The National Bargee Travellers Association (NBTA) recently posted a court ruling about the distance a boat did or didn’t have to move as a continuous cruiser. In effect telling all and sundry that they didn’t have to comply with CRT rules. The NBTA were very selective in which bits of the courts decision they chose to print. What is interesting is the bits they chose to leave out were in direct opposition to their thinking and in effect what they say doesn’t change the status quo one iota. What NBTE did quote was sub-paras of 7.22, but tellingly not 7.21 or 7.22.1;
7.21 It seems to me that the expression
‘navigation’ clearly means the process of taking any purposeful journey from one specific point to another by water. The addition of the words "bona fide" import an entirely subjective element and merely mean that the journey must be undertaken for genuine purposes and not for the purpose of circumventing the legislation, when in reality the intention of the boat owner is to stay as nearly as possible in the same place.
7.22.1 It is, as I have already said several times, unnecessary for me to comment on whether the guidelines match the legislation. I do so in only two respects and with the express proviso that this does not form part of the decision.
So from this I gather the status ‘Continuous Avoider’ aka Bridge Hopper (those who are circumventing the legislation) is now no longer in the boaters dictionary.