars, and a helicopter buzzing around.

The police said, I thought you told us you had a gun. He replied,  I thought you told me you had no-one to respond.

If ever you phone the police and report an incident, and they ask is anyone hurt. say yes. When they arrive mention mental torment.

Tone

Hi boat people,

this is David Flynn MD of the newly formed Aintree Boat Company which happens to be in Aintree and is a boat  company, hence I called it Aintree Boat Company, more to be associated with Aintree! nothing sinister here! (home of the world famous Grand National steeple chase) than any ABC association with other companies ! that notion was pure speculation I think.

I am the chair of the Pride of Sefton narrowboat committee, a registered charity for the disabled and disadvantaged people of Merseyside and we did indeed get our new boat built by Skater Marine and a fine job they made of it as you will see if you ever happen to see her on the Leeds -Liverpool canal serving the community with our volunteer crew! 

 As a former local councillor I was also a previous chair of the Police and community forums in the Bootle area of Liverpool and still represent the local residents as chair of a neighbourhood action group near my birthplace of Litherland.

I think then from what I have told you that you may appreciate that I value my good name and will not jeopardise it by taking part in any shady dealings especially in the light of what happened to some of my clients which I inherited from Skater Marine!

I and Jamie Greaves who incidentally has also  lost a substantial amount of money arising from the departure of Skater from Merseyside have done our utmost to assist people whose boats were under construction at the time and most are staying with us to complete the build for them which we will do, two people have decided totake their boats away to complete them and we have assisted them to do this.

I must state that I have no connection to Skater Marine other than giving jobs back to all the local tradesmen who were also victims of this sad episode,all of them lost at least four weeks wages and still continued to work for nothing, how many would do that these days? not many !! they did though.

In respect of Mr Pathfinder I am not surewhat to say here as I may consider taking legal action later but I did offer him that I would schedule his boat as the first one to be built and would also split the £5000 he lost to Skater Marine as I genuinely felt sorry for him because of circumstances he was in at the time.

I have several witnesses to that deal and we shook hands on it but he refused to give us a  deposit in order for us to bring in the steel for his boat so we did not proceed and I believe this is where his vitriol stems from.

I rest my case, 

my fellow boaters rest assured, your deposits are safe with me and Aintree Boat Company.

best wishes to you all,

Dave Flynn.

It is quite probable that some or all of the 18 BWML marinas are owned by BW but operated by BWML who pay rent.

BW are very keen on telling boaters that they have no legal requirement to provide moorings.

If government decides to sell off part of BW's assets then that could include BWML (including any property it owns), BW owned marinas operated by BWML and BW owned marinas operated by BW.

Conceivably, government could even sell off the operation of on-line mooring!

Simon Robbins, who posted on this forum yesterday, is NABO's mooring officer and may have more information on this subject.

However, as Simon pointed out his his post, we are very much in danger of taking our eye off the ball.  Massive cuts in grant are a given.  We can expect 25% - 40% and some reports have suggested 100%.

Regards

Allan

Allan that's the point which triggered my confusion.

As I undersatnd it, The Office of Fair Trading more or less forced BW into creating their arms-length company BWML whose role it is to run marinas competitively. Those marinas I assume are part of the property portfolio likely to be sold. Assuming the Government allow BW to retain moorings then a good strategy (plan B) would surely be for BW to scrap BWML now and turn their marinas into moorings like Shireoaks. This way they would retain the income from them and loose most of the management costs.

Unless I'm missing something which defines sites like Shireoaks as moorings but others like Ripon as marinas. Or are BW breaking the rules by defining Shireoaks and other similar sites as a moorings?

Unfortunately, that is the way of all forums!

It would seem that BW's response to the grant cut is job cuts. That will simply accelerate the decline.

We have had third sector, charity, mutual, trust, big society and now civil society rammed down our throats by two governments and BW.  It simply hides the failures and does not provide a solution.

The waterways minister can prove he cares about the canals very quickly by replacing board members whose terms of office are about to expire by officers of national user groups.  At least we would have a fighting chance and alternatives to "sack a few more" would get an airing.

Regards

Allan

I have had a look into this and Shireoaks Marina is not one of the 18 marinas operated by BWML and never has been.

As such vacant berths will be auctioned in a similar manner to other BW moorings.

If government sold off BWML then it would form part of the package.  However, there is nothing to stop government selling off BW owned basins or moorings if it so chooses.

