Video about CCers

[Alex&Derek]

Well, I could post the reasons, as all of your posts on that page were kept, including Pm's. However, I don't think it's something to discuss on here.

 

Really Steve? I think it's well worth discussing. Whats the charge?

[cotswoldsman]

The lady who made it I don't think is a boater I only saw it for the first time today

[Alex&Derek]

Derek if my memory serves me right you were a member of the group and left

I thought it showed both sides and was not really political

 

Hang on, now I'm confused. You say it's becasue I chose to leave John, Steve says it's becasue I'm banned, presumably for being naughty...if challenging you two is what constitutes being naughty and worthy of banning...

 

So which is it - you two could at least get your stories straight!

[jenlyn]

The video was well produced and comes across as a neutral standpoint, airing both sides of the debate, but I feel it could have been longer and focused on more than one boater. So, if the producer produces 2 more videos then my criticisms are answered! Agree that the topic isn't "boating", but "boating politics" however.

It was not intended to be political. It was filmed towards the end of last summer though, when the visitor mooring issue in the south east was at its height. I think the film producers latched onto that a bit.

[cotswoldsman]

 

Hang on, now I'm confused. You say it's becasue I chose to leave John, Steve says it's becasue I'm banned, presumably for being naughty...if challenging you two is what constitutes being naughty and worthy of banning...

 

So which is it - you two could at least get your stories straight!

Derek you left the group so why do you want to come back in? it is a social site and after your huff when you left the general opinion from the members was one of relief It is quite simple you are not welcome and it is as simple as that and I am not going to debate Facebook on here

[carlt]

Debatable :-) simply because CC'ers spend overall, much more time on the system. Therefore giving regular and reliable input.

When I was living aboard and ccing I spent exactly the same amount of time on the system as when I was living aboard on an online mooring.

 

It isn't just ccers who liveaboard you know.

[Alex&Derek]

I'm sorry to hear you don't want to discuss it here John, but as I'm now banned from the CC FB page I'm not sure where else I can discuss it with you.

 

As I remember, at the time, the 'social page' was where much debate of the beginnings of ACC were happening, it was more a political page at that time than social!

Anyway, now you have an ACC page for members only that should not be an issue, should it. So was it the general opinion of all 476 members that they felt relieved I had left - somehow I doubt it. Nor do I think banning someone for making people feel uncomforatable is appropriate.

 

Now, talking of huff's, should CWDF have banned you after your huff and subsequent absence?

 

Oh, and by my huff, do you mean this huff?

 

Steve feel free to misrepresent my comments from yesterday, in fact feel free to ban me for asking questions but you better be quick because by the time you finish reading this post I will have taken myself off the group - and then you can feel free to remove my post by censorship if you so wish.

Ever since i really was a kid (quite some time ago now) I have always asked questions, I've always had a big dose of healthy doubt. Do I have an agenda? Yes of course, just like everyone else here, and mine has always been about getting people to think, to ask questions, to take off their blinkers and not just to accept what they are being told.

For what it's worth I think the ACC is a wonderful idea and I'm fully aware of how much work people have put into it. I'm sure it will move forward and I hope it grows into something great and grows beyond some of its founder members (specifically you and John) into something truly independent and democratic that can represent all CC'ers fairly and objectively. I have no desire to harm ACC, but equally I do not think I can be part of it now or for the foreseeable future and this is mainly because I have deep concerns over your and John's ability to act with fairness and humility and to be able to self reflect, and in your case Steve, to act with integrity.

I was warned by more than a few people about getting involved with you when I first started supporting you and defending you, I should have listened. What anyone thinks of me for this post really is immaterial, but I do hope I have sown a few seeds.

Sorry, forgot to answer your question John...I would like to come back in becasue I am a CC'er and its a page for CC'ers.

[jenlyn]

I'm sorry to hear you don't want to discuss it here John, but as I'm now banned from the CC FB page I'm not sure where else I can discuss it with you.

 

As I remember, at the time, the 'social page' was where much debate of the beginnings of ACC were happening, it was more a political page at that time than social!

