The Association of Continuous Cruisers

[Ange]

12 pages until the first flounce. I must admit I thought there would be one sooner.

 

There have been a few of the classic "i'll bow out of this thread now" only for them to post again 2 mins later though, which are always amusing for the casual observer.

 

If I was clever enough to ever go to university, i'd love to study the psychology of internet forums.

Not a flounce. Someone gutted and unable to sleep because his huge personal investment has just been chucked in his face.

Edited September 23, 2013 by Ange

[magpie patrick]

It appears to me that there are two separate issues: whether there is a need for an Association of Continuous Cruisers and whether John and Steve have been entirely honest. I suppose I'd better open with saying that, via the back door, I knew this was happening because Tamarisk is working on their website! I've no idea whether this is the first mention on the forum because, to put it bluntly, I haven't been paying attention.

 

I think there may well be a need for a well-guided association of this type, it is sad that there is because the number one issue facing many CCers should be the same as that for boaters in general, proper maintenance of the network. There are a number of reasons this isn't true and they say a lot. If I may be allowed to create caricatures, the "continuous and progressive" type CCers cruises most of the network and gets affected by poor bank maintenance, lack of facilities, sometimes erratic winter closure patterns which should also be issues for other boaters but there are those who hardly move (because they don't leave a marina) and have more interest in complaining about CCers hogging visitor moorings than complaining that there simply aren't enough such moorings in the first place. The ACC is needed because too many people, including some senior members of the IWA, regard anyone with no home mooring as part of the great unwashed and somehow a lesser class of boater.

 

The devil will be in the detail, or more precisely in the articles of association. What I don't want to see is an organisation pop up that defends the right to basically flout the rules. However membership is defined there is a risk that the membership will attempt to hijack the founders original intentions, if it was open to all and sundry a bunch of shiny boat owners might want only "extended cruisers" represented, allowing only those with CC licences to become members might open the doors to those who abuse the CC conditions, after all, they hold a CC licence. The guard against either scenario is a constitution that requires a vote at the AGM to alter, preferably with a minimum attendance to form a quorum and a 2/3rd majority.

 

I will admit to not having read the conditions of membership, but I assume that one must hold a CC licence: this is sad because it bars anyone whose home mooring is not on the CRT network and also removes membership from those who might wish to become CCers (including me) and those who are CCers in spirit but of necessity have a home mooring ("extended cruisers"). The licence one is a bit awkward because some of the key issues raised do not occur as a result of having no home mooring but as a result of having no fixed official residence, something that can occur in Bill Fen Marina (Middle Level) just as readily as on the BCN, the fact that "others will benefit" kind of misses the point.

 

You are also cutting off potential expertise: I am a member of the CBOA although I don't own or operate a Commercial Boat, but my membership gives credibility when trying to achieve traffic on various waterways, and I do have expertise in that, and also contribute to discussions in various fora (IWFG for example) on the actions of all navigation authorities.

 

On the "duped" allegation, that's a strong term and if anyone does feel this then unless they have evidence to the contrary they should consider the Napoleon Maxim, "Never ascribe to malice that which can be explained by incompetence". I am not accusing John and Steve of incompetence but I am suggesting that in the frenzy of setting this up, and possibly with the well intentioned aim of not making a premature announcement, they may have misunderstood the initial impression they created and failed to manage expectations. Given neither of them do this sort of thing as a job I'd say it is astonishing how well they have handled the whole process and they should, by and large, be praised not criticised, even if that praise has to carry the caveat "would have been nice if".

 

I wish the ACC well, and would ask that we let Steve and John get on with it, and reserve judgement for a year or two

[Ssscrudddy]

Well I think it's great that you have decided to do an organisation for CCers. Post no 4 (Edit, I originally said post 2) proves the need for one. A bunch of other posts also proves the need for it.

I think it's a great shame that some long standing members with high post counts have reacted so negatively.

