CRT Show Anti Continuous Cruiser Hand

[AndrewIC]

"So, for the coming winter, we’re planning on offering just two types of permit"...

 

"Winter 2013/14 detailed plans

 

Three different types of winter mooring permit:"

 

Does no-one sanity check stuff before it gets published?

[Hawkmoth]

It looks to me as if C&RT are trying to get it about right. This does not affect the the genuine CCer as far as I can see.

I know, only from reading on here though, that there are folk who tend to take this personally.

We have lived as CCers in the past, we were lucky enough not to need to break the rules.

If the cap fits, wear it.

Bob

[cotswoldsman]

It looks to me as if C&RT are trying to get it about right. This does not affect the the genuine CCer as far as I can see.

I know, only from reading on here though, that there are folk who tend to take this personally.

We have lived as CCers in the past, we were lucky enough not to need to break the rules.

If the cap fits, wear it.

Bob

The cap fits and I am wearing it. I am a Continuous Cruiser and I have been told I do it to exploit an Act of Parliament.

[Jigsawged]

SNIPPEDDuring all my time connected with the Inland Waterways, I have always played by the rules, paid my way and despite the many shortcomings of BW in the past and CaRT at present, I have always been appreciative of the good work that has been done. Now I feel betrayed and marginalised and seriously wonder if it is worth the hassle. On the basis of a sentance from CaRT that possibly is badly worded? Why not just get on with it - you are not doing anything wrong!

I do take your point Mark but it isn't based just on this snippet, it seems to me to be a campaign directed at the good as well as the bad and I don't see it getting any better anytime soon.

[GUMPY]

Think I can smell something burning

[Guest]

I find it interesting that some are reading this as an insult. I don't read it as one.

 

Methinks some people worry too much:)

 

But it's all about perception.

 

It's well known that I am not a CC'er but I know there is a perception amongst some (rightly or wrongly) that CRT have an anti-CC'er agenda and would prefer everybody to have a home mooring. If you have this perception it is not helped by clumsy wording like this, as it reads as if somebody has transferred what they are 'really' thinking about CC'ers to a written communication.

 

This is why I think they should run comms past their customers in the same was as we used to do, it would at the very least reduce the opportunity for any misunderstanding like this as a CC'er reading that would likely say "hang on a minute that reads as if you think we are all taking the pee", but it could of course be very carefully crafted to communicate their actual thinking.

 

Personally I think it's more cock up than conspiracy.

Edited September 1, 2013 by The Dog House

[Hawkmoth]

The cap fits and I am wearing it. I am a Continuous Cruiser and I have been told I do it to exploit an Act of Parliament.

Exploit isn't a pejorative term. It just mean 'make use of'. there's nothing wrong with that. I do feel you're being over sensitive.

Bob

[mrsmelly]

Think I can smell something burning

Its the popcorn.

 

Tim

[mark99]

The cap fits and I am wearing it. I am a Continuous Cruiser and I have been told I do it to exploit an Act of Parliament.

You maybe have chosen to take the word "exploit" as a negative attack on you validating some belief you hold which may or may not be true. Exploit, as NN says it not wholly a negative word.

[cotswoldsman]

I do take your point Mark but it isn't based just on this snippet, it seems to me to be a campaign directed at the good as well as the bad and I don't see it getting any better anytime soon.

The problem is they lump ALL continuous Cruisers into the same box as far as Licnce definition is concerned you either are a Continuous Cruiser or have a Home Mooring.

You maybe have chosen to take the word "exploit" as a negative attack on you validating some belief you hold which may or may not be true. Exploit, as NN says it not wholly a negative word.

Maybe I am over reacting but I see what I see and my problem is as I said before a lot of boaters especially ones who do not come on here will see that statement from CRT and go with the feeling that Continuous Cruisers are simply finding a way round the Act.

[john6767]

This is another case of a badly written communication, similar to the one with the new mooring rules to Stoke Bruerne/Foxton etc.

 

To me, the main message that it sends is the lack of importance that CRT attaches to public communication.

[Ex- Member]

Exploit isn't a pejorative term. It just mean 'make use of'. there's nothing wrong with that. I do feel you're being over sensitive.

Bob

 

Well in actuality it means to use to your advantage

[Timleech]

The problem is they lump ALL continuous Cruisers into the same box as far as Licnce definition is concerned you either are a Continuous Cruiser or have a Home Mooring.

Maybe I am over reacting but I see what I see and my problem is as I said before a lot of boaters especially ones who do not come on here will see that statement from CRT and go with the feeling that Continuous Cruisers are simply finding a way round the Act.

 

I'm not sure what else you would expect them to do?

 

Actually they are offering more (in terms of winter moorings) for CCers than to those with a home mooring, so maybe you shouldn't complain!

 

Tim

[Rich]

I read that as exploiting a clause in the Act, not exploiting CRT.

 

I think the problem to which they refer is people who declare they CC, then don't, citing a need to stay in one area for jobs, schools, medical treatment etc. These are the 'exploiters' who need 'managing', not you John.

 

 

MtB

 

I think the use of the words "medical treatment" were perhaps a little unfortunate here.

 

Do you really think that someone who has had a totally unexpected diagnosis of, for example, cancer and is in need of some long and possibly tiring treatment and who has explained the need to remain in one area to BW/Canal and River Trust, and obtained their permission to be exploiting anything?

[cotswoldsman]

 

I think the use of the words "medical treatment" were perhaps a little unfortunate here.

 

Do you really think that someone who has had a totally unexpected diagnosis of, for example, cancer and is in need of some long and possibly tiring treatment and who has explained the need to remain in one area to BW/Canal and River Trust, and obtained their permission to be exploiting anything?

