Sunday, 12 October 2008

Continuous Cruising again

Once again the Continuous Cruiser is likey to get an unwelcome bashing. According to one report just out from the BWAF.

Increasing the cost of continuous cruising (which includes continuous mooring) by a significant sum—so as to provide an incentive for people to seek permanent moorings elsewhere, and to raise income which could partly be used for enforcement of continuous mooring.

We had this two years ago where a 'significant' sum was deemed to be 247% increase.

Agreed this is only one suggestion but of the five listed this is the one that will most likely be accepted, the others in the text already say they are not really an option.

The BWAF is not representing the Continuous Cruiser. If they were they would not include CCer in the same sentence as CMer. And they would most certainly not suggest that a CCer should seek permanent moorings elsewhere. CCers do not need a permanent mooring that is the whole bloody point. Are these people stupid or just incapable of understanding simple English. A Continuous Cruiser cruises continuously what good would a permanent mooring be.

Sure if BW want to penalise someone the penalise the right people, err that would be the ones in the brackets.

I have said it before and I will say it again charge a CCer a mooring fee and he will not see time limits. Then the BWAF (which includes the APCO and many other commercial bodies) will have lost their argument completely by making the problem worse.

In the same report it says:
In the absence of agreement about a workable strategy for differentiating continuous cruisers and continuous moorers, British Waterways must continue to treat both groups in the same way.

I would suggest that if BW cant find a way of diferentiating then resign and let someone in that can. One stays put the other moves. It aint rocket science.

4 comments:

Martin said...

There's a well argued piece on this issue in November's 'Canal Boat' - Steve Heyward is it?

Bruce in Sanity said...

Nice one Maffi. Have you got a link for the BWAF report, 'cos this conflicts with the last thing I saw from them?

Cheers

Bruce

Maffi said...

It was on NBW

Bruce in Sanity said...

Ah!! As usual, NBW gives a seriously distorted view of the situation. BWAF does distinguish between CC and CM, and has some ineteresting proposals for CMs.

There's an good discussion on Canal World in the thread about the SOW Strategy meeting - see http://tinyurl.com/3w377h

My paper on a better way of dealing with all this should be on the SOW website soon.

Cheers

Bruce