The Association of Continuous Cruisers

[RLWP]

I wasn't going to get involved in this but I have! CCers I believe represent the closest match I have seen to the old working boat families who spent all their time afloat, stopped when they were frozen in, stopped for stoppages and when there was no work.

 

That's a beautifully romantic view of a part of the working boating community of old. I'm not sure how it relates to anything really though. Yes, they live on boats - that's it

 

Not all working boaters lived on boats. In fact I would argue that the majority of them didn't live on boats. They didn't traipse aimlessly around the canal system being committed to contract work. They didn't choose to tie up for days on end.

 

Apart from supporting some idealistic vision of the past, it doesn't mean anything

 

Richard

Edited September 24, 2013 by RLWP

[Leo No2]

But the internet however is one communication medium and the postal service is another. If the 'pause 24 hour' approach was taken here it would be like certain other Canal related internet forums, stagnant and sterile, devoid of any real passion because people would be afraid of ruffling a few feathers.

 

A forum like this is more akin to direct speech but as I've said before without the non verbals.

I am with you 100% but I just wish that sometimes people would pause to take breath and consider their replies rather than as I see it shooting from the hip. And I have just replied quickly to yours! We must work with the modern facilities we have but they are not all 'good'. Edited September 24, 2013 by Leo No2

[Allan(nb Albert)]

That's true and I admit that I didn't enquire if it was broken down further. I am guessing but I suspect that the drop in boat licenses over the last couple of years has impacted mainly on marinas given that the number of CC licenses continues to increase.

 

My marina is nearly full just 3 spaces last month Out of 200+ i believe. Not only is it a working yard but helpful to. We are full length but I pay less than many of the recent CRT mooring auctions.

The falling number of boats on its waterways is a problem that CaRT has yet to acknowledge. In the last couple of years the (E&W) number has fallen from 35,241 by over 2,000 to 33,227.

 

I suspect the increase in 'new' CC'ers is because of the number and price of boats up for sale.

[churchward]

 

That's a beautifully romantic view of a part of the working boating community of old. I'm not sure how it relates to anything really though. Yes, they live on boats - that's it

 

Not all working boaters lived on boats. In fact I would argue that the majority of them didn't live on boats. They didn't traipse aimlessly around the canal system being committed to contract work. They didn't choose to tie up for days on end.

 

Apart from supporting some idealistic vision of the past, it doesn't mean anything

 

Richard

I think that's true. There will have been a large number working the boats in Birmingham that did not live on the boats and just worked the BCN for instance.

Edited September 24, 2013 by churchward

[john6767]

Yes, it's probably the reason many of us were drawn to the canals in the first place.

 

In many respects CCers represent the essence of boating on the inland waterways, by supporting them we defend the lifestyle many of us aspire to.

 

I understand the sentiment, and I sort of agree with it, but the thing that I am not so certain about is the labelling of someone as a "CC'er" and what that really means. It seems to be being taken here as based on the definition of someone who has ticked the "no home mooring" box on the CRT licence form, and that does seem a bit narrow. After all that is only an artefact of the current CRT licencing system.

 

Surely what one aspires to in the above sentient is not the joy of ticking that box on the form (to become a CC'er), but the freedom to spent the time that you want cruising the system in a way that suits you. Why does it matter if you have a home mooring or not in that case, or even own a house for that matter. What matters is the time that you are spending on the boat and that way that the rules and regulations effect you.

[Gingerbeer]

I am with you 100% but I just wish that sometimes people would pause to take breath and consider their replies rather than as I see it shooting from the hip. And I have just replied quickly to yours! We must work with the modern facilities we have but they are not all 'good'.

 

I can see both sides of this discussion. I also spend time writing something, whether on paper or computer, and then leave it for awhile before I revisit it. For here, I may leave it for a few minutes, make a tea, do some laundry and then reread what I wrote and ask myself if that is truly what I want to say. After all, things are forever on the internet and I am sure many don't want to look back at some of the things they have said and think "what a grumpy old git I was."

