ACC -

[nicknorman]

Some CCers are just so touchy! In their minds, anyone who is a CCer is a "brother from another mother" (or sister of course, but that doesn't rhyme so well) and so any possible criticism of failure to adher to the rules is taboo!

 

Anyway, perhaps the answer is in the terminology. There are boaters without a home mooring, and there are Continuous Cruisers. The latter are normally (but not necessarily) a subset of the former, but the former are by no means all in the latter category. So I am quite happy with the ACC and it's stated membership criteria. But if they have any sense (!!) they would not be supporting those in my former category who are not in my latter. As far as I can tell, they do not.

[billS]

Anyway, perhaps the answer is in the terminology. There are boaters without a home mooring, and there are Continuous Cruisers. The latter are normally (but not necessarily) a subset of the former, but the former are by no means all in the latter category. So I am quite happy with the ACC and it's stated membership criteria. But if they have any sense (!!) they would not be supporting those in my former category who are not in my latter. As far as I can tell, they do not.

 

Have you been watching "Yes Minister"?

[mango]

However going back to answer your original question -

 

The ACC say this in their constitution...(my red)

 

An applicant shall be eligible for full membership only if the applicant is a bona fide Continuous Cruiser and owns a vessel capable of continuous cruising on Britain’s inland waterways.

 

Which to me is pretty unequivocal as to what their position on Continuous Moorers is, as they would be excluded from being a member.

Thanks TDH. As a result of comments made by Cotswoldman around the time of formation of ACC, I had thought that the plan was for ACC to work with CRT to help tackle some issues including the problem of non-compliant CCers. Maybe that was just wishful thinking on my part, since I don't see anything on the ACC site that promotes compliance.

 

But before I provoke any further negative reaction, I would like to make it clear that I'm opposed to anyone who breaks rules that are in place to help boaters live in harmony with each other and the rest of the world.

[PiRSqwared]

Some CCers are just so touchy! In their minds, anyone who is a CCer is a "brother from another mother" (or sister of course, but that doesn't rhyme so well) and so any possible criticism of failure to adher to the rules is taboo!

Anyway, perhaps the answer is in the terminology. There are boaters without a home mooring, and there are Continuous Cruisers. The latter are normally (but not necessarily) a subset of the former, but the former are by no means all in the latter category. So I am quite happy with the ACC and it's stated membership criteria. But if they have any sense (!!) they would not be supporting those in my former category who are not in my latter. As far as I can tell, they do not.

I believe "sister from another mister" is what you are looking for.

[nicknorman]

I believe "sister from another mister" is what you are looking for.

Ah, good one!

[Ray T]

Anyway, perhaps the answer is in the terminology. There are boaters without a home mooring, and there are Continuous Cruisers. The latter are normally (but not necessarily) a subset of the former, but the former are by no means all in the latter category. So I am quite happy with the ACC and it's stated membership criteria. But if they have any sense (!!) they would not be supporting those in my former category who are not in my latter. As far as I can tell, they do not.

 

 

Have you been watching "Yes Minister"?

 

No he's been taking lessons from NigelMoore.

Edited May 30, 2014 by Ray T

[RichardN]

 

BOO

 

 

 

 

 

Well on the sensitivity scale you should be having a heart attack about now.

 

Well I am glad you edited your earlier post but as for the rest, it is like kids in a playground.

[NigelMoore]

 

 

No he's been taking lessons from NigelMoore.

 

And I am happy to go on record with this expression of my pride in how well those lessons have been assimilated and applied.

[RLWP]

 

And I am happy to go on record with this expression of my pride in how well those lessons have been assimilated and applied.

 

[pearley]

Some CCers are just so touchy! In their minds, anyone who is a CCer is a "brother from another mother" (or sister of course, but that doesn't rhyme so well) and so any possible criticism of failure to adher to the rules is taboo!

Anyway, perhaps the answer is in the terminology. There are boaters without a home mooring, and there are Continuous Cruisers. The latter are normally (but not necessarily) a subset of the former, but the former are by no means all in the latter category. So I am quite happy with the ACC and it's stated membership criteria. But if they have any sense (!!) they would not be supporting those in my former category who are not in my latter. As far as I can tell, they do not.

But, how are the ACC to know whether an applicant is in one group or the other?

[Jim Riley]

The difference? One moves.....

[Paul C]

It seems ACC have anew web-site.

 

To answer the committee question it now says......

 

 

(The purple ones are the remaining 2 originals)

 

I don't know if Steve is watching, but if your target audience is live-aboards on possibly slow internet connections, it would be a good idea to do something about the near 5 megabyte image that appears on the home page!

 

 

I'm sure Jenlyn will be here to defend himself but the missing web pages could be down to dodgy web hosting and someone with a vendetta....who knows...

 

 

Well one could hazard a guess....

 

but probably best to wait to see if any sort of explanation is forthcoming.

 

Their web site says -

 

"Web site in process of being moved to new host."

 

 

Website appears to be down again - is it working for anyone else?

[alan_fincher]

 

 

 

 

 

Website appears to be down again - is it working for anyone else?

 

Working for me here in Atherstone!

[Paul C]

 

Working for me here in Atherstone!

 

Just retried it by googling, and it works - apologies for the alarm! In my defence, I was using a link off someone's blog site, but they have made the link wrongly, missing out and all-important : and resulting in a "web address not found" style error message. I wonder if they've checked the links they made?

