The Association of Continuous Cruisers

[jenlyn]

that'll be another FOIR then, another extra visitor mooring not put in....

I would rather he posted the link or document, so others could see the context ;-)

[Richard Fairhurst]

 

Star, this is actually incorrect. Although it wasnt clarified in the beginning, those elected reps are not there to represent boaters...their role within the charity is to guide the leadership regarding the running of the charity. It's a legal requirement for any charity to have a group of people who arent part of the charity leadership, to ensure the charity is being managed correctly. They are not there to act as people that boaters contact about issues.

 

I think you're getting the trustees and the council mixed up. The trustees' role could be described roughly in those terms (where "the charity leadership" is the executive team).

 

But the council is different. There is no legal obligation to have a council. According to CRT, "the Council has an important role in helping to shape policy, raise and debate issues, provide guidance and perspective, and act as a sounding board for Trustees". So one would expect that the boater members are there to "provide guidance and perspective" of what a boater might want.

 

That said... I can't get too wound up about IWA members getting the four places. IWA organised itself and had the brand recognition; no-one else did. That's not really IWA's fault. I was slightly surprised that no "big names" from outside the IWA stood; things might have been different if they had. Whatever, I'm absolutely sure that the result will be different next time round.

Edited September 24, 2013 by Richard Fairhurst

[alan_fincher]

 

That said... I can't get too wound up about IWA members getting the four places. IWA organised itself and had the brand recognition; no-one else did. That's not really IWA's fault. I was slightly surprised that no "big names" from outside the IWA stood; things might have been different if they had. Whatever, I'm absolutely sure that the result will be different next time round.

 

Being absolutely pedantic here, the IWA themselves actually proposed 5 candidates, (for 4 places!), and of those 3 were elected , and two failed to be.

 

Whilst it is true the fourth person elected, (Ann Farrel)l, is an IWA member, unlike those the IWA proposed, I don't think she is either an IWA trustee, or holds a senior position in the IWA itself.

 

So it is not really true to suggest the IWA got a whitewash of their chosen candidates, IMO.

 

Oh and for the record, even myself as not a "big name" independent easily out-polled those two IWA candidates that didn't get in, as well as easily out-polling the preferred candidates from NABO and AWCC.

 

So I don't think it is impossible for an independent to get there, although the absence of any "party machines" obviously make their tasks a lot harder.

 

More questionable, IMO, given the subsequent redefinition of the role, is whether it would now be worth bothering!

[Allan(nb Albert)]

 

Being absolutely pedantic here, the IWA themselves actually proposed 5 candidates, (for 4 places!), and of those 3 were elected , and two failed to be.

 

Whilst it is true the fourth person elected, (Ann Farrel)l, is an IWA member, unlike those the IWA proposed, I don't think she is either an IWA trustee, or holds a senior position in the IWA itself.

 

So it is not really true to suggest the IWA got a whitewash of their chosen candidates, IMO.

 

Oh and for the record, even myself as not a "big name" independent easily out-polled those two IWA candidates that didn't get in, as well as easily out-polling the preferred candidates from NABO and AWCC.

 

So I don't think it is impossible for an independent to get there, although the absence of any "party machines" obviously make their tasks a lot harder.

 

More questionable, IMO, given the subsequent redefinition of the role, is whether it would now be worth bothering!

Being even more of a pedant......

 

My recollection is somewhat different to Alans. My understanding is that IWA's 'list' consisted of the five trustees who had agreed to stand just as Alan says. However, for a very brief period this was extended to include IWA members such as Ann Farrel.

 

[Tuscan]

The more relevant point which I think Alan is making is what is the point , the trustees have become anonymous apart from John Dodswell who if anything struggles to be independant as I have not heard one area of criticism or concern that he has raised.

 

What are the trustees views on the recent SE visitor mooring changes, the introduction of no return rules etc etc. the trustees want CRT to put more effort into overstaying enforcement but what does success look like to them , how are they measuring it if at all.

 

Ok back in my box it's late.

[Ange]

Does anyone have the mission statements of the elected boaters' representatives when they stood? I did my voting (sorry Dave's voting - he's the registered licence holder) online and you can't access them any more. I threw away the hard copy.

 

I'd be interested to see them again in light of subsequent information.

[Allan(nb Albert)]

Does anyone have the mission statements of the elected boaters' representatives when they stood? I did my voting (sorry Dave's voting - he's the registered licence holder) online and you can't access them any more. I threw away the hard copy.

 

I'd be interested to see them again in light of subsequent information.

Three are on the IWA website -

https://www.waterways.org.uk/news_campaigns/campaign_news/crt_council_elections___iwa_fields_candidates

 

 

 

 

[Ange]

Three are on the IWA website -

https://www.waterways.org.uk/news_campaigns/campaign_news/crt_council_elections___iwa_fields_candidates

 

 

 

 

Fantastic - thank you.

