New Continuous Cruiser group

[www.SupportServices]

Thanks for the informative postings above.

 

I hope my following questions are not too daft:

Are there reduced rates for businesses afloat that promote the waterways in some way?

(Perhaps it was a dream, or did I read that somewhere?!)

 

Also, perhaps it's just a dream, but I would like to run a not-for-profit puppet show from my boat in the summer seasons. I don't want to make any money myself and wouldn't charge, but would like to donate any money given, to Children of The Andes.  Webpage

31001[/snapback]

 

 

The short of it is yes, it is proposed by BW that for 2006 Fees will be put into two bands HIGHER (now business) and LOWER (now standard), small business under 60,000 (not VAt registered) will pay the LOWER rate, those VAT registered the HIGHER (approx 150% more than standard).

 

CC's (no mooring) are to be charged the HIGHER rate, a 20 METER (66 ft) boat will

go up an additional £1200 phased over two years.

 

One of the problems for BW is some small business is VAT registered with a very

low turnover eg: 15K, so their idea of using VAT registration as the arbiter is going to very unfair on such business.

 

Having said that yes, if CC's were all small businesses, a cafe, carrying post, shopping services, internet related services using a sat dish etc etc, then yes

they might all come under LOWER if the proposals go through.

 

Not sure how this might affect those paying band A Council Tax, its not clear to me if some CC's might then be subject to partial Business Rates.

 

Read all about the BW proposals here...

 

http://www.britishwaterways.co.uk/accounta...sultations.html

[anthony]

Dare I ask Fender.

 

Who is this Victor person who seems to well and truely rattle your cage?

 

Excuse my ignorance.

[gaggle]

puppet,s,we will all be puppets dancing on strings held by bw.

some will be caught in the strings and hung up to dry by the proposed changes.

i have definitely come to the water at a choice moment

[AJLintern]

It seems they are quite aware that the majority of people who are 'Continuous cruisers' are also those with the lowest combined income. They are living on a boat for that very reason - because it's cheap! I can see that BW would say 'but they are cruising around a lot more and using the facilities constantly, so they should pay more.' But of course we know that a lot of 'Continuous cruisers' prefer to stay in a one place as that's where they 'live' so of course don't use the waterway much except the 70' x7' bit under their boat!

Now I'm not saying that staying around a certain area and not cruising around as much as BW would expect for a 'Continuous cruiser' is particularly bad (maybe a little selfish and not in the spirit of things) but it's obvious that BW are doing this as an excuse to charge these people more. Of course people who do cruise around a lot might find this unfair, specially if they see people with a cheap mooring paying a lot less and being allowed to use the waterways just as much if they like...

[fender.]

Dare I ask Fender.

 

Who is this Victor person who seems to well and truely rattle your cage?

 

Excuse my ignorance.

31039[/snapback]

 

anthony,

 

I would reply to your question, but I may get a bit of uppity from J.O. Perhaps someone else would be good enough to speak about Victor?

 

fender

[bottle]

anthony,

 

I would reply to your question, but I may get a bit of uppity from J.O. Perhaps someone else would be good enough to speak about Victor?

 

fender

31057[/snapback]

 

I have PM'd anthony so we don't start going down that line again

[fender.]

I have PM'd anthony so we don't start going down that line again

31058[/snapback]

 

Thanks Bottle

[anthony]

Thanks Bottle

31059[/snapback]

 

 

LOL now I know the guy sounds like a right muppet. did i say that?

[david and julie]

Now I'm not saying that staying around a certain area and not cruising around as much as BW would expect for a 'Continuous cruiser' is particularly bad (maybe a little selfish and not in the spirit of things) but it's obvious that BW are doing this as an excuse to charge these people more.

31046[/snapback]

If one was to be honest, it could be said the BW insistance that people waste fuel, for the sake it, is at odds with their alleged environmental awareness.

[DHutch]

The guy sounds like a right muppet.

 

- did i say that?

I dont think you did, but if you had have done, i might agree.

 

 

Daniel

[Maffi]

It seems they are quite aware that the majority of people who are 'Continuous cruisers' are also those with the lowest combined income. They are living on a boat for that very reason - because it's cheap! I can see that BW would say 'but they are cruising around a  lot more and using the facilities constantly, so they should pay more.' But of course we know that a lot of 'Continuous cruisers' prefer to stay in a one place as that's where they 'live' so of course don't use the waterway much except the 70' x7' bit under their boat!

