Those objectives

MY FIRST impression is that CART is probably not doing anything they shouldn't do, [It's objectives] but that doesn't mean they are doing what they should do, writes Paul Robinson.

The first objective ought to be their priority, i.e:

2.1 to preserve, protect, operate and manage Inland Waterways for public benefit:2.1.1 for navigation;
2.1.2 for walking on towpaths;
and
2.1.3 for recreation or other leisure-time pursuits of the public in the interest of their health and social welfare.

After all CART is the only organisation which has the power to do this.

Not as a priority

The remaining objectives are all (?) laudable, and CaRT should be able to carry them out, not as a priority, or as stand alone activities, but as activities complementary to its main objectives. All of these 'secondary' objectives are also being pursued by many other organisations, such as local authorities and other charities with specific objectives, so again shouldn't be CaRT's priority, or consume much of its income.

Andrew Bails quoted Richard Parry:

'His response has long remained with me as, in true Johnny Depp Pirates of the Caribbean style, he clarified that the ‘Objectives’ were in fact more like ‘Guidelines’ and had no legal status'.

Surely this is not true? If it is it means CaRT can do, or not do, anything it wants. This is never the case with bodies such as charities which are set up for a particular purpose.

Income from boaters and boating

My opinion is that CaRT should spend income from boaters and boating on the core objectives only, and should find resources for the secondary activities elsewhere.

So from my layman's perspective there is probably not any legal route to take to force CaRT to do what we boaters think it should do, but I hope my thoughts might clarify matters a bit so you can perhaps ask a few more awkward questions.