 

So ...

 

Ivor Caplan said:-

 

If elected to Council I will

• argue for the primacy of navigation and boating as benefitting all waterways users
• continue to champion the total heritage of the inland waterways
• make the case for responsible residential boating as a major benefit to CRT
• fight for the survival and regeneration of lesser used parts of the system
• campaign for boating activities to be made accessible and affordable for all sectors of society
• negotiate for maintenance including dredging to the highest possible navigable standards

Clive Henderson said

 

If you were to elect me I would strive to hold Trustees and Management to account to ensure that navigation is always CRT's prime purpose and that boaters' interests will be held paramount as the principal funders of the system.

 

Vaughan Welch said

 

With your support I hope to: -

• Establish primacy for boating
• Prevent navigation being subsumed by other waterway interested bodies
• Stop the spiralling costs of boating
• Seek internal and external cost reductions
• Reduce ‘top heavy’ Management costs
• Establish salaries equivalent to ‘like’ charities
• Develop a proper dredging programme
• Improve vegetation management
• Increase provision and improve essential boaters facilities
• Prevent closures
• Seek network expansion
• Re-establish the Right of Navigation
• Establish opening hours to suit the users
• Compensate for long term closures
• Encourage residential boating
• Legitimize those who have chosen the waterways as their home
• Establish security of tenure
• Develop measures to enable all levels of society’s participation in traditional boating activities

Lots of bold claims there. Any updates on their progress since they were elected?

[pelicanafloat]

Fantastic - thank you.

 

So ...

 

Ivor Caplan said:-

 

If elected to Council I will

• argue for the primacy of navigation and boating as benefitting all waterways users
• continue to champion the total heritage of the inland waterways
• make the case for responsible residential boating as a major benefit to CRT
• fight for the survival and regeneration of lesser used parts of the system
• campaign for boating activities to be made accessible and affordable for all sectors of society
• negotiate for maintenance including dredging to the highest possible navigable standards

Clive Henderson said

 

If you were to elect me I would strive to hold Trustees and Management to account to ensure that navigation is always CRT's prime purpose and that boaters' interests will be held paramount as the principal funders of the system.

 

Vaughan Welch said

 

With your support I hope to: -

• Establish primacy for boating
• Prevent navigation being subsumed by other waterway interested bodies
• Stop the spiralling costs of boating
• Seek internal and external cost reductions
• Reduce ‘top heavy’ Management costs
• Establish salaries equivalent to ‘like’ charities
• Develop a proper dredging programme
• Improve vegetation management
• Increase provision and improve essential boaters facilities
• Prevent closures
• Seek network expansion
• Re-establish the Right of Navigation
• Establish opening hours to suit the users
• Compensate for long term closures
• Encourage residential boating
• Legitimize those who have chosen the waterways as their home
• Establish security of tenure
• Develop measures to enable all levels of society’s participation in traditional boating activities

Lots of bold claims there. Any updates on their progress since they were elected?

After 30 pages .... I look forward to hearing news of their progress

[Allan(nb Albert)]

Fantastic - thank you.

 

So ...

 

Ivor Caplan said:-

 

If elected to Council I will

• argue for the primacy of navigation and boating as benefitting all waterways users
• continue to champion the total heritage of the inland waterways
• make the case for responsible residential boating as a major benefit to CRT
• fight for the survival and regeneration of lesser used parts of the system
• campaign for boating activities to be made accessible and affordable for all sectors of society
• negotiate for maintenance including dredging to the highest possible navigable standards

Clive Henderson said

 

If you were to elect me I would strive to hold Trustees and Management to account to ensure that navigation is always CRT's prime purpose and that boaters' interests will be held paramount as the principal funders of the system.

 

Vaughan Welch said

 

With your support I hope to: -

• Establish primacy for boating
• Prevent navigation being subsumed by other waterway interested bodies
• Stop the spiralling costs of boating
• Seek internal and external cost reductions
• Reduce ‘top heavy’ Management costs
• Establish salaries equivalent to ‘like’ charities
• Develop a proper dredging programme
• Improve vegetation management
• Increase provision and improve essential boaters facilities
• Prevent closures
• Seek network expansion
• Re-establish the Right of Navigation
• Establish opening hours to suit the users
• Compensate for long term closures
• Encourage residential boating
• Legitimize those who have chosen the waterways as their home
• Establish security of tenure
• Develop measures to enable all levels of society’s participation in traditional boating activities

Lots of bold claims there. Any updates on their progress since they were elected?

A boater and IWA member did tackle Vaughan Welch on what he had achieved against his manifesto some time back.

 

From memory, the boater was eventually told that he was harassing Welch and it was potentially a police matter.

