CANAL & River Trust Trustee, John Dodwell, has invented a new reason for the proposals contained in a South East Visitor Moorings consultation, writes Allan Richards.
It appears that Sally Ash was guilty of a terminological inexactitude when she stated in a boaters meeting that CaRT had received a 'surprising number of complaints'. What she should have said, apparently, was CaRT had received 'grumbles but these were never recorded'.
Priority
According to the consultation document 'It is a priority for us to improve the chances of boaters finding space to tie up when they arrive at designated visitor moorings'. However, when asked for evidence of the problem, the best that the document's author, Sally Ash (CaRT's Head of Boating) could come up with was that a 'surprising number of complaints' had been received.
John Dodwell admits to being in the room at the time of the utterance. However, he did not speak out. Perhaps, at the time, he did not know that CaRT had no record of any complaint, formal or otherwise, suggesting that boaters were having difficulty in finding space to moor at any of the 22 sites mentioned in the consultation.
No straight answer
Boater, Alan Fincher was unable to get a straight answer from Sally Ash regarding these 'surprising number of complaints' and, rather reluctantly, made a request under the Freedom of Information Act (FoIA) for an analysis of them.
To his shame, John Dodwell, asked him to withdraw it as 'not helpful'. So too did Sally Ash. To his credit, Alan Fincher refused to do so unless the information was made available to him by another route.
Attempt failed
Not content to let his FoIA request remain on file, Sally Ash attempted to have it removed so it would not have to be answered. It is not known if John Dodwell was complicit in this but the attempt failed because it was brought to Alan Fincher's attention and he again confirmed that he did not wish to withdraw it.
Reluctant to admit that Sally Ash had misled boaters, three FoIA requests related to Sally Ash's 'surprising number of complaints' were delayed until the the consultation period was almost over. Again it is not known if John Dodwell was complicit in this delay.
One last trick
And it seems that CaRT had one last trick up its sleeve. It attempted to interpret two of the requests as asking for 'formal complaints' (i.e complaints made under CaRT's complaints procedure). That was not the case as was made clear to them. The requests quoted Sally Ash so were asking for anything that justified her statement that CaRT had received a 'surprising number of complaints' concerning difficulty in mooring at 22 sites. As such the request was for both formal complaints, moans, groans, whinges or even grumbles. Indeed, it was for anything at all that would support her statement!
When it did make an eleventh hour response, CaRT were unable to produce a single document. Not one!
.... and now we have a trustee attempting to convince that 'grumbles' which CaRT has no record of. are sufficient reason to hold a consultation.
Disgusting!
Very old
It is true, however, that some information was released by CaRT. It is very old and relates to local meetings between the trade and British Waterways. However, whilst the trade had much to say on the issue of 'continuous moorers', there is simply no mention made of difficulty mooring at any of the 22 sites.
A goalpost moving diversionary tactic? The secret reason for the consultation?
... or just some grumbles?