boatone
Well-Known Member
Dear Mr. Richardson,
The news that MBM were intending to run a major inland waterways edition, and, in particular, address some of the issues relating to the Thames came as a breath of fresh air. Unfortunately I must express my disappointment with what I can only describe as a golden opportunity frittered away in the interest of ill informed and sensationalist journalism.
Your editorial in the June issue presented an opportunity for a well respected and widely read publication to draw attention to the need for debate and action on the future of a national environmental and recreational asset. Instead, you seem to have decided to bypass the serious issues in favour of a tabloid style rant no better than some of the extreme views expressed on the ybw Thames forum. Frankly, I am disappointed.
The first few paragraphs of your editorial are hardly worthy of comment so let’s look at the bits that are relevant:
Quote :
“if you like the idea of a friendly, knowledgeable lock-keeper on hand to give advice, maintain the river and look out for problems. Wave goodbye to all that, with the EA’s latest plans it looks like the role will be downgraded to the equivalent of a van-driving municipal park keeper. The EA can bang on about ‘no significant impact,’ but without the housing, this low-paid job will lose its appeal, the morale of lock-keepers might disintegrate, and the river could lose its best guardians.”
Yes, it’s nice to have the lock-keepers on hand to chat and give friendly advice but ‘maintain the river and lookout for problems’?? The primary duties of lock-keepers appear to be locking duties and weir duties. Admitted many of them have done a wonderful and much appreciated job of tending the lock side gardens but I would hardly class this as ‘maintaining the river’.
The fact is that many river users have been using the locks for many years now without lock-keeper assistance and with little or no problems except when lock machinery is defective. Electrification has been moving on apace and this not only makes self working much easier, but also reduces or even negates the possibility of unsynchronised sluice and gate movements. Out of hours use of the locks is quite common in the early morning and late evening periods as well as during lock-keepers meal and weir keeping absences.
The EA have stated that they intend to ensure that manned locking will continue and even be improved during the main seasonal periods. So whats so different to the status quo?
Somewhere along the line we have got to place some faith in the people charged with managing the river. The all pervasive mood of total mistrust and, in many cases downright rude attitudes towards people trying to do their jobs is hardly any more conducive to their determination and morale than the issue you raise of the morale of the lock-keepers themselves.
It is not for us to manage the river or, indeed, tell the Environment Agency how to do so. As river users, and particularly as licence fee payers, we do have a right to express our concerns and campaign for improved funding from central government.
Near the end of your editorial, you finally acknowledge this.
Quote:
“It’s true, central Government lies behind the problem but just when the river desperately needs some good news, the EA’s decision to sell off the family silver is at best badly timed, and at worst potentially catastrophic for our rivers’ long-term health.”
‘Selling off the family silver” is exactly how I described the move in a post on your Thames forum but is this not primarily down to DEFRA and central government imposing requirements and funding restrictions on the EA?
A study of the various documents on the Environment Agency website reveals just how dependent the EA Thames Division is on overall EA and government grant funding. It is equally obvious that boaters cannot possibly be expected to provide the increased funding required to address years of neglect and underfunding. In many cases problems lie with local authorities along the river rather than the EA themselves. As I said at the beginning, the Thames is a national environmental and recreational asset and needs to be recognised and funded as such.
Final bit of your editorial:
“Not exactly the fanfare I wanted for the first of our new Inland Special issues but at times like these we all need to rally to the cause.”
So please bite the bullet and start doing some serious investigative and commentary journalism aimed at getting this issue before parliament where the decisions need to be taken if real progress is to be achieved. Hopefully this would also lead to closer attention being paid to effective management. There are far too many factions on the river and no one central representation of river users. As long as emotional hysteria and ignorant attacks on people trying to work ‘at the coalface’ continue we will get nowhere.
Yours in hope rather than anger
Etc etc
The news that MBM were intending to run a major inland waterways edition, and, in particular, address some of the issues relating to the Thames came as a breath of fresh air. Unfortunately I must express my disappointment with what I can only describe as a golden opportunity frittered away in the interest of ill informed and sensationalist journalism.
Your editorial in the June issue presented an opportunity for a well respected and widely read publication to draw attention to the need for debate and action on the future of a national environmental and recreational asset. Instead, you seem to have decided to bypass the serious issues in favour of a tabloid style rant no better than some of the extreme views expressed on the ybw Thames forum. Frankly, I am disappointed.
The first few paragraphs of your editorial are hardly worthy of comment so let’s look at the bits that are relevant:
Quote :
“if you like the idea of a friendly, knowledgeable lock-keeper on hand to give advice, maintain the river and look out for problems. Wave goodbye to all that, with the EA’s latest plans it looks like the role will be downgraded to the equivalent of a van-driving municipal park keeper. The EA can bang on about ‘no significant impact,’ but without the housing, this low-paid job will lose its appeal, the morale of lock-keepers might disintegrate, and the river could lose its best guardians.”
Yes, it’s nice to have the lock-keepers on hand to chat and give friendly advice but ‘maintain the river and lookout for problems’?? The primary duties of lock-keepers appear to be locking duties and weir duties. Admitted many of them have done a wonderful and much appreciated job of tending the lock side gardens but I would hardly class this as ‘maintaining the river’.
The fact is that many river users have been using the locks for many years now without lock-keeper assistance and with little or no problems except when lock machinery is defective. Electrification has been moving on apace and this not only makes self working much easier, but also reduces or even negates the possibility of unsynchronised sluice and gate movements. Out of hours use of the locks is quite common in the early morning and late evening periods as well as during lock-keepers meal and weir keeping absences.
The EA have stated that they intend to ensure that manned locking will continue and even be improved during the main seasonal periods. So whats so different to the status quo?
Somewhere along the line we have got to place some faith in the people charged with managing the river. The all pervasive mood of total mistrust and, in many cases downright rude attitudes towards people trying to do their jobs is hardly any more conducive to their determination and morale than the issue you raise of the morale of the lock-keepers themselves.
It is not for us to manage the river or, indeed, tell the Environment Agency how to do so. As river users, and particularly as licence fee payers, we do have a right to express our concerns and campaign for improved funding from central government.
Near the end of your editorial, you finally acknowledge this.
Quote:
“It’s true, central Government lies behind the problem but just when the river desperately needs some good news, the EA’s decision to sell off the family silver is at best badly timed, and at worst potentially catastrophic for our rivers’ long-term health.”
‘Selling off the family silver” is exactly how I described the move in a post on your Thames forum but is this not primarily down to DEFRA and central government imposing requirements and funding restrictions on the EA?
A study of the various documents on the Environment Agency website reveals just how dependent the EA Thames Division is on overall EA and government grant funding. It is equally obvious that boaters cannot possibly be expected to provide the increased funding required to address years of neglect and underfunding. In many cases problems lie with local authorities along the river rather than the EA themselves. As I said at the beginning, the Thames is a national environmental and recreational asset and needs to be recognised and funded as such.
Final bit of your editorial:
“Not exactly the fanfare I wanted for the first of our new Inland Special issues but at times like these we all need to rally to the cause.”
So please bite the bullet and start doing some serious investigative and commentary journalism aimed at getting this issue before parliament where the decisions need to be taken if real progress is to be achieved. Hopefully this would also lead to closer attention being paid to effective management. There are far too many factions on the river and no one central representation of river users. As long as emotional hysteria and ignorant attacks on people trying to work ‘at the coalface’ continue we will get nowhere.
Yours in hope rather than anger
Etc etc