[David Schweizer]

Quoute: -- I think you're getting the trustees and the council mixed up. The trustees' role could be described roughly in those terms (where "the charity leadership" is the executive team).-- :Quote

 

Without going into a lot of legalistic detail the role of aTrustee is very specific. In all instances they carry what is known as Vicarious Liablity, which means that they are personally responsible, both legally and finacially, if things go wrong. Under this provision they can be individully and collectively prosecuted if the Charity breaches Charity or Criminal law, and can be required to make up any consequent losses from their own personal resources.

 

Most large Charities have a board of Trustees to oversee the operation of the Trust, with employees or volunteers managing the day to day affairs, In such circumcstances those Trustees will normally be drawn from the great and the good, usually with bountiful resources to ensure that their Vicarious Liability could be met in a crisis.

 

However, by far the majority of smaller charities will have a board of Trustees who are the same people who form the Management Committee, managing the day to day affairs of the organization, and carry both the management and Vicarious Liability reponsibilities. In a small number of instances a Charity may have only one or two Trustees with an employed management structure, these are often (but not always) Trusts which have been set up by a wealthy individual or from their estate.

Edited September 25, 2013 by David Schweizer

[Higgs]

 

 

Without going into a lot of legalistic detail the role of aTrustee is very specific. In all instances they carry what is known as Vicarious Liablity, which means that they are personally responsible, both legally and finacially, if things go wrong. Under this provision they can be individully and collectively prosecuted if the Charity breaches Charity or Criminal law, and can be required to make up any consequent losses from their own personal resources.

 

 

 

That seems to be fall-guy status. The executives would seem to lead the charmed life; get things wrong and get the pay offs and pensions. We should make all MP's and senior civil servants trustees.

[George94]

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

 

An excellent post. Would that some of those who have found time to trawl through old posts in order to whinge and whine were blessed with the ability to see the bigger picture, as you have.

[carlt]

 

An excellent post. Would that some of those who have found time to trawl through old posts in order to whinge and whine were blessed with the ability to see the bigger picture, as you have.

Would that those who haven't bothered to reappraise themselves of the bigger picture by referring back to previous discussions were blessed with the ability to make a positive contribution to the discussion rather than just quote one big post and not add to it.

[David Schweizer]

Would that those who haven't bothered to reappraise themselves of the bigger picture by referring back to previous discussions were blessed with the ability to make a positive contribution to the discussion rather than just quote one big post and not add to it.

 

Ouch!!

[carlt]

 

Ouch!!

Well it would seem that on the one hand we are required to produce evidence to reinforce our opinions and on the other we are criticised for researching previous threads in order to present such evidence.

 

One wonders how George94 can describe Patrick's post as "excellent" when he disparages its contents in the next sentence.

[Paul's Nulife4-2]

Hi gang,

Please,please,please..Don't take what ime about to say as an attack,or as a negative on ANYONE...it is an honest observation & enquiry based on my interpretation of OP & pursuing fallout.

 

1,Some one posted with good intention I gather,to promote awareness & some info re an association.

2.What follows is to date,590ish replys,,over 30ish pages,,over 4ish days of debate some heated exchanges,harsh words bringing bad feeling & sometimes the refocusing of replys into a he said,she said,we said, they said debate.

 

Am I right in thinking,that we can look at the OP,go to there website read & digest there info,& if suits,join !,if not,don't !.& if on joining we find its not representing our ideas,we can leave !.

In exactly the same manner as we all make so many other decisions,most days of our lives.in other clubs,religion,organisations & associations.

 

I totally understand our inquisitive nature,& the need for clarification through debate,,& my new foray into the forum world is great,

But am I missing genuinely something !.

Cheers all...please be gentle !

[RLWP]

But am I missing genuinely something !.

Cheers all...please be gentle !

 

Yes, about eighteen months of history

 

Richard

[Guest]

Am I right in thinking,that we can look at the OP,go to there website read & digest there info,& if suits,join !,if not,don't !.& if on joining we find its not representing our ideas,we can leave !.

In exactly the same manner as we all make so many other decisions,most days of our lives.in other clubs,religion,organisations & associations.

 

 

 

yes - but I don't think that has ever been in question - the question is 'would an organisation suited to one very specific category of boater also meet the needs of other or all categories of boater'. The debate was about whether it would or it wouldn't and some contributors felt they had been mis-lead by recent musings in the forum and where they believed that was leading ie an organisation that would be open to ALL categories of boater.

 

I think that sums it up.

[Paul's Nulife4-2]

RLWP, ??.but ok.

The Dog House, The pennies dropped.much clearer,thank you.

[bowten]

Short answer

There are a number of health issues we are discussing with NHS and CRT I have helped a number of CCers over the last year with life threatening illness trying to get registered with a doctor

Indeed you have John and I know this from my own illness.I have to say that CRT have been very understanding.