 

What really gets me going is the fact that many respond to a post that they didn't take the time to read fully and understand, they just fire back.

[Albion]

Anyway I find myself on here at 02:15 in the morning as I am unable to sleep thinking about this thread. I can't remember the last time I was up at this time!!

I have to be honest and say I have been surprised and if not a bit hurt by the accusations that have come my way (and Steve) for the last 11 months I feel like I have lived and breathed trying to facilitate a better understanding between The Trust and boaters, we have also tried to fight the corner of boaters in some very heated meetings with CRT. Now I am being told that I have conned and duped boaters. Fair enough if that is what you think then so be it and all that shows is that I have wasted 11 months of life so maybe just as well I am going in another direction. I have decided it is most probably best if I leave this forum and carry on with what I have decided to to do and that is to continue helping boaters where I can and concentrate on where my passion lies and that is with Continuous Cruisers.

I have enjoyed the last 6 years on this Forum and have made some good friends that I will keep in contact with with would hate to think that such a low life as myself who sets out to con and dupe people should grace such a Forum.

Thanks to all those that have supported me in the past.

I'm sorry to have left it so late to comment but I only log on occasionally now and this is such a fast moving thread.

I'm not at all sure that I read the situation as some do citing duplicity and mal-intent. As I see it John and Jenlyn were a significant way down a path towards a boater-representative group (I was at the first Skipton meeting by the way) when CRT changed their mind about the way they wanted the communication to go. Faced with that road block John and Jenlyn had to make a decision about the route forward; give up altogether; continue with the process that they had started despite little chance of converting CRT's views or go down another path. People change their mind and their route in life on many occasions and this seems to be just another of those route changes. To claim that the whole past process was purely to enhance fame and public awareness before deliberately switching to the new group doesn't stand up IMO.

So, for what they did, congratulations to them both. For what they are doing, good luck, although it will be quite a small group I guess.

As I no longer boat in the UK my comments are from a purely neutral stance since neither of their routes would have affected me for the future.

Roger

[mrsmelly]

I'm sorry to have left it so late to comment but I only log on occasionally now and this is such a fast moving thread.

I'm not at all sure that I read the situation as some do citing duplicity and mal-intent. As I see it John and Jenlyn were a significant way down a path towards a boater-representative group (I was at the first Skipton meeting by the way) when CRT changed their mind about the way they wanted the communication to go. Faced with that road block John and Jenlyn had to make a decision about the route forward; give up altogether; continue with the process that they had started despite little chance of converting CRT's views or go down another path. People change their mind and their route in life on many occasions and this seems to be just another of those route changes. To claim that the whole past process was purely to enhance fame and public awareness before deliberately switching to the new group doesn't stand up IMO.

So, for what they did, congratulations to them both. For what they are doing, good luck, although it will be quite a small group I guess.

As I no longer boat in the UK my comments are from a purely neutral stance since neither of their routes would have affected me for the future.

Roger

Hi Roger

Greenie awarded. In complete agreement as you might remember we had a couple of good beers after that Skipton meeting.

 

Tim

[Albion]

Hi Roger

Greenie awarded. In complete agreement as you might remember we had a couple of good beers after that Skipton meeting.

 

Tim

Cheers Tim, I remember it well....................and you still owe me a pint..................no, just kidding honest

Roger

[alan_fincher]

I'm sorry to have left it so late to comment but I only log on occasionally now and this is such a fast moving thread.

I'm not at all sure that I read the situation as some do citing duplicity and mal-intent. As I see it John and Jenlyn were a significant way down a path towards a boater-representative group (I was at the first Skipton meeting by the way) when CRT changed their mind about the way they wanted the communication to go. Faced with that road block John and Jenlyn had to make a decision about the route forward; give up altogether; continue with the process that they had started despite little chance of converting CRT's views or go down another path. People change their mind and their route in life on many occasions and this seems to be just another of those route changes. To claim that the whole past process was purely to enhance fame and public awareness before deliberately switching to the new group doesn't stand up IMO.

So, for what they did, congratulations to them both. For what they are doing, good luck, although it will be quite a small group I guess.