I'm not a CCer, hell I dont even have a boat, but I expect to have 1 in 3 weeks (I've been saying that for a week now, grr how dare the crane driver go on holiday at the end of the leisure boating season)

But when I do get 1 I will be in a marina with all the facilities. I would love to go CCing, but I cant, I am tied to a particular place. I also cant afford it. I also want access to all facilities, such as my own dedicated electric point, my own dedicated water point, laundrette facilities should my washing machine pack up, toilet & washing facilities should I encounter a problem with those. Secure access so that my boat is secure. But hey thats me. If I won the lottery I would do it like a shot, but I would still keep my (soon to be) fully residential mooring.

There's a guy near me, who never moved, he was off the navigation from what I could tell. I couldnt care less about the legality of it, that's up to enforcement to sort out. But if ever there was a problem, he would always be the first out there helping. Unfortunately his boat sank 1 night.

Apparently because I (will) have a home mooring, that means I can bridge hop, but the CCer cant. A boat in the way is a boat in the way. I'm not going to get butt hurt because I think someone else is getting away with something, as long as they arent causing a problem for others I couldnt care less, & if I think they are causing a problem I can always report them.

I was founding member & vice chairman of a motorbike club for 12 years, we even won a civic award. We even was still allowed to operate when the HA moved into the area & shut all the other bike clubs down. It was great fun, but a lot of hard work. I was relived when it all ended "ooh free time again".

So I say good luck with your venture. Ignore the negatives, & embrace the positives.

I wonder what label peeps will apply to me when I get my boat, perhaps shiny boater, but I can see the shiny boaters objecting to that. Hell I may tell 'em all I'm a CCer that goes nowhere just for the crack.

Once again good luck. If others want an all inclusive organistation then set 1 up. I thought there was 1, the IWA. While I havent looked into it, my early impressions (from when I 1st joined this forum) was that they only liked posh boats. I dont know & I dont care if that is the case or not. I've never even heard of the NABO.

I wont be joining, but I'm pretty sure I wont be joining anything else either.

So good luck & have a greenie

Edited September 23, 2013 by Ssscrudddy

[Dave_P]

Since just about every other forum member has had their say:

 

Boaters as a group face issues when compared to non-boaters.

 

Liveaboards then face separate issues.

 

Singlehanders then face separate issues.

 

CCers face separate issues.

 

Those with leisure moorings face separate issues.

 

I could go on....

 

I have to agree with Alan's posts on here that a new organisation is desperately needed to represent all these groups. That's why many on here are disappointed. Imagine a world where each tiny subset of boaters was represented by its own association? Wouldn't they all end up fighting against each other? Maybe, maybe not - but is it worth the risk?

 

We have all seen the signs coming from CaRT which indicate their interest in all canal users (anglers, cyclists etc.) How would it be if all the cyclists joined together to form the Towpath Cyclists Association? Who would have greater lobbying power - a unified group of cyclists, or a squabbling bunch of boating associations?

 

On a second point: having done the research myself I can offer a bit of insight into the question of liveaboard health outcomes for CCers against those with moorings. Across virtually every health and social indicator - CCers fare worse than those with moorings. However, those who live on leisure moorings, fare worse than those with residential moorings. The reasons for this are extremely complex and are not only directly due to the type of mooring or lifestyle. For example - those with residential moorings are likely to be wealthiest on average since these cost the most, whilst a clear proportion of CC'ers do so for finacial reasons (i.e. the are poor). The connection between wealth and health has been established for as long as it's been looked at.

 

This brings me to an interesting conclusion: John and others have commented that a really good reason for setting up the ACC is because they need more help with health related issues. Fair enough but actually they are going to exclude those people who suffer worst in this respect - the non-compliant CCers. That's the elephant in the room for me. The sad fact is that many NCCCers suffer the very worst outcomes of all boaters. It seems many of us are willing to ignore that because we object to them bending or breaking the rules. Many NCCCers suffer mental health issues or in others ways find it difficult to access the services they need.

 

I wish John and Steve the best of luck with their group but I fail to see how fighting for the interests of one distinct group can have any other effect than to harm the interests of another.

Edited September 23, 2013 by Dave_P

[Wanted]

John, I'm guessing that you are feeling a bit bashed by a couple of people that you respect and would like to have in agreeance with you. I don't think anybody was directing their feelings to you as a person, maybe how they perceive that things have been dealt with?

