The Association of Continuous Cruisers

[Guest]

Surely you if you exclude bridge hoppers then you aren't going to have many members?....some of your aims will be covered by the RBOA and indeed I suspect quite a few genuine CCers are already members of RBOA judging by window stickers etc that we have seen out and about this year. How are you going to exclude the CM brigade?

Whilst there may be a need for better representation of boaters that actually use the system I'm not sure that yet another organisation is the way forward.

Cheers

Gareth

And you have the balls to criticise many of my posts..you are coming across as a bit of a pillock devoid of any actual facts to back up your obvious anti cc.er stance. Edited September 22, 2013 by The Dog House

[frangar]

Your opinion in turn loses all credibility when you assume that all CC'ers or people who might wish to join the ACC are 'bridge hoppers.'

It is precisely this kind of assumption and negativity that makes many CC'ers feel as if they need their own organisation to allow them to speak in unison with other people who live a similar lifestyle and face prejudice like this from some quarters.

How many boaters are genuinely CCers?...as I said we cruised for 3ish months but then spend time in a marina as do quite a few others I know.....therefore we won't be qualified to join...if the bridge hoppers are also not allowed as has been stated then how many are left?..... I'm afraid to get noticed by the relevant powers its numbers that count.

 

Cheers

 

Gareth

[Neil2]

I have two questions.

 

First, apart from the obvious issue of winter moorings I'm wondering what issues concerning the waterways are specific to CCers and of no or little relevance to the rest of us.

 

Second, how would this association look upon boaters who spend extended periods of time on the network though don't actually "live" on their boats full time.

[Guest]

Nothing but the work that Jenlyn, Cotswoldsman, Alan, etc seem to be leading to a group that represented all boaters and one that I could support.

 

 

It would seem that it was merely to "raise the profile of Compliant Continuous Cruisers" and I feel somewhat duped.

For me it was obvious where they were going...there was loads of clues in previous posts, hence I am not as surprised as you appear to be.

[alan_fincher]

 

I will not be saying anything I have not already said to John and Steve, but I would also have much preferred to have seen a desire to start up a new association for which everybody was eligible for membership, rather than something targeted at a specific subset of boaters.

 

In everything I have so far got involved in I have always felt it important that wherever we can we try and be inclusive of all boaters, and to find common ground and consensus, rather than seeking anything special for particular subsets.

 

Of course I realise that if, as a non CC-er, I feel strongly enough about it I can attempt to find people who would be interested in forming an association that anybody can join. However clearly launching any new association and trying to find a large enough core of people who will commit not just to join, but also be actively involved, is hard work indeed. To try and launch two would be even harder, I fear!

Edited September 22, 2013 by alan_fincher

[frangar]

And you have the balls to criticise many of my posts..you are coming across as a bit of a pillock devoid of any actually facts to back up your obvious ant cc.er stance.

I'm not anti CCer...far from it....things like trying to get medical care etc when on an extended cruise are very relevant for a whole host of people including me.....however I don't think yet another organisation that only allows one type of boater to be a full member is the way forward.

 

Cheers

 

Gareth

[Starcoaster]

How many boaters are genuinely CCers?

 

 

 

In order to answer this question, there would have to be both a legal consensus on what constitutes "genuine," and also have to be monitoring and mapping to the extent that would never be viable or finacable.

 

So you know that no one can provide you with a figure, just as you cannot provide a figure on those that do not comply, other than possibly those that undergoing enforcement procedures (if that info is available) and I assume from your statements that you mean many more than that, the majority of those declaring as CC'ers.

 

So really, asking me that is a bit like trying to argue with creationists; you can't prove a negative!

[Southern Star]

Can't see the problem with it myself. I'm sure there's a Plymouth Argyle supporters club which excludes supporters of 91 out of 92 football teams!

[carlt]

I am not as surprised as you appear to be.

I'm not surprised...but I am disappointed.

[alan_fincher]

Gareth the constitution makes quite clear that it is not for Bridge Hoppers infact one of main aims is to raise the profile of Compliant Continuous Cruisers and I do actually find your remark very ill informed and is typical of the reason why we need an association

 

 

Grrrr. Your jumping the gun carl, be patient.

I'm assuming the constitution isn't published until the launch though, or am I wrong?

 

I can see the difficulty you have, but what amounts to (I think!) a partial announcement of something new, but not the whole picture, is likely to at least cause interested people to start asking quite a few questions, and (as we are seeing) perhaps to jump to some conclusions as well.

Edited September 22, 2013 by alan_fincher

[cotswoldsman]

I have two questions.

 

First, apart from the obvious issue of winter moorings I'm wondering what issues concerning the waterways are specific to CCers and of no or little relevance to the rest of us.

 

Second, how would this association look upon boaters who spend extended periods of time on the network though don't actually "live" on their boats full time.

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

[carlt]

Can't see the problem with it myself. I'm sure there's a Plymouth Argyle supporters club which excludes supporters of 91 out of 92 football teams!

There is no problem except that Jenlyn and Cotswoldsman appeared to be working for all boaters and now, having raised their profile under that guise, have launched a single issue association.

 

As I said...it's a real shame.