Anyway, now you have an ACC page for members only that should not be an issue, should it. So was it the general opinion of all 476 members that they felt relieved I had left - somehow I doubt it. Nor do I think banning someone for making people feel uncomforatable is appropriate.

 

Now, talking of huff's, should CWDF have banned you after your huff and subsequent absence?

 

Oh, and by my huff, do you mean this huff?

 

 

Steve feel free to misrepresent my comments from yesterday, in fact feel free to ban me for asking questions but you better be quick because by the time you finish reading this post I will have taken myself off the group - and then you can feel free to remove my post by censorship if you so wish.

 

Ever since i really was a kid (quite some time ago now) I have always asked questions, I've always had a big dose of healthy doubt. Do I have an agenda? Yes of course, just like everyone else here, and mine has always been about getting people to think, to ask questions, to take off their blinkers and not just to accept what they are being told.

 

For what it's worth I think the ACC is a wonderful idea and I'm fully aware of how much work people have put into it. I'm sure it will move forward and I hope it grows into something great and grows beyond some of its founder members (specifically you and John) into something truly independent and democratic that can represent all CC'ers fairly and objectively. I have no desire to harm ACC, but equally I do not think I can be part of it now or for the foreseeable future and this is mainly because I have deep concerns over your and John's ability to act with fairness and humility and to be able to self reflect, and in your case Steve, to act with integrity.

 

I was warned by more than a few people about getting involved with you when I first started supporting you and defending you, I should have listened. What anyone thinks of me for this post really is immaterial, but I do hope I have sown a few seeds.

Sorry, forgot to answer your question John...I would like to come back in becasue I am a CC'er and its a page for CC'ers.

Sorry, but you will not be admitted to that group. I can tell you that it was not john, or myself that barred you.

[Alex&Derek]

So does that mean I definitely won't be getting my moderator status in the group back then either lol.

[jenlyn]

So does that mean I definitely won't be getting my moderator status in the group back then either lol.

Well, if the other person had not banned you, I would have.

Anyway, I agree with John and won't discuss your fb issues on this site. So I'll leave you to it..

[Alex&Derek]

So, still no reason for being banned. Oh well, thank you Steve, thank you John and thank you mystery fb 'banner'.

[mango]

I am fed up of hearing about arguments involving boaters. If continuous cruisers want to gain more respect, I believe they need to publicly condemn those who don't follow the rules. BW and CRT have done a lot to tackle the problem of unlicensed craft, but deserve all the help that they can get in tackling the problem of non-compliant continuous cruisers.

[carlt]

I am fed up of hearing about arguments involving boaters. If continuous cruisers want to gain more respect, I believe they need to publicly condemn those who don't follow the rules.

Why should they have to have an opinion about anybody else on the cut in order to gain your respect?

 

Shouldn't someone be judged by their actions rather than their opinion about somebody else's?

 

Perhaps the "arguments involving boaters" are not caused by who is condemning who but more by who is minding whose business.

[NigelMoore]

I am fed up of hearing about arguments involving boaters. . . . BW and CRT have done a lot to tackle the problem of unlicensed craft, but deserve all the help that they can get in tackling the problem of non-compliant continuous cruisers.

 

If I may respectfully point out - arguments involving boaters arise when different classes of boater are subjected to pigeon-holing identification along with modes of use perceived to be special and antithetical to each other.

 

By promulgating acceptance that there is such a thing as a "problem" unique to "non-compliant continuous cruisers", those annoying inter-boater arguments are encouraged to continue.

 

What problems do CC'ers raise, that are NOT problems also caused by any other class of boater? The only potential difference I see between the 2 ‘classes’ is that one is more vulnerable to licence withdrawal than the other, if caught committing the same ‘offence’.

 

Why should the authority be encouraged in "tackling the problem” of only one set of transgressors?

[Ex- Member]

I am fed up of hearing about arguments involving boaters.

If continuous cruisers want to gain more respect,

 

I believe they need to publicly condemn those who don't follow the rules. BW and CRT have done a lot to tackle the problem of unlicensed craft, but deserve all the help that they can get in tackling the problem of non-compliant continuous cruisers.