The marinas operated by BWML are -

Apsley Marina

Bath Marina and Caravan Park

Diglis Basin Marina

Galgate Marina

Glasson Basin Marina

Goytre Wharf Marina

Hull Marina

Kings Marina

Lemonroyd Marina

Limehouse Basin Marina

Packet Boat Marina

Poplar Dock Marina

Priory Marina

Ripon Racecourse Marina

Sawley Marina

Victoria Basin Marina

White Bear Marina

Whixall Marina

One wonders if BW's fair trade committee and the BMF are aware that BW is operating marinas other than via BWML.

Regards

Allan

That is a good question. Obviously a marina is a basin for moorings. But don't BWML administer linear moorings too? Should it be privatised, would that mean at least some linear moorings would be privatised?

Looking at the broader picture, as the whole of the waterways may be privatised under this third sector BW Trust idea anyway, does it really matter?

Being pessimistic again, I would advise anyone thinking of taking up boating at this time to think very carefully about what they are taking on. Costs are going to sky-rocket whichever way it goes.

Tone

I'm not sure how I can respond to that without being extremely negative, Simon!

But, it seems to me that this is the beginning of the end for navigable waterways. We could be rapidly approaching a long economic (I nearly typed comic) period where it will be hard enough to maintain the essentials, let alone non-essential pastimes or ways of life such as boating.

I predict that it is the government's (civil service's) intention to stop all waterway funding except for flood control within about five years. Obviously the government expects boaters to foot the bill for 'their' waterways. Obviously most boaters can't afford it.

Personally I can't. I'll give UK waterways another two years at the most. If I get the money together then I'm off to Ireland. If not, then a lifetime of waterway interest and dedication will end.

What else can I say? Can the money be found to run the canals from the private sector? Not in my book. Will the government have a change of heart? No way. We are a long long way behind hospitals, police, armed forces, schools, roads etc.

Had we continued an effective protest a few years ago, we might now be in a slightly better position. But we didn't. Shame.

....and that is with my rosy glasses on!

And btw Densie, my column remarks about criticism of NbW and Tom were not aimed at you at all, but, as they say, if the cap fits.....

Glad you enjoyed it. Controversy makes good copy. But do try to maintain a sense of humour too.

Tone

It is depressing to me how quickly contributors have diverted discussion from the original topic - what are the implications for boaters of 25% plus cuts in BW's grant.

I often have a go at BW but today I'm going to have a go at some of my fellow contributors. If collectively we lose sight of the financial ball so quickly, then we will get what we deserve: neglected under-funded waterways, as a result in part of navel gazing and bickerring among ourselves on less important issues.

The point about being more positive about the waterways is not an unfair one but I fear risks becoming a set of emperor's new clothes in the present circumstances, when the basic funding structure of the waterways is already on BW's admission not sustainable, and about to take an further hit with reduced public funds, putting the situation even further into the black.

Let not forget the EA either. EA navigations' starting position may be better but they are also going to take a hit in the public funding cuts.

This may be more negativity on my part but it's also a reality that we need to face head on in my view?

I submitted an article to NbW a few days ago regarding BWML.  Unfortunately it does not answer your question but I will look into it.

***** Edited to say article now published.

Regards

Allan

I read somewhere this week that BW (BWML) may be in danger of losing it's marinas if the Government sell off the property portfolio. Being BWML berth holder, I am naturally curious to know what may happen in the future. Presumably, BW's moorings won't be part of the sell-off so I wonder if plan B (for marinas at least) would be to turn BWML's marinas into moorings?

I say this after I visited Shireoaks "marina" on the Chesterfield this summer and was told by a couple of berth holders there that the forthcoming vacancies were to be auctioned on BW's Waterscape - suggesting Shireoaks is a BW mooring site? Now what's the difference between Shireoaks and Ripon, now that the local manager has resigned? Or Shireoaks and any other BWML marina if the local managers were moved  to regional office?

Does anyone know what makes the difference as to why BW can retain some 'marinas' as 'mooring sites' but  set up BWML to run others?

You hit the nail on the head Thomas!

BTW I do enjoy canals and waterways, the same as I enjoy a good restuarant, or a good pint. I also pay handsomely for these pleasures and at the risk of sounding like a whinge I reserve to right to complain when things aint right.

BW it seems provide me (us) with plenty to complain about. As an example I did one short trip last week and encountered, two badly leaking cills, which made opening the lock gates a trial of strength, and locks with the malfunctioning electrics, the same old problems I have had at these particular locks for the past 3 to 4 years and I only go through them once or twice a year. There were broken paddles, one at least has remained broken since Easter, silly lock restrictions and idiotic notices like "shut all gates and paddles to conserve water" - on a river lock!

