Email Sent To Iwa

[cotswoldsman]

Following The IWA statement issued yesterday concerning the Nick Brown Judicial Revue I have sent them the following email

 

 

 

With reference to The IWA statement issued yesterday concerning Nick Brown's judicial revue.

I am very disappointed that the IWA have taken this matter as another excuse to continue its anti Continuous Cruiser Campaign Your statement singles out Boaters Without a Home Mooring(Continuous Cruisers) as being a particular problem on Visitor Moorings. This statement is completely false and I would like to know what evidence you have to single out this group of boaters as being a particular problem on Visitor Moorings? As someone who Continuously Cruises all year I am always amazed that during the winter months I pass mile upon mile of empty Visitor Moorings, what happens to all these Continuous Cruisers that you say occupy the Visitor Moorings during the summer in the winter? I am currently moored on a Visitor Mooring on The Birmingham and Worcester Canal there are 8 boats moored here 2 Continuous Cruisers, 3 Hire Boats and 3 Boats with Home Moorings (information taken from Licences) One of the boats that arrived yesterday from a Marina asked me if I could keep an eye on his boat as he was leaving it there until he returns on Saturday, when i pointed out that it was a 48 hour mooring he informed me that it did not apply to boaters with a Home Mooring and yes he had an IWA sticker in the window!!!
Can I suggest that The IWA might be better campaigning on important issues such as Dredging and maintenance instead of campaigning against Continuous Cruisers.
Regards
John Sloan

Edited July 26, 2013 by cotswoldsman

[DaveC]

Bet you don't get a reply!

 

 

 

 

Dave

[trackman]

Excellent email Cotswoldsman. Would be nice to think they would take real notice, but somehow I fear not!

[BlueStringPudding]

Following The IWA statement issued yesterday concerning the Nick Brown Judicial Revue I have sent them the following email

 

[Tuscan]

Yes I thought exactly that. The press release seemed to focus on overcrowding on Visitor Moorings by continous cruisers. Most of us that have been travelling this year have noticed a general reduction of boat movements and have had no issues getting on Visitor Moorings (even the 'hotspot' ones).

 

It must be difficult for CRT to distance themselves from the IWA mananagement/independent trustees.

[nicknorman]

I would say that 99% of the press release is fine. Its only the "many without home moorings" which, unnecessarily and without proof (probably because there is none, as you say) attacks CCers. Is there anything else you object to in it?

[PaulG]

Following their disgracefully anti-democratic campaign to monopolise the C&RT elections at the expense of places for ordinary boaters, I would not join the IWA on principle.

Edited July 26, 2013 by PaulG

[frangar]

Isn't it handy that some boats warn you of their crews ability by proudly proclaiming sometimes from a handy pennant that that are Incompetent With Attitude?

 

Cheers

 

Gareth

[Victor Vectis]

Following their disgracefully anti-democratic campaign to monopolise the C&RT elections at the expense of places for ordinary boaters, I would not join the IWA on principle.

I didn't rejoin for the same reason.

 

That, and their anti CCer pogrom.

 

Well said Cotswoldman. Have a greenie!

[Grace and Favour]

Excellent email John, I suspect though (as others do) that it may be met with a stolid cyber silence.

 

(though it would be a welcome surprise if you did receive an helpful and intelligent reply - - I'll be on my way to the local Ladbroke's establishment to enquire whether they'll give me odds on such an event)

[MtB]

I agree. You won't get a reply. Your email will have gone straight in the virtual bin.

 

MtB

[BruceinSanity]

Following The IWA statement issued yesterday concerning the Nick Brown Judicial Revue I have sent them the following email

 

Nice one John. Greenie from me; must get my act together to send something similar. Who did you send it to?

[MtB]

Yes greenie from me too.

 

MtB

[cotswoldsman]

I would say that 99% of the press release is fine. Its only the "many without home moorings" which, unnecessarily and without proof (probably because there is none, as you say) attacks CCers. Is there anything else you object to in it?

It is the singling out of a minority group that I object to I like most have concerns about what Nick Brown is doing.

[keble]

I didn't rejoin for the same reason.

 

That, and their anti CCer pogrom.

 

Well said Cotswoldman. Have a greenie!

Me too, not my kind of club

[churchward]

It is the singling out of a minority group that I object to I like most have concerns about what Nick Brown is doing.

I sort of agree with you and Nicknorman.

 

I think it is a shame that they have emphasised CCing in the press release but if you took out the first couple sentences (or phrased the differently) there would be little to complain about and I do think it is true that the problem here is Nick Brown and his actions.