[MyLady]

I joined - months ago - and have just received window stickers and am pleased to display them.

 

As a genuine CCer I'm glad that there is an organisation to represent me to CaRT.

 

I've been a member of several organisations that had constitutional problems, but as long as they did what they claimed, I was happy to remain a member.

 

As long as jenlyn, or any others, are prepared to stand up for me, I'm prepared to stand up for them.

 

I've not 100% obeyed CaRT's CC rules, but there were valid reasons for that - and CaRT hasn't victimised me for the infringement, so I'll stand up for CaRT as well (on this point), but I'm glad that the ACC exists and will continue to do so.

 

Long live the ACC! Teething troubles deserve support, not condemnation, IMHO.

 

Roger

[jenlyn]

The ACC had a few sticky momens. Nothing drastic or ladened with doom.

A few of the council members were more interested in power struggles within, rather than dealing with the issues we had set the association up for.

One stating that they could not attend any further meetings with CRT, and another worried about whether Richard Parry had noticed their presence.

 

It all got rather silly at one point, and was getting a little destructive.

 

Things have moved on, and will continue to do so.

The Association collects new members each week, albeit a little slowly after the initial influx.

It's here to stay, and it's here to represent constant cruisers.

[bassplayer]

....A few of the council members were more interested in power struggles within, rather than dealing with the issues we had set the association up for.

It's annoying isn't it when people have nothing better to do than fight over the constitution? It's good to weed out those who just want to throw their weight around instead of getting on with the cause...

[mayalld]

It's annoying isn't it when people have nothing better to do than fight over the constitution? It's good to weed out those who just want to throw their weight around instead of getting on with the cause...

 

Without wishing to assume one way or another what the actual situation is;

 

In my experience of committees, once strife sets in there is no telling whether the good guys or the bad guys end up staying, and it is inevitably those who remain that get to tell the membership who was at fault.

[alan_fincher]

A few of the council members were more interested in power struggles within, rather than dealing with the issues we had set the association up for.

One stating that they could not attend any further meetings with CRT, and another worried about whether Richard Parry had noticed their presence.

 

It all got rather silly at one point, and was getting a little destructive.

 

Things have moved on, and will continue to do so.

 

 

It's annoying isn't it when people have nothing better to do than fight over the constitution?

 

Normally although I'm interested in what goes on in ACC, I sit and say nowt, because as a non member, it isn't particularly my business.

 

However on this occasion I'll bite.

 

The fact is that, however Steve (Jenlyn) chooses to present it, ACC have lost what I consider to be quality people from the committee.

 

As he says, I'm sure ACC will survive this, but I think he is being too dismissive of those people, and the hard work they put in up until the point there was an obvious falling out, (in some cases very hard work).

It's good to weed out those who just want to throw their weight around instead of getting on with the cause...

 

A lot of weeding has taken place though - only two of the originals remain in place.

Edited July 7, 2014 by alan_fincher

[jenlyn]

Normally although I'm interested in what goes on in ACC, I sit and say nowt, because as a non member, it isn't particularly my business.

 

However on this occasion I'll bite.

The fact is that, however Steve (Jenlyn) chooses to present it, ACC have lost what I consider to be quality people from the committee.

 

As he says, I'm sure ACC will survive this, but I think he is being too dismissive of those people.

I cannot see how it can be a fact Alan, as you were neither a member or participant. I suspect you meant your "opinion".

I also remember you stating your disappointment with louise Yeoman on a couple of occasions, I take it you had forgotten?

[mayalld]

I cannot see how it can be a fact Alan, as you were neither a member or participant. I suspect you meant your "opinion".

I also remember you stating your disappointment with louise Yeoman on a couple of occasions, I take it you had forgotten?

 

Alan, despite being a non-member can certainly determine who has left the committee.

 

He then goes on to say "what I consider to be quality people" Is that not explicit enough when it comes to identifying his own opinion.

 

It is a fact that certain people have left the committee.

 

It is a fact that Alan considers them quality people.

 

I can see nothing in the statement that you could legitimately take issue with.

[alan_fincher]

I cannot see how it can be a fact Alan, as you were neither a member or participant. I suspect you meant your "opinion".

The use of the phrase "what I consider to be", is indeed another way of saying "in my opinion" - sorry if it wasn't clear enough.

 

 

The fact is that, however Steve (Jenlyn) chooses to present it, ACC have lost what I consider to be quality people from the committee.

Are you suggesting that there were no committed people of quality amongst those who have resigned?

[Guest]

Wasn't Matty40's of this parish one of the founding members and original committee members? Or am I mistaken?

 

I might not always see eye eye with him on here but he has shown through this site he 'knows his onions' on the subject of boating.

[jenlyn]

The use of the phrase "what I consider to be", is indeed another way of saying "in my opinion" - sorry if it wasn't clear enough.

 

 

 

Are you suggesting that there were no committed people of quality amongst those who have resigned?

To be honest Alan, I find your comments quite rude, are you stating that the new council is not as good?

 

Anyway, I'm not really bothered what you think, your not a member, not important. My concern is the membership, and their views.

 

I'll leave you to it :-)

[alan_fincher]

To be honest Alan, I find your comments quite rude, are you stating that the new council is not as good?

If you look at my post you will see I have made no comment about the current council.

 

I have said you have lost some good people from the former council, and I stand by that.