Email: Just wants the information

In response to what I consider to be a perfectly legitimate request made to a manager of CART, someone calling themselves 'Maffi' writes about a Freedom of Information request costing public money.

Does this person feel that I have no right to ask the sort of question that might be difficult for CART staff to answer? Or does he/she think I'm merely mischief-making?

I'd like to point out that if 'Maffi' had read my piece properly, he/she might be surprised to learn that, in making my request, I did not invoke or mention the Freedom of Information Act in any way, and I am utterly baffled as to why he/she has even thought to raise the subject!

He/she then asks what I am 'going to do with that information', should 'CART give in to John and give him the information he requests'. Incidentally, I find the use of the phrase, 'give in' intriguing. What's to 'give in'? It almost sounds as though 'Maffi' wants CART to be protected from all marauders—is this perhaps the voice of a CART employee/advisor/volunteer? Perhaps he/she is trying to pre-empt me, by hoping to curry public opinion against me before I perhaps do consider asking this question under Freedom of Information rules. Hmmm....

Look, I may be missing something here but, to me, it's quite simple—a CART manager makes a public statement on a forum that is dedicated to the UK inland waterways. Having spent the last 47 years on those waterways and being therefore a somewhat cynical individual, I asked what I felt was a perfectly reasonable question regarding the cost of an operation that is funded in it's entirety by the British taxpayer.

If 'Maffi' feels that I'm acting improperly in doing this, then I take it that he/she also feels that these people should not be questioned too closely by those who pay their wages, nor should they be held accountable in any way for the obscene amounts of public money that have been, and continue to be, wasted?

He/she goes on to say that 'owning that information' will 'take another £400 out of the already depleted money pot and reduce maintenance'.

Firstly, it's got nothing to do with my 'owning that information'. It's about open and honest public accountability that, without any questioning from the likes of me, should be readily available to provide information others may find useful in any decision they may wish to make before offering their support to CART. It is, after all, meant to be a charitable trust.

Secondly, I've already said that there is no FOI request involved, so quite why 'Maffi' has dreamt up this figure of £400 is beyond me but, according to him/her, the theoretical loss of it will reduce maintenance.

Oh please! £400? Don't make me laugh!

Broken locks? Towpaths either overgrown, blocked or fallen in? Insufficient depth of water? Breaches? Buildings and infrastructure either falling down, rotting away or sold off to make shopping malls? Ridiculous signs everywhere? Contractors/consultants/Uncle Tom Cobley and all dipping their snouts in the trough? Machinery, craft and equipment all sold off? Never mind—we've still got the uniform branch out nicking the villains!

As long as CART has customers like 'Maffi' who, without question, go on paying out ridiculous and ever-increasing sums of money for an ever-decreasing facility, then good luck to 'em, I say! Let CART go on ramping up licence and mooring fees way beyond the rate of inflation! Let the customers go on funding pensions for the poor old directors! Let CART 'lose' another 'squillion' or so on another ridiculous shopping mall!

And as long as nobody questions any of it—they get away with it and continue to do so!

So come on Mr. Griffin—never mind what 'Maffi' says, my question still stands.

John Wilkinson