TMBA

[Captain Coochie]

http://www.tmba.org.uk/?page_id=13



Hmmmmm , whats this all about then ?

[byron]

http://www.tmba.org.uk/?page_id=13



Hmmmmm , whats this all about then ?

Representation!

[boatone]

The Thames MotorBoaters Association

Hmmmmm , whats this all about then ?

Does what it says on the tin but better to visit the http://www.tmba.org.uk/ where all will be clear.

[Andrew_Fanner]

I think its a good idea and worth a crack.

[concerned]

I have to say that in theory it is a good idea to have one group representing you rather than all the myriad different groups that make up the representation so far ....

However , by the looks of the 'Lock Keeper' section , you are going to very nicely ( but perhaps unintentionally ) talk them out of a job ...

4 day weeks ? 7 months of the year ?

Sounds like an ideal opportunity for 'temporary staff' to me. Effectively halving the wage bill. That'll do nicely . Recruit various unemployables at Easter , give them a job until September and then thanks very much , bye bye.

Then when it all goes wrong , and the boaters are moaning , the EA can say 'but that's what you asked for , so that's what you've got' , job done.

Be careful what you set in motion guys.

[boatone]

IHowever , by the looks of the 'Lock Keeper' section , you are going to very nicely ( but perhaps unintentionally ) talk them out of a job ...

Well, I am pleased that you have taken the trouble to read the discussion paper - but, with respect, you have missed the point.
The EA have ALREADY reduced lock-keeper availability and we have had many reports of locks being unattended and on self-service during the working day.
The discussion paper is not advocating reduced lock-keeper services. The reduction in services was already happening. In my opinion this trend and the absence of resident lock-keepers at some locks is unacceptable and needs to be resisted - but HOW?

What the paper is doing, is trying to recognise, IF reduced services are inevitable, WHEN fully manned assisted passage is most essential and SHOULD continue to be available. It is not advocating part-time lock keepers either but trying to ensure that their priorities recognise the needs of the customers as well as routine maintenance etc.

A couple of years ago the public outcry about the intended sale of lock cottages caused the EA to rethink that issue and many thought that they had secured a victory which would ensure the continued occupancy of the cottages by resident lock-keepers. We now know this is not the case.

Facing up to the realities is inevitable, but a practical approach to ensuring we get the best possible service when it is most needed is essential. That means being prepared to engage with the EA and being able to propose, and argue for, alternative ways of achieving objectives.

Do you want full time resident lock keepers at every lock?

I DO, but I fear those days may be gone unless, somehow, we make a damn sight more fuss about something we really care about, make a considerable financial contribution to, and want to keep.

Would be interested to know why you posted your response here and not on the tmba site where comments were invited?

[No Regrets]

I have to say that in theory it is a good idea to have one group representing you rather than all the myriad different groups that make up the representation so far ....

However , by the looks of the 'Lock Keeper' section , you are going to very nicely ( but perhaps unintentionally ) talk them out of a job ...

4 day weeks ? 7 months of the year ?

Sounds like an ideal opportunity for 'temporary staff' to me. Effectively halving the wage bill. That'll do nicely . Recruit various unemployables at Easter , give them a job until September and then thanks very much , bye bye.

Then when it all goes wrong , and the boaters are moaning , the EA can say 'but that's what you asked for , so that's what you've got' , job done.

Be careful what you set in motion guys.

And who the FECK are you?

I just love these new people who 'appear' with no introduction, rude gits, and start some wonderful conversation 'with a few veiled hints'

Now seriously dude, lets do it nicely eh?

[concerned]

And who the FECK are you?

I just love these new people who 'appear' with no introduction, rude gits, and start some wonderful conversation 'with a few veiled hints'

Now seriously dude, lets do it nicely eh?

I was doing it nicely little man.

Nowhere have i sworn ( unlike yourself ) , nor been aggressive ( unlike yourself ) , nor been rude ( unlike yourself ) , i was just making a statement , maybe just my opinion on how it reads. Or is it not welcome to have opinions other than yours on this forum ?

I notice from some other threads that i have read , that you appear to be the forums resident bully ? are you going to post a picture of a male chicken next ?

Play by the rules you purport to represent , and lets do it nicely , eh ? dude .

[Richard Shead]

And who the FECK are you?

I just love these new people who 'appear' with no introduction, rude gits, and start some wonderful conversation 'with a few veiled hints'

Now seriously dude, lets do it nicely eh?

Just because they appear new does not mean they have no knowledge of the Thames and the environment.

The Thames forum is fast becoming a laughing stock with everyone jumping on a so called newbie ....

So let's go back to debate and not jump on someone just because of a low post count please.

Thank you.

[No Regrets]

Friend of yours?

p.s. Look at some of the recent newbies Richard? Surely you're not blind