WobblyLegs
regular
Reged: 12/07/2006
Posts: 835
Loc: Surrey
|
|
Well, at least there is some publicity out there...
Times Article
From the above article, any forumites or their boats in this pic?
--------------------
Under construction...
|
rickp
regular
Reged: 10/11/2002
Posts: 5205
|
|
I put the bit from BBC News up here
Rick
|
Andrew_Fanner
regular
Reged: 13/03/2002
Posts: 5327
Loc: Hampshire
|
|
Sue was out at Sunbury gathering support from passing boaters on Saturday while Steve ran the lock. I urge any forumite who goes through to get their name on the paper.
--------------------
Two beers please, my friend is paying.
|
No_Regrets
regular
Reged: 09/07/2007
Posts: 1225
Loc: Welwyn Garden City, Herts UK.
|
|
The TVR filled up a few sheets at the weekend.
100% support from Bray, Harleford, Oxford Ditch and Windsor people I spoke with while doing the rounds with a clipboard 
--------------------
Birchwood Owners Association (BOA) forum now open here -> http://birchwoodboats.aceboard.com/
|
boatone
regular
Reged: 29/07/2001
Posts: 6617
Loc: Surrey uk
|
|
Did anyone bother to listen to Eilleen McKeever? She says 'no redundancies'.
Lockies wife says 'redundancies'. Can't both be true?
--------------------
"Don't tell me why not, tell me how..."
Photo Gallery, Burgees and MADonTheThames
|
Brayman
regular
Reged: 27/11/2006
Posts: 1122
Loc: Bucks
|
|
Well done John, there were at least 6 full sheets, that means about 160 signatures.
--------------------
How come I am over the hill but I never made it to the top?
http://www.braycruiserclub.co.uk
|
chuckaduck
regular
Reged: 01/05/2006
Posts: 1736
Loc: k all the thieving scroats up
|
|
Sadly the sale of property is a flawed scheme the ea will have to increase the salaries for lock keepers hence it will cost more in the long run!
--------------------
www.communitycctvwatch.com
well why not !
|
WobblyLegs
regular
Reged: 12/07/2006
Posts: 835
Loc: Surrey
|
|
Quote:
Sadly the sale of property is a flawed scheme...
My thoughts too. And once its gone, its gone forever (they'd never buy it back if they found they made a mistake - it would be too expensive), and the cash raised will be gone pretty quickly too.
Then what?
As an aside, how many years did it take to build up a working infrastructure on the Thames, and how much quicker do you think it would be to dismantle it?
--------------------
Under construction...
|
Brayman
regular
Reged: 27/11/2006
Posts: 1122
Loc: Bucks
|
|
Quote:
As an aside, how many years did it take to build up a working infrastructure on the Thames, and how much quicker do you think it would be to dismantle it?
That's nu-labour for you , what did TBliar know about history let alone understand it. They've been destroying our whole life and nation ever since they came to power.
And don't forget, any money raised through the sale of these houses won't stay with the EA, that will be winging its way back to DEFRA and above you can be sure.
--------------------
How come I am over the hill but I never made it to the top?
http://www.braycruiserclub.co.uk
|
No_Regrets
regular
Reged: 09/07/2007
Posts: 1225
Loc: Welwyn Garden City, Herts UK.
|
|
They should have fixed a rental price for each property, and mortgaged them for the exact amount that the rental would have paid, creating a self-funding scheme which would have resulted in around £180,000 per property being raised, but without losing the actual properties, or strategic land.
They could have done this to each and every property without anybody being upset, and not affecting the status quo either.
And in twenty years, they could repeat the excercise...
The problem is, we are dealing with Asses, rather than Assets here. 
--------------------
Birchwood Owners Association (BOA) forum now open here -> http://birchwoodboats.aceboard.com/
|
oldgit
regular
Reged: 06/11/2001
Posts: 7159
Loc: Medway
|
|
"That's nu-labour for you , what did TBliar know about history let alone understand it. "
A bit more history...........
You may recall that when all the waterboards were privatised in the 1980s in just about every other area in the south, waterside side properties and any land worth selling was disposed of to provide a nice little earner for the shiney new shareholders and the men who did the maintaince were "let go" or assigned to other duties along with all the plant used to keep other rivers in good order.
The Thames has been lucky in escaping the financial pressures faced by those managing your navigation,boaters in all other areas have had to come to terms with it.
Amazingly we survived to tell the tale and all without a nice man in a uniform to shepherd us into the lock take our ropes and make sure we come to no harm in the scary couple of miles up to the next lock where the next nice man waits with open arms. 
|
WHISKY
new user
Reged: 26/04/2008
Posts: 3
|
|
Not one to upset anyone but time to take action, Ms Mckeever stated that it is public money, So why the HELL aren't WE asked what we want doing with it?
|
oldgit
regular
Reged: 06/11/2001
Posts: 7159
Loc: Medway
|
|
"WE" being who exactly.Walkers,rowers,Mobos,narrow boaters,or the general public who provide what I suspect is the bulk of the funds spent on the waterway with such a wide range of parties involved whos voice is to take priority.
|
Cuchilo
regular
Reged: 19/04/2003
Posts: 4407
Loc: London
|
|
I can only speak for myself on the WE point . As a member of the public and a boater i seem to get taxed twice to use the river . That is up to me as i choose to have a boat . I dont like the fact that i get taxed again if i use a smaller boat to get to my boat !
