>Eugene wrote:
>> Groups were asked for their preferences as to whether the media
>> attend or not prior to the last national boating meeting. I made it
>> clear that offering no view would not be counted as "that's okay
>> then, let the media come along", but that respondents needed to
>> express a view.
>>
>> The consensus from those who expressed a view was "no thanks".
>>
>> These meetings are not 'BW's meetings', they are the groups'
>> meeting. I've been very clear on this, and to emphasise it the
>> agenda is largely set by the groups and any BW 'presentations' are
>> limited to the end, by and large.
>>
>> Media attendance was also considered by BWAF. The notes, which are
>> on the web, read (11 October 2005):
>>
>> "The Chairman also referred to approaches from two waterway magazines
>> regarding attendance at BWAF meetings. It was agreed that this was not
>> desirable and that instead the Chairman would speak to the waterways
>> press after meetings. Press releases on BWAF matters might also be
>> issued by BW on behalf of BWAF on occasions and information would be
>> included in its accountability website."
>>
>> Openness & Accountability isn't solely within BW's control!
>
>You know my feelings on this, but to reiterate...
>
>I think it's sophistry to claim they (BWAF, Boating Issues, Corridor Issues)
>are not BW's
>meetings. They are organised by BW, on BW premises, to advise BW. If they're
>not your
>meetings then you don't have the right, IMHO, to use them to claim the credit
>for BW being
>more open and accountable. As the latest Annual Report shows ("A range of
>representative
>forums and accessible channels helps us meet rising stakeholder
>expectations"), you do.
>
>Given that, I do not accept that groups should be able to veto who attends.
>Imagine it's
>1991 and NABO has just been set up. Imagine that IWA, smarting from the
>perceived slight
>to its traditional role as representative of the boat-owner, vetoes NABO's
>application to
>join BWAF. What do you do?
>
>As it happens I've spoken to representatives of the three biggest user groups
>and none of
>them have said they don't want us to be there. One of them suggested that the
>decision
>had been pushed in a particular direction by a certain person on BWAF who is
>not a user
>group official and who has some "previous" with disliking the waterway press.
>
>The promise for the Chairman to speak to the waterway press after meetings has
>not been
>consistently delivered.
>
>As has been pointed out both here and to me by private e-mail, this is a
>really silly
>situation, because if Martin wanted to attend as a representative of WRG I'm
>sure he could.
>I think Emrhys might even have done so once as a representative of the
>Electric Boat
>Association and I'm told that, in the past, waterway journalists have attended
>nominally as
>representatives of APCO and TAG. Or we could form, or join, a journalists'
>association. We
>already get second-hand reports from people who have attended the meetings.
>
>All we are trying to do is be impartial in our reporting, and play it by the
>book as far as our
>presence goes.
>
>We don't have this problem with regional BW meetings; nor with the EA's
>equivalent,
>RFERAC; heavens, even the nearest equivalent to BWAF in the railway industry
>(Passenger
>Focus) allows anyone to observe its board meetings. BW is out of step.
>
>As it happens I'm sorely tempted, next time there's a BWAF meeting, to put a
>big blank
>space in our news pages with the little explanatory text: "This space would
>have contained
>a report from the British Waterways Advisory Forum, but BW has forbidden the
>press from
>attending". ;)
>
>cheers
>Richard
Go for it Richard!
I always found the waterways press the sole of discretion. Both you and Martin
heard enough of my immoderate comments and only ever printed my more sensible
remarks.
BW only play lip service to transparency.
We arent dealing with the more scurrilous press here.
Sue nb Nackered Navvy