 

For what it's worth I see the formation of this group as a progression that has evolved from the work that you have done previously.

 

More importantly I think it would be a travesty to loose you as a forum member, hang in there, it'll be worth it!

[Tuscan]

Since just about every other forum member has had their say:

 

Boaters as a group face issues when compared to non-boaters.

 

Liveaboards then face separate issues.

 

Singlehanders then face separate issues.

 

CCers face separate issues.

 

Those with leisure moorings face separate issues.

 

I could go on....

 

I have to agree with Alan's posts on here that a new organisation is desperately needed to represent all these groups. That's why many on here are disappointed. Imagine a world where each tiny subset of boaters was represented by its own association? Wouldn't they all end up fighting against each other? Maybe, maybe not - but is it worth the risk?

 

We have all seen the signs coming from CaRT which indicate their interest in all canal users (anglers, cyclists etc.) How would it be if all the cyclists joined together to form the Towpath Cyclists Association? Who would have greater lobbying power - a unified group of cyclists, or a squabbling bunch of boating associations?

 

On a second point: having done the research myself I can offer a bit of insight into the question of liveaboard health outcomes for CCers against those with moorings. Across virtually every health and social indicator - CCers fare worse than those with moorings. However, those who live on leisure moorings, fare worse than those with residential moorings. The reasons for this are extremely complex and are not only directly due to the type of mooring or lifestyle. For example - those with residential moorings are likely to be wealthiest on average since these cost the most, whilst a clear proportion of CC'ers do so for finacial reasons (i.e. the are poor). The connection between wealth and health has been established for as long as it's been looked at.

 

This brings me to an interesting conclusion: John and others have commented that a really good reason for setting up the ACC is because they need more help with health related issues. Fair enough but actually they are going to exclude those people who suffer worst in this respect - the non-compliant CCers. That's the elephant in the room for me. The sad fact is that many NCCCers suffer the very worst outcomes of all boaters. It seems many of us are willing to ignore that because we object to them bending or breaking the rules. Many NCCCers suffer mental health issues or in others ways find it difficult to access the services they need.

 

I wish John and Steve the best of luck with their group but I fail to see how fighting for the interests of one distinct group can have any other effect than to harm the interests of another.

[mayalld]

 

Nabo are there for boaters

 

No they aren't.

 

NABO are there to extract money from the unwary and waste it on legal advice to seek ways for a tiny minority of boaters to get round the rules that benefit the vast majority

[Rusty Shackleford]

I don't have a problem with the group, seems, on a whole a nice idea. But, the agenda will all be about mooring longer, enforcement and the inevitable licence fee hike. Probably.

[Tuscan]

Dave P you raise some interesting and valid points.

 

John please don't go off in a sulk but you are being naieve to think that CRT and other boaters are going to just agree with you.

 

its a shame that my mate (same age as your cruising colleague) who has lived on a boat for 30 years the last 15 on a field mooring will not be able to benefit from joining ACC. Fortunately there were enough boaters who rallied round when he had health issues to support him from all boating backgrounds.

[mark99]

Before you consider leaving the forum, I'm sure you know this but,

 

1) The written word appears harsher than a friendly chat with a pint discussing things over.

2) Early days, take on board the feedback and reject if it does not align with the end game.

3) Most of the postings on this forum are from a small minority of the membership - not necessarily reflective of the world outside and can those members can have a disproportionate "voice".

4) Those with the lowest post count often have the most interesting, fresh things to say - the inverse is almost true

Edited September 23, 2013 by mark99

[nicknorman]

... I have decided it is most probably best if I leave this forum ...

 

A bad decision, borne out of being made at 02:15! Yes you have certainly got some unexpected stick, and trust me I know how that feels, but bear in mind the noisy ones represent a tiny minority of forum members. There is a silent majority who will take a much more balanced view. I am frequently surprised to be commended for my posts by complete strangers on the cut who avidly read the forum but are too scared to post. Ah well, each to their own I suppose.

