Example 2– The Canals and Rivers Trust
Ignoring Users - a small irritation
Here is a very local (parochial even) example of how degraded our so-called democracy has become. I was Secretary of Leeds Sea Cadets Management Committee from 2005-2018. The unit rents its site from the Canals and Rivers Trust. This is a successor company to British Waterways. The access road to our premises is their private road. In October 2017 with 4 days notice we were told that parking on the road would be banned, with no exceptions, 24 hours a day. The enforcement was outsourced to a private (that's a for profit company). We were unable to negotiate sensibly with the person responsible for this, no consultation with the tenants of CRT which included the Leeds Rowing Club took place. By the time we found out it was already a fait-accompli.
There may be a problem, it could have been solved by a parking ban between 9am to 5-00pm but if group think was in play that might have required some consultation. The organisation could not change policy, by the time we were notified the decision had already been made, money spent, signs erected and contracts let.
The point: A charity with a public service remit and a voluntary body using publicly owned land, had to plead with a functionary (whose allegiance is naturally to their employer) to get just 10 passes. This land is held in trust for the benefit of the public, rather than being told we are banned from parking should we not have some form of representation and democratic oversight?
Ignoring Users - a deliberate affront
This is a very minor issue in comparison to the Canals and Rivers Trust attitude to people who live on their boats. If you followed the link to the CRT pages above you could be forgiven for thinking that this is a body action on h=behalf of its users - the problem is if you look at the various advisory groups you'd never guess that anyone lived on a boat. Essentially, boat owners are allowed to pay for a mooring for 14 days and must then move on. There is no requirement for them to have a permanent mooring, indeed many marinas don’t allow residential use of boats. The CRT has adopted a policy of refusing licence renewals to boat owners who don’t move far enough between each 14 day mooring. The definition of far enough is their own concoction and has deliberately been made too long for people to hold down jobs or get children to school. Those in breach have their boats, often their only capital asset, impounded and so become indebted and homeless.
The CRT has implemented this policy to subvert a restriction placed on them by the Waterways Act of 1995, this denied them the right to force people who lived on boats to use permanent moorings and criminalise those who didn’t (which is what they lobbied for). Protesters have had to resort to petitions to Parliament Note: Canals & Rivers Trust
We own the waterways. The CRT should run a service on behalf of us and in particular the estimated 10,000 people who live on their boats. The CRT do not do this, they believe that all they have to do is make the waterways attractive for leisure users and have a hostile attitude to people who have escaped the housing crisis. Because of the way they are set up, this goes unchallenged unless there is a protest campaign. This is a case of 10,000 people with a direct interest have no participation and being deliberately disengaged. (Comment Jan 2024; Since I wrote this the CRT has become a charity, how much its culture has changed is moot)
I discuss the general causes of political disengagement in Timeline - Present - Limited participation and disengagement