Hi, Your comments are always most welcome
Sounds like the hire companies have BW in their back pockets. 
Grrr indeed, even an inveterate stickie like me can see that BW are money grabbing sons of unknown fatherhood!
Keep well Sue & Co.
quote.and if they are a continual cruiser a large C could be printed on their boat license.
Didn't Hilter do a similar thing to the Jews?? Just how divisive is their plan?
Where will it all stop? first the Diesel, now the licences. Maybe they could introduce a tax for collecting logs, you could be made to pay a higher rate if you subsequently burn them as well. Absolutely typical of anything connected to this government, tax tax tax!! These proposals are nothing short of another stealth tax.
Sue,
It seems to me that "genuine" CC-ers, such as yourself, are in danger of being penalised because of the actions of those who undoubtably do abuse the system. I'm happy to pay for a mooring (although not necessarily happy about the amount) because it means I don't have to move my boat every two weeks. You are happy to move "No Problem" so you shouldn't need to pay. Its the people who don't move and don't pay that are causing the problem.
Jim
Starcross
Before APCO get away with swaying BW or any other licensing authority to review CC rates I think we should draw attention to problems within their own camp.
For example, take the pitiful, inadequate training that hire companies give their hirers when taking a boat onto the main water highways of England.
I believe all hirers should be given a minimum of one day's theoretical and practical training followed by a 20 mile accompanied cruise where their skills are tested. No hirer should be permitted to operate his first five locks without a supervisor in attendance.
Rivers, canals, bridges and locks are extrememely dangerous places, most locks having no guard rails, most bridges having no protection for their abutments.
Insurance cover for damage to bridges, locks and private boats should be scrutinised because I don't believe insurance companies understand the risks they are covering. Hirer's deposits should be held by an independent company, not the hire company, being held for 12 months and used to refund claimants (local authorities, BW, EA, other boaters) who have a claim against the hirer for damage caused through undue care and attention, intoxication or inexperience.
Hire company's fleets should be limited to the number of boats a waterway can accommodate and not allowed to expand at will. In assessing what the waterway can accommodate the interests of linear moorers, marina users and continuous cruisers should come first.
All hire boats should have a monthly independent examination to check for collision damage, engine noise and smoke emissions. Boats not passing the examination should be removed from the waterways until independent checks show fitness for purpose.
Hire boats should be fitted with speed regulators linked to sensors that reduce engine revs to tick-over when approaching moored boats and bridges.
Hire boat engines should be fitted with an engine disabler that prevents cruising after dark.
Hire boats should be fitted with water tanks that are suitable for the period of hire, hirers being instructed in water economy and forbidden to refill tanks every day.
I could go on but for the sake of space I'll leave it there.
Once APCO's members have proved themselves whiter than white THEN let them examine other boat users.
Fuming Mo.
Hi Sue,
I have been folowing your travels with great interest for some time now, as Jacquie and I move on to our boat SKYY on Saturday at Wigram Turn Marina. Very excited although it feels like this is the worst time we could have chosen, what with licence fees, diesel costs soaring. We do have a permanent mooring, but the big C issue is crazy, Fuming Mo puts it most succinctly. The real reason for my comment is maybe you would let me know how you manage to show your current position on a map, very neat!!
Hope to meet up some time
Mac & Jacquie
Hi Sue, all very interesting reading, lots of suppositions and no hard facts and no supporting evidence, sounds like one mans sour grapes. Any idea where this document can be viewed?
Best regards Phil
Mac and Jacquie, Yes it is a difficult time, but I am sure you will overcome that and enjoy the time spent on the waterways.
On your question about the location feature, I will write a blog about that tomorrow for you 
Sue,
Well APCO's intention is clear: to remove all private pleasure craft from the waterways, either into "black hole" marinas or the scrapyard, to leave the entire system free to be exploited by APCO members for their greater profit. A legitimate aim you might agree, but this is not an acceptable way of pursuing it: it contains gratuitous slurs against a whole class of waterway users. I suspect (hope) it's not a very effective one either, as the holes in the logic stand out clearly.
Where they complain that continous cruisers cost BW more, do they mean continous cruisers or continous moorers? It's a moot point whether hire boats are in fact the more costly users, I'm sure they cause more damage to waterway structures and more drained pounds than either continous cruisers or continous moorers!! To cite the costs of court action is ludicrous, court action should be self funding on account of the penalties awarded against the transgressors.
The boat owners associations must continue to lobby BW to thawt APCO's intentions.
Hope my next comment is on a lighter note
Hi Matin
I agree with your comments.
One of the problems BW has is that when a section 8 notice does eventually lead to a court appearance the solicitor for the defendent (invariably the continuous moorer) pleads that the boat is their home (and if kids are involved it gets even more complicated) so that the judge, not wishing to make said person homeless, or add to the council housing problem, finds against BW and doesn't award costs - unfortunately leading to BW (or rather us the legitimate boater and taxpayer)having to foot the legal bill. Ludicrous situation!
Dear Reader,
And let's not forget legitimate licence paying boat based businesses in all this!
Yes I fear you have thought through the section 8 scenario better than I.
Something I omitted to mention in my previous: if we follow APCO's argument that continuous cruisers should pay a mooring fee as well, in that case what's the purpose of the 'C' marked licence? This is purely vindictive, and leaves a bad smell.
Hi Sue, just read the latest from APCO and sitting here fuming.
Are these the same hire boat company owners who moor their boats 2 and 3 abreast across the canal? Do they pay an average of £1,500 per boat or just for the one boat attached to the bank-side? If the latter is the case then surely they are doing BW out of thousands of pounds themselves and should put their own affairs in order before picking on continuous cruisers.