 

Anyway, all that has happened is that you are organising a party and they are not invited. Just like a bunch of teenage girls not invited to a party, they are all sulky and pouty and want to destroy what they can't have. All very childish but for heavens sake don't legitimise their behaviour!

 

After a good night's sleep it is time to gather the toys and man-up, otherwise they have won!

[blodger]

 

No they aren't.

 

NABO are there to extract money from the unwary and waste it on legal advice to seek ways for a tiny minority of boaters to get round the rules that benefit the vast majority

 

You have just helped NABO go up in my estimation so if ACC does not take off I might join.

[cheshire~rose]

I'd hoped to support a new vibrant inclusive organisation, one that recognised and supported all the different ways we enjoy boats and canals. We could have had sub groups to represent different user groups and all lined up behind them and offered support when it was needed. All for one and one for all.

 

 

^^ What she said ^^

 

As someone who has attended one of the meetings and is passionate about our canals and boating I do feel dissapointed. I see Steve and John as being a very effective driving force with regard to communications with CRT. With Alan Fincher adding his bit as well I felt we (that is all other people who are passionate about our canals and boating) finally had a group of people who were prepared to stand up and do what had to be done and say what had to be said in order to ensure the choices we as individuals make about how we use the canals was not being denied to us. I have a huge amount of respect for everything these people have done so far for what I percieved to be a cause we all shared. I can never thank them enough for the time and effort they have put into it.

 

Two of those people have now formed a group that I cannot be part of. I would sincerely like to wish the group all the very best

 

I feel a little cast adrift like Madcat. I, like Alan Fincher, do not feel that the RBOA is for me and do not see that there is any liklihood that will change in the near future. I feel that two of the people I respect as people who could do something for us have now formed a group that I can't be part of.

 

Good luck to you guys. I am sure the association is one that is needed, having so many CC friends means I feel I do understand the things that matter to them and would have been very happy to fight for what is important to them by supporting a group that ncluded the rest of us but as it stands my support is not required because I am just a leisure boater

 

P.S - edited to add - because I only waded through 10 odd pages before posting instead of getting to the end

 

Please don't leave the forum John.

Edited September 23, 2013 by cheshire~rose

[frangar]

I'm guessing that what was expected was that the new organisation would be warmly welcomed. Instead valid points against it have been raised.

 

I do feel though that if the answer is to insult people and flounce off when questions that you don't like are raised then it doesn't bode well for the future of any organisation. Unless of course you will only let people join who agree with you 100% and quickly get rid of those who dare to question.

 

Only time will tell I guess.

 

Cheers

 

Gareth

[Guest]

I think it's a great shame that some long standing members with high post counts have reacted so negatively.

 

 

 

 

4) Those with the lowest post count often have the most interesting, fresh things to say - the inverse is almost true

 

Just what is this fixation some people have with post counts, just what relevance is it to this thread at all??

 

... and why is at shame?

 

An opinion has been expressed by some people who happen to be frequent posters on here and others with fewer post have expressed the same and opposite views is how I read it. Post count is simply irrelevant.

I'm guessing that what was expected was that the new organisation would be warmly welcomed. Instead valid points against it have been raised.

 

I do feel though that if the answer is to insult people and flounce off when questions that you don't like are raised then it doesn't bode well for the future of any organisation. Unless of course you will only let people join who agree with you 100% and quickly get rid of those who dare to question.

 

Only time will tell I guess.

 

Cheers

 

Gareth

 

I agree with this bit 100% - the tone and content of some of the responses by Jenlyn does not bode well for an organisation that I assume will strive to be democratic at least to a degree. There will be dissension amongst the member ship at some point and that needs to be accepted and managed not simply shouted down

Edited September 23, 2013 by The Dog House

[jenlyn]

I'm guessing that what was expected was that the new organisation would be warmly welcomed. Instead valid points against it have been raised.

I do feel though that if the answer is to insult people and flounce off when questions that you don't like are raised then it doesn't bode well for the future of any organisation. Unless of course you will only let people join who agree with you 100% and quickly get rid of those who dare to question.

Only time will tell I guess.

Cheers

Gareth

Hang on, we have people like you coming on here with insulting ill founded remarks, and when someone snaps back, it's a personal attack on what some state is their opinion?

