Monday, October 15, 2007

I despair!

Just for a giggle, I checked out the Canalworld forums. The first post I read says, and I quote:

'I wondered what BW's actual purpose/charter is. So I looked it up, on the DEFRA website.BW charter on DEFRAThere is nothing in it whatsoever about boats. We (boaters) are stuffed.'

The charter referred to says, and I quote again with parts in brackets added by me,

  • Maintain, enhance and expand its historic waterway network for the benefit of both current and future generations, (that will be for boaters then)
  • Provide a broad range of public benefits, including leisure, (that will be boaters then) environment, heritage, education, health and social inclusion that attract increasing numbers of visits and increasing appreciation by the public
  • To be a responsible member of the business community engaging with its wide stakeholder (that will be boaters then) base on the climate change agenda, acting with concern for the environment and focusing on long term sustainability
  • Contribute to the economic vitality of the adjacent urban and rural space by promoting regeneration and by providing a focus of public interest, which contributes to the building of sustainable community activity (like boating for instance)
  • Develop a growing commerical income from relevant entrepreneurial activity, associated with a well-maintained and well used waterway network, (for boaters perhaps) and in so doing reduce dependence on government grant.

There then follows 6 posts all agreeing, slamming BW and even advocating a mass protest of opening all swing bridges during rush hour to get us poor boaters noticed!

I guess the post was added by a floating housing estate dweller who clearly doesn't understand the history, heritage, business or future of boating.

With a level of intelligence and support such as that, as someone once said, 'We (boaters) are stuffed.'!!

2 Comments:

At 6:39 pm, Anonymous Anonymous said...

charters are often written to be as vague as possible,and you are correct to comment that boaters could be assumed to be included, but you must agree that between your assumption of meaning and what the writers meant is where lawyers make there fee ie if it has not specifically included boaters in it's charter there may be wiggle room for the authorities.
Reading it as wrote it does not mention anything other than users or visitors.

 
At 8:02 pm, Blogger Khayamanzi said...

Very astutue and totally correct of course however in my defence I'm only a simple teacher and not a highly intelligent lawyer. I agree though that it would have made it all much more transparent if they had been more explicit.

 

Post a Comment

<< Home