On 19 Sep 2008 as I do recall,
Neil Arlidge wrote:
> Terry Streeter wrote:
> > Personally, I think there is no rationale for charging continuous
> > cruisers more, but a very good rationale for raising the charges for
> > Broad/Wide (take your pick) beam boats. But then I'm a continuous
> > cruiser, so if I was going to base my arguments on pure self interest
> > I would take that position wouldn't I.
> >
> > Terry Streeter
> > NB Arun - Radford Semele
> >
> > ------------------------------------
>
> But Terry, you are the shining example of a Continuous Cruiser and not a
> Continuous Moorer. In the light of recent developments, would you be
> prepared to give BW (an optional) basic cruising log (you all ready do,
> through your trip reports!), in return for non payment of any Continuous
> Mooring! supliment?
> If so, it would wipe out 90% of the present "Continuous Cruisers".
My brother and his family live aboard a beloved ex-working narrowboat
(currently receiving new timbers to the tune of their entire savings).
The reason why they live on the boat is that they can't afford to rent
and heat a house, let alone buy one. (After one winter spent 'on
shore' with the intent of selling up and moving back on land
permanently, all concerned returned thankfully back to their warm
seventy-foot cocoon with its child-safe enclosed play area!)
Their typical cruising pattern consists of moving slowly along the
canal in two-week jumps so that they can commute by bike or train to
wherever the current employment is - "to the next parish" is I believe
the standard 'moving-on' distance. Presumably they represent the type
of 'Continuous Cruisers' that members of the group with nice secure
mortgages and permanent incomes would like to see cleared off the
waterways?
--
Harriet Bazley == Loyaulte me lie ==
Violence is the last refuge of the incompetent.