As I no longer boat in the UK my comments are from a purely neutral stance since neither of their routes would have affected me for the future.

Roger

Good post, Roger, and I think very fair neutral comment.

 

I may not have said it the same way, but have already tried to give a similar view.

 

I personally think it would have been a far better outcome if all that had gone on had led to a new association that could have been joined by over 30,000 who boat on CRT's waters, (if they wanted to!), rather than somewhere over 4,000, because I strongly believe in unity and inclusiveness, rather than groups representing one particular set of interests.

 

However that is not the route they have decided to take it, and as it is an association they are forming, that is of course their choice. It may well be that they thought trying to create something far bigger, and get sufficient consensus on its constitution and policies would be just too daunting - I fully understand why that might be.

 

I do share the concerns voiced by many that those that do not fall into the category "compliant continuous cruiser", (however you define that!), actually have the same issues as those who do. What surprises me is that many of those that John and Steve have tried to help up to now probably would fail the definition, and hence couldn't join. Dave P made a very good post about the fact that it is often those struggling to "comply" that actually need the most support - I thought it was very well argued.

 

I just wish this had left me with something I could throw myself at and be part of - I still do not feel such an association currently exists, and I think there are many who share that view.

[Ray T]

I'm sorry to have left it so late to comment but I only log on occasionally now and this is such a fast moving thread.

I'm not at all sure that I read the situation as some do citing duplicity and mal-intent. As I see it John and Jenlyn were a significant way down a path towards a boater-representative group (I was at the first Skipton meeting by the way) when CRT changed their mind about the way they wanted the communication to go. Faced with that road block John and Jenlyn had to make a decision about the route forward; give up altogether; continue with the process that they had started despite little chance of converting CRT's views or go down another path. People change their mind and their route in life on many occasions and this seems to be just another of those route changes. To claim that the whole past process was purely to enhance fame and public awareness before deliberately switching to the new group doesn't stand up IMO.

So, for what they did, congratulations to them both. For what they are doing, good luck, although it will be quite a small group I guess.

As I no longer boat in the UK my comments are from a purely neutral stance since neither of their routes would have affected me for the future.

Roger

 

I happen to agree whole heartdley.

 

I know hindsight is a wonderful teacher but as so many people were involved perhaps more communication about the route taken and why, may have been helpful and caused less angst. Just my thoughts.

Edited September 24, 2013 by Ray T

[billS]

 

To claim that the whole past process was purely to enhance fame and public awareness before deliberately switching to the new group doesn't stand up IMO.

The annotation to Nick Brown's FOI request from one of the ACC founder members indicated that the process of forming the ACC had begun back in January.

[Albion]

 

 

The annotation to Nick Brown's FOI request from one of the ACC founder members indicated that the process of forming the ACC had begun back in January.

You may be right, I have no idea, but my point was that I doubted that the previous aborted path was solely to enhance their public profile before cynically switching. If your implication is correct then what would they have done if CRT hadn't put the communication route road block in place; carried on (because they had no choice) with the original association or suddenly dropped it and started the present association?

Roger

[Albion]

Good post, Roger, and I think very fair neutral comment.

 

I may not have said it the same way, but have already tried to give a similar view.

 

I personally think it would have been a far better outcome if all that had gone on had led to a new association that could have been joined by over 30,000 who boat on CRT's waters, (if they wanted to!), rather than somewhere over 4,000, because I strongly believe in unity and inclusiveness, rather than groups representing one particular set of interests.

 

However that is not the route they have decided to take it, and as it is an association they are forming, that is of course their choice. It may well be that they thought trying to create something far bigger, and get sufficient consensus on its constitution and policies would be just too daunting - I fully understand why that might be.

 

I do share the concerns voiced by many that those that do not fall into the category "compliant continuous cruiser", (however you define that!), actually have the same issues as those who do. What surprises me is that many of those that John and Steve have tried to help up to now probably would fail the definition, and hence couldn't join. Dave P made a very good post about the fact that it is often those struggling to "comply" that actually need the most support - I thought it was very well argued.