As a member of the public i want clean streets and less speed humps ( have you ever taken a pre finished cabinet over a speed hump and heard it crack in the back of your van  ) As a boater i want the river managed properly and i dont know how to do that but if last season was anything to go by nor does anyone else
No one wants the onsite lock keepers to go least of all myself as quite a few of them i regard as friends but as the OP has said this is way beyond the EA and time to bother the PM's .
--------------------
The honest man has nothing to fear .
|
boatone
regular
Reged: 29/07/2001
Posts: 6617
Loc: Surrey uk
|
|
Quote:
Not one to upset anyone but time to take action, Ms Mckeever stated that it is public money, So why the HELL aren't WE asked what we want doing with it?
We WERE asked - last year the EA commissioned quite an extensive survey of river users - results are HERE .
Unfortunately, only around 1,000 out of 30,000 could be *rs*d to respond and only about half of those were cruiser owners IIRC. As seems to usually be the case apathy rules OK.
If you want to spend a few minutes its worth running thru the powerpoint presentation of the results summary HERE
You will see that presence of lock keepers only managed 7th place in the order of priorities expressed re what peeps thought most important for their enjoyment of the river.
--------------------
"Don't tell me why not, tell me how..."
Photo Gallery, Burgees and MADonTheThames
|
byron
regular
Reged: 16/05/2001
Posts: 6674
Loc: UK -Berks
|
|
Quote:
Quote:
You will see that presence of lock keepers only managed 7th place in the order of priorities expressed re what peeps thought most important for their enjoyment of the river.
Enjoyment or efficiency? Two different questions
--------------------
http://www.oceaneagle.fsnet.co.uk
www.alexander-advertising.co.uk
|
TrueBlue
regular
Reged: 30/04/2004
Posts: 1115
Loc: Sussex
|
|
It show you have surveys get slanted.
A lockkeeper's presence is not essential to me when passing through a lock, but very pleasant when the "Resident" is there.
What is important on this river with its wide range of flows and danger points is that there should be a local physical point of contact in times of trouble.
I was unlucky enough to take an early bath over Christmas when trying to rescue a fisherman's rod and line. I was not overly concerned at the time, just breathless and feeling warm (later discovered that these are the signs of hypothermia). If Geoff Horsnell and his relief hadn't fished me out, well ......
I've heard tales from other locks in the last few weeks where folks and boats have nearly gone over weirs had it not been for the Resident swiftly diverting the flow and fishing (sorry, pun,) them out.
It's really great folly to sell off the lockside, or near lockside, resident keepers cottages from purely a safety angle.
Those truly offsite (like Marlow 2) are another matter, and the local management have to be left to make their own decisions.
Nobody has pointed out the sad fact that if the tied houses go, no-one in their right minds would work for EA, so the "excess" staff problem is solved at a stroke. No redundancies (just resignations) and posts can't be filled as no takers. Another sleight of hand
|
channelyacht
regular
Reged: 25/12/2007
Posts: 547
Loc: Hamble & Audierne
|
|
Quote:
Did anyone bother to listen to Eilleen McKeever? She says 'no redundancies'.
Lockies wife says 'redundancies'. Can't both be true?
Hmm..let me think..believe the EA or the people affected by the change...
Of course, the EA never tell lies...
|
boatone
regular
Reged: 29/07/2001
Posts: 6617
Loc: Surrey uk
|
|
Quote:
Those truly offsite (like Marlow 2) are another matter, and the local management have to be left to make their own decisions.
So ok for local management to make some decisions but not others? 
--------------------
"Don't tell me why not, tell me how..."
Photo Gallery, Burgees and MADonTheThames
|
boatone
regular
Reged: 29/07/2001
Posts: 6617
Loc: Surrey uk
|
|
Quote:
Hmm..let me think..believe the EA or the people affected by the change...
Of course, the EA never tell lies...
Why should you unquestionably believe or disbelieve either?
--------------------
"Don't tell me why not, tell me how..."
Photo Gallery, Burgees and MADonTheThames
|
channelyacht
regular
Reged: 25/12/2007
Posts: 547
Loc: Hamble & Audierne
|
|
I don't unquestioningly believe either - however, having witnessed first hand over a number of years the half truths, misleading answers and downright lies propogated by the EA in other areas I have no reason to believe they are any different elsewhere...
A lot of it is in the definition - as we've seen on the flood defence side, they may say the "team is 10 people" and this might not change - but in our area, five years ago out of that 10, 8 were based outside dealing with the river - now it is 3, with 7 based inside making policy. So they could truly make the statement that the team numbers haven't changed - but the true effect is 5 less river ops guys.
I suspect the same logic at work regarding the lockies...
|
Previous
Index
Next
Threaded
Edit
Reply
Quote