I can see the difficulty you have, but what amounts to (I think!) a partial announcement of something new, but not the whole picture, is likely to at least cause interested people to start asking quite a few questions, and (as we are seeing) perhaps to jump to some conclusions as well.

especially when one of the founders has already said...

 

....Why would anyone who is not a Continuous Cruiser want to attend a meeting about issues concerning Continuous Cruisers?

[junior]

I can see the difficulty you have, but what amounts to (I think!) a partial announcement of something new, but not the whole picture, is likely to at least cause interested people to start asking quite a few questions, and (as we are seeing) perhaps to jump to some conclusions as well.

Now where have I seen that before?

[cotswoldsman]

How many boaters are genuinely CCers?...as I said we cruised for 3ish months but then spend time in a marina as do quite a few others I know.....therefore we won't be qualified to join...if the bridge hoppers are also not allowed as has been stated then how many are left?..... I'm afraid to get noticed by the relevant powers its numbers that count.

 

Cheers

 

Gareth

CRT have welcomed the idea and Richard Parry has welcomed the idea as I means for CRT to be able to communicate with CCers. Funny but you seem to be saying minority groups should not be listened to. This is the normal reaction of some

[FadeToScarlet]

Gareth the constitution makes quite clear that it is not for Bridge Hoppers infact one of main aims is to raise the profile of Compliant Continuous Cruisers and I do actually find your remark very ill informed and is typical of the reason why we need an association

So, if a member is found to be non compliant, will they lose their membership?

 

Edited to add: not asking to be snippy or to make a point, but am genuinely interested in how you'll overcome what I see as one of your biggest hurdles.

Edited September 22, 2013 by FadeToScarlet

[RLWP]

Why would I want to be an associate member of a single issue association?

 

The name specifically excludes all but ccers so "associate members" would just be a revenue stream.

 

Likewise again

 

How will you distinguish yourself from the already established and recognised NBTA?

 

Richard

Edited September 22, 2013 by RLWP

[carlt]

Funny but you seem to be saying minority groups should not be listened to. This is the normal reaction of some

It is indeed...

 

We are ALL boaters together. I do not represent any group except boaters. I guess I am fed up with going round in circles and feel that everyone should be part of a process to make our Canals something we can all enjoy without having to divide into groups.

[cotswoldsman]

It is indeed...

 

Yes I have not said I will not continue with that

Birmingham Floating Market this weekend Birmingham Social and I am still engaged with CRT on the subject of changing User Group Meetings to Boaters Meeting and have put forward a number of suggestions

 

Likewise again

 

How will you distinguish yourself from the already established and recognised NBTA?

 

Richard

Simple Richard people look at the product and decide. It is not compulsory to join

[pelicanafloat]

A couple of questions:

 

1. what's a 'bridge hopper'

2. why the secrecy?

3. what is a 'compliant continuous cruiser'?

 

 

never could count on me

[madcat]

I'm just sad that we cannot have an inclusive organisation. I cannot CC because I'm tied by home husband and caring. If I want to live on my boat I need to get a divorce first and that's not on. I'm not going to pick a fight over this because Jenlyn and Cotswoldman have worked very hard on behalf of boaters.

There's shed loads of live a boards who are going to feel a bit left out because they have a mooring to go back to if needed or take a winter mooring. I just hope there may be a change of mind

[frangar]

CRT have welcomed the idea and Richard Parry has welcomed the idea as I means for CRT to be able to communicate with CCers. Funny but you seem to be saying minority groups should not be listened to. This is the normal reaction of some

Well as you already seem keen to put words into other people's mouths I don't think it's a good start......

 

What I actually said was that numbers count...believe me I fit quite a number of minority groups and its not easy making your voice heard against larger groups....been there...got the tshirt....

 

I wish you the best of luck but I had wished for a group that maybe offered an alternative to the RBOA ( of which I am a member btw) rather than one just for one type of boater.....

 

If as you say that bridge hoppers won't be welcomed then how will you go about making sure all your members are genuine CCers?

 

Cheers

 

Gareth

[cotswoldsman]

A couple of questions:

 

1. what's a 'bridge hopper'

2. why the secrecy?

3. what is a 'compliant continuous cruiser'?

 

 

never could count on me

What secrecy? Plenty of threads on other subject you mention

[alan_fincher]

So, if a member is found to be non compliant, will they lose their membership?

 

Edited to add: not asking to be snippy or to make a point, but am genuinely interested in how you'll overcome what I see as one of your biggest hurdles.

And as a side question.....

 

Will someone who takes up a Roving Mooring Pemit, (if and when they happen), be eligible for membership.

 

I guess I would expect the answer to be "No", because it has already been agreed in those discussions that an RMP will mean you no longer declare yorself as a CC-er, and are treated the same as someone having a home mooring.

[blackrose]

And you have the balls to criticise many of my posts..you are coming across as a bit of a pillock devoid of any actual facts to back up your obvious anti cc.er stance.

 

Mmmm...Why don't you say what you really think of him?

[mayalld]

CRT have welcomed the idea and Richard Parry has welcomed the idea as I means for CRT to be able to communicate with CCers. Funny but you seem to be saying minority groups should not be listened to. This is the normal reaction of some

 

I think minority groups should be listened to.

 

I also think that people who are not part of a minority group should be listened to.