 

I just wish this had left me with something I could throw myself at and be part of - I still do not feel such an association currently exists, and I think there are many who share that view.

There is much in your post that I agree with Alan. However as a previous founder member/committee member of Save Our Waterways (SOW), in response to a previous funding crisis for BW, I know how hard it is to get an organisation off the ground and membership enthusiastically supporting. We had lots of support from all sorts of people at the blockades etc but that didn't turn into a committed long term membership.

Roger

Edited September 24, 2013 by Albion

[Naughty Cal]

 

you didn't get ignored - some of us don't switch our computers on the minute we get up but wait until we start work - which i'm doing first

 

so you'll just have to wait...

For how long?

[Neil2]

Good post, Roger, and I think very fair neutral comment.

 

I may not have said it the same way, but have already tried to give a similar view.

 

I personally think it would have been a far better outcome if all that had gone on had led to a new association that could have been joined by over 30,000 who boat on CRT's waters, (if they wanted to!), rather than somewhere over 4,000, because I strongly believe in unity and inclusiveness, rather than groups representing one particular set of interests.

 

However that is not the route they have decided to take it, and as it is an association they are forming, that is of course their choice. It may well be that they thought trying to create something far bigger, and get sufficient consensus on its constitution and policies would be just too daunting - I fully understand why that might be.

 

I do share the concerns voiced by many that those that do not fall into the category "compliant continuous cruiser", (however you define that!), actually have the same issues as those who do. What surprises me is that many of those that John and Steve have tried to help up to now probably would fail the definition, and hence couldn't join. Dave P made a very good post about the fact that it is often those struggling to "comply" that actually need the most support - I thought it was very well argued.

 

I just wish this had left me with something I could throw myself at and be part of - I still do not feel such an association currently exists, and I think there are many who share that view.

 

Yes I agree with that last paragraph, but I think maybe we just have to be a little patient.

 

The more I think abut this the more I feel there is a rare opportunity here. As I said earlier, it's often the case that successful organisations start off with a limited membership/agenda, and for inland waterways boaters the ACC could be where it all starts.

 

The idea of creating an all inclusive group with a free for all agenda is/was never going to get off the ground, as Jenlyn said, trying to get a relatively small number of boaters to agree on anything is a nightmare. But there does seem to be a "band of brothers" spirit among genuine CCers, certainly those that post on this forum, and I think maybe this is the energy source that is needed to get something up and running.

 

Those of us who seem to have become sympathetic to the cause, if we can't support them directly through membership, can maybe offer help in other ways for the time being, for example, by spreading the word.

[LoneWolf]

For how long?

 

until i've done the more important things i have to do today of course

 

remind me how long we waited for you to post the swing bridge info ..... or are we still waiting? hummmm

[Dave_P]

^{Well, I went away to let the dust settle a bit. Hopefully it has, and I agree that this forum needs people like John Sloan on it. I think those expressing opposition to this new group are simply saddened that an opportunity to creat something which unites boaters has been missed, in favour of something which is likely to further divide them.}

 

^{I'm reminded of a famous quote by Martin Niemoller when considering the rise of nazism.}

^{Now obviously I'm not saying CaRT are nazis, but unity with all our fellow boaters is what we need. I'm not a continuous cruiser but I'm happy to stand up for their rights.}

 

^{"First they came for the communists,}

^{and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a communist.}

^{Then they came for the socialists,}

^{and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a socialist.}

^{Then they came for the trade unionists,}

^{and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a trade unionist.}

^{Then they came for me,
and there was no one left to speak for me."}

[Guest]

^{Well, I went away to let the dust settle a bit. Hopefully it has, and I agree that this forum needs people like John Sloan on it. I think those expressing opposition to this new group are simply saddened that an opportunity to creat something which unites boaters has been missed, in favour of something which is likely to further divide them.}

 

^{I'm reminded of a famous quote by Martin Niemoller when considering the rise of nazism.}

^{Now obviously I'm not saying CaRT are nazis, but unity with all our fellow boaters is what we need. I'm not a continuous cruiser but I'm happy to stand up for their rights.}

 

^{"First they came for the communists,}

^{and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a communist.}

^{Then they came for the socialists,}

^{and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a socialist.}

^{Then they came for the trade unionists,}

^{and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a trade unionist.}

^{Then they came for me,}

and there was no one left to speak for me."