 

 

Why should continuous cruisers need or require more respect. Are you suggesting continuous cruisers are doing something wrong ???

 

And why should any CC'er publicly condemn anyone for anything.

 

What a completely crass statement to make.

[Paul C]

 

 

 

What problems do CC'ers raise, that are NOT problems also caused by any other class of boater? The only potential difference I see between the 2 ‘classes’ is that one is more vulnerable to licence withdrawal than the other, if caught committing the same ‘offence’.

 

 

That's an interesting question, and one which isn't that easy to answer. For example, a lot of the traditional problems aired by CCers are in fact shared with other boaters such as liveaboards; or those living on a leisure mooring; or those with a home mooring in a particular area of the waterways.

[mango]

I am fed-up with CRT having to devote resources to lack of compliance, whether that is related to non-compliant continuous cruisers, those who don't pay licenses, and so on. That money could be used to maintain our waterway network and help avoid major expense due to lack of maintenance.

 

There are other problems related to other kinds of boat users. For example, hire boaters often don't get adequate instruction and this does little for the reputation of hire companies in general.

Why should the authority be encouraged in "tackling the problem” of only one set of transgressors?

I never suggested that it should tackle any one set. In fact I mentioned the separate problem of a group that fail to license their craft.

[Thorfast]

Are there any statisitcs that tell us -

Total number of canal boats / licences that exist at the moment

Number that are live aboards

Number that have a cc licence

Number that have a home moring

Number that are mored in off line marinas, basins etc.

I realise that some fall in more than one of these categories

[jenlyn]

I am fed up of hearing about arguments involving boaters. If continuous cruisers want to gain more respect, I believe they need to publicly condemn those who don't follow the rules. BW and CRT have done a lot to tackle the problem of unlicensed craft, but deserve all the help that they can get in tackling the problem of non-compliant continuous cruisers.

It's not our job to decide who is compliant, or not. That's a job for CRT. They are entrusted, and paid to do this.

[mango]

It's not our job to decide who is compliant, or not. That's a job for CRT. They are entrusted, and paid to do this.

Who suggested you should decide? Not me.

 

Does the ACC have any official view on the issue of non-compliant continuous cruisers?

[Ex- Member]

Who suggested you should decide? Not me.

 

 

Mango

 

You clearly have little clue what you're saying.

 

You suggested continuous cruisers should condemn other boaters.

[mango]

 

Mango

 

You clearly have little clue what you're saying.

 

You suggested continuous cruisers should condemn other boaters.

I suggest you read my post again.

[Paul's Nulife4-2]

It's not our job to decide who is compliant, or not. That's a job for CRT. They are entrusted, and paid to do this.

Hi ya, i have no dealings with this CRT which is I take it is the organization in charge in some way of the waterways that most use,

However,just to put a point on what you said above, it could be argued, it's also not our job to decide who is living compliant within the law,as far as say Burglary,Theft,Road tax evasion, or assault to others ect ect is concerned, that's a job for the police,,but it's good social practice to help the police DO there job sometimes, isn't it ?.

That would Definitely divide the group's,,

I don't know if it help or hinders the Them & us types arguments.

Edited February 23, 2014 by Paul's Nulife4-2

[Ex- Member]

If continuous cruisers want to gain more respect, I believe they need to publicly condemn those who don't follow the rules.

 

I suggest you read my post again.

 

Don't need to, I'll quote it then

 

If continuous cruisers want to gain more respect, I believe they need to publicly condemn those who don't follow the rules.

 

 

I doubt with such crass statements you're gaining any respect

[jenlyn]

Hi ya, i have no dealings with this CRT which is I take it is the organization in charge in some way of the waterways that most use,

However,just to put a point on what you said above, it could be argued, it's also not our job to decide who is living compliant within the law,as far as say Burglary,Theft,Road tax evasion, or assault to others ect ect is concerned, that's a job for the police,,but it's good social practice to help the police DO there job sometimes, isn't it ?.

That would Definitely divide the group's,,

I don't know if it help or hinders the Them & us types arguments.

Ok, how do I decide who is compliant or not?