[mayalld]

I totally understand our inquisitive nature,& the need for clarification through debate,,& my new foray into the forum world is great,

But am I missing genuinely something !.

Cheers all...please be gentle !

 

Yes, this is a discussion forum.

 

It is not a noticeboard for us to read things on and silently make us of them or not.

 

If you make a post here, you invite discussion of it.

[Paul's Nulife4-2]

Hi ya Mayalld,

I totally agree,this is as I understand it a 'Discussion Forum'.I was unsure of the specific offending topic point being discussed,so explained my case & asked for clarification through discussion,this was done,& I acknowledge that fact. & all is rite in my little world. as I was the OP of that particular enquiry,& was satisfied with a members answer on that subject & express that accordingly this should have bought it to a conclusion. So carrying on what I considered a closed enquiry serves no purpose in my view.

But thanks for your contribution anyway.

 

As I understand it,or not,as the case may be.it does seam that there is much more enfasise on grammer than actual issue.

Does the R,A,C ONLY deal with ROYAL AUTOMOBILES

Can ONLY people on CANALS join & take part in THE CANALWORLD DISCUSSION FORUM.ime on a river !.

Will the A,C,C ONLY act for C,Crs.or waterways issues for most users.

Just my thoughts,that are not silently pinned,but Ofcourse open for discussion.if allowed coming from someone on a river..

Edited September 25, 2013 by Paul's Nulife4-2

[Mike Todd]

I think that is a bit excessive: trustees usually have a joint and several liability within whatever limited liability the trust is founded. This means that if, for example, the trust goes bust then the trustees are not personally liable. However, if the trust does something that is ultra vires (ie outside its rights and duties) then they can be held liable by a court. The joint and several means that each is liable for the full amount and that creditors are entitled to take as much of the debt from whichever they choose - usually the easiest and most solvent.

 

Hence it is 'a good thing' if trustees keep a watchful eye on their executive to make sure that they do not step over the line!

 

Quoute: -- I think you're getting the trustees and the council mixed up. The trustees' role could be described roughly in those terms (where "the charity leadership" is the executive team).-- :Quote

 

Without going into a lot of legalistic detail the role of aTrustee is very specific. In all instances they carry what is known as Vicarious Liablity, which means that they are personally responsible, both legally and finacially, if things go wrong. Under this provision they can be individully and collectively prosecuted if the Charity breaches Charity or Criminal law, and can be required to make up any consequent losses from their own personal resources.

 

Most large Charities have a board of Trustees to oversee the operation of the Trust, with employees or volunteers managing the day to day affairs, In such circumcstances those Trustees will normally be drawn from the great and the good, usually with bountiful resources to ensure that their Vicarious Liability could be met in a crisis.

 

However, by far the majority of smaller charities will have a board of Trustees who are the same people who form the Management Committee, managing the day to day affairs of the organization, and carry both the management and Vicarious Liability reponsibilities. In a small number of instances a Charity may have only one or two Trustees with an employed management structure, these are often (but not always) Trusts which have been set up by a wealthy individual or from their estate.

[churchward]

Hi ya Mayalld,

I totally agree,this is as I understand it a 'Discussion Forum'.I was unsure of the specific offending topic point being discussed,so explained my case & asked for clarification through discussion,this was done,& I acknowledge that fact. & all is rite in my little world. as I was the OP of that particular enquiry,& was satisfied with a members answer on that subject & express that accordingly this should have bought it to a conclusion. So carrying on what I considered a closed enquiry serves no purpose in my view.

But thanks for your contribution anyway.

 

As I understand it,or not,as the case may be.it does seam that there is much more enfasise on grammer than actual issue.

Does the R,A,C ONLY deal with ROYAL AUTOMOBILES

Can ONLY people on CANALS join & take part in THE CANALWORLD DISCUSSION FORUM.ime on a river !.

Will the A,C,C ONLY act for C,Crs.or waterways issues for most users.

Just my thoughts,that are not silently pinned,but Ofcourse open for discussion.if allowed coming from someone on a river..

I would say

 

The RAC only deals with its members breakdowns no one elses.

 

CWDF is a discussion forum open to all it does not have a specific membership criteria other than obeying the forum rules. not a suitable example. it does not really campaign specifically for any members issues as an organisation. It is a conduit and a very good one.

 

ACC will act on behalf of its membership which if I understand it correctly (there has been conflicting comments) will be open to CCers as full members only.

 

I am not saying though it is wrong to act only for your members as in effect that is all an organisation can or should do. The paying members would have a legitimate complaint I think if they did not. It is also true that coincidently something that suits its members may also be of benefit to non members but that is no different to what NABO, RBOA, IWA or other relevent groups do.