 

Hang on a sec. - who says CRT are 'coming' for CCer's?

[Dave_P]

 

Hang on a sec. - who says CRT are 'coming' for CCer's?

I'm not saying anyone is 'coming' for anyone. This quote simply highlights the importance of standing up for groups who are not your own. In doing so, we all benefit.

 

With the creation of the ACC, I fear that will be harder for boaters to do.

 

Having said that, many time's have people posted on here that they feel that ccers are poorly treated by 'the authorities', indeed that's mainly why this group has been created.

 

My contention is that an organisation which genuinely stands up for all boaters and brings with it no historical baggage or prejudice would be a truly wonderful thing.

[Naughty Cal]

 

Hang on a sec. - who says CRT are 'coming' for CCer's?

CCers.

 

Or more to the point NCCCer's

[Hawkmoth]

 

Hang on a sec. - who says CRT are 'coming' for CCer's?

Maybe not yet. But the whole point of the little ditti was that they came for other groups first.

I can't help thinking that it may be in CART's interest to get us all into marinas. They are, after all, marina owners.

We no longer CCing, but we do cruise long term in the summer. I did at first glance agree with most of the changes to the mooring rules. Now I'm not so sure because of what I've read on here.

Good luck to the new ACC, I just hope it isn't too narrow a group.

Bob

[GUMPY]

Edited cos I couldn't get the link to Godwins Law to work

Edited September 24, 2013 by Loddon

[Allan(nb Albert)]

 

 

The annotation to Nick Brown's FOI request from one of the ACC founder members indicated that the process of forming the ACC had begun back in January.

To be pedantic, it was my annotation and I am not an ACC founder member.

 

 

ALLAN RICHARDS left an annotation (13 September 2013)

To assist the the person making the request, the following was posted yesterday on facebook by 'John Evans' (similar posts have been made on other pages with the organisation sometimes being called called Association of Constant Cruisers) -

 

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

A new association is being formed. It will be known as the Association of Continuous Cruisers.

 

Below is where we are with it.

 

Here's where we are with ACC.

 

We have a web page in development.

We have founder members.

We are ready to open a bank account.

We have a secretary and treasurer to help us get acc off the ground.

We have the basics for the constitution.

We have the application form drawn up.

 

The web page is being developed for us by skippy. (He was one of the attendees at the cc-crt meeting last november)

 

Our founder members have been with us since the start of this process last january. They have given input, time and advice on much of what john and myself were doing.

 

They are:

Lesley jordan

Owen davies.

Matty (non facebook)

Louise yeoman (interim secretary)

Lesley lyndon (non facebook, interim treasurer)

Stan Thomas (non facebook)

Ronni Payne

There are 2 others who at the moment do not wish to be named on facebook.

The next step is to arrange a meeting of all the founder members before the birmingham floating market. We are in the process of doing this.

If all founder members are happy with the interim set up when presented to them, we will be looking to launch the ACC at the market.The constitution will be an ongoing document obviously. As membership grows, we will of course expect better input

 

Canal and river trust have given support to the association, and have agreed to recognise it's representation of ccers

.Steve jay

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

 

Steve jay/John Evans are believed to be pseudonyms for Steve Jenkin.

 

The 'John' referred to in the post is believed to be John Sloan.

 

 

Steve Jenkin posts as jenlyn on here.

 

The line BillS is on about is 'Our founder members have been with us since the start of this process last january. They have given input, time and advice on much of what john and myself were doing.'

 

I would add that the posts were deleted on facebook which caused all comment on them to be deleted as well

Edited September 24, 2013 by Allan(nb Albert)

[Athy]

 

Association of continuously inebriated boozers.

No, as most of those are, as we have seen in other threads, day hirers, they would not be eligible to join ACC.