Lock-keepers houses revisited

ThreeSummers

ThreeSummers

Well-Known Member
Joined
12 Jul 2006
Messages
2,077
Location
Walker Bay, South Africa.
Visit site
Well, at least there is some publicity out there...

Times Article

From the above article, any forumites or their boats in this pic?

news-lockkeeper385_332854a.jpg
 
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 /forums/images/graemlins/wink.gif
 
[ QUOTE ]
Sadly the sale of property is a flawed scheme...

[/ QUOTE ]

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?
 
[ 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?

[/ QUOTE ]

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.
 
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. /forums/images/graemlins/frown.gif
 
"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. /forums/images/graemlins/smile.gif
 
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" 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.
 
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 /forums/images/graemlins/mad.gif ) 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 /forums/images/graemlins/mad.gif
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 .
 
[ 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?

[/ QUOTE ]
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.
 
[ 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.

[/ QUOTE ]

Enjoyment or efficiency? Two different questions
 
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
 
[ QUOTE ]
Did anyone bother to listen to Eilleen McKeever? She says 'no redundancies'.
Lockies wife says 'redundancies'. Can't both be true?

[/ QUOTE ]

Hmm..let me think..believe the EA or the people affected by the change...

Of course, the EA never tell lies...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

Top