On Sunday, June 03, 2007 9:23 AM [GMT+1=CET], Sue Burchett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> I have been following all the points raised and the discussions with >> much interest. My partner and I are intending to be continuous >> cruisers, although we are going to be paying a for a non-residential >> mooring. The RBOA advocates for a greater emphasis on continuous >> cruising on the canals, and that is what we both feel to be >> important to us. Of course, I understand this particular mode of >> life is not suitable for those with constraints, responsibilities, >> etc. >> >> As raised earlier, there is as continuous cruisers, the question of >> doctors, and I thank those who have responded so helpfully to my >> request for information. > If you have a mooring you are not a continuous cruiser because you > don't need one. Puzzled In terms of the BW use of the term "continuous cruiser" Sue is absolutly correct. But there are people who cruise pretty continuously while still having a home base mooring who might be considered "continuous cruisers" in a non-technical sense. I remember a very senior IWA Officer who shall remane nameless (or perhaps not - it was Roger Squires) who one said "A BW licence entitles the boater to cruise for 365 days per year. If he doesn't do so he's letting down the side." I don't think it was exactly what he meant. Mike Stevens narrowboat Felis Catus III web-site www.mike-stevens.co.uk Defend the waterways. Visit the web site www.saveourwaterways.org.uk