Then, some read past most of a post rather than pick up the whole of it. I've actually lost count now of how many times I stated we are looking at ways of having other membership. HELLO! CAN YOU HEAR ME?

Just what is this fixation some people have with post counts, just what relevance is it to this thread at all??

 

... and why is at shame?

 

An opinion has been expressed by some people who happen to be frequent posters on here and others with fewer post have expressed the same and opposite views is how I read it. Post count is simply irrelevant.

 

 

I agree with this bit 100% - the tone and content of some of the responses by Jenlyn does not bode well for an organisation that I assume will strive to be democratic at least to a degree. There will dissension amongst the member ship at some point and that needs to be accepted and managed not simply shouted down

Actually, I only shout down when shouted at, and I will definitely shout louder when someone is saying one thing, but meaning something else ;-)

[carlt]

 

Anyway, all that has happened is that you are organising a party and they are not invited. Just like a bunch of teenage girls not invited to a party, they are all sulky and pouty and want to destroy what they can't have. All very childish but for heavens sake don't legitimise their behaviour!

 

Utter rubbish as usual.

 

Like Jenlyn you cannot have a reasonable discussion without resorting to infantile insults. Nothing that I have said is at all against the organisation and I am certainly not sulking.

 

To John's credit he has taken on board the criticism without lowering himself to your level.

 

I do agree with you though that, despite my disappointment at the way this has come about, I do not think John should leave the forum as he is much valued and respected by all, not just those who agree with him.

Actually, I only shout down when shouted at, and I will definitely shout louder when someone is saying one thing, but meaning something else ;-)

Nobody has shouted at you and all my criticism has been backed up by relevant quotes and references.

 

This is how discussions should be, not with people accusing others of "throwing their toys out of the pram" because they are feeling got at and have no response to the criticism.

 

Compare the mature way John has treated the criticism with your schoolyard tactics and you may learn a thing or too.

[frangar]

Hang on, we have people like you coming on here with insulting ill founded remarks, and when someone snaps back, it's a personal attack on what some state is their opinion?

Then, some read past most of a post rather than pick up the whole of it. I've actually lost count now of how many times I stated we are looking at ways of having other membership. HELLO! CAN YOU HEAR ME?

I don't think anything I have said has been insulting in the slightest... I have just questioned who you are aiming your organisation at...and seemingly got a very fudged reply. I also pointed out that if your aims are as you state then you might not have many members.....if you think these are insults then heaven help your first agm!

 

Adding to the insults won't win me over I'm afraid

 

Cheers

 

Gareth

[MtB]

Hang on, we have people like you coming on here with insulting ill founded remarks, and when someone snaps back, it's a personal attack on what some state is their opinion?

Then, some read past most of a post rather than pick up the whole of it. I've actually lost count now of how many times I stated we are looking at ways of having other membership. HELLO! CAN YOU HEAR ME?

 

Membership is the very foundation upon which a new a new organisation is built. If it still hasn't been decided who can and can't join the ACC, it wasn't ready for launching in my personal opinion.

 

MtB

[mayalld]

We will support those CCers that follow the Acts pf parliament

 

 

John,

 

I'm afraid that having first given us the headline about the association being for compliant CCers and not for Bridge Hoppers, this looks like backtracking.

 

You see the whole "I follow the Act of Parliament" line is the one that is routinely trotted out by those who never move anywhere much, and dismiss any guidance from CRT as to what will "satisfy the board" as being illegal.

 

As far as I can see the majority of NCCCers claim that they may not be following the CCing guidance, but they are following the Act of Parliament.

 

However, as everybody else has had an opinion on this (some of it not very complimentary), and as I have been known to have an opinion about stuff, let me share my opinions.