Now I'm not saying that staying around a certain area and not cruising around as much as BW would expect for a 'Continuous cruiser' is particularly bad (maybe a little selfish and not in the spirit of things) but it's obvious that BW are doing this as an excuse to charge these people more. Of course people who do cruise around a lot might find this unfair, specially if they see people with a cheap mooring paying a lot less and being allowed to use the waterways just as much if they like...

 

A 'Continous Cruiser' that doesn't, isn't.

[John Orentas]

If one was to be honest, it could be said the BW insistance that people waste fuel, for the sake it, is at odds with their alleged environmental awareness.

31070[/snapback]

 

 

 

That is about the most perverted logic I have ever seen, these people cruise the system because they like the waterways. I think some of you should try it sometime.

[Breals]

Well said John!

Edited September 15, 2005 by Breals

[fender.]

I have just discovered the discussions on Google. There is so much of interest on their forums about CC's. I spent hours and hours reading all the relevant topics.

 

http://groups.google.co.uk/groups?q=contin...rt=0&hl=en&lr=&

 

Many of the threads make for interesting reading. The earliest seems to be from 1999. That one shows that BW's proposals are virtually the same as now (eg raise the fees by 2.5 times) BW also claimed then that CC's used the canals more than others, but despite this BW have been unable to present any stastitics over the last 7 years to prove this. In short BW are still haggling the same bunch of ideas and still procure inconsistencies and misdeamnors that do not do their ideas any justice.

 

And the best of it? BW's own express admission that they dont have rules, only guidelines. Now I take that to understand that as meaning that if I have a boat on the canal the 'advice' is I should get a licence (but it not being a rule then I dont really have to have one - or even bother observing/complying with mooring restrictions - no wonder some people stay for months on one spot and dont even have licences because they know it isnt legally enforceable.) BW's lot is a complete mess and to try to make CC's out as a problem simply deflects everyone away from the real issue.

[Derek]

For my two penn'orth I liked the idea that was put forward some time ago.

 

Charge all CCers a fee for one years cruising, which would be refunded if they proved that they have indeed been cruising. The genuine folks would then use this charge for their next years cruising, while the ones who are primarily avoiding mooring fees would have to pay again.

 

I admit it would take a lot of administration, but the idea seems fair to all.

 

Derek

[fender.]

For my two penn'orth I liked the idea that was put forward some time ago.

 

Charge all CCers a fee for one years cruising, which would be refunded if they proved that they have indeed been cruising. The genuine folks would then use this charge for their next years cruising, while the ones who are primarily avoiding mooring fees would have to pay again.

 

I admit it would take a lot of administration, but the idea seems fair to all.

 

Derek

31121[/snapback]

 

Thats a nice idea but I suppose it has problems of course in administration and providing evidence etc BW gave up a scheme they had tried running some while back which had asked CC's to keep a log and validate their presence every so often with BW personel (who in turn got fed-up having to 'stamp' log books on a very frequent basis!)

 

Looking more in depth at the CC debates, I particularly liked this quote which says that BW's ideas come from the "Ill-Conceived Bollocks Department."

 

Some More quotes - "If we don't consult, we're damned..."

 

"BW has no power to prohibit boats from returning to the same mooring within 28

days, home mooring or no home mooring."

 

"prohibitions you have no power to make could get you in dead trouble with the Ombudsman."

 

All these coming from the horse's mouth itself.

 

Of course theres many other gems to be had.

[bottle]

Here's my idea for the licensing of boats to use the BW waterways:

 

There is one licence and one fee for any boat using the waterway, size, use, mooring do not have any relevance.

 

 

-----------or------------

 

A more complicated system two different licences one for private boats and one for commercial/hire boats.

 

[Derek]

BW gave up a scheme they had tried running some while back which had asked CC's to keep a log and validate their presence every so often with BW personel (who in turn got fed-up having to 'stamp' log books on a very frequent basis!)

31135[/snapback]

This is probably the one I was thinking about. If they made it a condition of a refund of a "CC" licence, I would think that a lot more CCers would try harder!

 

Derek

[Big COL]

This is probably the one I was thinking about. If they made it a condition of a refund of a "CC" licence, I would think that a lot more CCers would try harder!

 

Derek

31157[/snapback]

 

Derek

 

It's not the CC who need to try harder, it's those who are pretending to be CC that need to. Call them what you like but they are not CC.

[fender.]

Derek

 

It's not the CC who need to try harder, it's those who are pretending to be CC that need to. Call them what you like but they are not CC.