And this on the back of having to change my main holiday destination because the Leeds & Liverpool was closed. (don't give me that drought rubbish the L&L has been threatened with closure several times during the past few summers and most of them have seen higher than average rainfall).

If I compain when I get a bad pint, the barman usually fixes the problem if I don't complain I usually get the runs. Possibly a moral somewhere there?

On a positive note there were many locks and bridges which functioned perfectly for which, for the sake of balance,  I congratulate BW.

Sorry I didn't answer your question about being banned 'tiggy'—was busy trying to drum up a bit of positive information at the Droitwich Broad Canal on Monday.  Actually succeeded, and left out the negative!

But you know, with such negative information piling in, it's a hard job.  Had a word with the BW representative there, Michelle, to try to get BW to send me pictures of locks being repaired, etc. etc, to balance things a bit. In the days when Eugene Baston was head of communications, he kept me well informed, so there was a balance, but now, no one seems to bother, unless of course it is about wildlife, which seems to be all important.

What do I do? Now there are farmers complaining of the leaks on the L&L making their fields so boggy that they are having to drag cattle out with tractors!  Should I ignore this?

If BW want to ignore such leaks, that have drained the reservoirs, and close the canal instead, blaming it on lack of cash should I publish nothing? It seems to me if I ignore these and similar stories where our canals are suffering whilst money is being wasted on other things, I'm being part of a cover-up, and I can't do that.

Personally, as an old rather thick skinned newspaper hack, what those few people think or write does not bother me, and whilst people are writing they are also reading!

As to 'tiggy', no you are not banned. I know occasionally people can for no apparent reason have their registration disabled, so should anyone encounter this, simply email me and I will rectify it.

Tom Crossley

I agree with this statement, and it was the gist of what I wanted to say - and as for my part I was mostly referring to the forum side of the site.

Allan I am not a writer, you are! For a number of months now I have been quietly watching the forum and I was expressing my opinion of how certain discussions have appeared and progressed.

Mostly I would have thought I was a valued reader and as I live on and am passionate about the canals and travel all year, I may have thought my opinion was more than that of someone who was one of "the same few posters who hold some obscure grudge against our editor. Really, it's childishness." To quote Tony's latest article, which I enjoyed by the way (apart from that bit obviously )

But... in reposnse to Canaldrifters comments in the forum side

"I might add that by being negative to this site here, you are actually adding to the negativity of this site! Well done!

I find all this very amusing."

This illustrates my point exactly that you are criticised for airing differing views or giving (constructive in my view) critisiscm or at least treated with sarcasm for making a general point without providing "hard evidence". This is a discussion forum is it not?  - a place to air and discuss views and differing opinions without being accused of having a vendetta or of childiness or of being in possession of rose tinted spectacles.

I apologise in advance for having the temerity to not be 70, or have been boating since 1872, or in any way involved in the mid 20th century restoration of the canals, or in possession of lists of facts and figures, and as a mere reader of the site only able to pose questions and opinions and refelctive statements.

As a long standing reader and previous emailer to the site, perhaps you may question my motives, and it is perhaps easier to write them off as someone popping in from one of your detractors sites etc.

Discuss if you want to (without the derogatory sarcasm please as I find that to be just rude and not in the spirit of a discussion forum) - or perhaps move onto other matters as I think most points have now been made on this subject and the canals have lots more interesting things going on.

As nbdenise said it is not the Alvechurch ABC.

But I am Bl*"dy sure that is why he chose the name to lull people into thinking that it is somehow associated and give him some creadance.

If I was Alvechurch, I would try to do something about him using the ABC name rather than Aintree Boat Co.

NbW recently carried a story about boats being broken into at the Ash Tree Boat Club near Rugeley. This story is of course 'negative'. 

However, I would have thought that boaters with boats moored nearby, for example those at Spode, would find that information useful. They could then be on their guard and possibly uprate their own security if possible.

Now boaters, not familiar with that stretch of the T&M, are aware of the risks involved in leaving a boat moored unattended in that location too. Personally I am glad Tom published that information. I'm unlikely to have read it elsewhere.

The 'positive' based information sources would have suppressed the story for sure. Is that what you want? 

Did he have anything to do with Liverpool Boats, in a previous life-form?

Tone