 

Firstly, is an organisation for CCers a good idea? I think it probably is, because there are issues that are very particular to CCers. However the association may have an uphill struggle to keep focussed on issues that affect CCers (which might well include any changes to the CCing guidelines), rather than spending its entire time arguing that CRT is victimising CCers who claim to "comply with the Act". I wish them all the patience and wisdom in the world that they might find a way of keeping the focus on the right things, I am also concerned that as soon as you start an organisation to lobby for a particular group, you lose support from outside the group. "If you don't want us as part of your group, don't expect our support"

 

Secondly, has anybody been duped? That is a much harder question to answer. If pushed to say whether I believe that John and Steve started this whole engagement with CRT, and spent a fair wedge of their own money with the sole purpose of achieving greater prominence so that they could do what they planned all along, and start an organisation for CCers only, I would have to say "no". I don't believe that either of them set out to do that. On the other hand, even accepting that there was no prior plan to "use" the prominence from the earlier stuff, I can see why Carl would feel that there was something not quite right here. John and Steve have achieved some prominence with CRT. That has been as a result of some bloody hard work that they have put in, but all that hard work wouldn't have achieved anything if a number of boaters hadn't gone along with them for the ride. As I wasn't involved, I have nothing to complain of, but those whose presence gave credence to the earlier meetings may well have some justification if they feel that they were used.

 

Finally, having accepted that there is nothing wrong with an association for CCers, are John and Steve the right people to set it up? Now there is a question that is difficult to answer, because any answer must of necessity involve making personal comments. I have to say that I don't think that they are the right people to set the association up. Doing so does have an appearance of a U-turn from their previous position, and that cannot be helpful to the association. John clearly has the drive to do this, but in failing to realise that this might be an issue has shown that he isn't as well equiped to play the political game as he needs to be (no bad think in general, but it will make life difficult), and Steve shouldn't do this for EXACTLY the same reason that I probably won't be setting up any association. He and I lack the restraint to hold back from saying what we think!

 

I do wish them well, but this doesn't alter the fact that boaters need a voice with CRT that the existing organisations don't provide.

[carlt]

Then, some read past most of a post rather than pick up the whole of it. I've actually lost count now of how many times I stated we are looking at ways of having other membership. HELLO! CAN YOU HEAR ME?

What is the point of having an organisation specifically targeting one sector and then saying "Oh but you can join too but with a lesser status."?

[jenlyn]

Utter rubbish as usual.

 

Like Jenlyn you cannot have a reasonable discussion without resorting to infantile insults. Nothing that I have said is at all against the organisation and I am certainly not sulking.

 

To John's credit he has taken on board the criticism without lowering himself to your level.

 

I do agree with you though that, despite my disappointment at the way this has come about, I do not think John should leave the forum as he is much valued and respected by all, not just those who agree with him.

Nobody has shouted at you and all my criticism has been backed up by relevant quotes and references.

 

This is how discussions should be, not with people accusing others of "throwing their toys out of the pram" because they are feeling got at and have no response to the criticism.

 

Compare the mature way John has treated the criticism with your schoolyard tactics and you may learn a thing or too.

Cry wolf ;-)

[Guest]

Actually, I only shout down when shouted at, and I will definitely shout louder when someone is saying one thing, but meaning something else ;-)

 

This is my point - people 'will' shout it's the norm. in organisations like this, in a leadership position you need to be able to handle the shouting, not just shout back - doing so will kill the ACC in months. You also need to accept that somebody might actually be saying what they actually mean and not what you think they mean....

[nicknorman]

Utter rubbish as usual.

 

Like Jenlyn you cannot have a reasonable discussion without resorting to infantile insults. Nothing that I have said is at all against the organisation and I am certainly not sulking.

 

To John's credit he has taken on board the criticism without lowering himself to your level.

 

Well firstly, why do you presume its all about you?

 

And secondly, if you were here I'd pull your hair until you cried and rub my lipstick all over your face. But you're not. <sigh>

[carlt]

 

 

 

I do wish them well, but this doesn't alter the fact that boaters need a voice with CRT that the existing organisations don't provide.

I've run out of greenies but your whole post warrants one.

 

In response to Martin's question "Why can't anyone form a new association for all boaters" apart from Alan's response I would agree with you that, whilst I would love to be heavily involved in one, I am not the right person to head one up (I actually disagree that you are unsuitable but you know yourself better than I do).

 

I am an agitator, not an organiser, but would offer my help and support to anyone interested in setting something up.