31180[/snapback]

 

I expect it has been pointed out before, but I will set it out clearly here. There is no such term labelled continuous cruiser (or CC) as defined by the BW Act 1995. Whilst it is a popular term coined by the waterways community in general, it does not lend help to us understanding the problems, because the BW 1995 Act actually means a boat that

 

"will be used bona fide for navigation throughout the period for which the consent is valid without remaining continuously in any one place for more than 14 days or such longer period as is reasonable inthe circumstances.”

 

in other words it means a boater is not to continuously stop in one place. By using the term CC we confuse the problems even further because that is not what the 1995 BW Act discusses.

Edited September 15, 2005 by fender.

[Big COL]

I expect it has been pointed out before, but I will set it out clearly here. There is no such term labelled continuous cruiser (or CC) as defined by the BW Act 1995. Whilst it is a popular term coined by the waterways community in general, it does not lend help to us understanding the problems, because the BW 1995 Act actually means a boat that

 

"will be used bona fide for navigation throughout the period for which the consent is valid without remaining continuously in any one place for more than 14 days or such longer period as is reasonable inthe circumstances.”

 

in other words it means a boater is not to continuously stop in one place. By using the term CC we confuse the problems even further because that is not what the 1995 BW Act discusses.

31186[/snapback]

 

You forget to mention the part ( used for bona fide navigation) Navigation could not be defined as jumping backwards and forwards between bridges. Therefore using a boat for bona fide navigation, coupled with mooring regulations, you are in fact Continuously Cruising. Fulfilling the requirements of the BW Act 1995.

Edited September 15, 2005 by Big COL

[fender.]

You forget to mention the part ( used for bona fide navigation) Navigation could not be defined as jumping back wards and for wards between bridges. Therefore using a boat for bona fide navigation, coupled with mooring regulations, you are in fact Continuously Cruising. Fulfilling the requirements of the BW Act 1995.

31191[/snapback]

 

You are in a process of moving around the waterways where you do not stop in any one place longer than the 'rules' state and this is what we, the waterways community call Continuous Cruising. But it is not specified as such a description by the 1995 Act. It therefore confuses the understanding of the situation by supposedly having a terminolgy that doesnt even exist in the act. It is a bona fide description that we have come to use and it does not have a legal standing.

 

The act describes a permission to cruise ina bona fide manner that allows certain stopping requirements (eg 14 days or whatever) It is not about CONTINUOUS cruising. It is not about boating 24/7 52 weeks a year. It is about not continuing to stop in one place longer than is permitted. To use CC gives the impression that one must 'CC' all the time. Even BW doesnt make this requirement at all that a boat should be CC'ing for evermore till the cows come home.

Edited September 15, 2005 by fender.

[Big COL]

You are in a process of moving around the waterways where you do not stop in any one place longer than the 'rules' state and this is what we, the waterways community call Continuous Cruising. But it is not specified as such a description by the 1995 Act. It therefore confuses the understanding of the situation by supposedly having a terminolgy that doesnt even exist in the act. It is a bona fide description that we have come to use and it does not have a legal standing.

31192[/snapback]

 

Fender

In law you are probably right, but it 's a play on words, the fact that Continuous Cruising is not mentioned I think you will find to be totally irrelevant. The term Continuous Cruising has been adopted by the boating community with the majority of them understanding what it means, together with it being used as part of BW terminology with an explanation as to exactly what this means, I think you would be hard pushed to get any court not to except that it is any thing other than a boating terminology that full fills the requirement of the act. This is just MHO

[david and julie]

D&J wrote,

If one was to be honest, it could be said the BW insistance that people waste fuel, for the sake it, is at odds with their alleged environmental awareness.

John Orentas's reply was,

That is about the most perverted logic I have ever seen, these people cruise the system because they like the waterways. I think some of you should try it sometime.

Sorry John but your own perverted logic takes centre stage this time, it bears no resemblance to my comment.

 

Are you saying that cruising more than one may want to, just to satisfy a licencing "rule" does not waste fuel?

 

You may want to cruise as much as you can but someone using the boat as a home may not. They may consider the tooing and frowing a bit of a pain.(and a waste of diesel)

[John Orentas]

Why do some of you insist on missing the point, it was the continuous cruising people that came first the, rules came along later as a concession as it was recognised that those people by definition have no use for a permanent mooring.

 

Do you really imagine that people tour the system like some demented flying Dutchmen using fuel with the sole object of saving a few pounds on marina fees.

 

Try to get it through your heads some people like cruising in their boats, some people like to do it a for most of the time.

 

Quote;

 

"You may want to cruise as much as you can but someone using the boat as a home may not. They may consider the tooing and frowing a bit of a pain.(and a waste of diesel)"

 

Why on earth have you bought a boat.