A record year of failure
WITH the publication of the Canal & River Trust (CaRT) annual report a few days ago the Trust attempts to claim a record year of success, writes Allan Richards.
However, what it claims in its Press release as successes are actually failures.Visitor numbers
Take for example its claims on visitor numbers. It gives a figure of 400 million but fails to explain what this figure is or how it is arrived at. With figures in the past in the millions, tens of millions and hundreds of millions it is little wonder that boaters treat it with derision. Particularly as CaRT fails to tell what target it set itself.
Delving into CaRT's annual reports shows that in its third year CaRT is still below the target BW set itself in 2012.
A failure rather than a success!
Voluntary giving
Turning to 'Friends', having previously stated that it was slightly under its self imposed target of 11,000, we are now told that CaRT is slightly over. Furthermore, we are told that voluntary giving raised £1.6 millions.
Delving again into annual reports we find that CaRT spent £2.7m raising that £1.6m last year!
So CaRT loses £1.1m on charitable giving (a loss far higher than envisaged), slightly misses a self imposed target and calls it a success.
It's a failure!
Boat numbers
CaRT's boating webpage has stated for some time 'Our canals and rivers are home to over 35,000 boats....' . However, it now claims it has 32,700 boats, an increase of 1% over the previous year.
Sorry CaRT but 32,700 is 2,300 boats less than it states on your website.
Another failure!
The biggest failure
The three examples above shows that what CaRT is counting as successes last year are actually failures.
However, its biggest failure must surely be its failure to maintain its waterways leading to a continuous stream of infrastructure failures.
... and this year it will be spending even less than last year despite an £11m increase in government grant.
[In view of the deceptions in the Canal & River Trust's Press Release 'A record year of success for the nation's canals' we refused to publish it—Editor.]