We live on our boat to cruise the inland waterways not sit in a large boat park for most of the year.
We are proud to be genuine continuous cruisers and do not see why we should be made to feel like 2nd class citizens. I wish we had a flag to fly 'GCC' genuine continuous cruisers club and proud of it!
Hi Sue & Vic
I am going to be a bit controversial here I am afraid.
CC's I think should pay more. I am not sure what you pay but as you have no fixed mooring costs I think it reasonable that CC's should pay a national average to BW for a virtual mooring. For example I pay £1350 p/a for my mooring + around £700 to EA to float my boat.
I moved on average over the last 18 months about 40 miles a year that is = to £51.25 p/mile. Or £39 p/w just to stand still.
I wonder if you and other CC's could do a similar calculation and come up with p/p/m. or cost per week.
I know the argument will be that I could use my boat more, but unfortunately I don't have the time I'd like.
Now I am not an experienced CC going all over the country, but from what I have seen there is a lot of squatters using a CC licence to slash their housing costs. This too is clearly wrong and should be clamped down on. I constantly read on your blog of the constantly moored boats in the same place months at a time, and that's only when you pass them up and down on your trips. I bet if you went back in a years time they would still be there.
I have a NB. But I can't see why a wide beam should be charged more. It takes up the same length, and that is what we are billed on. I can't see how a WB NB could do more damage to the banks if it was sailed properly so where is the reason to charge it more. Could the thought be that a WBNB is more expensive meaning the owners are ripe for a bit more plucking if they can afford a WB?
I am now ducking the hail of abuse I'm likely to get. Ducking..................... NOW!
Kevin
Hello Sue
As a distant observer to this argument from far away Australia it seems to me that there are two issues. Firstly; do Constant Cruisers pay their way? Secondly; what is the “revenue leakage” from the non-genuine Constant Cruisers? I propose to only address the second issue.
The BW consultants report dated June 2005 stated there were 1360 licensed CC’s. If they were all required to purchase a £1300 “virtual” mooring then BW would increase their annual revenue by £1.768m. I would therefore suggest that the first objective is to separate the genuine CC from the impostors as it’s the latter that will be costing BW the most in lost revenue and administrative costs (identification and prosecution).
My assumption is that the genuine CC’s comprise a small portion of the 1360. It’s therefore in their collective interest to be clearly identified as it makes them a very small “target” for BW revenue collection and other parties with vested interests.
Relatively cheap technology exists to facilitate this.
Best wishes
Tom Jones
a continuous cruiser is just that, what this document fails to notice is the people they are talking about are continuous moorers, for which there is no category. The continous moorers are being charged the same as continuous cruisers, but they should not be put in the same category.
Oh this makes me cross!
Hello Sue
I must side with Kevin on this issue. I pay for a private mooring for Jannock but I also have to pay BW an 'end of garden' mooring rate of half the local on-line charge when I moor Jannock up there. This is supposed to be a charge rendered for by boat taking up BW water space when it's moored. A CC also moors up every night and takes up BW water space doing so. Although I do not neccessarily agree with the large C proposed in the APCO document, I do feel that CCers should pay an enhanced licence fee that covers the 'end of garden' rate that is applied to all other moorers, as I cannot see BW removing this rediculous charge instead. Keep up the good blogging, we'll be amongst you soon when the birthday season is over. Regards Graham
When a boater buys a licence it entitles them to keep their boat on the Waterways Network presided over by British Waterways. It does not specify how far a boat can travel or where exactly that boat has to be moored, except to say that it has to abide by the mooring regulation at any particular venue. The cruising licence gives the boat an x amount of footage somewhere unspecified on the canals. If a boat is continuously cruising and abiding by these rules it comes into the continuously cruising bracket. If it is permanently moored (i.e. at the end of somebody's garden) it is not continuously cruising and therefore should be subject to a charge - this should also apply to ALL "continuous moorers". If we go down the route of charging continuous cruisers extra we will go down the slippery slope of a system similar to "pay per view" where all boats pay a subscription levy whilst they on their mooring and then by the mile for the amount of cruising that they do. This is what I believe APCO are trying to achieve therfore giving hire boats a less conjested canal holiday.
It is my understanding that the charge made to all boaters by the water authority (in my case EA) is to reflect the impact that boat has on the infrastructure.
Clearly a boat that travels around the system putting 100's if not 1000s of miles has a greater impact on the infrastructure, banks, locks and water use thereof. Personally I think this alone should make the CC permit more in line with the impact.
As it would be difficult without additional "tracking" costs and the invasion of privacy that would have, I think that a charge based on the length of the boat for a virtual mooring would be the fairest. Lets face it you do have a mooring, it's just a different one each time you move.
Kevin
If there are continious crusiers that abuse the system (and I'm pretty sure there are) then BW should take action agaist them. Perhaps revoke their licence?
I intend to CC the canals in 2 years time. I have supported the canals as a taxpayer for the last 45 years and I intend to enjoy!
Sue, keep up the good work
Graham
You seem to have missed the point in the debate.
BW has had pressure to raise revenue from boaters put on it by government.
If you have a mooring, a percentage of the fee goes to BW.
If you are a CC only the licence fee goes to BW.
Many individuals are not actually genuine CCer, but are deliberately flouting the bye laws are become "continuous moorers" simply to save money. They are being effectively subsidised by the vast majority of boaters who obey the rules.
If they paid their way licence fees would not need to rise above inflation for BW to get the same revenue!
Why should I pay more because some selfish individuals decide to undermine the system?