I can confirm in one case with a boater who has cancer CRT have been very understanding I sent them an email to thank them.

[rgreg]

"Exploit" is a word whose meaning can be determined by the reader according to their preconceptions. Eg the first definition on t'internet is:

 

Verb

Make full use of and derive benefit from (a resource): "500 companies sprang up to exploit this new technology".

 

With this meaning, there is no concept of malpractice or stretching the rules beyond that intended.

 

Other definitions are available for those wishing for them!

You beat me to it; that was my interpretation exactly on reading the full article. There is no implication of wrong-doing by continuous cruisers in this article, it's just how some people choose to interpret it.

[Trento]

Like as not many bruised ego's in these posts.. As someone said, if the cap fits....otherwise lighten up..

[Guest]

You beat me to it; that was my interpretation exactly on reading the full article. There is no implication of wrong-doing by continuous cruisers in this article, it's just how some people choose to interpret it.

 

The problem is exactly that, in that is that it is open to interpretation when it should be clear and unambiguous.

[BruceinSanity]

 

But it's all about perception.

 

It's well known that I am not a CC'er but I know there is a perception amongst some (rightly or wrongly) that CRT have an anti-CC'er agenda and would prefer everybody to have a home mooring. If you have this perception it is not helped by clumsy wording like this, as it reads as if somebody has transferred what they are 'really' thinking about CC'ers to a written communication.

 

This is why I think they should run comms past their customers in the same was as we used to do, it would at the very least reduce the opportunity for any misunderstanding like this as a CC'er reading that would likely say "hang on a minute that reads as if you think we are all taking the pee", but it could of course be very carefully crafted to communicate their actual thinking.

 

Personally I think it's more cock up than conspiracy.

I'm with you on this one (makes a change to disagree with cotswoldman). Given the sensitivity around on this topic, they really should be more careful in their choice of words.

This is another case of a badly written communication, similar to the one with the new mooring rules to Stoke Bruerne/Foxton etc.

 

To me, the main message that it sends is the lack of importance that CRT attaches to public communication.

I don't think it's lack of importance, it's just incompetence. They lost their only really skilled communicator when they let Eugene Baston go IMHO.

[Jigsawged]

I may have misunderstood their intentions but when CaRT state that:

 

"We were tempted to exit the winter mooring market and leave all provision to private operators"

 

it seems to me that the only option that they would endorse in those circumstances is for all CC'ers to take up marina moorings during the winter months when much of the system is unavailable to cruise.

 

I recall asking at one User Group meeting, why are Bosley Locks closed to navigation each winter when I see no maintenance work taking place? The answer I received was on the lines of "well, we may not actually be doing any work on them but we need to impose the stoppage so that we can assess them" Really?

 

This brings to mind old chestnut of paying for an annual licence which in reality, for many boaters, means that the navigation is only open for cruising for perhaps 8 months of the year. Obviously there are times during extreme weather when one wouldn't be able to cruise anyway but to shut things down as a matter of routine just doesn't seem right and to even consider withdrawing provision of winter moorings altogether strikes me as the thick end of the wedge.

[Guest]

Are they confident the private operators have sufficient capacity?

 

I guess they can't be other wise they may have pressed ahead.

[dmr]

I guess there is a technical term for this sort of thing, does anyone know it????

"Using loaded words to add a bias to an otherwise impartial or debatable statement."

 

Reading through previous CaRT publications I note that they do this sort of thing often. Maybe one of us should start to compile a list.

It is a technique used extensively by politicians but sadly I now often see it used in the BBC news.

The one I most hate is using the using the word "clearly" or "obviously" in a statement that is neither clear nor obvious.

"Clearly most over-stayers are continuous cruisers".

"This man is obviously guilty"

etc

 

...........Dave

[cotswoldsman]

I guess how you read that statement depend on whether you are a Continuous Cruiser or not now I realise that CRT do have a problem with NCCC but they put in their Winter Mooring proposal that boaters going through enforcement do not qualify for Winter Moorings so I still do not see the need to imply that Continuous Cruisers are exploiting that Act of Parliament.

[Higgs]

The use of the word 'exploit' cannot be taken as a blanket critisism of CC'ers. The only reason there is a group that CC is by the authority of BW/CRT. Any interpretation of the word exploit as a general snipe at all CC 'ers would be a critisism of CaRT itself. I think it can only be aimed at the non-compliant.

 

The reference to the British Mooring Federation, moaning about the unfair competition over the 'facilities' of cheap winter moorings undercutting the private sector is possibly a competitions monopoly rod for CRT, but I think it is more than equally unfair of the private marinas, etc, to try and force boaters into marinas. The two types of mooring are very different in what they can provide.

 

The British Mooring Federation's moan is them crying wolf. I don't see why CRT feel that they are under any pressure, winter moorings can be rough and ready affairs. Boaters should not be forced, unfairly, into marinas for the winter, pushed into supporting marinas and taking funds away from CRT.

 

I think CRT already oblige, by reducing online moorings. Not sure, but I think it is by 10% of marina capacity.

Edited September 1, 2013 by Higgs

[Gingerbeer]

Are they confident the private operators have sufficient capacity?

 

I guess they can't be other wise they may have pressed ahead.

 

Aww, that was going to be my question. Great minds think alike.

 

I would hate to think that if I lived in Lancaster and the only available winter mooring in a marina was in Birmingham, that I would have to get my boat down there. Many marinas are full now, even in the summer. What would winter bring if everyone had to come in from the cold?