 

Not all CCers are angels and not all people in the IWA are all saints either and not everyone is out to get CCers.

[RichardN]

Following The IWA statement issued yesterday concerning the Nick Brown Judicial Revue I have sent them the following email

 

 

I just went to read the IWA Statement, perhaps you should re-read it.

 

"IWA believes the essence of Mr Brown’s claims is that any boater should be able to moor wherever he or she wants, shuffling short distances within a small area every 14 days, for as long as they want, on a first come, first served basis, regardless of popularity or demand for visitor moorings. IWA believes that such a ‘free-for-all’ would not be in the best interests of most boaters and points to overcrowded moorings in London and the western end of the Kennet & Avon Canal where some boaters, including some residentials, have monopolised many visitor moorings to the exclusion of genuine visiting boaters."

[PaulG]

I sort of agree with you and Nicknorman.

 

I think it is a shame that they have emphasised CCing in the press release but if you took out the first couple sentences (or phrased the differently) there would be little to complain about and I do think it is true that the problem here is Nick Brown and his actions.

 

Not all CCers are angels and not all people in the IWA are all saints either and not everyone is out to get CCers.

What about the statement about halfway thought their press releaase, attributed to Les Etheridge?

 

"IWA has a heavy postbag from boaters concerned at the visitor moorings situation, with the vast majority of boaters wanting CRT to take fair, but tough, action against those who are abusing the rules who seem to have little regard for the wider boating community. IWA fully supports and encourages residential boaters provided they act responsibly, and IWA believes that those who have established lifestyles as a lack of past enforcement..."

 

Residential boaters guilty by implication.

 

Obviously it's OK for private boats and hire boats to overstay, but residential boaters, especially those with "established lifestyles" should be subject to "fair but tough" action.

 

Biased and prejudicial, I would say.

[churchward]

What about the statement about halfway thought their press releaase, attributed to Les Etheridge?

 

"IWA has a heavy postbag from boaters concerned at the visitor moorings situation, with the vast majority of boaters wanting CRT to take fair, but tough, action against those who are abusing the rules who seem to have little regard for the wider boating community. IWA fully supports and encourages residential boaters provided they act responsibly, and IWA believes that those who have established lifestyles as a lack of past enforcement..."

 

Residential boaters guilty by implication.

 

Obviously it's OK for private boats and hire boats to overstay, but residential boaters, especially those with "established lifestyles" should be subject to "fair but tough" action.

 

Biased and prejudicial, I would say.

I don't think it says that at all. Again I might write it differently but if the IWA have received many letters and emails on the subject then that would be a matter of fact.

[PaulG]

I don't think it says that at all. Again I might write it differently but if the IWA have received many letters and emails on the subject then that would be a matter of fact.

We may agree to disagree here, but the first sentence identifies the "problem", and the second - by implication - identifies the culprits.

 

If that was not the case, why did they not go on to talk about overstayers in general, rather than singling out one particular group?

Edited July 26, 2013 by PaulG

[churchward]

We may agree to disagree here, but the first sentence identifies the "problem", and the second - by implication - identifies the culprits.

 

If that was not the case, why did they not go on to talk about overstayers in general, rather than singling out one particular group?

As I say I think I would have put it differently but without the first couple of sentences the piece you quoted would not have had the same impact or implication.

 

Still, none of which is the issue. It is Nick Brown and his foolish, vexatious litigation that is the threat here.

[carlt]

...without the first couple of sentences the piece you quoted would not have had the same impact or implication.

Is it not the first couple of sentences that set the tone of such statements and, usually, form the headlines of most media that use the release?

[churchward]

Is it not the first couple of sentences that set the tone of such statements and, usually, form the headlines of most media that use the release?

I agree that is why I said further up they should not have had them there.

[Rich]

Isn't it handy that some boats warn you of their crews ability by proudly proclaiming sometimes from a handy pennant that that are Incompetent With Attitude?

 

Cheers

 

Gareth

I misread that as incontinent with attitude!

 

Richard

[Hawkmoth]

I've just read the IWA letter in narrowmindedworld. If that is the full and correct text of the letter I feel that it is a fair appraisal of what is going on in some places.

We have, in the past, CCed, but these days we have a permanent mooring and cruise the summer months.

We do have first hand experience of people just plain ignoring the spirit of the rules. If any boater blatantly "takes the piss" with the rules then they do need to be held to account.

I don't see anywhere in the letter a mention of residential boats or CCers.

Bob

edit for spelling

Edited July 26, 2013 by lyraboat