Picking up on Fazeley and BWs response to suggestions I always like to give a dog a second chance. So, while boating I wrote to the Fazeley office pointing out the lack of BW provided free toilet emptying facilities at various places on their remit and suggesting, given the ever increasing numbers of marinas and boats in the area that it might be an idea to make more room for mooring at many of the facilities they have got while providing new ones facilities at places like Compton and Rugeley. Today I got a reply! That's the good news. The bad is Fazeley smugly said they are happy with their network of Water/Refuse/Sewage points and all the gaps in it (where they don't provide WRS) there are private companies doing the job though these quite reasonably make you pay for the services. So, once again we pay BW though our boat licenses for basic things like water, refuse and sewage but when their facilities are inadequate BW say it's up to us to pay again to get what they should provide for free. Any comments Debbi? -- On Wed, 7/9/08, David Cragg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
From: David Cragg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: [canals-list] Re: Speeding - caught on camera? To: [email protected] Date: Wednesday, July 9, 2008, 4:20 PM But the whole point of the original comment on the Fazely mob (not by me) was that they don't reply to comments and certainly do nowt about 'em. Maybe you could stir them up sir. --- On Wed, 7/9/08, Adrian Stott <[EMAIL PROTECTED] uk> wrote: From: Adrian Stott <[EMAIL PROTECTED] uk> Subject: [canals-list] Re: Speeding - caught on camera? To: canals-list@ yahoogroups. com Date: Wednesday, July 9, 2008, 10:25 AM David Cragg <[EMAIL PROTECTED] com> wrote: >One must realise that the Fazeley mob are much more interested in spending a >fortune dumping weeds on the towpath side of their canals rather than >spending money replying to us lot. > > I see their narrowed bits on the S&W (dredged two year back and dumped behind >soft edging offside) are silted already. We were told by one chap (surveying) >that his firm has a contract for more 'temporary' soft edging near Compton. Quite apart from being daft, this is a direct violation of policy BW agreed with users nationally, which is that when dredging is done it will *always* be to the original profile (unless this would make the waterway unstable, or is contrary to statute such as in SSSIs). If money is short, then the length to be dredged should be reduced. The profile never should be. Take the BW manager to task! Adrian . Adrian Stott 07956-299966 [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
